Many scholars support the idea that all we need to do to solve the world’s problems is to reform what we currently do and just promote more laws and regulations to curb humanity’s worse tendencies. As a broad generalization, many reformers perceive that humans will only behave sustainably if they are required to do so. I have talked often about the need for transformation to reach a sustainable society. I do believe that humans are inherently good and have an inner drive to collaboratively work with others. Look at two-year old’s playing together. They notice differences with each other but don’t let those differences interfere with what they are doing together. Those two-year old’s that throw tantrums are usually either comforted by the group, or if the child is uncooperative, they are simply isolated. I believe (and lots of research supports my belief) that humans are hard-wired to be empathic and collaborative. It is when “we are carefully taught” to create separation and differences that our worldviews create enmity, hatred, destructive competition, and inequities. I have said this before. It is not about all of us being Pollyanna-like and being perfect together. We have as many perceptions of reality as there are people on the planet, but it is the uniqueness of everyone that binds us together.
Any transformations that will occur in our society to move towards sustainable living will be organic in nature – that is, I do believe they will happen naturally as they need to happen to function within any given ecosystem and with whatever cultural themes are dominant in any given area. That said, there are certain characteristics that they will all share – principles, if you like. (I cover this is my Principles of Sustainable Living book.) Humanity lived for many millennia in tribal situations that were uniquely adapted to their environments, but if were to look at any ancient, or even remaining, tribal culture you would also see several characteristics that they shared – see previous posts (e.g. Reframing and Visualizing a New Society 1-3). We have to move away from this destructive competitive society to a constructive cooperative society. I very much doubt we can reform our way there, it will have to be something transformative. It is the transformation that scares people, because it will be a very different kind of way of living than what we take for granted at the moment. Yet, it will also be one we like, although those people who currently live very well in the current system may feel as though they are initially losing something. While these people are not the hierarchy, they are still somewhat elite in how much money they have to live a certain level of lavishness, indulgence, and wastefulness. In Adopter theory (Diffusion of Innovations) I would refer to these people as late majority or even laggards. The adopter categories below are adapted from my Environmental Communication book.
Adopter distributions in most populations follow a bell-shaped curve from Innovators to Laggards – category names are merely descriptive and not a judgment value. The categories are about how people adopt new ideas and technologies. They really just give us insights into how a population behaves with new ideas:
- Innovators (2.5% of the population) –These venturesome few are the vanguard for new ideas and behaviors. They tend to initiate ‘new things’ and take social risks in their adoption of new ideas. They are also information seekers getting their information from primary sources, or may even be sources of new information. While they are trendsetters, they are rarely used as advice-givers. Rather, others look to them and imitate.
- Early Adopters (13.5%)—This segment is respected by others as being continually innovative and ready to try new things, especially when it improves their lives in some way. They include both formal and informal leaders of organizations with social influence. Both innovators and early adopters prefer hard evidence and factual accounts over unverified anecdotes. They also are the kind of people compelled to try new things. They are trendsetters and also recommenders.
- Early Majority (34%)—This large segment is deliberate in their decision-making about new ideas and trends. They include many informal ‘quiet’ leaders with influence within smaller social groups and small communities. Though they are opinion leaders, they are viewed as discriminating by others. They do not accept, or even test, every new idea they come into contact with. Their information sources are commonly family, friends and mass media, in that order. As such they will readily follow what they see works and that fits their lives.
- Late Majority (34%)—A skeptical group, the late majority usually adopts only established ideas. They have conservative lifestyles and learn much of their information from acquaintances, friends, and family, rather than mass media. They dislike change that especially is disruptive. They are cautious about innovations, and are highly reluctant to adopt new ideas until most of society has already done so. An innovation must definitely have the weight of system norms behind it to convince the late majority.
- Laggards (16%)—These people define the term ‘traditional.’ They adopt ideas very reluctantly and only after they are unable to avoid change. They perceive great social risk in new things. Friends and family of the same social station are their primary sources of information. Sometimes they ignore change agents and rebel if forced to try and adopt something with which they do not identify.
As you look at these categories, ponder where you fit as I talk about Sustainable Living. Since you are reading this blog I would say that you are in the first three categories. Note how the innovative ones are the first 50% and the resistant ones to change are the second 50%. Once transformation occurs and is established as workable, then the shift will occur rapidly, but until then expect resistance to this change from all manner of people around you, especially the ones who live well in the current system. That is why I talk about just abandoning the elites and doing our own thing. It will be an interesting transition. I see it as peaceful if not a little heavy on the laggards being vocally resistant. It may resemble the ‘Hippy’ movement for a while – the great conformity versus the great non-conformity (see previous post Why we stay in the rut 2 – A Reality Check). A lot of people ask me if there are any models of new ways of living that we could study as we make this transformation begin. Actually, yes. TBC……
0 Comments