Upheaval: Turning Points for Nations in Crisis

Diamond argues that the large body of research about the resolution of personal crises has some applicability to national crises. He provides an example of a personal crisis, specifically a fire at a Boston nightclub called Cocoanut Grove in 1942, and a national crisis, namely Britain’s loss of its colonies and economic struggles between 1956 and 1961. 

In Boston’s fire, 492 people died and hundreds were injured. Some of the survivors and loved ones of victims never got over this crisis, yet most did. They did so via “a slow process of grieving, reappraising their values, rebuilding their lives, and discovering that not everything in their world was ruined” (4). They created new identities that coexisted with old ones in a mosaic (5). Diamon asserts that nations do this as well. Britain, for example, shed its empire but remained a wealthy country with a parliamentary democracy. 

Crises, which confront individuals and groups of all sizes, can arise from external or internal pressures. Coping successfully “requires selective change” (6). Complete change is impossible. A crisis is a turning point, bringing a challenge that necessitates finding new coping mechanisms. Crises can be navigated successfully, partially successfully, or not at all.