"Were revolutions the product of misery, injustice, and oppression? Or did they reflect the growing weakness of established authorities, the arrival of ideas, or the presence of small groups of radical activists able to fan the little fires of ordinary discontent into revolutionary conflagrations" (Strayer, p.524)?
While the most obvious, and complete, answer would be that revolutions are ushered in by all of these conditions, I'd like to comment on this passage.
I guess first, what is ordinary discontent? The lack of content that we all feel about some aspect of our society? How is that in any way ordinary? I think Strayer underplays the propensity of so-called ordinary discontent. Discontent is disontent is discontent. I would argue it's the nature of the discontent, and how it's manifested that dictates the way it plays out. This of course, brings us back to the comprehensive viewpoint of Strayer.
Ideas, small groups, established authority-I think it safe to assume that all are smaller pieces of a larger puzzle. But not as necessary as the deprived condition. Show me a state of deprivation and I'll show you a cause for revolution.
No comments:
Post a Comment