It is a dangerous delusion to believe that we can do nothing significant to improve society. Small groups of committed people can be very effective.
Our televisions show disasters, war, large-scale pollution, and we watch with horror and a good deal of passivity. As a result, while the human heart always harbours some aspiration to help improve the world, we are led to believe that we can achieve nothing significant. This is a dangerous delusion.
A small group of highly committed people can be very effective. Resistance movements have repeatedly shifted the balance of forces with remarkably little human and material means; in dictatorial regimes. Dissidents have maintained the principle of freedom of conscience in spite of their own vulnerability.
Individual initiatives have also made a difference, like the unsung heroes who saved tens of thousands of Jews from extermination during WWII (well documented in The Righteous by Martin Gilbert, 2002) or the largely Quaker-based anti-slavery movement which helped many American slaves escape to freedom though the famous Underground Railroad, and campaigned decisively for abolition.
Political power has traditionally disregarded such movements. Josef Stalin once ironically inquired: “The Pope? How many divisions has he got?” Since then, led by a Catholic union, the Gdansk shipyard’s revolt derailed Poland’s seemingly indestructible Communist power; demonstrations organised by the Protestant Church shattered and brought down the East German Communist regime; Major Ahmad Shah Massoud, commanding groups of poorly-equipped warriors, stopped the Soviet superpower in its tracks in Afghanistan, drained it financially and morally, and was instrumental in ending the Soviet Union.
Ordinary people can make a difference and sometimes change society. Saidie Patterson, at the heart of women’s initiatives for peace in Northern Ireland, was a textile worker; Lech Walesa was a shipyard’s electrician and Vaclav Havel a playwright.
The first step is to commit oneself to such a task, a purely moral choice. In her recent book, philosopher Michèle Ansart-Dourlen shows how diverse were the religious and philosophical backgrounds of those who joined the French Resistance during WWII: Georges Bernanos (Catholic and royalist), Marc Bloch (secular Jewish), Pierre Brossolette (socialist), Jean Cavaillès (Protestant)…
She goes on to identify their common point: an internal urge, a voice stronger than the voice of reason. When Henri Frenay, founder of Combat, the main resistance movement in southern France, was cautioned by a friend, he said: ‘Our efforts may only be a drop in the ocean of war. At least we will have borne witness to a cause, and don’t you believe that there is a price to pay to be at peace with your conscience?’
Once decision is made comes the need to define a strategy and find or build a network.
A network is an informal but high-quality web between people who share the same goals. These links give strength to organisations aiming to bring about change. The role of the Quaker network in turning the tide against slavery is a good example. Initiatives of Change has long practised a form of sharing and exchange that lets friendship mature, trust grow and commitment develop. This is an asset that can be relied upon in finding creative solutions amidst crisis.
Building a network to foster change takes dedication. A trade unionist friend used to meet friends twice a week for a very early breakfast before taking on his shift at the Paris metro maintenance workshop. For ten years I have benefited from the flawless faithfulness of a friend for less early, but no less precious, meetings. These times of open sharing of convictions, projects, difficulties and questions represent an investment of time and personal risk. You unveil intimate thoughts, but receive in proportion to what you give. This is an indispensable part of building trust.
There is much that the individual can do. Anyone can contribute, no matter what his or her qualifications, if backed by a network of trusted friends. There are no guaranteed results, but is that not true of everything we endeavour? Confronted with the need for change, it is better to take a chance on success rather than get bogged down in the status quo.
NOTE: Individuals of many cultures, nationalities, religions, and beliefs are actively involved with Initiatives of Change. These commentaries represent the views of the writer and not necessarily those of Initiatives of Change as a whole.
English