Rapid modernization triggers revolution when political institutions cannot process new demands

Evidence

Among contemporary writers, the most influential member of the family, next to Gurr, probably is Huntington (1968). As in Pareto, the sense of deprivation in Huntington’s theory is political, though less a matter of blocked channels than of their paucity or their insufficient capacity to handle “loads.” In skeletal form: Huntington argues that revolutions and lesser forms of collective political violence are artifacts of rapid socioeconomic modernization. Such modernization “mobilizes” people and induces them to enter the arena of political conflict. No harm will be done if political channels can handle their demands and activities in pressing them. But if political development lags, blockage occurs and aggressive modes of action are generated. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 4294

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to Huntington’s political order as classic modernization theory; echoes the institutional lag argument found in milgrom’s law-merchant work about institutions emerging where capacity is strained. — connects to: Rapid change can itself be the mechanism producing deep social standstill. — Hartmut Rosa, Social Acceleration: A New Theory of…, 109; Fundamental social change erupts when progress is blocked by anachronistic institutions — Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis, Schooling in Capitalist America:…, 251; Rapid opportunity shifts ignite spirals of contention reaching revolutionary extremes — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 280 (+1 more)