On Change

On Change

A key concept in Kinesiology, and life in general, is the change process. Within Kinesiology, theories on the change process are most often used to guide the practice of encouraging healthy liftestyle choices. Concerning the mutiple phases one might go through as part of the change process, and what possible resistance to change there may be, there are already multiple exhaustive references on those sub-topics within the field of motivation study in psychology. Although I shall revisit these later, for now let us concentrate more on change itself, rather than resistance to change.

Embracing change does not merely mean not being resistant to change. (double negativity does not suffice; positive affirmation is necessary)
It certainly does not mean to force oneself to act against one’s Self. (self-defeat does not lead to successful change)
What then, constitutes embracing the change process ?

We change based on the information that we seek or is given to us and to which we are truly open, deeply experiencing it by allowing it to reshape our thoughts & cognitive processes as well as our emotions and psyche.

Patrick Roy-V., B.Sc. Kin


Hello Patrick,

Very interesting, sharing your opinions on this subject.

I agree with the fact that “in embracing change, double negativity does not suffice” with regard to resistance, tough I don’t get “It certainly does not mean to force oneself to act against one’s Self.”

I believe that if we need to change, it is because there is something in us that needs to change. Sometimes, we don’t need to force ourselves to do so probably because this change is in line with our interests, our curiosity, our preferences or our desire to go towards something else. This would not be going against ourselves but if I have a necessary change to perform which does not contain these characteristics, I should go against myself or at least a small part at a tune, to get there.

I leave you with this quick tough based on not much reflexion. There would be many things to say and to think, which in itself already requires a change in my habits but this one is so interesting to me that I feel certain that I’m going “with me” rather than “against me” because your subject deals with my passion.

Bye, thank you for offering us this opportunity. I wait for more articles with impatience.

I am looking forward to challenges on thinking differently.

“Sur le fil”

Editor’s note.: Translated from french.

@”Sur le fil”
Thank you very much for your comment, this reflexion is useful.

Perhaps I should clarify what I mean by “not forcing oneself to act against oneself”:
It does not necessarily mean that there is no effort in changing. There could be a certain difficulty felt (more or less) as part of the change process, notably if a long-acquired habit must be broken. This breaking, perhaps difficult, is however not necessarily unpleasant.
What I mean by “acting against oneself”, is when there is a kind of unhealthy splitting, and an internal fight between status quo and radical change, two extremes which I would associate, perhaps improperly (?), to the “Id” and the “super-ego“.

< < if we need to change, it is because there is something in us that needs to change >>

Be careful with the word “need”…

< < but if I have a necessary change to perform >>

Who has established the “necessity” of this change, if it isn’t the individual himself ? (This is crucial to my reasonning.)
If not, the idea may come from a third party, perhaps a spouse, doctor, or some “ideal” projected by society. This ideal, were it exterior in the beginning, became internalized (by introjection) within the super-ego of the individual, who then sees a great distance between his “ideal self” and his “percieved self“. From which he feels incomfort and desires change. This desire to change is neither self-regulated, nor authentic until the autonomous individual “makes it his“; until he assumes ownership of it. The individual, only him, bears the responsability of freely choosing whether he wishes to invest himself in the change process, with the costs (investments) which are INHERENT and INDISSOCIABLE. How then could he, after having freely chosen to change, resist to it ? Is there not self-contradiction ?

This contradiction is certainly possible. Many factors can be at its origin. And though they merit exploration, I believe too many times they are emphasized at the expense of a simplicity and a pleasure in self-improvement, which are also possible.

Patrick Roy-V., B.Sc. Kin

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Veuillez répondre à la question mathématique suivante / Plase answer the following math question : *

Post navigation