Book contents
- The Psychology of Radical Social Change
- The Psychology of Radical Social Change
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Contributors
- Foreword
- 1 Toward a Psychology of Revolution
- Part I Roots of Revolution
- Part II Evolution and Involution in Social Transformations
- Part III Representations of and in Revolution
- 11 Image Politics of the Arab Uprisings
- 12 Constructing Cultural Pathology
- 13 Restoring Cultural Identity Clarity in Times of Revolution
- 14 The Shark and the Octopus
- Index
- References
14 - The Shark and the Octopus
Two Revolutionary Styles
from Part III - Representations of and in Revolution
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 April 2018
Book contents
- The Psychology of Radical Social Change
- The Psychology of Radical Social Change
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Contributors
- Foreword
- 1 Toward a Psychology of Revolution
- Part I Roots of Revolution
- Part II Evolution and Involution in Social Transformations
- Part III Representations of and in Revolution
- 11 Image Politics of the Arab Uprisings
- 12 Constructing Cultural Pathology
- 13 Restoring Cultural Identity Clarity in Times of Revolution
- 14 The Shark and the Octopus
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter focuses on two different behavioral styles that characterize collective movements leading to revolutions, styles I call the ‘shark’ and the ‘octopus’. These two behavioral styles tend to remain stable over years, probably because of limits to political plasticity (Moghaddam, 2016a). However, in the longer term shark and octopus revolutionary styles do undergo changes, at least in some cases. The shark is a creature of continuous movement, naturally tending to roam from place to place in search of food. The shark does not make a den, it does not select a small, well demarcated space as its home. Rather, it survives by cruising through large territories of water without borders, ready to move where food can be found. Inquisitive, eager to explore, always ready to push into new frontiers, the shark is opportunistic and ready to seize on resources in new territories. The octopus, on the other hand, is shy and reclusive. It makes a den with clear boundaries, constructed of rocks and other objects, remains isolated, and only comes out in search of food. The octopus does not roam far from its den; it prefers to remain alone in the dark, hidden away in holes and crevices. There are essentially two types of revolutionary movements, each with their own distinct identity and culture.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Psychology of Radical Social ChangeFrom Rage to Revolution, pp. 275 - 290Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2018
References
Cumings, B. (2005). Korea's Place in the Sun: A Modern History. Updated ed. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Fischer, M. M. J. (1980). Iran: From Religious Dispute to Revolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hawk, D. (2003). The Hidden Gulag: Exposing North Korea's Prison Camps. Washington, DC: US High Commission on Human Rights.Google Scholar
Humphrey, R. H. (2002). The many faces of emotional leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 5, 493–504.Google Scholar
Khalaji, M. (2016). The Shiite clergy post-Khomeini: Balancing authority and autonomy. Research Notes 37. Washington, DC: Washington Institute for Near East Policy.Google Scholar
Moghaddam, F. M. (2008). Multiculturalism and Intergroup Relations: Psychological Implications for Democracy in Global Context. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press.Google Scholar
Moghaddam, F. M. (2013). The Psychology of Dictatorship. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press.Google Scholar
Moghaddam, F. M. (2016a). Omniculturalism and our human path. Journal of Oriental Studies, 26, 77.Google Scholar
Moghaddam, F. M. (2016b). The Psychology of Democracy. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press.Google Scholar
Moghaddam, F. M. (forthcoming). Mutual Radicalization: The Psychology of How Groups and Nations Radicalize Each Other. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press.Google Scholar
Moon, G. I. (2012). The Sunshine Policy: In Defense of Engagement as a Path to Peace in Korea. Seoul: Yonsei University Press.Google Scholar
Petty, R. E., and Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Ryan, J. (2012). Lenin's Terror: The Ideological Origins of Early Soviet State Terror. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schaller, M. (1997). The United States and Japan since the Occupation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Will, G. F. (2017). Trump has a dangerous disability. Washington Post, May 3. www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-has-a-dangerous-disability/2017/05/03/56ca6118-2f6b-11e7-9534-00e4656c22aa_story.html.Google Scholar