Revolutions: Theoretical, Comparative, and Historical Studies [Paperback]

Jack A. Goldstone (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: July 9, 2002 | ISBN-10: 015506679X | ISBN-13: 978-0155066793 | Edition: 3

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.

Editorial Reviews

About the Author

Jack A. Goldstone is Professor of Sociology and International Relations at the University of California, Davis. He is the author of the prize-winning REVOLUTION AND REBELLION IN THE EARLY MODERN WORLD (California 1981), and editor of THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF POLITICAL REVOLUTIONS (Congressional Quarterly 1998), and REVOLUTIONS OF THE LATE TWENTIETH CENTURY (Westview 1991). He has been a Fellow of the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University, and held Fellowships from the American Council of Learned Societies, the Research School of Social Sciences at the Australian National University, and the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research. He is working on a monograph-REVOLUTIONS, SOCIAL MOVEMENTS, AND SOCIAL CHANGE-forthcoming from Harvard University Press.

Product Details

• Paperback: 352 pages
• Publisher: Wadsworth Publishing; 3 edition (July 9, 2002)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 015506679X
• ISBN-13: 978-0155066793
• Product Dimensions: 9.1 x 6.2 x 0.6 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.5 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (2 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #293,223 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Insightful, October 24, 2008

By 

nichi 24 "nichi" (Cali) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Revolutions: Theoretical, Comparative, and Historical Studies (Paperback)

A must have book for understanding the revolutionary waves of the past and what is going on in the world today. An amazing collection of revolutionary theory and movements. I only wish there would be a newer edition and include more information on women's role in revolutions.

4 of 5 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Excellent primer for any student of social revolutions, December 30, 2009

By 

D. Barnett "Daddy Fish" (Olathe, KS) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: Revolutions: Theoretical, Comparative, and Historical Studies (Paperback)

The following is a book report I wrote for a course in Revolutions - it has not been edited and may appear a bit impersonal :)

Jack A. Goldstone's Revolutions: Theoretical, Comparative, and Historical Studies is an extraordinary presentation of revolutionary theory and historical application. It presents both a successive, almost evolutionary evaluation of revolutionary theory as well as scholarly debates between competing theories that aids in constructive reconciliation between said theories as well as in understanding the breadth and significance of differing viewpoints. This is particularly true with the presentation of case studies which ultimately reveal the significance of certain theories, depending on the conditions specific to each revolution. However, such variations do not undermine Goldstone's work; in fact, they support one of his early assessments of structural theories.

Within the introductory essay, "The Comparative and Historical Study of Revolutions," Goldstone asserts that, since the Russian Revolution of 1917-1921, comparative studies of revolutions have gone through "three generations of scholarship: the natural histories of the 1920s and 1930s, the general theories of political violence of the 1960s and 1970s, and the structural theories of the 1970s and 1980s."(1) This summation is intended to explain the dominant trends of scholarship and it succeeds in providing a framework of consideration that the rest of Revolutions: Theoretical, Comparative, and Historical Studies may be evaluated from.

Goldstone explains that the natural history of revolutions was an overarching attempt to understand common patterns between major Western revolutions up to that time.(2) Such scholarship revealed dominant trends between these Western revolutions including intellectual dissidence, state attempt at reform, state inability at redress, seizure of state operations by moderates, radical supplantation of moderates, and the struggle between moderates and radicals that leads to a phase of pragmatism.(3) Looking to the French Revolution, the chronological pattern of these trends is rather evident.(4) However, later analysis, as will be demonstrated, reveals rather divergent theories regarding early Western revolutions.

The revolutions, coups, and civil unrest in the mid-Twentieth Century led to competing general theories of political violence: the psychological approach which sought to identify the types of discontent that would lead to social revolution, and a social institution approach which asserted that unequal development of social sub-structures could spur revolution. Huntington attempted to synthesize these approaches by arguing that

"modernization led to institutional imbalance because the resulting education and economic growth would increase people's desire to participate in politics faster than political institutions could change to accommodate this desire."(5)

However, this synthesis appears to be somewhat trumped by Tilly's assertion that "discontent alone is unlikely to lead to revolution and lack resources."(6) In fact, the example of the Soviet Union appears to validate Tilly's resource mobilization theory, especially if information is considered a resource. It wasn't until Gorbachev began attempts to reform Communist rule that the disenfranchised Soviet populace was able to essentially effect the dissolution of the Soviet Union.(7) Thus, while the collapse was inherently related to Huntington's imbalance, it wasn't until the populace had greater access to resources (especially intangible resources related to information-sharing and political process) that social revolution was able to occur.

Goldstone then discusses structural theories of revolution by asserting that
"structural theories argue that states vary in structure and are thus vulnerable to different kinds of revolution. They further contend that revolutions begin from some combination of state weakness, conflicts between states and elites, and popular uprisings."(8)

This essentially establishes a "catch-all" theory, which implies that it is the complex interconnectedness of variables (many of which are unknown) which leads to revolution: thus, one size really doesn't fit all. Interestingly, when structural analysis is regressively applied, classic revolutions that were previously explained through the comparative analysis of commonality that natural history scholarship addressed appear much different. For example, Goldstone examines the English Revolution using a structural analysis approach, revealing the Marxist understanding that it was a bourgeois revolution to be inaccurate.(9)

The disproving of Marxist theory in explaining the English Revolution as a bourgeois revolution notwithstanding, Goldstone does include a portion of Marx and Engels' "Manifesto of the Communist Party" as a classic and influential approach of understanding revolution. However, as influential as the "Manifesto of the Communist Party" is (and regardless of how many revolutions are undertaken in its name), it presents a total misunderstanding of economic forces that underlie the classes it discusses. For example, in asserting that "the bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world-market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country,"(10) and "The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of the towns,"(11) Marx and Engels neglect to discuss competing opportunities that capitalism presents, thus they completely miss the fact that it was the advantage (in increased pay and less risk) urban employment presented which led several workers to choose to leave their rural forms of employment.(12) Furthermore, Marx and Engels discuss Trade Unions as an instrument of social change supporting their argument pitting disenfranchised workers against the bourgeoisie. However, if capitalism, which (even taking into consideration the division of labor) is rooted in the concept of freedom,(13) operating within a free society allows for the establishment of worker Trade Unions, then how can exploitation of the bourgeoisie be demonstrable (i.e. if the bourgeoisie were exploiting workers, then why would workers be provided with a politically effective means of redress)? This economic ineptitude aside, the Manifesto of the Communist Party presents a rather exceptional philosophical work in at least addressing the disenfranchised as agents of revolutionary change. Thus, its inclusion by Goldstone is well-founded, particularly as Goldstone dedicates a section of his work to discussing the Russian, Chinese, and Cuban Marxist Revolutions (particularly how Marxism influenced these revolutions and how it was inherently changed to fit either the understandings or needs of the revolutions' leaders). Interestingly enough, Goldstone points out,

"In one of the great ironies of history, it was not the most advanced capitalist countries but relatively backward ones that responded to the Marxist call for revolution."(14)

Thus, the criticism of economic misunderstanding within the Manifesto of the Communist Party is inherently justified.

Alexis de Tocqueville's The French Revolution and the Growth of the State presents a better classic understanding of social revolution, asserting that while the French Revolution destroyed the power of the aristocracy, the end result was a strong, centralized state:(15)

"Never since the fall of the Roman Empire had the world seen a government so highly centralized. This new power was created by the Revolution, or, rather, grew up almost automatically out of the havoc wrought by it."(16)

An interesting parallel could be illustrated by the American Civil War (which was only glossed over in a fleeting passage on pg. 48), which saw a formerly federalist republic transformed into a centralized state, with greater emphasis on federal authority and executive power. Furthermore, Max Weber presents an intriguing classic model which amplifies de Tocqueville's view and emphasizes charismatic authority.(17) Given the recent attention that spontaneously-ordered organizations have received and the creative spark that charisma represents in the formation of said organizations,(18) Weber reveals intriguing insight into those net-expansive threats that nation-state governments must contend with today. Ultimately, Goldstone asserts:

"As de Tocqueville and Weber suggested, [revolutions of the Twentieth Century] usually led to stronger, more centralized, and more bureaucratic states. But the origins of these revolutions rarely fit the pattern that Marx and Engels set forth."(19)

Extending beyond classic approaches, Goldstone includes a most intriguing debate on modernization as a significant factor within revolutionary theory between Samuel P. Huntington and Charles Tilly. While Huntington argues modernization causes a profound desire for increased worker participation in politics(20), Tilly once again trumps Huntington in his response:

"The structure of power, alternative conceptions of justice, the organization of coercion, the conduct of war, the formation of coalitions, the legitimacy of the state - these traditional concerns of political thought provide the main guides to the explanation of revolution. Population growth, industrialization, urbanization, and other large-scale structural changes do, to be sure, affect the probabilities of revolution. But they do so indirectly, by shaping the potential contenders for power, transforming the techniques of government control and shifting the resources available to contenders and governments. There is no reliable and regular sense in which modernization breeds revolution [emphasis mine]."(21)... Read more ›