To what extent does the "relative deprivation theory" provide a convincing explanation of the causes of political violence and revolutions?
To what extent does the ‘relative deprivation theory’ provide a convincing explanation of the causes of political violence and revolutions?
Before an attempt is made to tackle this widely debated query, it is necessary define the key terms in the question itself. The most widely used definition of the ‘relative deprivation theory’ is, by Ted Robert Gurr; ‘… is defined as actors’ perception of discrepancy between their value expectations and their value capabilities’ Meaning that the theory only comes into being when an individual thinks they are entitled to have what someone they know has. Karl Marx makes an interesting example of a house to define what the theory means. He asks the reader to consider there being a house that could be relatively large or small and if all of the houses around that house are similar in size then the owner will feel satisfied and happy, however if someone new came to the neighborhood and built a palace then Marx believes that the owner of the original house would feel a loss of social position and would feel dissatisfied with what he has as a house. He then might in turn persuade the other people that live around him to take some sort of social collective action against this palace and it’s owner. A Revolution on the other hand defined by J. Bowyer Bell is represented by a significant change in attitudes by a society regarding the way they are living and being governed which in turn leads to an armed struggle. There is also the question of a ‘revolt’, which is also defined in Bells book. He notes that a revolt is still a violent struggle against government however it is considered to be smaller in comparison. He also mentions that revolts can lead to revolutions however their purpose is really about securing legitimacy in government via arms. The relative deprivation theory comes into play with almost all revolutions and violent struggles against a centralized power however its impact on each revolution is certainly variable as there are other parts in play such as psychological factors, weaknesses in the authority in governments, lack of military strength and people drawing inspiration from other successful revolutions for personal benefits like the tight knit circle of the Bolsheviks. I will examine different revolutions and armed struggles to assess the role the relative deprivation theory played in these revolutions.
The Russian Revolution in 1917 and the overthrowing of the Tsar is an interesting event to discuss the relative deprivation theory in more detail. Whilst the relative deprivation theory can’t solely be the explanation for the case of violence and the revolution it was a major factor in the revolution of 1917. Lenin and the Bolsheviks were to take over the country and transform it into a communist state. However this was not achieved easily. Lenin was a Marxist and he wanted to transform Russia into a communist state immediately, this was his motive. He used what he could to his advantage; the poorness of the peasants in the countryside and the proletarians in the cities was his gateway to defeating the Tsar. It should also be noted that the influence the relative deprivation can have on a situation depends on the amount of people who feel deprived. For e.g. if there is only a small percentage of people who feel deprived compared to a large proportion who don’t then their attempts at violence and even a revolution would be insignificant to the destiny of a nation. So in a sense it could be argued that the Revolution was the act of Lenin and it was his main objective to gain power in government. He created a motive for the peasants who made up a large proportion of the working population thus they had the power to influence. So it can be said that Lenin used the poverty issue in Russia to his own advantage in order to gain political favor. Two main things emerge from this assumption. The first being that Lenin and the Bolsheviks were the main reason for the violent revolution in 1917 and secondly that Lenin’s main tactic was to capitalize on the relative deprivation theory in order to overthrow the government. However these weren’t the only two reasons for the violence and revolutions that took place in 1917. Russia was very weak. The Tsar’s government lacked power over the people, the size of the Russian empire also made it hard for there to be a tight knit community, the economy was mainly made up of peasants in the countryside who were still using techniques that went out of date tens of years ago. The Tsars willingness to oversee the war himself also hurt his reputation among the Russian people. The weakness of the government made it possible for the Bolsheviks to take control. The First World War was also draining Russia form it’s precious resources that were needed at home, this was essentially a distraction for the government who could not clearly see what was going on in their own front yard. In turn all of these factors contributed to the violence and revolutions in 1917. No matter how much of a primary role Lenin had in the Revolutions it is safe to say that without the relative deprivation theory at play it would have been impossible for him to take control but in turn it is also unclear to what would have happened if Lenin was not in control of the Bolsheviks or there was no Revolution.
