Transformational is a bad word

Many have associated the word “transformational” with the military. Implementing ‘network centric” ideas is one reason why. But recently the word has been used in conjunction with social change, or the suggestion of social change. Two times is a trend to many.

For those in a hurry for change, especially change at most any cost to our American culture and peoples rights, perhaps they are playing with fire. Change is inevitable, often on auto-pilot, and the only influence we mortals may have is one of time applied to change. Will the change be over one, or two, or more generations, a generation being 30 years these days, for planning purposes? And it seems amazing so many in favor of change think they have something to do with what is happening anyway. One who has been around the block a few times might suggest the main friction is about the pace of change, not the change itself.

Our “new world” America is much better than the “old world”. Much of our “new world” change is idea driven, which is part of our psyche. That some are selling “old world” ideas like multiculturalism (some call it balkanization) suggests that all change ideas are not good, as we have “new world” alternatives like the melting pot. So here we go back again to terms like “transformational”, friction, change, and the pace of change.

America seems to be perpetually (for now) willing to focus on minority parts of our culture in order to be “transformational”. That we can take the time to try do well is a complement to our security and willingness to think we are different from the rest of the world, and can change “new world”. This attitude is special and unique in human history. Never before has a group of humans and culture had the opportunity we have today. And as long as we keep voting in leaders who think and manage this way, it will continue, if. The big “if” is if we can defend and protect and finance this “transformation” since much of the rest of the old world does not think this way for now. And if our definition of minority parts of our culture is critically reviewed, then we can look silly. Calling women a minority is silly, for example, since they constitute over half of humanity and certainly over half of college attendees in America. And the converse, calling homosexuals a significant part of our society, seems also silly since it just isn’t so. In this latter case, we can debate the percentage numbers, but the debate is moot to many since all people are to be treated with respect. This respect thing is a two-way street, by the way. And are we Americans to have a permanent and dependent underclass funded as a perpetual “war on poverty” by those seemingly using “transformational” as a political ticket to power (and a career with retirement) and access to the public monies (local, state, and federal)? The answer begs the question as to what is our cultural objective.

Of course we “new world” Americans and voting citizens define our culture, which of course also varies depending on where we live, regionally, urban, or rural. How many have been taught in upbringing to look askance at other tribes like Italians or Vietnamese, or other religions like old world Catholics or Jews, or other races like Africans or Asians? How many have been led to believe their poo-poo doesn’t stink, that they are bred to be a leading class of humans? There are people born and taught like this, and they are on the losing side of American culture and history, even when raised this way. The chances are “transformational”, and it will take one or two generations for them to die off. The alternative is also not the masses with pitch forks storming the Bastille, either. Rather it is those of us living in the “new world” America, old and young, regional, urban, rural, using our votes to evolve whatever we become. Which of course will change again, since today’s young people will also grow old and die.