The narrative of recorded history centers on large scale change. The clear “before” and “after” that revolutions create on timelines helps humanity organize its histories in ways that make logical sense. But this has also impacted the way in which people define what a revolution truly is. Within the context of larger human histories, revolutions (in the way social scientists use them to periodize) function as a clear break between what came before and what comes afterwards. Thus, revolutions are automatically associated with substantive, high effort, and potentially costly change. The allure of revolutions and the trepidation most feel about joining them comes from this association.

One result of this association is that revolutions become moments rather than movements. The ease with which social scientists can point to revolutions as the agents of change alters conceptions of what it means to be revolutionary and the actions associated with it. This is not to say that everything can be revolutionary, but more that nothing is revolutionary until its impacts can be properly contextualized within the dichotomy of before and after. Within this framework, revolutions are powerful forces with perhaps the greatest levels of potential social, economic, and political agency. The association between agency and revolution can play off of larger desires for progress and change, justifying why the concept of a revolution is so alluring to observers.

But if revolutions appeal to the types of progress that help define the narrative of human existence, why is there so much reluctance to actively join them? Perhaps there are greater realities about the success rate of social/political revolution? Maybe the demands of reality exceed demands for substantive change? Are revolutions just like the classic New Year’s resolution of going to the gym that many make but never follow through on because their lives get in the way? Whatever the answers may be, Tocqueville’s musings on democracy perhaps best highlight one way in which the association of revolution with dramatic human change has altered the perception of what it means to join one or be revolutionary. He stated that democrats (participants in a democracy) “love change, but dread revolution,” stemming from a careful abstention of “touching what is fundamental” to society because doing so would alter the very institutions that permit democratic change. Yet, it is obvious that what it means to be an American today is fundamentally different than what it meant in 1840 (when Tocqueville wrote) or 1776, meaning some revolutionary change occurred despite the willingness of the population.

The association of revolutions with massive change and the ways in which they are used to periodize make it easy to think of them as moments in human history with magnified consequences rather than processes that are a product of human agency.