Reply to Hugo Slim

Abstract

Responding to Hugo Slim’s critique, John Dunn defends his notion of the “Epoch of Revolution.” The response advances that this protracted epoch was defined by the unique way in which the category of revolution itself defined key possibilities for collective political, social, and economic transformation. In doing so, Dunn argues, this category transformed the conditions of political action across a large part of the world. Dunn classifies Slim’s cases as instances of rebellion that, though significant and important, do not share the teleological character of revolution.

Toward a Regeneration of Revolutionary Theory

“…By contrast, Selbin (2008:131) considers revolution to be a “conscious effort by a broad based, popularly mobilized group of actors, formal or informal, to profoundly transform the social, political, and economic institutions which dominate their lives; the goal is the fundamental transformation of the material and ideological conditions of their everyday lives.” This definition introduces ideas of intention, the source and breadth of mobilization, and the extensive transformation of various institutions as well as of material and economic conditions. Yet other scholars – such as John Dunn (2018) – have even contended that revolutions no longer occur, arguing that they are defined by a transformative ideology that present day cases lack. This line of contention has led to substantial recent disagreement over whether to define revolution as a political process at all, or whether a programmatic definition is preferable (Abrams, 2018; Abrams & Dunn, 2017; Ritter, 2019; Slim, 2018).…”