Jeff Goodwin’s network theory of “peripheral revolutions”

Cover Page

Abstract


The article considers J. Goodwin’s synthetic theory of revolution that claims to be the ‘fourth-generation’ theory, and the ways of its application in the comparative-historical analisys of peripheral revolutions of the “short twentieth century”. The first part of the article reveals the sources of Goodwin’s theoretical and methodological synthesis: the possibilities and limitations of different structural and state-centred theories and of network analysis. The combination of the state-constructionist approach with the network perspective of structuralist constructionism allows to avoid the structuralist mistake of ignoring the causal contribution of cultural and agecy determinants, and protects from the opposite theoretical failures of essentialism, cultural determinism, voluntarism, etc. The second part of the article describes how Goodwin used his complex theoretical model in the analysis of the waves of peripheral revolutions in Southeast Asia in 1945-1955, in Central America in 1970-1980s and in Eastern Europe in 1989. He shows that bureaucratic, patrimonial and exclusive regimes with weak infrastructural power contributed to the growth of revolutionary movements, but the patrimonial regimes are especially vulnerable to the revolutionary overthrow. Political oppression and indiscriminate violence determine the revolutionaries’ solidarity on the periphery more than social-economic factors such as poverty. The final part of the article presents some Goodwin’s conclusions on the future of revolutions and theories of revolutions. In the 21 century the world will witness fewer revolutions and more movements for global justice; while sociology of revolutions demonstrates fewer attempts to create a general theory of revolution and collective action and tends to the studies of different revolutionary cases and their types on the basis of synthetic structural-cultural methodology.


About the authors

D Yu Karasev

Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration

Author for correspondence.
Email: dk89@mail.ru
Prosp. Vernadskogo, 84, Moscow, Russian Federation, 119571

-

References

  1. Alexander J. Analytic debates: Understanding the relative autonomy of culture. In J. Alexander, S. Seidman (Eds.). Culture and Society: Contemporary Debates. Cambridge; 1990.
  2. Giddens A. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley; 1986.
  3. Goldstone J. Toward a fourth generation of revolutionary theory. Annual Review of Political Science. 2001: 4
  4. Alexander J. Action and Its Environments. New York; 1988.
  5. Archer M. Culture and Agency: The Place of Culture in Social Theory. Cambridge; 1988.
  6. Coser L. Greedy Institutions: Patterns of Undivided Commitment. New York; 1974.
  7. Cucută R.A. Theories of revolution: The generational deadlock. Challenges of the Knowledge Society. 2013: 1.
  8. Emirbayer M., Goodwin J. Network analysis, culture, and the problem of agency. American Journal of Sociology. 1994: 99 (6).
  9. Emirbayer M., Goodwin J. Symbols, positions, objects: Toward a new theory of revolutions and collective action. History and Theory. 1996: 35 (3).
  10. Foran J., Goodwin J. Revolutionary outcomes in Iran and Nicaragua: Coalition fragmentation, war and the limits of social transformation. Theory and Society. 1993: 22 (2).
  11. Goldstone J.A. Theories of revolution: The third generation. World Politics. 1980: 32 (3).
  12. Goodwin J. A theory of categorical terrorism. Social Forces. 2006: 84 (4).
  13. Goodwin J. No Other Way Out: States and Revolutionary Movements, 1945—1991. Cambridge; 2001.
  14. Goodwin J. State-centered approaches to social revolutions: Strengths and limitations of a theoretical tradition. In J. Foran (Ed.) Theorizing Revolutions. New York; 1997.
  15. Goodwin J. The libidinal constitution of a high-risk social movement: Affectual ties and solidarity in the Huk Rebellion, 1946 to 1954. American Sociological Review. 1997: 62 (1).
  16. Goodwin J. Toward a new sociology of revolutions. Theory and Society. 1994: 23.
  17. Goodwin J., Skocpol T. Explaining revolutions in the contemporary Third World. Skocpol T. Social Revolutions in the Modern World. Cambridge; 1994.
  18. Kurzman C. The Unthinkable Revolution in Iran. Cambridge; 2004.
  19. Mann M. The autonomous power of the state: Its origins, mechanisms and results. European Journal of Sociology. 1984: 25 (2).
  20. Mahoney J. Comparative-historical methodology. Annual Review of Sociology. 2004: 30.
  21. Rethinking Social Movements: Structure, Culture, and Emotion. Ed. by Goodwin J. et al. Lanham; 2004.
  22. Skocpol T. Social Revolution in the Modern World. Cambridge; 1994.
  23. Skocpol T. States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia and China. Cambridge; 1979.
  24. Slater P. Footholds: Understanding the Shifting Family and Sexual Tensions in Our Culture. Ed. by W.S. Palmer. N.Y.; 1977.
  25. Tilly C. The Formation of National States in Western Europe. Princeton; 1975.
  26. White H. Identity and Control: A Structural Theory of Social Action. New York; 1992.
  27. Wickham-Crowley T. Guerrillas and Revolutions in Latin America. A Comparative Study of Insurgency and Regime Since 1956. Princeton University Press; 1992.

Statistics

Views

Abstract - 3598

PDF (Russian) - 266

Cited-By


PlumX

Dimensions


Copyright (c) 2018 Karasev D.Y.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies