**TL;DR – Being a rebel is almost always for the sake of something else and it is necessary to bring you closer to change. Rebellion can be viewed as the active process of change.** Rebellion doesn’t have to be on a massive scale. It’s rooted in certain behaviors, norms, and conditions in the interest of change. George Orwell writes in 1984, “Until they become conscious, they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled, they cannot become conscious.” Conceptually, rebellion is never complacent, but it’s easy to take on a rebellious attitude without action. Rebellion’s necessity is clear through the motivation for even the most minor changes and there are plenty of ways to rebel – alternatives living, street activism, breaking from family traditions, etc. All can lead to change of any level. As an allegory of sorts and to show that rebellion even exists in non-human nature, the ‘peepal tree’ (native to India) has roots that grow outwards to eventually break down the structure it rests on. The weed is a rebel in itself; starting wherever it ends up, spreading, and eventually breaking down the structures around it in its growth. https://www.elephantjournal.com/2021/02/the-power-of-a-rebel-3-ways-to-start-and-scale-revolutions-sukriti-chhopra/

**TL;DR - One could argue that rebellion of some sort is always inherent in change, since without it, there would be no impetus for making anything different than it is. However, even if it's less common, change can happen randomly and with less of any kind of coherent motivation(s) behind it.** - Rebellions have prompted countless changes in history. Here's an incredibly exhaustive list of [revolutions and rebellions] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_revolutions_and_rebellions) throughout history. - However, change often happens in complex ways that we can't quite pin to one coherent form of rebellious motivation. For example, when early humans switched over from bartering to money, it seems likely it was a rational choice, prompted by the gradual realization that there was a better way of doing things. Facilitating varied and even far flung exchanges became easier, and the system became increasingly more complicated as time went forward, but it was all to do with rationally thought out steps that were taken in a corresponding fashion. - I'll grant that this money example is not necessarily of a type with all others, and it's true that it was so long ago that we indeed wouldn't have evidence of potential violence and insurrection (rebellion against systems as they arose.) However, it seems like something like the concentration of power to a few individuals or state actors proved to be a trend that pigeonholed the ways in which it was ever possible to create change (rebellion). So I'd say this needing rebellion for change is more the way things have been _lately_ in the course of humanity, rather than being any fundamental law regarding the nature of and the possibilities that lead to change.