2 answers
Caitlyn
Student
Glenarden, Maryland
1
Question
Asked
418 views
Is there a significant difference between going against the system and changing the system?
There so much going on in the world, and people feel as though their voices are not heard. It's important to know how we can enact change that's fair and equal for all.
Login to comment
2 answers
Elisa Amador
Customer Management and remote device configuration support
3
Answers
San José, Costa Rica
Updated
Elisa’s Answer
Hi Caitlyn, I see your point and concern. I really like your passion and drive to make a difference. I hope that always continues to inspire and motive your career and maybe personal goals. In my experience, I've found change to always be consistent with love and gratitude and rewarding the positive on others. There is a greater chance of consistent change when people actually believe they are doing it for the best and when you connect with them at a deeper level. It may not result in a greater scale instant change, but it's deeply rooted in those that believe it's for good and then they would become ambassadors of that change. So ultimately, you would have reached more and stronger change than a superficial, quicker one.
Now, I could answer your question more specifically depending on the context - cause that is something to always consider. There's no one recipe is good for all. I hope this helps,
Volunteering is a great way to deepen your beliefs and concerns into a community and advocating for change
Now, I could answer your question more specifically depending on the context - cause that is something to always consider. There's no one recipe is good for all. I hope this helps,
Elisa recommends the following next steps:
Charlotte Geiger
Public Health Science Student at the University of Maryland
151
Answers
Sykesville, Maryland
Updated
Charlotte’s Answer
Hi Caitlyn,
Yes, there is a significant difference between going against the system and changing the system, and understanding this distinction is crucial for effectively enacting social change.
Going against the system typically means challenging existing norms, policies, or structures directly, often through protests, civil disobedience, or activism. It involves confronting issues head-on by refusing to comply or by openly criticizing the status quo. This approach is often seen when people feel the system is inherently flawed or unjust, and they believe that radical action is necessary to make their voices heard. While this method can be powerful and immediate, it sometimes faces resistance and may be perceived as confrontational, which can limit its effectiveness if not paired with strategic planning.
On the other hand, changing the system involves working within the existing structures to reform or transform policies, practices, or cultural norms. This method often requires collaborating with stakeholders, advocating through legislative processes, or educating communities to build consensus for change. It’s a slower, more methodical process that focuses on creating long-lasting, sustainable improvements. Changing the system is typically seen as more pragmatic because it seeks to modify rather than overthrow established practices.
Both approaches have their merits and drawbacks. Going against the system can spark immediate awareness and urgency, but it risks alienating those who hold power. In contrast, changing the system requires patience and persistence but can result in more enduring and widespread acceptance of new ideas. Often, the most successful social movements use a combination of both—raising awareness through direct action while also pursuing systemic change through policy advocacy and community engagement.
Ultimately, whether to go against or change the system depends on the context, goals, and desired outcomes. Sometimes, pushing against the system is necessary to draw attention to injustice, but sustainable progress often requires working within it to implement real, lasting change. Balancing both methods thoughtfully can ensure that people’s voices are not only heard but also acted upon in a meaningful way.
Yes, there is a significant difference between going against the system and changing the system, and understanding this distinction is crucial for effectively enacting social change.
Going against the system typically means challenging existing norms, policies, or structures directly, often through protests, civil disobedience, or activism. It involves confronting issues head-on by refusing to comply or by openly criticizing the status quo. This approach is often seen when people feel the system is inherently flawed or unjust, and they believe that radical action is necessary to make their voices heard. While this method can be powerful and immediate, it sometimes faces resistance and may be perceived as confrontational, which can limit its effectiveness if not paired with strategic planning.
On the other hand, changing the system involves working within the existing structures to reform or transform policies, practices, or cultural norms. This method often requires collaborating with stakeholders, advocating through legislative processes, or educating communities to build consensus for change. It’s a slower, more methodical process that focuses on creating long-lasting, sustainable improvements. Changing the system is typically seen as more pragmatic because it seeks to modify rather than overthrow established practices.
Both approaches have their merits and drawbacks. Going against the system can spark immediate awareness and urgency, but it risks alienating those who hold power. In contrast, changing the system requires patience and persistence but can result in more enduring and widespread acceptance of new ideas. Often, the most successful social movements use a combination of both—raising awareness through direct action while also pursuing systemic change through policy advocacy and community engagement.
Ultimately, whether to go against or change the system depends on the context, goals, and desired outcomes. Sometimes, pushing against the system is necessary to draw attention to injustice, but sustainable progress often requires working within it to implement real, lasting change. Balancing both methods thoughtfully can ensure that people’s voices are not only heard but also acted upon in a meaningful way.