A strategy for change: using the transtheoretical model to think strategically about change in Australian society

Hello friends! In this post, I’m going to have a good chat about strategies for making change in Australian society. We know that there are several problems that need solving. We know that climate change is a threat to the survival of the human species. We know that white supremacy in Australia is responsible for some of the most atrocious breaches of human rights, from the moment Captain Cook arrived, to today when even as we speak, PC Spud continues to lock up Australian-born children in detention. And may I even venture that these are connected - that Indigenous nations cared for this continent for many thousands of years successfully, and then within just over 200 years colonisation destroyed language, culture and made genocide a government policy - and the land began to suffer through our lack of knowledge and care, and racism ran rampant, and continues to do so.

We need to make change. But our government is not interested in making change, or at least not to the point that is necessary. So upon this realisation, I take one of two options - I get enraged, find the closest Extinction Rebellion protest, paint a big sign, and take to the streets to yell; or, I start throwing up my hands in despair and doom-scrolling Facebook for five hours. Everyone seems to be about the money, capitalism rules the day, and ultimately we’re all fucked - or so it seems. The question that we often ask is how do we make change? 

THE STAGES OF CHANGE

In my work as a counsellor, I work with the Stages of Change, which is also known as the Transtheoretical Model. It is not the only model of change that exists, but it is a useful starting point, and it is simple to follow. My hope is that by outlining the Stages of Change here, we can start thinking about how they might apply on a systemic level, and to begin to move towards change in the system itself. This model has been written about in the academic literature as being relevant to both individual change (usually for alcohol/drug and other health issues) and organisational change. Here is an infographic to get us started:

A CAVEAT - POWER IMBALANCES

On an individual level, these concepts are applied in a therapeutic relationship which is supportive and non-judgmental, and this is the basis from which the therapist works. Even when highlighting discrepancies between what a person says they want and the outcomes of their choices, the therapist is always working in a supportive manner and building trust. In a therapeutic relationship, the therapist has more power and the client’s life choices impact less on the therapist than on the client. 

In your personal relationships with friends or family, this is probably an ok approach to take - being curious, supportive, and non-judgemental (depending on the power dynamics in the relationship, of course). On this level, trying to force an idea on someone or use authority to push them into it is not going to create any kind of lasting change. Fear, shame and judgement create distrust, conflict and even trauma, but they don’t create meaningful change. 

And...

How this might work on a systemic level will look very different. 

It is the system itself that we are trying to change, and the people upholding the system have the most power - not those of us encouraging change. They benefit from maintaining the status quo and NOT moving through the stages. Therefore the relationship will look different, and we will not seem supportive or non-judgemental. We will be holding people in power to account and making the risks of their choices very obvious to them. We will be clear in showing the effects of their decision-making and questioning why they have this much authority in the first place. 

That makes people nervous. But it’s important to note where the power is held, and to act in a way that reduces the imbalances. 

STAGES OF CHANGE - WTF ARE THEY

STAGE ONE: Precontemplation. “I haven’t got a problem, it’s everyone else around me with the problem!” 

In this stage, people are not thinking about change. They are happy with the situation they’re in, it suits them, and the positives outweigh the negatives. They may not be thinking much about the negative effects of their situation, or they may not even be aware of them. 

To move forward to the next stage, people need to have a bit of a wake-up call. This doesn’t need to be extreme. It could involve raising awareness about the negative effects of the situation. It can be effective to talk about the risks they will personally face if this situation isn’t addressed. 

Harm reduction is also an extremely important part of this stage. In the context of alcohol or drug use, harm reduction means educating people on the risks and giving them tips for reducing risks (e.g. don’t drive under the influence, make sure you are in a safe place when drinking, hydrate, eat a meal, make sure you are with someone who can call for help if need be).

APPLY! 

So how might this work in the context of climate change, or in anti-racism practices? If we recognise that someone is precontemplative, how might we work to nudge people towards more awareness? It could look like:

• Explaining how Australian policies have harmed Indigenous people and not shying away from the ongoing effects of these policies

• Explaining the risks of climate change for the future, especially future generations

• Personalising the risk to your friend/family member - how might climate change directly affect where they live or who they care about? Are they ok with this? Or would they prefer that this didn’t happen? Would they be ok with the effects of racist policies if they or their family had to experience them? 

STAGE TWO: Contemplation: “Well, there might be a problem, but do I really need to do anything?”

Contemplation can also be called ambivalence, and when people start thinking about making change, they can spend a lot of time in this stage before moving forward. And no wonder - change is uncomfortable, scary, difficult, and just a pain in the arse overall. But when the risks outweigh the rewards, we pretty quickly start moving forward. 

To move forward, the old saying applies: “the pain of staying the same is worse than the pain of changing.”  It can help to weigh up the risks and the rewards of changing versus risks and rewards of staying the same. The other thing that can help us move forward is to look at how change might be a good thing for our identity, happiness, success or how it might be in line with our most important values. 

APPLY!

On an individual level, if you have a family member or MP who is open to a genuine discussion about the risks versus rewards, and you feel you can engage in this conversation without either of you feeling defensive, then this could be a very productive conversation to have. 

STAGE THREE: Preparation. 

As we realise that change is needed and not just a nice option, it’s important that we feel up to the task. As we said before, change is hard. We need to know that we are capable of this. Looking back at previous successful changes in the past can be helpful here. 

It’s also important to make a realistic plan. Making a plan that is too difficult erodes confidence and motivation. Breaking it down into small steps can help, and using the SMART acronym can be useful - “is this plan specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and has a set time-frame?” 

Remember that the plan doesn’t have to address everything at once. It could start to tackle the most important aspects of change first, or the most easily completed ones, before moving on to the harder stuff. 

APPLY!

On an individual level, this is a good stage to clarify your specific goals and actions that you want to take versus actions that you can’t or won’t take right now. What are your boundaries? What are your limits? It’s important to clarify this before you move into the next stage, which is action, and involves other people. You want to be as much on the same page as possible, while allowing for others to be taking actions in ways that are right for them (as long as they don’t harm others of course). On a systemic level, it looks like planning to make changes to the system - to phase out the old structures and bring in the new ones. 

STAGE FOUR: Action. 

This is the stage where we implement our plans. We have a clear goal in mind that is possible to achieve, and we take the steps we’ve outlined in the plan. This is also the place where we link up with others for support, and join people who have goals we can get on board with. We practice our skills here, substituting new ways for old ways. 

APPLY!

This could look different for every individual, but it might involve taking new steps like recycling (new way) rather than throwing plastic in the garbage (old way). It might involve joining a protest rather than agreeing silently. It might involve actively seeking out ways to acknowledge and honour community elders of the lands on which you live and work. On a systemic level, it looks like government bringing in new policies - hell, it might even look like implementing a whole new structure of governance. 

STAGE FIVE: Maintenance. 

In this stage the change is maintained - we continue with our new ways as they become habit, and we continue to seek out support from people who have the same goals. We look for new supports or choices that continue to reinforce what we are working on. 

APPLY!

On a systemic level, this would look like “maintaining the rage” - continuing to implement the changes that 

STAGE SIX: Relapse. 

While not on the infographic as such, in a health or AOD context, a lapse occurs when someone temporarily goes back to previous behaviours (e.g. drinking/smoking). A relapse occurs when they go back to previous behaviours at the same level or higher levels than they were before they went through the stages of change. 

APPLY!

On a systemic level, once change has occurred, it’s much harder for a system to change back to what it was before. It can happen, and we should never think that it’s impossible or that authoritarians won’t fight dirty to claw power back. But a system is slower to move than an individual, and once systemic change is in place, it is harder to shift back. We can also undertake “relapse prevention” tasks, which involves identifying triggers for relapse and planning how to manage them. How this looks on a systemic level would depend on what was likely to reverse the new ways, and mitigate those before they had a large impact.

A NEW SYSTEM AND THE 3.5% RULE

For our government, I see them very firmly stuck in the contemplative stage around climate change because the benefits of their money are far outweighing the future risks. I don’t see this changing until the negative effects of climate change become so great that it’s absolutely ruined many of us. Remember Scotty in Hawaii while bushfires raged last year? Yeah. And in terms of antiracism, I see them also very happily stuck in contemplation or even precontemplation, because they see no benefit to change. Australia as a thing doesn’t actually exist - it’s built on stolen land and the genocide and slavery of Indigenous nations. To admit that means the downfall of the whole system. My ancestry is English/Scottish/German, and I’m ready to see the system changed - as in, re-establish sovereignty of the traditional owners. Maybe I can apply for residency in Yuggera country, and learn to care for country appropriately.  But I don’t have as much at stake, I don’t benefit in the same way off the myth of Australia/terra nullius as a politician does - so maybe that’s why I am more willing to admit the truth and move towards change. (Of course my ancestors have benefited from colonisation and I continue to benefit).

One thing that can help to reinforce change is what the literature calls “stimulus control” - changing the environment to ‘elicit new behaviours and inhibit old behaviours’ (Prochaska, 2001). Other research suggests that only 3.5% of a population need to be actively engaged with a cause to create change. This means that if 3.5% of Australia’s population (about 875,000) were actively engaged in tackling issues like climate change or actively recognising and living by Indigenous sovereignty, we would see a huge shift in society towards these things. This would be enough “stimulus control” to create new ways and inhibit old ways across society. 

YOUR THOUGHTS?

• Where do you see yourself sitting in the stages of change on issues like climate change and anti-racism?

• Where do you see our government sitting in the stages of change on these issues? What do you see that gives you that indication?

• Do you think trying to move a government forward is worthwhile? Or do you think we are running out of time and need to circumvent them entirely? Or something else?

• What do you think about the 3.5% rule needed to make a change? 

• How might you use your knowledge about the stages of change now that you know a little more about it? Do you see it being applicable anywhere? 

• Do you think there’s anything more about change that is important to consider, and that has been missed by this perspective? 

I’d love to hear your answers in the comments, or further questions and discussions. I’m on a learning journey here and it’s one I want to undertake in the context of community, so please add your ideas/thoughts/questions/plans! 

REFERENCES

DiClemente, C. (2007). The Transtheoretical Model of Intentional Behaviour Change. Drugs and Alcohol Today, 7(1), 29–33. https://doi.org/10.1108/17459265200700007

Hill, R., Pert, P., Davies, J., Robinson, C., Walsh, F., Falco-Mammone, F.. (2013). Indigenous land management in Australia: extent, scope, diversity, barriers and success factors. Cairns: CSIRO. https://doi.org/10.4225/08/584ee74971137 

Prochaska, P. (2001). A Transtheoretical Approach to Changing Organizations. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 28(4), 247–261. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011155212811

Robson, D. (2019). The 3.5% rule: How a small minority can change the world. BBC Future. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190513-it-only-takes-35-of-people-to-change-the-world (accessed 30/12/2020).