by Kai Gohil U6P
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world."
The Good, The Bad and The Bystander: The Irony of Change
Firstly, this essay would like to note that the proposed 'question' is a statement.
However, technicalities aside, to introduce this question, one must establish why change is necessary.
This essay's interpretation of human nature takes inspiration from Erving Goffman's Presentation of Self (Goffman,1959). Explaining that social situations influence and determine how one may portray oneself. Thus by following this same logic, it can be argued that an individual may portray a facade of thoughtfulness and commitment to their community - placing them in an (attempted) pitch-perfect portrayal. However, sadly enough (even with our own delusion) this is not the case - no one can truly be free from jealousy, greed or avarice.
As established, deception and lies reign through human nature, and thus there is an evident need for change.
On one hand, from a humanitarian and moral perspective this 'question' should be undoubtedly automatically true. And for some part, it is. Socially, the notion of collective efficacy - the shared belief within a group that they can successfully achieve goals and complete tasks - supports this question. As per previous research, collective efficacy between a group can produce increased sporting performance and achievement through the individuals' commitment and conjoint intrinsic motivation to a group cause (Alves et al., 2021). Though this study takes place in a less generalisable, contrived situation (resulting in a slightly reduced ecological validity) the implications outside of soccer hold weight. Additionally, further research into collective efficacy elevates the effect of a small group of thoughtful, committed individuals on both the workplace and community (Brunton-Smith et al., 2018) & (Elms et al., 2022). Therefore it is undeniable a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can (potentially) change the world.
Alternately, and slightly more pessimistically, evidence can be provided to oppose this 'question'. Irrefutably, to say 'Never doubt' is foolish in itself. From a biological perspective, some neurotransmitters (e.g. serotonin) have intensifying effects on doubt, overthinking and anxiety, demonstrating that on a simple biological basis, doubt is inevitable (Griffith & Crowley, 2022). Thus seeing as this doubt is inevitable, is it justified?
Well, as human experience shows, even those with pure intentions cannot help the world. Take the Paris Commune for example, though the Communards intended to revolt against the societal framework and create a more just, fair and egalitarian society. Sadly, the plan was eventually stifled leading to mass brutality and harsher conditions for the Communards - highlighting that not all change as a result of pure intentions is a positive one. In this case, it is thus understandable and justified to have some element of doubt. Nonetheless, it must be noted that while the short-term effects of this effort seemed meaningless, the Paris Commune cemented many vital concepts within French democracy and socialism.
Lastly, and most interestingly, the bystander effect must be addressed. Known as the bystander apathy, this idea demonstrates the diffusion of responsibility by a surrounding witness of a situation - famously, the case of Kitty Genovese identifies how bystanders fail to accept responsibility during emergencies (Manning et al., 2007). This has fascinating implications for the 'question' above - bystanders seemingly oppose the change of those committed individuals - preventing or ignoring social change.
A brief solution, to be explored further in another essay, involves manipulating a bystander's presentation of self to intrinsically motivate them to enhance a sense of collective efficacy and commitment to generate a positive social change.