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. Foer, however, does not seem to acknowledge the role of language in the introduction of change in society（I don’t think this is true, but also don’t include it in your intro. you can leave this for your body paragraphs.）. The reason for the assertion is that the author does not delve into a discussion that supports the role of change language.

Wealth 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, “The ability of a powerful group to reward those who agree with it and punish those who don't also distort the marketplace of ideas（Giridharadas is disagreeing with you here. You should address this piece）” (104). If benevolent persons, therefore, came up with programs aimed at social development, they may effectively record gains. It is no doubt that rebellion may crop up during the introduction of programs and subsequent promotional efforts. The advocates（Hm im a little confused what you mean by “rebellion” and “advocates.”Do the “rebels” stop progress from happening?）, 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. The links should, however, be dismissed if they are not based on honesty and the desire t help（Hm how would we know that theyre honest?

） the community. 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 embrace 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 against the oppression（Wouldn’t the corporations NOT want this message to get out?）. In this case, the promoters may label any persons opposed to the planned society progress programs as the beneficiaries of the prevalent oppression（unclear）. 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…”（I think you can find a better quote here） The outcome of labeling would be psychological hostility against the persons opposed to the program initiated by the rich. The observation is that Facebook can be used as an agent of change although the endeavor may require time and effort. 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 context, the rebellion would not be organized based on the rich against the poor to avoid potential counter-rebellion by the wealthy.（Oh ok good observation. I wonder if you can tie this into either Facebook or Giridharadas. Also… isnt’targeting of foreigners BAD?） 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.

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. Consequently, community members may gain the desire for change and the adoption of new programs in order to realize real benefits. 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 wealth 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 this 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（Who? Either contextualize the quote or strip it down to just the necessary piece） 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（Spend more time connecting to the quote. A little unclear how it’s important to this paragraph’s argument.）. 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. In this case, advocacy would be based on 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 backing for the proposed programs.

All in all, the rich and powerful enjoy the opportunity of introducing progress in society through the introduction of their agenda by means of rebellion and advocating for change. In the context, availability of money would imply the ability to reward the people that support them as well . In like manner, the power and riches would also mean their ability to punish the persons that oppose their agenda. To institute rebellion, the promoters may convince community members of the oppression that they have undergone in the past. Moreover, the rich may package themselves in light of possessing expertise in the introduction of changes in a bid to have potential followers to follow them. To register success, the persons need to act politically to persuade community members that they stand to benefit as a result of the programs that are initiated in society.