Defining Revolution

A problem in political science is the creation of over-arching definitions to phenomenon in history. This problem persists in the defining and classifying different types of political violence. The five main instances of political violence are: Civil War, Revolution, Inter-state war, genocide, and terrorism. Once those categories are created they must also be defined. David J Samuels attempts to do that in his book, Comparative Politics.

Specifically he defines Revolutions as an “armed conflict within a sovereign state between insurgents and the state, in which both insurgents and the state claim the allegiance of a significant proportion of the population; authority over the state is forcible transferred from thee state to the insurgents and the insurgents subsequently bring about wholesale political change.” According to this definition a revolution must have four characteristics, all occur within a sovereign state, significant allegiance to both parties, the insurgents win, and bring about major political change. So how does this definition stand up to real historical instances of revolution?

In his book “The Age of Revolution” E. J Hobsbawm refers to the French revolution as “the revolution” in the age of many revolutions. Therefore, if Samuels’ definition is accurate it should fit with historical evidence of the French Revolution.

            The French revolution was definitely isolated to its borders, since it was the most powerful and populous nation in Europe at the time [Hobsbawm] the revolution was not caused by any spillover effect, nor did it involve significant participation from other nations.

Furthermore, Hobsbawm describes it as a “mass social revolution”; this implies that there was a widely felt effect and support for the revolution. The bourgeoisie and its ideas of classical liberalism were widely supported by the middle and lower classes of the French population, while the upper class and the nobility or in other words the state were decidedly against the revolution which more support coming from the clergy. This revolution indeed engulfed the whole nation.

The final requirements of a revolution are the victory of the insurgents and the change they in turn implement. Both of these requirements are also apparent in the French revolution although they are slightly more complicated to answer.  In 1789 the moderate bourgeoisie gained control of the national assembly abolished the nobility and reduced the power of the clergy. The revolutionaries had gained political control and had begun to enact their “wholesale political change.” At first this political changed reflected the old system, however the revolution did not stop there; there would be many changing of hands between different groups, each significantly changing the political process of France. However, at this point, it is clear that the French Revolution meats all the criteria of the definition provided by Samuels.

It makes sense that “the revolution” would match the definition of a revolution. Besides the American Revolution, it is one of the most commonly known and studied examples of revolution. As such it has all the elements necessary to be considered a revolution and thus backs up the definition given by Samuels. It was contained in one nation, between insurgents and the state, there was widespread support, and the insurgents won and then enacted political change. This does not necessarily mean that the definition is perfect or that this is the perfect example, simply that in this scenario all the criteria on both sides are meant.