2 Comments
Jan 1Liked by Tom Goyens

Sociologists have studied this idea, that deprivation leads to rebellion. First was Stouffer who in a different context looked at morale among soldiers. He found that morale was not the lowest among companies that had the least amount of promotions, but actually the opposite. This lead him to the distinction between absolute deprivation and relative deprivation, whereby companies of soldiers that had more promotions established a higher expectation and so soldiers were less pleased about their individual situation relative to others. Later this was applied directly to political action by Ted Gurr in Why Men Rebel. It is not the absolutely worst off who were prone to revolution, but rather a middling strata who found their current state far from their expectation. I also think this relates to the rise of fascism, but I do not have references for this.

Alas, relative deprivation's causation to social movements has been criticize for numerous issues, in part its psychologizing social phenomenon. See Neff and Tierney 1982.

Expand full comment
author

Hi Ryan. Thanks for your comment. That's so interesting. Historically, it's been (lower) middle-class men and women radicalizing and leading revolutions, like you said. I'll check out Ted Gurr's book. Thanks for reading my substack! Happy New Year

Expand full comment