Should We Change?
There is something to be said for the frequently cited- you are prefect just as you are. A sense of pride in your identity can provide you with resilience and a sense of agency, you are not easily blown around by the identity and beliefs of others.
However, it is also limiting to believe that we do not need to change. This perspective robs us of the chance to adapt and evolve. Adapting and evolving are not just the domain of self-improvement, they are essential to keep us in tune with an evolving external environment. If we do not adapt in line with environmental changes then we can come into conflict with our surroundings and lose touch with them. Therefore, being prepared to change as a person is not just about self-improvement it is about real-world attunement (Thompson, 2014).
Consider it through an example. You work for a company and thrive under the leadership of your current Head of Department. However, this person decides to move on and is replaced by someone with a different leadership style. The new leader is effective, but you do not feel as comfortable at work. If you stay and do not adapt you will quickly become demotivated as you run into conflict and frustration with the way things are now, compared to how they used to be. If you stay and adapt, you may learn and develop news ways of working which you previously did not have access to. If you decide to leave and seek out an organizational culture which is like what life was like under your former leader, then you get to experience a new environment and relationships.
The first option does not sound optimal. The second two options offer chances to evolve and develop, but only if there is an aspiration to change (Callard, 2017). If there is not an aspiration to change, to become better fitted to the environment (Vervaeke et al, 2012) there can be a cognitive atrophy; energy is spent on exhausting conflict. The problem with the first approach is that it is easy to think that the environment should evolve to adapt to your beliefs, and this quickly leads to isolation and resentment; this is the opposite of wisdom (Grossmman, 2017).
The notion that we do not need to change has some links to Descartes (Descartes, 1999). To crudely condense Descartes, the separation of mind and body, placed a focus on rational methods; you do not need to change to better fit to the world, you just need a scientific method. This left the development of the self in a cull-de-sac. The transformation of the self could be put aside in search of scientific enquiry. Although this approach has led to some phenomenal discoveries it leaves the self-grasping for “life hack” methods at the expense of greater levels of participation with our own minds, others and the environment.
Acknowledging that we need to change is not to condemn who we are, our beliefs and our character. It is acknowledging that no matter what we do, the world around us will change. People will change, culture, organizational structures and the nature of our relationships. If we aspire to continually transform to become fitted to our environments we can participate with the environment as it goes through its inevitable transformations (Verveake, et al, 2012). This means co-producing our environments, not seeking to control, subdue or fight with it.
Reading
Descartes, R (1999) Discourse on Method and Related Writings.
Callard, A (2017) “Proleptic Reasons” Oxford Studies in Meta-Ethics, vol. 11
Grossman, I (2017) Wisdom and How to Cultivate It. Review of Emerging Evidence for a Constructivist Model of Wise Thinking. European Psychologist. Vol 22, Issue 4, October.
Vervaeke, J and Ferraro, L, (2012) ‘Relevance, Meaning, and the Cognitive Science of Wisdom’ in in Michel Ferrari and Nic Westrate (eds) The Scientific Study of Personal Wisdom: From Contemplative Traditions to Neuroscience, pp. 21-51, Springer.
Thompson, E (2014) Mind in Life. Belknapp Harvard.
