In order to answer the question of “Why revolutions?”, the social sciences must incorporate human psychology into their structural, economic, and geopolitical arguments. Such existing arguments are surely part of the equation, but are also not the whole picture even if evaluated together. Rather, human psychology is a critical part of understanding why any social movement happens.

The human psyche responds to and is shaped by the surrounding environment in which it finds itself. Take for example, the natural instinct of fight or flight when put in life-threatening situations. Surely while living under a repressive military-police state, there are very literally life or death situations. However, there are also life or death situations in the more figurative sense: who they were, who they are, and who they want to be may very well be under siege, thus creating a psychology of fight or flight.There are always legal, financial, linguistic and cultural barriers to exit regardless of regime-type, which may prevent an individual from fleeing in the literal sense. An individual may be able to find short-term “flight,” perhaps through an easing of repressive regime tendencies as in Iran under the Shah, but the reality of one’s situation will inevitably reassert itself, particularly when there is no outlet for expression or pressure release.

The human psyche, moreover, is known to opt for the path of least resistance, which may well be incremental change within the current system, but if such is no longer an option (due to regime self-preservation, perhaps), then the individual may feel backed into a corner with no way out. What happens? They fight their way out, even if it means death – literal or figurative. It is a sudden, intensely violent action (which does not necessarily imply the use of weapons) meant to preserve one’s self, one’s identity, one’s way of life at all costs when all other options are exhausted or removed. It is in this idea of fighting for preservation, in which traces of the “old” manifest themselves in the “new.” Therefore, if revolutions occur because the human psyche perceives that flight is impossible and that fighting is the only option for preservation of an identity, a way of life, dignity, etc., then it makes sense that elements of what was show up in what comes after revolution.

Further, if I am right in my assessment of human psychology, it also helps to explain in part why a critical mass develops. Each individual has a different breaking point at which the person feels that fighting is the only option, such that some individuals agitate for revolution earlier or later than others. Nonetheless, there is likely to be a sort of convergence to a mass breaking point. Perhaps this is because as more people choose to fight, fighting becomes the path of least resistance, thereby creating Kapuscinski’s moment of viability and supporting the critical mass theory of crowd behavior. In other words, preservation becomes most likely through fighting rather than through flight.

So, why revolutions? The human psyche’s response to its surroundings is inevitably influenced by social science’s explanations of state breakdown, economic distress, and geopolitical considerations, and so are likely to enter into a person’s decision to fight or to flee. However, there exists some point at which the human psyche ultimately chooses to fight if all other viable options are exhausted or removed. It is at the point of critical mass confluence of individuals’ psychological calculations that fight is preferable to flight when there erupts a sudden burst of intense violence on a massive scale – a revolution – thereby enabling for self- or group-preservation.