Albert Toynbee, in his monumental study of world history, used the concepts of “Challenge and Response” to explain how civilizations rise and fall. He felt that traditional explanations – environment, race, leadership, possession of land, access to natural resources – were wrong or too narrow. Instead, he looked for the underlying cause that explained societal success or failure. By “challenge” Toynbee meant some unpredictable factor or event that posed a threat to the ways in which a group of people had made their livelihood in the past. But “challenge” was not all negative. It carried in it the germ of opportunity. “Response” was the action taken by the same group of people to cope with the new situation. A challenge would arise as the result of many things – population growth, exhaustion of a vital resource, climate change. It was something that nobody had knowingly created. Response required vision, leadership, and action to overcome the threat and create a basis for survival and, hopefully, prosperity.

Because he analyzed large civilizations, Toynbee reserved the terms “challenge and response” for major threats and actions that impacted the well-being of the entire population. “Challenge” threatened the very survival of the existing system. “Response” would range from inaction to major change in the living conditions of individuals as well as the group. It could embody new technology, social organization, and economic activities, or a combination of various factors. “Response” was never predictable, and its outcome would only be known over time. This was the risk humans took – resulting in success or failure.