When you examine the history of a society, it is obvious that its culture has changed over time. Some of the shared behaviors and ideas that were common at one time are modified or replaced at another time. That is why, in describing a culture, it is important to understand that a description pertains to a particular time period.
(Moreover, in many large societies, the description may only be appropriate for a particular subgroup.) For example, the ! Kung of the 1950s were mostly dependent on the collection of wild plants and animals and moved their campsites frequently, but later they became more sedentary to engage in wage labor. Whether we focus on some aspect of past behavior or on contemporary behavior depends on what question we want to answer. If we want to maximize our understanding of cultural variation, such as variation in religious belief and practice, it may be important to focus on the earliest descriptions of a group before they were converted to a major world religion. On the other hand, if we want to understand why a people adopted a new religion or how they altered their religion or resisted change in the face of pressure, we need to examine the changes that occurred over time. In the remainder of this chapter, we will discuss how and why cultures change and briefly review some of the widespread changes that have occurred in recent times. In general, the impetus for change may come from within the society or from without.
From within, the unconscious or conscious pressure for consistency will produce culture change if enough people adjust old behavior and thinking to new. And change can also occur if people try to invent better ways of doing things. Michael Chibnik suggests that people who confront a new problem conduct mental or small “experiments” to decide how to behave. These experiments may give rise to new cultural traits. A good deal of culture change may be stimulated by changes in the external environment. For example, if people move into an arid area, they will either have to give up farming or develop a system of irrigation. In the modern world, changes in the social environment are probably more frequent stimuli for culture change than changes in the physical environment.
Many North Americans, for example, started to think seriously about conserving energy and about using sources of energy other than oil only after oil supplies from the Middle East were curtailed in 1973 and 1974. A significant amount of the radical and rapid culture change that has occurred in the last few hundred years has been due to the imperial expansion of Western societies into other areas of the world. Native Americans, for instance, were forced to alter their lifestyles drastically when they were driven off their lands and confined to reservations.
Discovery and Invention
Discoveries and inventions, which may originate inside or outside a society, are ultimately the sources of all culture change. But they do not necessarily lead to change. If an invention or discovery is ignored, no change in culture results. Only when society accepts an invention or discovery and uses it regularly can we begin to speak of culture change.
The new thing discovered or invented, the innovation, may be an object—the wheel, the plow, the computer—or it may involve behavior and ideas—buying and selling, democracy, monogamy. According to Ralph Linton, a discovery is any addition to knowledge, and an invention is a new application of knowledge.30 Thus, a person might
discover that children can be persuaded to eat nourishing food if the food is associated with an imaginary character that appeals to them. Someone else might then exploit that discovery by inventing a cartoon character named Popeye who acquires miraculous strength by devouring cans of spinach.
Unconscious Invention
Societies have various types of inventions. One type is the consequence of setting a specific goal, such as eliminating tuberculosis or placing a person on the moon. Another type emerges less intentionally. This second process of invention is often referred to as accidental juxtaposition or unconscious invention. Linton suggested that some inventions, especially those of prehistoric days, were probably the consequences of literally dozens of tiny initiatives by “unconscious” inventors. These inventors made their small contributions, perhaps over many hundreds of years, without being aware of the part they were playing in bringing one invention, such as the wheel or a better form of hand ax, to completion. Consider the example of children playing on a fallen log, which rolls as they walk and balance on it, coupled with the need at a given moment to move a slab of granite from a cave face. The children’s play could have suggested the use of logs as rollers and thereby set in motion a series of developments
that culminated in the wheel.
In reconstructing the process of invention in prehistoric times, however, we should be careful not to look back on our ancestors with a smugness generated by our more highly developed technology. We have become accustomed to turning to the science sections of our magazines and newspapers and finding, almost daily, reports of miraculous new discoveries and inventions. From our point of view, it is difficult to imagine such a simple invention as the wheel taking so many centuries to come into being. We are tempted to surmise that early humans were less intelligent than we are. But the capacity of the human brain has been the same for perhaps 100,000 years; there is no evidence that the inventors of the wheel were any less intelligent than we are.
Intentional Innovation
Some discoveries and inventions arise out of deliberate attempts to produce a new idea or object. It may seem that such innovations are obvious responses to perceived needs. For example, during the Industrial Revolution, there was a great demand for inventions that would increase productivity. James Hargreaves, in 18th-century England, is an example of an inventor who responded to an existing demand. Textile manufacturers were clamoring for such large quantities of spun yarn that cottage laborers, working with foot-operated spinning wheels, could not meet the demand. Hargreaves, realizing that prestige and financial rewards would come to the person who invented a method of spinning large quantities of yarn in a short time, set about the task and developed the spinning jenny But perceived needs and the economic rewards that may be given to the innovator do not explain why only some people innovate. We know relatively little about why some people are more innovative than others. The ability to innovate
may depend in part on such individual characteristics as high intelligence and creativity, and creativity may be influenced by social conditions
A study of innovation among Ashanti artist carvers in Ghana suggests that creativity is more likely in some socioeconomic groups than in others. Some carvers produced only traditional designs; others departed from tradition and produced “new” styles of carving. Two groups were found to innovate the most—the wealthiest and the poorest
carvers. These two groups of carvers may tolerate risk more than the middle socioeconomic group. Innovative carving entails some risk because it may take more time and it may not sell. Wealthy carvers can afford the risk, and they may gain some prestige as well as income if their innovation is appreciated. The poor are not doing well anyway, and they have little to lose by trying something new.
Some societies encourage innovativeness more than others, and this can vary substantially over time. Patricia Greenfield and her colleagues describe the changes in weaving in a Mayan community in the Zinacantán region of Chiapas, Mexico.33 In 1969 and 1970, innovation was not valued. Rather, tradition was; there was the old “true way” to do everything, including how one dressed. There were only four simple weaving patterns, and virtually all males wore ponchos with the same pattern. By 1991, virtually no poncho was the same and the villagers had developed elaborate brocaded and embroidered designs. In a period of 20 years, innovation had increased dramatically. Two other things had also changed. The economy was more commercialized; textiles as well as other items were now bought and sold. Weaving was taught in a less directed way. Whereas mothers used to give their daughters highly structured instruction, often with “four hands” on the loom, they were later allowed to learn more by themselves, by trial and error. The result was more abstract and varied designs.
Who Adopts Innovations?
Once someone discovers or invents something, there is still the question of whether others will adopt the innovation. Many researchers have studied the characteristics of “early adopters.” Such individuals tend to be educated, high in social status, upwardly mobile, and, if they are property owners, have large farms and businesses. The individuals who most need technological improvements—those who are less well off—are generally the last to adopt innovations. The theory is that only the wealthy can afford to take the substantial risks associated with new ways of doing things.
In periods of rapid technological change, therefore, the gap between rich and poor is likely to widen because the rich adopt innovations sooner, and benefit more from them, than the poor.
Does this imply that the likelihood of adopting innovations is a simple function of how much wealth a possible adopter possesses? Not necessarily. Frank Cancian reviewed several studies and found that upper-middle-class individuals show more conservatism than lower-middle-class individuals. Cancian suggested that, when the risks are unknown, lower-middle-class individuals are more receptive to innovation because they have less to lose. Later on, when the risks are better known—that is, as more people adopt the innovation—the upper-middle class catches up to the lower-middle class.35 In general, people are more likely to adopt a behavior as it becomes more common.
The speed with which an innovation is adopted may depend partly on how new behaviors and ideas are typically transmitted—or taught—in a society. If children learn most of what they know from their parents or from a relatively small number of elders, then innovation will be slow to spread throughout the society, and culture change is likely to be slow. Innovations may catch on more rapidly if individuals are exposed to various teachers and other “leaders” who can influence many in a relatively short time, and the more peers we have, the more we might learn from them. Perhaps this is why the pace of change appears to be so fast today. In societies like North America, and increasingly in the industrializing world, it is likely that people learn in schools from teachers, from leaders in their
specialties, and from peers.
Costs and Benefits
An innovation that is technologically superior is not necessarily going to be adopted since it comes with costs as well as benefits for both individuals and large-scale industries. Take the computer keyboard. The keyboard used most often on computers today is called the QWERTY keyboard (named after the first letters that appear on the left side of keyboard). This curious ordering of the letters was actually invented to slow typing speed down! Early typewriters had mechanical keys that jammed if the typist went too fast. Since computer keyboards do not have that problem, keys arranged for faster typing would probably be better and have, indeed, been invented. Yet they have not caught on, perhaps because people are reluctant to take the time or make the effort to change. In large-scale industries, technological innovations may be very costly to implement. A new product or process may require a manufacturing or service facility to be revamped and workers to be retrained. Before a change is made, the costs of doing so are weighed against the potential benefits. If the market is expected to be large for a new product, the product is more likely to be produced. If the market is judged small, the benefits may not be sufficient inducement to change. Companies may also judge the value of an innovation by whether competitors could copy it. If the new innovation can easily be copied, the inventing company may not find the investment worthwhile. Although the market may be large, the inventing company may not be able to hold onto market share if other companies could produce the product quickly without having to invest in research and development.
Diffusion
The source of new cultural elements in a society may also be another society. The process by which cultural elements are borrowed from another society and incorporated into the culture of the recipient group is called diffusion. Borrowing sometimes enables a group to bypass stages or mistakes in the development of a process or institution. For example, Germany was able to accelerate its program of industrialization in the 19th century through technological borrowing because it could avoid some of the errors its English and Belgian competitors had made. Japan’s industrialization followed the same pattern.
Indeed, in recent years, some of the earliest industrialized countries have fallen behind their imitators in certain areas of production, such as automobiles, televisions, cameras, and computers.
Diffusion has far-reaching effects. In a well-known passage, Linton conveyed how integral diffusion is to our lives, even while we are largely ignorant about it. Considering the first few hours in the day of an American man in the 1930s, Linton tells us he . . . awakens in a bed built on a pattern which originated in the Near East but which was modified in northern Europe before it was transmitted to America. He throws back covers made from cotton, domesticated in India, or linen, domesticated in the Near East, or silk, the use of which was discovered in China. All of these materials have been spun and woven by processes invented in the Near East. . . . He takes off his pajamas, a garment invented in India, and washes with soap invented by the ancient Gauls. He then shaves, a masochistic rite which seems to have derived from either Sumer or ancient Egypt.
Before going out for breakfast he glances through the window, made of glass invented in Egypt, and if it is raining puts on overshoes made of rubber discovered by the Central American Indians and takes an umbrella, invented in southeastern Asia. . .
On his way to breakfast he stops to buy a paper paying for it with coins, an ancient Lydian invention. . . . His plate is made of a form of pottery invented in China. His knife is of steel, an alloy first made in southern India, his fork a medieval Italian invention, and his spoon a derivative of a Roman original. . . . After his fruit (African watermelon) and first coffee (an Abyssinian plant), . . . he may have the egg of a species of bird domesticated in Indo-China, or thin strips of the flesh of an animal domesticated in eastern Asia which have been salted and smoked by a process
developed in northern Europe. . . .
While smoking (an American Indian habit), he reads the news of the day, imprinted in characters invented by the ancient Semites upon a material invented in China by a process invented in Germany. As he absorbs the accounts of foreign troubles he will, if he is a good conservative citizen, thank a Hebrew deity in an Indo-European language that he is 100 percent American.
Patterns of Diffusion
The three basic patterns of diffusion are direct contact, intermediate contact, and stimulus diffusion.
1. Direct contact. Elements of a society’s culture may first be taken up by neighboring societies and then gradually spread farther and farther afield. The spread of the use of paper (a sheet of interlaced fibers) is a good example of extensive diffusion by direct contact. The invention of paper is attributed to the Chinese Ts’ai Lun in a.d. 105. Within 50 years, paper was being made in many places in central China. Although the art of papermaking was kept secret for about 500 years, it was distributed as a commodity to much of the Arab world through the markets at Samarkand. But when Samarkand was attacked by the Chinese in a.d. 751, a Chinese prisoner of war was forced to set up a paper mill. Paper manufacture soon spread to the rest of the Arab world; it was first manufactured in Baghdad in a.d. 793, Egypt about a.d. 900, and Morocco about a.d. 1100.
Papermaking was introduced as a commodity in Europe by Arab trade through Italian ports in the 12th century. The Moors built the first European paper mill in Spain about 1150. The technical knowledge then spread throughout Europe, with mills being built in Italy in 1276, France in 1348, Germany in 1390, and England in 1494.41 In general, the pattern of accepting the borrowed invention was the same in all cases: Paper was first imported as a luxury, then in everexpanding quantities as a staple product. Finally, and usually within one to three centuries, local manufacture began.
2. Intermediate contact. Diffusion by intermediate contact occurs through the agency of third parties. Frequently, traders carry a cultural trait from the society that originated it to another group. For example, Phoenician traders introduced the ancient.
Greeks to the first alphabet, which the Phoenicians had themselves received from the Ugarit, another Semitic culture. At times, soldiers serve as intermediaries in spreading a culture trait. European crusaders, such as the Knights Templar and the Knights of St. John, acted as intermediaries in two ways: They carried Christian culture to
Muslim societies of North Africa and brought Arab culture back to Europe. In the 19th century, Western missionaries in all parts of the world encouraged natives to wear Western clothing. Hence, in Africa, the Pacific Islands, and elsewhere, native peoples can be found wearing shorts, suit jackets, shirts, ties, and other typically
Western articles of clothing.
3. Stimulus diffusion. In stimulus diffusion, knowledge of a trait belonging to another culture stimulates the invention or development of a local equivalent. A classic example of stimulus diffusion is the Cherokee syllabic writing system created by a Native American named Sequoya so that his people could write down their language.
Sequoya got the idea from his contact with Europeans. Yet he did not adopt the English writing system; indeed, he did not even learn to write English. What he did was utilize some English alphabetic symbols, alter others, and invent new ones. All the symbols he used represented Cherokee syllables and in no way echoed English alphabetic usage. In other words, Sequoya took English alphabetic ideas and gave them a new Cherokee form. The stimulus originated with Europeans; the result was singularly Cherokee.
The Selective Nature of Diffusion
It is tempting to think that the dynamics ofdiffusion are like a stone sending concentric ripples over still water, but that would oversimplify the way diffusion actually occurs. Not all cultural traits are borrowed as readily as the ones we have mentioned, nor do they usually expand in neat, everwidening circles. Rather, diffusion is a selective process. The Japanese, for instance, accepted much from Chinese culture, but they also rejected many traits. Rhymed tonal poetry, civil service examinations, and foot binding, which the Chinese favored, were never adopted in Japan. The poetry form was unsuited to the structure of the Japanese language; the examinations were unnecessary in view of the entrenched power of the Japanese aristocracy; and foot binding was repugnant to a people who abhorred body mutilation of any sort.
Not only would we expect societies to reject items from other societies that they find repellent, we would also expect them to reject ideas and technology that do not satisfy some psychological, social, or cultural need. After all, people are not sponges; they do not automatically soak up the things around them. If they did, the amount of cultural
variation in the world would be extremely small, which is clearly not the case. Diffusion is also selective because the extent to which cultural traits can be communicated differs.
Elements of material culture, such as mechanical processes and techniques, and overt practices, such as physical sports, are relatively easy to demonstrate. Consequently, they are accepted or rejected on their merits. When we move beyond the material world, however, we encounter real difficulties, which Linton (again) aptly described:
Although it is quite possible to describe such an element of culture as the ideal pattern for marriage . . . it is much less complete than a description of basketmaking. . . . The most thorough verbalization has difficulty in conveying the series of associations and conditioned emotional responses which are attached to this pattern [marriage] and which gave it meaning and vitality within our own society. . . . This is even more true of those concepts
which . . . find no direct expression in behavior aside from verbalization. There is a story of an educated Japanese who after a long discussion on the nature of the Trinity with a European friend . . . burst out with: “Oh, I see now, it is a committee.”
Finally, diffusion is selective because the overt form of a particular trait, rather than its function or meaning, frequently seems to determine how the trait will be received. For example, an enthusiasm for women to have bobbed hair (short haircuts) swept through much of North America in the 1920s but never caught on among the Native Americans of northwestern California. To many women of European ancestry, short hair was a symbolic statement of freedom. To Native American women, who traditionally cut their hair short when in mourning, it was a reminder of death. In the process of diffusion, then, we can identify a number of different patterns. We know that cultural borrowing is selective rather than automatic, and we can describe how a particular borrowed trait has been modified by the recipient culture. But our current knowledge does not allow us to specify when one or another of these outcomes will occur, under what conditions diffusion will occur, and why it occurs the way it does.
Acculturation
On the surface, the process of change called acculturation seems to include much of what we have discussed under the label of diffusion because acculturation refers to the changes that occur when different cultural groups come into intensive contact. As in diffusion, the source of new cultural items is the other society. But more often than not, anthropologists use the term acculturation to describe a situation in which one of the societies in contact is much more powerful than the other. Thus, acculturation can be seen as a process of extensive cultural borrowing in the context of superordinate-subordinate relations between societies. There is probably always some borrowing both ways, but generally the subordinate or less powerful society borrows the most.
External pressure for culture change can take various forms. In its most direct form—conquest or colonialization—the dominant group uses force or the threat of force to try to bring about culture change in the other group. In the Spanish conquest of Mexico, for example, the conquerors forced many of the native groups to accept Catholicism. Although such direct force is not always exerted in conquest situations, dominated peoples often have little choice but to change. Examples of such indirectly forced change abound in the history of Native Americans in the United States.
Although the federal government made few direct attempts to force people to adopt American culture, it did drive many native groups from their lands, thereby obliging them to give up many aspects of their traditional ways of life. To survive, they had no choice but to adopt many of the dominant society’s traits. When Native American children were required to go to schools, which taught the dominant society’s values, the process was accelerated.
A subordinate society may acculturate to a dominant society even in the absence of direct or indirect force. Perceiving that members of the dominant society enjoy more secure living conditions, the dominated people may identify with the dominant culture in the hope that they will be able to share some of its benefits by doing so. Or they may elect to adopt cultural elements from the dominant society because they perceive that the new element has
advantages. For example, in Arctic areas, many Inuit and Saami groups seemed eager to replace dog sleds with snowmobiles without any coercion.45 There is evidence that the Inuit weighed the advantages and disadvantages of the snowmobile versus the dog sled and that its adoption was gradual. Similarly, rifles were seen as a major technological improvement, increasing the success rate in hunting, but the Inuit did not completely abandon their former ways of hunting. More recently, the Inuit are trying out GPS devices for navigating. Acculturation processes vary considerably depending upon the wishes of the more powerful society, the attitudes of the less powerful, and whether there is any choice. More powerful societies do not always want individuals from another culture to assimilate or “melt into” the dominant culture completely; instead, they may prefer and even actively
promote a multicultural society. Multiculturalism can be voluntary or may arise out of deliberate segregation. Then, too, even though the less powerful group may be pressured to acquire some of the dominant group’s cultural traits, they may resist or even reject those cultural elements, at least for a considerable length of time.
Many millions of people, however, never had a chance to acculturate after contact with Europeans. They simply died, sometimes directly at the hands of the conquerors, but probably more often as a result of the new diseases the Europeans inadvertently brought with them. Depopulation because of measles, smallpox, and tuberculosis was particularly common in North and South America and on the islands of the Pacific. Those areas had previously been isolated from contact with Europeans and from the diseases of that continuous landmass we call the Old World—Europe, Asia, and Africa. The story of Ishi, the last surviving member of a group of Native Americans in California called the Yahi, is a moving testimonial to the frequently tragic effect of contact with Europeans. In the space of 22 years, the Yahi population was reduced from several hundred to near zero. The historical record on this episode of depopulation suggests that European Americans murdered 30 to 50 Yahi for every European American murdered, but perhaps 60 percent of the Yahi died in the 10 years following their initial exposure to European diseases.48
Nowadays, many powerful nations—and not just Western ones—may seem to be acting in more humanitarian ways to improve the life of previously subjugated as well as other “developing” peoples. For better or worse, these programs, however, are still forms of external pressure. The tactic used may be persuasion rather than force, but most of the programs are nonetheless designed to bring about acculturation in the direction of the dominant societies’ cultures. For example, the introduction of formal schooling cannot help but instill new values that may contradict traditional cultural patterns. Even health care programs may alter traditional ways of life by undermining the authority of shamans and other leaders and by increasing population beyond the number that can be supported
in traditional ways. Confinement to reservations or other kinds of direct force are not the only ways a dominant society can bring about acculturation. The process of acculturation also applies to immigrants, most of whom, at least nowadays, choose to leave one country for another. Immigrants are almost always a minority in the new country and therefore are in a subordinate position. If the immigrant’s culture changes, it is almost always in the direction of the dominant culture. Immigrant groups vary considerably in the degree and speed with which they adopt the new culture and the social roles of the new society in which they live. An important area of research is explaining the variation in acculturation and assimilation. (Assimilation is a concept very similar to acculturation, but assimilation is a term more often used by sociologists to describe the process by which individuals acquire the social roles and culture of the dominant group.)
Revolution
Certainly the most drastic and rapid way a culture can change is as a result of revolution— replacement, usually violent, of a country’s rulers. Historical records, as well as our daily newspapers, indicate that people frequently rebel against established authority. Rebellions, if they occur, almost always occur in state societies where there is a distinct ruling elite. They take the form of struggles between rulers and ruled, between conquerors and conquered, or between representatives of an external colonial power and segments of the native society. Rebels do not always succeed in overthrowing their rulers, so rebellions do not always result in revolutions. And even successful rebellions do not always result in culture change; the individual rulers may change, but customs or institutions may not. The sources of revolution may be mostly internal, as in the French Revolution, or partly external, as in the Russian-supported 1948 revolution in Czechoslovakia and the United States-supported 1973 revolution against President Allende in Chile.
The American War of Independence was a colonial rebellion against the greatest imperial power of the 18th century, Great Britain. The 13 colonies owed at least a part of their success in the war to aid from France, which had been waging its own “Seven Years’ War” against the British, and more indirectly from Spain, which would also declare war on the greater imperial power. Actually, the American war was closely following what we would now call a world war. In the 19th century and continuing into the middle and later years of the 20th century, there would be many other wars of independence against imperial powers in Latin America, Europe, Asia, and Africa. We don’t always remember that the American rebellion was the first anti-imperialist wars in modern times and the model for many that followed. Just like many of the most recent liberation movements, the American rebellion was also part of a larger worldwide war involving people from many rival nations. A total of 30,000 German speaking soldiers fought, for pay, on the British side; an army and navy from France fought on the American side. There were volunteers from other European countries, including Denmark, Holland, Poland, and Russia.
As in many revolutions, those who were urging revolution were considered “radicals.” At a now-famous debate in Virginia in 1775, delegates from each colony met at a Continental Congress. Patrick Henry put forward a resolution to prepare for defense against the British armed forces. The motion barely passed, by a vote of 65 to 60. Henry’s speech is now a part of American folklore. He rose to declare that it was insane not to oppose the British and that he was not afraid to test the strength of the colonies against Great Britain. Others might hesitate, he said, but he would have “liberty or death.” The radicals who supported Henry’s resolution included many aristocratic landowners, two of whom, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, became the first and third occupants of the highest political office in what became the United States of America.
Not all peoples who are suppressed, conquered, or colonialized eventually rebel against established authority. Why this is so, and why rebellions and revolts are not always successful in bringing about culture change, are still open questions. But some possible answers have been investigated. The historian Crane Brinton examined the classic revolutions of the past, including the American, French, and Russian revolutions, and suggested a set of conditions that may give rise to rebellion and revolution:
1. Loss of prestige of established authority, often as a result of the failure of foreign policy, financial difficulties, dismissals of popular ministers, or alteration of popular policies. France in the 18th century lost three major international conflicts, with disastrous results for its diplomatic standing and internal finances. Russian society was close to military and economic collapse in 1917, after 3 years of World War I.
2. Threat to recent economic improvement. In France, as in Russia, those sections of the population (professional classes and urban workers) whose economic fortunes had only shortly before taken an upward swing were “radicalized” by unexpected setbacks, such as steeply rising food prices and unemployment. The same may be said for the American colonies on the brink of their rebellion against Great Britain.
3. Indecisiveness of government, as exemplified by lack of consistent policy, which gives the impression of being controlled by, rather than in control of, events. The frivolous arrogance of Louis XVI’s regime and the bungling of George III’s prime minister, Lord North, with respect to the problems of the American colonies are examples.
4. Loss of support of the intellectual class. Such a loss deprived the prerevolutionary governments of France and Russia of any avowed philosophical support and led to their unpopularity with the literate public.
The classic revolutions of the past occurred in countries that were industrialized only incipiently at best. For the most part, the same is true of the rebellions and revolutions in recent years; they have occurred mostly in countries we call “developing.” The evidence from a worldwide survey of developing countries suggests that rebellions have tended to occur where the ruling classes depended mostly on the produce or income from land and therefore were resistant to demands for reform from the rural classes that worked the land. In such agricultural economies, the rulers are not likely to yield political power or give greater economic returns to the workers because to do so would eliminate the basis (landownership) of the rulers’ wealth and power.
Some political scientists have a broader definition of revolution and argue that not all great revolutions occur on the battlefield, nor are they all inspired by public rebellions. Some, like the culture revolution Ataturk brought to Turkey in 1919, for example, are largely the work of charismatic leaders.57 Ataturk’s government was responsible for molding a formerly imperial Muslim nation into a democracy and separating church (or mosque) and state. In retrospect, it was a monumental achievement since the role of clerics in government and the definition of democracy have remained ambiguous in much of the Middle East. Since the winter of 2010, the world has witnessed a remarkable series of popular uprisings known collectively as the Arab Spring that have affected nearly every Muslim nation.
It all began in the winter of 2010, when a street vendor in Tunisia set himself on fire after the police confiscated his fruit and vegetable cart. He had been an educated man, as more and more young Tunisians have been in the last few decades, but was unable to find other work in a country that had a 30 percent unemployment rate. His story was met with widespread and persistent protests, and, with the world watching and listening through social media, Tunisia’s president fled to Saudi Arabia less than 2 months later, and the Tunisian people were promised a free and democratic election. Within months, similar public protests toppled the leaders of Egypt, Libya, and Yemen. The leaders of nearly every Muslim nation have been affected by the uprising, and many of those who are still in power
have promised reforms, reorganized their governments, or promised to leave when their current terms of office end.58 But in many of the countries, turmoil and bloodshed is still on-going. It is too soon to know whether these uprisings will lead to the cultural change many Arab citizens want. But we can glean some characteristics these modern revolutions all seem to share. Their success depends on foreign support and intervention, in part because the citizens of authoritarian regimes have not been allowed to organize competing political parties. Social media has played a role in the speed with which change has occurred, in part because many leaders are less likely to use force when the world is watching.59 The goal in each nation appears to be a democratically elected government and the end of oppressive regimes.
Finally, a particularly interesting question is why revolutions sometimes, perhaps even usually, fail to measure up to the high hopes of those who initiate them. When rebellions succeed in replacing the ruling elite, the result is often the institution of a military dictatorship even more restrictive and repressive than the government that existed before. The new ruling establishment may merely substitute one set of repressions for another rather than bring any real change to the nation. On the other hand, some revolutions have resulted in fairly drastic overhauls of societies.
The idea of revolution has been one of the central myths and inspirations of many groups both in the past and in the
present. The colonial empire building of countries, such as England and France, created a worldwide situation in which rebellion became nearly inevitable. In numerous technologically underdeveloped lands, which have been exploited by more powerful countries for their natural resources and cheap labor, a deep resentment has often developed against the foreign ruling classes or their local clients. Where the ruling classes, native or foreign, refuse to be responsive to those feelings, rebellion becomes the only alternative. In many areas, it has become a way of life.