States and Social Revolutions

Last updated

States and Social Revolutions
States and Social Revolutions.jpg
Author Theda Skocpol
Published1979
Pages407 pp.
ISBN 978-0-521-29499-7
OCLC 432787244

States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia and China is a 1979 book by Theda Skocpol, published by Cambridge University Press, that examines the causes of social revolutions.

Contents

In the book, Skocpol performs a comparative historical analysis of the French Revolution of 1789 through the early 19th century, the Russian Revolution of 1917 through the 1930s and the Chinese Revolution of 1911 through the Cultural Revolution in the 1960s. Skocpol argues that social revolutions occurred in these states because of the simultaneous occurrence of state breakdown and peasant revolution. [1]

Skocpol asserts that social revolutions are rapid and basic transformations of a society's state and class structures. She distinguishes this from mere rebellions, which involve a revolt of subordinate classes but may not create structural change, and from political revolutions that may change state structures but not social structures. What is unique about social revolutions, she argues, is that basic changes in social structure and political structure occur in a mutually reinforcing fashion and these changes occur through intense socio-political conflict. A convergence of peasant rebellion on one hand and international pressures causing state breakdown on the other hand cause revolutionary social movements. [2]

The book was highly influential in the study of revolutions, and has been credited with ushering in a new paradigm. [3] [4] [5]

History

The book was written in 1978 and is derived from Skocpol's PhD dissertation which was supervised by George Homans, Daniel Bell, and Seymour Martin Lipset. [6] She had been influenced by works by Barrington Moore, Jr, Reinhard Bendix and Samuel P. Huntington. [6] Her project started as a graduate seminar paper comparing revolutions, read by Daniel Bell who suggested she should do her thesis on this topic. [6]

Synopsis

The book uses both John Stuart Mill's methods of agreement and difference in the case selection. [7] The book is not intended to be generalizable: it only applies to the specific cases that are studied in the book. [7] [8] The book employs process-tracing. [9] [10] While the primary focus is on France, Russia and China, she also examines "moments of revolutionary crisis" in 17th century England, 19th century Prussia and 19th century Japan. [11] Those additional cases prevent Skocpol from "selecting on the dependent variable" – looking only at cases where revolutions occurred as a way to understand the causes of revolution – which would have been a methodological flaw. [11] The additional cases serve as "controls".

Before social revolutions can occur, she says, the administrative and military power of a state has to break down. Thus pre-revolutionary France, Russia and China had well-established states that stood astride large agrarian economies in which the imperial state and the landed upper classes partnered in the control and exploitation of the peasantry. However, the monarchy in each country faced an extraordinary dilemma in dealing with foreign power intrusion on the one hand and resistance to raising resources by politically powerful dominant domestic classes on the other. A revolution such as the French revolution also presented itself with a significant factor of power conducted with social, political, and economical conflicts. She describes the processes by which the centralized administrative and military machinery disintegrated in these countries, which made class relations vulnerable to assaults from below.

Reception

Criticism of Skocpol's book centers around her deemphasis of agency (role of individuals and ideology) and her mixed use of comparative methodological strategies. Ira Katznelson disputes that Skocpol's use of J.S. Mill's method of difference allows her to overcome the problems associated with many potential variables. [12]

According to Peter Manicas, Skocpol denies claims by historians that social revolutions should be analyzed as separate and distinct movements. She also denies claims that try to over generalize what makes a revolution. Peter Manicas says that Skocpol's work is successful at creating a theory that uses generalizations but is sensitive to differences between states and situations. [13]

According to Steve Pfaff, Skocpol's book created "a distinctive genre of neo-Weberian state-society analysis and, more broadly, served as signature work in the new historical and comparative subfields in sociology and comparative politics." [14] He says that Skocpol presents revolutionary urban middle class in each of the states she studies as "political entrepreneurs" because they take on the reins of the revolution after the peasant class has successfully weakened the ruling government. [15] Skocpol's book, according to Pfaff, is a clearly identifiable as a product of the politics of the 1970s. She "helped launch a new generation of comparative research on the largest and most consequential of historical questions." [16] Pfaff goes on to say, even if Skocpol didn't explain the causes that might have triggered state crisis and the mobilization of the people, "and if, in its enthusiasm for revolution, it overestimated the gains of revolutionary transformation, the book nevertheless deserves its place among the canonical works of comparative and historical research." [17]

Jeff Goodwin argues, in his own analysis, that Skocpol's fame comes in large part, not from a substantial number of people reading her book, but from a small number of "designated readers" critiquing her book and spreading what they believe to be her main ideas. Goodwin says, "A good part of Skocpol's fame is due to the wide diffusion of several misformulations of some key ideas." [18] Goodwin explains three major "misformulations" scholars have made about "States and Social Revolutions". [19]

Although published over thirty years ago, Theda Skocpol's book continues to influence historians and sociologists alike today. Skocpol presented a new way to look at social revolutions and analyze then through a structural and state centered perspective. Although her analysis may not be complete in the eyes of many, it offers a new perspective and fills in the holes in many theories before hers as well as the theories of her educators, including Barrington Moore Jr.

In Barbara Geddes's Paradigms and Sand Castles: Theory Building and Research Design in Comparative Politics, she writes that Skocpol's use of contrasting cases (cases where revolutions did happen and did not happen) makes her claims regarding the importance of class structures and alliances in determining revolution outcomes persuasive. But she writes that Skocpol's claim that all revolutionary outbreaks occur as a result of international crises is not well-supported. For example, Geddes notes that a revolution occurred in France but France was not at the time more threatened by external events than many of its neighbors. Geddes also argues that Skocpol's choice of cases (and exclusion of other cases) is not particularly well-supported. When Geddes expanded the number of cases to include nine Latin-American countries (which Geddes argued were within the scope conditions of the theory), Skocpol's theory of social revolution failed replication. Geddes argues that Skocpol includes a number of cases for reasons that are ill-justified. [22]

James Mahoney and Gary Goertz found no evidence that Skocpol exclusively picked negative cases to intentionally lend support for her theory. They also argue that the new cases added by Geddes are not within the scope conditions of Skocpol's theory. In their own analysis, Mahoney and Goertz added new cases that were within the scope conditions of Skocpol's theory, ultimately finding that her theory was consistent with an expanded set of cases. [23] [1]

Lewis A. Coser, president of the American Sociological Association, wrote in The New York Times Book Review , "I am convinced that States and Social Revolutions will be considered a landmark in the study of the sources of revolution." [24]

Cambridge University Press includes States and Social Revolutions in its "Canto Classics" series and the book remains in print as of 2016. [25]

Related Research Articles

Political science is the scientific study of politics. It is a social science dealing with systems of governance and power, and the analysis of political activities, political thought, political behavior, and associated constitutions and laws.

In political science, a revolution is a rapid, fundamental transformation of a society's class, state, ethnic or religious structures. According to sociologist Jack Goldstone, all revolutions contain "a common set of elements at their core: (a) efforts to change the political regime that draw on a competing vision of a just order, (b) a notable degree of informal or formal mass mobilization, and (c) efforts to force change through noninstitutionalized actions such as mass demonstrations, protests, strikes, or violence."

Rebellion is a violent uprising against one's government. A rebel is a person who engages in a rebellion. A rebel group is a consciously coordinated group that seeks to gain political control over an entire state or a portion of a state. A rebellion is often caused by political, religious, or social grievances that originate from a perceived inequality or marginalization.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Comparative politics</span> Field in political science

Comparative politics is a field in political science characterized either by the use of the comparative method or other empirical methods to explore politics both within and between countries. Substantively, this can include questions relating to political institutions, political behavior, conflict, and the causes and consequences of economic development. When applied to specific fields of study, comparative politics may be referred to by other names, such as comparative government.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Barrington Moore Jr.</span> American sociologist (1913–2005)

Barrington Moore Jr. was an American political sociologist, and the son of forester Barrington Moore.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Theda Skocpol</span> American sociologist and political scientist (born 1947)

Theda Skocpol is an American sociologist and political scientist, who is currently the Victor S. Thomas Professor of Government and Sociology at Harvard University. She is best known as an advocate of the historical-institutional and comparative approaches, as well as her "state autonomy theory". She has written widely for both popular and academic audiences. She has been President of the American Political Science Association and the Social Science History Association.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Charles Tilly</span> American sociologist (1929–2008)

Charles Tilly was an American sociologist, political scientist, and historian who wrote on the relationship between politics and society. He was a professor of history, sociology, and social science at the University of Michigan from 1969 to 1984 before becoming the Joseph L. Buttenwieser Professor of Social Science at Columbia University.

Peter Evans is an American political sociologist who is Faculty Fellow in International and Public Affairs at the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University and Professor of Sociology emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley.

Historical institutionalism (HI) is a new institutionalist social science approach that emphasizes how timing, sequences and path dependence affect institutions, and shape social, political, economic behavior and change. Unlike functionalist theories and some rational choice approaches, historical institutionalism tends to emphasize that many outcomes are possible, small events and flukes can have large consequences, actions are hard to reverse once they take place, and that outcomes may be inefficient. A critical juncture may set in motion events that are hard to reverse, because of issues related to path dependency. Historical institutionalists tend to focus on history to understand why specific events happen.

Jeffrey Roger Goodwin is a professor of sociology at New York University.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Paul Pierson</span> American political scientist

Paul Pierson is an American professor of political science specializing in comparative politics and holder of the John Gross Endowed Chair of Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley. From 2007-2010 he served at UC Berkeley as Chair of the Department of Political Science. He is noted for his research on comparative public policy and political economy, the welfare state, and American political development. His works on the welfare state and historical institutionalism have been characterized as influential.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Comparative historical research</span> Method in the social sciences

Comparative historical research is a method of social science that examines historical events in order to create explanations that are valid beyond a particular time and place, either by direct comparison to other historical events, theory building, or reference to the present day. Generally, it involves comparisons of social processes across times and places. It overlaps with historical sociology. While the disciplines of history and sociology have always been connected, they have connected in different ways at different times. This form of research may use any of several theoretical orientations. It is distinguished by the types of questions it asks, not the theoretical framework it employs.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Historical sociology</span> Interdisciplinary field of research

Historical sociology is an interdisciplinary field of research that combines sociological and historical methods to understand the past, how societies have developed over time, and the impact this has on the present. It emphasises a mutual line of inquiry of the past and present to understand how discrete historical events fit into wider societal progress and ongoing dilemmas through complementary comparative analysis.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bibliography of sociology</span>

This bibliography of sociology is a list of works, organized by subdiscipline, on the subject of sociology. Some of the works are selected from general anthologies of sociology, while other works are selected because they are notable enough to be mentioned in a general history of sociology or one of its subdisciplines.

Revolution from Above: Military Bureaucrats and Development in Japan, Turkey, Egypt, and Peru is a sociological book written by Ellen Kay Trimberger, published in 1978 by Transaction Books. Trimberger outlines several criteria for what she calls "revolution from above" and attempts to explicate this social phenomenon's emergence developed through a comparative historical analysis. Most of the book is dedicated to explaining the Meiji Restoration in Japan and the Turkish War of Independence. The theory is then extended to include the Egyptian Revolution of 1952 and Peru's 1968 coup led by Velasco. Trimberger's contribution is significant with regard to sociological theories of the state significant insofar as it departs from the Marxist conception of the state as merely a political superstructure built on an economic base.

No Other Way Out: States and Revolutionary Movements, 1945-1991 is a book written by Jeff Goodwin. It analyzes revolutions through the state-centered perspective.

Social revolutions are sudden changes in the structure and nature of society. These revolutions are usually recognized as having transformed society, economy, culture, philosophy, and technology along with but more than just the political systems.

Margaret M. Weir is an American political scientist and sociologist, best known for her work on social policy and the politics of poverty in the United States, particularly at the levels of state and local government.

Elisabeth Stephanie Clemens is an American sociologist, who is currently the William Rainey Harper Distinguished Service Professor of Sociology and the college at the University of Chicago. Clemens's research is focused on social movements, organizations, and American political development. As of 2016, Clemens has served as editor-in-chief of the American Journal of Sociology.

Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World (1966) is a book by Barrington Moore Jr.

References

  1. 1 2 Goertz, Gary (2012). "Social Science Concepts". Princeton University Press. pp. 189–208. Retrieved 24 February 2021.
  2. ↑ George, Alexander L.; Bennett, Andrew (2005). Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. MIT Press. p. 229. ISBN   978-0-262-30307-1. OCLC   944521872.
  3. ↑ Beck, Colin J. (2018). "The Structure of Comparison in the Study of Revolution". Sociological Theory. 36 (2): 134–161. doi:10.1177/0735275118777004. ISSN   0735-2751. S2CID   53669466.
  4. ↑ Kalyvas, Stathis N (2024). "Legacies of States and Social Revolutions". Politics. doi:10.1177/02633957241245895. ISSN   0263-3957.
  5. ↑ Kreuzer, Marcus (2024). "The methodological legacies of Theda Skocpol's State and Social Revolutions: Locating the three pillars of comparative historical analysis". Politics. doi:10.1177/02633957241245893. ISSN   0263-3957.
  6. 1 2 3 Skocpol, Theda (2024). "Reflections on an anniversary". Politics. doi:10.1177/02633957241245898. ISSN   0263-3957.
  7. 1 2 Skocpol, Theda; Somers, Margaret (1980). "The Uses of Comparative History in Macrosocial Inquiry". Comparative Studies in Society and History. 22 (2): 174–197. doi: 10.1017/s0010417500009282 . ISSN   0010-4175.
  8. ↑ Gerring, John (2007). Case Study Research: Principles and Practices. Cambridge University Press. p. 81. ISBN   978-0-521-85928-8.
  9. ↑ Mahoney, James (2010). "After KKV: The New Methodology of Qualitative Research" . World Politics. 62 (1): 120–147. doi:10.1017/S0043887109990220. ISSN   1086-3338. S2CID   43923978.
  10. ↑ George, Alexander L.; Bennett, Andrew (2005). Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. MIT Press. p. 159. ISBN   978-0-262-30307-1. OCLC   944521872.
  11. 1 2 King, Gary (2012). Designing social inquiry : scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton Univ. Press. p. 129. ISBN   978-0-691-03471-3. OCLC   754613241.
  12. ↑ Irving, Lichbach Mark; Zuckerman, Alan S. (28 August 1997). Comparative Politics: Rationality, Culture, and Structure. Cambridge University Press. p. 93. ISBN   978-0-521-58668-9.
  13. ↑ Manicas, Peter T. 1981. “States and Social Revolutions (Book Review).” History & Theory. Volume 20 (Issue 2)
  14. ↑ Pfaff, Steve. 2004. “Review Essay: On the Unmaking and Remaking of States.” Sociological Forum. Vol. 19 (Issue 2): 315
  15. ↑ Pfaff, Steve. 2004.
  16. ↑ Pfaff, Steve. 2004: 320
  17. ↑ Pfaff, Steve. 2004: 320-321
  18. ↑ Goodwin, Jeff. 1996. “How to Become a Dominant American Social Scientist: The Case of Theda Skocpol.” Contemporary Sociology. Vol 25 (Issue 3):293
  19. ↑ Goodwin, Jeff. 1996:293
  20. 1 2 Goodwin, Jeff. 1996:294
  21. ↑ Goodwin, Jeff. 1996:295
  22. ↑ Geddes, Barbara (2003). Paradigms and Sand Castles: Theory Building and Research Design in Comparative Politics . University of Michigan Press. pp.  107–114. doi:10.3998/mpub.11910. ISBN   978-0-472-09835-4. JSTOR   10.3998/mpub.11910.
  23. ↑ Mahoney, James; Goertz, Gary (2004). "The Possibility Principle: Choosing Negative Cases in Comparative Research" . American Political Science Review. 98 (4): 653–669. doi:10.1017/S0003055404041401. ISSN   1537-5943. S2CID   55345327.
  24. ↑ Coser, Lewis A. (31 October 1979). "The Sources of Revolt". The New York Times Book Review . pp. 44–45.
  25. ↑ "Canto Classics". Cambridge University Press . Retrieved 2 December 2016.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.