I can see where my use of the term “revolution” can be confusing, however, I’m not sure I agree that it is a powerful source of unclarity. Doesn’t changing the prevailing cultural patterns invariably lead to change in social structure and order of power? As far as I understand him, Arnold appears to conflate these two denotations as well since his own use of the term “revolution” appears to refer to changing creeds and myths rather than mere political upheaval, while nonetheless hinting that the former leads to the latter. But if my use of the term does indeed need clarification, should I merely explain my use of the term “revolution” and what I think it means in this context, or should I use the term “revolution” to only denote either its conventional meaning or the overthrow of established ideas that I primarily discuss?

With regard to my central argument, I want to state that I in no way intended to downplay the significance of creating organizations and ideas within social movements. In fact, I see the work of creation as the most important element in building a success social movement and altering the status quo. That being said, while creation is certainly a critically necessary element to producing a revolution, it is, by itself, insufficient to produce long-term change. That was the central thrust of my argument. Without removing the cultural paraphernalia that prevents change, social movements will find it difficult for their organizations to build a mythology that will ground them into the fabric of society. A good lawyer, rather than simply promoting a new organization/movement, will need to actively work against the institutions that he/she is trying to replace – hence, my example contrasting the work of politicians to those involved in civil disobedience. If I should focus on the creative aspects of social movements and how lawyers can be involved in it, I will certainly do that, but I feel that such changes will radically alter the thesis I was trying to advance.

Recommendations from anyone would be appreciated, however, I feel advice from Eben would be most helpful considering that his criticism of my paper is plastered in red text right below it.