Theories of Revolution

A revolution, by definition, is the overthrow of one government followed by replacement with another. The American Revolution against the British during 1775 to 1783 and the French Revolution pitting the French people against their own government during 1789 to 1799 were both very important political and social turnovers. This movement towards the establishment of a constitutional government influenced political thought throughout the world. By closely examining three of the main causes of these revolutions, it is clear that although the two revolutions have their differences, the basis of cause for the revolutions have, overall, much stronger similarities.

Throughout history, humanity has always yearned for better. When a leader, as an individual or an entire government, ceases to fuel their nation’s drive for better, the citizens take it into their own hands. From this sovereignty of the people, the idea of revolution is born. This idea has become prominent many times. One can analyze a country like France. Due to the government’s selfish actions, the third estate revolted. In countries like Brazil, Venezuela, and Mexico, the citizens were tired of strict rule from a power that is an ocean away. This caused the people in Latin America to revolt against their leader, Spain. Although the French and Latin American Revolutions both were inspired by the American Revolution and Enlightenment ideas, the French Revolution was vastly unsuccessful compared to the Latin American Revolution which brought freedom to many countries.

Through history, there has been revolutions that have affected the world in many different ways. There is two kind of revolutions political revolutions ,that are changes to the government, and non political revolution, that are intellectual, economic or social changes. The non political revolutions are important because they had shaped the way we all think, act and work in the actuality. Some of those non political revolutions are the enlightenment that was a change in the way that everybody thinked; and the Industrial revolution in Europe that changed the way goods were produced.

The French Revolution was a time of period where social and political was a disruption in France that lasted from 1789 until 1799. This time of period affected Social Structure of France prior to the French Revolution. The factors that caused this revolution was due to having a bad government system, weak superiority, and inequality of the classes of people in France during the war. In this research, I will define and explain how Social Structure contributed to the French Revolution Resentment of royal authoritarianism. The three estates that social structure consists of are first estate which are the clergies, second estate known as the Nobleman, and third estate which are the Bourgeoisie, peasants, and workers. The Revolution did not omit sharp distinctions among the social groups, neither did it alter the distribution of wealth. This caused them to divide into these three groups called as estates.

In Crane Brinton’s historical classic Anatomy of Revolution Brinton tries to explain the similarities and the difference between what he calls the four major revolutions in history. For this task he uses The English Revolution (1642-1651), The French Revolution (1789-1799), The American Revolution (1775-1783) and The Russian Revolution (1917). However with the Russian Revolution he states is still too near to us to be regarded by professional historians as capable of the kind of treatment the guide gives. The hope of Anatomy of Revolution is to show how these four major revolutions share the same core principles and how these revolutions changed the climate of the nations in which they took place. Brinton claims to

The eighteenth century revolutions predate the Marxist framework which would ultimately changed the way in which revolutions are understood; as highly participatory mass-moments which sought to change some kind of social order. Gordon Wood acknowledges this as he states; “The social distinctions and economic deprivations that we today think of as the consequences of class divisions…were in the eighteenth century usually thought to be caused by abuses in government.” Skocpol also acknowledges the difference between modern and what the “liberal revolutions” of the eighteenth century. She writes that all revolutions that occur within the modern capitalist systems accomplish nothing but a more concentrated and centralized state bureaucracy. However Skocpol’s analysis takes a retrospective structuralist approach to understanding these eighteenth century social revolutions. Her analysis does not rely on the deprivation hypothesis nor any kind of ideology, but instead highlights the importance of the “revolutionary moment” where elites and peasants unite (through an “equal powers” negotiation) against the state (Stevens 10/16/17). By applying Skocpol’s model to the French, Haitian, and American Revolutions, we can see how well it holds up when applied to these various intertwined 18th century revolutions despite their drastically different outcomes.

The revolution resulted, among other things, in the overthrow of the Bourbon monarchy in France and in the establishment of the First Republic. It was generated by a vast complex of causes, the most important of which were the inability of the ruling classes of nobility, clergy, and bourgeoisie to come to grips with the problems of state, the indecisive nature of the monarch, impoverishment of the workers, the intellectual ferment of the Age of Enlightenment, and the example of the American Revolution. Recent scholarship tends to downplay the social class struggle and emphasize political, cultural, ideological, and personality factors in the advent and unfolding of the conflict. The Revolution itself produced an equally vast complex of

Revolutions have happened all over the human race. One of the first one was an agricultural revolution going from hunting and gathering to first farming. Then further down the road was more revolutions. The change of government was one during the time of the industrial revolution. The Industrial revolution began in England by the geography of England, the innovation's in England, and the economics were good in England.

Before looking into the competing ideologies in the French Revolutions, Sewell first defines what an ideology is. Ideology, in a structural sense, is anonymous, collective, and constitutive of social order. It is anonymous since the belief of the ideology is passed down and changed by a huge number of people, not a single individual. This leads ideologies to be

Revolutions have occurred throughout history and continue to arise even in the present day. Many revolution happens because of the miscommunication between the government and its citizens. In the end, the outcome of revolutions are usually good but, sometimes it might not be what people want. In the following paragraphs, examples of the general causes and effects that creates a revolution will be discussed in order to illustrate how revolutions are mainly caused by the dispute between the regime and its citizen.

Without the revolutionist, however, there is no revolution therefore all analysis must begin there. From understanding the revolutionists we can begin to analyze the long term objective of their revolution and the mechanism by which they achieve that goal. The other 3

Revolutions are a common occurrence throughout world history. With the amount of revolutions in history, there are those that get lost and those that are the most remembered or well known. One of the well known revolutions is the French Revolution which occurred in the years 1789 to 1799. Before the French Revolution, France was ruled by an absolute monarchy, this meaning that one ruler had the supreme authority and that said authority was not restricted by any written laws, legislature, or customs, a definition given by wikipedia.com and the feudal system, which was a system that said a peasant or worker would receive a piece of land in return for serving under a king, a definition given by vocabulary.com. Those who opposed the, then

Nevertheless, the article pays less attention to the external factors to revolution. The principles and arguments emphasize the internal environment and actions for people to do, regardless of what externals are capable to influence.

Many great leaders have one thing in common and that is charisma. Charismatic leaders are those that have the capability to inspire and encourage people to do more than they would normally do, despite obstacles and personal sacrifice. (Daft, R.L, pg. 364) Charisma is what provokes energy and commitment out of its followers. These leaders possess the power to motivate their followers to do almost anything. They create an atmosphere of change and express an ideal vision of a better future. The most common characteristics of the charismatic leader involve maturity, communication, humility, and inspiration. These unique qualities impact their followers and conduct themselves in such a way that allows for remarkable results. Then

Finally, charismatic authority arises in periods of social unrest and change and thus depends not only on the existence of this `exceptional' individual but a social context which produces large numbers of individuals who are `disenchanted' with the present social institutions. Charisma, is in Weber's view ` a great revolutionary force' for social change. Charismatic movements always seek to dismantle or overthrow existing/traditional forms of authority and power. Finally, Weber suggests charismatic authority as inherently unstable since it is usually based upon a `personality cult' of the leader. When the leader dies then the movement will `die' with him/her or ossify and institutionalise itself into what Weber refers to as `the charisma of office': bureaucracy! Look at Fig. 1, (at the bottom of page 2 of this document) which I have taken and adapted from Bryan Turner's book. To understand the historical process we will need to begin with the `magician' and move `clockwise' towards `secular man'.