Change is always opposed. There is probably more than one reason for this, but the major sticking point in many cases is that somebody – usually a group of people – has a vested interest in the current power arrangements. In order for things to change the wealthy will have to give up some of their power to the less wealthy, men will have to share their power with women, white people will have to surrender some of their power with blacks, “first world” countries will have to cede a portion of their power to “developing” countries. As a rule groups do not relinquish power advantages willingly. Strategies for change must come to terms with this fact in a realistic manner.

It was Winston Churchill who said “History is written by the victors.” This much quoted observation is undeniably true. In large part power relations determine how the official narratives of the past are written. What may not always be appreciated is the extent to which these narratives determine the unfolding of the future. We act in the manner that we do because of how we understand who we are in relationship to the world around us. Who am I? What is in my interest to do? What is good or noble action? What actions are reprehensible? What ones are dangerous? Who are my enemies – my friends – my trusted guides? The answers to all these questions is given in narratives. Until people are able to reflect upon the narratives that determine these meanings for them, they can hardly be said to be free. No oppressive or totalitarian government or social institution can survive without the major portion of its members believing in the narrative it provides for them. This is why the rulers of any society generally oppose alternative narratives. An it is why political action must always begin with the telling of a new story. To tell and publicize alternative stories may be the most important political strategy we have at our disposal. Often it is the only form of political action that is possible. When no alternative stories can be told at all, then repression is complete. Every social strategy is built on a theory about what motivates people. If we believe that only material well-being is of importance to people we will dispense with appeals to higher values and principles in our work. Most people who work for ecological concerns, for social justice are themselves motivated by something more than their own material advantage, so it would be somewhat inconsistent for them to deny the importance of higher goals or ideals. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs provides us with a general picture about how a variety of needs may be operational in different people in different situations. A broad perspective such as this provides us with a range of options for strategies to motivated people to change by targeting different needs in different situations.

Most psychologists would agree that the need for self-esteem is a central motivator for human beings. People – all people without exception – need to feel good about themselves. If people, groups or countries who want to repress and exploit others want to feel good about themselves, they face a dilemma. How can they do things that are clearly hurtful to others and at the same time hold themselves in high esteem? This problem is solved by means of narratives that profoundly distort the reality of the situation. The examples are legion, but perhaps it might be worthwhile to give just one illustration. The US does the poorest job of any developed country in the world with regard to providing for the health and welfare needs of its citizens. Yet the American people want to believe that they are citizens of a caring and generous country. Therefore we regularly see in our local newspapers rather emotional stories about individual acts of charity. These individual acts of charity will no more meet the real needs of the people in this country than a bake sale will provide for the needs of the Pentagon. But the sentimental stories about saintly Americans doing charitable things serve to enable the people of the US to believe they are generous and caring when in fact their collective behavior demonstrates that this is not the case. Debunking false and sentimental stories and insisting that we “tell it like it is” are powerful political acts.

The place of violence in revolutionary change is one of the most difficult questions to address. Perhaps no fundamental changes occur without some violence. Most reformers would agree that the less recourse there is to violence the better. Many idealists – following in the foot steps of people like Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and other successful proponents of non-violent action – would argue that violence should not be used even in self-defense. Other would argue that while it might be permissible to use violent means to defend ones self from a violent attack, social reformers should never initiate tactics involving violence against people. In general the Politics of Health group advocates for a non-violent approach to social change. At the same time we realize that if we reject violence as a strategy, we must be prepared to offer alternative methods for producing real change in situations where people are suffering and dying under the yoke of inequitable, totalitarian and oppressive social forms. The article, Primer for a Revolution, demonstrates how, at least in one situation, a non-violent approach produced very profound changes in a country.

Frequently stories that are told about our “enemies” picture them as incomprehensible monsters who simply love evil for its own sake. Such stories are infantile over-simplifications of reality. The human race is not divided into saints and demons. The demons that stalk through our imaginations attacking all that is good and holy are our own creations. The real people that are represented by these images are not in fact subhuman moral freaks. They are simply people we have chosen not to understand. Some of them may, in fact, be doing serious damage to others. Others may be attacking us for reasons we do not care to look at. Demonizing others prepares the way for doing inhuman things against them with good conscience. It is never an acceptable strategy for people who are seriously concerned with the health of the human race.

Connections With Other Topics