Systemic Reform or Transformation?

The need to restructure “the system” is compelling. The banking industry illustrates why. The Big Bank oligopoly suffocates the economy by draining capital from productive investments into the destructive “paper economy” where the super-rich earn guaranteed profits. We need to break up those megabanks into smaller units and insure that no institution can gamble with taxpayer money. Doing so would fundamentally restructure our financial system.

The same situation applies throughout society. Our social system is primarily geared to making money. Empowering people so they can better fulfill their potential and live good, healthy lives is secondary. The wealthy elite use their wealth to exercise political power for their own benefit. The “revolving door” leads to “crony capitalism.” Our Big Government is mostly concerned about the needs of Big Business.

Most people know this and resent it. The Tea Party taps this anger with its campaign to dismantle the federal government. But only a strong federal government can control Wall Street and other giant corporations that seek monopoly power.

Banks should not be allowed to hold hostage our entire economy. Factories should not be allowed to pollute rivers. Governments should be “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

In fact, people should have a strong voice in the operation of all of our institutions. Students, parents, and teachers should have a strong voice in the operation of schools. Workers should have a strong voice in workplaces. And children should have a strong voice in families. We need to democratize all of our institutions and assure that they serve the common good (as well as earn a profit if that is part of their mission).

To achieve those goals, as individuals we need to constantly improve ourselves so we can better collaborate with others. As Julie Quiroz wrote in the comment thread for “Movement Lies We Tell Ourselves – Post #1”:

I don’t know if the English language has a word for the experience I want to convey: the profound and irreversible moment of growth from the inside that reverberates powerfully forever after; growth that catalyzes the core of what is already there, suppressed or dormant or inactive. Whatever we call it, I believe this growth is real and visible and possible in people and in movements, and that we have the opportunity and responsibility to nurture it with conscious intention.

And as a society, we need to enrich our culture, including our movies, music, and television.

The more we make progress in each arena (personal, social, and political), the better we’ll be able to make progress in others in a positive upward spiral. If we don’t grow in every arena simultaneously, we may be unable to grow in any arena.

When we democratize our entire society, foster ongoing self-improvement (including spiritual growth for those who are so committed), and humanize our culture, we will have reformed our social system.

As a candidate, Barack Obama legitimized “transformation,” a word that many progressives have used to connote major, fundamental, radical, or systemic change. Myself, I’ve used the word frequently, as I did in “Transform America: A Declaration for Action.” But I’ve recently concluded that word is imprecise and counter-productive.

The top Webster’s definition of “transform” is “to change (something) completely.” I don’t see how we can change either ourselves or our society completely. Nor should we try even if we could. The desire to wipe the slate clean, overturn the tables, and start over from scratch is understandable. But it’s wiser to build on what we have.

We don’t change fundamentally. We grow.

Perhaps someday, through steady growth, our society will transform itself, as a caterpillar becomes a butterfly or a species evolves into a new one. But if we knew what transformation was going to look like in advance, it would not be transformation. It would be a product.

So it seems best to focus on what we can see -- concrete improvements rather than abstract ideologies – and see where it takes us.

When we tell people we want to help transform (or convert) them, they often resist, understandably. It often seems arrogant because it is. So, especially since the word transform is not accurate, why use it?

It seems adequate to talk about “systemic reform” that includes ongoing personal growth, social development, cultural enrichment, and political change. For those of us who want to do more than “tinker,” that goal should be sufficient to motivate us.

By focusing on changing what we can change, we can better accept what we can neither escape nor change, be more present and supportive with one another rather than angry and frustrated, and grow compassionate communities that attract others with contagious happiness.