Social scientists have become increasingly concerned with their possible responsibility to question and to change the status quo (Dahrendorf, 1958; Deutch and Hornstein, 1975; Habermas, 1972; Lazarsfeld and Rietz, 1975; Mitroff and Kilman, 1978; Moscovici, 1972). A need for research on “liberating alternatives” is being expressed. Examining this literature, one finds a dearth of research on how to implement the “liberating alternatives” suggested by the social scientists.

Implementation has often been considered “applied” or “practical,” thereby delegating it to the domain of vocational activities, a domain that scientists rarely have supported. Recently, however, a recognition has developed that there are very powerful intellectual issues in moving from ideas to action (Lindblom and Cohen, 1979). It is the purpose of this paper to explore some of the “individual” factors that will make implementing liberating alternatives difficult.

The paper contains two interrelated arguments. Individuals, acting as agents for various kinds of organizations, must do the actual implementing. They bring to this task theories of action (probably learned early in their lives) which when used correctly will be counterproductive to implementing liberating alternatives. While acting, individuals are unaware of the counterproductivity of their actions. The unawareness is due to their culturally learned theories of action. The word “individual” above was placed in quotes because although individuals may do the implementing, the theories of action in their heads–the theories that they will use – are, I suggest, examples of massive socialization processes.