The Soul of Social Movements: A Sudden Eruption or A Continuous Evolution?
When we gaze in the horizon of history, one of the biggest mountains we will encounter is social movements. Some defined it as an “alteration” in the “social structure” (Wilterdink, Nico and William Form, Encyclopedia Britannica,“social change”). A movement that often involves an “organized group” made by different parts/classes of the society aiming towards a “common goal” and is “characterized by changes in cultural symbols, rules of behavior, social organization, or value system” (BCcampus, “Social Movements”) (Encyclopedia Britannica,“social change”). We commonly believe that each social movement stands by itself, just like how we see in textbooks, where events are taught in singular chapters. Such a conception was challenged by many historians such as E.H. Carr who claimed: “History is a continuous process, with the historian moving with it” (Adarsh Badri, “What is History?”). Yet, most arguments regarding social movements were based on the premise that social changes are revolutionary according to research.
By revolutionary, I mean a sudden eruption or shift of ideological movement that begins and ends at a certain time. However, this perquisite has many limitations which would be addressed. Therefore, this essay will re-challenge the common perception regarding specifically social movements and argue that social changes are not revolutionary but are evolutionary (This inquiry was initially derived from a 2023 John Essay competition question: “What are the characteristics of a successful social movement?”). First, this essay will address possible explanations from different scholars and then point out the limitations. Secondly, this essay will explain why social movements could be evolutionary through three examples: Socialist Revolutions in Russia between 1905 and 1922, rise of Nazism in Germany and the English Reformation. Lastly, this essay will address possible doubts on this claim and responses to each doubt.
Now, this essay will begin by addressing possible explanations from different scholars about the characteristics of a successful social movement. For instance, M. C. Elmer stated that a successful social movement consists of a “purpose for the general good,” that there is an “equalization of knowledge”, “recognition of personal responsibility”, a well-prepared plan and the outcomes of the social movement must make improvements compared to the previous stage (Elmer, “Social Change,” 34-5). Elmer further argues that a movement will only succeed when it is relevant and necessary, there will be less opposition when it benefits a larger group, and that the knowledge people share will be just and objective without “prejudicial propaganda” (Elmer, “Social Change,” 34-5). Mark N. Katz stated that “As a result of only a few key military defections, a democratic revolution can occur even if the bulk of the armed forces does not undergo a democratic conversion” (Katz, “Democratic Revolutions,” 169). Katz believed that the military is key during social changes. A social movement such as a democratic revolution can only succeed with military support. If not, it could be easily defeated (Katz, “Democratic Revolutions,” 169). These two historiographies mentioned various factors necessary for a successful social movement, such as a well-prepared plan, popular support, and support from the military.
Yet, these suggestions have limitations. For instance, one counterexample to Katz is the example of the social movement in Russia, where the authoritarian leadership of the Soviet Union collapsed and turned democratic after its disintegration and the establishment of Russia. This is due to a small-scale defection of the military which seemingly ensured the success of this social movement (Katz, “Democratic Revolutions,” 165-6). However, “the Russian military has done nothing to prevent the country's movement toward authoritarianism that has taken place under President Putin.” Thus, this social movement did not last long when authoritarianism came back in another form, a form that is concealed under the name of democracy. (Katz, “Democratic Revolutions,” 169). This suggests that even a revolution backed with the military as argued by Katz can still result in a failure. The reason why Katz's argument failed to imply to other examples such as the case in Russia is because his arguments are based on the premise that social changes are revolutionary. But in fact, social movements could also be evolutionary, which means that it is forever evolving and changing through time, into various forms due to the social-political and economic circumstance. A social movement could be identified as evolutionary if we can see how it changed through time to adapt according to its definition, which can be shown in three examples.
The first example is the Socialist Revolutions between 1905 and 1922 in Russia. In this social movement, we could trace how the methods used in the revolution evolved through time, leading to its temporary success. The peasant rebellions in the first revolution of 1905 were often in “short outbursts” rather than a planned revolution, as it lacked coordination and “organized tactics” (Seregny, “Peasant Movement,” 51). Moreover, there was still widespread popular support for the Tsar. This, as argued by Charles Stein Wedel, “continued the viability of tsarist authority” (Steinwedel, “1905 Revolution in Ufa,” 556). This choice of method and the lack of support greatly weakened the revolutionaries, who were finally defeated by the Tsar’s forces. As a result, this uprising failed and many leading members of the socialist including Trotsky (leading bolshevik) and Khrustalev-Nosar (chairman of the soviet’s) were arrested (Britannica, “Russian Revolution of 1905”). Then, the method evolved from unorganized riots to a general revolution against the Tsar regime in 1917. This change can be marked by the rising support for the revolutionaries in 1917 than in 1905 as the result of the severity of domestic issues and accumulated bitterness, such as food shortages and lack of goods as the result of World War One (BBC, “Reasons for the February Revolution”). This rising support in February can be shown by the mass rebellions that happened after February 23rd (Figes, “A People’s Tragedy,” 307-17 ). These massive rebellions led to the formation of the provisional government and appeared to be more effective compared to fragmented uprisings in 1905. Then, the October Revolution began in November 1917 in the form of a military coup as a result of dissatisfaction against the provisional government. In contrast to the lack of coordination in February, the October Revolution had become more coordinated under the Bolsheviks. The lack of coordination among the crowds during the February Revolution made Soviet leaders un-certain whether they should take power as they were “shocked by the violence and the hatred … displayed by the crowds” (Figes, “A People’s Tragedy,” 332-3 ). This is supported by a women’s account of the February Revolution, stating that they joined the revolution under a state of confusion and that “the Congress was divided into factions… It was clear that there could be no unity among student socialists. We had been able to join forces against the tsar, but a joint effort to build a new society was proving impossible…” (Alpha History, A WOMAN ON THE FEBRUARY REVOLUTION). Moreover, this lack of coordination during the February Revolution contributed to the counter revolutions since the crowds, who were not in command of the provisional government were potentially disappointed against the government on account of its inability to solve the domestic problems, and thus turned towards Bolsheviks. On the other hand, the October Revolution as “Trotsky himself claimed that 25,000 to 30,000 people ‘at most’ were actively involved.” (Figes, “A People’s Tragedy,” 492-3 ). This suggests that the revolutionary forces were small in scale, but highly coordinated, making them an efficient force during the coup against the provisional government. Furthermore, a speech by Lenin on October 24th to the Bolshevik Central Committee stated: “All districts, all regiments, all forces must be mobilised at once and must immediately send their delegations to the Revolutionary Military Committee and to the Central Committee of the Bolsheviks…” He believed that the revolution must be coordinated under the Revolutionary Military Committee and to the Central Committee of the Bolsheviks, which supports the claim of the October Revolution as a coordinated revolution (Alpha History, LENIN CALLS FOR REVOLUTION). As a result of this efficient method, the Bolsheviks successfully captured the Winter Palace and later established the Soviet Union through fierce fighting after the Russian Civil War. The Socialist Revolution shows how an unorganized mass riot evolved into a coordinated, small-scale coup, which led to the creation of a central government that is more stable compared to the previous institutions.
The second example is the fascist movement in Germany from 1923-1933. Fascism was created in Italy by Mussolini (Merriam-Webster, “Fascism”). After it had entered Germany, it evolved to adapt to the socio-political situation of the nation. As Ian Kershaw argued, one of the key features of Nazism is Race, in contrast to the “secondary role race played in Italian fascism” (Kershaw, “Uniqueness of Nazism,” 241). This increasing emphasis was a result of popular Jewish conspiracies at the time, such as the blame by General Ludendorff, who accused the Jewish people of being responsible for Germany’s defeat in World War One (Facing History and Ourselves, “Jewish conspiracy”). Hitler first attempted to seize power through strength and revolution as shown by the Putsch in Munich. On November 8th, 1923, Hitler started the Beer Hall Putsch where he hoped to follow the “model” of Mussolini’s “March on Rome”, to take over the government through a march (Britannica, “Beer Hall Putsch”) (Holocaust Encyclopedia, “Beer Hall Putsch”). However, the coup failed after the police opened fire on the Nazis, 14 of them were killed and Hitler was later arrested and put on trial. This was due to their failure to gain support from the police, the army, and the wider public, all of which they hoped would join but did not (Britannica, “Beer Hall Putsch”) (Holocaust Encyclopedia, “Beer Hall Putsch”). After the event, Hitler started to reflect on their reasons for failure. This drives him to make a new approach towards success. He was taught by the putsch “that politics in a pluralist, democratic society had to be approached more cautiously and with more planning” (Stachura, “Nazi Party,” 268). As a result, the movement evolved from using methods of violence to “methods of democracy” (Stachura, “Nazi Party,” 268).The Nazi’s change in method and intention is clearly outlined by Joseph Goebbels (A key member in the Nazi party who was in charge of propaganda) speech in 1928, where he claimed: “We enter the Reichstag to arm ourselves with the weapons of democracy. If democracy is foolish enough to give us free railway passes and salaries, that is its problem… As the wolf attacks the sheep, so come we.” His speech outlines Nazi’s methods, which is using democracy as a tool to rise into power and then destroying it completely. (Alpha History, GOEBBELS ON THE REICHSTAG). The time came in 1929, the Wall Street crash crippled Germany’s economy. The devastating effect of the Depression is outlined by Von Papen (chancellor of Germany) in June 1932, where he states that Germany faces “a high level of interest, which crushes agriculture and industry,” “the burden of taxation,” “external or foreign debt,” “unemployment,” and how “the former reserves of the Reichsbank are exhausted” (Alpha History, FRANZ VON PAPEN). These economic issues created a chance for Hitler appeal to the public through propaganda and his speeches as there was rising disillusionment against the Weimar government's inability to resolve the economic crisis and that people were more interested in extreme politics due to the failing democracy. His success finally came when he was appointed chancellor in 1933 by Hindenburg. This example reveals how a social movement could turn into a completely different form from the beginning to its end through the process of evolution and adaptation.
The third example is the English Reformation which began under Henry VIII because of his personal reasons. He wanted to get approval from the Catholic Church for the divorce from Catherine of Aragon and his new marriage to Anne Boleyn. After the Church denied his approval, he gave this challenge to the Cardinal Archbishop of York, Thomas Wolsey. They came up with a plan to separate “the Church in England from Catholic Rome” and make Henry the “head of the Church of England.” This would allow him to approve his divorce and marriage legitimately. The Reformation was initially not protestant, but only an act to control the Church as Henry “remained committed to traditional Catholic practices such as mass, confession, and clerical celibacy, as evidenced in the 1539 CE Act in Six Articles.” It slowly became protestant after Thomas Cromwell was appointed as the first minister. He proposed the “Ten Articles” as “inspired by the writings of Martin Luther” (Martin Luther was a German priest who contributed greatly to the spread of Protestant Reformation), abolished Catholic monasteries, and translated the bible into English. At this stage, the Reformation could still be argued as an act to achieve political goals as “many of Henry’s subjects” viewed the church as “too rich” and powerful. This is evidenced by how the monasteries' land was given to Henry’s supporters after its abolition. Then under Edward VI, the Reformation had evolved to become more radical and had moved from the political level to the social level. This can be evidenced by how the word “Protestantism” was now widely used in the country. Catholic practices were discouraged along with the removal of Catholic symbols like murals and Iconography (Cartwright, World History Encyclopedia, "English Reformation"). Edward’s will to reinforce the Protestant reformation can be further illustrated by “a letter from Privy Council to the bishops,” which requires the bishops to “cause these books to be delivered to every parson, vicar and other curate within your diocese with such diligence as they may have sufficient time well to advise and instruct themselves for the distribution of the most” (The National Archives, Edward VI and religion) (the term “book” means new policies in “the first statue passed in Parliament in 1547” according to the explanation by The National Archives). Edward’s successor Queen Mary I launched a counter-reformation that reversed Protestantism back to Catholicism (Cartwright, World History Encyclopedia, "English Reformation"). As argued by Peter Marshall, this act “ensured the subsequent survival of Catholicism in England and thereby enshrined religious division and plurality as a permanent feature of English political and cultural life” (Marshall, “English Reformation,” 583). Yet, although Mary's actions contributed to Catholic survival in the early years of Elizabeth I’s governance, its impacts remained limited. This is commented by Jenny Lee that “Although the lack of extensive amount of time had prevented the Marian regime from fully embracing and celebrating the fruits of their accomplishments, the ensuing legacy they left behind through the Counter-Reformation and resistance formed under Elizabeth I tells of how effective and systematic Mary I and her government were in their pursuits in returning England to Catholicism.” (Lee, “Mary Tudor,” 41). Nevertheless, the comments from Marshall and Lee all help to illustrate the long-term impact of the counter-reformation launched by Mary I on the policies of her predecessor Elizabeth I, which is resistant from remaining Catholic supporters. Elizabeth I aimed to re-launch protestant reforms, and thus have to solve the issue of the “religious division.” She went to the “middle road” between protestant and catholic to appeal to the “largely indifferent majority of her subjects” (Cartwright, World History Encyclopedia, "English Reformation") (Marshall, “English Reformation,” 583). The change from political level to social level, reformation and counter reformation, radical policies to a “middle-road” all act as evidence to show how the English Reformation is evolutionary as there is an evident path of adaptation and change (Cartwright, World History Encyclopedia, "English Reformation") (Marshall, “English Reformation,” 583).
On the other hand, the logical deduction; a social movement could be identified as evolutionary if we can see how it changed through time to adapt according to its definition, could be doubted in at least three ways.
The first doubt is that though the social movements may show a sign of change and evolution, it could be argued that the changes happen in different social movements, hence, there is no sign of evolution. This could be shown by three indications. Firstly, an evolutionary social movement should be considered a whole that is continuously evolving. Thus, if there are large time gaps between the changes or revolutions, it cannot be considered as a single social movement. For instance, in the Socialist Revolution, there was a 12-year time gap between the first uprising in 1905 and the February Revolution in 1917. This large time gap between the two periods breaks the continuity. If you are working on a project, you stop for a month and then continue, you cannot claim that you are working on this project continuously. Thus, the Socialist Revolution in Russia cannot be counted as one continuous social movement, therefore is not evolutionary. Secondly, if the social movement had been hosted by several different groups or persons through its process, it is not evolutionary. This is evident in the English Reformation, how it started with Henry VIII, passed to Edward VI, and to Elizabeth I. This indication is again based on the definition of the word evolution. Things that are simply under the same name are often not the same, especially if their insides or participants are different. Consequently, the social movement was not one single movement but was a combination of separate social movements under the same name. Although the English Reformation may seem to be a unified social movement, it could be three separate movements under the same name “Reformation.” Finally, the essence of a social movement is inconsistent. (Readers may be confused with the difference between the word “essence” used here and “nature” in the title, so it is worth to differentiate the two here. Essence is defined as the “properties that define what a thing is.” Nature is what “defines the essence”, the intrinsic value of it (Andrea Borghini, ThoughCo, “Idea of Nature”). For a pen, its essence is the property to write while its nature is the concept of a pen.) This can be seen in the fascist movement in Germany. The essence of the fascist movement was a revolution when Hitler planned the Munich putsch. Then, it changed its essence to an election after Hitler decided to use the Weimar democratic system to gain power. Although it is joined by the same participant without major time gaps, it is still two social movements due to its changing essence. Essence is often the core of things, and the things are defined by their essence. For instance, the essence of a pen is to write. If the pen fails to perform its essence, it should be discarded given that it can no longer be a pen. Even if it is called a pen, we can no longer consider it a pen instrumentally. This can be similarly applied to social movements. In the fascist movement, the essence of the social movement changed from a revolution to an election. This change separates the social movement into two, one movement in the form of a revolution and another movement in the form of democracy. If this is valid, the change of methods cannot be considered a sign of evolution because it happened in two different social movements.
Furthermore, according to the second and third indications within the first doubt, we can derive the second doubt. Are the changes in method an evolution or are they due to other reasons? If we use the example of the English Reformation, it was carried out by several people. These people may want to achieve different things from the social movements since they have different goals. If they have different goals, then they must use different methods to achieve them. Thus, the change in method is not to adapt but is due to the change of goals. For example, Henry VIII started the Reformation due to personal reasons, where he wanted to make his marriage to Anne legitimate. Due to this, he remained in the social movement at the political level. While for Edward VI, he was raised in a protestant environment and taught by teachers who supported the protestant Reformation such as Sir John Cheke. This potentially made him a devoted protestant and hence carried the Reformation under the goal to spread Protestantism despite influence from “Somerset and Northumberland” who wanted “to consolidate the English Reformation” (Morrill, Britannica, “Edward VI”) (Britannica, “Sir John Cheke”). This different goal compelled him to spread the English Reformation into the social level.
The third doubt is that there is limited evidence to show how one strategy or method evolves into another more effective strategy. Instead, these social movements only evidence sudden changes in methods. In the Soviet Revolution, you can only see how three different methods were used in three revolutions without a clear process of how one method changed to another. In the English Reformation, you can only see three separate forms of Reformation from Henry VIII to Edward VI and Queen Elizabeth. There is no clear path to show how each method or form is linked. Although some may argue that there is a clear path in the fascist movement in Germany. They may argue that Hitler had changed his method from revolution to democracy after he learned his lesson from the Munich putsch. Nonetheless, this argument cannot stand as the knowledge of the causes for an evolution is not evidence to show how it evolved. Just like if we only know why ocean organisms moved to the land around 360 million years ago, we still cannot understand how they evolved because we don’t know how these organisms slowly adapted to the environment on land (Understand Evolution, “From water to land”). Accordingly, the social movements may not be evolutionary given that the changes in methods or strategies are not a sign of evolution but only separate methods that seem to improve.
Now, I will try to respond to the three doubts one by one. The first doubt “the social movements may show a sign of change and evolution, but it could be argued that the changes happen in different social movements, hence, there is no sign of evolutions.” It can be counter argued with several points. Regarding the first indication, this is not a proof of the discontinuity of a social movement since these movements are long-term processes that often take years and decades. In between this long period, there are often times of dormancy. This time of dormancy does not mean an end to a social movement, but it is a time when the social movement carries on in a hidden way and waits for another moment of burst. This burst is the revolutions or campaigns that we see in the examples. Such as the Socialist Revolution in Russia, the first was the 1905 revolution, and the revolutions in 1917. Its dormancy is the period between 1905 and 1917. Regarding the second indication, it is almost impossible to have the same, exact members in a social movement throughout a long period. Moreover, the most important element of a social movement is its ideas, not its members. Although there were several changes to the members of leadership of England during the English reformation, they all used the same idea, Protestantism. This is enough to show that the English Reformation is one single social movement, not several social movements that are combined together. However, one possible objection is that sometimes the ideas of a social movement can be altered in-order to gain support for other important members, thus showing that members are more important to a social movement, not ideas. This objection highlights the need to make a key distinction between a social movement as a whole and periods within a social movement. Members play a key role within each period of a social movement, determining the methods and altering ideas to achieve more success. Yet, the key ideas of a social movement such as its ideology is ultimately more important in determining the continuity of a social movement in a macroscopic view, despite changes of members during each period. Regarding the third indication, it is also insufficient to divide social movements. We can distinguish two kinds of essence, one is the essence of its form, and one is the essence of its ideology. In the example of the fascist movement, the essence of its form is whether the movement is carried on through a revolution or a democratic way as in the third indication while the essence of its ideology is Fascism and Nazism. What is key to a social movement is the essence of its ideology, it would be considered the same if this part remains the same. While the essence of its form is less important and therefore does not divide itself if it changes. In fact, the change in its form is an evidence of its evolution, where its form changes to adapt to the environment. Just like how the fascist movement in Germany changed from a violent movement to an election which led to Hitler’s success. Overall, the three signs are all insufficient to indicate the separation of social movements within each example. Ergo, the doubt is invalid towards the argument of evolution.
To answer the second doubt, “Are the changes of method an evolution or are they due to other reasons?” we must link back to our previous response. This doubt is based on indications two and three, but the previous response had proved these two indications inefficient. For this reason, this doubt is unfounded. Even if we neglect this and look at the doubt by itself, there are still issues. The doubt is that the change in methods is not due to factors of evolution but is due to the change in goals. Conversely, the change in goals could be evidence of evolution. It may be true that the change in methods is due to the change in goals, but the change in goals is due to factors of evolution. In the example of the English Reformation, it was started for personal reasons, but it slowly transformed for social reasons. Such a change could be argued as a necessary, evolutionary outcome. Lucy Bates had suggested, which I tend to agree with; “the Reformation can be seen as the process of working out the Protestant desire for reform of the established church, a much longer ongoing development” (Bates, “ENGLAND’S LONG REFORMATION,” 1051). Viz, its evolutive nature. It had started with a minor reason but slowly expanded through time due to the changing social atmosphere and participants.
Then the third doubt: “There is no evidence to show how one strategy or method evolves to another more effective strategy.” This doubt does stand theoretically. Notwithstanding, there are still issues related to this doubt. One of them is that it over-conceptualized the concept of evolution. Although for evolution to happen, it does require a continuous change. However, it is always impossible to find enough evidence to show such a continuous change in reality. This is because a continuous change is a process that never stops, and thus requires an infinite amount of evidence. Just like video footage, no matter how high the frames per second (FPS) are, you will always see faults between two frames if you slow it down enough. It is similar in history, where it is impossible to find all historical evidence to show a continuous trend. Nevertheless, the outcomes of such change can be evidenced. Such as the change in strategy, method, goals, and/or essence. Using the example of the fascist movement, although we cannot evidence the continuous change of essence, we can see the outcomes of it, which is from a revolution to an election.
In conclusion, while most people may believe that social movements are revolutionary, it could also be evolutionary. There are three doubts on this argument, including the doubt on whether it is one single social movement or separate ones, the doubt on whether the change in methods was due to its evolutionary nature or other reasons and the doubt on whether there is enough evidence to show a continuous trend of change. These doubts are all proven invalid and therefore my proposal seems to stand; a social movement is defined as a long-term movement that changes and evolves through time, adapting to the surrounding environment. It is an evolutionary process. Defining social movements as such comes with several consequences. First, a social movement cannot be simply judged on its success as it may appear less successful or successful at one point and appear in the opposite way after some time. Instead, we should judge it on its path of evolution. Whether the path leads to a more successful social movement, or it does not. Such judgment allows us to learn from the past and apply it to our present time. Secondly, we cannot simply define the start or the end of a social movement since it is an ever-growing event. It may seem to stop at one point, but it could be in dormancy and is waiting for another chance to rise. History is not the past but is an ongoing event. Thus, we should always learn from it rather than knowing it and establish its significance for the present. If we only view it as a “one stop” event, we will neglect its practicability and recommit the same errors.
Bibliography:
Adarsh Badri. “Notes: E.H. Carr on What is History?” Accessed April 17, 2025. https://adarshbadri.me/notes/notes-eh-carr-on-what-is-history/.
Alpha History. “LENIN CALLS FOR REVOLUTION (1917.)” Accessed May 22, 2026. https://alphahistory.com/russianrevolution/lenin-calls-for-revolution-1917/
Alpha History. “A WOMAN ON THE FEBRUARY REVOLUTION IN KURSK (1917).” Accessed May 22, 2026. https://alphahistory.com/russianrevolution/february-revolution-kursk-1917/
Alpha History. “GOEBBELS ON THE REICHSTAG AND WHY THE NAZIS WANT SEATS THERE (1928).” Accessed May 22, 2026. https://alphahistory.com/nazigermany/goebbels-on-the-reichstag/
Alpha History. “FRANZ VON PAPEN ON THE GERMAN ECONOMIC CRISIS (1932).” Accessed May 22, 2026. https://alphahistory.com/weimarrepublic/von-papen-german-economic-crisis-1932/
Borghini, Andrea. ThoughCo. “Idea of Nature,” Accessed July 16, 2025. https://www.thoughtco.com/the-idea-of-nature-2670631.
BBC. “Reasons for the February revolution, 1917” Accessed May 19, 2026. https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/ztyk87h/revision/4.
Bates, Lucy. “THE LIMITS OF POSSIBILITY IN ENGLAND’S LONG REFORMATION.” The Historical Journal 53, no. 4 (December 2010): 1049-70. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40930369.
BCcampus. “Chapter 21. Social Movements and Social Change.” Accessed June 30, 2025. https://opentextbc.ca/introductiontosociology/chapter/chapter21-social-movements-and-social-change/#:~:text=Social%20movements%20are%20purposeful%2C%20organized,disenfranchised%20(civil%20rights%20movements).
Britannica. “Beer Hall Putsch.” Accessed July 4, 2025. https://www.britannica.com/event/Beer-Hall-Putsch.
Britannica. “Russian Revolution of 1905.” Accessed July 14, 2025. https://www.britannica.com/event/Russian-Revolution-of-1905.
Britannica. “Sir John Cheke.” Accessed July 9, 2025. https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-Cheke.
Cartwright, Mark. World History Encyclopedia. "English Reformation." Accessed July 5, 2025. https://www.worldhistory.org/English_Reformation/.
Elmer, M. C. “Social Change and Social Reforms.” Social Science 26, no. 1 (Jan 1951): 33–5. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41884087.
Facing History and Ourselves. “The Myth of a Jewish conspiracy.” Accessed July 4, 2025. https://www.facinghistory.org/resource-library/myth-jewish-conspiracy.
Figes, Orlando. A People’s Tragedy: The Russian Revolution, 1891-1924. London: The Bodley Head, 2014.
Holocaust Encyclopedia. “Beer Hall Putsch (Munich Putsch).” Accessed July 4, 2025. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/beer-hall-putsch-munich-putsch.
Katz, Mark N. “Democratic Revolutions: Why Some Succeed, Why Others Fail.” World Affairs 166, no. 3 (Winter 2004): 163-170. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20672690.
Kershaw, Ian. “Hitler and the Uniqueness of Nazism.” Journal of Contemporary History 39, no. 2 (April 2004): 239-54. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3180723.
Lee, Jenny. The Success of Catholicism under Mary Tudor: Examining Her Policies and Her Legacy [Honors Thesis]. Muhlenberg College, 2024. Muhlenberg College Digital Repository. Muhlenberg College Special Collections & Archives. https://jstor.org/stable/community.37916242.
Marshall, Peter. “(Re)Defining the English Reformation.” Journal of British Studies 48, no. 3 (July 2009): 564-86. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27752571.
Merriam-Webster. “‘Fascism’: The Word’s Meaning and History.” Accessed July 4, 2025. https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/fascism-meaning-and-history.
Morrill, John S. Britannica. “Edward VI.” Accessed July 9, 2025. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Edward-VI.
Seregny, Scott J. “A Different Type of Peasant Movement: The Peasant Unions in the Russian Revolution of 1905.” Slavic Review 47, no. 1 (Spring 1988): 51-67. https://doi.org/10.2307/2498838.
Stachura, Peter D. “The Political Strategy of the Nazi Party, 1919-1933.” German Studies Review 3, no. 2 (May 1980): 261-88. https://doi.org/10.2307/1429723.
Steinwedel, Charles. “The 1905 Revolution in Ufa: Mass Politics, Elections, and Nationality.” The Russian Review 59, no. 4 (October 2000): 555-76. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2679278.
The National Archives. “Edward VI and Religion.” Accessed May 22, 2026. https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/the-english-reformation-c1527-1590/edward-vi-and-religion/
Understand Evolution. “From water to land.” Accessed July 9, 2025. https://evolution.berkeley.edu/fisheye-view-tree-of-life/from-water-to-land/.
Wilterdink, Nico and William Form. Encyclopedia Britannica. “social change.” Accessed June 30, 2025. https://www.britannica.com/topic/social-change.