Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.5 AVERAGE
3.5 AVERAGE
Although the title says that this is a concise history of revolution, it does not really use the methods and practices of historians. Instead, it is a classically political scientific work. This is not to say that anything about the book is bad, it's just that I don't know that a PoliSci approach is the best one to this topic.
In this book, Kamrava offers a glance at "generic" revolution. By this, I mean that he offers a few ideal types that illuminate revolutionary processes without any of them fitting a given revolutionary perfectly well. The ideal types are the "spontaneous revolution," the "planned revolution," and the "negotiated revolution," and the category that any revolution fits in depends on a few different things, namely weakness of state structures and ability for a group to mobilize the population.
Spontaneous Revolution: When a state is really weak and beginning to crumble, social movements often emerge and challenge the state, further weakening its foundations and leading to its eventual collapse.
Planned Revolution: When a group that already exists challenges a state that may be either strong or weak. This often devolves into military confrontation, especially guerrilla warfare and insurgency.
Negotiated Revolution: When a revolutionary group is not strong enough to take down a state and a state is not strong enough to destroy a revolutionary group, they are forced to come to a mediated consensus, transforming the state without actually overturning it.
In looking at these types of revolution, Kamrava also examines the role of economics, earlier institutions, international relations, and more to make sense of revolutionary outcomes. Additionally, there is a good chapter on revolutionary/transitional societies and the transformation of a people that takes place. I find that opening between the outbreak of revolution and its institutionalization to be the most interesting part of any revolutionary process to be the most interesting, and I'm glad that Kamrava offered some good coverage there. There is also some discussion of counter-revolution/counter-revolutionaries, but--in my view--that section needs to be expanded significantly because it's a real important component to any revolution and it seems to have been placed as an after-thought.
My biggest issue with the book is that Kamrava has all of these concepts and ideas and models for how revolutions play out--as do many other political scientists and sociologists who work on revolution--and they impose them on revolutionary situations, hoping that everything fits together.
For instance, Kamrava frames Russia's February Revolution as spontaneous while the October Revolution as planned. While I absolutely agree with Kamrava on the February Revolution and theoretically agree with him on the October Revolution, the Bolsheviks and other Communist groups emerged out of social movements that did not necessarily succeed in the decades leading up to 1917. Is this a case of many revolutions in a cycle (more than two or three) or are there larger processes going on here? Offering an approach based on models obscures that.
Another case that came to mind was the French Revolution, which Kamrava argues was institutionalized under both the Jacobins in 1792 and under Napoleon in (1799? 1804?). While the Republic was surely formed in 1792, the entire period of the constitutional monarchy could hardly be called "transitional." The same is true of the construction of the Directory in 1795. Were there four or five revolutions here, or how do we make sense of this historically?
Nevertheless, this was useful to read because Kamrava does offer some great insights that help me think about revolutions, I just wish that it had a more historically-sound treatment.
In this book, Kamrava offers a glance at "generic" revolution. By this, I mean that he offers a few ideal types that illuminate revolutionary processes without any of them fitting a given revolutionary perfectly well. The ideal types are the "spontaneous revolution," the "planned revolution," and the "negotiated revolution," and the category that any revolution fits in depends on a few different things, namely weakness of state structures and ability for a group to mobilize the population.
Spontaneous Revolution: When a state is really weak and beginning to crumble, social movements often emerge and challenge the state, further weakening its foundations and leading to its eventual collapse.
Planned Revolution: When a group that already exists challenges a state that may be either strong or weak. This often devolves into military confrontation, especially guerrilla warfare and insurgency.
Negotiated Revolution: When a revolutionary group is not strong enough to take down a state and a state is not strong enough to destroy a revolutionary group, they are forced to come to a mediated consensus, transforming the state without actually overturning it.
In looking at these types of revolution, Kamrava also examines the role of economics, earlier institutions, international relations, and more to make sense of revolutionary outcomes. Additionally, there is a good chapter on revolutionary/transitional societies and the transformation of a people that takes place. I find that opening between the outbreak of revolution and its institutionalization to be the most interesting part of any revolutionary process to be the most interesting, and I'm glad that Kamrava offered some good coverage there. There is also some discussion of counter-revolution/counter-revolutionaries, but--in my view--that section needs to be expanded significantly because it's a real important component to any revolution and it seems to have been placed as an after-thought.
My biggest issue with the book is that Kamrava has all of these concepts and ideas and models for how revolutions play out--as do many other political scientists and sociologists who work on revolution--and they impose them on revolutionary situations, hoping that everything fits together.
For instance, Kamrava frames Russia's February Revolution as spontaneous while the October Revolution as planned. While I absolutely agree with Kamrava on the February Revolution and theoretically agree with him on the October Revolution, the Bolsheviks and other Communist groups emerged out of social movements that did not necessarily succeed in the decades leading up to 1917. Is this a case of many revolutions in a cycle (more than two or three) or are there larger processes going on here? Offering an approach based on models obscures that.
Another case that came to mind was the French Revolution, which Kamrava argues was institutionalized under both the Jacobins in 1792 and under Napoleon in (1799? 1804?). While the Republic was surely formed in 1792, the entire period of the constitutional monarchy could hardly be called "transitional." The same is true of the construction of the Directory in 1795. Were there four or five revolutions here, or how do we make sense of this historically?
Nevertheless, this was useful to read because Kamrava does offer some great insights that help me think about revolutions, I just wish that it had a more historically-sound treatment.