I’m constantly hearing how people hate change for the sake of change. So why do we let our resistance to change off that same hook?
While we often talk about not wanting change for the sake of change, we never talk about resistance to change for the sake of resistance. If we’re being intellectually honest we’d recognize the bigger story we’re engaging in.
When we’re resistant to change, we aren’t starting from a neutral or virtuous position. It is no more virtuous to resist change than to promote change.
The problem is that we mean several different things when we talk about change, and we get mixed up in them.
I’ve spoken time and again that I think we actually like change. Because much of the change we experience or encourage is simple or within our regular control. Like choosing to eat something other than cereal for every meal of the day or taking a new route to work.
I think we’re disingenuous when we talk about change in this way.
I also believe the idea that people actually make change specifically for the sake of making change is pretty rare. Honestly, we all have reasons for it. Some are simple: we like variety. And others are much more complex. But I cannot think of any moment in my life that I’ve made a change for the sake of change.
But of course, the problem with making the claim that we don’t want change for the sake of change is that we know all of the above is true. And yet we argue it anyway.
We’ll say
“Let’s try moving this couch to a different place in the room.”
“Why?”
“Because the light comes in the window at just the right angle and it bothers me when I sit there.”
“I don’t know, I’ve gotten used to it this way.”
“But every night, when the sun goes down, I’m blinded at my end of the couch!”
“I just don’t like change for the sake of change.”
I literally cannot think of a time in which that phrase has ever truly made sense. Think about it. And whenever we use it, we abandon the primary point of the argument for the sake of proving the argument!
We say it when we’ve heard an explicit reason for the change.
In other words, not liking change for the sake of change isn’t the real concern.
If I grant it the most benefit of the doubt I can muster, I can come up with the most extreme never-actually-experienced-in-the-real-world-but-still-valid-intellectually hypothetical justification for why this very idea should be granted. Yes, in light of complete randomness and utter thoughtlessness, then why not. Nobody really wants a roll of the dice to determine if a church becomes a casino serving cocktails of hot dog water.
I will grant that as true. But I sincerely doubt that’s really what we’re thinking about when we talk about hating change for the sake of change. This claim isn’t real. It is how we dishonestly describe a real, but ignored concern.
We do this all the time.
Because we embrace some change and reject other change.
And we also embrace a kind of stability which can be deeply unhealthy for us.
This is the problem with “change for the sake of change.”
But what about resistance to change? Do we treat it the same way?
While it seems many of us have a schizophrenic relationship to change, why don’t we impose the same platitude on resistance to change?
Intellectually, it’s identical. And in practical terms, every change I’ve encountered in my life has had at least the flimsiest reason for it. Every change I’ve encountered has, at some level, been purposeful. But I can’t say the same for resistance to change.
Not on the surface, anyway. Resistance to change rarely has to justify itself so distinctly.
Often people reject change and justify it saying “because I don’t like change,” which is no more a reason. Because the resistance to change is often unfocused hesitancy or surface rejection from a deep-rooted fear.
Resistance also has a reason behind it.
Our resistance to change often does have a reason behind it, but ironically, the reasons are rarely expressed. Resistance is almost always offered for its own sake.
We often say “I don’t like change” in response to a rebranding of a company or the renovation of a community building. But this resistance isn’t reasonable or purposeful. It’s resistance for the sake of resistance. And just like change, it needs to be justified.
And just like every change, resistance has its underlying reasons. But unlike change, which is often offered with justifications and reasonable arguments, much of the resistance to change remains intentionally hidden.
Change stirs up fear of loss and dislocation. It brings up things we don’t want to think about and differences we’d rather not examine. In this way, we can honestly say that change is hard for everyone.
Fear provokes resistance. But it isn’t just fear. Part of the challenge of self-examination is that it highlights parts of ourselves we don’t want to examine. It can be embarrassing.
Because the invitation to change often leads to our having to confront these fears, we can find that our natural physical impulse is to reject them. And our minds have very common ways to justify our physical reactions.
So, of course, we don’t like admitting our fears or those other things which can inspire fear: racism, bigotry, and financial insecurity. Or aging, dwindling influence, or ignorance. We believe these are weaknesses we could never admit to. So we don’t.
And often, rather than admit to our failings, we instead, go on the offensive.
And, for that reason, resistance is far too easy and too easily excused, given its own danger.
Dislocated Difference
Notice that change and resistance to change are in a beautiful push-pull dynamic. But they aren’t binary. And we too often make that mistake.
Americans too easily resist change and dismiss its obvious justifications.
And
Americans too easily justify resistance to change and collude to hide its purpose.
If this were the usual equal, bothsides binary, it wouldn’t be so lopsided. And yet, resistance gets all the love letters and change gets most of the hate mail.
That’s why it’s worth recognizing the way these two concepts: change and resistance to change: are the same. And how they’re different.
And even more than that: how we use that difference in our relationship to the world around us.
Imagine using this exercise: rather than look at change as the thing we need to manage and the resistance to change as a given, have the two concepts exchange roles. Imagine change is the given and the resistance to change has to be managed. Like the couch changes every day and we have to justify not moving it. What happens to our thinking when we have to justify our resistance?
Or draw a line down a piece of paper. On the left, list all the wonderful changes you’ve experienced in your life. Try to fill the paper with beautiful and challenging moments of joy and new beginnings. Then on the right, name the times your resistance to change let you down. All the times this resistance served to hold you back from joy and opportunity.
Too often, the default is that change is negative and resistance protects us. And yet most human and spiritual experience directs us to flip that script.
It’s healthier to invite ourselves to change — to try new things and experience new opportunities. And that includes seeing what’s behind our resistance.