The one constant is change, but the speed and utility of change is not constant at all. Organizations emerge for the purpose of fomenting change, yet, as a general rule, they\u00a0soon ossify in the same kinds of\u00a0unimaginative patterns as the institutions they are seeking to affect.\u00a0Significant change\u00a0through the medium of\u00a0established organizations and institutions is generally catalyzed by\u00a0either those who are raised to\u00a0positions of influence despite their failure to satisfy conventional check lists of appropriate qualifications, or those who act in ways not predicted by the fact that they satisfy conventional check lists of appropriate qualifications.<\/p>\n
Human actions fall within a space one axis of which is defined by courageous and imaginative choices striving for excellence at one extreme, and conventional choices striving for mediocrity or maintaining the status quo at the other. That axis alone does not describe the quality or efficacy of individual actions: Courageous and imaginative choices striving for excellence that are made in service to an odious ideology, or that are in some other way misinformed, may well do more harm than good, whereas conventional choices striving for mediocrity may make valuable marginal contributions to human welfare. But, while caution, analytical sophistication,\u00a0foresightedness and respect for uncertainty, and subtlety of insight and strategy\u00a0are\u00a0necessary variables to render courageous and creative innovation a positive rather than negative force, the absence of courageous and creative innovation guarantees suboptimal outcomes.<\/p>\n
Several\u00a0recent experiences have raised this to the fore of my mind: A program director position for an educational reform foundation that I applied for, and would have done a\u00a0truly exceptional\u00a0job in, that I failed to get because\u00a0an unimaginative vice president was looking for candidates that satisfied the more superficial\u00a0and easily acquired criteria for the job rather than the more profound and harder to duplicate criteria of greater importance;\u00a0other nonprofit positions filled by decision makers similarly focused on superficial and less salient criteria; an alternative school led by a robust and idealistic principal who may prove to be an exception to this “rule;” a widespread insistence, across the ideological spectrum, to cling to conventional modes of thought and conventional strategies and conceptualizations of political activism, rather than to reach down a bit deeper and attempt to foment truly fundamental change instead.<\/p>\n
The most profound lesson of human history is the robustness of social change, the degree to which that which is taken for granted as a permanent feature of our consciousness and our social institutional landscape is truly ephemeral, and can and does change far more rapidly and dramatically than those living in their own time and place are wont to realize. It is true, of course (as discussed in The Variable Malleability of Reality<\/a>) that some things are easier to change than others; that smart strategies identify what\u00a0aspects of our current reality are\u00a0more malleable in order to massage our encompassing social (and natural) systems in ways which move us in desired directions. But it is also true (as discussed inThe Algorithms of Complexity<\/a>)\u00a0that that layered complexity, in which deeper levels are generally<\/em> less malleable than more superficial ones, \u00a0provides frequent opportunities for rapid, dramatic change, when some of the underlying “algorithms” are actually fairly malleable. The art and science of participating in history in socially responsible and “ambitious” ways involves recognizing and reconciling these two aspects of the challenge at hand.<\/p>\n It’s time for a new social movement that confronts this challenge head-on, and does so with a commitment to doing so as rationally and imaginatively and compassionately as possible. I’ve outlined one general proposal for organizing such a movement in A Proposal: The Politics of Reason and Goodwill<\/a>\u00a0and in the other essays linked to in the second box at Catalogue of Selected Posts<\/a>. (In the first box\u00a0at Catalogue of Selected Posts<\/a>\u00a0can be found essays exploring the nature of our social institutional and technological landscape, to better inform such efforts; and in some other boxes can be found specific applications and aspects of this analysis.)<\/p>\n