Change a-comin’
24th May 2009
Jeff Jarvis is just full of interesting ideas. Unfortunately his thinking on the subject of change seems to be curiously incomplete.
There are three responses to change: (1) Resist it, which is futile. (2) Complain about it, which is unproductive. (3) Find the opportunity in it.
Actually, I can think of two more just off the top of my head: (4) suppress it, and (5) control it. These don’t appear to have occurred to him, and absent dealing with them his discussion is fatally flawed.
One might argue that (4) is merely a species of (1), but it isn’t, really; “resist” is passive, whilst “suppress” is active. Anyone can resist, but only those with power can suppress, and that takes it in an entirely different direction. It is of the essence of the conservative personality type to resist change, and when conservative people hold the reins of power, that resistance is often expressed as attempted suppression. (And that has no connection with popular ideas of political ideology — what happened in Eastern Europe in 1989 was a conservative attempt at suppressing change, and was rightly so characterized by the dinosaur media, outraged howls from American “conservatives” notwithstanding.)
That suppression of change never works has embedded itself into popular myth, but it remains a myth nevertheless; the Chinese Emperors successfully suppressed change for centuries, until their society was broken by European technical superiority. That same technical superiority gives any modern state adopting it (North Korea, anybody?) the means to suppress change so long as outside forces refrain from rocking the boat.
Similarly, (5) might arguable be considered a species of (3), but I suggest not. Finding opportunity in change appears to be a “Find the silver lining in every cloud” approach — what the Army calls “embrace the suck”. I see this as qualitatively different from an attempt to control change. Both perspectives view change as inevitable, leaving the only question our response to it; but jumping on the boat is not quite the same thing as attempting to seize the tiller. Jarvis is one of the former, and looks at change in terms of economic opportunity. AlGore and his ilk number among the latter, and their response to change has both economic and political dimensions.
I look forward to Jarvis’s next book, chiefly because I want to see whether this incomplete approach leads him into a defective approach, which I suspect that it might.
May 24th, 2009 at 13:15
Well, yes, I was thinking that (4) was part of (1); ditto (5) in a way. In only a paragraph, I didn’t express it was well as i might have. I’m not talking about any change. I’m talking about the societal change overtaking us as we move from the industrial/mass age to what comes next. I’d say that’s so big that no one can think they can suppress it or control it. That is part of my point: that this change is inexorable, that no one can stop it, and thus that’s why the sane response is to find the opportunity in it.
Jeesh, I haven’t even written the thing yet and you’re already predicting a “defective approach.” Try to be a bit more positive, eh? Your advice is helpful but it’d be better to take expressed helpfully.
May 24th, 2009 at 15:41
“Jeesh, I haven’t even written the thing yet and you’re already predicting a “defective approach.” Try to be a bit more positive, eh?”
If you’ve read my blog at all, you will have by this time realized that I ain’t in the positive business.
I don’t *predict* a defective approach, I suggest the *possibility* of a defective approach, which is a different thing entirely. Anyway, I bought WHAT WOULD GOOGLE DO? and look forward to buying the next one, so give me a break.
“Your advice is helpful but it’d be better to take expressed helpfully.”
It wasn’t advice, it was commentary. It’s not my function to be helpful. Think of me as one of the geese sacred to Juno – just because you don’t like the sound doesn’t mean it would profit you to ignore it.
“I’m talking about the societal change overtaking us as we move from the industrial/mass age to what comes next. I’d say that’s so big that no one can think they can suppress it or control it.”
I agree with you that such a change is coming, and that no one can suppress or control it; where you err is in supposing “that *no one can think* they can suppress or control it” (emphasis added), which is a different thing entirely, and one that I suggest is contradicted by the available evidence.
I also agree that “the sane response is to find the opportunity in it”, but I would also suggest that (a) there are a lot of people out there who don’t do sane response all that well, and (b) there are even more people (and not always the same ones) whose idea of “find opportunity in it” is not necessarily what you might expect. I could be wrong; I’ve been wrong before.
It is my judgment that so far you have exhibited a rather narrow viewpoint. If that’s a knowing and deliberate choice on your part, I have no complaint to make; if it’s because you haven’t given it enough thought, then my advice (worth what you paid for it) is that you do so.
My readers (all, what? 12 of them?) look to me to keep them apprised of interesting stuff happening in the world. What you write is part of that, and I plan to continue referencing it on Dyspepsia Generation. Take whatever action you deem appropriate.