Up or Down: Change Isn't Easy

How does change happen?

Maybe this sounds like a question you would find on a self-help blog, or perhaps in a scientific journal talking about some shift in nature. But on a societal level if we look at change there seems to be two different methods that change sweeps nations. There is a level of change that takes place from the top and trickles down, new laws, new ways to learn and accumulate new ideas, often these top-down movements are marked by the fact that the people who come up with this type of change are those with money. The renaissance couldn’t happen all at once but the chance for people to start exploring more began with those who had the money to do so.

Another method of change is from the bottom and works it's way up until it becomes a part of the general culture. While Martain Luther was wealthy enough to have gone to college the reformation spread like a wildfire primarily due to the everyday people.

This might be a bit of a simplification but overall the reformation took on a life of its own. One that could be influenced by those in power but moved to swiftly and too spread out to completely be reigned in.

Even Luther himself with the words: “I, Martin Luther, have during the rebellion slain all the peasants, for it was I who ordered them to be struck dead.” disavowed many who were moving outside of his influence.

But as stated there were more people that wanted change. And rapid change affected all of Europe to the point where within a handful of decades there were hundreds of churches that had been born in this time period

This is not to say that the reformation was more impactful than the renisance for it wouldn’t have happened at all if the renaissance hadn’t started first. But if comparing how the two movements changed life then it can be said that one was swift and decisive while the other was slower but built a stage for the world to continue to move forward with.

To see the differences in the types of people that two movements affected during their peaks and then comparing how both changes took place we can potentially point out that the faster change was the one that the more common people took a hold of.

So how does society change? Top-down or bottom-up the movements have pros and cons but the renaissance and reformation suggest that the faster change comes from bottom-up rather than top-down. 

Psychology of Humanism

I’ve always been fascinated by the concept of “nature versus nurture,” and how we are shaped by and shape our culture. Examining movements such as the Renaissance through the lens of psychology yields some interesting ideas about how exactly changes in prevailing ideologies shape the future. 

photo by "Pere" on flickr (text added) 

According to Freud’s model of the mind, our consciousness is divided into 2 parts: the conscious mind and the subconscious mind. The conscious mind takes up only 10 percent; and our much larger subconscious is a blank slate when we are born. Throughout our lifetime, that slate is filled with patterns derived from our conscious thought and knowledge absorbed from others and the environment. Since the subconscious mind is 90% of our overall mind, whatever is in our subconscious forms our character, which then determines what we will accomplish in life.


The strong influence of external stimuli on the development of the subconscious means that changes in general attitudes, ideals, or prevailing wisdom (the “environment”) have significant impacts on the character, and therefore the actions and achievements, of individuals living in those times. The Renaissance and Reformation were absolutely crammed with such changes to the intellectual environment, and the rise of Humanism specifically may have altered attitudes about human nature and influenced the general psyche in a way that was key to later development and progress.

One of the fundamental tenets of Renaissance Humanism, as expressed by Petrarch, is that God gave humans intellectual and creative potential that was meant to be used. Humanism in that era also emphasized the responsibility of humans in developing themselves and promoting the race as a whole. Finally, as part of the “ad fontes” movement, the ancient Greek concept of Eudaimonia was probably becoming prominent, convincing people that the search for and creation of happiness and well-being was an important purpose of life. The spread of these ideologies would have significantly impacted the minds and characters of those who learned them, especially younger people whose subconscious minds were still being filled and developed.

Consider the impact this type of teaching would have on a person, in contrast with the previously dominant church doctrines. Rather than being told their individual life didn’t matter and salvation in the next life is the only thing for which they had to hope and work, someone growing up in the high Renaissance would start to internalize feelings of self-worth and agency. During the Reformation, things got even better: rather than the dogma that having wealth is a sin, Calvinists taught that material prosperity is evidence of God’s favor, motivating people to work hard and advance themselves financially.

In a discussion during the salon activity about how Renaissance and Reformation ideologies laid the foundation for the spectacular economic growth of later centuries, Joe pointed out how, in many cases, it’s not circumstances that change our mindset but rather our mindset that allows us to change our circumstances. I think the rise of Humanism during the Renaissance is a history-altering example of this. Humanism changed people, and people changed the world.

Sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrarch

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism#Humanistic_psychology

Image: https://www.flickr.com/photos/pere/523019984