Can Thinking Small Change the World?

Recently Dr. James Emory White wrote an article entitled Archery Moms in which he commented on the work of Mark J. Penn and E. Kinney Zalesne in their new book, Microtrends: The Small Forces Behind Tomorrow’s Big Changes. On the weight of Dr. White’s recommendation, I purchased a copy for myself. He was right; “every now and then, something truly worth noting comes along” in the world of cultural analysis and Penn’s work is certainly worth noting.

Mark Penn is widely regarded as one of the most perceptive pollsters in American politics. You may recall that it was Penn who identified “soccer moms” as a crucial constituency in President Clinton’s 1996 reelection campaign. The unique feature of Penn’s approach is that he looks for and has been able to identify, with some success, small patterns of behavior that wield great influence in our culture. According to Penn, “Microtrends is based on the idea that the most powerful forces in our society are the emerging, counterintuitive trends that are shaping tomorrow right before us… In fact, the whole idea that there are a few huge trends that determine how America and the world work is breaking down.”

Penn points out that “changing lifestyles, the Internet, the balkanization of communications, and the global economy are all coming together to create a new sense of individualism that is powerfully transforming our society. The world may be getting flatter in terms of globalization, but it is occupied by 6 billion little bumps who do not have to follow the herd to be heard…. In fact, by the time a trend hits 1 percent, it is ready to spawn a hit movie, best-selling book, or new political movement. The power of individual choice is increasingly influencing politics, religion, entertainment, and even war.” Penn summarizes his observations as follows, “In today’s mass societies, it only takes 1 percent of the people making a dedicated choice—contrary to the mainstream’s choice—to create a movement that can change the world.”

I find this assertion intriguing. It seems to run counter to everything we have come to think and believe about cultural change. I think we tend to believe that in order to effect long term change, there must be a massive shift in thinking or behavior that becomes the majority consensus before real change can occur. In other words, we seek grand initiatives that promise sweeping results and we’re generally not interested in anything less. I think this might explain, in part, why we gravitate to and often stop at politics.

Political parties promise grand initiatives aimed at this or that problem with the implicit promise of producing sweeping changes in the status quo. However, sweeping changes rarely occur and what we often discover is that the only real “sweeping” needed is that of sweeping wishy-washy politicians from office.

Practically speaking, politics offers an easy way to respond to our social and cultural problems. All we have to do is vote periodically, support a particular candidate or party, and sign the occasional petition.

However, given the massive complexities of a large-scale society such as ours, doesn’t this strike you as rather simplistic? How do these political activities actually shape the philosophy of public education or the philosophical worldview on our nation’s college campuses? How do these activities work to shape jurisprudence, or form the sexual ethics of society, strengthen the social commitment to marriage, or resist the cultural shift toward redefining marriage altogether? How do these activities counter the scientific worldview that reduces life to its utilitarian purposes or redefines the meaning of human dignity? How do these activities actually shape any ethical matter? Finally, how do these political activities recover an all-encompassing understanding of reality as revealed in the person of Jesus Christ? These are the questions that earlier formed the basis for today’s political positions.

Don’t misunderstand what I’m saying—I’m not suggesting that we stop participating in the political process. I am suggesting that we have to do that and much, much more. The fact is, by the time the aforementioned issues manifest themselves in the realm of public policy it’s too late. The ideas that produced these points of conflict in politics began long before and the process of affecting real change occurs over a generation or more -- not in one political term.

Abraham Lincoln made this point quite succinctly when he said, “The philosophy in the classroom of this generation is the philosophy of government in the next.” Holocaust survivor, Dr. Viktor Frankl underscores this point even more powerfully:

I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and in lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers.