Sociology Of Revolution Research Articles

О причинах политических кризисов в работах П.А. Сорокина российского периода

P.A. Sorokin is one of the most renowned and peer-reviewed scientists of the XX century. In his anniversary and in modern conditions it seems important to address his explanation of the genesis of political crises in the early period of his work, since his recommendations for the preservation of eternal peace given in his later works have not been fulfilled. The article focuses on P.A. Sorokin’s ideas of political crises. For analysis, the concepts presented in his main monographs of the Russian period: “Sociology of Revolution” and “Hunger as a Factor in Human Affairs” are used. The article compares the ideas expressed in them with lesser-known publicistic and scientific articles by P.A. Sorokin of that time. For a better understanding of the context, the biographical material of the scientist was used, showing the complex environment of the formation of his intellectual heritage. In conclusion, this study demonstrates the importance of revisiting P.A. Sorokin’s works on political crises during the Russian period. His ideas provide valuable insights into the causes of political crises and offer guidance for maintaining perpetual peace. It is essential for modern scientists and policymakers to engage with Pitirim Aleksandrovich Sorokin’s ideas and apply them to current challenges in global politics.

The questionnaire as a methodical form of studying revolutions: on the example of Pitirim Sorokin's theory

The article explores the interaction between sociological and historical knowledge using the example of Pitirim Sorokin's theory of revolution and the methodological views of Marc Bloch. To achieve this goal, a general overview of the work "Sociology of Revolution" by an American researcher was conducted, and the identity of the methodological approaches presented therein to studying revolutionary processes with the questionnaire technique of a French historian was revealed. The obtained results allowed for the utilization of Pitirim Sorokin's developments as a methodological framework by Marc Bloch for analyzing an archival document describing the Zvenyhorod uprising in the territory of Kyiv province in June 1918. As a result, it was demonstrated that constructing a questionnaire based on sociological theory is an important task for a researcher working in the field of historical sociology and sociology of revolutions. The use of the proposed methodological framework enables the enhancement of the quality of socio-historical knowledge, as the researcher can documentarily reproduce the life of society experiencing revolutionary conditions. Given close cooperation between sociologists and historians regarding the development of questionnaires, the coordination of procedures for selecting primary materials and methods of analysis, there is a real possibility of a documentary turn in historical sociology and sociology of revolutions in the future. A direct outcome of such processes could be the establishment of a proper methodological and empirical basis for the emergence of qualitatively new research in the field of sociology of revolutions, ultimately allowing sociologists to utilize more reliable sources for analyzing the causes, course, and consequences of revolutions.

P. Sorokin’s Sociology of revolution in the context of theory of revolution of 19th–20th centuries

The article is devoted to the analysis of Pitirim Sorokin’s book “The Sociology of Revolution” in the context of scientific achievements in the field of the theory of revolution. The author analyzes: first, those ideas and thoughts that formed the basis of Sorokin's concept in comparison with those approaches and ideas that existed in his time; Secondly, those ideas and approaches that had been developing in the 20th century under the influence of Sorokin’s book. The author considers, that Sorokin’s “The Sociology of Revolution” needs to be considered in the scientific context of researches on the causes of social protest from Aristotle to Enlightenment, researches on the English and Great French Revolution of the 18th and 19th centuries and the development of the theory of revolution in the 19th century. The author concludes that Sorokin's “The Sociology of Revolution” had absorbed into its concept existing approaches and ideas, and became a bright conceptual work, which gave a way to several generations of researchers of the theory of revolution in the 20th century. And its great influence is still valid.

Methodological antinomies of Pitirim Sorokin’s Sociology of Revolution: Toward the publication of selected German reviews of the book (1925–1929)

Four reviews published in Russian for the first time are by H.Mauter (Cologne, 1889–1964), E.Jenny (Berlin, 1872–1939), N.N.Bubnoff (Heidelberg, 1880–1962), A.Meuisel (Aachen, 1896–1960) on the book “The Sociology of Revolution” (1925, German edition, 1928) by the Russian-American sociologist P.A. Sorokin (1889–1968) provide a theoretical context that allows us to trace some significant changes in the methodology of Sorokin’s sociology from moderate behaviorism towards the formation of an integral logico-meaningful method of analyzing the dynamics of social and cultural systems and creating the conceptual foundations of social systems theory. They differ from the American reactions to the book by discussing fundamental methodological problems of social theory: stability and dynamics of social systems, ensuring their stability and equilibrium. The reviews contrast the behaviorist content of the concepts of revolution and reaction in Sorokin’s work with the significance of these concepts in political theory and the sociology of politics. The question of the objectivity of Sorokin’s study of revolution, taking into account his moral assessments of the behavioral phenomena of revolutionary events in Russia, is discussed in the context of the methodological requirement of German sociologist Max Weber to reject political evaluations of social processes and phenomena. The paper substantiates the possibility of developing a general sociological theory of revolution and the significance of Sorokin’s study in relation to this issue, taking into account the difference between sociological and historical approaches to the subject. It is proved that German reviews published in leading professional journals of interwar Germany had some influence on the change in the methodology of Sorokin’s sociology.

At the Onset of P.A. Sorokin’s Sociology Gaining International Recognition: Commentary on the Publication of his Correspondence with the Publisher G. Salomon-Delatour (1925–1932)

The published correspondence reveals the professional ties of the RussianAmerican sociologist P.A. Sorokin (1889–1968) and the German publisher and sociologist Salomon (1892–1964, Salomon-Delatour since 1947). It substantially complements the knowledge about Sorokin’s priorities in professional contacts and scientific interests. In addition to the most complete version of Sorokin’s article “Russian Sociology in the Twentieth Century” (1926), published in the Yearbook of Sociology released by Salomon, the accompanying correspondence introduces Sorokin’s plans to participate in the preparation of the German editions of the books Leaves from a Russian Diary (1924), The Sociology of Revolution (1925), Social Mobility (1925), Modern Sociological Theories (1928, the German edition came out in 1932), Principles of Rural and Urban Sociology (1929) and Readers on Rural Sociology (1930–1932). Sorokin’s plans and articles on the study of genius and leadership, the role of the intelligentsia in society, and issues of book review are discussed. The letters are a testament to Sorokin’s sociology starting to receive actual international recognition. The correspondence tells of the impact of the Great Depression (1929–1939) on sociologists’ contacts.

“Twins in Spite of Themselves”: Spanish and Ottoman Empires’ “Issues of Decline” in XVIIIth Century

Spanish and Ottoman empires had more similarities that could be found at first glance. Both experienced the take-off as leading force in Europe and Asia respectively, being for a while the most fearful and powerful states during XVI, faced economic and political blunders in XVII century and slightly ended with stagnation in XVIII century (as conventional wisdom says). Using comparative method and cultural analysis, article tries to answer a question – how unique or regular was that issues which stroke Spain and Ottoman Empires, how deeply they were engaged in so called decline narrative, created in XIX century European historiography and is it possible to create common trend for empire`s stagnation using not only historical sociology method (sociology of revolution used by Jack Goldstone and Teda Skocpole) and world-system analysis provided by Immanuel Wallerstein, with emphasis on history of ideas or begriffsgeschichte by Reinhardt Kosseleck. Main results are going to provide a more correct view on the status of Spanish and Turkish Empires during the XVIII century. Despite that Ottomans and Spaniards had obvious differences in political distribution, economic capabilities, warfare tactics and external actions, almost simultaneous decline was based on clear and exact reasons: lack of industrialization (production with high surplus value), hush incorporation of Ottoman and Spanish Empires into World-Economy, lack of defending tariffs, ineffective fiscal system and policy, devastating and lasting wars, decreasing price for agricultural products, down warding Kondratieff cycle, rigid political and social units, which constrain strict political actions. These gaps made the Empire’s decline possible notwithstanding those problems which they had previously. Oppositely, major European states (England, France, Prussia) had made reversed actions, which took a long time, but made European “take-off” inevitable, assured their economical breakaway to further domination over the Ottomans and Spaniards as well.

The first edition of P.A. Sorokin’s book "The Sociology of Revolution" in Germany: a communicative commentary

The first edition of P.A. Sorokin’s book "The Sociology of Revolution" in Germany: a communicative commentary

Weber’s and Sorokin’s Analytical Treatment of the Russian Revolutions

The roots and dynamics of the Russian collapse of 1917-1918 provide an occasion for considering the question of the lessons that modern sociology can draw from the “sociology of revolution” of Max Weber and Pitirim Sorokin. This paper reviews the relevance of the approaches demonstrated by Weber’s “understanding sociology” and Sorokin’s “sociology of factors” on the testing ground of the emergency and confrontation of various forces of the Russian polit-ical scene in 1917-1918. Neither Weber nor Sorokin set forth methodological guidelines for their analysis of the Rus-sian revolutions and this paper does not intend to reconstruct their views on the basis of the comparative taxonomies of their categories and concepts. This paper identifies the reasons for the opposing assessments which Weber and Sorokin gave for the causes of the Russian Disorder of 1917-1918 and the consequences they have for their claims to compre-hend the revolutionary situation. The paper highlights the circumstances that prompted them to free themselves from obligations to their own theories and to use the authority of science to promote plans for Westernization, i.e. the pro-posed reconstruction of the political and state institutions of Russia on the model of the leading Entente states. The paper shows that the limits of the Weberian analytical vision of the Russian political scene were due to his considera-tion of the events in Russia mainly through the question of Russia’s further participation in the World War I and its consequences for imperial Germany, while Sorokin’s views were constrained by the fact that he represented Russian political positivism and Russian political masonry.

Социология революции П.А. Сорокина: путь от локального осмысления феномена до глобального

Социология революции П.А. Сорокина: путь от локального осмысления феномена до глобального

Питирим Сорокин и его теория революции


 Михаил Федорович Черныш – доктор социологических наук, заместитель директора, Институт социологии РАН. Адрес: 117218, Москва, ул. Кржижановского, д. 24/35, к. 5. E-mail: che@isras.ru
 Цитирование: Черныш М.Ф. (2017) Питирим Сорокин и его теория революции // Мир России. Т. 26. № 4. С. 71–96. DOI: 10.17323/1811-038X-2017-26-4-71-96
 
 Российско-американский социолог Питирим Сорокин обобщил свои мысли о Февральской и Октябрьской революциях в нескольких работах. В автобиографии «Длинная дорога» собраны воспоминания о том, как он присоединился к революционному движению, вступил в партию эсеров, агитировал рабочих и крестьян за свержение царского режима. После победы Февральской революции Сорокин стал одним из активных сторонников Временного правительства, секретарем Александра Керенского. Живые впечатления той эпохи он объединил не только в автобиографии, но и записках, в которых отражены развитие событий, стихия революционного хаоса, постепенно захвативших Россию в 1917 году. В работе «Социология революции» Сорокин сделал попытку (возможно, одну из первых) создать на основе российских событий собственную теорию революции. В ней он опирается на новейшую, с его точки зрения, теорию условных и безусловных рефлексов. В период революции, полагал он, общество входит в состояние, когда обеспечивающие социальный порядок условные рефлексы перестают оказывать свое сдерживающее влияние. Социальный порядок, который поддерживается условными рефлексами, распадается, уступая месту стихийным, деструктивным, животным по своей природе рефлексам. Теория революции Сорокина получила благоприятные отзывы среди его американских коллег, однако в Европе, а также в среде российской эмиграции она рассматривалась, скорее, как антибольшевистский манифест, не имеющий серьезной научной ценности. В сорокинской теории революция представала событием, вырванным из истории и не имеющим ни предпосылок, которые создавались политикой предыдущей власти, и ни последствий не только негативного, но и позитивного свойства. Тем не менее при всех своих недостатках теория революции Сорокина сохраняет свою ценность для российской социологии и как свидетельство эпохи, и как критика российской склонности к «историзму», заключающемуся в попытке отыскать ответ на сложные вопросы в стихии насильственной смены власти.

Beyond Structure and Contingency: Toward an Interactionist and Sequential Approach to the 2011 Uprisings

Taking as its starting point the mental earthquake produced by the 2011 uprisings, this article tackles the epistemological questions of causality and contingency in an effort to foster dialogue between comparative political regime studies, the sociology of revolutions and social movement literature. Based on a comparative analysis of three ‘positive cases’ (Egypt, Syria and Tunisia), and a ‘negative case’ (Morocco), it follows an interactionist and sequential approach to revolutionary situations. Its main objective is to expand the scope of the attempts aimed at reconciling structure and contingency, by focusing on the formation of large coalitions and the spread of mobilization on division or defection from within the repressive apparatus, and on the impact of crisis management by the incumbents. More specifically, the article highlights the fact that uncertainty affects not only the ‘actors from below,’ but also all the actors present: the challengers as much as the incumbents and their international allies, the ordinary citizens as well as the officers and the recruits.

The Paradox of Transition to “Democracy” under Military Rule

This paper closely studies the 18 days of the revolution in Egypt as well as the post-revolutionary transition and examines the role of the army in this period. A central question the paper attempts to answer is how to explain the apparent paradox about how the Egyptian military lent pivotal support to the protestors during the revolution itself, but now, in its administrative role during the transitional period, seems so reluctant if not actively resistant to allowing actual democratic change, to the extent of using excessive repressive measures. I argue that a set of complex and contradictory economic, social, historical/cultural and international geopolitical factors pressured the army to take the stance of siding with the revolution at the time of the revolt. I suggest that the army leaders sided with the revolution only to establish a form of democracy that retains the interests and the economic empire of the army. I then analyze different explanations for the excessive repressive measurements the army leaders have taken against peaceful protests and calls for more comprehensive democratic reform. And I argue that all these explanations are valid, but should be understood in the larger problem of the revolution's challenge to the military rule in Egypt that has been in place since 1952. The paper is based on: (1) an ethnographic work conducted in Cairo from February 4, 2011 to April 15, 2011; (2) 60 interviews with Egyptian activists, 50 of them randomly selected from different groups during the revolution, made in person, and 10 selected interviews with activists during the transitional period, the latter conducted by phone; and (3) archival work, especially on op-eds written by Egyptian intellectuals before and after the revolution in Egyptian newspapers. The paper contributes to literature on the sociology of revolutions and post-revolutionary transition.

After Khomeini

Drawing on the sociology of revolution, Arjomand’s book is set onexplaining the political developments of Iran and its rollercoaster-likedomestic and foreign policy realities during the past two decades. Accordingto the author, the greatest misconception about post-revolutionary Iran isthe notion that the revolution ended with the establishment of a “Brintonian”Thermidor through the rise to power of the pragmatist presidentHashemi-Rafsanjani (1989-97) and/or the reformist president Khatami(1997-2005). In contrast, “this book argues that the Islamic revolution didnot end with Khomeini’s death and that there was no return to ‘normalcy’the day after. Massive revolutionary violence abated while the revolutioncontinued” (p. 5) ...

Has Iran's Islamic Revolution Ended?

The rise of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and of revolutionary hard-liners makes it difficult to maintain that the Islamic Revolution ended either with the victory of pragmatism and Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani's program of economic reconstruction in 1989, or with the rise of the reform movement under Mohammad Khatami's leadership in 1997. The sociology of revolution has typically focused on the short-term revolutionary process that ends with the victory of one of the contending groups and the elimination of the others. This process in fact merges into a more drawn-out struggle among the children of the revolution for the definition of the new political order or the constitutional politics of postrevolutionary reconstruction. The regime set up by Ruhollah Khomeini had a mixed constitution consisting of three elements: theocratic or clericalist, republican or democratic, and populist and egalitarian centered on social justice. The first was developed during the decade after his death, while Khatami's attempt to realize the republican component of the heritage failed, leaving the unclaimed populism and social-justice component to be championed by Ahmadinejad and the hard-liners in a throwback to the original revolutionism.

The Sociology of Revolutions: Are There Any Ways Forward?

The Sociology of Revolutions: Are There Any Ways Forward?

Weber and the Sociology of Revolution

Weber wrote about the Russian revolutions of 1905 and 1917 while they were in progress. Analytically, he held that revolution is a non-legitimate form of change, insofar as the source of legitimate power is the authority of military command in a community of fate organized for foreign war. He thus adumbrates some aspects of contemporary state-breakdown theory, in which revolution hinges upon geopolitical strain and fiscal crisis splitting elites. Yet Weber remained closer to classic Marxian theory of revolutionary interest groups mobilized from below. He broadened interest groups to include status groups as well as economic classes. His description gives leads for a theory of revolutionary process centered on alliances and splits, bandwagon effects and turning points, and the volatility of revolutionary ideas arising from the social organization of full-time political militants. Weber predicted structural change in Russia leading to bureaucratic dictatorship.

GENDER AND REVOLUTIONARY TRANSFORMATION

The sociology of revolution has produced a prodigious body of scholarship that is nonetheless deficient in one area: attention to gender in the unfolding of revolutions and in the building of new states. Feminist scholars, however, have been attentive to women's participation in revolutions, the effects of revolutions on gender systems and women's positions, and how gender shapes revolutionary processes, including patterns of mobilization, revolutionary programs, and the policies of revolutionary states. This article discusses the literature on revolutions, presents a theoretical framework for the study of revolutions based on gender outcomes, and examines two cases of revolutionary transformation that conform to what I call the patriarchal model of revolution: Iran in 1979 and the 1989 revolutions in East Central Europe.

Toward a new sociology of revolutions

Including a discussion of James B. Rule, Theories of Civil Violence (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1988); Rod Aya, Rethinking Revolutions and Collective Violence: Studies on Concept, Theory, and Method (Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis, 1990); Timothy P. Wickham-Crowley, Guerrillas and Revolution in Latin America: A Comparative Study of Insurgents and Regimes Since 1956 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992); Jack A. Goldstone, Ted Robert Gurr, and Farrokh Moshiri, editors, Revolutions of the Late Twentieth Century (Boulder: Westview Press, 1991); Farideh Farhi, States and Urban-Based Revolutions: Iran and Nicaragua (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1990); and Tim McDaniel, Autocracy, Modernization, and Revolution in Russia and Iran (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991).

Comments on Jeff Goodwin's ?Toward a new sociology of revolutions?

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.

Values, Analysis and the Study of Revolution: II

This second and concluding part of the paper deals with a third problem area; the relationship between values and explanation. It is discussed by examining Myrdal's distinctions between valuations and value premises and between theoretical and practical research; Stretton's conception of the role of the `valuing skill' in all kinds of socio-historical research; and MacIntyre's arguments concerning categories and accounts that combine either evaluation and description or evaluation and explanation. Like the first part of the paper, it is illustrated by studies in the history and sociology of revolutions. Again, the main aim is methodological clarification.