Reconsidering Changemaking in Light of the Fall of Neoliberalism

It is no secret that the social innovation sector’s approach to change is often unreasonably individualistic, and Ashoka (the organization I represent) is no exception. Indeed, the way we use “changemaking” often puts an extreme burden on individuals, tasked with fighting it out to achieve a better world. It is high time to reconsider parts of our approach. Indeed, there are clear signs in the air that society as a whole is tired of this dogged individualistic approach, one being what Gary Gerstle calls the fall of the neoliberal order. I wonder if some of the reasons people have given up on neoliberalism (many of which I share) are good indicators for us to rethink our “everyone a changemaker” vision to ensure we are including and supporting the communities that enable change to happen.

In his book, The Rise and Fall of the Neoliberal Order: America and the World in the Free Market Era, Gary Gerstle argues  that Neoliberalism has fallen and a new system is emerging. Neoliberalism being a system, or an all encompassing order, that operates beyond any particular political party (e.g. in the US it was established by the Republican president Ronald Reagan, and consolidated by the Democrat, Bill Clinton), and has fed imaginations and dreams of the majority of “Western” society for decades. This worldview speaks of truly free global markets, deep trust in large corporations and their leaders, and requires open borders for free flow of people and merchandise. At the center of this system is a belief that the individual has the freedom (or rather, obligation) to innovate and disrupt, each person is to find and create one’s own fulfillment in an environment of deep competition. In this system, government roles involve protecting free markets and building infrastructure for companies to move merchandise and people efficiently.

This order has provided, Gerstle argues, the operating principles for US society and that of many other nations (think of the EU), but is now no longer the goal. He points to 2010 economic downturn as the key departure point, undergirded by deep disappointment in corporate leaders, and the coup de grace comes in 2020 with Covid and Trump’s ascent. (Although Trump is indeed in favor of large corporations, Gerstle argues convincingly that he is not pushing neoliberalism, as he broke off most free trade agreements to re-negotiate in bi-lateral terms, severe national protectionism, a clear agenda to close and not open borders, etc.). Indeed, although authoritarian populists like Trump have been skillful at connecting with this disappointment and monetizing it for personal power, Gerstle shows the whole political spectrum turning away from neoliberalism (think of Biden’s rescue package, which was a larger government intervention that Roosevelt’s New Deal).

When we think about the reasons people are abandoning neoliberalism as a goal (which isn’t explored in depth in Gerstle’s book), it becomes evident that the disappointment with the system is not a one side thing (i.e. the left, or the right). In truth, it is difficult to find anyone (including myself) who doesn’t nod in agreement with most of these, albeit with differing opinions on to what the solution must be. These involve:

• Swaths of people are calling out the hypocrisy of the system: “free markets” are never really free, no matter how they are disguised. 
• People seem to be seeing through this permanent thrust for “innovation”:  it’s often a sham. The relentless push for disruption (destruction?), novelty, newness, ends up not being that great. We keep recreating things that were never broken, just to turn a profit. And these new creations don’t always work better, make us more efficient, or provide wellbeing or equity. For some this drives towards conservative positions (e.g. “I liked the times when men were men and women were women” kind of statements), and others towards a longing for ancient ways (e.g. think of movements to slower living, eating foods our ancestors ate, proximity markets).
• Many individuals have felt consistently on the “left out” or losing side of this relentless competition. Then we look around and realize that the losers are the majority, because the system was always rigged. E.g. the “entrepreneurs from their dad’s garage” stories are not only generally not true, but they start with someone who has a freaking garage with empty space to start a company… that’s what, 0,5% of the world population? Clearly, people argue, entrepreneurship is not accessible to me, but I’m told it’s the only  way to advance – a proper lose-lose formula. 
• The dual focus on globalism and individualism leads to a loss of long and deeply held identity markers that gave sense to people’s lives (local communities, neighborhoods, languages, national identity, perceived ethnicity, religion, etc.), and therefore causes a push to find new identities that give meaning. For some this might be connected to intersectional identities that welcome new expressions, for others it’s expressed in excluding those the one feels are taking up one’s space.
• The crushing weight of individualism has led to the destruction of many communities and, even more so, the sense of belonging to a protective, nurturing community for many people. Even a concept as broad as “family” (which traditionally comprises dozens of people) has been reduced to the “nuclear” family of 2-5 members, which is incredibly isolating (and expensive to enable to survive without any other informal support!). People feel lonely, isolated, and vulnerable.
• Indeed, as lonely individuals, folks struggle with feeling little (or any) support from others, or, worse, many express guilt for having to depend on others or on public support (a sure sign of being a “loser” in the neoliberal order – think of poor men voting to get rid of subsidies that keep them alive). This leads to a strong sense of helplessness, and feeling left out and lost.

These seem to be good reasons to abandon neoliberalism as a goal and seek new ways of structuring out society. 

So, what about social innovation and changemaking? Was all this merely a product of a neoliberal order, another way of structuring this message, that should be discarded? Are we witnessing the fall of this order as well? I don’t think so, but I do suggest we dig deeper into our understanding of what we are trying to do and support.

At Ashoka, for example, we talk about envisioning a world where “Everyone is a Changemaker”. Often we break this down in a way that is, unfortunately, very adjusted to this neoliberal view: every individual must see themselves as (individual) changemakers and have the tools and confidence to build positive change for the good of all. Sometimes it is  framed as an essential skill for individuals to acquire in a world where change (disruption) is the norm and a skill without which one will fall behind in a competitive world. As if your life wasn’t bad enough with all the barriers and inequalities you face to survive in this dog-eats-dog world, now you also have to acquire changemaking (the good kind) to get any kind of decent job (that is, if you fail to start your own venture that reaches self-sufficiency while you’re a teenager). There are so many problems in the world, so must disruption, that the only way to beat it is to disrupt even more. One wonders whether this individual burden to transform our surroundings is, perhaps, even greater than the one already imposed on us for survival in the neoliberal order.

Surely I’m exaggerating just a bit to get the point across… but this is what many people hear (and complain or get excited about) when they hear our message. 

What is interesting, though, and where I find both hope and guidelines for improvement, is that the actual experience of changemakers (people who are creating positive change for the good of all) and social entrepreneurs that are achieving systems shifts is quite different from this individualistic approach. I know because I’ve had the privilege of working with these top leaders for nearly 20 years. (Here's an example of an analysis of these top social entrepreneurs' experience in the field of migration, and the framework for positive change we believe needs to emerge).

In my experience with serious social innovation, changemaking skills emerge primarily in strong communities where people are taught to care for each other and self organize to combat systems. Surely, that’s how they talk about and frame change, as a community transformation. Individuals within these communities feel the support of their peers and neighbors and know how to build the needed communal structures so people don’t feel alone but rather, grasp their shared power. 

And it’s not only the community part: many, many of these social entrepreneurs’ innovations consist in rediscovering ancient practices and strategies that had been forgotten. (An example I love is Winkomun which is based on ancient practices of self-funded community savings mechanisms, expanding the use for integration, community building, migrant self-support, etc.). The best innovators are careful to not confuse real “innovation” with new gadgets and technologies, but rather involve empowering and giving platforms for leadership to people that have traditionally been excluded (in Ashoka we call this “activating changemaking”, which is a new word play on the ancient concept of a thriving community). The most successful social entrepreneurs are  often organizers of the “losers” in this rigged system; community builders, relentlessly seeking the wellbeing and success of their communities in order to care for and empower other communities. They enable individuals to find their identity in what and who they care for rather than what they or who they might be against.

This is the kind of changemaking I believe in and want to support. Certainly, many of these leaders and the communities that surround them are already seeing the future and proposing key shifts in our models in order to build a better order than what we have trusted in thus far. They are about communities that care of other communities, and build models that lift up individuals not to become competitors, but to become valued members of society, worthy of care, wellbeing, recognition and thriving. It’s the kind of change I hope we can get better at supporting, describing, modeling and imitating as we enter into an unknown era of history.

To end a text that has already become too long, I’d like to quote one of these leaders that is modeling a different kind of change. Ashoka Fellow, Nick Tilsen is the CEO of NDN, an indigenous leader who is instrumental in re-defining serious change away from the trappings of neoliberalism and white supremacy. We recently asked him about some of the concerns he has for the future of the field of social entrepreneurship (see full interview here), here’s what he answered:

“If you look at the history of the field of entrepreneurship, both corporate and social, there are a lot of white guys who discovered the solution, right? I think this can create a savior mentality: “Social Entrepreneurs are finally going to save us all.” But the reality of our situation is that, to achieve any serious change, you must distribute decision-making power back to the people who are being impacted, the people whose power has been taken from them, in most cases illegally. If we’re trying to build a world where everyone is a changemaker, then let’s not try to engineer a world, or “widget” our way to an everyone a changemaker world. Let’s stop thinking that we’re going to solve things in a social entrepreneur’s boardroom somewhere. Let’s recognize that we’re going to solve those problems in the soil, in the streets. We need to walk arm in arm with the people working in their communities solving problems every day. These individuals need to be valued as the social entrepreneurs of today, because they are the ones who are going to help us get out of the situation that we’re in."