If you don’t change direction, you may end up where you are heading.
—Lao Tzu
I see a flock of pelicans flying in formation, gliding with grace and ease between the curved coast of sand and sea. These regal, gray birds fly with certitude, as if they have in mind a planned path. With a slight tilt of outstretched wing, they drift further out to sea, skimming a few feet above the undulating ocean surface. At times their bodies touch the cresting waves in search of sustenance below. The fluid motion of birds and sea manifests both certainty and change.
The Greek philosopher Heraclitus said, “The only thing that is constant is change.” Indeed, life is change. Yet amid unexpected change some things seem to remain predictable, like the apparent transit of the sun across the sky each day. Repeating phenomena provide us with a secure sense of the known. We also experience surprises in life: unpredictable changes that make us feel less secure. Yet at the same time, the unexpected opens us to discovering the new and exciting. Uncovering the hidden things in the world opens us to a sense of wonder.
To deal with life, we need ready access to each of these modes of being—stability and surprise—without denying one at the expense of the other. True wisdom is knowing which mode is best in a given situation. The predictable provides a sense of stability. Openness to unexpected change provides flexibility, helping us feel more resilient in a changing world. The pelican flying along the coast instinctually balances between these two modes of being, poised to respond to unexpected fluctuations in the wind to stay on her charted course. We too must be comfortable with the known but ready to respond to the unexpected. Our resilience, and the world’s, depends on our ability to balance creatively the known and unknown ways of being in the world.
. . .
Why do we choose to continue and repeat certain behaviors, despite their calamitous consequences? Why do we turn away from any message warning us of these destructive habits? It is like being on the Titanic and knowing about the looming icebergs but choosing to stay a steady course. What keeps us frozen into our habitual ways of living? One answer to these questions is related to our essential sense of being, which is defined by known patterns of behavior. Once, during a therapy session, my patient, with fear in her voice, said to me, “But if I changed, who would I be?” Our way of being is defined by patterns of beliefs and behaviors and may be so ingrained in us that the thought of altering them fills us with anxiety, even though those patterns are destructive.
“Who would I be if I changed?” Many people are willing to live with the deleterious side effects of predictable patterns of behavior rather than experience and work through their fear of change. I believe this is where we are with the issue of climate change. We have collectively defined our sense of being as consumers, believing that to buy and own is integral to our social fabric. The side effect of this way of being is the need for enormous amounts of energy to fuel such a lifestyle. What would it be like to explore alternative ways of living and generating energy for a reinvented personal and global lifestyle? How do you feel when I suggest going down this new path of being in the world? Do you feel a tinge—or more than a tinge—of anxiousness? Recently, I spoke to a small group on the issue of climate change. Within just a few minutes of this meeting, a number of people became strongly resistant to what I was saying. Strong, negative emotions began to spread throughout the room. I realized how much fear was present. If the science were accepted, change would be required. The fear of having to change had overwhelmed the people sitting in the room. Given our tendency to fear change, this reaction is normal. An important first step to any change is to sit with questions like these and become aware of how you feel. Meditating on questions and the feelings that arise around them is an important part of initiating creative change.
Another way to look at our inability to change, in spite of our wanting to change, is that it indicates the presence of an opposing “other” within. I want to change my life, but some part of me wants to continue my old way of living. What is this other part of our self that constantly keeps us fixed in the old counterproductive ways? Since consciously we are unaware of its presence, it must reside in the unconscious. Could it be that this other part that wants us to stay fixed in our old behaviors is actually trying to protect us? Here the fear is not so much about not consciously knowing who we would become if we changed but more the yearning for certainty. The inner part of us seeks the repeatable and remembered. This intense need for a secure, stable base is rooted in our early development. As infants and young children we are very vulnerable and need a fixed base to count on, a place, physical and psychological, that is predictably present when we return to it. If such security is established early on, then later in life we become more resilient individuals. We possess an inner sense of security and self-reliance. If we do not experience such security early in life, then we are often anxious about change, and security becomes paramount in life.
Clinical psychologists have noted that when we are able to accept who we really are, then in that moment we are able to change. Denying ourselves, or being completely unaware of parts of ourselves, means we cannot accept our very being in the world. This lack of acceptance creates a sense of alienation from our self and from others. By reflecting on who we are in terms of behaviors, beliefs, and internal struggles, we begin to accept our whole being. In this process of accepting who we are, we need to understand more than what is on the surface. With regard to our feelings about change, we need to reflect on our beliefs and behaviors that may be keeping us rigidly stuck in old patterns.
Metaphorically, a tension exists within us between what Jung referred to as the old person, or senex, who wants to keep things rigid and fixed, and the inner, eternally young person within, or puer, who wants constantly to experience new things in life. The senex is most comfortable with a set predictable routine and yearns for absolute certainty in things. In making decisions, the senex hesitates until collecting as much information as possible yet still may be reluctant to decide. The positive side of the senex is that they carefully assess and weigh situations. They are likely to reflect on matters before making quick decisions. Wisdom is a quality often associated with the senex. The negative side to the senex is a rigidity that stifles and prevents us from adapting to important changes. The result of excessive hesitancy or avoidance to change prevents positive transformation for an individual or an entire society. Those who vehemently fought against civil rights legislation or regulations on air pollution are emblems of the negative side of the senex. The image of the negative senex is seen in the figure of the crotchety old man or doddering old fool.
On the opposite end of the spectrum is the puer, whose tendency is to rush into decisions with little or no information. The puer loves to be surrounded by the new and exciting. You will never find a puer in an antique store—unless “vintage” items have become the hot new thing! They thrive on exploring many things simultaneously and do not like to be stuck on any single one. Their perception of time is the now, not yesterday or tomorrow. Commitment is a concept that fills the puer with discomfort, for to commit to a single relationship or cause would pin down their quick-moving spirit too much. Interestingly, the puer is often attracted to the opposite because something within them yearns for stability, but once they get too close to the other who is seeking commitment they flee the relationship. This opposition to senex qualities is reflected in the desire to act out impulsively, rebel against authority, and break rules.
The eternal battle between these two archetypal patterns can cause us to waver forever in a state of complete inaction. Those who are resistant to change fear the unknown more than those who are open to change. Working creatively with the senex and the puer attitudes requires that we recognize both as having something positive to offer. We are also called to reflect honestly on the darker elements of these two qualities: if we do not consider these dark aspects we place ourselves at the mercy of their hidden designs.
Social psychology studies have found that people tend to fall into two general groups: those who place great value on personal security and those who value harmony with others. Security seekers also place a higher priority on authority and a hierarchical social structure. They see hierarchical authority as creating a more protective secure environment; harmony seekers value equality and shared responsibility. Decisions by harmony seekers are based on what is best for the group rather than what is good for any particular individual. How do these two seeker paradigms relate to our perception of change? The security seeker will most likely be suspicious of change and perhaps even fear it. The harmony seeker will consider whether the perceived change is beneficial to society; if change benefits the group, then it will be embraced. This duality of being is playing out right now in terms of how people view the threat of climate change. Fear will turn security seekers away from taking any action on climate change. If the security seekers experience fear, their instinctual reaction is to protect themselves against whomever they see as a threat. They resist change even in the face of factual evidence arguing for change. Ironically, we would expect those who resist change to be the quintessential conservationists, but in reality it is just the opposite. This cognitive dissonance arises from the power of value systems; for the security seeker, self protection is more important than protecting a more remote environment. Harmony seekers are the opposite in their relation to the world. Their sense of inclusivity means they feel connected to the world and are highly receptive to knowledge about the world in general.
Ultimately, we need to establish a dynamic collaborative relationship between these two parts of our selves—the seeker of security and the seeker of the unknown—and give each their due. From an evolutionary perspective we can see the value of both approaches to the world. A community composed of these two attitudes will be more resilient than a community composed of only one, be it the seeker of security or the explorer of the unknown. Essentially, as individuals and as a society, we need to mediate consciously between these two ways of seeing the world and accept that both are integral to survival. The moment we consciously accept these parts and integrate them into our being is the moment we can creatively work with change.
These two archetypal patterns also relate to the ethical manner in which we view the world. We can view the natural world as present to supply resources for our own personal wants and needs, in which case we view the world in terms of its utilitarian value. The view opposite to the utilitarian is that nature has intrinsic value independent of how we view it; whether humans are present or not the world has inherent value. In terms of our two social patterns of behavior, the security seekers will view the world through a lens of utilitarian worth in service of their needs. In addition, often this group views the natural world as a threat to its well-being. As noted, research indicates that those who resist change are more sensitive to perceived threats from the world. The harmony seeker will be more inclined to view the world as having the right to exist for its own sake, which fits with research that indicates that these types of seekers are more inclusive.
Not surprisingly, these two value systems relate directly to understanding the divisiveness around the issue of climate change. If we feel that the material world’s value arises only from us, then we have the power to decide what out there is of sufficient worth to be protected. However, if our view is that matter is intrinsically valuable, then we are not in a position to assign worth to the material world, for we have a deep feeling connection to this world. Given this felt connection to the world, we will be far less likely to abuse it.
Our fundamental relation to nature is rooted in our psychological view of the world. The difficulty in addressing the issue of global warming exists because of the competing ways we value the world as either there to serve us or as there to exist for its own sake. The extraction and burning of fossil fuels and the consequent warming of the planet exists because we hold a mainly utilitarian view of the world. This narrow view of the relationship between psyche and matter has profound implications for environmental problems like global warming.
These two paradigms may provide insight into the differences between how European nations view climate change compared to the United States. In talking with colleagues from Europe, an interesting difference exists around the value of the individual and the group. The United States was founded on the principle of individual freedom. We broke from England over issues concerning representation and independence. The ethos of the United States still holds to the rights of individuals over that of the group. Decisions concerning how best to respond to challenging social issues like climate change require the inclusion of whole societies and not just particular individuals. Nations whose ethos is rooted in individual rights above those of society will be reluctant to take governmental action on issues like climate change. My European colleagues describe how decisions are less likely to be made to benefit the individual or a specific group. The decision process attempts to bring benefit to the most, not the least.
. . .
Humans have reached an era in history, the Anthropocene, where they have become a major force in shaping the natural world. Humans also possess a level of consciousness that brings with it ethical and moral responsibilities. Our decisions as a society can extend far beyond our own group, which is especially true in our current age of globalization. Decisions about energy and consumption extend across the planet, connecting the developed and developing worlds. Our national decisions no longer just affect us but the entire world. Climate change is a good example of this. We want to live a certain way, one full of material comforts, and this requires energy and natural resources. We consume fossil fuels to provide this lifestyle. The result of these decisions is to increase the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which increases the greenhouse effect and warms the planet. This warming has now reached a level where we are seeing its effects: a greater number of intense storms, rising sea levels, and degradation of the biosphere. Ironically, the very lifestyle we value so much is now threatened by climate change. Continuing to burn fossil fuels over the next few decades will change our climate and the way we live in the world tremendously. If we continue to live as we have done, even greater changes will occur in the future, many of which are presently invisible to us. I believe it is important to learn how to relate to change constructively. In doing so, we can begin to develop behaviors and beliefs that lead to creation as opposed to destruction.
Not all change need be disruptive or destructive. The gliding pelican uses changes in air currents to visit new locations that may be rich in food. Its ability to adapt and explore the changing currents brings abundance to its life. Similarly, changes in our personal lives and social structures often produce extremely positive outcomes. On the personal level, changing our beliefs and behaviors can result in a healthier lifestyle, more loving relationships, and a more peaceful state of mind. Although we may be reluctant to face change, when we do our lives become richer. On the social level, being open to change often ensures the security and health of a whole social system, producing a better world for our all. Transformation begins with the willingness to face the fear of change. The global challenges that face us today, such as poverty, energy, climate change, and social justice, can only be addressed through positive creative change. If we choose to live according to stories of limitation, separation, and hopelessness, then we will reap the grim seeds of these beliefs. It is time to put these deleterious beliefs to rest. If we are to move toward a world of flourishing sustainability, we will need to create a new story. One of these paths to create the new story is to understand and become familiar with our feelings around change. We have a natural tendency to resist change, and there are good reasons for this resistance. However, we also need to learn to engage with the reality of change. Exclusive resistance to change does not prevent the inevitable.
How to begin this process? First, we can become aware of what is going on within us when presented with the possibility of change. Change can approach slowly or rush forward, as in the case of an impending illness. Change places us face to face with choices, and having to choose can be very uncomfortable. Choice initiates internal and external dialogues that may take time to resolve. No matter how quickly we encounter change, we can choose to slow down and consider how we feel about the situation. We can talk with others about how they perceive change. Second, in engaging with change we can become aware of any conflicts the change generates within us. Do we sense the presence of an inner “other” wanting to hold on to the security of the known? Is there a part of us that feels excited about leaping into the unknown? Is there anxiety around becoming part of the change? Asking these questions with openness and curiosity is a positive step in dealing with any change. We often resist asking these questions because we don’t know the answers, which brings us to the third step in engaging with change: realizing that we don’t need to know the answers to our questions before engaging with the process of change. Often a fear of being wrong prevents us from approaching complex questions. Our culture is so oriented toward success that we fear not having the right answers to questions. But in many instances there are no right answers, only possibilities. By asking questions about how we feel in the moment of change we begin a journey of transformation. At such an early point on this journey we don’t need all the answers, only the openness to possibilities.
I have explored many social and psychological dimensions of how we perceive and react to change. We are changing the world, and many of these changes are not and will not be beneficial to humans and the planet as a whole. We must transform ourselves to transform the world. I have argued that to do this we need to accept all of our attitudes and inner patterns and creatively work with them so we approach life from a more holistic attitude.
Change is inevitable. We can either face it with fear or with fearlessness. If we choose to engage with the process of change we have an opportunity to create solutions benefiting the whole world. Adopting a fearless attitude toward looming change is but one thread of the new story we must weave together. We must understand the magnitude of the problems we face and the role we play in creating these problems. An understanding of these aspects of our situation is necessary for finding solutions. The pelican developed and learned to maneuver those air currents from an early age. We too can learn from our past experiences. We can learn about what we fear and move beyond it.