My suspicion is that the answer to this question (not from Miles, but from the textbook) will reduce the source or appeal (of revolt, etc) to some form of self-interest (enlightened, rational, … pick your qualifier). However, such explanation would, it seems to me, be nothing more than another form of a ‘nature’ argument (and invite references to the so-called naturalistic fallacy).
A bit funny that just the other day someone recommended Ian Hacking’s “Social Construction of What?”.
—ravi
P.S: not that I endorse or recommend Hacking (I might have in the past, so don’t go surfing the archives :-)).