> Bill Bartlett
> > You disagree with the analysis. You think it deluded. But what are
> > your reasons?
>
> Because it is based on a glaringly faulty behavioral model claiming that
> people must be prodded by hardship to act (for otherwise they grow
> complacent with the status quo) - which is the essence of the worse the
> living condition of the masses the better the chance for a rebellion
school...
In fact, evidence point in
> the other direction - rebellion is most likely in situations when things
are
> getting decidedly better but not quickly enough.
-----------------------------------
I think this is largely, but not entirely, correct. For example, war,
occupation, or a catastrophic fall in living standards are all emphatically
not situations where people perceive things are getting better, but see them
as getting worse, rapidly. In these situations, it's desperation more than
hope which provokes social protest, though obviously there has to be some
prospect of success. You're right to note that grinding, persistent hardship
by itself promotes individual resignation. Nevertheless, as someone who
appreciates constraints, you can't disregard that the greatest constraint on
social change is, in fact, a relative lack of hardship -- as is presently
the case except for certain pockets in Western society.
MG