Ideology and Planned Social Change: A Critique of Two Popular Change Strategies

Abstract

Social psychology has been a major contributor to the planned social change industry which increasingly influ ences all levels of society from families to corporations. This paper introduces a critique of the technological ethos of the change industry by scrutinizing two popular strategies: Beck hard's organizational development with "enterprise managers" as clients, and Alinsky's community organizing among "have-not" clients. After elaborating a conceptual model for classifying theories of society and social change, the model is applied to the practice of each theorist and each is critiqued. Beck hard is shown to follow a consensus paradigm in his basic as sumptions about individuals and society. Alinsky, on the other hand, is shown to work according to a conflict paradigm, which assumes that conflict is both normal and even desirable. In concluding, the conflict/consensus distinction is critiqued as a false dichotomy, and it is argued that the important ques tion is not which model works better (a technological issue) but rather, how thoroughly one can apply dialectical methods based on assumptions of conflict and continuing historical change. These methods alone offer a partial answer for the complex question of whose values the change agent really repre sents and whether, in the long run, change means progress.