Upheaval: Turning Points for Nations in Crisis

Upheaval: Turning Points for Nations in Crisis (2019) is a work of nonfiction by Jared Diamond, in which he applies the research from personal therapy to identify how nations navigate national crises. He compares the resolutions of national crises in seven countries and identifies unfolding crises in the United States (US), Japan, and the world. A retired professor of geography and author of other popular works, such as Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies, Diamond is noted for his contributions to comparative politics and history. The book became a New York Times bestseller.

This guide uses the 2019 paperback edition by Back Bay Books. 

Content Warning: The source text and this guide include discussions of wartime violence, racism, and political violence.

Summary

Borrowing criteria from the field of short-term crisis therapy, Diamond identifies 12 factors that make it more or less likely that a nation will resolve a crisis. Crises are turning points, presenting challenges that cannot be solved by a nation’s current modes of operation. They force nations to make some changes. Diamond acknowledges differences between individuals and nations, adjusting a few of the factors for that reason. Additionally, he stipulates that nations, unlike individuals, are impacted by leaders and institutions. Nations can at times successfully resolve a crisis with violence as well.

The 12 factors begin with an acknowledgment of the crisis and acceptance of responsibility for resolving it. Nations must engage in an honest self-appraisal. Based on that appraisal, they must introduce selective changes. In so doing, they change what is not working and retain what is working. Nations can model their resolution of crises on the experiences of other nations and they can receive material help from allies. Additionally, nations can draw upon their past experiences. These seven factors are very similar for individuals.

While nations do not have patient personalities, they can exhibit patience in confronting early failures to resolve a crisis. Likewise, nations do not have flexible personalities but can be flexible in situations. Like individuals, nations can have limitations on their freedom of choice, albeit different ones. While individuals might be limited by caretaking responsibilities, nations have geographical, economic, and political constraints. Unlike individuals, nations do not have egos. However, the peoples of a nation share a national identity and core values. The latter can sometimes hinder and sometimes help in the resolution of a crisis.

Using these 12 factors, Diamond engages in a comparative analysis of crisis response in Finland, Meiji Japan, Chile, Indonesia, Germany, and Australia, and unfolding resolutions in the US, Japan, and the world. His purpose is to identify relevant factors in the resolution of crises that can later be subjected to more rigorous and quantitative studies. He uses a qualitative or narrative approach and selects his case studies because of his familiarity with these countries. It is thus not a random sample. 

Grouping his case studies by the type of crisis experienced, Diamond compares Finland and Meiji Japan, both of which experienced sudden crises precipitated by an external threat. Indonesia and Chile incurred sudden crises caused by internal factors, while Germany and Australia faced gradually unfolding crises. Modern Japan, the US, and the world are facing unfolding crises that are not yet resolved. While Diamond includes at least two cases from each grouping for comparative purposes, he additionally highlights commonalities across all cases.

Finland’s crisis emerged when the Soviet Union invaded the country during World War II, while Meiji Japan’s occurred when the US threatened to invade in 1853 if its demands were not met. While both countries successfully navigated these crises, they differed in their methods. Leaders in Meiji Japan made a conscious effort to use western models to strengthen their military and other institutions, while Finland had no such model to copy. Nor did Finland receive help from allies, while Meiji Japan benefitted from foreign investments. 

Similarly, however, both countries acknowledged the crisis, accepted responsibility for resolving it, engaged in an honest self-appraisal, and instituted selective changes. Despite its underdog status, Finland was able to delay the Soviet advance and ultimately retain its independence. After the war, given its geographic vulnerability, it compromised some freedoms to ensure that it did not offend the Soviet Union, yet it was able to create a wealthy, educated, and democratic society. Japan’s strategy succeeded as well, with the country creating a military able to defeat Russia in 1905.

In Chile and Indonesia, there was intense polarization, with disagreement over core values. Leaders’ miscalculations led to military coups in Indonesia in 1965 and Chile in 1973. Assuming dictatorial powers, Suharto in Indonesia and Augusto Pinochet in Chile then proceeded to have their political opponents murdered on a mass scale. Both implemented martial law and tolerated no dissent. Noting that both dictators implemented selective changes, Diamond highlights how they both introduced free-market reforms and improved their economies. Suharto stayed in power, presiding over a corrupt regime for over 30 years, while Pinochet remained dictator for 17 years. Both stepped down peacefully, bowing to popular wishes. When opposition forces came to power, they did not bring charges against these leaders. They recognized the lingering power of the military, especially in Indonesia. In Chile, the opposition compromised with opponents and sought to unify the country. Much later, in Chile only, some who committed atrocities were prosecuted. Ultimately, Chile restored and Indonesia established democratic elections.

Germany and Australia both faced slowly unfolding crises about identity in the aftermath of World War II. Germans had to come to terms with the atrocities committed in the Nazi era and had to shed authoritarian attitudes. With the impetus of the student movement in the late 1960s and the election of a left-leaning chancellor, the country faced the crisis and accepted responsibility for its past actions. 



Prior to World War II, Australia identified with Great Britain and considered itself a part of that country. At that time, the country had a racist immigration policy and was therefore ethnically homogeneous. Beginning with Great Britain’s failure to protect Australia during World War II, Australians began to realize that their future was more with Asia than Europe. Gradually, immigration laws changed and the country diversified. In both Australia’s and Germany’s cases, some old parts of their identity were retained and others changed. Australia, for example, still has Great Britain’s flag within its own. Change was selective.

Japan, the US, and the world all face unfolding crises. For example, Japan has an aging population, the US has a polarized citizenry increasingly unable to compromise, while the world is facing a climate crisis, among other challenges. All these crises are gradually unfolding. In these cases, there has not yet been an acknowledgment of these crises. Nor has there been an acceptance of responsibility for resolving them. As the crises are gradually unfolding, that could potentially still happen.

Diamond calls for additional studies. He hopes that future studies will operationalize his factors and use a quantitative methodology to determine their impact. Due to his small and non-random sample, he additionally calls for scholars to have a larger and more random collection of cases.