Photo taken from Lifehack.org

Most people I’ve talked with, after thinking about it for a while, have told me that the world needs to change. They might want world peace, the legalization of marijuana, more hot dog stands on Main Street, or even just a few extra dimes in their pocket, but they want change. After talking a bit longer, these conversations also tends to conclude that we, the individuals who see a need for change, need to create the change ourselves somehow. Doing so can be a bit difficult, however, especially when one has no idea where to begin.

Well, a recent lecture by Institute for Humane Studies’ Nigel Ashford convinced me that the place to begin is in deciding how the world is changed. Once we have a theory of social change, we can then begin to create the change we are seeking. Ashford proposes three different theories of social change that I would like to briefly describe here.

First, there is the idea that social change is effected through ideas. This view was held by many of the great economists, such as F.A. Hayek. In fact, Hayek outlines his view of the argument in his excellent article, The Intellectuals and Socialism. There, he argues that scholars create ideas, which are then fed to intellectuals, his ‘second-hand dealers in ideas.’ These include journalists, lawyers, consultants, commentators, analysts, and even some of us bloggers. These people are good at understanding ideas, translating them for easy consumption, and spreading them to the public. The public, Hayek continues, then influences governmental representatives, who then enact policies. Major changes happen both when the public takes hold of the ideas and when individuals in the government enact policy based on those ideas. Keynes also held this view, saying that, “The ideas of economists [a subset of scholars] . . . are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else.”

Second, public choice theorists argue that special interests are what change the world. A small group of people get together who want something in the world to change. They become vocal about their desire for change and are heard by their governmental representatives. The representatives realize that they might have a better chance of getting re-elected if they worked toward the change called for by the special interest group. So, the representatives appease the special interest group, hoping to ensure reelection. This view is not nearly as idealistic as Hayek & Keynes’, but many argue that it is much more realistic.

Third is the view that it is actually the interests of intellectuals that change the world. The argument here states that Intellectuals have an inferiority complex because they work very hard, sharing ideas with the world for less pay than they could get elsewhere. Then, as the intellectual heads home some day, a slacker from the intellectual’s college years drives by in a Ferrari. The slacker went to business school and now makes three to five times the salary of the intellectual. The intellectual feels inferior because, as he perceives it, he is rewarded less for working harder. So, the intellectual works even harder yet to try and spread his ideas to the world. Since the intellectuals are working so hard to spread their ideas, it is their interests which are most prevalent. If the intellectuals are not interested in an idea, it dies. So, because the ideas that interest the intellectuals are so widespread, they are thought to be the best ideas, and they are the ones around which new policies and institutions are built.

These ideas are three of the more commonly used explanations for social change in the world today. As to which one is right, I am not entirely sure, but it would be great to hear your opinions in the comments below. What drives social change, and how do we get involved in effecting it? What do you think?

<>< Josh Rule : : 2008 MCPP Intern