Yours is indeed a very curious and provocative question. Yes, majority of people resist change, for there is in us some inherent fondness towards 'status quo' which is due to suffer, may be for the worse, if a change is invited to occur. Furthermore, change requires motivation, enterprise, mobility--that is to say, a good deal of application of mind as well as a lot of action which may involve some risks and uncertainties. To disturb the 'status quo' is to invite a state of fluidity which may end up with results unwarranted, even counter-productive. We all generally love stability, and do not encourage any process of change unless such changes are assuredly beneficial for us. Changes involve costs--individual as well as social/collective, and who likes to incur costs if there is no assurance of profitable returns?
The possible benefits of resisting change are:
1. satisfaction to live with the known devils, rather than to invite unknown friends;
2. shun the costs of ushering in changes;
3. it's better to live with some illusions rather than face the realities of life, for humankind can hardly bear with such realities;
4. a bird in hand is always worth two in the bush;
5. to invite change would mean to oppose the stabilised conventions, and so to fend off change is to enjoy the majority status of being predictable & conventional.
No comments:
Post a Comment