The mechanisms described above make clear why purposively changing an existing circle civilisation is difficult. An established civilisation is not merely a collection of opinions that can readily be replaced by better arguments.
It is present in personal civilisations, habitual conduct, trusted sources, institutions, systems of ideas, narratives and social expectations. It is legitimated by existing institutions, reproduced by the conduct of members and partly maintained through social sanctioning.
Alternative ideas are therefore not introduced into a neutral environment. Even a logically coherent alternative may remain almost without social effect when it is known only to a few individuals and is not transmitted, internalised, shared and, where necessary, institutionalised.
A purposive change in a circle civilisation may be regarded as successful when the civilisation elements being pursued have been sufficiently internalised and have become sufficiently socially operative to realise and maintain the intended condition. Institutionalisation is necessary only insofar as the intended social order rests on it.
This criterion shifts attention from a single decision or temporary change of power to the question whether new civilisation elements have actually become part of personal civilisations and of the social order within which people act.
Anyone seeking purposively to change an existing or competing circle civilisation will have to understand which civilisation elements the individuals concerned have internalised and why they regard the resulting conceptions, norms, values, courses of action, goals and ideals as right, appropriate or desirable.
Understanding this is not the same as agreeing with it. It means reconstructing which conceptions of reality they hold to be true, which norms they apply, which goals they consider worth pursuing, which sources they trust, and why existing institutions or proposals appear justified from within their personal civilisation.
Merely describing their views as wrong, bad or dangerous does not in itself constitute an effective strategy of change. From within their own personal civilisation, they may apply precisely the same descriptions to alternative ideas. When parties merely condemn one another’s conclusions without understanding the underlying civilisation elements, the mechanism of civilising is not thereby changed.
Anyone seeking to win others over to alternative ideas must therefore be able to make plausible why those ideas would provide them with a better basis for their conceptions, norms, values and conduct. The relevant question is not solely why the advocate of change is personally convinced. It is under what conditions others may be willing to incorporate elements of the alternative civilisation into their own personal civilisation.
Alternative civilisation elements must subsequently be developed and communicated with sufficient simplicity and clarity to make it plausible to sufficient numbers of individuals why they offer a more convincing or desirable alternative to existing or competing civilisation elements.
Alternative ideas may therefore acquire sufficient coherence to form a system of ideas together. That system of ideas may then be rendered as simply and comprehensibly transmissible as possible within a narrative without losing the necessary substantive coherence. Such a narrative makes clear not only what should be different, but also how reality is interpreted, why existing elements are regarded as problematic, which alternative norms are proposed, and why other goals and institutions should be considered justified or desirable.
A system of ideas and narrative need not already be fully formed before social associations arise around the new ideas. They may instead be further interpreted, discussed and developed within a movement. The movement thereby becomes not merely the bearer of an already completed system of ideas, but also an environment in which its content takes further shape.
Purposive social change cannot be achieved merely by persuading separate individuals. Alternative civilisation elements must be transmitted and disseminated in such a way that they are internalised by sufficient numbers of individuals, shared within relevant social circles and become socially operative. Insofar as the intended change requires it, they must subsequently also be embedded in institutions.
Organisation may increase the continuity of transmission and development. Social circles, organisations, media, educational bodies and other associations may preserve knowledge, reach new participants and make dissemination less dependent on a few individual bearers. Elites may perform a particular role within such circles, but they too remain dependent on the conduct and responses of others.
Purposive action may cause responses and further social changes that the actor neither intended nor foresaw. The consequences of the action thereby themselves alter the conditions under which actors subsequently make further choices and act.
The assessment of the outcome is likewise civilisationally coloured. The more closely an outcome corresponds to the civilisation elements of the person assessing it, the more likely it is to be accepted as the achievement of the goal. When competing actors interpret the same outcome differently, acceptance of their explanations is partly determined by their correspondence to the civilisation of their support bases and by trust in the actor. Acceptance of such an explanation may subsequently reinforce the civilisation elements through which it is legitimated.