Hi:
Social Change is definately inevitable. Social change will happen when ideas are outdated and get updated, when people make the neccessary changes.
I thought it was interesting in our E&Z text to read about The Life Course of Social Movements on page 528-531 od our E&Z test. In this section reference was made to "goal displacement" which "occurs when the goal of maintaining the formal structure of the movement's organization supersedes the original goals of the social movement". I'll also add that I think that the leader or leaders in their charisma have to be able to make changes and update outdated information. To be able to integrate new valuable information they learn which may help the movement move forward. I think that some leaders need to become more flexible, versatile, and adaptable to needed changes. Sometimes leaders in their attempt to prevent goal displacement and hold onto the original goals of the movement get too stuck trying to uphold the original goals of the group and get inflexible to new better ideas. It's great to be strong and hold onto the original goals but it's also great to know when to and to make the needed changes.
I don't think a leader is truly completely great unless the leader knows when to and how to make new better changes as well as stand by, maintain, and uphold the original good goals.
Further, another observation I made was that the text referred to one of the steps in "the life course of social movements" to be "the emergance of leaders who use ideology and charisma to define the central problems they face and to challenge and inspire followers to join in a common quest to change society for the better". Well, I'm wondering about the emphasis here on leaders. Having leaders implies having followers and generates a pyramid type heirarchical structure, it seems to me. I think that our society is programmed this way even in light of social movements to desire a leader, to have a president, to have someone ultimately in charge or held accountable and responsible, who gets the glory, gives the orders, and manages the peoples. I think that having leaders ought to be deemphasized and having groups of people come together in respect for eachother, not needing to find leaders but rather all people claiming or considering themselves strong leaders who are making social changes. I think we need to learn from eachother horizontally more rather than vertically. I think that if we were all on the same level it would eliminate a lot of the problems that come from inflated egos, power trips, the frustrations that come from maintaining dominant and subordinate positions. We just need more cooperative groups of mature peoples who can respect eachother and work together well mutually and equally without having to assign positions of power and prestige. Why doesn't each person take turns speaking to the masses. Why aren't we all encouraged more to have these skills or oration, to develop charismatic skills. I think there is a subtle, sometimes overt malady in the structure of our organizations. Having such dominant leaders creates a situation where one person gets most attention, acclaim, glory, who gets the spotlight, and is in the limelight. What about the rest of the people in this group. All the members of the group need equal billing one way or another as far as I'm concerned. I think it's stupid to give one person or groups of persons so much leadership power. Look at all our big major corporations. There is a big leader and a group of big leaders up there with the main leader. These select few get the big money, power, and glory, while the workers making it all happen, making the business successful, get squat.
This hierarchical system is what's wrong! We as a society need to grow up and get a life and work towards being less controlling and controlled and all work together better for positive change.
I do applaud good leaders though and I am thankful for one's who have made life better for humaneity. I just think a shift needs to happen away from leaders and followers, towards horizontal side by side teaching and learning among peoples. I think people relating mutually and equally more would in effect subside and even eliminate many of the relating and communication problems peoples face.
In my opinion God is a concept of the overiding principle of good towards one another, working together well in horizontal side by side ways, and respecting eachother equally and mutually as a beautiful creation. I don't see God a King with subjects and servants, princes etc. but rather I see God as a wise loving friend and teacher. I understand God was explained this way for some by some so they could understand the concept of God because they lived and spoke in terms of Kings and Princes. But, even the idea and terminology of kings and princes is a heirarchical system or organization of peoples which I don't like and view as being on the whole, in general, seemingly wrong.
I have to say that I again do appreciate the acts and works of all truly good leaders etc but I just think that the heirarchical organizing of people isn't right when it comes right down to it.
Signed, Shaunasi