The International Encyclopedia of Social (1972) defines a social movement as a variety of collective attempts to bring about change. The attempts may be to bring about change in certain social institutions and to create an entirely new social order. Or the attempts may represent a socially shared demand for change in some aspects of the social order.

A social movement may be defined as a collective attempt to further a common interest, or secure a common goal, through collective action outside the sphere of established institutions. The definition has to be a broad one, precisely because of the variations between different types of movement. Many social movements are very small, numbering perhaps no more than a few dozen members; others may include thousands or even millions of people. Some movements carry on their activities within the laws of the society or societies in which they exist, while others operate as illegal or underground groups.

The dividing lines between social movements and formal organizations are sometimes blurred, because movements, which become well established usually, take on bureaucratic characteristics. Social movements may thus gradually become formal organizations, while - less frequently - organizations may devolve into social movements. The Salvation Army, for example, began as a social movement, but has now taken on most of the characteristics of a more permanent organization. An example of the opposite process would be the case of a political party, which is banned and forced to go underground, perhaps becoming a guerrilla movement.

Similarly, it is not always easy to separate social movements from interest groups - associations set up to influence policy - makers in ways that will favor their members. An example of an interest group would be the Automobile Association, which lobbies parliament to defend the interests of motorists. But is the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, which regularly lobbies parliament about matters to do with nuclear weapons, an interest group or part of a more wide-ranging mass movement? No clear-cut answer can be given in such cases; social movements often actively promote their causes through organized channels while also engaging in more unorthodox forms of activity.

Turner and Kilhan define a social movement as a “collective, which acts with some continuity to promote or resist change in the society or group of which it is a part”. Toch (1965) emphasizes that a social movement is an effort by a large number of people to solve collectively a problem they feel they share in common.

These definitions out, above all things, two important qualifying features of a social movement.

Firstly, that social movements involve collective as a against actions of a small group of individuals.

Social movements involve collective action by the people. Any form of collective action cannot be labelled as a social movement, even if it is directed towards changing the existing, social values. For example, in some places when a car or a truck knocks down a pedestrian a mob collects immediately and starts beating up the driver. The mob is provoked because the drivers actions has led to injury or loss of life. Hence this could be regarded as a form of collective action to ensure sanctity of life and to prevent rash driving. But can we call this a social movement? No, because this is just an impulsive outburst. Hence, another feature of a social movement is that it should be sustained and not sporadic. Similarly a social movement differs from a crowd by being a long-term collectivity, not a quick spontaneous grouping. However crowds may emerge as a result of social movements. A morcha taken up by members of a woman’s organization, a part of the women’s social movement, may attract a crowd.

Secondly the collective attempt is designed to promote change or resist change in the society in which the attempt is made. So collective attempt may to alter, inaugurate, supplant restore or reinstate all or some aspects of the social order. A social movement constitutes a collective attempt not only to promote change but also a resist change.

This feature has to be kept in mind because all social movements do not attempt to change the existing situations. For instance, we all know that right from the nineteenth century there have been collective attempts to remove the social practice of sati. Raja Ram Mohan Roy actively campaigned against sati and was chiefly responsible for legal action being taken against sati in the 19th century. Even during his time, there were collective attempts to resist the introduction of the law abolishing sati. Even today there is a sizeable section of population who do not recognize or pay heed to the law against Sati.

At the same time one has to keep in mind that social movements are different from other movements in society. For instance, we have the cooperative movement or the trade union movement, which we are quite familiar with. Both these movements have features which are common to those discussed above. Namely, they attempt to change the existing social relations and try to promote change. They are also sustained movements, as they have existed over a period of time. However, they have one feature, which excludes them from being social movements. These movements are now institutionalized movements. By this we mean that trade unions, cooperatives or such other organizations function under a given set of rules.

The two features of social movements, namely, sustained action and spontaneity operate simultaneously. These together distinguish a social movement from other movements. Existence of either of these features does not result in a social movement. To explain, earlier examples of trade unions and cooperatives show that these movements have sustained over a period of time. But this is because they are institutionalized and not because they are spontaneous. On the other hand, sporadic outbursts such as beating up a rash driver are collective behavior, which is spontaneous. It is not a social movement because it is not sustained.

Examples Of Social Movements: Sanskritization as social movement

The process of sanskritisation expounded is by the eminent sociologist, M.N. Srinivas. In this process members of a caste group try to elevate their position to that of a caste deemed higher than their own. They do so by internalizing the values, rituals and social behavior of the members of that caste. Prof. Srinivas has given the cases of the Lingayats in Karnataka. We can find similar instances elsewhere. In a similar move the Rajbanshis in Cooch Behar and Jalpaiguri districts of West Bengal sought to elevate their position to that of the Kshatriya caste. This community belongs to the Bodo-Kachari group of North East India. Its members inhabit, apart from the above mentioned districts, parts of the neighbouring states of Assam and Bangladesh. Till the Census of 1901, the Rajbanshis were bracketed with the Koch, a tribe belonging to the same group. It was then believed that both came from the same ethnic origin. However in 1909 the Rajbanshis, under the leadership of Thakur Panchanan Barman declared that their identity was different from that of the Koch. They stated that they were in fact Kshatriyas from North India who had taken refuge in this part of the country. The Kshatriya Sabha was formed and it urged all Rajbanshis to revert to their original status. The Rajbanshis started following the rituals of Kshatriyas such as wearing the sacred thread, change in marriage practices, abstention from eating beef or pork, etc. They also started adopting the title “Thakur” along with their names. The Rajbanshis have been recognised as a separate group since the Census of 1911.

This movement is a social movement because it displayed the features of a social movement discussed earlier. Though the Rajbanshis formed an organization (Kshatriya Sabha) and operated through it to elevate their status, it was not a formal organization like a trade union or a peasant organization. The Sabha did not have a formal set of rules and regulations relating to membership.

Examples Of Social Movements: Naxalism as social movement

It is not necessary for a social movement to strive only for elevation of status. There can be movements with political or cultural dimensions. The Naxalite movement, which started in 1968 in the Darjeeling district of West Bengal, could also be regarded as a social movement. In this movement peasants and agricultural workers engaged in a violent struggle against those whom they defined as their exploiters. The movement spread to other parts of the country and it was declared illegal by the government. This in fact prevented it from developing a formal, institutional structure. The different groups engaged in various regions could operate only clandestinely i.e., secretly. However after 1978 the government removed the ban on Naxalites provided they discarded violence and used peaceful means to press for their demands. As a result several Naxalite groups declared themselves as political parties and developed formal institutional structures. The movement then ceased to be a social movement.

Examples Of Social Movements: New Cinema as social movement

In the cultural field too we have social movements. We can observe such movements in literature and in drama. In films, the New Cinema or Parallel Cinema movement started in the late 1960s is one such instance. Young filmmakers started making films, which were realistic and dealt with the everyday life of the common man. This was in contrast to the romantic films in the commercial sector. This movement did not originate from a formal organization such as a federation or an association. It was started by filmmakers who shared the common belief that realistic films based on good literature should be shown to the people.

Examples Of Social Movements: Sri Narayana Dharma Paripalana(SNDP) as social movement

SNDP Movement (Sri Narayana Dharma Paripalana Movement) is an example of a social movement, which has social, political, educational and religious dimensions to it. The movement arose as a backward classes untouchable castes (Izhavas, toddy tappers of South Travancore, Kerala) and the clean Hindu upper castes (Nayars, Nambudiris). The Izhavas were subject to several ritual as well as civil disabilities. They had to maintain a prescribed limit of distance from the upper caste, could not use the roads, tanks, wells or temples used by the higher castes. They were denied admission to the traditional caste Hindu schools and were kept away from administrative jobs. Under the leadership of Sri Narayana Guru Swamy, the Izhavas formulated a programme of social uplift. The issues they undertook were right of admission to public schools, recruitment to government employment, entry into temple and political representation. They fought for social mobility, for shift in the traditional distribution of power, and transformed themselves into a large ethnic block within became politically viable.

Life Cycle Of Social Movements

After having described the crucial role played by leadership and ideology in social movements, let us now state the stages through which generally a social movement passes through.

Stage one reflects the social unrest present in a society. Almost all social movements are rooted in social unrest and problem. Collective tension builds up as a result of this. This stage is followed by stage two in which collective excitement can be witnessed in  the society where people feel they have a problem in common. Certain social conditions are identified as the root cause of the misery and excitement sets in. The movement gains support and a guiding ideology. Agitations rise everywhere. This period is generally brief and leads quickly to action.

Stage three is the formalization stage through some movements, like migratory movements, may be able to operate without formal organization. In this stage, a chain of officers is drawn up. There is division of labour among leaders and the followers. Fund raising is systematized and ideology becomes clearer than before. The leaders clarify the ideology  in that they remind people of the discontent they share in common, identify their opponents and state the objectives of the movement. The strategy and tactics for protest and for action are drawn and a moral justification for having adopted a particular course of action is established.

The fourth stage is one of institutionalization. The movement crystallizes into a definite pattern. Efficient bureaucrats replace agitators; buildings, offices are established. The aims of the movement become accepted in that society. This period may last indefinitely.

The fifth stage is one of dissolution. Different movements come to different ends at different points of time: some movements end early while some dissolve after the objective has been achieved. Sometimes differences of opinion among the leaders within a movement may lead to divisions within a movement, with each group having its own ideology and programme of action. Only some movements achieve full institutionalization.

It is not necessary that all movements pass through all these above mentioned stages.

Types Of Social Movements

Many different ways of classifying social movements have been proposed. Perhaps the neatest and most comprehensive classification is that developed by David Aberle, who distinguishes four types of movement (Aberle, 1966).

Transformative movements aim at far-reaching change in the society or societies of which they are a part. The changes their members anticipate are cataclysmic, all -embracing and often violent. Examples are revolutionary movements or some radical religious movements. Many millenarian movements, for instance, have foreseen a more or less complete restructuring of society when the era of salvation arrives.

Reformative movements have more limited objectives, aspiring to alter only some aspects of the existing social order. They concern themselves with specific kinds of inequality or injustice. Cases in point are the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union or anti-abortion groups.

Transformative and reformative movements are both concerned primarily with securing changes in society. Aberle’s other two types are each mainly aimed at changing the habits or outlook of individuals.

Redemptive movements seek to rescue people from ways of life seen as corrupting. Many religious movements belong in this category, in so far as they concentrate on personal salvation. Examples are the Pentecostal sects, which believe that individual’s spiritual development is the true indication of their worth.

Finally, there are alterative movements, which aim at securing partial change in individuals. They do not seek to achieve a complete alteration in people’s habits, but are concerned with changing certain specific traits. An illustration is Alcoholics Anonymous.

Social movements can also be classified under various topologies depending on such factors like aim of the movement, organization, means adopted to achieve the aims, value strength and so on. Some of the types are:

(i)         Migratory movements: When a large number of people migrate due to discontent and or due to the shared hope for a better future in some other land, we talk of migratory movements. For instance the mass exodus of men to Gulf countries especially from the state of Kerala is an example of a migratory social movement. Similarly the mass migration of people from Bangladesh to India during troubled times is another instance of a migratory movement.

(ii)        Reform movements: This type of a movement constitutes a collective attempt to change some parts of a society without completely transforming it. A reform movement accepts the basic pattern of the social order of that society and orients itself around an ideal. It makes use of those institutions such as the press, the government, and the school the church and so on to support its programme. Reform movements usually, rise on behalf of some distressed or exploited group. Reform movements are almost impossible in an authoritarian society. Such movements are mainly possible in democratic societies where people tolerate criticism. For example, the socio-religious reform movement of the 19th and 20th centuries in India aimed to remove social practices like sati, denial of education to women, ban on widow remarriage, ill treatment of widows, child marriage, caste disabilities and so on.

(iii)       Revolutionary movements: Such a movement seeks to overthrow the existing system and replace it with a totally different one, Revolutionary movements aim at reconstructing the entire social order. They challenge the existing norms and propose a new scheme of values. The examples that immediately come to one’s mind are the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution, which resorted to overthrow the existing socio-political order prevailing in France and Russia respectively.

(iv)       Resistance or Reactionary movements: These arise among people who are dissatisfied with certain aspects of change. The movement seeks to recapture or reinstate old values or example the Islamic Fundamentalist movement and the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh (RSS) can be classified under the heading reactionary or resistance movements.

Within every society, at different points of time we can have general movements or specific movements. All these types of movement generally have a programme of protest and action, establishment of a power relationship favorable to the movement and promotion of membership gratification.

Theories of Social Movements

Origins Of Social Movements

The question of emergence of a social movement has been of interst for sociological theories of social movements. The origins of social movements is generally discussed by describing three factors, which are associated with the emergence of social movements.

M.S.A. Rao (1979) had done a great deal of research on social movements and he identified three factors relating to the origins of social movements.

Relative Deprivation

The first factor is relative deprivation. A social movement usually starts because the people are unhappy about certain things. They may feel that they are not getting enough. In other words, they feel that they are deprived of something. The Naxalite movement would have this as a cause. The peasants felt that they were being exploited and deprived of their rights and the fruits of their labour. They therefore decided to protest. Similarly, the movement for abolition of reservation of seats for backward classes in educational institutions, which took place in Gujarat, was again a result of relative deprivation. The upper castes felt that their children were being deprived of seats in good schools because of the reservation policy. At the same time those pressing for more reservation are doing so because they too feel deprived.

A movement against or for reservation does not mean that the concerned castes feel that they are totally deprived of educational facilities. They in fact feel that given their ability they are getting less. What we are trying to stress on here is that social movements do not arise only when there are extreme conditions, e.g. contradiction between the very rich and the very poor. Social movements can arise out of relative expectations and not necessarily out of extreme or absolute conditions.

Structural Strain

However, all social movements do not arise out of relative deprivation. They can also originate from structural strain. When the prevailing value system and the normative structure does not meet the aspirations of the people, the society faces strain. What happens at this time is that a new value system is sought so as to replace the old. This leads to conflicts and tension. Usually individuals in such a situation violate the social norms. For example where intercaste marriage is not permitted we may still find a few cases of such marriage, in violation of the norms. However only when individual actions are replaced by collective action does a social movement take place.

Let us take the example of the women’s movement to illustrate the point. In a largely traditional society like India, women are usually assigned passive roles. A woman is expected to be subordinate to males. It is believed that as a daughter a female must obey her father; as a wife, her husband and as a widow, her sons. Such a value system would encourage women to be content as housewives and mothers. The duties outside the house, such as education, earning a livelihood etc. are the domain of males.

Over the years we can see that opportunities for both education and employment are being increasingly made available for women. As a result, the roles of women are changing. However the value system remains the same. Therefore, women may take up jobs but their household duties remain unchanged. This obviously results in greater burden of work on the working woman.

In employment too  women are discriminated against. All jobs are not open to them. For example, though the employment of women as salaried workers has increased they are mainly employed as school teachers (that too in primary schools) or as office employees. In other jobs, such as factory work, the number of female employees has decreased. In technical education there is no legal discrimination against women, but, we find that there are very few women engineers. In management institutes too the number of female students is very few.

These disparities occur mainly because we have, in keeping with our value system, categorized certain types of employment as ‘manly’ or masculine. Factory work, engineering, flying planes, managing industries or offices are ‘manly’ jobs. Women are more suited to ‘feminine’ jobs such as teaching children, working as typists, receptionists, telephone operators, airhostesses etc. Parents and elders impress upon girls the type of jobs, which are suitable for them. If a girl has an aptitude for engineering her parent may dissuade her to take it up as a career and may possibly impress on her to read home science instead. Therefore even when there is no legal ban, the value system enforces women not to pursue certain careers.

Moreover, if a woman’s place is in the home, a single woman working in the city and living alone is viewed as something unusual. Girls who go out to work or study are looked down upon in many places. People feel that if women educate themselves and take up jobs they will neglect their traditional duties and they will refuse to subordinate themselves to the men folk. Independent minded girls or those who are bold enough to venture out of their homes are regarded as easy prey to males. Such people are victims of eve teasing.

Accumulations of all these factors have made women challenge the existing values. This has resulted in the women’s movement, which is also referred to as the feminist movement. Women who have become conscious of these prejudices and evils in society are now collectively trying to redefine the value system. This need has arisen because the traditional value system is causing strain to women who want to think and act as independent beings. As such this movement is not directed against males. It is only an assertion that a new value system based on equality of all human beings should replace the existing value system.

Revitalization

We may quite often find that relative deprivation and structural strain are related to each other. They together form the basis of a social movement. In the case of the women’s movement, relative deprivation is cause for structural strain. Similarly an examination of social reform movements may reveal that both these causes exist. However we must keep in mind that social movements are not merely protest movements. Though social movements express dissatisfaction and dissent against the system, they may also offer a positive alternative. Indeed they may be started for revitalizing the existing system, which is undergoing structural strain. Revitalization is therefore the third factor associated in the emergence of a social movement.

This urge for revitalization can generate a movement, which promotes patriotism, and national pride could be caused by youth movements, which encourage young people to help and organize the oppressed, or the literacy movements are other examples. These movements are started in order to solve a problem collectively. They do not merely protest against what they define as wrong but also try to provide an alternative.

The three factors discussed above are not exclusive, in the sense that if one exists the other two cannot. They are, as we have seen interrelated. In fact we may find that all there can be found in most social movements.

Some Recent Approaches

Theories of revolution inevitably tend to overlap with those of social movements. Tilly’s emphasis on ‘resource mobilization’, for example, is intended to have wide application, and has been employed by students of social movements. Davies’s interpretation of rising expectations and protest has also been influential in the analysis of social movements. Two theoretical perspectives have been particularly important, however, in terms of both their theoretical sophistication and the amount of empirical research they have helped to generate. These are the approaches of Neil Smelser and Alain Touraine.

Neil Smelser : Six Conditions For Social Movements

Smelser distinguishes six conditions underlying the origins of collective action in general, and social movements in particular (Smelser, 1963), Structural conduciveness refers to the general social conditions promoting or inhibiting the formation of social movements of different types. For example, in Smelser’s view the sociopolitical system of the United States leaves open certain avenues of mobilization because of the relative absence of state regulation in those areas.

Structural strain refers to tensions - in Marx’s terminology, contradictions - which produce conflicting interests within societies. Uncertainties, anxieties, ambiguities or direct clashes of goals are expressions of such strains. Sources of strain may be quite general, or specific to particular situations.

The third condition Smelser outlines is the spread of generalized beliefs. Social movements do not develop simply as responses to vaguely felt anxieties or hostilities. They are shaped by the  influence of definite ideologies, which crystallize grievances and suggest courses of action that might be pursued to remedy them.

Precipitating factors are events or incidents that actually trigger direct action by those who become involved in the movement. The incident in which Rosa Parks refused to move to the part of the bus reserved for blacks in Montgomery, Alabama, in 1955, helped to spark off the American civil rights movement.

These four sets of factors combined, Smelser argues, may occasionally lead to street disturbances or outbreaks of violence, but such incidents do not lead to the development of social movements unless there is a coordinated group, which is mobilized to act. Leadership and some kind of means  of regular communication between participants, together with a supply of funding and material resources, are necessary for a social movement to exist.

Finally, the manner in which a social movement develops is strongly influenced by the operation of social control. The governing authorities may respond to a challenge by intervening in the conditions of conduciveness and strain, which stimulated the emergence of a movement. For instance, in a situation of ethnic tension steps might be taken to reduce some of the worst aspects of ethnic inequality that have generated resentment and conflict. Another important aspect of social control concerns the response of the police or armed forces. As we have seen, for example, the extent of divisions within the police and the military can be crucial in deciding the outcome of confrontations between revolutionary movements and the authorities.

Smelser’s model is useful for analyzing sequences in the development of social movements, and collective action in general. According to him, we can understand each stage in the sequence as ‘adding value’ to the overall outcome, each stage being a condition for the occurrence of the subsequent ones. But there are some problems with his theory. A social movement may become strong without any particular precipitating incidents - in the sense of public confrontations - being involved in its growth. Conversely, a series of incidents might bring home the need to establish a movement to change the circumstances, which gave rise to  them. The movement may open up strains, rather than just developing as a response to them. For example, the women’s movement has actively sought to identify and combat gender inequalities where before these had been unquestioned. Smelser’s theory treats all social movements as responses’ to situations rather than allowing that their members might spontaneously organize to achieve desired social changes. In this respect his ideas contrast with the approach developed by Alain Touraine.

Alain Touraine Historicity

Touraine emphasizes that social movements reflect the stress placed in modern societies on activism in the achievement of goals. Modern societies are marked by what Touraine calls historicity-an outlook in which knowledge of social processes is used to reshape the social conditions of our existence. For instance, identifying the nature and distribution of inequalities in schooling was one of the factors that promoted the rise of the civil rights movement in the United States. Touraine has been less interested in the background conditions that give rise to social movements than in understanding the objectives social movements pursue. Social movements do not just come about as irrational responses to social divisions or injustices; they come about as irrational responses to social divisions or injustices; they develop with views and strategies as to how these can be overcome.

Social movements, Touraine suggests, cannot be understood as isolated forms of association. They develop in deliberate antagonism with other groups - usually with established organizations, but sometimes with rival movements. All social’ movements have interests or aims which they are for; all have views and ideas they are against. In Tourmaline’s view, other theories of social movements (including that of Smelser) have given insufficient consideration to how their objectives are shaped by their encounters with others who hold divergent ideas - as well as the ways in which they themselves influence the outlooks and action of their opponents. For instance, the objectives and outlook of the women’s movement have been shaped in opposition to the male-dominated institutions, which it seeks to alter, and have shifted in relation to its successes and failures. They have also influenced the perspectives of men. These changed perspectives in turn have stimulated a reorientation in the  women’s movement and so the process continues.

Touraine argues that social movements should be studied in the context of what he fields of action. The term refers to the connections between a social movement and the forces or influences against which it is ranged. The process of mutual ‘negotiation involved in a field of action may lead to a change in the circumstances the movement sought to contest, but also to a merging of the perspectives held by each side. Either way the movement may evaporate - or become institutionalized as a permanent organization. Trade unions became formal organizations, for example, when the right to strike and modes of bargaining acceptable to both workers and employers were achieved. These were forged out of earlier processes of confrontation involving considerable violence on both sides. Where there are continuing sources of conflict (as in the relationships between employees and employers), new movements still tend sporadically to reemerge.

Touraine’s approach lacks the clarity of Smelser’s, yet it is illuminating to stress that social movements develop through a process of mutual shaping and redefinition alongside opposing groups or organizations. Such an analysis can also be applied to movements concerned primarily with individual change - Aberle’s redemptive and alterative categories - even though Touraine himself says little about them. For instance, Alcoholics Anonymous is a movement based on medical findings about the effects of alcohol on people’s health and social activities. The movement has been shaped by its opposition to advertising designed to encourage alcohol consumption and its attempt to confront the pressures alcoholics face in a society in which drinking is seen in a tolerant light.

Revolution

People obey the state as authority, but under  certain circumstances they register their disobedience. It is a well-established fact that people obey only a legitimate authority; otherwise, they may overthrow it. Thus, figures the issue of revolution, which may be a peaceful event like the Glorious Revolution of England of 1688 or a violent outburst like the French Revolution of 1789 and Russian relotuion of 1917.. A study of the idea of revolution, thus becomes an important subject in the realm of contemporary political theory. This is so because politics is described as a study of the struggle for power, whether by peaceful or violent means, where political obligation and revolution have important ramifications

The idea of revolution covers not only the political, but also he economic, the social and the cultural dimensions of human life. A precise definition of the term involves different ramifications ranging on the implications of change, whether peaceful or violent, total or partial, minor or major. In political theory, it has a typical connotation signifying alteration in government alongwith changes in related associations and structures. In its core meaning, it ‘constitutes a challenge to the established political and the eventual establishment of a new order radically different from the preceding one’.

A possible line of difference between a revolt and a revolution may, however, be drawn in the affirmation that while both hint at a sudden, jolting and significant change in the existing system, the former does not imply the idea of ‘profound change’ as does the latter. The means employed to bring about a sudden, major and profound change may vary from purely constitutional or non-violent to those thoroughly violent and extremist.

It is true that numerous revolutions have taken place in different part of the world, yet it is impossible to establish an objective and general pattern of revolution or even an adequate definition applicable to all periods.

Revolution is not merely concerned with the overthrow of the established order. It is equally concerned with the establishment of a new one. Thus, it is not merely an event, but a series of events. It begins with a challenge to the existing system and continues until a new order is installed. What happens in between the two is said to constitute the stages of revolution. The different stages or the series of events are enumerated below:

• A revolution begins when the expectations of the people are very high and the great leaders are engaged in much perfectionist rhetoric. The result is the replacement of the ‘old’ with the ‘new’.
• The second stage begins when power is captured and revolutionary leaders are confronted with the realities of governance. There prevail differences of opinion, which mark the category of moderates and extremists. However, victory rests with the radicals who concentrate power in their hands.
• Desperate efforts are made to realise revolutionary ideals and goals at all costs. This engenders a reaction that entails a period of convalescence.
• Then follows a state of lull. An era of dissensions and resignations comes to prevail that creates a very fertile ground for the coming up of a dictator.
• The last stage is one in which gradually revolutionary symbols lose their hold and dictatorship appears as a naked power. Then, occurs a trend towards restoration with reconciliation between what was overthrown and what was brought about.

Different Theories Of Revolution

Different theories have come up to highlight the meaning, nature and causes of revolution.

The Liberal theory of revolution emphasizes preserving the status quo in the process of change. That is to say that the notion of change is made coincidental with the preservation of the existing state of social, economic and political life. Such a notion is well reflected in the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle. By revolution, Plato meant the establishment of an ideal state. To Aristotle revolution implied a change in the form of government by another or even a change in the type of rulers, which may amount to a revolution. Further, John Milton linked up the case of revolution with the maintenance of freedom and went to the extent of choosing a new government in case the existing rulers deprived the people of their liberty. However, liberal interpretation of the meaning and nature of revolution takes an important turn at the hands of John Locke. The fact remains that the keynote of making change in consonance with the defence of status-quo to any possible extent remains altogether undiscarded. Thus, the English Revolution of 1688 and the French Revolution of 1789 have been accused of being reactionary. The liberal theory of revolution has been accused of being reactionary, anti-change and even counter-revolutionary. Thus, the liberal tradition was an intellectual revolution primarily made in the interest of property owners in the new industrial field.

The Marxian theory basically emphasised the idea of ‘Permanent Revolution’. The Marxists opined that a social revolution takes place when the existing relations of production begin to act as a fetter on the future development of forces of production. For him, ‘a political revolution is a social revolution when it involves the conflict of social classes.’

Thus, Marx hails the ‘bourgeoisie revolution’ whereby the ‘feudal state is overthrown by the middle class that has grown up inside it and a new state created as the instrument of the bourgeoisie rule.’ In the main, however, the burden of Marxian theory is on the use of violent means. Not merely this, it also envisages that the ideas, beliefs, convictions, customs and the ways of life of the people are changed so as to make them in tune with the norms of the socialist system. In this way, a ‘Cultural Revolution’ is launched to brainwash the people.

The course of revolution does not stop even here. It is a permanent affair, which calls for the final stage of a ‘stateless society’. This also implies ‘export of revolution’, which means establishment of international socialism. The Communist Manifesto ends with these words of exhortation: ‘Workers of all countries unite. You have nothing to lose but chains. You have a world to win.’  A major criticism leveled against this theory is that, it stops after the occurrence of the ‘Socialist Revolution.’ Revolution basically means a change for the better. But in a socialist state, any change is a taboo. Opposition is suppressed and the people are forced to change themselves, which may not necessarily amount to a change for the better. Thus, Marx’s vision can be termed as limited. Another weakness in this theory is that the precise relationship between revolutionary political action and Marx’s general theory of socio-economic development is optimistically vague. It stands on the elaboration of class war. The theory is problematic as we find controversy among the thinkers. While Trotsky desired ‘export of revolution’, Stalin cried for ‘Socialism in One Country’. Khruschev, on the other hand, reiterated the principle of peaceful coexistence with the capitalist state.

According to Neo-liberal thinkers, the meaning of revolution has a different

connotation and so its causes may not be discovered in the sphere of economics alone. Several viewpoints have sprung up in this context, all pinpointing that revolutions are violent civil disturbances that cause the displacement of one ruling group by another that has a broader popular basis of support . Historical evidence shows that people having nothing like “class consciousness” rise in revolt to change their destiny. As such, a revolution would seem to be the result of deep-rooted and slowly evolving political and social malformations rather than a sudden outbreak. However, in the last phase, they are sudden and violent.

The cause of revolution has been discussed from the stand point of psychology. David C. Schwartz explained people’s apathy as a factor, which is known as ‘alienation’. On this basis, he constructs a ‘plausible theory’, which has its beginning in ‘ambivalence’; then moves on to ‘conflict’, thereon to ‘cognitive consistency’ and finally to ‘adjustment’. Withdrawal from politics is a dangerous symptom, as it cultivates feelings of apathy for the system and the result is an outburst of mass anger. The new liberal thinkers of the present century have in a way tried to follow Marx in so far as he emphasises the use of force in the capture of power and also rejected him in so far as he confines his attention only to the parameters of class war. This has led to the meaning of revolution, having different connotations.

A revolution is not only an event, as said by the liberal thinkers, in which one class dislodges another and captures power. The fact, however, is that it also relates to a particular phase of history extending over a considerable phase of time, but certainly marked by major ‘social and ideological change.’ The idealistic-liberal theory lays emphasis on a moral, spiritual and cultural upheaval through which a group of persons seeks to establish a new basis for existence. If so, a revolution is not merely a political process, but a part of the unfolding of human potentiality. A major event of historical significance directed towards a higher moral end is a revolution, according to this interpretation.

Such an orientation finds its impressive manifestation at the hands of Hegel. To him,

it is the ‘reason’ that plays a decisive part in evolution. An object is a thesis, an element of contradiction develops within it that may be taken as its ‘antithesis.’ The struggle between the two leads to the emergence of the ‘synthesis’, which has a mixture of both thesis and anti-thesis and represents a higher stage of development

– a stage which will lead to another higher one and thus, the process of change willcontinue. A revolution, therefore, takes place on account of the operation of the law of dialectics in which the decisive role is played by the geist (spirit). Thus, it becomes something central to the process in which the ideally rational could become actual.

This idealistic-cum liberal interpretation of the idea of revolution is traceable in the political philosophy of M.N. Roy, who said that revolution means awakening the urge of freedom in man. As such, revolution is based on human nature and nothing like violence is needed. It means reorganizing society on the basis of freedom and equality remains a necessity. The theory is criticised on the ground of being too abstract to be understood by a man of average comprehension. The purely philosophical version take the subject of revolution far away from the world of reality. Revolution as a matter of fact, is an important event that changes the pattern of social, economic and political development. This means, it is purely a practical affair. It calls for an empirical study. The value free study of revolution is, however, a logical impossibility.

Theorizing Revolution In Recent Social Science Literature

Revolution, which has remained one of the key concepts in social science, has naturally attracted intellectual attention of scholars and academics in recent years. A few such explanations are discussed below.

Comparative Approach

The most influential exercise in comparative approach as applied to social revolutions is the work of Theda Skocpol in her book States and Social Revolutions (1979), which was based on a comparative analysis of French, Russian and Chinese Revolutions. By following this approach, she tried to find out the ‘generalizable logic’ behind the revolutions she studied. Her departure from all previous interpretations of revolution is on her dismissal of any notion of conscious purpose. She concluded that social revolutions are simply the unplanned product of competing forces. Different groups enter the fray and the outcome is determined by which of them ultimately wins. Neither individuals, nor groups, nor even classes act throughout revolutions with the logic and consistency which traditional views would demand. Skocpol has, however, been criticised by people like Michael Taylor, Mancur Olson and others who challenge Skocpol’s argument that revolution is irrational and seek to demonstrate through their writings that rational-choice theory can be applied to revolutionary coalition-building.

Psychological Approach

Ever since the French Revolution, people have sought psychological explanations of why revolutionaries act as they do. All the earlier explanations of revolutions following the psychological approach like that of Le Bon (1960), Dean Martin (1920) revolve around the apparently amoral behaviour of crowds, who act in strange and unusual ways, which in turn, lead to rapid and far-reaching changes in a way that in normal conditions would be impossible. All these explanations, however assume that in a revolutionary situation everyone acts in the same way and that there is a psychological cause of revolution.

But modern psychological theories of revolution under the influence of Freud focused attention on the interaction of the individual with others. There have been some landmark publications like The Authoritarian Personality (Adorno et. al. 1964), The Revolutionary Personality (Wolfensteur, 1967), or Why Men Rebel (Ted Gurr, 1970). Ted Gurr’s work, in particular, is a highly formal exercise in psychological approach, although, it principally deals with the notion of political violence. The impulse towards the use of violence is found by Gurr in a social-psychological concept called ‘relative deprivation’, which is used to denote the tension that develops from a discrepancy between the “ought” and the “is” of collective value satisfaction. The psychological approach has certain inherent limitations, for which perhaps, Gurr moves away from the psychological toward the sociological while trying to explain the outcomes of revolution.

Sociological Approach

The most popular sociological explanations of revolutions are functionalist explanations. The basic premise of this approach is as follows: The stability of society depends on social order continuing to fulfil the requirements of its citizens. If it fails to do so, the underlying consensus on the values of society, which enables the government to function is lost, and with the failure of consensus the way is open for a mass rejection of the existing order. There have been notable works following this approach like Revolution and the Social System (C. Johnson, 1964), The Natural History of Power, Authority and Revolution (L.P. Edwards, 1970) etc. The problem with these types of explanation is that they do not explain why revolutions occur in certain situations, and more importantly, why they do not, inspite of a congenial situation.

Political Approach

The political approach to the study of revolution is basically interpreting revolution by trying to find out the factors behind revolution, interpreting the course of revolution and analysing the consequences of revolution. The best known work in this category is perhaps From Mobilisation to Revolution (Charles Tilly, 1978). Tilly’s principal focus is on the process of alienation and regrouping that precedes a revolution, the causes of a revolutionary situation and on revolutionary outcomes.

Philosophical Approach

Modern philosophical explanations of revolution are dominated by Hannah Arendt’s On Revolution (1963). For Arendt, revolution is one of the most recent of political phenomena. Revolution is the search for freedom and revolutionaries are those who fight for freedom in the face of tyranny. Freedom, according to Arendt, is a distinctive quality; a good in itself which is the highest achievement of human society to attain. The problem of revolution is that its spirit has failed to find appropriate institutions in which to express itself. She, therefore, concludes with the practical consequences for trying to realise this objective: not party government which she believes to be a government by an elite chose by the people, but self-government by deputies of elementary republics.

Concluding Appraisal Of Revolution

After discussing the meaning nature and various theories on the subject, the subject of revolution becomes clear. That is, in a revolution the old established sense of rights fades away and a new state of affair comes into being. It involves extreme ideas of violence and bloodshed for bringing in the element of ‘change’. They contain the potential of self-renewal. It may bring in the change of failure or success, which may signalise the passing away of a political order. Thus, revolution means a combination of rather far-reaching change intended to erase the real illness of a society that has reached an impasse.

In this unit, we have dealt at length with the complementary terms of political obligation and revolution and its importance and relevance in political philosophy. At the outset, every conscientious person obeys the laws of the state, because of legal, religious, traditional, moral and consent basis. That is to say, the concept of political obligation leads to the investigation of related themes of political legitimacy and revolution. We have already discussed that people obey the state if authority is legitimate, otherwise they may over throw it. Thus, follows the issue of revolution. If a revolution succeeds, it introduces a new principle of legitimacy that supercedes the ‘rightness’ of the former system. Thus, the concepts of obligation and revolution are important touchstones of political philosophy.