Reconciling Tensions in the Analysis of Bourgeois Revolutions: A Critical Realist Approach

Klevis Kolasi
{"title":"Reconciling Tensions in the Analysis of Bourgeois Revolutions: A Critical Realist Approach","authors":"Klevis Kolasi","doi":"10.33458/uidergisi.1465073","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"When and how do agents consciously reproduce or unconsciously transform social structures? This inquiry is pivotal for advancing a theory of socio-historical development, particularly in addressing a key debate within International Historical Sociology (IHS) surrounding modern revolutions. This debate revolves around the tension between the “consequentialist” interpretation of bourgeois revolutions and the “revisionist” critiques, notably from the “historicist” wing of Political Marxism (PM). This article contends that the tension arises from an inadequate conceptualization of the agent-structure relationship. Drawing on Roy Bhaskar’s transformational model of social activity (TMSA) and critical realist philosophy of science, the article proposes a conceptual framework reconciling PM’s focus on class struggle to understand the historical specificity of capitalism with the role bourgeois revolutions historically and structurally played for the development of capitalism. Integrating Bhaskar’s framework with historical materialism-inspired debates on bourgeois revolutions, the paper suggests that agents’ unconscious actions can transform social structures amid social disintegration (“classic bourgeois revolutions”). Conversely, agents consciously seek to preserve and reproduce social structures, as seen in “passive revolutions”. This occurs when social structures, marked by inequality and hierarchies, are viewed as historical constructs rather than natural phenomena, particularly in the context of uneven and combined development of capitalism. This analysis contributes to ongoing IHS debates, enriches our comprehension of modern revolutions, and extends TMSA by empirically delineating circumstances wherein agents consciously uphold or unwittingly trigger the transformation of social structures.","PeriodicalId":506381,"journal":{"name":"Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi","volume":"16 19","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33458/uidergisi.1465073","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

When and how do agents consciously reproduce or unconsciously transform social structures? This inquiry is pivotal for advancing a theory of socio-historical development, particularly in addressing a key debate within International Historical Sociology (IHS) surrounding modern revolutions. This debate revolves around the tension between the “consequentialist” interpretation of bourgeois revolutions and the “revisionist” critiques, notably from the “historicist” wing of Political Marxism (PM). This article contends that the tension arises from an inadequate conceptualization of the agent-structure relationship. Drawing on Roy Bhaskar’s transformational model of social activity (TMSA) and critical realist philosophy of science, the article proposes a conceptual framework reconciling PM’s focus on class struggle to understand the historical specificity of capitalism with the role bourgeois revolutions historically and structurally played for the development of capitalism. Integrating Bhaskar’s framework with historical materialism-inspired debates on bourgeois revolutions, the paper suggests that agents’ unconscious actions can transform social structures amid social disintegration (“classic bourgeois revolutions”). Conversely, agents consciously seek to preserve and reproduce social structures, as seen in “passive revolutions”. This occurs when social structures, marked by inequality and hierarchies, are viewed as historical constructs rather than natural phenomena, particularly in the context of uneven and combined development of capitalism. This analysis contributes to ongoing IHS debates, enriches our comprehension of modern revolutions, and extends TMSA by empirically delineating circumstances wherein agents consciously uphold or unwittingly trigger the transformation of social structures.
调和资产阶级革命分析中的紧张关系:批判现实主义方法
行为主体何时以及如何有意识地复制或无意识地改造社会结构?这一探究对于推进社会历史发展理论,尤其是解决国际历史社会学(IHS)内部围绕现代革命的一场关键辩论至关重要。这场争论围绕着对资产阶级革命的 "后果主义 "解释与 "修正主义 "批判之间的紧张关系展开,尤其是来自政治马克思主义(PM)"历史主义 "派别的批判。本文认为,这种紧张关系源于对代理人与结构关系的概念化不充分。文章借鉴罗伊-巴斯卡尔(Roy Bhaskar)的社会活动转型模型(TMSA)和批判现实主义科学哲学,提出了一个概念框架,将原教旨主义对阶级斗争的关注与资产阶级革命在历史上和结构上对资本主义发展所起的作用相调和,以理解资本主义的历史特殊性。文章将巴斯卡尔的框架与历史唯物主义启发下的资产阶级革命辩论相结合,认为行为主体的无意识行动可以在社会解体("典型资产阶级革命")中改变社会结构。相反,行为主体有意识地寻求维护和复制社会结构,这在 "被动革命 "中可见一斑。当以不平等和等级制度为标志的社会结构被视为历史建构而非自然现象时,尤其是在资本主义发展不平衡和综合发展的背景下,就会出现这种情况。这一分析有助于当前关于 IHS 的争论,丰富了我们对现代革命的理解,并通过实证分析界定了在哪些情况下,行为主体有意识地维护或无意中引发了社会结构的变革,从而扩展了 TMSA。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信