American Sociological Association (Essay)

~ a~-,,~·: . A~~f~

-S-.u--J /l'?; ~ Does the Individual Really Make a Difference? An Introduction to Social Change

When I was an undergraduate at the University of Minnesota, I did not understand much about government and politics. I knew I lived in a democracy, but I did not seek to understand exactly what that meant. I was suspicious of communism, but I did not under­ stand exactly what it was. I looked forward to the day I would be 21 so I could vote, although I did not know how I might do so intelli­ gently. Looking back, I was truly a naive undergraduate, but at least I really wanted to understand politics.

In the library one day I met another student who looked old enough to vote, so I asked him if he had voted in the last election. His answer was a simple no. I was shocked, and so I began to ques­ tion him. He presented his case to me: NIt doesn't matter if I vote or not. One vote will never make a difference to anything. N I pointed out that if everyone thought that way, our democracy would be a farce. He replied that he was not talking about Neveryone; he was talking about himself. I asked him about his influence on others around him: family, friends, other students. He replied that they did not know whether he voted; they could vote if they wanted.

So began my investigation of democracy. Through all my read­ ing and discussions, the memory of this man from the basement of Walter Library continues to haunt me. I have broadened it consider­ ably: What difference can one individual make on others around him or her? What difference can the individual make in any estab­ lished group, formal organization, community, or society?

Much of the sociological perspective focuses on the power of society, social forces, social patterns, a world out there that influ­

201

Ten Questions: A Sodological Perspective 202

ences, shapes, and controls the individual actor. But how does this world change? Surely each of us has something to say about those forces. Does my vote matter in democratic society? Do our votes col­ lectively matter? Surely some individuals shape society-don't they?

What is the real relationship between the individual and soci­ ety? Of course we are shaped by society, but do we, in turn, shape society? Do individuals really make a difference? It is relatively easy to establish that most individuals have some influence on those with whom they interact. Some of us make a great difference. It is more difficult to see how individuals can influence established organiza­ tions. It is far more difficult to see how they might influence society.

It is fashionable in the United States, of course: to believe that individuals can do anything they set their minds to: If someone wants to make a difference to other people, to society, even to the world, he or she can. It is also fashionable to believe that society changes because of the efforts of the individual. To believe these things does not make them true; to believe them is really a state­ ment of faith taught in society. It is very important for people to be­ lieve that they make a difference: "I'm important. n "My life matters. n "I do have an effect on the lives of others." "I can shape the future

of society." This chapter will examine the power of the individual to change

society. We will start small, however, and look first at how individ­

uals can make a difference in:

o their own lives 1:1 the lives of those with whom they interact

1:1 various organizations to which they belong

Then, finally, we will examine society. As you will see, each topic is highly complex, and you will probably find that the actual difference the individual can make is less than you imagine.

The Individual's Influence on His or Her Own Life

If we are free at all and exercise control over our own ideas, values, actions, and directions, each actor makes a difference to his or her own life. I influence what I do. I make decisions that allow me to go one way rather than another, to believe one thing rather than an­ other, to act a certain way, or to become a certain type of person. We examined the question of freedom in Chapter 6, especially the claim that we do have some control, some ability to make a differ-

Chapter Nine Does the Individual Really Make a Difference? 203

ence in directing what we do with our own lives. In the context of this chapter, we can say that if we are free, our lives do matter­ they matter to ourselves. We make a difference in our own lives.

But because of the many social and other factors that control us, this ability is always limited, often to a great extent. We always act in a social context. Social patterns always matter. Role, class, cul­ ture, and institutions always gUide our decisions and our lives. Our problems are always linked to social problems, and our successes are linked to the state of society. The sociological view leaves some room for individual freedom, but not a great deal.

When people ask if the individual really does make a difference, however, they are usually asking about impact on others. Do our acts matter in terms of influencing other individuals, groups, communi­ ties, or societies? The topic really becomes one of social change: Can my acts influence others-do they matter to anyone besides myself? In the wider social context, can the individual really influence the direction of society in a way that he or she chooses? Or is social change really the result of other factors that have nothing to do with individual actions, that have mostly to do with external forces out­ side individual control?

The Individual's Influence on Other Individuals

We can begin to understand the importance of the individual in so­ ciety by first looking at social interaction. Do individuals make a dif­ ference in how other people live their lives? Do individuals influence their children and friends? Are they able to influence the lives of other individuals trapped by poverty or ignorance?

The Problem ofMeasuring Influence

Let us start rather simply. In all that we do, we encounter others who follow different interests from ours, who have different views, different priorities, different problems. If we try, can we make a dif­ ference to them? The question of the influence of one actor over another is difficult to answer. Teachers, for example, often exagger­ ate their own influence over students: "I taught my class the loca­ tions of all the nations of Africa. They really know something. H Or, "Now that I've taught my class the harmful effects of drugs, they know that if they do drugs, they'll destroy themselves. H But such in­ fluence is much less than imagined.

Ten Questibns: A Sociological Perspective 204

First of all, people almost always forget most of what they are taught because it is not useful to them. As every teacher knows, teaching oth­ ers does not guarantee that much significant learning goes on. What is taught one day is forgotten by the next; what is reviewed for an exam is forgotten a week later. What I learn from a book one week, does not necessarily mean that I will remember it the next.

Second, many others are active influencing others at the same time we are trying. The extent of anyone person's influence will depend on all of these other influences. The problems of my family may be far more important to me than what I am trying to learn about geogra­ phy; the desire to be accepted by my friends may be far more impor­ tant to me than a lecture on drugs by someone I barely know.

Third, my influence on another may be far more unintentional than intentional. I may make a difference, but in a way that I may not even want. The teacher may be teaching the location of nations, but the student may be learning to hate geography; the teacher may be teaching the harmful effects of drugs, but the student may be learn­ ing that adults are hypocritical, unrealistic in their expectations, and not to be trusted. Of course, the influence can be unintentionally positive: The student in geography may become excited about visit­ ing other societies; the student learning about drugs may be influ­ enced to confront his or her parents about their alcohol abuse. The influence of one individual on another is very difficult to achieve in exactly the way it is intended. We may make a difference, but it isa highly complex one, and sometimes it is exactly what we did

not intend. Fourth, to believe that the individual matters and can influence

others must take into account that our actions will often have a harmful influence on those with whom we interact. We should, therefore, not as­ sume that we will always matter in a positive way. Those of us who abuse our children will lay the foundations for misery-for our chil­ dren and for those with whom they interact-and that misery may last their whole lives. Those of us who teach our children that it is all right not to care about others, to hate those unlike ourselves, and to harm or exploit them will also affect them. Those of us who hurt others may cause emotional harm, and that, too, will make a differ­ ence to their lives. Indeed, as I look back at my own life I have to wonder how many of my actions may have actually harmed others; yes, I may have made a difference to those students I failed in high school, and to those men and women I did not show respect to for

no good reason.

Chapter Nine Does the Individual Really Make a Difference? 20S

Before we assume that social interaction will make it possible for the individual to make a real difference on others, it is important to recognize that interaction-and therefore influence-is two-way. I act, and in my action I may exert influence on your life; at the same time, however, you act, and in your action you too may have some influence on my life. To be fair and honest, if either of us claim that "Yes, I made a difference, H we must realize that the other too may have made a difference. We negotiate influence; normally, no one has complete power over the other-it is two-way. I may have in­ fluenced my wife, but my wife has also had much influence over my life, too. At the very least, we each made a difference to the other. My sons too had influence on my life; sometimes it is difficult to assess our actual influence. To believe that social influence is a one­ way affair exaggerates the importance of the individual in the interac­ tion. Influence is negotiated, and before we simply see how important we are on others, we need to consider their influence on us.

It is therefore possible to make an important difference in other people's lives, but simply interacting with them does not guarantee much influence. If we really care about this issue, then we need to consider the points made here: What others learn from us is too eas­ ily forgotten; whenever we try to influence others, there are other people who are also important to them; my influence may be unin­ tentional; my influence may actually be harmful to them; and they may very well have had a greater impact on me than I had on them.

Most of us will never really know our real influence on others. We become "significant others" to them, and we might not even know it. Each of us can influence spouse and children in a positive manner just by how we act toward them and toward other people. Teachers, friends, acquaintances, employers, rock stars, members of the clergy, and political leaders can become significant others to us, their lives and actions become examples for us, their ideas and val­ ues become our own. Sometimes an encounter with someone will change our whole direction in life, and what may at first seem to be a small influence becomes a huge one. If I examine my own his­ tory, I recognize a parent here, a band director over there, my so­ cial studies teacher, a friend, my freshman English teacher, a history lecturer, a colleague I taught with in high school, several students in my high school classes, and many others who had very positive influences on me that they probably do not even recog­

:inize. They-and many others-made a big difference in my life. Even a chance encounter with a book salesman altered my life con­

Ten Questions: A Sociological Perspective 206 207Chapter Nine Does the Individual Really Make a Difference?

siderably; without that encounter I probably never would have structiveness. There is usually no way of knOWing whom we have tried to write a book, and my life and research might have gone in affected or how strongly. For most of us, interpersonal influence re­

another direction. mains an article of faith that we believe in. I am writing this book primarily to influence other individuals. I

am realistic. How much lasting influence can I have? For most stu­ dents, not much-and we can undoubtedly list a dozen reasons.

The Individual Versus Social Organization

For a few, maybe I can have a small influence on their direction. To affect ourselves or to influence other individuals is one thing;

For even fewer, maybe I can influence them to have a love of learn­ to affect a group, formal organization, community, or society is

ing or a love of sociology or a concern for the fate of humanity that something else again. Imagine the difficulties involved in accom­

will remain important all of their lives. Unfortunately, I also fear I plishing something very important and lasting in an established

will supply ammunition for being intolerant, sexist, racist, anti­ social organization.

intellectuaL or antisociology-unintentional infl~ences but none­ My first job after graduating from college was as a high school

theless real. history teacher, and I was prepared to make a difference in the world. I remember that I wanted to contribute to all humankind.

The Larger Sodal Context and Individual Influence Perhaps I would teach someone who would become a great leader; perhaps I would teach ideas that would spread; perhaps I would be

Leave it to the sociologist to bring up the role of society in every­ recognized as a model teacher for all to learn from. It wasn't clear thing human. Here we go again. It is essential to recognize that indi­ how I would do it, but I knew I wanted to make a positive mark on vidual'influence always exists in a larger social context. The society. A short time after I began, it became obvious to me that my likelihood of influence depends on larger social trends. My likeli­ sights were set too high. At least I could have an impact on the com­ hood of influencing you to enjoy opera as much as I do depends on munity of St. Paul. After teaching for a month or so, I knew that if I whether opera is loved in society or whether it is being replaced by wanted to have an impact I would have to settle for Harding High rock music. It depends on whether we live in Italy or the United School. My idealism changed when I realized how few students ac­ States; it depends on whether we live in the 1990s or the 1890s. The tually took my classes or knew who I was. Like most idealistic teach­ teacher influences students who are ready and interested. The reli­ ers I eventually came to realize that my real chance for making a gious leader converts individuals who are seeking conversion. The difference in people's lives was to be found in the everyday interac­ political leader influences individuals who agree with his or her po­ tion with 150 individuals I met five hours a week. Yet I c'ame to see litical philosophy or, sometimes, who are rebelling against their that I could not expect great things there either. I was not an impor­ parents' political philosophy. Charles Manson did not appeal to tant person to many of these people. Some saw me as an intruder in everyone; he appealed topeople liVing in a certain kind of commu­ their lives, and some did not often understand what I was trying to nity at a certain period of our history. A young person is influenced teach. My actions in the classroom did, in fact, eventually influence by a movie star who represents the culture to which that young several students, but I am afraid I had a really lasting effect on only person belongs. The individual who influences someone to try a few and, even then, often not in the direction I had intended. I drugs is aided by a social context that regards drug taking as accept­ never did influence society or St. PauL and I left Harding High

able behavior. School as I had found it, having had a minimal impact on it. Thus, the influence of one actor over another may be reaL but I really wanted to have an impact on an organization. Why

it is often exaggerated and always facilitated or made more difficult . couldn't I? What stood in the way? Why is it so difficult-per­ by the social context. All of us make a difference sometimes. That haps impossible-for the individual to have a real impact on an difference may be in the direction of tolerance, love, caring, and organization? growth; it may be in the direction of intolerance, hatred, and de­

,

208 Ten Questions: A Sociological Perspective

The Individual Confronts Social Patterns We return to the existence of social patterns. Every organization even­ tually develops certain ways of doing things. That's actually what is meant by being "organized." People know what others are going to do, and they understand what they are supposed to do. Structure distributes positions in an organization, which are usually ranked and have attached to them roles, or scripts, laying out what is ex­ pected. Culture is taught to all, creating a shared set of beli~fs, val­ ues, and rules that guide actors as they interact. In society there are institutions-long-established procedures that guide the individual. For example, people in American society have established marriage as an institution that the vast majority of us follow"When we marry, the general outline for what we are to do is laid out in advance: courtship; engagement; a religious ceremony; a reception with friends and family; an agreement to be loyal and to give love, money, and time to one another; and so on. In our individual mar­ riages we establish our own social patterns over time: who does what, the degree of independence each of us has, how much money we should spend versus how much we should save. As new prob­ lems arise in our marriage, we have to discover new solutions, and they, tOO, become established as patterns. As we have children, change jobs, and move from one community to another, we have to alter what we do, but we revise the old patterns rather than simply throw them out. The revisions become new patterns we follow. The bond between us depends on our feelings, as well as on all of the patterns we have come to share. For one of us to decide to abandon these patterns or to change them radically upsets the relationship. And if one tries to change things without consent, the danger of dis­

solution grows. If it is so difficult to change social patterns in a marriage, con­

sider how much more difficult it is in a larger social organization: a group of friends, a school, or a society. A lasting group-a class of thirty students, for example-establishes patterns early, often ones that have been developed elsewhere to guide all such classes or have been established through the demands of the teacher or even

I ii: ,If through day-to-day interaction. Any individual, including the " teacher, who tries to change those patterns radically threatens theI,

organization of the class and its success. Even the students are aware of this, and once the patterns are established, they, too, work against the rules being changed, either by the teacher or by a newcomer in the class who wants them to fit his or her own needs.

Chapter Nine Does the Individual Real/y Make a Difference? 209

A football team works the same way. Game rules and league rules govern team play. Individuals are discouraged from openly challenging them. The team itself develops special plays, procedures for play calling and substitutions, and even subtle ways of shifting what individuals do as a play unfolds. Individuals who decide to go their own way threaten the team's success.

On the opposite end of the organizational spectrum stands soci­ ety. Society has a long history. It precedes every living actor, and it will be there when every living actor dies. Its patterns-social struc­ ture, culture, and institutions-have been established over many years, and these patterns confront the individual as a generally ac­ cepted reality. The individual can cry out, "I won't do what you want of mel" and can leave that society, no longer to be influenced by it. Quiet nonconformity is possible. But it is something else for the individual to try to change the dominant social patterns. To change society is to threaten the continuation of the world as it ex­ ists for most people.

Social patterns, according to Emile Durkheim, take on a life of their own. They exist "out there" someplace-invisible, real. exter­ nal to us, influencing and even controlling us. When we break these patterns, we challenge their reality. See what happens when we de­ cide to go it alone in social organization, to refuse to follow the pro­ cedures, rules, truths, and values that were established long ago. We are talking about not only laws but also many other patterns that guide us in every move we make, from greeting someone on the street to burying the dead. Actions are neither spontaneous nor ran­ dom. They generally follow patterns laid out by strangers long dead.

What chance, then, does the individual actor have against so­ cial patterns? We each live in a social reality that others have be­ come used to and generally are fearful of losing. No matter how much we might dislike our situation, there is something in most of us that cries out to keep the structure, culture, and institutions that we have. We might hate society as it is, but it is the only world we know.

The United States is a society with a system of government de­ veloped for more than two hundred years. It is something defended by almost all who are appointed or elected to positions within that structure. It is laid out in a constitution that most of us respect. We are used to the way it works. And, for all of its faults, it does work, at least for large numbers of us. And if we do not like it, who among us can change it in any dramatic way? If we work within the gov­

, Ten Questipns: A Sociological PerspectiveI

I 210:J

ernment, it may be possible, but we may threaten our own rise in l

that structure. It also may be possible if we work outside of govern­ ment, but we may threaten our own comfort, our occupational suc­

cess, and sometimes even our lives. This is true of a university, too. Go change it! Change its pat­

terns: how it operates, how it is structured, what is valued and believed there, or its basic rules. It can be done, but it is very, very

difficult. Individuals can make a difference to the successful operation of

an organization-within the bounds of its social patterns. They can help the organization achieve its goals or can make a difference in the opposite way by blocking those goals. An outstanding quarter­ back can pull together a bad team. A good president can lead society in positive directions. An outstanding businessperson can turn around a struggling company. Such individuals can make a differ­ ence-sometimes a big difference. Normally that kind of success does,not change the social patterns in that organization (the indi­ vidual is simply an outstanding actor within the established pat­ terns). The individual will have a much more difficult time making a lasting and dramatic impact on the social patterns themselves.

In general, most people who work for change in an organiza­ tion work for minor change within the existing social patterns. Such change may be very important, but it does not constitute lasting, significant change. Some individuals will make a difference, but as outstanding actors following a written script.

Certain individuals truly shape social patterns, however, and leave a great mark. Mikhail Gorbachev is an individual who rose up in a political structure first established in 1917. He rose because he was perceived to be someone who represented and stood for the structure, culture, and institutions established in Soviet society. He also used those social patterns to rise to the top. Normally when one rises to the top, one becomes increasingly supportive of the system that made possible that rise. But Gorbachev was different-he made a big difference to the Soviet Union and to the world because, once in a high position, he turned around and criticized the political insti­ tutions he was leading. He criticized the nature of the economy that favored people in his position. He questioned the necessity for the massive plilitary system that formed an integral part of Soviet soci­ ety. Here was a man who could really make a difference: powerful, critical, willing to make basic changes in the patterns of society. Gor­ bachev was an unusual revolutionary, in that most revolutionaries

Chapter Nine Does the Individual Really Make a Difference? 211

exist outside the dominant social patterns. He came from within the system itself: He had position, powerful allies, and intelligence. He calculated well, and he brought about great reforms. He made a dif­ ference, a great difference. This was not easy to do, nor is it com­ mon. The dead hand of the past weighed heavily on him. Others who favored a system that clearly benefited them attacked him. As unproductive and unresponsive as the political and economic sys­ tem was, it was all that many of the people had known, and it was natural to question if a new system would necessarily be better. Everything seemed to oppose any chance that one man would make so much difference. In fact, it is probably safe ,to say that his influ­ ence was even greater than he imagined it would be. As a result of his efforts, change took on a life of its own, and many events he did not originally intend occurred. Eventually he fell from grace, to be followed by other leaders, each trying desperately to deal with tremendously difficult problems, each trying to establish new insti­ tutions, each finding it difficult-even impossible-to change inher­ ited institutions. History, of course, is complex, and the case of Gorbachev has not yet been fully written. Despite his personal fate, however, Soviet society and Eastern Europe can never fully go back to their failed institutions, and Gorbachev will go down as an indi­ vidual who made an important difference in the world. Without him the world would have changed; but the way it changed, and the speed with which it changed, are a result of his efforts.

Max Weber recognized that some individuals could make a sig­ nificant impact on society's patterns but that such individuals usu­ ally rose up outside the legitimate order. They were revolutionary heroes who gathered around them large numbers of the dissatisfied. Someone such as Gorbachev---one who rose up in the system to the very top-is an unlikely candidate for revolutionary change. What­ ever people's motivations are for rising to the top (even if very noble), once they are there, their agendas change. When people get to high positions, they confront history and social patterns directly, and they become what they never intended. It is difficult to say no to a social structure and set of institutions that created your success. Even revolutionaries who overthrow the scoundrels usually become scoundrels themselves without really changing much of the struc­ ture, culture, or institutions. We might vote out the other party only to find that the new party is not capable of making the real changes promised-not because its members are liars, but because revolu­ tionary change is made so difficult within the social patterns already

i,'.l!; ':;"

Ten Questions: A Sociological Perspective 212

in existence. This is the real lesson of the Clinton presidency or the Republican takeover of Congress two years later. How much can one individual change social patterns that are deeply embedded, no matter what his or her intentions are? Political candidates promise change, and many really believe they can bring it about, only to meet the realistic power of our inheritance as a society.

The Role of Social Power

What most of us fail to consider when we think about the influence of an individual on an organization is the element of social power. The individual can change an organization only i.f he or she has so­ cial power. Power means the ability to achieve one's will in relation to others. One's ability often arises from high position in an organiza­ tion, but it also arises from attractiveness, large numbers of follow­ ers, wealth, weapons, intelligence, or persuasive ability. Parents have great power over children, and thus they can influence their directions, their ideas, their values. As other elements compete with that power, parental influence lessens. Corporate leaders have great power, and they use it to shape policies in their interests. Sometimes it is to change society (the tax structure, the relative power of unions, the degree of governmental "interference"); more often it is to protect the social patterns as they operate (private enterprise, in­ heritance practices, a court system based on the ability to pay). The president of the U?ited States has great power and thus is able to have more influence on the direction of society than the rest of us. (After alL what do we have that allows us to influence that direc­ tion? A vote? A contribution to one offidal? Our going door to door trying to get votes for our candidate?) A skillful leader in a well­ armed, well-funded revolutionary group may have great influence on society, and a skillful religious leader may have an impact on a congregation of believers or even on the direction of society. In un­ derstanding how such influence is possible, however, it is important to recognize not only that desire is necessary, but also that desire must be wedded to power. Ideas can be effectively challenged only with power. Criticism must be backed up with power. New direc­ tions for an organization must result from those who have more than good ideas or good intentions, and new social patterns can arise

it only from people who have the power to institute them. Power is a complex matter. First of all, those with the most

power are usually those who do not want basic change in society.

Chapter Nine Does the Individual Really Make a Difference? 213

They benefit the most from social patterns as they are. They rose up through those patterns, and they will generally approve of those patterns. Second, one actor's social power is one part of a social equa­ tion. Power is exerted from both sides. Even if a person desires change and has power to bring it abo.ut, those on the side protecting the social patterns will also have power, and in the vast majority of cases their power will be much greater. Part of every organization (from the family to the society) has mechanisms for dealing with those who rise up to try to change that organization as it exists. To be able to change society is to have enough power to influence those who defend society as it exists.

Change usually occurs, therefore, not because of the efforts of one individual but because people work together, form a power base, and bring about change. A leader cannot change society alone; by definition, he or she need~ a power base that includes other indi­ viduals who are willing to work in the same direction for change. In 1789, the workers and middle-class people of France united around emerging leaders and overthrew the monarchy. In the 1950s, African Americans in the South organized around Martin Luther King and together began to bring down the system of segregation. King was important as a leader, but alone he was without power in society. Social movements-loose organizations of large numbers who can be effectively mobilized around leaders to march, protest, boy­ cott, strike, and actively confront the opposition-change society. More organized protest groups-Greenpeace, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, Amnesty International-change society. Various in­ dividuals within them may make a difference in the direction of change, but it is many people working together in opposing estab­ lished social patterns who have the real potential for changing soci­ ety. Each individual is a resource used to bring about change. Alone they are not influential, but united they can make a difference.

Success is never guaranteed, no matter how much one desires to have an impact, no matter how much power one has, no matter how noblce one's cause. As a result of all our efforts, four possibilities exist: (l) the social patterns still may not change; (2) the social pat­ terns may change because of the organized opposition, but in a di­ rection unintended (perhaps toward more oppression); (3) the social patterns may actually change in the direction desired; or (4) the so­ cial patterns may change in exactly the way desired. Number 1 is . the most likely to occur; numb~r 4 is the least likely.

'~ I Ten Questions: A Sociological Perspective214

Social Change: A Sociological View

If sociologists recognize that the individual does, in fact, make a dif­ ference sometimes in changing a social organization, but that this difference is usually minor and often unintentional, how else do they approach the problem of social change? If the individual is not primarily responsible for change, what is? It is probably best to begin answering this question by listing and explaining five guiding prin­ ciples that most sociologists believe.

Change Is Inherent in All Social Organization

The first principle is that every organization naturally changes. As its size changes, it changes; as it becomes older, it changes; as its en­ vironment changes, it must adjust. Each event in its history becomes part of its past and can be recalled and used to make decisions later on. Indeed, it is erroneous to see social organization as a rigid, per­ manent set of social patterns that represents enduring stability and order. Every action of every individual alters society a tiny bit. Every decision by our government alters society a tiny bit. Of course, some actions, individuals, and decisions are more important than others. But the point is that society never stays the same from moment to moment. Change is to be expected. Whatever one likes about soci­ ety today-its music, its movies, its family patterns, its level of reli­ gious commitment-will inevitably change. Whatever exists today will be at least slightly different tomorrow.

Societies even have rates of change. Some societies change far more rapidly than others. The rate of change is an integral part of society; it is one of the social patterns that exists. Events or individual acts may slow down the rate for a short while or speed it up, but over the long run the rate is predictable. The rate of change in the United States in the twentieth century has been extremely high compared with those in most other societies in such areas as increasing urban­ ization, the rise of a service economy, egalitarianism within the fam­ ily, and geographical mobility. These rates have dramatically accelerated since World War n. The United States is a very different society today than it was in 1900. Some societies-Japan, for exam­ ple-have had even higher rates of social change than the United States. Others, such as Iran, India, and China, have had lower rates.

Adults continuously remind the young that Nthe world is a lot different today than it was when I g~ew up." Well, look around you right now. The society you see will be very different ten years from

Chapter Nine Does the Individual Really Make a Difference? 215

now. Whatever you like may be gone. Whatever you do not like may be improved, or it may be worse. Everything changes, but the change is generally gradual, and it is usually impossible to pin down one individual or group as responsible for the change.

Change Stems More from Social Conflict than from Individual Acts

The second sociological principle is that change probably results more from sodal conflict than from the acts of any individual. Orga­ nization is never as peaceful and finished as it appears on the sur· face. There is always disagreement, always protest. It is when the authorities say no and others continue to say yes that conflict and so­ dal change arise. Rarely do such individuals have their way, but be­ cause they fight for what they believe or want, some change occurs over time, often in ways they did not even intend. The dvil rights movement in American sodety has never achieved its goal of radal equality. However, because of the conflict that it generated-the back-and-forth struggle between the movement and those who sup­ ported the· institution of segregation, the culture of racism, and the unequal racial social structure,.....patterns changed gradually in the direction that the movement cried out for, even though never to the point that it desired. The conflict has given rise to greater educa­ tional opportunity, more equal polftical and civil rights, and more equal economic opportunity at the top of society. However, it has not made much impact on the anger and hopelessness among those African Americans who have no real economic or educational op­ portunities; on the increasing numbers of young, single minority parents; and on serious inner-city drug abuse. Did the civil rights movement succeed? Yes (partially): Sodety has become more open to middle-class African Americans, and the political and legal sys­ tem is more sensitive to problems of racism. And no: Equality does not prevail, radsm is still widespread, and for large numbers, noth­ ing has really changed for the better.

Karl Marx emphasizes the role of social conflict as the source for change. History is the struggle of opposing classes, he writes. So­ dety is made of workers and owners, and over time the inevitable conflict between them alters society. For a long time the open con­ flict is kept in check, and then suddenly a great upheaval brings down the old and creates the new. The new society, according to Marx, is a synthesis: it is the coming together of the old and the new, those who fight to keep what they have and those who are opposed

Ten Questions: A Sociological Perspective216

and must fight for their rights. The new arises out of social conflict. Marx sees the English and French revolutions as examples of mass conflict that created such syntheses: They were examples of soci­ eties moving from feudalism to capitalism. The revolutions were re­ ally culminations of social conflict that existed for hundreds of years; the new societies were significantly different from the old, but not brand new, because they were created out of social and economic trends existing in the old.

Most sociologists see conflict as inevitable. As long as there are people with different ideas and different interests, there will be con­ flict; and as long as there is conflict, nothing will stay the same. Everything is in flux; nothing is inevitable, an~ everything is open to challenge and change.

Like Marx, Max Weber (1924) sees social change as arising out of conflict-between those who defend the traditional order and those who act against that order. Those who rise up are revolution­ ary, they gather followers, and sometimes through their efforts the old order is overthrown. But it is never completely overthrown, be­ cause some old patterns help forge the new ones. New conflict fol­ lows immediately between those who support the new patterns and those who oppose them. The new eventually loses its newness and becomes tradition, and new charismatic leaders eventually attract followers and fight once again. History is the struggle between tradi­ tion and revolution.

Rather than focus on the individual or the protest group in iso­ lation, sociologists tend to focus on what happens among people as a source of change. Individuals matter; but more than that it is the in­ teraction of individuals and groups with one another that matters. And it is the conflict generated in that interaction that brings about lasting change.

Change Is Most Likely When the Social Situation Favors It

A third principle is that individuals, groups, and social conflict are most likely to change an organization when the social situation fa­ vors it. Hitler is an example of an individual who made a great dif­ ference in history. He significantly changed the social patterns in Germany to accommodate a totalitarian dictatorship; his efforts to establish German supremacy clearly led to a world war; and through his influence millions of people were killed. Fifty years after Hitler's death, his influence is still felt the world over. Many individuals and

Chapter Nine Does the Individual Really Make a Difference? 217

groups are still attracted to his philosophy and hold him to have been a great leader. Much of the world sees him as a representative of all that is evil in human beings and all that is possible for an all-powerful individual to attain. Most of us would admit that Hitler truly made a difference: Part of it was intentional, part unin tentional.

Hitler, however, was not successful simply because he wanted to change the world. He was a part of history as much as a leader of history. He was a product of German society as much as a molder of German society. Without the right social circumstances, he would not have had the impact he did.

Scholars of history remind us of some of the most important reasons that Hitler was able to come to power: the humiliating peace treaty that ended World War I; the Great Depression, which devas­ tated the German economy; and Germany's paralyzed government, plagued by extremism from all sides. Hitler was a product of many social patterns in German culture, and he appealed to these in his rise to power: German nationalism, militarism, authoritarianism, and anti-Semitism. In large part he came to power and made a dif­ ference because he tapped into and used German cultural patterns.

Hitler also made a great impact on the world because Germany was highly bureaucratized and scientifically advanced. He was able to use bureaucratic principles to organize society, control the popu­ lation, build an efficient military machine, and transport, imprison, and systematically murder millions of people. He was able to use the German scientific community to develop weapons of war that were often superior to those of his enemies.

Without this social context, Hitler would not have risen to power, and his influence on German society and the world would have been impossible. So it is with every influential leader in his­ tory. The individual makes a difference when social conditions are right: Luther, Lenin, Mao, Roosevelt, Lincoln, King, and Gorbachev are individuals who made a difference because society was ready for them.

Ideas sometimes change society, but ideas, too, exist Within a social context. To create new ideas the individual must build on what is known. Great ideas are often a synthesis of the ideas of oth­ ers or the reactions to these other ideas. Newton, Galileo, Coperni­ cus, Darwin, Freud, and Marx are all thinkers who revolutionized how people in society thought, but their ideas were built on those that had gone before. Moreover, the influence of these ideas de­

218 Ten Questions: A Sociological Perspective

pended on conditions in society that encouraged their promulga­ tion. It is not only the "truth" that wins out in society (it mayor may not), but those ideas that have sponsors: groups, communities, social movements, or classes willing to believe and to sell them to others. The ideas of some individuals make a difference, but there is always a social context that helps determine their acceptance or

rejection. Weber's emphasis on the importance of charismatic autpority

in history underlines this point. Those who make revolution tend to exist within certain periods of history when the old world is collaps­ ing, when institutions no longer work well, and when old ideas no longer seem sensible. They rise up because others lopk to them in a world where many are dissatisfied. In short, revolutionary individu­ als make a difference only in a much larger social context that is ripe for their influence. It is probably true that revolutionaries always exist; they come to make a real difference only when the times are such that others are ready for them. They make little difference when few are willing to listen.

It is tempting for the sociologist to discount the impact of the individual on society. Certain individuals do influence other indi­ viduals and do change social patterns. Their impact is sometimes great and cannot be discounted. Yet it is vital to always see these in­ dividuals in a larger social context that (1) helped produce them and (2) madetheir influence significant. This same point can be made of any social organization, be it a group, formal organization, or com­ munity: Certain individuals can make a difference, but they make a difference within a wider social context.

Most Change Results from Social Trends

A fourth principle that most sociologists subscribe to is that much of what we call social change is the result of impersonal social trends over which individual actors have little control. A social trend is change that arises from the actions of many individuals who are at­ tempting to deal with their everyday situations and who act in a similar direction and produce it cumulative effect on society. Few people actually intend to change society, but together their acts do, in fact, cause a change. So, for example, many people today are putting off marriage until they get older; many are deciding to di­ vorce; many are remarrying after getting divorced. These are social trends, very general tendencies shared by many in society. As a re­ sult, society changes. Social trends are themselves caused by even

Chapter Nine Does the Individual Really Make a Difference? 219

larger trends such as industrialization and increasing individualism. They create change in spite of the fact that each actor's influence is unintentional. Important general trends in our society today might include population trends (fertility, mortality, and migration), urbanization, industrialization, increased use of technology, and bureaucratization.

The United States, for example, is experiencing a revolution in computer technology. Indeed, the development of technology-the application of knowledge to solving human problems-has been a rapidly accelerating social trend for at least three or four hundred years. Computers are altering every aspect of our lives, from educa­ tion to music, from diagnosing illness to making war.

Social trends are long-lasting, far-reaching, general develop­ ments that affect all the various social patterns in society. In the long run, such trends are the most important forces for social change. They set an almost irreversible direction for society. Individuals nor­ mally contribute to social change if their acts and ideas are consis­ tent with these trends. Many in society may hate such trends and fight them, but these trends have an inertia; once begun, they take on a life of their own and are difficult to turn around.

Weber (1904-1905) maintains that a social trend he calls "the rationalization of life" is dominating Western societies. Throughout society, he writes, there is increasing reliance on "calculation," "effi­ ciency," "problem-solving," and "goal-directed behavior." This is the meaning of modern life to Weber: Instead of tradition, human be­ ings value reaching goals-organizing themselves most efficiently, making and selling goods in the most profitable way, and calculat­ ing the most effective way of getting what they want. "That's the way we have always done it" is replaced by the ethic of "This is the smart way of doing it. " Tradition is not valued; achieving our goals is. Indeed, Weber argues, neither are we any longer a people com­ mitted to value-oriented behavior; I do what I do not because of commitments to values (such as knowledge, goodness, equality, love, and freedom), but because my behavior is the most rational way of achieving my ends. Weber documents the declining impor­ tance of tradition, values, and feeling as human behavior becomes increasingly rational and calculating. Society is becoming efficient in many diverse ways: We are able to turn out millions of television sets, tons of wheat, and large numbers of college graduates. We are able to provide health care to more people than ever in human his­ tory, and we are able to encourage more people to buy more goods without any cash. We can provide more answers than ever before

221 220 Ten Questions: A Sociological Perspective

as science and mathematics dominate our society, and we find our lives less and less private as computers and bureaucracies are able to monitor what we do.

This is the most important modern trend, according to Weber. Many sociologists agree. Once begun, it is difficult for any individual to turn it around. Individuals may matter in society, but compared with this trend, their influence is minimal. Like most other trends, the rationalization of life is a mixed blessing: It contributes to a better life, but it takes away something important. The rise of calculation challenges mystery and myth. The rise of bureaucracy threatens the small entrepreneur. The dominance of mind deemphasizes feeling. The desire to find the best way of doing something erases the past.

Other trends are identifiable, too, each one important, each one the work of many thousands of individuals going about their busi­ ness in life, trying to rear children, make enough to live on, and do what they have to do. No one person has much impact alone, but together they contribute to the trends. Does the individual really make a difference? It is difficult to say yes when we look at these general trends.

Yet even against remarkable odds, individuals sometimes rise up and make a difference through challenging the trends and estab­ lishing their own. The best example in our lifetime is probably Aya­ tollah RUhollah Khomeini in Iran. He led a social movement that overthrew the shah, who had stood for the rationalization of life (including the liberation of women, secular education, industrializa­ tion, and technological development). The revolution was fought in the name of tradition, Iranian independence from the West, and a return to religious values. At least in the short run it has succeeded. It reversed what seems to be an almost irreversible social trend. Yet it may be simply a rear-guard movement. Over the long run, the ra­ tionalization of life in Iran may resume.

Sodal Patterns Persist

Our final principle is that there is a strong tendency for social pat­ terns to hold on. Think for a moment what a social pattern is. Peo­ ple interact, and over time they develop routines (for example, rules, expectations, and shared views). Those routines come to be estab­ lished and become an integral part of social interaction. One such pattern is that some people become more powerful than others; some have more privileges and prestige than others. A related pat-

Chapter Nine Does the Individual Really Make a Difference?

tern is that roles are established, expectations about how people are supposed to act in their various positions. Some patterns are best thought of as rules-procedures, informal expectations, morals, cus­ toms, and laws-and these become taken for granted in the interac­ tion. People share basic value commitments and a set of beliefs about the nature of reality. They establish certain ways of handling prob­ lems. Such patterns characterize all social organization. The longer and more intense the interaction, the more important and estab­ lished become such patterns.

Such patterns tend to hang on. This is the way we have always done something. This is the way we have always thought. These are the rules we have always believed. The past acts as a force for right. Furthermore, those in society who are relatively well off will spend money, life, and time defending such patterns, which they honestly believe are right. In fact, most of us, no matter how critical we are of the social patterns that make up our lives, fear change, because it may threaten the existence of social organization itself. We hold on partly because we fear we will lose everything if we challenge these basic patterns.

The individual can have an impact on other individuals. The in­ dividual can have an impact on the direction of an organization if he or she works within the patterns of that organization. But basic change-change in the social patterns of organization-is very diffi­ cult to achieve, and it generally occurs for reasons other than the intentional acts of an individual.

Some Implications for LiVing

The last words Weber spoke were, HThe truth is the truth." It was not that he died thinking he knew the truth; far from it. He, more than most others, realized that truth was extremely difficult to know. Instead, his statement reflects his commitment to seeking truth rather than security in ignorance. He understood the discom­ fort of many ideas.

A society develops ideas over a long period, and they become embedded. These ideas we sometimes call culture. It is a people's way of thinking about reality. To grow up in the United States is to confront a set of "truths" taught through our various institutions. These ideas may not be true, .but they are still important to us. One of these ideas is that "individuals can do whatever they set their minds to." This notion is obviously false, but it is an important arti­

222 Ten Ques.tions: A Sodological Perspective

cle of faith for many people. We believe not only that individuals can accomplish what they choose but also that they can have a great impact on others if they choose. Our view of social change tends to be simplistic because of our culture. It is important in our society to focus on the individual rather than on something abstract like social forces; it is important to believe that the individual is responsible for change, rather than sodal trends that no one individual can control.

It is comforting for me to believe that I matter, that what I do will affect others in ways that I want. From the point of view of so­ cial justice, it is important for me to believe that my acts will make a difference. That is how the dvil rights movement was able to achieve what it did: People had a faith that each individual mattered. I like what that movement accomplished, and sitting here at my computer declaring that the civil,rights movement was really the work of or­ ganized groups acting in the right sodal context seems cold and al­ most ruthless.

But that is what sociology teaches me. The truth is the truth, and I should try to understand it as objectively and carefully as pos­ sible, even though it may not be comforting.

Does sociology necessarily lead to apathy? Is one left with no hope for much impact? Does one have to go from a life of wanting to make a difference to a life of hopeless acceptance? Not at all.

Sodology leads one to take a more realistic look at social change and the impact that one can have on others. It helps explain who can have an impact and under what drcumstances; it helps explain why such an impact is so difficult; it warns us that impacts may not be intended. It tells me that I may not be able to change society's system of inequality but that in my own personal relationships I can speak up against racism and injustice and realistically have an im­ pact on those immediately around me. Sometimes this can be my only lasting contribution. Sodology tells me that my greatest impact will be in relation to those over whom I have greatest power. Thus, what I do in relation to my children may matter greatly to their fu­ ture. It tells me that to have any impact on society there has to be power (which I do not have as an individual). So I must contribute my money wisely to movements that represent my concerns, and I must contribute my time and efforts to sodal organizations that are in a position to influence policy in the direction I desire. Sodology tells me to understand that change in the direction I want does not come easily and that I must balance my anger over injustice with realistic expectations. It tells me not to be fooled: Real change is in

Chapter Nine Does the Individual Really Make a Difference? 223

society's patterns. Simply to vote out one individual and bring in another does not mean change. Simply to pass a law for or against something does not change the way in which sodety operates. Fi­ nally, it warns me that change is not usually in the interests of those who succeed, and that if I want it, I must fight those who benefit from the social patterns that exist. In fact, I must realize that if I want change and I am benefiting from the patterns that exist. I will have to make some hard choices.

Far from bringing me to my knees, sociology teaches me a real­ istic view of the relationships between the individual. social pat­ terns, and social change. That view gives me more confidence in what is possible through my efforts.

Summary and Conclusion

Social change is a difficult topic. Frankly, sociologists usually have an easier time describing order.

The individual actor exists within social forces, from those in in­ timate relationships to those in society as a whole. It is easiest to recognize that the individual may influence those other individuals with whom he or she interacts. It is most difficult to understand how it is possible for any individual to have an impact on the society and its social patterns. Some individuals, however, undoubtedly have great influence if they act within a social context that favors such influence and if they have a strong power base. It is important to recognize that attempts to influence society are countered by the power of long-standing social patterns that are normally defended by people who have a stake in those patterns.

When sociologists examine social change, they normally go be­ yond the influence of the individual. Change occurs in every social organization, and it is ongoing and inevitable. It arises out of orga­ nized groups and social conflict. and it tends to be characterized by general sodal trends that no one really controls.

The attempts by sodologists to describe the individual's role in a changing society may not be comforting to many people, but they are realistic and useful for understanding ourselves as social beings.

REFERENCES

These worh focus on sodal change and on the difficulties that stand in the way of the human being in making significant changes in so­

224 Ten questions: A Sociological Perspective

dety. Some of the works examine the massive sodety that confronts the individual.

Aronowitz, S., and W. DiFazio 1994 The Jobless Future: Sci/Tech and the Dogma of Work. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Beeghley, Leonard 1996 What Does Your Wife Do? Gender and the Transformation of Family Life. Boulder, co: Westview Press. Bell, Daniel 1973 The Coming of Post-Industrial Society: A Venture in Social Forecasting. New York: Basic Books.

Bensman, David, and Roberta Lynch 1987 Rusted Dreams: Hard Times in a Steel Community. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Berger, Peter, Brigitte Berger, and Hansfried Kellner 1974 The Homeless Mind: Modernization and Consciousness. New York: Vintage Books.

Blau, Peter M., and Marshall W. Meyer 1987 Bureaucracy in Modern" Society. 3rd ed. New York: Random House.

Blumberg, Paul 1981 Inequality in an Age ofDecline. New York: Oxford University Press.

Blumer, Herbert 1969 Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Caplow, Theodore, Howard M. Bahr, John Modell, and Bruce A. Chadwick 1991 Recent Social Trends in the United States, 1960-1990. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.

Carmichael, Stokely, and Charles V. Hamilton 1967 Black Power. New York: Random House.

Chirot, Daniel 1994 Modern Tyrants: The Power and Prevalence of Evil in Our Age. New York: Free Press.

Chirot, Daniel 1986 Social Change in the Modern Era. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Dahrendorf, Ralf 1958 "Toward a Theory of Sodal Conflict." Journal ofConflict Resolution. 2: 170-18 3. .

Dahrendorf, Ralf 1959 Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Drucker, Peter F. 1993 Post-Capitalist Society. New York: HarperCollins.

Durkheim, Emile 1893 The Division ofLabor in Society. 1964 ed. Trans. George Simpson. New York: Free Press.

Eliade, Mircea 1954 Cosmos and History. New York: Harper and Row.

Ennis, Phillip H. 1992 The Seventh Stream: The Emergence ofRocknroll in American Popular Music. London: Wesleyan University Press.

Ewen, Stuart 1976 Captains of Consciousness. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Fantaskia, Rick 1988 Cultures of Solidarity: Consciousness, Action, and Contemporary American Workers. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Chapter Nine Does the Individual Really Make a Difference? 225

Featherstone, Mike (ed.) 1990 Global Culture: Nationalism. Globalization, and Modernity. London: Sage.

Flacks, Richard 1971 Youth and Social Change. Chicago: Markham Publishing Company.

Gamson, William A. 1968 Power and Discontent. Homewood, lL: Dorsey Press.

Garner, Robert Ash 1977 Social Change. Skokie, lL: Rand McNally.

Gitlin, Todd 1987 The Sixties: Years of Hope, Days ofRage. New York: Bantam.

Goffman, Erving 1961 Asylums. Chicago: AIdine-Atherton.

Gusfield, Joseph 1970 Protest. Reform, and Revolt. New York: John Wiley.

Hardin, Russell 1995 One for All: The Logic of Group Conflict. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Hill, Herbert, and James E. Jones, Jr. (eds) 1993 Race in America: The Struggle for Equality. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Jacobs, Nancy R., Mark A. Segal, and Carol D. Foster 1994Into the Third Century: A Social Profile ofAmerica. Wylie, TX: Information Plus.

Jones, Landon Y. 1980 Great Expectations: America and the Baby Boom Generation. New York: Coward, McCann and Geoghegan.

Katz, Michael B. 1989 The Deserving Poor: From the War on Poverty to the War on Welfare. New York: Pantheon Books.

Kerbo, Harold R., and John A. McKinstry 1995 Who Rules Japan: The Inner Circles ofEconomic and Political Power. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Kornhauser, William 1959 The Politics ofMass Society. New York: Free Press.

Kraybill, Donald B., and Marc A. Olshan {eds.) 1994 The Amish Struggle with Modernity. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.

Larana; Enrique, Hank Johnston, and Joseph R. Gusfield 1994 New Social Movements: From Ideology to Identity. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Lauer, Robert H. 1982 Perspectives on Social Change. 3rd ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Malcolm X and Alex Haley 1965 The Autobiography ofMalcolm X. New York: Grove Press.

Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels 1848 The Communist Manifesto. 1955 ed. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Mills, C. Wright 1956 The Power Elite. New York: Oxford University Press.

Mills, C. Wright 1959 The Sociological Imagination. New York: Oxford University Press.

226 Ten QlJestions: A Sociological Perspective

Olsen, Marvin E. 1978 The Process of Social Organization. 2nd ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Piven, Frances Fox, and Richard A. Cloward 1979 Poor People's Movements: Why They Succeed, How They Fail. New York: Vintage.

Postman, Neil 1992 Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. New York: Knopf. .

Ritzer, George 1993 The McDonaldization ofSociety: An Investigation into the Changing Character ofContemporary Social Life. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

Shibutani, Tamotsu 1961 Society and Personality: An Interactionist Approach to Social Psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Skocpol, Theda 1979 States and Social Revolutions. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Skolnick, Arlene, and Jerome Skolnick 1992 Family in Transition. 7th ed. New York: HarperCollins.

Slater, Philip 1976 The Pursuit ofLoneliness. Boston: Beacon Press.

Smelser, Neil 1963 Theory of Collective Behavior. New York: Free Press.

Starr, Paul 1982 The Social Transformation ofAmerican Medicine. New York: Basic Books.

Sztompka, Piotr 1993 The Sociology ofSocial Change. Oxford: Blackwell.

Toennies, Ferdinand 1887 Community and Society. 1957 ed. Trans. and ed. Charles A. Loomis. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.

Toffler, Alvin 1980 The Third Wave. New York: William Morrow.

Turner, Ralph H. 1968 HThe Role and the Person. W American Journal of Sociology, 84:1-23.

Weber, Max 1904-1905 The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. 1958 ed. Trans. Talcott Parsons. New York: Scribner's.

Weber, Max 1924 The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. 1964 ed. Ed. A. M. Henderson and Talcott Parsons. New York: Free Press.

Winant, Howard 1994 Racial Conditions: Politics, Theory, Comparisons. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Wrong, Dennis 1977 Population and Society. 4th ed. New York: Random House.

zald, Mayer N., and John D. McCarthy (eds.) 1988 The Dynamics of Social Movements. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop.

Zellner, William W. 1995 Countercultures: A Sociological Analysis. New York: St. Martin's Press.