Scan barcode
peripetia's review
3.0
This is a book for the academics, although it's approachable enough for anyone interested and willing to tolerate some theory. Well, quite a lot of it, actually. It's still a good look at the everyday lives of ordinary people in exceptional times.
I like Bayat's theoretical framework of the subaltern and its revolutionary potential. Study of revolutions, the discipline that I utilize most in my research, is very focused on state-level transformations and thoroughly ignores the macro- and microlevels - meaning people, basically. It is common to see academics from study of revolutions and related fields say that the so-called Arab Spring uprisings do not count as revolutions because of various reasons, mostly because of the lack of real transformation in state and society. I whole-heartedly disagree, but I won't open that bag of cats now.
Back to the point. Bayat argues that the uprisings did transform the lives of ordinary people in profound ways, and that these ordinary people were vital in the making of the revolutions, if we want to call them such (which I do and will, fight me). He also focuses separately on groups of people that are often completely ignored in academic scholarship: poor people, women, and lgbt people. This is fantastic.
Now, the criticism. Bayat is one of the most prominent scholars in my field and he has decades of experience in this topic. This does not mean he is infallible. He has a tendency to assert his interpretations with no sources or anything to back them up, in a "just trust me bro" way that is available only to scholars of his senior status. I do think there is value in his interpretations - they do come from years of work and specialization, but as said, his interpretations may still be questionable or wrong.
His biggest mistake is so glaring that it almost ruined the book for me, although it also gives me a great opportunity to criticize it and improve on it in my own research, if I ever have the energy to really dive into it again. Bayat states that women make revolutionary movements more peaceful, and this is due to their innate peaceful nature. I cannot for the life of me understand how a mistake that is so elementary found its way into his writing, several times. The topic of women's supposed peacefulness has been researched for decades, and yes, it truly seems to be true that women's presence in revolutionary movements make them more peaceful, but definitely not because some kind of a biological pre-disposition to peace and love. And no I will not provide sources, this is not an academic article, ok fine, see for example Women’s Participation and The Fate Of Nonviolent Campaigns by Erica Chenoweth.
Thus, 3 stars.
I like Bayat's theoretical framework of the subaltern and its revolutionary potential. Study of revolutions, the discipline that I utilize most in my research, is very focused on state-level transformations and thoroughly ignores the macro- and microlevels - meaning people, basically. It is common to see academics from study of revolutions and related fields say that the so-called Arab Spring uprisings do not count as revolutions because of various reasons, mostly because of the lack of real transformation in state and society. I whole-heartedly disagree, but I won't open that bag of cats now.
Back to the point. Bayat argues that the uprisings did transform the lives of ordinary people in profound ways, and that these ordinary people were vital in the making of the revolutions, if we want to call them such (which I do and will, fight me). He also focuses separately on groups of people that are often completely ignored in academic scholarship: poor people, women, and lgbt people. This is fantastic.
Now, the criticism. Bayat is one of the most prominent scholars in my field and he has decades of experience in this topic. This does not mean he is infallible. He has a tendency to assert his interpretations with no sources or anything to back them up, in a "just trust me bro" way that is available only to scholars of his senior status. I do think there is value in his interpretations - they do come from years of work and specialization, but as said, his interpretations may still be questionable or wrong.
His biggest mistake is so glaring that it almost ruined the book for me, although it also gives me a great opportunity to criticize it and improve on it in my own research, if I ever have the energy to really dive into it again. Bayat states that women make revolutionary movements more peaceful, and this is due to their innate peaceful nature. I cannot for the life of me understand how a mistake that is so elementary found its way into his writing, several times. The topic of women's supposed peacefulness has been researched for decades, and yes, it truly seems to be true that women's presence in revolutionary movements make them more peaceful, but definitely not because some kind of a biological pre-disposition to peace and love. And no I will not provide sources, this is not an academic article, ok fine, see for example Women’s Participation and The Fate Of Nonviolent Campaigns by Erica Chenoweth.
Thus, 3 stars.
More...