CHANGE CONTEXTUAL ELEMENTS

Change in social landscapes can be studied from different perspectives, from different contexts.  One angle to this topic is the human interactions between those engaged in either promoting change, those opposed to it, and between the two camps in a given contested change effort. 

Here the relevant information that provides insight into those dealings can be derived from psychological and sociological studies.  But when one wants to see these encounters from a national or statewide level, political studies seem to be most fruitful.

          One study that takes on this more political perspective is provided by Leslie R. Crutchfield.[1]  “What [she] does is convey qualitative research findings – emanating from her team of researchers – on what has been effective in terms of grass roots activities.  She also indicates what has not been effective.”[2]  Since this blog promotes transformative change for civics education, any reliable knowledge affecting change efforts in large arenas, such as a national effort to change civics curricula, is highly welcomed.

          One of the first claims that Crutchfield reports has to do with the contexts under which more recent efforts have been attempted.  And the first element of those contexts she lists is historical.  That is, various efforts in the latter half of the twentieth century have had their effects. 

That would include civil rights, labor, environment, and feminist movements.  They seemed to have been most virulent during the 1960s and 1970s.  But while the influence of those efforts still has its effects, it must be highly qualified since the current environment has been heavily altered by technological developments.

          With the turn of the century, agents engaged in change have had to accommodate their strategies to the advent and quick application of the digital revolution through the Internet.

Technological innovation ushered Western society into a post-industrial Digital Age and catalyzed the supply chain revolution.  With innovations in sourcing and logistics, suddenly businesses were freed up to purchase inputs from and create their products in almost any nation on earth.  As supply chains opened up, the world turned flat once again, and globalization brought a new world trade order.[3]

Practically, those involved in change – especially if the parties targeted by such efforts are business interests – their concerns can potentially go global.  But even if the most directly affected are private enterprises, the public institutions are not immune and at times become the prime affected parties.  One need only look at the current headlines and be informed of foreign powers influencing domestic elections.

            On a more substantive level, current change efforts need to take into account the “nuts and bolts” issues of the day.  Nationally, an about face took place from a highly progressive thrust that existed in the 1960s and 1970s to a reactionary one of the 1980s and 1990s.  One area of concern provides an overall sense of how this reversed course materialized and continues to do so in everyday politics.

            That would be in the area of incarceration.  In the last four decades there has been an increase of 500 percent in the number of people being sent to some form of imprisonment.  Yet, there has not been that sort of increase in the number of crimes being committed. 

Ironically, for unrelated reasons, both liberal – left of center citizens – and conservatives – right of center citizens – have been cast together fighting this policy.  Of note on this issue, the usually opposing groups Black Lives Matter activists and the Koch brothers have become allies when it comes to the incarceration issue. 

The first group is motivated by their concern over race relations and the inordinate number of African Americans making up that prison population; the second group is motivated by its concern for over-governmental interference in American lives.  This uneasy alliance has brought attention to this national issue. 

And the conservative side of this joint effort brings up another contextual element.  Through the Koch brothers’ and other conservative groups’ actions, a highly organized, national conservative movement has evolved since the year 2000.  Summarily, this movement was given the title Tea Party. 

Their most meaningful accomplishment has been their successful acquisition of a significant number of Congressional seats.  When Republicans control the House of Representatives (as they did from 2011 to 2017), this Tea Party element presents a meaningful factor in being able to secure national or regional change.

This rise of conservatism, which has also been called the alt-right or populist movement, has been combined with the technological advancements mentioned above.  The result has been a potent political force that promises to affect national politics for many years to come.  This force will be addressed in upcoming postings.  But through social media, the alt-right has captured the attention of a significant number of Americans with a virulent conservative message.[4]

Of course, the political atmosphere in a given time will affect not only change processes, but what should be legitimately changed in the first place. 

… [I]t’s important to note that Trump didn’t create the populist movement that ultimately ushered him into office; rather, he shrewdly tapped the anger and disaffection of white working-class voters in coal country and other parts of the United States who felt left behind by a vanishing industrial economy and increasing cultural diversity.[5]

And with that explanatory note, one can find the circular reality of how the current environmental elements are meaningfully interrelated one with the other. 

Political movements – whether they are elements of the political context of change efforts or not – demonstrate that they are indicators of how the polity is divided or polarized at any given time.  They function as the fuel upon which change occurs – whether it is planned or not, whether it is wanted or not, or whether it is beneficial or not.

---

[1] Leslie R. Crutchfield, How Change Happens:  Why Some Social Movements Succeed While Others Don’t (Hoboken, NJ:  John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2018).

[2] Robert Gutierrez, “Introducing the ‘Grass Root’ Approach,” Gravitas:  A Voice for Civics, April 2, 2019, accessed December 9, 2019, https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2019/04/introducing-grass-root-approach.html .

[3] Leslie R. Crutchfield, How Change Happens:  Why Some Social Movements Succeed While Others Don’t, 5 (Kindle edition).

[4] See Andrew Marantz, Anti-social:  Online Extremists, Techno-Utopians, and the Hijacking of the American Conversation (New York, NY:  Penguin Random House, 2019).

[5] Leslie R. Crutchfield, How Change Happens:  Why Some Social Movements Succeed While Others Don’t, 7 (Kindle edition).