One of the paradoxes of the historical process is that there is no necessary connection between the motives for an action and its outcome. When a new social group or collective actor emerges on to the historical stage, for example, the motives that prompt it to act will rarely suffice to explain its historical impact. Hegel wrote of the ‘transformation’ (Verkekrung) of subjective intentions into objective meaning; sociologists speak of ‘unintended consequences’. The basic principle of historical change is that the meaning of any historical action always extends beyond the purely subjective dimension of those involved.

The discrepancy between motive and outcome applies particularly to the great epoch-making social movements and the fate of the groups which unleashed them. Often the actors' motives derive from a historical situation which is then overturned by the processes they themselves have unleashed. A new order emerges, and those who had helped bring it about find their own actions and identity being seen in a new light and a new social context. The motives of the historical actors stem from one historical-social order; but the evaluation of its impact is carried out in another. This paradoxical relationship presents a particular challenge to the collective identity of the social groups involved. What from their point of view might appear as a failure, may in the context of the historical process they have generated be seen as a success, albeit one which has little to do with the original purpose of those involved.Alternatively, by focusing on the enduring impact of the social movement, its instigators may lose sight of what it was that originally galvanised them to form together and to act.