I’m coming more to the opinion that ‘system’ is an inappropriate descriptor when it comes to describing change, as it implies moving parts, cause and effect, operators and components—and ultimately blame.
I think ‘state’ is a far better descriptor as it places all actors equally responsible for any particular state of affairs.
Take an example where, say, government opts to cut taxes for the wealthy. Now, instead of saying ‘boo’ to government and a bad system, let’s imagine that there are four parties to this new state of things:
1. The government (who make the ruling)
2. The people who agree
3. The people who oppose it
4. The people who don’t care either way
If this wealth-tax-cut ‘state’ holds, then we can only conclude that each of those four parties is bringing the sufficient pressure required to maintain it, whether by their actions or by their non-actions. It’s only when that pressure equilibrium changes that a state can dissolve and resolve into something else.
The thinking of ‘us good guys vs. those bad guys’ is a self-perpetuating paradigm of revolving-door bad guys. A never-ending game of Wack-A-Mole with no net change or improvement.
Though it’s easy and understandable to be angry about something that happens, we too easily miss the silence and acquiescence of the vast majority that uphold the containing state. If we want to change the state of something, all its elements need to change to some degree to alter the dynamic.
The thinking of ‘us good guys vs. those bad guys’ is a self-perpetuating paradigm of revolving-door bad guys. A never-ending game of Wack-A-Mole with no net change or improvement. I think it’s more liberating and useful to stop thinking in terms of good/evil altogether and think only in terms of the choices/actions of all concerned. This is not to forgive bad behaviour, nor to admonish good, but rather to try understand the true nature of the problem.
Imagine society as a steel ring tightly packed with many small ball bearings (people). Some are good ball bearings, some are bad, and most are just regular ball bearings. But good, bad or indifferent, regardless of what some individuals think, it’s still packed and very difficult to rearrange until all start moving.
I think when viewed this way, change seems more possible. Rather than wanting a few people to change a lot (which they clearly won’t), we only need a lot of people to change a little to break the stasis.
Small changes X many people = big change.
Comments