超越世代思考:论革命理论的未来

IF 0.4 4区 社会学 Q3 ANTHROPOLOGY Journal of Historical Sociology Pub Date : 2020-11-24 DOI:10.31235/osf.io/mq4rw
C. Beck, Daniel P. Ritter
{"title":"超越世代思考:论革命理论的未来","authors":"C. Beck, Daniel P. Ritter","doi":"10.31235/osf.io/mq4rw","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A recent exchange between Allinson (2019) and Abrams (2019) on the current state of revolution theory rests on the assumption that the generational, backward-looking view of revolution studies is also a fruitful way of thinking of the field’s present and future. We argue, in contrast, that while a generational approach has important benefits, it also contains shortcomings that may lead the future of revolution studies in less fruitful directions. We examine where an overreliance on generational thinking has led us, and provide an exploratory sketch of how we can begin to move beyond generational thinking and imagine a new future for the study of revolution.","PeriodicalId":46194,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Historical Sociology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Thinking Beyond Generations: On the Future of Revolution Theory\",\"authors\":\"C. Beck, Daniel P. Ritter\",\"doi\":\"10.31235/osf.io/mq4rw\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A recent exchange between Allinson (2019) and Abrams (2019) on the current state of revolution theory rests on the assumption that the generational, backward-looking view of revolution studies is also a fruitful way of thinking of the field’s present and future. We argue, in contrast, that while a generational approach has important benefits, it also contains shortcomings that may lead the future of revolution studies in less fruitful directions. We examine where an overreliance on generational thinking has led us, and provide an exploratory sketch of how we can begin to move beyond generational thinking and imagine a new future for the study of revolution.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46194,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Historical Sociology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-11-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Historical Sociology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/mq4rw\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ANTHROPOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Historical Sociology","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/mq4rw","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

Allinson(2019)和Abrams(2019)最近就革命理论的现状进行的交流基于这样一种假设,即革命研究的代际回顾观也是对该领域现在和未来富有成效的思考方式。相比之下,我们认为,虽然一代人的方法有重要的好处,但它也包含一些缺点,这些缺点可能会导致革命研究的未来走向不那么富有成效的方向。我们研究了过度依赖代际思维导致我们走向何方,并提供了一个探索性的草图,说明我们如何开始超越代际思维,想象革命研究的新未来。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Thinking Beyond Generations: On the Future of Revolution Theory
A recent exchange between Allinson (2019) and Abrams (2019) on the current state of revolution theory rests on the assumption that the generational, backward-looking view of revolution studies is also a fruitful way of thinking of the field’s present and future. We argue, in contrast, that while a generational approach has important benefits, it also contains shortcomings that may lead the future of revolution studies in less fruitful directions. We examine where an overreliance on generational thinking has led us, and provide an exploratory sketch of how we can begin to move beyond generational thinking and imagine a new future for the study of revolution.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: Edited by a distinguished international panel of historians, anthropologists, geographers and sociologists, the Journal of Historical Sociology is both interdisciplinary in approach and innovative in content. As well as refereed articles, the journal presents review essays and commentary in its Issues and Agendas section, and aims to provoke discussion and debate.
期刊最新文献
Political Economies of Knowledge Production: On and Around Academic Dependency In What Ways We Depend: Academic Dependency Theory and the Development of East Asian Sociology Rethinking the Rise of China: A Postcolonial Critique of China and a Chinese Critique of the Postcolonial Are We Still Dependent? Academic Dependency Theory After 20 Years The Arab Spring and Revolutionary Theory: An Intervention in a Debate
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1