Rebellion

Rebellion: A Violent Uprising Against the Status Quo

Imagine a society where the rules are rigged against you, and your voice is drowned out by those in power. This is the reality for many who find themselves embroiled in rebellion—a violent uprising against one’s government or authority figure. But what drives these individuals to take such drastic action? Is it simply anger, or is there a deeper, more complex narrative at play?

Class Struggle and Marxist Theory

Marxist theory offers us a lens through which we can understand the roots of rebellion. According to this perspective, rebellion is a symptom of class-based contradictions in power relationships. It’s as if society is a giant chessboard where one side has all the pieces, while the other struggles just to move.

But what exactly does this mean? Let’s break it down: relative deprivation. This concept suggests that people rebel when they feel their situation is worse than others or when they perceive an unfair distribution of resources. It’s like comparing your slice of cake with someone else’s and deciding you deserve a bigger piece.

Theories on Political Violence: Gurr and Tilly

Two prominent scholars, Ted Gurr and Charles Tilly, offer different perspectives on the causes of rebellion. Gurr focuses on relative deprivation, identifying three types: decremental (loss of status), aspirational (desire for more), and progressive (gradual decline). He argues that anger is comparative and can be driven by these feelings.

Tilly, on the other hand, views political violence as a normal reaction to competition for power. He proposes two models: the polity model, which looks at internal dynamics and external relations, and the mobilization model. The latter highlights the importance of organization and unity in collective action.

Their theories share common ground: political violence is driven by relative deprivation, anger is comparative, and collective action requires organization and unity. But what does this mean for those caught up in rebellion?

Social Revolutions and Peasant Uprisings

Theda Skocpol introduces the concept of social revolution, contrasting it with political revolution. Social revolutions involve rapid, fundamental changes to society’s state and class structures, often driven by class-based revolts from below. Think of it as a complete overhaul of the system, where the old order is dismantled and replaced.

Skocpol quotes Barrington Moore: ‘peasants [.] provided the dynamite to bring down the old building.’ This metaphor paints a vivid picture of how peasant uprisings can be the catalyst for broader social change. However, the success of such movements depends on factors like autonomy and local control.

The Greed vs Grievance Models

Two models—greed and grievance—help us understand the motivations behind rebellions. The greed model suggests that individuals are motivated by economic calculus and cost-benefit analysis, while the grievance model focuses on hatreds and resentments related to ethnic, religious, or political differences.

The greed model performs better in predicting past conflicts than the grievance model. This is because people are often more risk-averse when it comes to rebellion, making economic incentives a stronger motivator. However, this doesn’t mean that grievances don’t play a role; they just might not be as straightforward or easily quantifiable.

The Moral Economy of the Peasant

James C. Scott’s work on the moral economy of the peasant offers another perspective. He argues that social norms and interpretations of justice influence rebellion. This means that people are more likely to rebel when they feel their basic needs are being met or when they perceive a violation of these needs.

The subsistence ethic is central here, emphasizing the importance of respecting peasant communities’ needs. It’s about ensuring that individuals have enough to survive and thrive, rather than just competing for resources.

Kalyvas’ Insight on Local Dynamics

Social psychologist Stathis Kalyvas provides a nuanced view by focusing on hyperlocal socio-economic factors. He argues that rebellion is not binary but an interaction between public and private identities and actions. The central vs periphery dynamic is crucial, as individuals form alliances based on local advantages.

Kalyvas’ key insight is that violence is a conversation between the individual’s local advantage and the collective actor’s need for power. Rebellions are formed by “concatenations of multiple local cleavages” around a master cleavage. This means that rebellion isn’t just about private violence but a careful alliance between local motivations and collective vectors.

Rebel Governance: Rules, Norms, and Institutions

Finally, rebel governance includes institutions, rules, and norms for regulating civilians’ life in areas under rebel control. This highlights the complexity of rebellion as a political movement that seeks to establish its own order.

One third of rebel leaders who sign peace agreements face exile or death, while two thirds go into politics or continue rebellion. This underscores the high stakes involved and the challenges faced by those seeking change through violent means.

In conclusion, rebellion is a multifaceted phenomenon driven by complex social, economic, and psychological factors. Whether it’s the anger of relative deprivation or the moral economy of survival, these elements come together to create the conditions for uprising. Understanding these dynamics can help us better navigate the challenges of political change and conflict resolution.