Below is an short essay I've been working on that puts some of my thoughts on change into words. I would be interested to hear others' comments or opinions on the matter.

---

On Change

I wasn’t allowed to play in some universities in the United States and out of twenty-five concerts, twenty-three were cancelled unless I would substitute my black bass player for my old white bass player, which I wouldn’t do. They wouldn’t let us go on with Gene [Wright] and I wouldn’t go on without him. So there was a stalemate and [we were] in a gymnasium, a big basketball arena on a big campus. And the kids were starting to riot upstairs. So the President of the school had things pushing him from every side: the kids stamping on the floor upstairs, me refusing to go on unless I could go on with my black bass player.

So we just stalled and the bus driver came and said, “Dave, hold out. Don’t go on. The president is talking to the governor and I think things are going your way.” And the Governor says, “You’d better let them go on.” So we held on and the president of the college came in and he said, “Now you can go on with the understanding that you’ll keep Eugene Wright in the background where he can’t be seen too well.” And I told Eugene, “Your microphone is off and I want you to use my announcement microphone so you gotta come in front of the band to play your solo.” Well the audience went crazy. We integrated the school that night. The kids wanted it; the President wanted it; the teachers wanted it. The President of the college knew he might lose his funding from the state. So here’s the reason you fight is for the truth to come out and people to look at it. Nobody was against my black bass player. They cheered him like he was the greatest thing that ever happened for the students. Everybody was happy. My point is those students had hired me in twenty-five universities. And twenty-three had to cancel because of what they thought they would lose from the state government. But they wouldn’t lose it. We went back and played all of those schools in a few years. And we’ve had a lot of terrible things happen to us while we’re fighting to have equality - police escorts from the airport to the university, or where I wouldn’t go on [stage] until the blacks could come in or [until they] didn’t have to sit in the balcony. I wouldn’t play until they were in the front row. You gradually stop all these ridiculous old rules that nobody really believes in.

(Dave Brubeck, as told to PBS)

Dave Brubeck’s story illustrates change. Satisfying the gymnasium full of eager students clamoring for position proved to be more critical than upholding the rule of law – so the law was ignored. For obvious injustices, i.e. issues of race in the 1960’s, change cannot happen fast enough, but for a word that implies some type of transition or movement, change seems to occur remarkably slowly.

What moral obligations do we have to change society? This question ignores the lengthy conversation on what is “morally good,” a normative ethics debate that can be rather exhaustive. Is an action morally good if it improves the overall wellbeing of society? How do we choose to measure overall wellbeing? The value of others’ wellbeing is a personal decision, an underlying belief that affects all of our judgments. Not valuing the wellbeing of others may be considered sociopathic, but there is no guideline or benchmark for determining this weight. Is it a cop out to skip this debate? Probably, but I don’t think I can adequately address that topic. In the case of racial inequality, Brubeck felt morally obligated to act, that the violations against the rights of blacks in America demanded his subsequent actions, notably his refusal to perform in segregated venues, a decision to recognize basic human rights that likely angered bigots. His choices are admirable, but are not necessarily reflected in many peoples' lives – the majority of people don't command audiences, they are the audiences. For better or worse, influence matters – the consequences of the same actions vary across people. Does the imbalance in authority between performer and audience affect their moral obligation to act? Noam Chomsky believes so, stating that “the more privilege you have, the more opportunity you have. The more opportunity you have, the more responsibility you have.”

The interpretation of this quote hinges on the interpretation of the word “more”, as well as the impression that Noam Chomsky evokes. I am inclined to agree with it, however the degree to which influence scales with responsibility is a matter of personal preference. This opinion can suggest that those with privilege ought to carry a much heavier burden of responsibility, however, taken differently it can be used by individuals without privilege to shirk their own responsibility. I imagine that Chomsky would implore all of us to be more responsible, more cognizant of our actions, but I am most certainly speculating.

---

Our ethical responsibilities are not always so clear. Whereas the civil rights issues of the late 20th century severely infringed upon a large minority of the population, put bluntly, some of the current issues in the United States, such as gay marriage, disturb fewer people and are farther from the public’s eye. Additionally, the abuses in our society seem to pale in comparison to the genocides in Africa, the subjugation of Tibet, the complete suppression of the North Korean people. Perhaps our individual responsibility, as Americans, for these issues is negligible. The actions of an individual American citizen do not have a noticeable effect on the majority of international issues, although our collective actions certainly do, and ought to be discussed and considered. Ultimately, we are most responsible for ourselves, and there exist plenty of domestic issues that influence the welfare of our own society. In the wake of the recent shooting in Newtown, consider gun violence.

Gun related tragedies generate some discussion of our position on gun control, depending on the severity of the event. From Columbine to Trayvon Martin, interest in gun control dominates the national conversation for a period of time before quickly subsiding to other issues, often pertaining to the economy. Although society unanimously decrees gun violence, reaching a consensus on how to address it has proved to be much more difficult, given the relatively short window of national attention. Proposals that amend current legislation and protocol may conflict with the rights of individuals to own guns, and thus there must be a compromise between perceived security and freedom. Determining the acceptable level is not a trivial task, and these remarks do not define any of the potential legislative changes, a nuanced, and ultimately much more important conversation that is beyond the scope of this essay.

Ultimately society ought to reach a point that trades access to weapons for a reduction in the perceived threat of gun violence, however, this point is influenced by lobbyists of the gun industry. While current legislation is at least implicitly supported by society, it does not necessarily reflect the attitudes of society, which largely supports measures such as comprehensive background checks and regulations on magazine size. It is true that the popularity of a regulation does not imply its morality – look at the Jim Crow laws in the South – but reaching a new equilibrium requires overcoming the immense inertia of politics with relatively low national interest. Is gun control less important than the issues that do occupy our attention? Unfortunately change requires more than good intentions.

---

In a democratic republic, the majority opinion often becomes the rule of law. This is not universally true, nor should it be, as there are plenty of examples where popular opinion has proven appalling in retrospect, but this achieving this majority represents a barrier to change. Forming a consensus has proven difficult time and time again. In order to achieve this majority, groups must sway each other from various viewpoints. People reach their conclusions independently, but are certainly influenced by others. In many ways, this seems to happen in practice through new generations, by replacement. This may be the surest path for change, as the most malleable minds dwell in children.

Youth have consistently ushered in new norms and transformed society in ways that had been previously unimaginable. The students in the audience of Brubeck’s concert held a much more progressive view than the general public at the time. Their beliefs and actions are overlooked, as they are the influence wielded in this anecdote – the potential consequences that would have resulted in canceling the concert were greater than from obeying the existing laws. Each person clamoring for his or her position in the gymnasium added to Brubeck’s bargaining power, and their collective clout trumped their individual influence.

However, expecting youth to continually accomplish this is irresponsible. Eroding existing beliefs is an alternative, but attempting to convince others to alter their views is not a simple task. Cultural norms discourage debate on controversial issues between strangers, and many people share similar views to their friends, a conscious or subconscious self-selection. Furthermore, some innate cognitive characteristics of humans actively prevent rational discussions and result in increased polarization. At the same time, it takes only a small step by many people to drastically shift the balance on any issue. Having an impact on a few people can have a multiplicative effect.

Although change may be a result of the erosion of old beliefs, there are also discrete events – the integration of the concert hall or the pull of a trigger – that can have a disproportionate effect on society. We remember the names of the first, the pioneers, and in many ways, the heroes. Abraham Lincoln, Jackie Robinson, and Rosa Parks are all unequivocally celebrated for their actions, yet again largely represent circumstances unavailable to the masses. Forgotten are the individuals that face their own trials uncelebrated and ignored, the masses that give influential individuals their power. These people undoubtedly outnumber those who we do remember, but all are essential agents in changing society.

---

As an individual, we can control our actions and choices, and to a great extent our beliefs. These are influenced factors such as human necessity and privilege, and while change may take longer than expected or hoped for, it is perhaps the optimism that it is possible that compounds and accelerates it. Alone, we may not wield the power necessary to implement new norms or policies, but by coalescing and challenging existing beliefs, we can influence both current and future society.

Perhaps we are more responsible for spurring the change that we view as necessary to society, perhaps not. These are ultimately personal decisions, but one that warrants a long look. I don’t know what kind of effect I can have by engaging my friends and colleagues, people with whom I’ve earned some level of trust and respect, in conversation. A friend of mine seems to believe that we are more responsible for our own happiness than for anybody else’s. It is a comforting notion, one that to a degree justifies my own inaction. We each have a point that balances our desire for pleasure and our desire for change, to watch television or to call our congressperson. I don’t know how effective it is, asking a representative for their views on gun control, but don’t know how I’ll find out, as many people, including myself, instead sit behind the soft glow of a screen and wait.