If there’s something particular about the things we like to talk about in modern society it’s our fascination with change. We love to see what’s wrong with the world, with others and with ourselves. Hey, I’m guilty as the next guy. Is this always mentally helpful? No. The whole purpose of books like StrengthFinder is to reinforce what works, not to seek constant change.
Some reasons for this mindset:
We like to feel smart
Being the one who proposes change is a sign of intellectual status nowadays. We put people who “change the world” on a pedestal, without considering if that change is always for the better. Just because they took the step that others were too coward to take, does not mean that step had to be taken in the first place.
We like to be on the right side
Everyone believes they are right. There’s not a single person in the world who says, “This is what I believe we should do, but I’m clearly wrong.” We agree or criticize something in order to choose sides. We need sides because we’ve been put into teams ever since communities existed.
We believe in universality
Propositions for change are always universal. They don’t consider alternate visions because they emerge from a particular group of people that isn’t big enough to represent differing world visions. Change is absolute, is arrogant. Most ideas of change only consider one world view- the one coming from the changer.
It sells
Change has more selling potential than status-quo or regression. The idea business, mostly reflected in books, is all about change. What’s coming, what should stop, what you have to do, what you are missing out. When we read them, we get the feeling of having acquired an advantage, a new skill. The only way to use this hypothetical advantage is to change something.
Change sells because it feeds of our egos and desire to beat others. This does not mean change should occur.
We don’t believe in perfection
Humanity does not believe in perfection. By opposition it must believe in change, in improvement.The main problem that I see with this mentality is that we are choosing constant dissatisfaction. There’s always going to be something wrong with us or our choices. There’s no settling. We are sacrificing the peace of traditions for the turbulence of “improvement.” Nothing is sacred anymore if someone can see a reason to change it.
Good luck finding peace with all this progress…
{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }
I agree with parts of this post, but disagree with others.
Since conflict is more interesting than unity (idea for a post?), here are some choicy bits:
“Change sells because it feeds of our egos and desire to beat others.”
This might be the case for some and in some cases, but in general change is a symptom of the biological imperative. To say that we change because of societal influences and the desire to achieve a higher social status is a bit simplistic. All living creatures (that have survived until this point, at least) are programmed to change when necessary, and that necessity is detected instinctively. As humans we have sentience and therefore a consciousness, so we tend to question our instincts and the need to change.
If anything, our egos make us hold steadfast with an idea that seems more comfortable or to which we’ve attached our good name when we SHOULD change, rather than the other way around.
“Humanity does not believe in perfection.”
I think this might be true in the sense that we are always squabbling to find ways to upgrade, improve or add a floral scent to anything and everything, but I would argue that MOST people feel there is a chance of perfection. Look at all the people out there who believe in heaven, utopia or world peace. These are lofty and unlikely goals, yet they continue to be the desired end-result for a dominant portion of the world’s citizenry.
“Change is absolute, is arrogant.”
Again, I can understand why you make this argument, but I disagree. There are many situations where someone is forced to take a stand and make a change that is really just the lesser of two evils. Take a look at the problem Obama is currently facing, for example. He has to decide whether to keep troop levels in Afghanistan the same or increase them, and honestly neither choice is correct. Either way he goes, he’ll be crucified, by his peers and his own conscience, and there’s nothing egotistical about the changes that need to be made.
That being said, some change has to happen because the current solution is clearly not working.
Nothing to do but evolve.
Good post, brother
First of all, by no means I’m saying that change is bad or that change shouldn’t happen.
But it definitely shouldn’t happen every time there is a chance for it.
I agree with you that it happens because of our biological imperative. Does that mean that it’s always the best choice? When you step out of the basic nature needs, and start bringing the change mindset into societal aspects, there’s no reason for change to be always good there as well. Normal is not natural.
There are many “because’s” for change. If our biological roots is the main reason for our constant seek of change in society, then that’s just another proof of how irrational we are, not to say stupid.
When you mention utopia, heaven, or world peace, I still think people are skepctical. I truly believe that Gandhi, Mother Theresa and any other change seeker, knew deep beneath their mind, that the perfect reality was unreachable. this is very hard to prove, but I don’t buy that humanity is so oblivious of its past, where poverty, wars, and injustice always existed.
They are desired, but they are known dreams. Just like flying.
I don’t see why you disagree on the arrogant part then. If there is no way to please everyone, then it’s because change is absolute. You please some people and others get angry. That’s just the way it goes. Change has to happen, arrogantly.
Change does not mean better. It just means different. Maybe the “best” society humanity will ever reach has already been extinguished. If we embrace the evolving mentality ALL THE TIME we’ll eventually end up in a harmful situation, simply because we are irrational, therefore we don’t make good decisions.
Of course change is not ALWAYS good, but the premise of the post seems to be that with change comes a harmful mentality. “Good luck finding peace with all this progress…” is how it ends, so I assumed the argument was that evolution – that is, change – is the cause of our discontent. Knowing you, I can only assume that you’re playing devil’s advocate to a large degree, but that’s the assumption I’m operating under.
And I don’t disagree that change can be harmful as well as helpful, but what I disagree with are some of the reasons you give for WHY change occurs. You seemed to be focusing on the societal, ego- and missionary-reasons behind change, whereas I was bringing up that there are biological reasons as well, and so the reasons you bring up make up part of the whole, but I don’t think a very large part.
Sure, many people are skeptical, but I think that you underestimate the forcefulness of most people’s desire to believe in some kind of perfection well beyond what they know to be realistic. People don’t dedicate their lies (or in some cases, lose them…or take the lives of others) because of something they THINK exists or can happen. They do it because they KNOW. It’s an irrational sense of knowledge, sure, but there it is.
Sociologically, we as humans tend to surround ourselves with like-minded folks. That means that you or I probably have a distorted notion of how skeptical other people really are, because we surround ourselves with skeptics. Having lived in the Midwest in the US, though, I’ve seen this faith-based certainty first-hand. People take these ideals very seriously.
The idea that change is arrogant is based on the false-premise that people will always act in their own best interest. This makes sense, and there is a whole body of philosophical/sociological/psychological study based on it (Game Theory), but unfortunately, as Alan Greenspan admitted recently, people don’t always act in their own self-interest, and so will work to instigate change that they don’t particularly believe in.
It’s irrational, of course. But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.
You’re right in saying that change does not always mean better (at least not right away), but I don’t think that working to keep change from happening is a better solution. Who, then, decides when to allow change and when to force stasis? How could we possibly know what decisions will end up being good and which will end up being bad? Hindsight is 20/20, or, as I know you and Steve Jobs are fond of saying, “you can’t connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect them looking backwards.”
To think we could possibly predetermine the immediate and ripple effects from each and every decision would be incredibly arrogant and harmful on our part (that’s where the arrogance comes in), whereas change is a natural part of evolution (sometimes good, sometimes bad, but that’s why we end up with balance…not perfect and not dead).
I say let the change train keep rolling and the balance of chance and circumstance will keep things regulated as it always has. People will act irrationally or rationally, do what ends up being the ‘right’ thing or the ‘wrong’ thing in equal measure, and none of us will know which is which until it happens.
I say this knowing full well that there’s no real way to stop change even if we wanted to…we might think we can, but to even try would be to change something, which would result in more change and on and on and on.
It’s merely a philosophical exercise to even consider the opposite possibility, as I’m sure you’re aware!
Too much content.
Malbec. Thursday night. Change talk. It’s on
Actually, I think we’re doing a Thanksgiving celebration at Kansas on Thursday…any chance we can change it to tonight? Or some other night? You’re invited to Thanksgiving, by the way. We can debate over turkey meat and green bean casserole.
I’m not sure I agree that change sells. If that were the case, you wouldn’t see 600 versions of the same crap books at the book store. Or all the corporations using IE6 because it’s too much work/too insecure/too hard to upgrade to a real browser.
The status quo sells. Protesting change sells. Once change itself starts to sell, is it really change any longer?
They both sell, to different audiences. What was the term? Early adopters?
There are different types of change. Change for the sake of change can be the bad kind. Improving defunct processes is the good kind.
An alcoholic that stops drinking is good change. An alcoholic switching to a harder liquor is a bad kind of change.
The “idea business” is not bad.
Selling fads because they are popular is the problem.
I was JUST coming into comments to write “Change for the sake of change is definitely bad!”
I also agree there are some things in the world that absolutely DO need changing. World hunger issues, domestic abuse, rape, genocide…shall I go on? I don’t believe there is an absolute plan to achieve this change, and that one of the largest problems with social change organizations is that they adhere to a “my way or the highway” world view. I don’t believe, however, that we should stop trying to eradicate some things from this world.
The sacred and the profane have struggled with each other throughout human history.
The opposite of change isn’t perfection.
Perfection isn’t static either, its a continuum.
I also don’t think change is constant.
Consider how scientific discoveries are made. People prove/ disprove a series of propositions.
Until such time that the amount of such proof is so large that patterns emerge.
And along come one or a few people who can see all the current patterns, and yet link the dots in a new way – that’s when change happens.
So my short point is: talk of change seems constant and its required to test boundaries regularly.
Real change happens in short bursts then a period of assimilation, followed by dissatisfaction, turmoil, change etc
Cheers,
Anita Lobo