Revolutions are often tied to flashy causes. There is a certain human appeal to this narrative: we like to pin the cause of a large-scale event, such as the arab spring, with the self-immolation of an otherwise unnoteworthy fruit vender. There narratives have a particular irresistible human appeal, and, in a sense, it is true that the arab spring can be traced back to one fruit vendor. But if that fruit vender had set himself on fire in the middle of times square, would that have caused a revolution to sweep America? That seems unlikely. So was there some preexisting conditions in Tunisia that lead into a revolution, but the fruit vender was needed to spark the fire?

This might look like another instance of the classical ‘great man’ vs ‘trends and forces’ historical argument. However, this is a distinct case, for the simple reason that the men involved are usually not great in any ordinary sense of the word. The fruit vender had, presumably, neither any special talents nor any special political power which would allow him to affect the events of history under normal circumstances. He was, however, great in another sense of the word: that is, he was extraordinary. Very few people choose to light themselves on fire. Is that not a form of greatness?

And yet that greatness through mental pathology, while it might have significant impact, is not nearly as rare as the conditions which lead to revolution. Once the situation in a country has progressed to the point where a suicidal fruit vender can spark a revolution, the country will rarely be pulled back from the brink before some spark comes along.