Individual vs Systemic Change — Which is More Effective?

BY SOFO ARCHON

When I talk about the importance of individual change—such as healing emotional trauma, discovering inner peace and clarity, becoming more loving and compassionate, or making more ethical and environmentally friendly consumption choices—some people are quick to dismiss it as pointless. They argue that the only way to create truly impactful and lasting change is by transforming the social systems in place, since individuals are largely shaped by those systems, and attempts at direct individual change will therefore be negligible in the grand scheme of things.

Yet when I talk about the importance of systemic change—such as pointing out our exploitative and destructive social, economic, and political systems, or suggesting ways we could radically transform them—others tell me that this approach will achieve little to nothing. They claim that society—with its systems and institutions—is run by individuals, and unless those individuals change first, society will remain the same. “Society,” after all, is just a word—an abstraction; it doesn’t truly exist, but individuals do, and hence they should be our focus.

The people who focus solely on individual change are often found in “spiritual” or “self-help” circles, immersed in the work of authors, coaches, and gurus who speak almost exclusively about personal transformation. To those who advocate for large-scale change, they respond with something along these lines: “What’s the point of trying to change the world when you yourself have not changed? You can’t create heaven while carrying hell within you, nor can you change the world by force. You can only change yourself—and that change will have ripple effects on the world, too.”

On the other hand, those who focus solely on systemic change tend to be involved in social activism, believing it to be the only meaningful way to improve the material conditions we live in. To the spiritually minded, they ask: “What’s the point of practicing self-forgiveness or sitting cross-legged for hours, silently observing your breath? Will it help feed starving children or stop rainforests from being cut down? Or what’s the point of consuming ‘sustainable’ products when the economic system is based on the overextraction of Earth’s resources? It’s ridiculous—a complete waste of time that allows suffering and destruction to perpetuate.”

To me, both approaches are one-sided and partially mistaken. Hence, I take a third approach—one that bridges them or allows them to complement each other.

If you have been a long-time follower of my work, you must know that I tend to talk about both individual and systemic change, and more or less to the same extent. The reason for that is that I consider them deeply interdependent and equally important. Sometimes, based on the topic at hand, I might focus on inner work and individual change, while other times on social activism and systemic change. But I see them as two sides of the same coin—different yet mutually reinforcing layers of reality.

Yes, it’s certainly true that if we want lasting, large-scale societal change, the systems that incentivize—and, in fact, depend on—destructive behavior must be changed. However, it is also true that changing those systems first requires a shift in our thinking and values, for ultimately our social systems are a product and mirror reflection of our collective consciousness. In the words of Albert Einstein, “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”

Through individual change, we can create a field of change that might eventually lead to a critical mass of people adopting healthier values and desiring systemic transformation. For example, individuals who choose to abstain from meat for ethical reasons might inspire many around them to do the same, who in turn inspire others, and so on and so forth, until a social movement emerges that advocates for banning the meat industry. Similarly, experienced meditators may spread peace and compassion as a result of their practice—qualities necessary for challenging the warlike mentality embedded in many of our social systems.

Conversely, through systemic change, our individual lives can change significantly as well. Imagine, for instance, designing an economic system based on collaboration and sharing instead of competition and hoarding. A system that incentivizes people to contribute to the world’s well-being rather than to its destruction and suffering. In such a system, individuals would be able to live a healthy and purpose-driven life, instead of wasting most of it engaged in meaningless and oppressive work.

And we can start making systemic change right now. We don’t need to wait until everyone becomes fully “enlightened”—it will never happen—or expect that individual behavioral change can substitute for systemic change. No matter our efforts in making positive change through our individual choices, those choices will be severely limited by the harmful systems in place. Hence, it’s important that we try to change those systems, or at least raise awareness about them.

Ultimately, the question of whether individual or systemic change is more effective stems from a fundamental misunderstanding: the assumption that they can be separated. In reality, they are intrinsically connected, and both are necessary for meaningful progress. So even though some of us might choose to focus on one rather than the other, we need to be careful not to dismiss or downplay either.