English Wrting

Social Progress: Use of Change and Rebellion by the Rich and Powerful People

The rich and powerful play a leading role in the initiation and perpetuation of progress in society. The groups of people contribute to change in myriad ways, which include advocacy for the progress and initiation of projects and programs that steer change. It is worth noting that the wealthy adopt different approaches to enhance the progress. After all, no standard(s) suffices for the introduction of progress in society and change-makers enjoy the liberty to experiment with different techniques. Social progress is indeed possible when the rich and powerful use the language of change and rebellion for their agenda.

Richness and power imply the ability to influence following and loyalty. To achieve the end, the categories of people may bribe people with money and other goodies to have potential followers to subscribe to their ideas. According to Giridharadas (104), “The ability of a powerful group to reward those who agree with it and punish those who don't also distorts the marketplace of ideas.” If benevolent persons, therefore, came up with programs aimed at social development, they may effectively gain following. It is no doubt that rebellion may crop up during introduction of programs and subsequent promotional efforts. The advocates, however, would stand a good chance of overcoming the rebellion through monetary influence to gain a following of community members. It is also worth noting that the rich are usually well connected and, therefore, have access to other influential people such as community leaders. In the quest of the power to succeed, they may establish links with opinion makers in society and have them support their agendas for convenience. Implementation of social progress programs may also require the adoption of legislations that sanction the activities therein. In the context, the connectedness that the rich enjoy may imply links to legislators in the concerned territories. In the case, the former may influence the latter to have the passing of favorable legislations occur and the ensuing commencement of the intended programs. In case the ambitious community programs require imported resources, in the form of capital and manpower, the persons spearheading the programs would, as well, have the capability to make the necessary imports. In general, the fact that social progress is being led by the wealthy and powerful implies a high likelihood of success owing to the availability of requisite resources and the much-needed influence.

The aspect of rebellion may contribute to the success of community progress programs initiated by the rich and powerful. In the context, the promoters of progress would devise strategies to have community members buy into the predetermined rebellion. One such strategy would be the creation of the narrative that the poor have long been oppressed by the current regimes and that it was the time that they rose up against the oppression. In this case, the promoters may label any persons opposed to the planned society progress programs as the beneficiaries of the prevalent oppression. In like manner, the promoters may argue that they seek to bring to an end the lack of transparency. To highlight the need and difficulty to achieve transparency, Foer (106) argues that, “To get people to this point where there's more openness-that's a big challenge…” The outcome of labeling would be psychological hostility against the persons opposed to the program initiated by the rich. In like manner, the purported victims may rally may steadfastly rally behind the initiated programs as a way of rebelling against oppression. The rich may also base rebellion on the factor that the current dominant persons in society are not natives of the society but foreigners. In the scenario, the lead rebels would claim that the foreigners are not well versed with the challenges that persons in the society experience and neither do they understand the society’s most pressing needs. Moreover, the rebellion may be based on the argument that the non-natives seek to transfer the benefits realized from prevalent programs to their regions of residence while leaving locals with little or no share of benefits. In the same breath, it may be possible to base rebellion on a lack of adequate knowledge and expertise on the part of the prevalent society leaders. Foer (106) reinforces the idea by arguing that, “Over the last two hundred years, the West has been unable to shake an abiding fantasy; a dream sequence in which we throw out the bum politicians and replace them with engineers-rule by slide rule.” In the context, the assertion may be that materiality of the current development programs is in question.

Employment of the language of change may also potentially contribute to the success of the society progress programs. It is worth noting although people are usually afraid of change, they love it deep down their hearts. One requirement for people to embrace change would be encountering a convincing person that offers to spearhead the change. The rich and powerful would, therefore, need to package themselves in light of possession of knowledge, expertise and experience in supervising and implementing change. In like manner, they should seek the support of influential people in society in a bid to have them rally community members behind the proposed change. In the endeavor, the emphasis would be the provision of adequate knowledge for the avoidance of any among community members and the opportunity for the members to support the change without reservations. Conversely, the powerful persons with an agenda would have to make community members believe that they have not recorded significant progress, at personal levels, under previous and current programs. Giridharadas (97) argues that “The second step is to personalize the political. If you want to be a thought leader and not dismissed as a critic, your job is to help the public see problems as personal and individual issues rather than collective and systemic ones.” The message line would, undoubtedly, prompt society members to appreciate the need for change in order to realize meaningful progress in society.

The rich and powerful may also succeed in their agenda through the placement of emphasis on the benefits that people would stand to reap from the proposed programs. In the case, the promoters may highlight increased employment opportunities, which imply income and the subsequent capability to live a fairly quality life. Giridharadas (89) provides that “An essay he wrote to promote his book on resilience argued that the world should focus less on rooting out its biggest problems, including poverty and climate change, and more on living with them.” The other aspect of benefit may be access to basic social amenities in the form of the proposed program’s initiative. In like manner, the promoters may predict a possible influx of persons to the identified localities in pursuit of employment opportunities, the implication of which would be a high population. Notably, the high population may lead to mean the possibility of the establishment of businesses due to the availability of buyers. The other potential benefit on which advocacy may be based would be enhanced access to knowledge and information for the opportunity to engage in self-employment and/or making informed choices. Furthermore, promoters may promise community members that the new programs, being promoted, will involve members in decision making owing to the latter’s vital position as stakeholders in society. Notably, every person would like to be valued and esteemed and the promise may potentially attract a backing for the proposed programs.

At the same time, I have been thinking about a potential problem.（ok this is IMPORTANT. dont save this for the end. introduce earlier） Are Critics and thought leaders also belonging to the rich? This is an issue that can be scary if you think carefully. Personally, I believe that if they are on the opposite side, monitor each other, and advance each other, it will be beneficial to society. But if they come from the camp of the rich, can we think that their public words and deeds are ultimately for their own benefit? For example: As an ordinary person, I can't directly define what Amy Cuddy does（what do you mean here? i think this is crucial. you can use Amy Cuddy as an example for your claims.）. At least it seems that she is trying to help women improve their self-confidence. But we do not know whether her behavior in public is for her personal purposes. For most countries in the world, class solidification is already an obvious issue. Most people live in a world set by a small number of people. Of course, there will always be someone who will stand up and make changes for most people's issues, whether he or she belongs to Critics or Thought Leaders.

The red words are also the feedback.

And by online meeting, professor said: You could find the bad sides or bad things which Facebook or Zuckerberg did. Make it to critical thinking. It’s like: I do agree that we need this kind of platform though they do something bad.