On Revolution: What is Revolution? What are the Differences that Distinguish Revolution from Other Forms of Political Violent?

Abstract

Devrim düşünce tarihinin en muğlak kavramlarından biridir. Devrimin net bir tanımının yapılamamasının birkaç sebebi vardır. İlki, her bir düşünürün devrimin farklı bir yanına dikkat çekmesidir. İkincisi, devrimin şemsiye bir kavram olarak kullanılmasıdır. Devrim, isyanı, darbeyi, iç savaşı da içine alan bir siyasal şiddet formu olarak kullanılmaktadır. Bu iki unsur devrimin net bir tanımının yapılamamasına neden olur. Biz de bu çalışmada, bir nebze de olsa bu problemlerin üstesinden gelmek için alternatif bir devrim okumasını ileri süreceğiz. Bu okumaya göre, devrimin en temelde iki temel kullanımı olduğuna dikkat çekiyoruz: Klasik kullanım ve modern kullanım. Devrimin klasik kullanımı aynı zamanda isyan, başkaldırı gibi diğer siyasal şiddet formlarını da içine almaktadır. Eski Mısır’dan itibaren gördüğümüz devrimin klasik kullanımı 18.yy’a kadar devam etmiştir. 18.yy ile birlikte devrim kavramı modern muhtevasına erişmiş ve geçmişin kökten reddine dayanan yeni bir toplum yaratma anlamında kullanılmaya başlamıştır. Devrimin modern muhtevası ise devrim ile diğer siyasal şiddet formları arasındaki farkı göstermede daha açıklayıcı olabilir. Böyle bir devrim okumasının, devrim ile diğer siyasal şiddet formları arasındaki farklılıkları kesin bir şekilde ortaya çıkararak, devrim nedir sorusuna daha tatmin edici bir cevap sunabileceği inancındayız.

Keywords

• Devrim
• isyan
• darbe
• modern
• klasik

On Revolution: What is Revolution? What are the Differences that Distinguish Revolution from Other Forms of Political Violent?

Abstract

Revolution is one of the most ambiguous concepts in the history of thought. There are several reasons why a clear definition of the revolution cannot be made. First, scholars point to a different side of the revolution. Second, the revolution is used as an umbrella concept. Revolution is used as a form of political violence that includes rebellion, coup, and civil war. These two factors make it difficult to give a clear definition of the revolution. In this work, we will propose an alternative reading of revolution to overcome these problems, at least to some extent. This reading draws attention that the revolution has two fundamental usages: classical usage and modern usage. The classic use of the revolution also includes other forms of political violence, such as rebellion and insurrection. The classical use of the revolution we have seen since Ancient Egypt continued until the 18th century. With the 18th century, the concept of revolution reached its modern content and started to be used in the sense of creating a new society based on the radical rejection of the past. The modern content of the revolution may be more revealing in showing the difference between the revolution and other forms of political violence. We believe that such a reading of revolution can offer a more satisfactory answer to what revolution is, by sharply revealing the differences between revolution and other forms of political violence.

Keywords

• Revolution
• rebellion
• coup
• modern
• classic

References

1. Arendt, H. (1990). On Revolution. London: Penguin Books.
2. Boym, S. (1991). Death in Quotation Marks: Cultural Myths of the Modern Poet. London: Harvard University Press.
3. Burns, C. D. (1920). The Principles of Revolution. London: Forgotten Books.
4. Calvert, P. (1970). Revolution. London: Pall Mall Press.
5. Camus, A. (1991). The Rebel: An Essay on Man in Revolt. New York: Vintage Books.
6. Cohan, A. S. (1975). Theories of Revolution: An Introduction. New York: A Halsted Press Book.
7. Goldstone, J. A. (1991). Revolution, Theories of. In D. Miller (Ed.), The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought (pp. 437-441). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
8. Goldstone, J. A. (1994). Revolutions: Theoretical, Comparative, and Historical Studies (second edition). Orlando: Harcourt Brace & Company.

9. Goodwin, J. (1997). State-Centered Approaches to Social Revolutions: Strenghts and Limitations of a Theoretical Tradition. In J. Foran (Ed.), Theorizing Revolutions (pp. 9- 35). London and New York: Routledge.
10. Göran, T. (2008). Roads to Modernity: Revolutionary and Other. In J. Foran, D. Lane, & A. Zivkovic (Eds.), Revolution in the Making of the Modern World (pp. xiv-xvii). New York: Routledge.
11. Gurr, R. (1970). Why Men Rebel. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
12. Hatto, A. (1949). “Revolution”: An Enquiry Into the Usefulness of an Historical Term. Mind, 58(232), 495–517.
13. Huntington, S. (1968). Political Order in Changing Societies. New Haven: Yale University Press.
14. Johnson, C. (1964). Revolution and Social System. Stanford: Hoover Institution Studies.
15. Kimmel, M. S. (1990). Revolution: A Sociological Interpretation. Cambridge: Polity Press.
16. Kotowski, C. M. (1984). Revolution. In G. Sartori (Ed.), Social Science Concepts: A Systematic Analysis (pp. 403-451). Beverly Hills/ London/ New Delhi: Sage Publications.
17. Lachman, R. (1997). Agents of Revolution: Elite Conflicts and Mass Mobilization from the Medici to Yeltsin. In J. Foran (Ed.), Theorizing Revolutions (pp. 71-98). London: Routledge.
18. Maistre, J. (2003). Consideration on France (third edition; R. Lebrun, trans.). United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
19. Mayakovsky, V. (1985). Selected Verse I (V. Chistyakov, trans.). United of Soviet Socialist Republics: Raduga Publishers.
20. Pettee, G. S. (1938). The Process of Revolution. New York: Harper & brothers.
21. Polybius. (1923). The Histories, Book VI (W. R. Paton, trans.). London: Harvard University Press.
22. Sorokin, P. A. (1925). The Sociology of Revolution. J.B. Lippincott.
23. Tilly, C. (1978). From Mobilization to Revolution. New York: Random House.