Final answer:
Rapid social and economic changes can lead to resistance among those negatively affected by the new status quo. This resistance is often driven not by the most impoverished but by those whose expectations have been crushed, leading to movements like the Arab Spring and OWS. Social movements can be revolutionary, reformative, or resistant in nature, opposing changes that threaten established ways of life.
Step-by-step explanation:
Periods of rapid social and economic change often result in segments of the population experiencing dissatisfaction and confusion, leading to resistance or 'push-back' against such changes. Integral to this phenomenon is the notion that individuals or groups who were once thriving under the old system may find themselves disadvantaged by the new economic realities. One pivotal theory that illustrates this dynamic is the Davies J-Curve theory, proposed by James C. Davies in 1962, which suggests that revolutions tend to occur not from the most impoverished but from a 'middle group' whose expectations are no longer being met, resulting in a shift of their mood towards revolutionary sentiments.
Examples of such dynamics include events like the Arab Spring and Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movements, driven primarily by younger, often educated sectors of the population whose expectations were not met by the status quo. When discussing the sources of resistance to social and economic change, it is essential to recognize the diverse motivations and types behind social movements, including revolution, reform, and resistance movements like the Ku Klux Klan and pro-life efforts.
Overall, social and economic changes not only prompt adaptations but also spur various forms of pushback from those who perceive the changes as threatening to their way of life, fostering active resistance movements aiming to prevent, undo, or alter the course of such changes.