Diversity, Synergy, and Transformative Social Change

Articles | Diversity, Synergy, and Transformative Social Change

Check Out Our Programs

eMail Us for More Info

Social change is simple. Watch!

Adversity as a function of social diversity = Social dysfunction

Synergy as a function of social diversity = Social well-being

Therefore, positive social change requires the transformation of adversity into synergy.

See? That s all there is to it—transformative social change.

OK, let’s break this verbal calculus down to something understandable and doable. Imagine that our goal is to create our world—our local, national, and global communities—into systems that fully support the interdependent physical and emotional well-being of all individuals and peoples. That would be a world without wars, poverty, hunger, homelessness, crime, drug abuse, or oppression.:

Most efforts to date to produce such a world have been attempted by creating—in one way or another—a single and right mold into which you fit or didn’t fit. If you fit by virtue of birthright (e.g., apartheid and other ethnic-based efforts) or assimilation (e.g., how women and people of color can succeed in modern corporate America) you were allowed the benefits of well–being. If you didn’t fit—by birthright or assimilation—you were impoverished, jailed, enslaved, exterminated, or otherwise denied the benefits of social well–being. Current examples of the latter include the ethnic conflicts in eastern Europe; women in many societies; and the poor, hungry, and homeless (most of whom are also ethnically different) of most societies.

It is no news that such fit–or–die efforts at social change either have failed (the former U.S.S.R.), are failing (Bosnia–Herzegovina), or are struggling to survive (the U.S.A.). The sources of their struggles have been their own ineptitude and/or the concentrated challenges and social cost of those who "don t fit." More important, whatever successes fit–or–die efforts have achieved have only been on behalf of those who fit—at best an exclusionary definition of social well–being. Our world is diverse and has proved intractable. Our differences of ethnicity, color, religion, gender, age, sexual orientation, nationality, occupation, and class—to name just a few—are not going to melt away into any singular pot.

To create our world—our local, national, and global communities—into systems that fully support the interdependent physical and emotional well–being of all individuals and peoples, how we deal with the intractability of diversity requires change of a particular nature. The particular form required is transformation.

We know how to change mud into bricks, we know how to change our clothes, and we know how to change a gathering of people into a cohesive group. Transformation is needed when you "change water into wine," "get blood out of a turnip," or get synergy out of diversity rather than adversity. In these latter examples, ordinary change is insufficient. Something is needed beyond the normal formulations and structures of change as defined by our belief systems. That something is transformation which occurs beyond (trans–) the structures (form) of our normal belief systems. To create effective, pervasive, and permanent social change, we must go beyond the forms and structures of our beliefs about diversity. Those forms and structures about diversity, however, are held in our beliefs about power.

Any change requires power, the use of energy; and diversity is a key coin in the realm of power. Therefore, to transform our beliefs and behavior regarding diversity we must transform our beliefs and behavior regarding power. The following adapted from Broom and Klein’s Power, the Infinite Game contrasts our current, finite, and problematic view of power with an alternative, infinite view that would be more supportive of the social change we are after:

The Finite (Current) Paradigm	The Infinite (Alternative) Paradigm
Fundamental supposition: Power is scarce	Fundamental supposition: Power is abundant.
Power is a zero–sum game. No one can win in the long–run.	Power is a positive–sum game. Everyone wins.
The purpose is to establish who is winner	The purpose is to maintain the game and the players.
Differences are used to determine who wins and who loses.	Differences are cause for curiosity and learning.
Diversity is threatening and dangerous; conformity is safe.	Diversity is valued and safe; conformity is a matter of personal choice.
Diversity leads to adversity.	Diversity leads to synergy.
Destroys partnerships through distrust and hostility.	Supports partnerships through curiosity and learning from differences.
Ignorance condemned as different from knowledge.	Ignorance valued as necessary precursor to learning, curiosity and knowledge.
A game played very seriously when individual or group identity is perceived as at stake.	A game to be played well and joyfully, as no one's survival is at stake.
A self–fulfilling prophecy because potential partnerships are temporary and limited.	A self–fulfilling prophecy because potential partnerships are secure and unlimited.
The paradigm of choice when survival is a moment to moment issue.	The paradigm of choice when growth and learning are primary goals.

The belief that power is abundant is a transformation from the belief that power is scarce. Each supposition supports a complete, logically consistent, and very different system of corollary beliefs and behaviors. Highlighted in italics are three beliefs about differences and diversity that are subsequent to the two fundamental suppositions. When diversity is valued and safe, differences can be used as a source of curiosity, learning, and the synergy needed for social change. When differences determine who wins and who loses, diversity is threatening, unsafe, and cause for adversity; and we can never gather the system–wide synergy needed for social change.

Synergy is in evidence when the results of the components of a system working together are greater than the sum results of those components working separately. Synergy can occur only when the components working together are different. The amount of synergic energy possible within a social system is directly proportional to the amount of diversity within that system. If I were to be in a room of clones of me, I would be very comfortable and at ease. However, genius that I am, no learning or synergy could occur because each of us only knows what each of the others know. Hence, the amount of synergy possible is directly proportional to the amount of difference available. So if we have a system full of differences—ethnic differences, gender differences, religious differences, age differences, class differences, etc.—there is a great deal of synergy possible. However, to change the possibility into reality another change is necessary. In the late 1960’s and early 1970’s many cities sponsored charettes in which many components of those communities’ systems came together to figure out what to do about the disenfranchisement and poverty of the inner city African Americans. Not a whole lot came from these charettes where much synergy was possible, but little was actually created. This failing was because they not used their differences as cause to fight over what should be done and who was going to be in charge of what. The amount of synergic energy created for change within a social system is directly proportional to the degree that that system implicitly and explicitly values and learns from its diversity.

The creation of synergy must be preceded by a transformative shift from the Finite paradigm in which "differences are threatening and dangerous" to the Infinite paradigm in which "differences can be used as a source of curiosity and learning." Likewise, "ignorance condemned as different from knowledge" must transform to "ignorance valued as a necessary precursor to curiosity, learning, and knowledge." Only when we perceive power as abundant rather than scarce will we learn to create synergy rather than adversity from our diversity.

There are five principles of synergy in social systems that include the key points made above. They are:

Sufficient resources and energy for substantive change exists within any properly defined system.
Such resources and energy will only be sufficient for substantive change when used synergically.
The amount of synergic energy possible within a social system is directly proportional to the amount of diversity within that system.
The amount of synergic energy created for change within a social system is directly proportional to the degree that that system implicitly and explicitly values and learns from its diversity.
All general components of social systems will willingly contribute to the synergy as they perceive a process sufficient to lead to a practicable possibility of maintaining or enhancing the well-being of that system.

Transforming the use of diversity for synergy rather than adversity is one of several still–developing ideas this writer has regarding the processes of transformative social change. The issues of synergy and diversity are included in item two below and are considered the most important. The others are as follows:

Create a sense of possibility regarding the desired change. Some thinking requires a leap of faith from one fact–of–reality to another fact–of–reality for transformation to occur. However, such a requirement is daunting at best. An intermediate step requiring a sense of possibility regarding the transformation rather than a fact–of–reality is offered. For example, many of the social dysfunctions that we desired to change are seen by many to be part of human nature and thus immutable. "The poor will always be with us," is commonly quoted as a Biblical reference evidencing that work to eradicate poverty, hunger, and homelessness is fruitless. (Such a statement or sentiment, however, could not be found by this author in The Holy Bible.) War is often described as sad, but unavoidable. For transformation to occur the belief that any particular social change is impossible must first shift to a sense that the desired state is possible, though not a fact–of–reality. The consequent room–for–doubt supported allows many more people to become involved in a possible transformation than would be possible otherwise.
Transform the idea that differences are an occasion for overt or covert conflict to the idea that the valuing of differences is required to develop the synergy necessary to create the desired change. This transformation must occur within the change-initiating system before it can occur within the larger system.
Establish the idea that an emphasis on learning about social change is a critical necessity if such change is to be permanent and pervasive. To create effective social change we must emphasize learning as we have little pertinent experience with it. Peter Senge"s The Fifth Discipline urges companies to become organizations committed to learning if they wish to continue to thrive. Likewise, if we are to create thriving communities, the same commitment to learning must prevail. Ironically, we can only learn from our differences and our prevailing paradigm—the finite—has us be afraid of differences.
Engage all the major components of the social system (e.g., corporations, media, government agencies, related not-for-profit organizations, people of low income, etc.) as partners in the desired change and related transformations. This relates to the issue of synergy. Items one and five of the principles of synergy are relevant here. One says that "sufficient resources and energy for substantive change exist within any properly defined system." These are the resources (brainpower, personpower, money, skills, etc.) which must come together synergically if we are to create the solutions to our social ills. Item five says, "All general components of social systems will willingly contribute to the synergy if they perceive a process sufficient to lead to a practicable possibility of maintaining or enhancing the well–being of that system." Many corporations of our social systems perceive getting involved with social change issues as fruitless and a waste of time and money. Accordingly, they stay away or at best provide financial donations to maintain their identity as good citizens. Such mediocre involvement is insufficient to the goals of synergy creation. However, they will involve themselves to sufficient depth if they are presented with some process that they believe could be successful.
Identify the covert and exclusionary processes that maintain the status quo and turn them into overt, inclusionary and modifiable processes. Decision-making is a good example here. In many communities decisions regarding social issues are often made behind the scenes or openly by a very small, but influential group of public and corporate officials. Where a housing project is going to be built or how much funding a homelessness project will receive might be cases in point. Decisions made in this manner not only contravene the democratic process, but also are made with motivations different from those of social well-being. To move such decision-making into an open, inclusive forum provides the opportunity for a broader diversity and a more effective synergy.
Support awareness and management of any shadow issues regarding the change goal. This is a difficult and undocumented issue concerning social change. In essence this idea proposes that we—the have’s of our communities—will not effectively manage the social issues of hunger, homelessness, drug abuse, and criminal violence until we decide to become aware of and manage the hunger, homelessness, self-esteem seeking, and outraged parts of ourselves. In one testing of this idea with a group of middle-class anti-hunger leaders, most acknowledged the existence of these issues within their everyday lives. They mentioned their hunger for fuller love lives, their loss of a sense of neighborhood or extended family, their sense of powerlessness in the face of our bureaucracies, and their rage at the society which has "forced" all these difficulties upon them. These issues within middle America have become shadow issues because we have obeyed the social contract that says we must pretend we are happy because we have so much. As we deny our own unhappinesses, we must as a group blind ourselves to the despondency and needs of the have-not's in our communities. To do otherwise would be to open ourselves not just to their unhappiness, but also our own. In truth, we do not know how to deal with either. And, we cannot learn as long as we keep ourselves blind and in the thrall of the finite perspective of power that says that we dare not speak our anguish for of being seen as different and, all too possibly, a loser.
Identify and transform any other beliefs and assumptions that are in the way of the desired change from hindering beliefs to supporting beliefs. There are many of these. The anti-hunger leaders, while doing an exercise on the assumptions they have that hinder them from inventing the end of hunger, listed: "Corporate America is the enemy," "Poor people are too difficult to work with," and " No one's interested in hunger but us." These highlight just a few of several dozen beliefs of which they became conscious and cited—much to their consternation and excitement for the opportunity for change that such awareness provided them. Clearly, these beliefs had kept them isolated from the larger community including the community they created themselves to serve. They are now actively working at building partnerships with the corporate world, the poor, and the bureaucrats on behalf on creating a system–wide synergy to invent the end of hunger.

The work of transformative social change—transforming how we deal with diversity, delving into our murky shadows, and building system-wide synergies—is daunting if not to mention complex, mystifying, and sometimes terrifying. At the same time it is energizing and enlivening as we give our lives a surpassing meaning. And, as we tackle these task with passion, patience, and persistence we will find ourselves with an enormous sense of humble personal power as we build our world to be one that supports the well-being of all individuals and peoples.