We are facing perhaps unprecedented social change. Even a quick glance at something as prosaic as the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals gives the gist of it: If we wish to continue thriving as a species on this bounded planet, societies must learn to respect global equity, nurture regenerative ecosystems, and develop institutions and social norms to ensure peace on Earth. In other words, we require what is often called systems change.
However, a much more obscure question is how systems change might ever be instigated, and whose responsibility anything of the sort would be. This question is often framed as one between private and public responsibility. Either individuals should show the way, or politicians or decision-makers should be held primarily accountable. Frankly, I believe this is a harmful false dichotomy that pays very little attention to a pivotal process underlying the cultural evolution any human society: social learning in local communities.
First of all, make no mistake, I do not believe we can rely merely on individual, ‘private sphere’ behaviors to create a sustainable and equitable society. We are far beyond the point where turning your TV off stand-by mode or donating a fiver to a charity will get us anywhere near our target goals. It is true that some people in privileged positions have more capabilities to adopt sustainable or fair lifestyles than others. However, taking this as suggestive that ‘individual’ human behavior is inconsequential is an incorrect conclusion.
The scare quotes above around the terms ‘private sphere’ and ‘individual’ above were intentional. This is because, in reality—in social reality—very little behavior exists that is truly private or individual. As a wealth of evidence from studies on cultural evolution illustrate, we are above all social learners. Indeed, cumulative social learning has been framed as the secret of our success as a species. The topic of social learning is thus not a trivial one. Whilst it is quite simply defined, often as any ‘learning that is facilitated by observation of, or interaction with, another individual (or its products)’, its implications are more far-reaching than one might imagine.
Think of any daily behavior you might engage with in your daily life. Are others observing this behavior? Does anyone look up to you, hold you in high prestige, or imitate you? Did you share this behavior online? Or did your behavior perhaps send market signals, shape the environment, or did any of your behavior’s other innumerable products have an influence on the behavior of someone else? The answer likely is an unambiguous ‘yes’. In this case, you engaged in what is called social transmission. That is, your behavior likely left a lasting positive causal influence on the behavior of someone else. Not so individual, are you now?
We humans copy, teach, imitate and emulate others and shape our environments. That’s what makes us human. Since most individual behaviors are, in one way or another, socially transmitted, ‘individual’ or ‘private’ behaviors do matter. In fact, paradoxically, they matter exactly because they are not individual or private behaviors. In our social world, there is no such thing as a truly private individual.
This brings us to a broader point. Individual behaviors do matter, but they matter increasingly when done within communities. In fact, research suggests that the most efficient form of behavior change starts from social clusters, or groups of individuals. This is, among other things, due to the fact that social groups or communities can engage in mutually reinforcing social learning. If I show intent in adopting a sustainable lifestyle, perhaps my local community will feel more inclined to do so, too, seeing the development of new social norms and incentives, which in turn reinforce my behavior, and so on. A virtuous circle of social learning.
Therefore, perhaps to instigate true systems change we should look at what has traditionally been the most meaningful level of human action, the community. This is not the micro-level of ‘individual’ human behavior, nor the macro-level of national or international politics, but the meso-level where our species has spent most of its existence. I am curious to see how often this level is overlooked at the expense of others.
It seems to me that there is very little systems change coming from the top-down. If anything, during the past decade the support systems of life have steadily declined, political fields are polarizing, and our elected leaders — the Trumps and the Bolsonaros which define our era — seem like increasingly unlikely candidates to spearhead any social change of the rate we require. At worst, I fear that trust in decision-makers fixing the problem for us might have a paralyzing effect on local movements. Perhaps it is time to try something fresher, such as engaging with local regenerative communities, local activism, and creating sustainable and equitable community-level lifestyles, available to be copied by other social clusters.
Yes, I still believe in political activism, voting, and actively demanding our leaders to make appropriate decisions, but this is clearly not sufficient alone. Political leaders are unlikely to take any demands seriously unless our calls are backed up by strong communities. If we truly want change to happen, we need more than demand for systems change: by living through example, and fostering sustainable lifestyles, we can leverage our capacity for social learning. And to do this, we need to reclaim the local level of existence.
