The End of Revolution, and Its Means

Datos Bibliográficos

ID13089426
AutoresBenjamin Abrams (0000-0003-3925-1942, autor de correspondencia)
Año2018
Volumen6
Número2
Páginas86-94
Fecha de publicación2018-12-01
Open AccessNo
TipoARTICLE
RevistaContention (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 2330-1392 • E-ISSN: 2572-7184
EditorialBerghahn Books (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.3167/cont.2018.060208
OpenAlexW2905101728
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas3
Referencias citadas12

In Contention volume 5, issue 2, Benjamin Abrams interviewed the political theorist John Dunn on the topic of modern revolutions. In the interview, Dunn advanced the view that the “Epoch of Revolution” had ended by 1989 and that what many scholars called revolutions today were simply instances of regime collapse. The interview received a lot of attention from scholars and practitioners including Hugo Slim. Slim challenged Dunn’s concept of revolution in this issue, and Dunn responded defending his ideas. This article attempts to tease out the differences underlying the two scholars’ disagreement as to whether the Epoch of Revolution has truly passed. The article proposes that while processual approaches (such as Slim’s) conceive of revolution primarily as a political means, Dunn’s “programmatic” approach to revolution conceives of it as not only a means but also a political end. The article also considers the implications of Dunn’s theory of revolution, and the representative challenges of academic interviewing

Epistemology · Epoch (astronomy · Information revolution · Interview · Political revolution · Political science · Politics · Social science · Sociology · Computer Science · History · Law · Philosophy · Political Conflict and Governance · Politics and Society in Latin America · Populism, Right-Wing Movements

Herramientas

Abrir DOISci-Hub