In this introduction, we highlight the importance of psychological viewpoints to understand the dynamics of how, why and in what way relations between social groups do and do not change. Systems are defined as sets of interconnected elements that form a complex whole that is more than the sum of their parts. This definition underlies our discussions of how social systems change and the resistance to social change through the chapters. In this introduction, the main focus of each chapter is briefly presented, as well as the interconnections between them.

This chapter introduces key themes of the "new psychology" of intergroup relations within systems, highlighting interconnection, intersectionality, temporal cycles, tipping points, and imagination. It challenges the limitations of ‘traditional’ psychology in addressing social change and emphasises the potential of these new approaches. The chapter begins by exploring systems thinking, recognizing that groups are internally divided and externally connected by intersecting identities, so changes within one element affect broader social structures. Intersectionality, critical theories and positioning theory are discussed to understand complex group interactions and power dynamics. The chapter also connects people and groups across time, emphasising the influence of historical context and the importance of future imagination in shaping present actions. It highlights the non-linear nature of social change, marked by tipping points. Finally, the chapter considers humans as part of larger biological and environmental systems, underscoring the interaction between social and physical environments, including the impact of climate change on group identities and norms.

This chapter explores the temporal context of social change, including how scholars have studied changes over time through longitudinal research. It highlights the importance of understanding how the past, present and future interact to shape the attitudes and behaviours of individuals and groups. The chapter reviews key topics such as salience, threat, collective memories and narratives, emphasising their roles in the psychology of groups that act across time and space. Cyclical temporal changes are proposed to be understudied, and the need for comparative, predictive models to better understand recurring rhythms is discussed. The chapter discusses how experiences of the present are influenced by past histories and future anticipations, and the impact of social context on identity salience and intergroup relations. Lastly, the chapter explores how collective futures, including utopias and dystopias, influence motivation and action, exploring the balance of threat and hope in relation to effective collective action.

1. When was the last time you had a social work conversation-that-mattered? Who was it with? What did you discuss? How did you feel? What was the outcome? 2. What do you do that gives your social work meaning and purpose? 3. What are the existing possibilities and dilemmas facing social work? 4. What is the social worker’s key role in an era of profound social change? 5. In what ways do you see your social work being in the business of building a better world?

The concluding chapter reiterates the goal of the book: to offer a solution to animals’ lack of legal inclusion by offering a new foundation of legal subjectivity. The Principle of Multispecies Legality provides such a foundation for animals and, indeed, all those beings and entities with interests. By contrast with the present paradigm of legal personhood, the PML is not premised on a vision of the ‘archetypal’ human which serves to exclude not only animals but also many vulnerable human groups. The PML is also an improvement over the rights of nature, in that it more straightforwardly recognises the interests and worth of individual animals and does not maintain the ontological barrier between humans and all other nature. Finally, we are reminded that making change takes a multispecies village: that the PML is only as good as those who are willing to implement it. In order to ensure real change for animals and other interested beings, we need to work to encourage greater respect for the non-human world.

Chapter 8 draws on sociological literature in debating whether law – however drafted – is capable of solving the complex problem of discrimination against people who look different. It argues that, although we should not expect too much of law in tackling the complex social problem of appearance bias, strategically targeted laws can sometimes play a part in changing attitudes, norms and behaviours. While prohibitions on discrimination are important for remedial purposes, other types of legal and social reform may be better placed to create the conditions for greater inclusion of people with visible differences.

The book’s conclusion assesses the extent of legalism in Korea and Japan, including other issue areas. It underscores the importance of studying the role of activists and lawyers in catalyzing sociolegal and institutional change. Legalism may take diverse forms, as demonstrated in the comparisons of Korea and Japan. The tobacco liability cases show that legalism is not emerging everywhere. The cases suggest legalistic governance is more likely when support structures for advocacy and legal mobilization exist, opposition is diffuse or weak, and activists sustain all five mechanisms. The conclusion considers what the expanding role of law and courts means for democracy in both countries. It ends on a cautiously optimistic note: the potential for rights realization and participatory channels has grown, especially in Korea. Although challenges in legal mobilization persist, and reform implementation faces human, resource, and attitudinal barriers, activists and lawyers are creatively engaging with legal frameworks in ways that strengthen legalistic regulatory styles.

The relationship between change and international legitimacy is an important topic. History (international and national history) and legitimacy do not stand still but change over time. There is a relationship of mutual influence and dependency between the evolution of history, including the organization of international relations in it, and the evolution of legitimacy. As history evolves, the culture of legitimacy evolves; and as legitimacy evolves, history evolves. Keeping this in mind, the chapter first discusses the fact that scholars have tended to focus on the perceived importance of stability in analyses of legitimacy and change. Second, using that discussion as a foundation, the chapter contends that the goal of an international order should be the socialization of instability. Third, the chapter analyzes the relationship between the characteristics of an international order, or part of it, and the question of its change, including change and stability and their relation to legitimacy.

August Wilson forged a formidable legacy as an advocate for Black art and aesthetic practices on and off the stage. In 1996, he delivered a speech at the Theatre Communications Group national conference entitled, “The Ground on Which I Stand,” in which he made a case for the importance of creating, supporting, and sustaining Black art and cultural institutions. The speech continues to serve as an important manifesto for those interested in dismantling the harmful systems and structures that persist in the theatre. This chapter revisits Wilson’s speech and places it in conversation with more recent demands to upend and dismantle white supremacy in the arts, including those articulated by the collective of Black, Indigenous, and People of Color theatremakers organizing under “We See You, White American Theatre.”

This chapter brings the book to a close by reflecting the complexity of contemporary local–global relations, focusing on questions of positive relationality, sustainability, productivity, and vitality. It responds to the compounding crisis of our time, a manifold crisis which encompasses processes of ecological, economic, political, and cultural unsettling. The argument presented here is that a manifesto for positive local–global relations needs to confront the contemporary human condition in all its interconnected crises and wonders. It needs to be able to project into the future as well as provide guidance for present activities. And it needs to remain a heuristic and negotiable framework for continuing dialogue over principles rather be fixed as a set of edicts or targets. Rather than providing a blueprint for change, the chapter presents manifesto making as a method. Nevertheless, it presents a series of fundamental principles that are suggestive for rethinking the present human condition.

I discuss some of the biographical and historical roots of my lifelong interest in contexts of human behavior and development. These include experiences with youth problems related to broken families and jeopardized environments, as well as abrupt social change due to political turmoil (e.g., socialist system breakdown in Europe) and large-scale migration (e.g., to Germany and Israel). The culmination of many studies in various countries was the Jena Model of Social Change and Human Development. It brought together macro-level system change with individual adaptation of developmental tasks, and effects on well-being and other outcomes. The model placed perceived new demands in the middle (between macro change and developmental tasks), and conceptualized modes of developmental regulation (engagement versus disengagement). The results of such research underscored the relevance of multilayers of contexts for development and provided opportunities for scientific advice regarding public policy. They also informed interventions aimed at minimizing maladaptive development.

I have always been interested in research that was relevant to real life and the real world. I was never interested in phenomena that were confined to behavior in a laboratory. My research ended up connecting not just with other people’s lives, but with my own life. That is, my research influenced my life; and my life influenced my research. The latter was evident in my research on the development of language and communication in children, chimpanzees, and bonobos. The former was evident in my COVID research where I drew upon my longitudinal study of a Maya community to realize during the pandemic – and empirically demonstrate – that parenting, child behavior, adult activities, and values in a rural subsistence ecology are quickly revived in modern human beings when such responses are needed to adapt to survival threat and a contraction of the social world. Those findings, in turn, have reinforced my focus on the dynamic interaction of social change, cultural evolution, and human development.

The introduction provides an overview of the state-of-the-art and situates the diverse research experiences and theoretical perspectives discussed by the volume contributors. Moreover, it presents different ways to define language activism based on various theoretical perspectives, research experiences and socio-political contexts. In order to present a nuanced and comprehensive view of activism, the introduction includes a special focus on the different forms it takes, the various stakeholders who may be involved, the unpredictability of who is included and excluded, and the inescapably ideological nature of language and language research. The introduction also addresses the kinds of questions scholars ask depending on the nature of their scholarly and political agendas and lays out a rationale for the four-part organization of the volume. The volume contributions deal with varied social settings ranging from contexts marked by great socio-economic and political inequality with sharply defined power hierarchies, to more egalitarian contexts with more dispersed power and subtle and diverse power hierarchies. Language struggles, whether they involve endangered language revitalization, language standardization, spelling reform or other efforts, involve numerous stakeholders and lead to tensions and battles among as well as within groups.