Excerpts
from:
Quasi-Stationary
Social Equilibria and the Problem of Permanent Change
Chapter
6 in "Human Relations in Curriculum
Change" (pages 39-44)
(From
Kurt Lewin, “Group Decision and Social Change”)
In Readings in Social Psychology
by Theodore M. Neweomb and Eugene L. Hartley, Co-Chairmen
of Editorial Committee, Henry Holt and Co., 1947, pp. 340-44)
The intentional process of radical social change
demands continual tension or crisis. These
may be spontaneous or manufactured. This book helped lay
the foundation for the psycho-social strategies that have
transformed education and culture around the world. Based
on the research begun at Tavistock (England), continued
at the Frankfurt Institute (Germany) then moved to MIT,
Columbia University, Stanford and various tax-funded "Educational
Laboratories" after World War II, it established the
strategies for brainwashing that now permeate our schools,
media and organizations.
See
Brainwashing in America
1.
The Objective of Change.
The objective of social change might concern the nutritional
standard of consumption, the economic standard of living,
the type of group relation, the output of a factory, the
productivity of an educational team. It is important that
a social standard to be changed does not have the nature
of a “thing” but of a “process.” A certain standard of consumption,
for instance, means that a certain action—such as making
certain decisions, buying, preparing, and canning certain
food in a family—occurs with a certain frequency within
a given period.
Similarly, a certain type of group relations means that
within a given period certain friendly and hostile actions
and reactions of a certain degree of severity occur between
the members of two groups. Changing group relations or changing
consumption means changing the level at which these multitude
of events proceed. In other words, the “level” of consumption,
of friendliness, or of productivity Is to be characterized
as the aspect of an ongoing social process.
Any planned social change will have to consider a multitude
of factors characteristic for the particular case. The change
may require a more or less unique combination of educational
and organizational measures; it may depend upon quite different
treatments or Ideology, expectation and organization. Still,
certain general formal principles always have to be considered.
2.
The Conditions of a Stable Quasi-stationary Equilibrium.
The
study of the conditions for change begins appropriately
with an analysis of the conditions for “no change,” that
is, for the state of equilibrium.
From what has been just discussed, it is clear that by a
state of “no social change” we do not refer to a stationary
but to a quasi-stationary equilibrium; that Is, to a state
comparable to that of a river which flows with a given velocity
in a given direction during a certain time interval. A social
change Is comparable to a change in the velocity or direction
of that river.
A number
of statements can be made in regard to the conditions of
quasi-stationary equilibrium. (These conditions are treated
more elaborately elsewhere.7)
(A) The strength of forces which tend to lower that standard
of social life should be equal and opposite to the strength
of forces which tend to raise its level. The resultant of
forces on the line of equilibrium should therefore be zero.
(B) Since we have to assume that the strength of social
forces always shows variations, a quasi-stationary equilibrium
presupposes that the forces against raising the standard
increase with the amount of raising and that the forces
against lowering increase (or remain constant) with the
amount of lowering. This type of gradient which is characteristic
for a “positive central force field” has to hold at least
In the neighborhood of the present level...
(C) It is possible to change the strength of the opposing
forces without changing the level of social conduct. In
this case the tension (degree of conflict) increases.
3.
Two Basic Methods of Changing Levels of Conduct.
For any type of social management, It is of great practical
importance that levels of quasi-stationary equilibria
can be changed in either of two ways: by adding forces in
the desired direction, or by diminishing opposing
forces. [See Force
Field analysis] If a change from the level L1 to L [the
present to a new level] brought about by Increasing the
forces toward L2 (the new level] the secondary effects should
be different from the case where the same change of level
is brought about by diminishing the opposing forces.
In both cases the equilibrium might change to the same new
level. The secondary effect should, however, be quite different.
In the first case, the process on the new level would be
accompanied by a state of relatively high tension; In the
second case, by a state of relatively low tension. Since
increase of tension above a certain degree is likely to
be paralleled by higher aggressiveness, higher emotionality,
and lower constructiveness, It Is clear that as a rule the
second method will be preferable to the high pressure method.
The group decision procedure which is used here attempts
to avoid high pressure methods and is sensitive to resistance
to change. In the experiment by Bavelas on changing
production in factory work (as noted below), for instance,
no attempt was made to set the new production goal by majority
vote because a majority vote forces some group members to
produce more than they consider appropriate. These individuals
are likely to have some inner resistance. Instead a procedure
was followed by which a goal was chosen on which everyone
could agree fully.
It is possible that the success of group decision and particularly
the permanency of the effect is, in part, due to the attempt
to bring about a favorable decision by removing counterforces
within the individuals rather than by applying outside pressure.
...
4.
Social Habits and Group Standards.
Viewing a social stationary process as the result of a quasi-stationary
equilibrium, one may expect that any added force will change
the level of the process. The idea of “social habit” seems
to imply that, in spite of the application of a force, the
level of the social process will not change because of some
type of “inner resistance” to change. To overcome this inner
resistance, an additional force seems to be required, a
force sufficient to “break the habit,” to “unfreeze” the
custom.
Many social habits are anchored in the relation between
the individuals and certain group standards. An individual
P may differ in his personal level of conduct. . . from
the level which represents group standards... by a certain
amount. If the individual should try to diverge “too much”
from group standards, he would find himself in increasing
difficulties. He would be ridiculed, treated severely and
finally ousted from the group. Most individuals, therefore,
stay pretty close to the standard of the groups they belong
to or wish to belong to. In other words, the group level
itself acquires value. It becomes a positive valence corresponding
to a central force field with the... [forces] keeping the
individual in line with the standards of the group.
5.
Individual Procedures and Group Procedures of Changing Social
Conduct.
If the resistance to change depends partly on the value
which the group standard has for the individual, the resistance
to change should diminish if one diminishes the strength
of the value of the group standard or changes the level
perceived by the individual as having social value.
This second point is one of
the reasons for the effectiveness of “group carried” changes’
resulting from procedures which approach the individuals
as part of face-to-face groups. Perhaps one might expect
single individuals to be more pliable than groups of like-minded
individuals. However, experience in leadership training,
in changing of food habits, work production, criminality,
alcoholism, prejudices, all indicate that it is usual
easier to change individuals formed into a group than to
change any one of them separately.” As long as group
standards are unchanged, the individual will resist changes
more strongly the farther he is to depart from group standards.
If the group standard itself is changed, the resistance
which is due to to relation between individual and group
standard is eliminated.
6.
Changing as a Three-step Procedure: Unfreezing, Moving,
and Freezing of a Level.
A change toward
a higher level of group performance is frequently short
lived: after a “shot in the arm”, group life soon returns
to the previous level. This indicates that it does not suffice
to define the objective of a planned change in group performance
as the reaching of a different level. Permanency of the
new level, or permanency for a desired period, should be
included in the objective. A successful change includes
therefore three aspects:
-
UNFREEZING (if necessary) the present level . . .
-
MOVING to the new level . . . and
- FREEZING
group life on the new level.
Since
any level is determined by a force field, permanency
implies that the new force field is made relatively secure
against change.
The “unfreezing” of the present level may involve quite
different problems in different cases. Allport” has described
the “catharsis” which seems to be necessary before prejudices
can be removed. To break open the shell of complacency and
self-righteousness, it is sometimes necessary to bring
about deliberately an emotional stir-up. .
The experiments on group decision reported here cover but
a few of the necessary variations. Although in some cases
the procedure is relatively easily executed, in others it
requires skill and presupposes certain general conditions.
Managers rushing into a factory to raise production by group
decisions are likely to encounter failure. In social management
as in medicine there are no patent medicines and each case
demands careful diagnosis.
One reason why group decision facilitates change
is illustrated by Willerman... . [His study dealt with an
eating cooperative that sought to change from white to whole
wheat bread] When a change was simply requested, the degree
of eagerness varied greatly with the degree of personal
preference for whole wheat. In case group decision, the
eagerness seems to be relatively independent of personal
preference; the individual seems to act mainly as a group
member."
See
also
Kurt Lewin, “Group Decision and Social Change”
and The
Dialectical Imagination
Using
Dissatisfaction (a crisis) for social transformation
and Force
Field analysis
|