Abstract
If I understand Jeff Goodwin's piece correctly, he is right on at least two general points. First that the more recent and ultimately humbler approaches to the study of revolutions, which are historically grounded, conjunctural, and theoretically eclectic are better ways of deciphering the dynamics (or at least the mechanics) of revolutionary situations and outcomes. Second that like other sociologies, these new approaches tend to blur the distinction between self-created concepts and reality. Overarching and generally useful concepts of culture and state are forwarded but immediately, albeit unconsciously, used as means to replace boundaries with borders.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
