Revolution: Difference between revisions
From Cibernética Americana
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
[[File:Prise de la Bastille.jpg|right|thumb|The [[storming of the Bastille]], 14 July 1789 during the [[French Revolution]].]] | [[File:Prise de la Bastille.jpg|right|thumb|The [[storming of the Bastille]], 14 July 1789 during the [[French Revolution]].]] | ||
[[File:Portrait of George Washington.jpeg|thumb|upright|right|[[George Washington]], leader of the [[American Revolution]].]] | [[File:Portrait of George Washington.jpeg|thumb|upright|right|[[George Washington]], leader of the [[American Revolution]].]] | ||
[[File:Lenin.WWI.JPG|thumb|upright| | [[File:Lenin.WWI.JPG|thumb|upright|left|[[Vladimir Lenin]], leader of the [[Bolshevik Revolution of 1917]].]] | ||
[[File:Sunyatsen1.jpg|thumb|upright|right|[[Sun Yat-sen]], leader of the Chinese [[Xinhai Revolution]] in 1911.]] | [[File:Sunyatsen1.jpg|thumb|upright|right|[[Sun Yat-sen]], leader of the Chinese [[Xinhai Revolution]] in 1911.]] | ||
| Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
The works of [[Ted Robert 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 works of [[Ted Robert 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"/> | ||
[[File:Thefalloftheberlinwall1989.JPG|thumb|left|The fall of the [[Berlin Wall]] | |||
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"/> | 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"/> | ||
| Line 57: | Line 58: | ||
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"/> | 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"/> | ||
and most of the events of the [[Autumn of Nations]] in Europe, 1989, were sudden and peaceful.]] | |||
[[File:Freedom Square Baku 1990.jpg|thumb|The rebirth of the [[Azerbaijan]] Republic as people gather at [[Azadliq Square, Baku|Azadlyg Square]], shortly after [[Black January]].]] | [[File:Freedom Square Baku 1990.jpg|thumb|The rebirth of the [[Azerbaijan]] Republic as people gather at [[Azadliq Square, Baku|Azadlyg Square]], shortly after [[Black January]].]] | ||
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 strikes]] in [[nonviolent revolution]]s. | 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 strikes]] in [[nonviolent revolution]]s. | ||
