Social Revolution: A Latin American Perspective by Alan
Knight
Alan Knight provides a thorough analysis of the methodology
in Social Revolution literature. His article was particularly helpful for
placing into conversation existing debates about how and why social revolutions
happen. While the major revolutions brought into the sphere of revolution and
reform discussions focus mainly on France, Russia or China, Alan Knight hopes
to bring Latin American Revolutions into the broader context of social
revolutions. Comparably, in the Latin American discourse revolutions in Mexico,
Bolivia and Cuba could occupy the same space these other nations do in more
general frames of reference.
The approach that Knight brings up criticizes two particular
approaches historically utilized to explain revolutionary ideology. The first
rejects an approach that is based on class structure and the second, Skocpol’s
theory, furthers this rejection with a state-oriented theory that interests
itself in the constraints of the system, as opposed to the social structures of
the systems’ participants. Knight disagrees with these approaches in the
literature because he views breakdowns of systems as consequences of
revolution, as opposed to a cause of revolution. Also, these frameworks don’t
work for the examples of Cuba and Mexico. How these criticisms relate to the
study of social revolution could be a very useful lens moving forward in
looking at specific case studies of social movements or revolutions, like the
Zapatista movement.
Another useful framework laid out in this paper is one
relating to comparative analysis. In devising a “theory of revolution,” there
needs to be some sort of historical comparison made between nations’
revolutions that provide a sort of pattern. Yet, as Knight points out, this
kind of thinking is restrictive. It is hard to find patterns in revolutions
when specifically looking for causes or processes. He brings up a question in
the comparison of France, Russia and China to countries like Mexico, Bolivia
and Cuba. In the literature there is a distinction between lesser and bigger
powers, but isn’t the grandness of a nation’s power relative to what they are
being compared to? This is important in understanding comparative analysis in
the revolutions of different nations. Small or big revolutions can bring about
the same consequences, just as “lesser” nations can incite revolutions that
lead to structural change in the same manner more powerful nations can.
In all, there is no vacuum by which to analyze social
revolutions. Social revolutions are historical events that must be analyzed within
the context in which they are being executed. Next, when comparing specific
revolutionary movements to one another it will be important to keep some of
Knight’s frameworks and criticisms in mind. Though, in my opinion, part of the
historiography of social movements and revolutions have to show the patterns he argues do not exist; having a definition
for what classifies a social revolution requires some sense of uniformity
across different cases.
