Undoubtedly, social entrepreneurs are passionate beings with great determination and a vision for a better way of life. One aspect of innovative action appears to be the element of challenge. Though it generally appears that social entrepreneurs challenge norms and institutions through initiating new and creative mechanisms for change, some have directly challenged authority out of passion and need.
Confronting those in power presents risk to those willing to seek change. Ultimately, social entrepreneurs exercise their “freedom to act” as the great resource of freewill, empowering their visions. Whether these individuals foresee risk or setbacks as reasonable outcomes, they resort to action out of incredible desire or even need, potentially obscuring all consequences but success. In fighting for her disabled son Tibor’s future, Erzsébet Szekeres sought to endorse the rights of and improve services for the disabled population in Hungary. Szekeres established an informal cooperative organization out of her home and housed disabled individuals, both in defiance of her county’s law. Szekeres discreetly though boldly challenged the Hungarian authority based on her observance of the injustices inflicted upon the disabled population.
Similarly, Javed Abidi grappled with the Indian government to advance disability rights. Abidi organized a demonstration to demand the passage of the Persons with Disabilities Act, where participants refused to move when prompted, eventually cajoling the leader of the opposition party to hear their grievances. The protestors’ efforts were not in vain, as the bill soon became law. Abidi also organized a demonstration and brought legal action against the Archaeological Survey of India, a government department, into permanently constructing wheelchair ramps at several historic monuments. Shortly thereafter, permanent ramps were constructed at many monuments, providing disabled patrons necessary mobility. Through his personal struggles with deficient disability rights protections, Abidi confronted India’s authority out of need, arguing that the “country has to change.”
Through “breaking the law” and confronting the government through demonstrations, Szekeres and Abidi challenged authoritative bodies. The acts of defiance precipitated when these innovators acted out of necessity as part of their determined efforts to see their visions thrive. Indeed, it takes a special person under special circumstances to challenge those with the ability to suppress efforts.
I question the frequency with which such challenges occur in the nonprofit sector, particularly in the United States. Given the complex jurisdictional layers of government (federal, state, local), I wonder if nonprofit organizations and forthcoming social entrepreneurs are ever perplexed in choosing which entity to challenge. Coupled with bureaucracy and politics, I can imagine the efforts of innovators in this country may be strained due to the deeply corrugated nature of our established institutions.
I agree that for each system there are different avenues needed to have an outcome changed. At the individual level it would include such things as calling a fair hearing, submitting a claim, or making a grievance. At higher levels it's more involved with research and advocacy necessary to create change.
ReplyDelete“It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things. For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order..." -The Prince, Machiavelli
ReplyDeleteThis must sound like a broken record, but the above quote relates to Andrew's post, and I think they both reflect well upon each other (I realize Bornstein quoted this in both books we read).
Although I agree with Andrew that the current status-quo is increasingly complex for agents of social change, I am more optimistic, if indeed this is the right word, that revolutionary change will become a necessity for the human race. I believe this because growing global populations and an increasing scarcity of resources will necessitate the human race to innovate, transform, or build solutions that can be sustained. This might not happen as quickly as it should, but it is essential for humanity's survival.
If you look at changing points in history, many nations, individuals, or groups are presented with situations that dictate they change in order to survive. A prominent example would be the British Empire and its subsequent downfall. Pertaining to social entrepreneurs, Gandhi's actions in India were so profound because he came at a time when colonized Indians were starting to recognize a need for unity and the significant downfall of the British Empire. We have talked at great length about how 'serendipitous' social entrepreneurs seem to be, like Gandhi, but I also believe that their innovations weigh more heavily in dramatic change than 'luck'.
Of course, like Andrew said, our entrenched institutions can diminish the ability of social entrepreneurs to achieve substantial change in contemporary society.But I sincerely believe that our contemporary society, hopefully sooner rather than later, will HAVE to confront the complex problems that are presently being ignored. Indeed, these problems will surface in due time,like global warming or extreme poverty, whether they are addressed or not.