{"title":"回复雨果·斯利姆","authors":"J. Dunn","doi":"10.3167/cont.2018.060207","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Responding to Hugo Slim’s critique, John Dunn defends\nhis notion of the “Epoch of Revolution.” The response advances\nthat this protracted epoch was defined by the unique way in which\nthe category of revolution itself defined key possibilities for collective\npolitical, social, and economic transformation. In doing so,\nDunn argues, this category transformed the conditions of political\naction across a large part of the world. Dunn classifies Slim’s cases\nas instances of rebellion that, though significant and important, do\nnot share the teleological character of revolution.","PeriodicalId":36466,"journal":{"name":"Contention","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reply to Hugo Slim\",\"authors\":\"J. Dunn\",\"doi\":\"10.3167/cont.2018.060207\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Responding to Hugo Slim’s critique, John Dunn defends\\nhis notion of the “Epoch of Revolution.” The response advances\\nthat this protracted epoch was defined by the unique way in which\\nthe category of revolution itself defined key possibilities for collective\\npolitical, social, and economic transformation. In doing so,\\nDunn argues, this category transformed the conditions of political\\naction across a large part of the world. Dunn classifies Slim’s cases\\nas instances of rebellion that, though significant and important, do\\nnot share the teleological character of revolution.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36466,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Contention\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Contention\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3167/cont.2018.060207\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contention","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3167/cont.2018.060207","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
Responding to Hugo Slim’s critique, John Dunn defends
his notion of the “Epoch of Revolution.” The response advances
that this protracted epoch was defined by the unique way in which
the category of revolution itself defined key possibilities for collective
political, social, and economic transformation. In doing so,
Dunn argues, this category transformed the conditions of political
action across a large part of the world. Dunn classifies Slim’s cases
as instances of rebellion that, though significant and important, do
not share the teleological character of revolution.