If the Cuban Revolution can be said to have gone through stages, so too have the studies of it in the field of the social sciences. 1 During the first wave of these studies, the classic Cubanologists reigned: using external paradigms, they argued that the Cuban Revolution could only be understood as a replication of Soviet-style totalitarianism or, alternatively, within the framework of modernization "theories." Their palette was wide-ranging: they focused with broad strokes upon the economy, the state, Fidel himself. For them, given their models, there was no civil society in revolutionary Cuba: civil society by definition could consist only of those who opposed the revolution. Miami was therefore Cuban civil society.The second wave of social scientists writing about the revolution emerged, at least partly, in response to the Cubanologists and very much to the left of them. Here again, the focus was on broad categories, but the emphasis was upon disproving and/or going beyond the models employed by the first generation This second wave looked to the interplay of external and internal in seeking to understand the Cuban Revolution as the protagonist of its own history. It attempted to give a different outline to the discussion of civil society by focusing in part on grassroots mobilization and participation. However, restrictions on field research made it difficult to examine these arenas except in relation to the institutions the revolution classified as civil society: the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution, the Federation of Cuban Women, the Cuban Workers' Union, etc. Now, a third generation of social science literature has begun to take shape. At their cores, these studies center upon explorations, along diverse lines of inquiry, of the