Can Fighting for Freedom Change the Way We Think?
People rarely join a protest because they want to follow someone. They join because they care about something they believe needs to change. For many, that means years of meetings, marches, difficult conversations, and the hope that their efforts will make a difference. But as solidarity grows, groupthink can gradually take hold, making people less likely to question whether those standing beside them are actually fighting for the same future.
Then a movement gathers momentum. More people turn up. New alliances form. For the first time in years, change can feel possible.
There are echoes of that hope in Iran’s 1979 Revolution, in protest movements across Europe today, and even in an unusual American classroom experiment called The Third Wave.
These are very different settings, with very different stakes. Yet each invites us to consider something deeply human: how does belonging to a movement affect the choices we make—and the questions we ask?
Sources:
Internet Archive, Alexander Grasshoff: The Wave 1981 (full movie)
Why Did Iranian Communists Support Khomeini's Revolution?
Communists, socialists, liberals, and Islamist movements opposed the Shah of Iran, but they had very different visions of what should replace him. Some wanted greater political freedom, others sought social equality, while Khomeini’s followers envisioned an Islamic political system. Opposition to the monarchy united them, even when their ideas about the future conflicted.
The communist Tudeh Party took a particularly consequential position. In January 1979, its leadership declared support for Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, viewing his anti-imperialist position as compatible with its own political ambitions. Some party leaders believed the alliance would be temporary and that left-wing forces could eventually gain power.
Not all revolutionary groups followed the same path. Some challenged Khomeini’s growing authority, while others maintained their support even as political repression intensified.
After the monarchy collapsed in February 1979, Khomeini’s supporters gradually consolidated power. Political opponents were imprisoned, executed, or forced into exile. The Tudeh Party initially supported the suppression of rival opposition groups, but by 1983, it too faced a government crackdown, with its leaders arrested and the party banned.
The revolution had brought together people fighting for change, but agreement on what needed to end did not mean agreement on what should begin.
How much disagreement can a movement overlook when everyone believes they are fighting for a better future?
Sources:
Rowena Abdul Razak, Cambridge University Press: Activism in Isolation: The Tudeh Party of Iran in British Left Discourse during the Long 1980s
Torab Haghshenas, Encyclopaedia Iranica: Communism iii. In Persia after 1953
What Did The Wave Experiment Reveal About Group Conformity?
The Third Wave experiment illustrated how discipline, belonging, and authority can encourage people to follow a group without independently questioning its rules.
In 1967, American history teacher Ron Jones wanted his students to understand how ordinary Germans could have accepted the rise of Nazism. At a California high school, he introduced strict classroom rules, slogans, membership cards, and a special salute.
Within days, students began embracing their new collective identity. Some monitored classmates, reported those who broke the rules, and treated dissent as disloyalty. What began as a classroom exercise developed into a movement that even Jones struggled to control.
Unlike a real political revolution, The Third Wave was a brief educational experiment, not scientific proof of how societies become authoritarian.
Yet it raised a question that remains relevant to understanding groupthink today: when belonging to something feels meaningful, how easily can we overlook what that something is asking us to become?
Sources:
The Wave – Official Website, maintained by original participants: FAQ: The Third Wave Experiment
Why Do Frustrated Protesters Follow Movements That Finally Take Action?
When years of peaceful activism seem to achieve little, a movement that finally takes decisive action can restore something protesters may have lost: hope that change is possible.
Imagine spending years organizing demonstrations, attending meetings, debating solutions, and watching promising initiatives fade away. Now imagine witnessing police violence against people whose only demand is to be heard. Over time, disappointment can turn into anger, distrust, and a growing belief that peaceful methods are no longer enough.
Research into political radicalization shows that perceived failure of conventional protest, particularly when combined with disproportionate police responses, can make more confrontational tactics seem justified.
When another movement appears willing to confront the authorities, its determination can become deeply attractive. For people who have felt powerless, action itself may begin to represent progress.
But admiring a movement’s courage is not necessarily the same as understanding its intentions. Shared frustration does not guarantee shared values, and the desire for immediate change can sometimes overshadow questions about its long-term consequences.
The challenge is recognizing that distinction without losing sight of the injustice that inspired the protests in the first place.
Sources:
PubMed, Br J Soc Psychol: A primer on politicization, polarization, radicalization, and activation and their implications for democracy in times of rapid technological change
How Can Groupthink Silence Personal Doubts and Moral Objections?
Groupthink can develop when maintaining group unity becomes more important than questioning decisions, considering alternatives, or expressing personal doubts.
But solidarity is not built on shared beliefs alone. People who have faced police violence, fear, and helplessness together can develop powerful bonds, sometimes without exchanging more than a few words. Someone who stood beside you when you were vulnerable may feel closer than someone who has shared your political views for years.
There is a parallel with the camaraderie soldiers sometimes develop through shared danger. Although their circumstances differ, both experiences can create an extraordinary sense of belonging.
Psychologists describe one particularly intense form of this connection as identity fusion. Research involving military veterans and people who experienced collective trauma shows how shared suffering can strengthen group loyalty and the willingness to make personal sacrifices for others.
Such solidarity can provide courage, protection, and emotional support. But it may also make disagreement difficult. Questioning a movement’s leaders or actions can feel like abandoning the very people who stood beside you when you needed them most.
Groupthink and identity fusion are distinct psychological processes, but together they raise an important question:
How do we remain willing to question a movement without feeling that we are betraying the people with whom we have endured so much?
Sources:
Harvey Whitehouse et al., Scientific Reports (2017): The Evolution of Extreme Cooperation via Shared Dysphoric Experiences
Jonathan Jong, Harvey Whitehouse, Christopher Kavanagh and Justin Lane, PLOS ONE (2015): Shared Negative Experiences Lead to Identity Fusion via Personal Reflection
Oliver Pol, Todd Bridgman and Stephen Cummings, Human Relations (2022): The Forgotten ‘Immortalizer’: Recovering William H. Whyte as the Founder and Future of Groupthink Research
Are Similar Ideological Contradictions Emerging in Europe's Protest Movements?
Across Europe, growing frustration with governments, economic inequality, and international conflicts has brought people from very different political backgrounds into the streets. Some protests have remained peaceful. Others have escalated into violent confrontations, raising questions about political solidarity, radicalization, and the different motivations within protest movements.
The events of October 2026 reveal both the strength of collective action and the difficulties that arise when different groups unite around shared grievances.
Why Have France's Protests Become So Violent?
What began in September as student protests over deteriorating schools and teacher shortages has developed into a much broader movement against rising living costs and government policies.
On October 17, approximately 550,000 people demonstrated across France, according to government figures. Although many marches remained peaceful, serious violence erupted in Paris, Marseille, Lyon, Bordeaux, and other cities.
Buildings were set on fire, stores were looted, and protesters clashed with police. Thousands were detained over the following days, while injuries were reported among both demonstrators and security personnel.
Trade unions, student organizations, and Yellow Vest activists became involved in the wider mobilization. Authorities blamed far-left agitators for much of the violence, although reporting also identified opportunistic groups whose motivations were less clearly political.
The unrest raises an important distinction: when very different people unite in their anger, does that necessarily mean they agree on what should change?
Sources:
Arthur Carpentier, Le Monde (October 18, updated October 20, 2026): Police overwhelmed by October 17 protest turnout, with several groups getting ‘close to the Elysée’
Sylvie Corbet and Jade Le Deley, Associated Press (October 17, 2026): Clashes, Fires and Looting Break Out as Protesters Rally Across France, Joining Students
What Happened During Italy's October Demonstrations?
In Italy, protests over rising living costs, declining public services, and international conflicts have also intensified.
On October 17 and 18, violent confrontations took place in Milan and other northern cities. A Milan demonstration combining opposition to war with economic grievances began peacefully before masked groups attacked police, erected burning barricades, and vandalized businesses.
Palestinian flags were also visible among demonstrators, illustrating how international solidarity and domestic economic frustrations can appear within the same protest.
However, shared participation does not establish that every group supports the actions or political objectives of others.
For some participants, the immediate priority is economic justice. For others, international conflicts or opposition to government authority may be more important.
Sources:
Al Jazeera Staff, AFP, AP and Reuters (October 17, 2026): Cost of living protests hit Belgium, Italy, Portugal and France
The Times of Israel, Agencies (October 18, 2026): Rioters loot stores in Milan during cost-of-living protest featuring Palestinian symbols
Why Are Protesters Clashing With Police in Belgium?
What Do Germany's Protests Reveal About Political Solidarity?
How Do Different Political Movements Unite in the United Kingdom?
What Do These Protest Movements Really Have in Common?
Despite their similarities, Europe’s recent protests are not one coordinated movement. Economic frustration, public service cuts, international conflicts, and opposition to government policies have brought different groups into the streets for different reasons.
There is no established evidence that communist and Islamist organizations jointly direct the unrest across Europe, nor should violent groups automatically be treated as representative of peaceful protesters. Cooperation between ideologically different organizations is documented in some coalitions, but that does not establish a common agenda across countries.
This distinction is essential when comparing today’s protests with Iran’s 1979 Revolution. The circumstances are fundamentally different, and history does not necessarily repeat itself.
What the comparison offers is a question rather than a prediction: when people with different beliefs unite against something, how much do they really know about what their allies want to build afterward?
What Are Iran's Protesters Fighting Against Today?
Iranian protesters are challenging a political system that has restricted personal freedoms, women’s rights, and political opposition for decades. Many have paid an extraordinary price through imprisonment, torture, and death, particularly during the Woman Life Freedom uprising and the renewed protests of 2025–2026.
This creates a striking contrast with some protest movements across Europe.
Millions of Europeans defend freedom, equality, women’s rights, and the right to challenge government authority. Yet the struggle of Iranians facing severe repression for demanding many of these same freedoms does not always receive comparable attention.
Why?
European solidarity with Iran certainly exists. Thousands demonstrated in Berlin in February 2026, while human rights organizations continue demanding accountability. Opposing foreign military intervention also does not mean supporting Iran’s government.
But if freedom and human rights are universal principles, shouldn’t they deserve the same solidarity regardless of who is responsible for violating them?
Iran’s history makes this question especially relevant. The revolution of 1979 brought together people demanding change, yet the political system that emerged eventually suppressed many of its former supporters.
Perhaps the question is not only what we stand against, but whether we apply our principles just as consistently when doing so challenges the people standing beside us.
Sources:
Amnesty International (September 16, 2026): Why Is Amnesty International Calling for International Justice for Crimes Against Humanity in Iran?
Maria Martinez, Reuters (February 7, 2026): Thousands Protest in Berlin in Solidarity With Iranian Uprisings
Malek Fouda, Euronews (January 10, 2026): Demonstrations Held in Major European Cities in Solidarity With Iran Protests
What Does Nick Berg's Shadows of Tehran Reveal About the Power of Resistance?
Nick Berg‘s experiences in revolutionary Iran reveal how the desire to resist oppression can bring people together long before they fully understand each other’s political beliefs.
As a teenager, Berg did far more than observe the growing resistance against Iran’s new Islamic Republic. He became actively involved in underground opposition, taking extraordinary risks and developing leadership qualities at an age when most young people are still discovering who they are.
During this period, he also worked alongside groups associated with the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (MEK). What attracted him was their willingness to resist. Their actions offered a way to confront a system he refused to accept.
Only later did he recognize how profoundly his own convictions differed from the ideology of some of those he had fought alongside.
His experiences inspired Ricardo, the fictional protagonist of Shadows of Tehran, whose resistance as the Shadow Rider reflects Berg’s own dangerous journey.
Berg’s story adds a deeply personal dimension to the psychology of collective resistance. Courage, loyalty, and a common enemy can unite people who ultimately want very different futures.
And sometimes, understanding those differences comes long after the bonds have already been formed.
Can We Fight for Change Without Surrendering Independent Thought?
A revolution can succeed in overthrowing a government and still fail the people who helped make it possible.
In 1979, Iranians united against the Shah without agreeing on what should come next. The Islamic Republic that emerged eventually drove a young Nick Berg into resistance. He fought alongside MEK-linked groups, drawn to their willingness to act, long before he fully understood how different their political convictions were from his own.
This is where The Wave, Iran’s history, and today’s protest movements intersect. The desire for change can inspire extraordinary courage, but it cannot answer what kind of future a movement intends to create.
Perhaps the most important questions are those we hesitate to ask while everyone around us is moving in the same direction.
If the movement you support wins tomorrow, will you still be free to disagree with it the day after?
