My hunch is that when people are trying to change things, many of them unthinkingly go for 1) [lobbying].
I’m not sure. People geneally use the methods available for good measure. Hirschman even gives quantitative measures for this in Exit, Voice, and Loyalty. Using Hirschmans terminology I’d map your points as follows:
1) I take it to lobby basically is to vote. That is choose among the options available.
2) To build an alternative system means to exit the existing system.
3) With to develop tools you seem to mean mainly communication tools. Ways to make the opinion of the people better known to all involved parties in one way or the other. And in Hirschmans terms this is a form of voice.
I’m not clear how the option 4) by ChristianKI and Emile figure in this scheme though.
In a way understanding the issue and devleoping (effective) ideas seems to be relevant to both 2) and 3). For 2) by building effective alternatives and for 3) by providing efficient tools and aggregating the desires.
Thanks for the link to Hirschman. I’m talking of something slightly different than Hirschman, though. Those who try to build an alternative system do exit the existing system, but they do this for strategic reasons; because they think that this would further their goal more than the alternative strategies. People might exit organizations for all sorrts of other reasons.
I don’t think that my 3) is an example of “voice”, really. What you’re doing here is not that you’re trying to influence others directly by arguments or rhetoric. Rather, you’re creating a device or a tool which, if generally used will change the social institution in question in the way you want (or so you hope). “Voice” gives me quite different connotations (e.g. lobbying seems to be a classic case of voice).
I’m not sure. People geneally use the methods available for good measure. Hirschman even gives quantitative measures for this in Exit, Voice, and Loyalty. Using Hirschmans terminology I’d map your points as follows:
1) I take it to lobby basically is to vote. That is choose among the options available.
2) To build an alternative system means to exit the existing system.
3) With to develop tools you seem to mean mainly communication tools. Ways to make the opinion of the people better known to all involved parties in one way or the other. And in Hirschmans terms this is a form of voice.
I’m not clear how the option 4) by ChristianKI and Emile figure in this scheme though.
In a way understanding the issue and devleoping (effective) ideas seems to be relevant to both 2) and 3). For 2) by building effective alternatives and for 3) by providing efficient tools and aggregating the desires.
EDIT: Formatting
Thanks for the link to Hirschman. I’m talking of something slightly different than Hirschman, though. Those who try to build an alternative system do exit the existing system, but they do this for strategic reasons; because they think that this would further their goal more than the alternative strategies. People might exit organizations for all sorrts of other reasons.
I don’t think that my 3) is an example of “voice”, really. What you’re doing here is not that you’re trying to influence others directly by arguments or rhetoric. Rather, you’re creating a device or a tool which, if generally used will change the social institution in question in the way you want (or so you hope). “Voice” gives me quite different connotations (e.g. lobbying seems to be a classic case of voice).