You say you want a revolution
Reform
2 methods:
1) reform the people first - uses literature, appeal to hearts and minds, personal testimony, argument; relies on people's education and ability to be persuaded
2) reform institution first - pass laws, win elections, form unions, boycott goods, create/abolish institutions; expects people to follow suit after reform of a major institution
Main Issues for the Reformer:
+ Improve a partially broken system or tear it down entirely and rebuild?
+ Is it important for your helpers/followers/allies to have equal morals? Importance of consistency when put against the opportunity to get what you need through backward methods?
Examples:
+ Utopian societies (Oneida, Shaker) (mid-1800s): method #1//destroyed and rebuilt
- all failed: bad leadership, lack of enthusiasm; Americans do not like the idea of communalism, need their own possessions; reform must remain pertinent to life and real human needs
+ Mormonism (1830s): method #1//improved a partially broken system
- succeeded: people's impatience with current faiths and persuasiveness of Joseph Smith win followers; Smith was a consistent leader who followed his own example
+ Temperance (mid-1800s): both #1 and #2//manifested scorn for age-old human vices into action
- succeeded some, failed some: always contested by a percentage of population, but won followers
Main motivations for followings:
- offered control to middle class Protestants over laborers, migrants, Catholics
- Perfectionists see it as a way to practice self-control (morally superior route)
- women want societal help to deal with drunk abuse (helps a needy minority)
- created a community of common thinkers; friends, spouses, contacts, opportunities, jobs
Does anyone else find school assignments much more interesting than they are intended to be sometimes?