Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Free Access - Register Here

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kytle, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Kytle, J.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 3, No. 4, 697-706 (1977)
DOI: 10.1177/014616727700300429

Ideology and Planned Social Change: A Critique of Two Popular Change Strategies

Jackson Kytle

Antioch College

Social psychology has been a major contributor to the planned social change industry which increasingly influ ences all levels of society from families to corporations. This paper introduces a critique of the technological ethos of the change industry by scrutinizing two popular strategies: Beck hard's organizational development with "enterprise managers" as clients, and Alinsky's community organizing among "have-not" clients. After elaborating a conceptual model for classifying theories of society and social change, the model is applied to the practice of each theorist and each is critiqued. Beck hard is shown to follow a consensus paradigm in his basic as sumptions about individuals and society. Alinsky, on the other hand, is shown to work according to a conflict paradigm, which assumes that conflict is both normal and even desirable. In concluding, the conflict/consensus distinction is critiqued as a false dichotomy, and it is argued that the important ques tion is not which model works better (a technological issue) but rather, how thoroughly one can apply dialectical methods based on assumptions of conflict and continuing historical change. These methods alone offer a partial answer for the complex question of whose values the change agent really repre sents and whether, in the long run, change means progress.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Pers Soc Psychol BullHome page
M. Brewster Smith
A Dialectical Social Psychology? Comments on a Symposium
Pers Soc Psychol Bull, January 1, 1977; 3(4): 719 - 724.
[Abstract] [PDF]