Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Stages of change

  1. #1
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX, ,
    Posts
    496

    Post imported post

    I did not by any means do much research on this; this is just some thinking on paper. Feel free to comment as desired.

    After thinking about the

    * Recognition - A group of people, of any size,realizes the need for a change in some area of the status quo.

    * Education/"Preaching" - This group, through words, sends out a message calling for such change.

    * Growth - Others hear or read the message, agree with it, and lend their support to the cause.

    * Push - The group, having reached significant numbers, turns their voices to the people in power, generally from the ground up, but going over heads if need be. Shows of strength or support become very public, and begin including influential figures.

    * Backlash - People in power, or other significant interest groups,do not want change and argue against it. They begin their own education and growth movements counter to the group that wants change.

    * Conflict - Once the Pushing and Backlashing sidesare established, Education and Growth is pursued by both sides in order to strengthen their voice, and pushing and backlashing increases. Conflict can be verbal, political or physical.

    * Limited Change - The powers that be, hoping to appease both sides and generally after some very public occurrence that sways popular opinion, call for small changes to the status quo. This could be an acceptable solution to both sides, or one or both sides could say it is unacceptable. Either way, the group calling for change is at this point making actual progress in achieving their goals.

    * Full Change - People in power, afraid of losing popular support in the face of a large movement acting for change, call for those under him to take action to make all the requested changes.

    * Unacceptance - Those responsible for making the changes actually happen are hesitant to change. They may disagree with the idea behind the changes, or think the changes will be too difficult. Though policy changes, it is largely ignored.

    * Limited acceptance - Through further action by the group and now the people in power, those who implement policy are encouraged or downright forced to make the called-for changes. Resistance can still be strong in some places, while it begins happening very rapidly in others.

    * Full acceptance - The changes are now part of the new status quo, fully implemented at all levels of government and society. Resistance is disapproved of and thus minor. However, this can lead to the cycle starting over going the other way, pushing for a return to "the good old days".

    These stages are by no means static or sequential, and are certainly not global in scope. The fact that we have 50 states with 50 differing levels of gun laws and acceptance by enforcers of such laws demonstrates that. But, these stages seem to be evident at least from State to State when looking at various pushes by advocacy groups, such as for civil rights, women's lib, and now for gun rights.



  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Springfield, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    737

    Post imported post

    Looks pretty good to me, Liko81.I thinkthe American Revolution seemed to pretty much match the steps *Recognition through *Conflict. I'm not quite sure how to correlate it after that, other than your model appears to outline the non-revolution progression .

    I guess the progression of the stages depends on the number of people involved in each. Obviously, if you don't have enough *Growth, you can't *Push too much to get your way. If the *Backlash is too strong, and the *Growth was insufficient, it can overwhelm the *Push-ing.

    The *Limited Change stage assumes that the people in power are reasonable and not invulnerable. What if it's a dictator?Thankfully, in this country we have elected officials we can vote out if their ideals are unpopular with the majority of voters, or even recall themif they screw up enough. However, if the group wanting the change cannot convince the majority of the voting populace that the elected official(s) in power is wrong, and no compromise is possible, it's a stalemate. What can be done to progress to the next stage in that case?

    ...Let's make it a "Choose Your Own Adventure" type flowchart ...
    ...Orygunner...

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    Orygunner wrote:
    Thankfully, in this country we have elected officials we can vote out if their ideals are unpopular with the majority of voters, or even recall themif they screw up enough. However, if the group wanting the change cannot convince the majority of the voting populace that the elected official(s) in power is wrong, and no compromise is possible, it's a stalemate. What can be done to progress to the next stage in that case?
    Get away from this silly notion of democracy... the rule of fools by fools.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •