Change : Ever-Present but Never Existing
One of the most saturated pieces of advice and wise sayings about life is that "change is inevitable and life is dynamic." True to those words, life is indeed dynamic, and change does happen. From evolution and physical growth to environmental and meteorological changes, a lot of things do find a way to restructure themselves.
But change is not a solitary occurrence, and change is mostly not an all-encompassing phenomenon. When things change, a part of what they were still follows through to whatever they metamorphosize to become. If not, they seize in all totality to be what they actually are, and lose identity and existence. It might be problematic to accept such a perspective of change, but after a deep view and overview of change under various circumstances, I think it warrants that change be viewed in this light.
Biblical Account
In the opening chapters of the book of Genesis, when Adam and Eve ate the fruit that they should not have, the trajectory of their lives dramatically and drastically took a turn for the worse. The consequences of their action were not just limited to them but flowed through to every other individual who existed, which was because every other person was simply their offspring.
In biblical circles, most problems in the world today can be elaborately traced to the actions of the first man and his fruit enthusiastic partner. The unease of childbirth and the struggle of living (work, illnesses, and even death) are a result of their actions. While new men were being born (changed men), they weren’t actually so different. I guess one of the reasons Jesus was actually born of just a parent who was a virgin (relatively holy) was to reduce the impact of the travelling consequences of the sin of the first man.
Genetics
We are all made of genes that travel down from God knows when. We are born as new human beings, but we aren’t all that new. There is something ancient about our conception. While our genes are new, they are not all that new. It was a restructuring of the old that birthed the new.
In fact, there are dormant genes that still travel down unnoticed and later manifest, and when they do, we are tempted to think they are new, but they are actually just surreptitious elements that decided to reveal themselves there and then. There is not really a change from parents to child; there is just a rearrangement of the old that gives a new appearance. It is even possible to tell a child’s father or mother due to their resemblance. The new is still unable to escape the old.
Take, for example, the evolution of man (not literally). The flight or fright response was helpful to man in escaping dangers from wildlife or other life-threatening occurrences, but as man evolved, that same mechanism started to manifest in not-so-life-threatening but image threatening situations, such as public speaking. Though man changed, some parts of him did not, and there are so many other neurobiological examples regarding this.
Economic Systems
This is one of the greatest proofs that no matter what change we make, it can never truly outrun the archaic. The system and structure of the economy throughout the entire world, both compartmentalized and generalized, have evolved through disparate generations, but some elements have still proven true no matter the economic system that we might be present in. There has always been inequality.
In a quick diversion, I believe that most people who clamor for equality do not necessarily do so for the betterment of mankind; they do so simply out of a sense of being wronged and being part of the marginalized or the possibility of being marginalized. This makes most change-seekers narcissistic.
Economic systems, as they evolve, do not really change the fundamental structure and setting of society. No matter how it is initially structured, there end up being two categories of individuals: those with power, tools, money, or resources, and those without. From feudalism to capitalism, this has been the case. The change from feudalism to capitalism was to create more equality, take from the lords the concentrated power and resources, and make them even more accessible.
For a while, capitalism did help, but things still reverted back to the basics. In capitalism, the existence of the proletariat and bourgeoisie is a change from the lords and siefs, but not really a change, just a renaming. The rich have ended up becoming richer, and the poor even poorer. So where is the change?
Communism is also a system that promises change and a more egalitarian society. But in nations that have tried to be communists or currently refer to themselves as communists, there seems to be a lack of an economic egalitarian system. Most times, it just reverts back to two divisions, with the leader amassing all the power and the others being at his mercy. Still, the two-part structure of society.
Ideologically, Marxism seems to be a very sound philosophy, but the problem I have with it is the lack of account for human psychology. As mentioned earlier, people change, but they do not change completely. They bring their old to make up the new.
Regardless of the economic system, the selfish gene still prevails and hinders the consideration of the collective good. A good example of this are the utopian communist experiments like the Icarians of Illinois. The best a society may be able to achieve might be socialism, but people are not inherently good enough to follow the axiom of "from each according to his ability and to all according to his needs.” This statement is ideologically sound but realistically too simplistic. It is easy to be a victim of the illusion of explanatory depth when analyzing this statement. Would each agree to be that altruistic and give to the other? History has proven not necessarily so.
The African Society
Africa has shown that while change is purportedly ubiquitous, it never really happens, or at least occurs negatively. Can the cycle of greed, corruption, narcissism, truculence, and avaricious leadership ever be escaped? Hopefully one day. Modern African society has been problematic since its inception, and through its evolution over time, it still carried the genes of the old.
While it would be the height of foolishness to exonerate African leaders as not being the biggest impediment to the progress of the continent, the seeds of their wrongdoing can be traced to the colonial period. Most of them saw the leadership of the colonial masters and unconsciously approximated and justified such leadership as what true leadership should be like. This is a very unpopular opinion, but Africa was never ready for self-governance when it came. The transition to autonomy was too soon and rushed. Most who got into power were not even grounded in public governance and all of those sorts.
The nature of the transfer of leadership to Africans precipitated the problems arising on the continent today. African leaders are one of the reasons I claim change advocates are narcissists. However, some change advocates are really just that: people who want the betterment of humanity. But it would be difficult to trust people who fight for what they have a stake in to simply want the better of humanity. In such cases, there is a thin line between humanism and self-centeredness. Though this is not set in stone, it is definitely relative. I think absolutes are overrated, and not seeing the million shades of gray is the point where we start to lose it all.
However, those who clamoured for independence were those who got into leadership, and when they got there, they simply became egoistic tyrants who did not really care much about the people but in implementing their own ideas no matter the cost or consequence, and enriching themselves. More of an African adaptation of George Orwell’s famed Animal Farm. A tad worse than some colonial governments. This has come to characterize leadership, even in the military and “democratic” stints. Even when leaders and systems were overhauled and changed, change occurred but still did not occur.
So, can we truly change?
I previously wrote a review of X-Men 97. I would like to cite some parts of the just concluded season that I believe might be helpful in looking at change. A very dear character, Gambit, was killed while trying to destroy a mutant-killing machine. Speaking about his death, Rogue, another character, mentioned that he (Gambit) had always wanted to escape his previous life of being a part of the thieves guild, but he also realized that “our lives are about what bits of us we leave behind and what we carry into the future." Being in the future does not make the past vanish out of existence, no matter if we consider it good or bad.
Storm, another major character, completes the point that I’m trying to make. Storm is a mutant that has the power to control the elemental forces, hence her power over the weather. She, however, lost her power after taking a shot meant to rid another mutant of his power, hence the loss of her power. Storm met another mutant who believed he could restore her powers, but the process seemingly did not work. But it did work. She was the one holding herself back because of her fear that she was better off without her powers. That fear manifested in a demon named the adversary. But in the long run, she realized the adversary was just an echo of herself. She addressed it, which restored her powers, and even embraced it, which made her even stronger.
In a similar fashion, the parts of us that we want changed do not just change as we progress and evolve. They still move with us, no matter where we go. The bits of us that we have seemingly left behind still define us. Not addressing it doesn’t make it go away, and addressing it doesn’t blip it out of existence. Would this mean that we can never truly escape the past or what used to be? Well, I don’t know. But like Gambit realized, the bits of our past define our present. So, like Storm did, we should address those bits of us, and after that is done, we should simply embrace them, making our weakness an added strength.
Want to understand the writer’s context? Read this
