Within and Beyond the “Fourth Generation” of Revolutionary Theory

Abstract

Within and Beyond the 'Fourth Generation' of Revolutionary TheoryRecent years have seen renewed interest in the study of revolutions. Yet the burgeoning interest in revolutionary events has not been matched by a comparable interest in the development of revolutionary theory. For the most part, empirical studies of revolutions remain contained within the parameters established by the 'fourth generation' of revolutionary theory. This body of work sees revolutions as conjunctural amalgams of systemic crisis, structural opening, and collective action, which arise from the intersection of international, economic, political, and symbolic factors. Despite the promise of this approach, this article argues that fourth generation scholarship remains an unfulfilled agenda. The aim of this article is to work within -and beyond -fourth generation theory in order to establish the theoretical foundations that can underpin contemporary work on revolutions. It does so in three ways: first, by promoting a shift from an attributional to a processual ontology; second, by advocating a relational rather than substantialist account of social action; and third, by fostering an approach that sees revolutions as inter-societal 'all the way down'. 1The (unfulfilled) promise of fourth generation theory 2 Recent years have seen renewed interest in the study of revolution (e.g. Chenoweth and Stephan 2011;Goldstone 2011Goldstone , 2014Nepstad 2011;Beck , 2014Beck , 2015Colgan, 2012Colgan, , 2013 Weyland 2012;Beissinger 2014;Lawson 2015a and2015b;Ritter 2015).Spurred by events such as the 2011 uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East, the Maidan movement in Ukraine, and Hong Kong's Umbrella Movement, these studies have largely sought to analyze contemporary protest movements from within the framework established by 'fourth generation' approaches to revolution (Foran 1993;Goldstone 2001). Fourth generation approaches see revolutions as conjunctural amalgams of systemic crisis, structural opening, and collective action, which arise from an intersection of international, economic, political, and symbolic factors (Foran 1993: 10-17; Goldstone 2001: 175-6; Lawson 2004: 70-6; Ritter 2015: 12). Although, as highlighted below, such an approach offers a number of improvements on previous generations of revolutionary theory, this article argues that fourth generation accounts remain an unfulfilled agenda. In many respects, rather than provide a new theoretical foundation for the study of revolutions, fourth generation approaches have been 'additive' in terms of the factors they survey and the universe of cases they examine (Foran 1993: 17). The aim of this article is to extend the insights offered by fourth generation approaches in order to provide more robust theoretical foundations for the study of contemporary revolutionary episodes.The argument unfolds in three main sections. First, the article unpacks four generations of revolutionary theory. The idea that there has been a generational evolution in the study of revolution can foster an over...

A Fifth Generation of Revolutionary Theory is Yet to Come

“…by reference to intentional actions” (1993:10), and Goldstone's (:139) argument that, in addition to structure, revolutionary theory should “incorporate leadership, ideology, and processes of identification with revolutionary movements as key elements in the production of revolution.” A similar challenge can be made to Allinson's (: 143) suggestion that his new generation of theorists are distinguished by no longer considering revolution to be “a discrete event, capable of being situated on a continuum between social and political change and correlated with the presence or absence of other pre‐existing factor[s].” Allinson instead claims that they have opted for a relational approach to the phenomenon. This is quite a peculiar claim, as the relational approach to which Allinson alludes was considered the defining leap made by “a new fourth generation of scholarship on revolutions and collective action,” (Emirbayer & Goodwin, : 374) and it has proven to be an agenda to which fourth‐generation theorists have consistently returned to over the past three decades (Emirbayer & Goodwin, ; Parsa, ; Goodwin, ; Goldstone, ; Lawson, , , ).…”

“…Finally, Allinson, (:143) makes the argument that his proposed new theoretical generation is distinguished from the past generation by its claim that “revolutions should be understood as processes”— a series of unfolding events— rather than “singular units that can be correlated with other phenomena.” This is, again, a well‐established fourth‐generation perspective: emphasised in Goldstone's revolutionary theorising (2001:152, ); established as a cornerstone of the relational approach (Emirbayer, : 281, 304, 309); developed considerably across Charles Tilly's (, ) life's work; and taking centre stage in Foran's () analysis of ‘Third World Revolutions’. It has been most recently returned to by Lawson () and Ritter () as a direct extension of this legacy.…”

“…The daunting task of fulfilling Foran and Goldstone's aspirations has invited a peculiar tendency towards introspection among subsequent fourth‐generation theorists, making it the most self‐monitored generation of theory in the academic study of revolution . This is at least in part a consequence of the coincidence of the idea of theoretical generations with the emergence of a self‐consciously ‘fourth’ generation, but also reflective of the recognisable difficulty of achieving the aims set out for it (Lawson, ). Indeed, many of those studying revolution have declined to pursue such an agenda, and have instead engaged in more atomistic analyses led by a smaller number of empirical cases, often theoretically fractured and discursively disconnected from one‐another (Beck, ).…”

“…Ritter (:223) is especially doubtful of the enduring nature of his finding that the success rates of predominantly non‐violent and unarmed revolutions have been strengthened by a liberal world order. He instead anticipates that the international pendulum may “swing back and make violent struggle against authoritarian states once more the revolutionary's strategy of choice.” Still others, such as George Lawson () have attempted to usefully redirect early aspirations in an effort to get the fourth generation back on track, all while expressing a degree of scepticism as to the prospects of the overall project. Nonetheless, amidst their admiration for the landmark theorists of the fourth generation, reading the work of this newer cohort belies a certain sense of discomfort with their predecessors' endeavours, which I suspect will eventually lead to their breaking with the fourth generation project.…”

“…Colin Beck () has, through a series of incisive accounts and studies shown convincingly that present strategies of inquiry have stalled. As Allinson, () notes, we already have a suite of cases which disrupt established understandings, and as Lawson () has convincingly argued, revolutionary theory is in dire need of theoretical reorientation.…”