Revolution: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
Scholarly debates about what does and does not constitute a revolution center around several issues. Early studies of revolutions primarily analyzed events in [[European history]] from a [[psychological]] perspective, but more modern examinations include global events and incorporate perspectives from several [[social science]]s, including [[sociology]] and [[political science]]. Several generations of scholarly thought on revolutions have generated many competing theories and contributed much to the current understanding of this complex phenomenon. |
Scholarly debates about what does and does not constitute a revolution center around several issues. Early studies of revolutions primarily analyzed events in [[European history]] from a [[psychological]] perspective, but more modern examinations include global events and incorporate perspectives from several [[social science]]s, including [[sociology]] and [[political science]]. Several generations of scholarly thought on revolutions have generated many competing theories and contributed much to the current understanding of this complex phenomenon. |
||
Jake Reed is pretty much the shiznatt. even know kirstin swanson is gay. |
|||
==Political and socioeconomic revolutions== |
|||
{{Cquote2|The revolution is not an apple that falls when it is ripe. You have to make it fall.|[[Ernesto "Che" Guevara]] <ref>"Che Guevara: Revolutionary & Icon", by Trisha Ziff, Abrams Image, 2006, pg 69</ref>}} |
|||
Perhaps most often, the word 'revolution' is employed to denote a change in [[social institution|socio]]-[[political institution]]s.<ref name="Goldstonet3">[[Jack Goldstone]], "Theories of Revolutions: The Third Generation'', ''[[World Politics]]'' 32, 1980:425-53</ref><ref name="Forantorr">[[John Foran]], "Theories of Revolution Revisited: Toward a Fourth Generation", ''[[Sociological Theory]]'' 11, 1993:1-20</ref><ref name="Kroeber">[[Clifton B. Kroeber]], ''Theory and History of Revolution'', [[Journal of World History]] 7.1, 1996: 21-40</ref> [[Jeff Goodwin]] gives two definitions of a revolution. A broad one, where revolution is "any and all instances in which a state or a political [[regime]] is overthrown and thereby transformed by a popular [[Social movement|movement]] in an irregular, extraconstitutional and/or violent fashion"; and a narrow one, in which "revolutions entail not only [[mass mobilization]] and [[regime change]], but also more or less rapid and fundamental social, economic and/or cultural change, during or soon after the struggle for [[state]] [[power (sociology)|power]]."<ref name="NOWO:9">Goodwin, p.9.</ref> [[Jack Goldstone]] defines them as |
|||
<blockquote>an effort to transform the political institutions and the justifications for political authority in society, accompanied by formal or informal mass mobilization and noninstitutionalized actions that undermine authorities.<ref name="Goldstonet4">Jack Goldstone, "Towards a Fourth Generation of Revolutionary Theory", ''[[Annual Review of Political Science]]'' 4, 2001:139-87</ref></blockquote> |
|||
Political and socioeconomic revolutions have been studied in many [[social sciences]], particularly [[sociology]], [[political science]]s and [[history]]. Among the leading scholars in that area have been or are [[Crane Brinton]], [[Charles Brockett]], [[Farideh Farhi]], [[John Foran]], [[John Mason Hart]], [[Samuel Huntington]], [[Jack Goldstone]], [[Jeff Goodwin]], [[Ted Roberts Gurr]], [[Fred Halliday]], [[Chalmers Johnson]], [[Tim McDaniel]], [[Barrington Moore]], [[Jeffery Paige]], [[Vilfredo Pareto]], [[Terence Ranger]], [[Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy]], [[Theda Skocpol]], [[James Scott]], [[Eric Selbin]], [[Charles Tilly]], [[Ellen Kay Trimbringer]], [[Carlos Vistas]], [[John Walton]], [[Timothy Wickham-Crowley]] and [[Eric Wolf]].<ref name="NOWO:5">[[Jeff Goodwin]], ''No Other Way Out: States and Revolutionary Movements, 1945-1991.'' Cambridge University Press, 2001, p.5</ref> |
|||
[[Jack Goldstone]] differentiates four 'generations' of scholarly research dealing with revolutions.<ref name="Goldstonet4"/> The scholars of the first generation such as [[Gustave Le Bon]], [[Charles A. Ellwood]] or [[Pitirim Sorokin]], were mainly descriptive in their approach, and their explanations of the phenomena of revolutions was usually related to [[social psychology]], such as Le Bon's [[crowd psychology]] theory.<ref name="Goldstonet3"/> |
|||
Second generation theorists sought to develop detailed [[theory|theories]] of why and when revolutions arise, grounded in more complex [[social behavior]] theories. They can be divided into three major approaches: psychological, sociological and political.<ref name="Goldstonet3"/> |
|||
The works of [[Ted R. Gurr]], [[Ivo K. Feierbrand]], [[Rosalind L. Feierbrand]], [[James A. Geschwender]], [[David C. Schwartz]] and [[Denton E. Morrison]] fall into the first category. They followed theories of [[cognitive psychology]] and [[frustration-aggression theory]] and saw the cause of revolution in the state of mind of the masses, and while they varied in their approach as to what exactly caused the people to revolt (e.g. [[modernization]], [[recession]] or [[discrimination]]), they agreed that the primary cause for revolution was the widespread frustration with socio-political situation.<ref name="Goldstonet3"/> |
|||
The second group, composed of academics such as [[Chalmers Johnson]], [[Neil Smelser]], [[Bob Jessop]], [[Mark Hart]], [[Edward A. Tiryakian]], [[Mark Hagopian]], followed in the footsteps of [[Talcott Parsons]] and the [[structural-functionalist]] theory in sociology; they saw society as a system in equilibrium between various resources, demands and subsystems (political, cultural, etc.). As in the psychological school, they differed in their definitions of what causes disequilibrium, but agreed that it is a state of a severe disequilibrium that is responsible for revolutions.<ref name="Goldstonet3"/> |
|||
Finally, the third group, which included writers such as [[Charles Tilly]], [[Samuel P. Huntington]], [[Peter Ammann]] and [[Arthur L. Stinchcombe]] followed the path of [[political sciences]] and looked at [[pluralist theory]] and [[interest group conflict theory]]. Those theories see events as outcomes of a [[power struggle]] between competing [[interest group]]s. In such a model, revolution happen when two or more groups cannot come to terms within a normal [[decision making]] process traditional for a given [[political system]], and simultaneously have enough resources to employ [[force]] in pursuing their goals.<ref name="Goldstonet3"/> |
|||
The second generation theorists saw the development of the revolutions as a two-step process; first, some [[change]] results in the present situation being different from the past; second, the new situation creates an opportunity for a revolution to occur. In that situation, an event that in the past would not be sufficient to cause a revolution (ex. a [[war]], a [[riot]], a bad [[harvest]]), now is sufficient – however if authorities are aware of the danger, they can still prevent a revolution (through [[reform]] or [[repression]]).<ref name="Goldstonet4"/> |
|||
Many such early studies of revolutions tended to concentrate on four classic cases--famous and uncontroversial examples that fit virtually all definitions of revolutions, like the [[Glorious Revolution]] (1688), the [[French Revolution]] (1789–1799), the [[Russian Revolution of 1917]] and the [[Chinese Civil War|Chinese Revolution]] (1927-1949).<ref name="Goldstonet4"/> In his famous "[[The Anatomy of Revolution]]", however, the eminent Harvard historian, [[Crane Brinton]], focused on the [[English Civil War]], the [[American Revolution]], the French Revolution, and the Russian Revolution.<ref>Crane Brinton, ''[[The Anatomy of Revolution]]'', revised ed. (New York, Vintage Books, 1965). First edition, 1938.</ref> In time, scholars began to analyze hundreds of other events as revolutions (see [[list of revolutions and rebellions]]), and differences in definitions and approaches gave rise to new definitions and explanations. The theories of the second generation have been criticized for their limited geographical scope, difficulty in [[empirical]] verification, as well as that while they may explain some particular revolutions, they did not explain why revolutions did not occur in other societies in very similar situations.<ref name="Goldstonet4"/> |
|||
The criticism of the second generation led to the rise of a third generation of theories, with writers such as [[Theda Skocpol]], [[Barrington Moore]], [[Jeffrey Paige]] and others expanding on the old [[Marxism|Marxist]] [[class conflict]] approach, turning their attention to rural agrarian-state conflicts, state conflicts with autonomous [[elites]] and the impact of interstate [[economic]] and [[military]] competition on domestic [[political change]]. Particularly Skocpol's ''[[States and Social Revolutions]]'' became one of the most widely recognized works of the third generation; Skocpol defined revolution as "rapid, basic transformations of society's state and class structures...accompanied and in part carried through by class-based revolts from below", attributing revolutions to a conjunction of multiple conflicts involving state, elites and the lower classes.<ref name="Goldstonet4"/> |
|||
From the late 1980s a new body of scholarly work began questioning the dominance of the third generation's theories. The old theories were also dealt a significant blow by new revolutionary events that could not be easily explain by them. The [[Iranian Revolution|Iranian]] and [[Nicaraguan Revolution]]s of 1979, the [[1986]] [[People Power Revolution]] in the [[Philippines]] and the 1989 [[Autumn of Nations]] in Europe saw multi-class coalitions topple seemingly powerful regimes amidst popular demonstrations and [[General strike|mass strike]]s in [[nonviolent revolution]]s. Defining revolutions as mostly European violent state versus people and [[class struggle]]s conflicts was no longer sufficient. The study of revolutions thus evolved in three directions. Firstly, some researchers were applying previous or updated [[structuralist]] theories of revolutions to events beyond the previously analyzed, mostly European conflicts. Secondly, scholars called for greater attention to conscious [[Agency (philosophy)|agency]] in the form of [[ideology]] and [[culture]] in shaping revolutionary [[mobilization]] and objectives. Third, analysts of both revolutions and [[social movement]]s realized that those phenomena have much in common, and a new 'fourth generation' literature on [[contentious politics]] has developed that attempts to combine insights from the study of social movements and revolutions in hopes of understanding both phenomena.<ref name="Goldstonet4"/> |
|||
While revolutions encompass events ranging from [[Revolutions of 1989|the relatively peaceful revolutions that overthrew communist regimes]] to the [[Afghan Civil War|violent Islamic revolution in Afghanistan]], they exclude [[coup d'état|coups d'état]]s, [[civil war]]s, [[rebellion|revolts and rebellions]] that make no effort to transform institutions or the justification for authority (such as [[Józef Piłsudski]]'s [[May Coup]] of 1926 or the [[American Civil War]]), as well as peaceful transitions to [[democracy]] through institutional arrangements such as [[plebiscite]]s and [[free elections]], as in [[Spain]] after the death of [[Francisco Franco]].<ref name="Goldstonet4"/> |
|||
==Types of revolutions== |
==Types of revolutions== |
||
Revision as of 14:48, 5 November 2008
A revolution (from the Latin revolutio, "a turn around") is a fundamental change in power or organizational structures that takes place in a relatively short period of time. Aristotle described two types of political revolution:
- Complete change from one constitution to another
- Modification of an existing constitution.[1]
Revolutions have occurred throughout human history and vary widely in terms of methods, duration, and motivating ideology. Their results include major changes in culture, economy, and socio-political institutions.
Scholarly debates about what does and does not constitute a revolution center around several issues. Early studies of revolutions primarily analyzed events in European history from a psychological perspective, but more modern examinations include global events and incorporate perspectives from several social sciences, including sociology and political science. Several generations of scholarly thought on revolutions have generated many competing theories and contributed much to the current understanding of this complex phenomenon.
Jake Reed is pretty much the shiznatt. even know kirstin swanson is gay.
Types of revolutions
There are many different typologies of revolutions in social science and literature. For example, classical scholar Alexis de Tocqueville differentiated[2] between 1) political revolutions 2) sudden and violent revolutions that seek not only to establish a new political system but to transform an entire society and 3) slow but sweeping transformations of the entire society that take several generations to bring about (ex. religion). One of several different Marxist typologies divides revolutions into pre-capitalist, early bourgeois, bourgeois, bourgeois-democratic, early proletarian, and socialist revolutions.[3] Charles Tilly, a modern scholar of revolutions, differentiated[4] between a coup, a top-down seizure of power, a civil war, a revolt and a "great revolution" (revolutions that transform economic and social structures as well as political institutions, such as the French Revolution of 1789, Russian Revolution of 1917, or Islamic revolution of Iran).[5] Other types of revolution, created for other typologies, include the social revolutions; proletarian or communist revolutions inspired by the ideas of Marxism that aims to replace capitalism with communism); failed or abortive revolutions (revolutions that fail to secure power after temporary victories or large-scale mobilization) or violent vs. nonviolent revolutions.
The term revolution has also been used to denote great changes outside the political sphere. Such revolutions are usually recognized as having transformed in society, culture, philosophy and technology much more than political systems; they are often known as social revolutions.[6] Some can be global, while others are limited to single countries. One of the classic examples of the usage of the word revolution in such context is the industrial revolution (note that such revolutions also fit the "slow revolution" definition of Tocqueville).[7]
List of revolutions
For a list of revolutions see:
See also
Look up revolution in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
References
- ^ Aristotle, The Politics V, tr. T.A. Sinclair (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1964, 1972), p. 190.
- ^ Roger Boesche, Tocqueville's Road Map: Methodology, Liberalism, Revolution, and Despotism, Lexington Books, 2006, ISBN 0739116657, Google Print, p.86
- ^ Template:Pl icon J. Topolski, "Rewolucje w dziejach nowożytnych i najnowszych (xvii-xx wiek)," Kwartalnik Historyczny, LXXXIII, 1976, 251-67
- ^ Charles Tilly, ''European Revolutions, 1492-1992, Blackwell Publishing, 1995, ISBN 0631199039, Google Print, p.16
- ^ Bernard Lewis, "Iran in History", Moshe Dayan Center, Tel Aviv University
- ^ Irving E. Fang, A History of Mass Communication: Six Information Revolutions, Focal Press, 1997, ISBN 0240802543, Google Print, p. xv
- ^ Warwick E. Murray, Routledge, 2006, ISBN 0415318009, Google Print, p.226
Bibliography
- Perreau-Sausine, Emile, Les libéraux face aux révolutions : 1688, 1789, 1917, 1933, Commentaire, Spring 2005, pp. 181-193
External links
Wikiquote has quotations related to Revolution.
- Hannah Arendt, On Revolution, 1963, Penguin Classics, New Ed edition: February 8, 1991. ISBN 014018421X
- Revolution in Political Risk Management
- John Kekes, Why Robespierre Chose Terror. The lessons of the first totalitarian revolution, City Journal, Spring 2006.
- Plinio Correa de Oliveira, Revolution and Counter-Revolution, Foundation for a Christian, Third edition, 1993. ISBN 1877905275
- Michael Barker, Regulating revolutions in Eastern Europe: Polyarchy and the National Endowment for Democracy, 1 November 2006.
- Polyarchy Documents: Revolution