Revolutions: Theoretical, Comparative, and Historical Studies

by Jack A. Goldstone (Editor)

From the American Revolution to the conflicts in Afghanistan, revolutions have played a critical role in the course of history. Insight into the causes of revolutions and the factors that shape their outcomes is critical to understanding politics and world history--and REVOLUTIONS is a reader designed to address this need. Part One offers a combination of classic treatises and late-breaking scholarship that develops students' theoretical understanding of revolutionary movements. Part Two shows students how these theories play out in real life through rich, accessible accounts of major revolutionary episodes in modern history.

Genres: History, Sociology, Politics, Nonfiction, Political Science

352 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1986

About the author

Jack A. Goldstone is an American sociologist and political scientist, specializing in studies of social movements, revolutions, and international politics. He is an author or editor of 13 books and over 140 research articles. He is recognized as one of the leading authorities on the study of revolutions and long-term social change. His work has made foundational contributions to the fields of cliodynamics, economic history and political demography. He was the first scholar to describe in detail and document the long-term cyclical relationship between global population cycles and cycles of political rebellion and revolution. He was also a core member of the “California school” in world history, which replaced the standard view of a dynamic West and stagnant East with a ‘late divergence’ model in which Eastern and Western civilizations underwent similar political and economic cycles until the 18th century, when Europe achieved the technical breakthroughs of industrialization. He is also one of the founding fathers of the emerging field of political demography, studying the impact of local, regional, and global population trends on international security and national politics.

Goldstone is currently the Virginia E. and John T. Hazel, Jr. Professor in the School of Public Policy at George Mason University. He has also worked as a consultant of the US government, for example, serving as chair of the National Research Council's evaluation of USAID Democracy Assistance Programs. He is also a non-resident Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, and Director of the Research Laboratory in Political Demography and Macrosocial Dynamics at the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration in Moscow.

His academic awards include the American Sociological Association Distinguished Scholarly Publication Award, for 'Revolution and Rebellion in the Early Modern World,' the Arnaldo Momigliano Award of the Historical Society, and seven awards for 'best article' in the fields of Comparative/Historical Sociology, Political Sociology, Social Theory, and Collective Behavior and Social Movements. He has won fellowships from the Council of Learned Societies, the U.S. Institute of Peace, the MacArthur Foundation, the Australian Research School of Social Sciences, the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, and is an elected member of the Council on Foreign Affairs and the Sociological Research Association. He has been the Richard Holbrooke Visiting Lecturer at the American Academy in Berlin, the Crayborough Lecturer at Leiden University, and a Phi Beta Kappa National Visiting Scholar.

Reviews

[May Ling · Rating 4 out of 5]

While I struggled with this way of looking at the world, I have to give it 4 stars for the nice curation of articles across the world. Interestingly, I use to are a lot about this topic of revolutions and how it manifests itself. However, I now see them in a very different light, and in that regard, this book was so painful.

The challenge for me is that in order for this book to make sense, you have to see Revolution as a unique phenomenon that is drive by something. Both parts must exist, the "Unique Phenomenon" and the "driven by something." I use to view such points in history in this way, but more than 20 years and physically visiting more than 50 countries, more than 1/2 of which are considered developing, I just feel differently. I do not see them as Unique events, but rather the result of a continuous march of change that sweeps across the globe. I do not see them as driven by something, but driven by many someones. And as a result, I cannot care about the subsequent conversation that come from unique and something, i.e. is it right, wrong, better, or worse. It just is.

So to be specific, then, the front few chapters discuss the need for modernization and how that is causal of revolutionary forces. In other words, without modernization there is no impetus to revolt. Well, kind of. But it's a bit backwards in framework. It's less that modernization causes revolution and more that modernization is going to happen. When the society has ways of handling it then no revolution. If it doesn't AND there is a leader who happens to feel strongly about it, then revolution will happen. But the stress is on the forward momentum of progress, not on the revolution, which is simply IMO the result of bad systems (socio, economic, political).

The articles come close, but their thrust is political and revolution as a point in time, versus the history of humanity as a continuous flow. So, for example, P. 38 talks about how the problem is that political liberalization is lagged relative to other modernization. Not exactly. I mean look at China in recent times. Modernization (Socio, political, and economic) first, political liberalization VERY slow behind it. That a very non-liberal state was able to choose precise parts of the socio, political, and economic to advance without doing it wholesale is far more the result of having learned a really tough lesson in '89 than anything else. A reverse conceptualization can only use revolution as the datapoint. However, this conceptualization that sees revolution as the outlyer can use all points in time as a datapoint. (sorry if that doesn't make sense).

Again, on pg 52 and 53, the end of the article on the Debate on Modernization is wonderful in the sense that it acknowledges that "states are warmakers and wars are state-makers. But then we end with the argument that Modernizations effects on revolution are indirect. You can see how this is just completely weird in my framework. The point is modernization or some forward trajectory of society. That different state compositions must result and that revolutions happen are more a sign of a failure of the systems in place to support broadly a movement forward.

Hence, we miss the more important questions of "What is this movement forward." This is so relevant as it does a better job of helping to understand why revolutions might happen. You can see the challenge of failing to do it by this framework in the chapter on "Outcomes of Revolutions." Here we talk about the impact to the peasants and whether they are better off. But the various hypothesis put forth on page 94 and spoken about in advance all have some underlying presumption that the rational was somehow based in the peasant class fighting for itself. Very few revolutions found their initial leader, financing and ultimate ends among the peasants. So, it's just crazy to formulate this way.

Modernization under any terms with revolution as secondary implies the opposite. Pretty much any class can want to raise the bottom up for reasons that socio, political, or economic (i.e. building a stronger more educated working class, a better class of voters, etc...).

The back half of the book goes through the modern world of revolutions from 1700 forward. It's great, but I really would rather read more deeply about each one rather than a short essay, personally. Still, if you're using this book and supplementing it could be great.

I did really enjoy the argument of the American Revolution being something that made no sense as relates to the idea that it must be the proletariate under duress and subjugation that revolts. However, it ends in some drivel that - even as a staunch US patriot - I can barely stomach. This idea that the founding forefathers were purely idealistic with a quick gloss over of slavery. But again, if instead we cast the American Revolution in the context of modernization you get a bit more insight.

Why does it matter? Well, if you're a nation or a policy maker that is trying to think about what to do to manage through a large amount of change, then it's quite relevant. Revolution is a check on stupid modernization choices. Sadly - as I disagree with the parts of the book that suggest otherwise - some other power will exploit (not save) the masses to over-through stupid policy regimes if other systems are not in place to stop that from happening.

But 4 stars, b/c without such a well curated collection, it would not be easy to think through which argument or approach you want to take in framing your world.

[Sarita · Rating 5 out of 5]

Want to be in my Theda Skopkol fan club? Yes, it's a collection of policitcal science essays, but they're so precicely written and with an attention to style that's not exactly endemic to the polisci world . . . I heart this book.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great primer for readers interested in revolutions and a straight forward explanation of some of the most prominent theories explaining revolutionary effervescence.

[Patrick · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a very interesting volume to read. Each chapter and each contributor's theories were very interesting to consider against each other. Several important ideas and case studies are presented in this book. Very heavy on the social scientific theory in some sections.

[Ali · Rating 3 out of 5]

I just read the Chinese part (China Revolution)

[Richard Diamond · Rating 5 out of 5]

Absolutely necessary to get a big picture on this subject