Change, what an elusive event. Yes, life is full of change, for example, one
doesn’t wear the same style of clothing each day. But significant change, change that reflects
changes in values, attitudes, and/or beliefs happen very seldom. Perhaps the reader can think of his/her own
past and try to think of such a fundamental change. This writer can probably number on one hand
the times he has experienced such changes in his life. He admits, among friends, that he did go
through two changes in his basic outlook concerning values.
One might ponder
this general state of affairs when considering change over some relatively
important institutional norm. While this
writer finds it difficult to admit, most Americans do not find civics education
as that important. But if one were to suggest
a line of instruction that most Americans might deem were un-American, that
might engage their interest. The writer
is reminded of how the fear of communism stirred in the 1950s and 1960s a
popular change.
He remembers
how due to this fear, through the leadership of conservative politicians, but was
easily supported among the electorate, the state of Florida instituted a new
course of study. That is, to earn a
diploma, a Florida high school student had to pass an American-vs.-Communism course. The thing is, teachers were forced – in most
cases without objection – to teach the course but with little supervision. Yes, at university, they had to take a special
course to prepare them for this assignment, but seemingly that is where supervision
of the effort ended.
This writer was one of those affected
teachers and he taught the course from a more open-ended approach and steered
it away from being a propaganda exercise.
The textbook he was assigned to teach the course was published by Time-Life
and that publisher was noted for having, through their publications like Time magazine,
a conservative bent. But it still
ascribed to general, objective journalistic standards and, in the opinion of
this writer, the textbook was very informative and did not approach the subject
in a propagandistic way.
Using for the most part a discovery
approach, this writer feels he provided a useful course of study. In any event, he enjoyed teaching it, believes
his students did not find it a waste of time, and hopefully they learned
something about another system of governance with its faults and perhaps some
advantages. He did not sugar coat the
more brutal aspects of that totalitarian system.
The point here is, given the goals of
the conservative politicians, what was provided in the state’s classrooms was a
far cry from those goals. If anything,
young Floridians were exposed to a curriculum choice far from any cartoonish
take on the attributes of soviet governance which, given their rhetoric, was
probably the goal. Change is difficult.
In that, a current book sheds light
on the change process. Headed by Leslie R.
Crutchfield, a team of researchers took it upon themselves to find what the
elements of successful and unsuccessful national movements are – movements that
called for meaningful change.[1] This is a very important area of concern
unless one thinks the nation has already achieved perfection. Chances are the reader does not.
This posting will serve as merely an
introduction to this study. It
identifies some overarching factors that affect change, mostly those that serve
as the background context to change efforts and in which a change agent has
little to no control. That is, it
asks: what are the elements of a social/political/economic
landscape in which a change effort is attempted?
Admittedly, the Crutchfield book does
not spend much ink in addressing these contextual factors. They are mentioned toward the beginning of the
book and then the text goes on to highlight those factors that are subject to
being manipulated. But they – the contextual
factors – are important and the right mix of them can doom a change effort no
matter how well the other factors are addressed.
They are luck, misfortune, timing, and
changing cultural attitudes. Just to
mention the strength of one of these, cultural attitudes, one can easily cite the
above historical example. That would be
the effort of the conservative politicians that succeeded in getting the
Americanism-vs.-Communism course added to the Florida state curriculum, but not
much else. They could not have foreseen
what the growing effect of the Vietnam War would have on the psyche of
Americans.
As the legitimacy of that war became
questioned – to ever increasing levels – the whole anticommunism bias, even in
conservative Florida, could not continue to be unquestioned. In short, if those in power were lying about
Vietnam, what else are they lying about?
For those who had high hopes for the new course of study, they did not
count on this type of fundamental questioning, especially among the young.
Nor could they have done much about
it. The political landscape was changed
by exterior forces way beyond the control of Floridians – be they part of the
power structure or not. What occurred was
a societal/political shift over a relatively short span of time. Within ten years, the whole communism fear idea
changed drastically. But Vietnam is an
extreme case, one that probably only happens once or twice within the course of
lifetime. What of other changes, ones
that happen not as quickly perhaps but still within the memory of a lifetime?
These are the change examples the
Crutchfield team studied. She writes:
But we also recognized that
significant societal shifts do not occur at random … [Like reduction in
smoking, increase in gun ownership, acceptance of same-sex marriage] … These
changes occurred because of the relentless advocacy of vast networks of
individuals and organizations, campaigning in the face of seemingly
insurmountable obstacles and often against entrenched, powerful opponents. In spite of it all, they prevailed.[2]
It is these examples that future postings will address. That is, not from the inter-personal dynamic perspectives,
but from a stage where one can observe the more political interactions among
the various players in such change efforts.
The research of the Crutchfield team offers telling stories from which
political strategies can be derived – savvy strategies that have been
successful and imprudent strategies that have proven not to work.
