Whether a social change is described as a revolution, reform or limited adjustment depends partly on the change itself and on the civilisation of the person assessing it. The same social change may therefore be classified differently by different individuals and social circles. For the theory described here, this terminological classification is not decisive.
The everyday label is therefore not decisive for the theory. The scope of political change is analytically relevant, however. There is a difference between a struggle over alternative decisions within an existing civilisation, a struggle over particular civilisation elements, and a struggle affecting a coherent set of elements of the dominant circle civilisation and its institutions. These forms merge into one another in reality, and a process of change may alter in character as it unfolds.
For the theory developed here, the underlying mechanism remains central. Ideas may be developed and shared, acquire coherence within systems of ideas and narratives, become part of personal and circle civilisations through civilising, and ultimately be embedded in institutions. Institutionalisation may strengthen actors’ power bases and thereby contribute to the social operation of those ideas.
The Art of Revolution means the theory of purposively changing civilisations and the social orders based upon them. Such purposive action always occurs within broader processes of social change that may also produce unplanned and unforeseen effects.
The same fundamental civilisational mechanisms underlie both limited and far-reaching purposive social changes. The extent of a social change does not alter the fundamental mechanisms of civilising, internalisation, the formation of social circles, power, institutionalisation, legitimation and social change. Their scale, complexity, duration and the resources required may nevertheless differ greatly.
In more far-reaching change, movements may arise that develop and disseminate new ideas, a system of ideas and a narrative, and build civilising associations and institutions. Such movements need not be centrally designed or led. They may arise gradually, encompass divergent tendencies and themselves change during their development. When their civilisation elements are internalised, shared and institutionalised beyond the original movement, they may contribute to broader changes in social orders and power relations.
The theory thereby returns to its central problem. People can imagine different social relations, regard them as desirable and attempt to persuade others of them. As long as such ideas remain no more than ideas, however, the social order scarcely changes. They acquire enduring significance when they become part of personal civilisations, are shared sufficiently to change circle civilisations or form new ones, and are ultimately embedded in institutions that structurally influence human conduct.
That is the process through which ideas become power.
© 2026 D.H. Ahles – The Netherlands