Tag: social sciences

Categories
06. Unifying Folk Theories of Social Change through Margaret Archer's Morphogenetic Cycle

Unifying “Folk Theories” of Social Change Through Margaret Archer’s Morphogenetic Cycle

Introduction

The internet is brimming with intuitive “folk theories” of social change, often shared on platforms like LinkedIn, YouTube, and personal blogs. These theories, ranging from grassroots mobilisation to social entrepreneurship, typically reflect a genuine desire to address societal and environmental concerns. However, they often appear fragmented, competing, or anecdotal, and can be dismissed for lacking rigorous scientific backing.

Yet “folk theories”, although lacking academic foundations, should not be dismissed. Frequently, they are based on the empirical observation of real-world events and draw on their proponents’ practical experience of dealing with them.

What if these theories could be unified under a scientific framework? Margaret Archer’s Morphogenetic Cycle, a sociological model explaining how social structures, cultural systems, and human agency interact over time to yield social change, provides just such a foundation. By grounding these “folk theories” in Archer’s model, we can see them not as disparate or competing ideas but as complementary strategies in the dynamic process of societal transformation.

Archer’s Morphogenetic Cycle: A Quick Overview

Margaret Archer’s Morphogenetic Cycle is a framework for understanding how structure (societal organisation), culture (our values norms and beliefs), and agency (our ability to make decisions and act on them) interact to bring about either social stability (morphostasis) or change (morphogenesis). The cycle comprises the perpetually ongoing repetition of four key components:

  • Structural and Cultural Conditioning: Existing social structures (e.g., institutions) and cultural systems (e.g., norms, values) shape the opportunities and constraints for individual human action.
  • Individual Reflection: individuals reflect on these opportunities and constraints deciding whether they support them or wish to alter them.
  • Social Interaction: Human agents, individually or collectively, act within and upon social structures and cultural systems. Their actions can reinforce the status quo or challenge it.
  • Structural and Cultural Elaboration: As a result of these actions, structures and cultures are either reproduced (stability) or transformed (change).

This cycle allows us to see how individual and collective actions contribute to societal transformations over time.

Folk Theories: Intuitive Strategies for Social Change

On platforms like LinkedIn, countless individuals and organisations promote strategies for social change, often without connecting them to established scientific theories. These include:

  • Personal Empowerment and Leadership: Advocating for individual growth as a precursor to societal transformation.
  • Grassroots Mobilisation: Encouraging community-based action to address systemic issues.
  • Social Entrepreneurship: Combining innovation with profit motives to tackle social problems sustainably.
  • Digital Activism: Leveraging online platforms to amplify voices and drive awareness.
  • Conscious Consumerism: Using ethical consumption to push corporations toward social responsibility.
  • Mindfulness and Cultural Transformation: Promoting inner change to inspire collective shifts in values and beliefs.
  • Network Building and Collaboration: Creating alliances across sectors to drive unified action.

While these approaches can be labelled as “folk theories” and critiqued for lacking scientific rigor, they align closely with Archer’s model.

The Unifying Power of the Morphogenetic Cycle

When viewed through the lens of the Morphogenetic Cycle, these strategies are not random or competing but rather complementary tools for leveraging different phases of societal change:

  • Personal Empowerment and Leadership focuses on building agency, a foundational element of Archer’s model, enabling individuals to act within and upon social structures.
  • Grassroots Mobilisation emphasises collective agency, where groups challenge structures and initiate morphogenesis.
  • Social Entrepreneurship introduces innovative ideas that reshape cultural norms and structural systems, contributing to structural and cultural elaboration.
  • Digital Activism amplifies agency and accelerates cultural morphogenesis by spreading new values and narratives.
  • Conscious Consumerism enables individual choices to cumulatively drive structural adjustments and the transformation of existing systems.
  • Mindfulness and Cultural Transformation directly addresses cultural conditioning, altering values and beliefs to prepare society for deeper systemic change.
  • Network Building and Collaboration strengthens collective agency and creates synergy across sectors, making structural and cultural elaboration more impactful.

By recognising these connections, we can move beyond fragmentation and foster collaboration among the proponents of “folk theories”, uniting their efforts under the scientifically grounded Morphogenetic Cycle.

Morphostasis or Morphogenesis: The Choice is Ours

Not all societal transformations are progressive. Without coordination, these strategies can work at cross-purposes or fail to achieve meaningful impact. By understanding the Morphogenetic Cycle, we can:

  • Avoid Fragmentation: Proponents of “folk theories” can see their strategies as complementary rather than competing.
  • Encourage Collaboration: Networks of activists, entrepreneurs, and thought leaders can align their efforts to maximise impact.
  • Target Specific Phases of Change: By identifying where a society stands in the Morphogenetic Cycle, efforts can be tailored to either challenge existing systems or reinforce positive stability.

Call to Action

To the proponents of “folk theories” promoting social change: your strategies have value and intuitive wisdom. By connecting them to Margaret Archer’s Morphogenetic Cycle, you can deepen their impact, gain credibility, and collaborate more effectively.

To researchers and educators: help bridge the gap between theory and practice. By making the Morphogenetic Cycle more accessible, you can empower these change-makers with a scientific framework for their work.

Social change is a complex, dynamic process. The more we understand and collaborate, the more effective we will be in shaping a society that reflects our shared values and aspirations. Together, we can transform fragmented folk theories into a unified movement for meaningful change.

If you are interested in being a part of this, then please join the Motivational Reflexivity Network on LinkedIn or Facebook where you can learn more about the Morphogenetic Cycle and begin the conversation.

https://www.linkedin.com/groups/13114517/

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1486884782057726

Categories
05. Guidance for Trainers

Motivational Reflexivity: Guidance for Trainers

Guidance for trainers in Motivational Reflexivity is now available for free download at:

https://rational-understanding.com/my-books#guidance-for-trainers

https://www.academia.edu/125567212/Motivational_Reflexivity_Guidance_for_Trainers

Your comments, criticisms and suggestions for improvement are, of course, welcomed.

Ideally, before embarking on the training of others you should read the Guidance for Practitioners and also gain some experience of the practice yourself.

Categories
01. Are the Social Sciences Scientific?

Are the Social Sciences Scientific?

Scientific inquiry is a process that enables us to gain new knowledge with greatest likelihood of it being correct. As a starting point, a hypothesis, i.e., a proposed explanation of a phenomenon based on limited evidence, is proposed. This hypothesis is then tested by experiment, by gathering data, or by reference to existing experiments and data. If this supports the hypothesis, then it is proposed as a theory, the research is written up, subjected to peer review or checks by other specialists in the field, and published.

Together, the accepted theories and the way in which they are developed form a paradigm. Wikipedia defines a paradigm as “a distinct set of concepts or thought patterns, including theories, research methods, postulates, and standards for what constitute legitimate contributions to a field.” An initial hypothesis is usually consistent with other theories in the prevailing paradigm, but sometimes not.

The philosopher of science, Thomas Kuhn, argued that science does not progress in a linear manner, but that the prevailing paradigm is relatively resistant to change, and undergoes periodic revolutions when the amount of contradictory evidence reaches a critical mass. In part, this resistance is brought about by human nature. I think it is fair to say that scientists and academic organisations are more objective than most. Nevertheless, they are still human, and the following traits will tend to introduce a bias in favour of the existing paradigm.

At the level of the individual, considerable effort is put into developing a theory. It becomes a part of his or her mental schema and is resistant to change. Furthermore, reputation and livelihood depend on any theory promoted as being correct. There will, therefore, be a personal vested interest in its acceptance and a resistance to any challenges. Obviously, acceptance is more likely if it is consistent with the prevailing paradigm.

Every organisation, including academia, is organised hierarchically, i.e., there are higher status individuals who command groups of lower status ones, and this assembles into a pyramidical structure. This structure is maintained by a process of trade or negotiation. Typically, a senior may delegate some of his power, influence, reputation, wealth, etc. in return for a subordinate’s support. Status is gained from the resources we control, and so, if one has many supporting subordinates, then one has greater status. With increasing status comes increasing power, influence, reputation, and wealth. Thus, there can be a personal vested interest in a theory and in the prevailing paradigm. Independence can be had by refusing to trade, but obviously this will result in a personal loss.

Experimental proof must be reproducible, and data must be readily accessible, so that others can check it. However, in the social sciences, there are several difficulties with this:

  1. Variables in the social sciences are often qualitative rather than quantitative, i.e., they are either true or not. Even if a variable is quantitative, there can be difficulties in measuring it. In physics it is relatively easy to determine the mass of an object and apply a number to it. However, in the social sciences, there are, for example, no objective ways of quantifying personality traits. These are probably more acquired than inherited, and so, more to do with the brain’s software than its hardware. This means, that they are unlikely to be revealed by MRI scans, etc. There are also issues with the reliability of questionnaires in which we report on our own personality.
  2. Experimental proof based on historical analysis can be flawed. History comprises reports and interpretations that can be highly subjective. In addition, there are often only a small number of examples to which we can refer.
  3. Experimental proof which relies on direct experience can also be highly subjective and is not reproducible.
  4. Experimental design is constrained by ethical considerations. For example, if one wished to prove that an event x always causes war, then it would be unethical to cause such an event.
  5. Finally, culture can have a strong influence on both hypotheses and the evidence used in their proof. For this reason, cross-cultural studies are becoming increasingly common. It is also the case that knowledge is a part of culture and so, new knowledge can alter culture. Thus, a feedback loop exists, i.e., culture affects social theory, which can, in turn, affect culture.

So, the paradigm for the physical sciences is very different to that for the social sciences. An analogy might be to regard the former as a criminal law case in which it is necessary to prove the defendant guilty. The latter can be regarded as a civil case, that is judged on the balance of evidence. This does, of course, mean that theories in the social sciences are less likely to be true than those in the physical sciences. Nevertheless, their pursuit is worthwhile because an understanding of human nature does, in general, and in the long term at least, appear to lead to an improvement in our circumstances.