As a growing network, it’s important we all introduce ourselves, so we will be posting ‘mini-bios’ of members and their research interests, in no particular order as they become available. Here are two: Continue reading Network Members – Gavin Jacobson & Ken Loiselle →

While attention has again shifted to brutally violent confrontation in Egypt, the other story of the year continues to be that of more peaceful mass protest movements organised extensively through social media. Academic Zeynep Tufekci has been observing the protests in Turkey from close range, and in June offered a typology of characteristics that such new forms of protest appear to share. Last month Eric Borja reflected on this eight-point list in the context of Brazil’s emerging protest movement, noting some similarities and important differences.

In a situation where it’s far from clear what has really been ‘won’ by any of these movements, the nexus between analysis and advocacy, especially in Borja’s piece, is complex. In a situation such as in Brazil, (and indeed, for the moment, in Turkey) where all the mechanisms of formal democracy are in place, yet there appears to be a massive popular willingness to launch disruptive protest, it will be intriguing to see if the language of revolution takes hold. It may not be good news for anyone if it does, however.

Update, 22 August: see this chilling discussion from Kenan Malik on how the Egyptian ‘revolution’, and some of its most ‘progressive’ leadership, now embraces military rule, and even condones massacre.

There has been an interesting discussion in recent days on the blog of our friends at Revolutionary Moments, concerning the current events in Egypt and how they translate (or don’t) to an awareness of the disappointments inherent in having ‘revolutionary’ expectations.

What these events have shown to me (apart from reaffirming some of my earlier thoughts about how easy it is for revolutions to go badly ‘wrong’ by anyone’s standards) is that there is an important space opening up for academics to talk humanely and justly – but also, necessarily, carefully and subtly – about revolutions.

Given that ‘Revolution’ is a term of fundamental centrality to modern politics, it is striking how loosely people and politicians have been using it for recent events. In so doing, they are building new layers of expectation about what the word will mean in the future, piled upon older readings that themselves are often confused, partial and decontextualised.

Historians (and other social scientists) should be using the benefit of hindsight to explore earlier episodes of the history of revolution in the new contexts created by current events, challenging simplified pictures of what revolutionary change looks like, questioning the recourse to languages of revolution and the expectations they carry with them, and reflecting on what messages can and should be conveyed about when and how (and indeed if) democracy and freedom are best served by violent upheaval.

To this end I have drafted an outline of some of the very many different questions that this topic raises, and I invite comments on it, along with expressions of interest in developing and seeking funding for collaborative research projects in this area.