<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE root>
<article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:ali="http://www.niso.org/schemas/ali/1.0/" article-type="research-article" dtd-version="1.2" xml:lang="en"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">RUDN Journal of Sociology</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title xml:lang="en">RUDN Journal of Sociology</journal-title><trans-title-group xml:lang="ru"><trans-title>Вестник Российского университета дружбы народов. Серия: Социология</trans-title></trans-title-group></journal-title-group><issn publication-format="print">2313-2272</issn><issn publication-format="electronic">2408-8897</issn><publisher><publisher-name xml:lang="en">Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia named after Patrice Lumamba</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">18448</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.22363/2313-2272-2018-18-2-208-225</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="toc-heading" xml:lang="en"><subject>Theory, Methodology and History of Sociological Research</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="toc-heading" xml:lang="ru"><subject>Вопросы истории, теории и методологии</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="article-type"><subject>Research Article</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title xml:lang="en">Jeff Goodwin’s network theory of “peripheral revolutions”</article-title><trans-title-group xml:lang="ru"><trans-title>Сетевая теория «периферийных революций» Джеффа Гудвина</trans-title></trans-title-group></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author"><name-alternatives><name xml:lang="en"><surname>Karasev</surname><given-names>D Yu</given-names></name><name xml:lang="ru"><surname>Карасев</surname><given-names>Дмитрий Юрьевич</given-names></name></name-alternatives><bio xml:lang="en"><p>-</p></bio><bio xml:lang="ru"><p>кандидат социологических наук, старший научный сотрудник лаборатории экономической и социальной истории Института общественных наук Российской академии народного хозяйства и государственной службы при Президенте Российской Федерации</p></bio><email>dk89@mail.ru</email><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"/></contrib></contrib-group><aff-alternatives id="aff1"><aff><institution xml:lang="en">Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration</institution></aff><aff><institution xml:lang="ru">Российская академия народного хозяйства и государственной службы при Президенте Российской Федерации</institution></aff></aff-alternatives><pub-date date-type="pub" iso-8601-date="2018-12-15" publication-format="electronic"><day>15</day><month>12</month><year>2018</year></pub-date><volume>18</volume><issue>2</issue><issue-title xml:lang="en">VOL 18, NO2 (2018)</issue-title><issue-title xml:lang="ru">ТОМ 18, №2 (2018)</issue-title><fpage>208</fpage><lpage>225</lpage><history><date date-type="received" iso-8601-date="2018-05-02"><day>02</day><month>05</month><year>2018</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement xml:lang="en">Copyright ©; 2018, Karasev D.Y.</copyright-statement><copyright-statement xml:lang="ru">Copyright ©; 2018, Карасев Д.Ю.</copyright-statement><copyright-year>2018</copyright-year><copyright-holder xml:lang="en">Karasev D.Y.</copyright-holder><copyright-holder xml:lang="ru">Карасев Д.Ю.</copyright-holder><ali:free_to_read xmlns:ali="http://www.niso.org/schemas/ali/1.0/"/><license><ali:license_ref xmlns:ali="http://www.niso.org/schemas/ali/1.0/">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0</ali:license_ref></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://journals.rudn.ru/sociology/article/view/18448">https://journals.rudn.ru/sociology/article/view/18448</self-uri><abstract xml:lang="en"><p>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.</p></abstract><trans-abstract xml:lang="ru"><p>Предмет статьи - синтетическая теория революции Джеффа Гудвина, претендующая на то, чтобы стать теорией революции четвертого поколения, а также особенности ее применения в рамках сравнительно-исторического исследовании периферийных революций «короткого двадцатого века». Первая часть статьи показывает истоки новаторского теоретико-методологического синтеза Дж. Гудвина: возможности и ограничения различных структурных теорий государства, а также сетевого анализа. Синтез государственно-конструктивистского подхода и сетевой модели структурного конструктивизма позволяет, с одной стороны, избежать ошибок предшествующих поколений теорий революции, связанных в основном с их неспособностью учесть каузальный вклад культурных и агентных детерминант, а, с другой, защищает от противоположных ошибок эссенциализма, культурного детерминизма, волюнтаризма и т.д. Вторая часть статьи описывает использование теоретической модели для анализа волн периферийных рефолюций в Юго-Восточной Азии в 1945- 1955-е годы, в Центральной Америке в 1970-1980-е годы и в Восточной Европе в 1989 году. Росту революционных движений способствуют бюрократические, патримониальные и эксклюзивные режимы со слабой инфраструктурной властью, но свергают чаще всего патримониальные. Политическое угнетение и насилие больше способствуют солидарности периферийных революционеров, чем социально-экономические факторы, например, бедность. В заключении представлены выводы Гудвина о будущем революций и теорий революций. В XXI веке мир увидит меньше революций и больше движений за глобальную справедливость. В социологии революции наблюдается все меньше попыток создания общей теории революции и все большая специализация в изучении отдельных революций и их типов на основе синтетической структурно-культурной методологии.</p></trans-abstract><kwd-group xml:lang="en"><kwd>Jeff Goodwin</kwd><kwd>sociology of revolutions and social movements</kwd><kwd>state-centred approach</kwd><kwd>network analisys</kwd><kwd>postcolonialism</kwd><kwd>the problem of structure/agency and culture</kwd></kwd-group><kwd-group xml:lang="ru"><kwd>Джефф Гудвин</kwd><kwd>социология революции и общественных движений</kwd><kwd>государство-центричный подход</kwd><kwd>сетевой анализ</kwd><kwd>постколониализм</kwd><kwd>проблема структуры/агентности, культуры</kwd></kwd-group><funding-group/></article-meta></front><body></body><back><ref-list><ref id="B1"><label>1.</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Alexander J. Analytic debates: Understanding the relative autonomy of culture. In J. Alexander, S. Seidman (Eds.). Culture and Society: Contemporary Debates. Cambridge; 1990.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Александер Дж.С. Аналитические дебаты: Понимание относительной автономии культуры // Социологическое обозрение. 2007. Т. 6. № 1</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="B2"><label>2.</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Giddens A. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley; 1986.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Гидденс Э. Устроение общества: Очерк теории структурации. М., 2005</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="B3"><label>3.</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Goldstone J. Toward a fourth generation of revolutionary theory. Annual Review of Political Science. 2001: 4</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Голдстоун Д. К теории революции четвертого поколения // Логос. 2006. № 5</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="B4"><label>4.</label><mixed-citation>Alexander J. Action and Its Environments. New York; 1988.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B5"><label>5.</label><mixed-citation>Archer M. Culture and Agency: The Place of Culture in Social Theory. Cambridge; 1988.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B6"><label>6.</label><mixed-citation>Coser L. Greedy Institutions: Patterns of Undivided Commitment. New York; 1974.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B7"><label>7.</label><mixed-citation>Cucută R.A. Theories of revolution: The generational deadlock. Challenges of the Knowledge Society. 2013: 1.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B8"><label>8.</label><mixed-citation>Emirbayer M., Goodwin J. Network analysis, culture, and the problem of agency. American Journal of Sociology. 1994: 99 (6).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B9"><label>9.</label><mixed-citation>Emirbayer M., Goodwin J. Symbols, positions, objects: Toward a new theory of revolutions and collective action. History and Theory. 1996: 35 (3).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B10"><label>10.</label><mixed-citation>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).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B11"><label>11.</label><mixed-citation>Goldstone J.A. Theories of revolution: The third generation. World Politics. 1980: 32 (3).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B12"><label>12.</label><mixed-citation>Goodwin J. A theory of categorical terrorism. Social Forces. 2006: 84 (4).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B13"><label>13.</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Goodwin J. No Other Way Out: States and Revolutionary Movements, 1945—1991. Cambridge; 2001.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Goodwin J. No Other Way Out: States and Revolutionary Movements, 1945-1991. Cambridge; 2001.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="B14"><label>14.</label><mixed-citation>Goodwin J. State-centered approaches to social revolutions: Strengths and limitations of a theoretical tradition. In J. Foran (Ed.) Theorizing Revolutions. New York; 1997.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B15"><label>15.</label><mixed-citation>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).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B16"><label>16.</label><mixed-citation>Goodwin J. Toward a new sociology of revolutions. Theory and Society. 1994: 23.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B17"><label>17.</label><mixed-citation>Goodwin J., Skocpol T. Explaining revolutions in the contemporary Third World. Skocpol T. Social Revolutions in the Modern World. Cambridge; 1994.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B18"><label>18.</label><mixed-citation>Kurzman C. The Unthinkable Revolution in Iran. Cambridge; 2004.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B19"><label>19.</label><mixed-citation>Mann M. The autonomous power of the state: Its origins, mechanisms and results. European Journal of Sociology. 1984: 25 (2).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B20"><label>20.</label><mixed-citation>Mahoney J. Comparative-historical methodology. Annual Review of Sociology. 2004: 30.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B21"><label>21.</label><mixed-citation>Rethinking Social Movements: Structure, Culture, and Emotion. Ed. by Goodwin J. et al. Lanham; 2004.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B22"><label>22.</label><mixed-citation>Skocpol T. Social Revolution in the Modern World. Cambridge; 1994.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B23"><label>23.</label><mixed-citation>Skocpol T. States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia and China. Cambridge; 1979.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B24"><label>24.</label><mixed-citation>Slater P. Footholds: Understanding the Shifting Family and Sexual Tensions in Our Culture. Ed. by W.S. Palmer. N.Y.; 1977.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B25"><label>25.</label><mixed-citation>Tilly C. The Formation of National States in Western Europe. Princeton; 1975.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B26"><label>26.</label><mixed-citation>White H. Identity and Control: A Structural Theory of Social Action. New York; 1992.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B27"><label>27.</label><mixed-citation>Wickham-Crowley T. Guerrillas and Revolutions in Latin America. A Comparative Study of Insurgency and Regime Since 1956. Princeton University Press; 1992.</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>
