The Sixth Great Power: On the Study of Revolution and International Relations

The Sixth Great Power: On the Study of Revolution and International Relations

Author: Fred Halliday

Source: Review of International Studies, Jul. 1990, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 207-221
Publication Note: Cambridge University Press
JSTOR Information: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20097223
Archive Download Information: Downloaded from 134.219.226.38 on Mon, 26 Oct 2020 12:04:57 UTC

Introduction: A Case of Mutual Neglect

The discipline of International Relations (IR) has experienced an inconsistent relationship with the study of revolution. Hannah Arendt's assertion that the twentieth century has been shaped by wars and revolutions is frequently cited. However, it is notable that within institutional research and scholarship on International Relations, the two historical processes of war and revolution are addressed differently.

  • Wars:

    • Numerous courses, journals, departments, and institutes exist focusing on war.

    • War's historical, strategic, and policy dimensions are prominent within the academic field.

  • Revolutions:

    • In contrast, the study of revolutions occupies a marginal space.

    • Standard textbooks and theoretical works provide minimal coverage of revolutions.

    • No dedicated journal exists solely for revolutionary studies, and there is a notable absence of specialized academic positions, such as a Professor of Revolutionary Studies.

Reasons for Marginalization

  1. The historical evolution of IR itself is rooted in the study of war and the causes of war. Most influential documents, including the United Nations Charter, center on preventing conflicts framed as rational state aggressions rather than acknowledging the role of social conflict and revolution.

  2. The incorporation of U.S. and European political science into IR reflected a shared disdain for revolutions, which were often perceived as breakdowns of orderly national or international societies.

  3. The rise of behaviorism diluted the concept of revolution into a continuum of violence and internal war, leading to a lack of analytical specificity.

  4. Neo-realism, especially in its Waltzian formulation, dismissed internal and transnational processes as reductionist, hindering the exploration of the interaction between international dynamics and revolutionary change.

  5. Broader sociocultural climates within social sciences have contributed to this neglect.

  6. Specifically, the academic focus shifted toward aspects deemed acceptable or donor-friendly, particularly at corporate and state levels.

Points of Critique

  • Alliances and Revolutions:

    • Many alliances originally aimed to suppress revolutions within member states.

    • The collapse of alliances often coincides with revolutions within their components, as demonstrated by the fates of SEATO, CENTO, and the Warsaw Pact.

    • The Baghdad Pact's transformation into CENTO illustrates CENTO's vulnerability to revolutions, first from Iraq, then marked by destabilization due to events in Vietnam and Iran.

The Study of Revolution

Academic Discourse

A dedicated study of revolution is subordinate to other social sciences, notably sociology and history, yet remains poorly integrated into IR theory.

  • Sociology:

    • Earlier works focused on revolutions as contained within discrete national entities and often neglected their international contexts.

  • Realist Perspectives:

    • Realism tends to invoke revolutions merely to illustrate the pressures of system conformity rather than examining them as independent phenomena worthy of study.

  • International Political Economy:

    • Early studies largely overlooked revolutionary upheaval, emphasizing instead relations within developed capitalist contexts.

  • Strategic Studies:

    • Focused on East-West armament races while ignoring the broader socioeconomic conflicts fueling the Cold War.

Existing Literature

Despite the marginalization, three critical strands indicate an underlying relationship between IR and revolution:

  1. Comparative Literature:

    • Exists within IR focusing on analytical discussions about revolutions, through works by authors such as Kissinger, Rosecrance, and Wight.

    • While limited in volume, these high-quality writings pose significant questions regarding revolutions in international contexts.

  2. Disguised Presence:

    • Revolutions appear disguised within discussions of transnational linkages, interventionism, and aspects of terrorism related to broader geopolitical dynamics.

  3. Cognate Literature:

    • Historical works provide insights into the international dimensions of revolutions that enrich IR discourse, notably in regard to case studies of France, Russia, and China.

Areas of Inquiry

Historical Inquiry

  • Examining the historical role of revolutions in shaping the international system and transitions leading to the modern age, as highlighted by historical figures like Hannah Arendt, who considered revolutions as major agents of change.

Descriptive Inquiry

  • Exploring international dimensions of revolutions to identify political behavior patterns, stepping beyond realist assumptions.

Theoretical Inquiry

  • Assessing theoretical implications revolutions impose on IR frameworks, challenging established paradigms to reconsider their axioms in light of revolutionary outcomes.

Defining Revolution

Skocpol’s Definition

  • The study adopts Skocpol's definition of revolution as significant socio-political transformations that fundamentally alter societal state and class structures through class revolts from below. Revolutions experienced rapid change, integrating social and political upheaval. Skocpol identifies two key intersections:

    1. Societal Structural Change combined with Class Upheaval

    2. Political Transformation aligned with Social Change

Barrington-Moore’s Contributions

  • Author of The Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy, illustrates varying paths to modernization revealing violence accompanying transitions. His insights challenge notions of peaceful evolution, emphasizing the inherent violence within modern transitions, whether revolutionary or not.

Griewank’s Classic Perspectives

  • Explores the evolution of "revolution" encompassing a range of meanings emphasized by mass involvement and the centrality of state control in modern revolutions originating from the context of the French Revolution.

The Role of Definitions

Definitions shape the discourse around revolutions, distinguishing between breakdowns and transitions with various paradigms interpreting revolutions uniquely based on their theoretical underpinnings:

  1. Realists:

    • View revolutions primarily as disruptions requiring containment, influencing states’ foreign policy approaches.

  2. Behaviourists:

    • Approach revolutions as a spectrum of violence, abstracting them from political context.

  3. Historical Materialists:

    • Appreciate revolutions as formative stages leading to substantial change, emphasizing capitalism and imperialism's influence on revolutions.

Revolutionary Change in the International System

Historical Contextualization

Martin Wight’s assertion from Power Politics suggests that revolutions regulate international politics as just as ‘normal’ as their absence; highlighting that ideologically charged revolutions underscore a considerable aspect of historical international relations. Key historical instances include:

  • Reformation (16th Century): An ideological upheaval with transnational implications.

  • 1640s Revolutions: Several European states upheaved concurrently, leading to multifaceted conflicts.

  • Atlantic Revolution (18th-19th Century): Marked by the convergence of revolutions like those in North America and France influencing global trajectories.

20th Century Impact

The Bolshevik Revolution (1917) laid foundational fissures in international relations, defining two divergent socio-political systems driving interwar tensions and postwar dynamics. The wave of third-world revolutions throughout the latter half of the century not only escalated global tensions but provided a basis for international policy formulation and responses.

Historical Generalizations on Revolutions

A systematic analysis elucidates four cardinal dimensions for exploring revolutions:

  1. Causes: Investigate how international factors incite revolutions.

  2. Foreign Policy: Analyze how revolutionary states conduct international relations.

  3. Responses: Examine how states react to revolutionary changes.

  4. Formation: Assess how international factors guide post-revolutionary state developments across extended timelines.

Conclusion on Revolutionary Dynamics
Social Dynamics and War

Revolutions intrinsically link to wars. Examining historical cases where revolutions led to wars highlights the necessity of acknowledging both interstate and intrastate security dimensions.

Character of the International System

Each IR paradigm articulates distinct notions of the international system, ranging from realism's state-centric view through historical materialism's socio-economic perspectives creating differing implications for the study of revolutionary processes.

Overall Implications

The discourse surrounding revolutions presents profound implications for re-examining IR theories and dynamics, advocating for revolutionary events as integral to understanding international complexities and structural phenomena within the global system.