Huntington links revolution tightly with modernization. He says that a revolution
is a rapid, fundamental, and violent domestic change in the dominant values and myths of
a society, in its political institutions, social structure, leadership, and government activity
and policies. He argues that revolution is one way of modernizing a traditional society.
So in the theory of Huntington, there are two kinds of societies: the traditional society
and the modern society. The traditional society which exists before the beginning of
modernization is highly stable and with limited political participation. After revolution,
modernization is achieved. Another form of steady society is created. Some factors (not
complete) features such a society: 1, the highly developed domestic economy; 2,
constitutional form of government; 3, opposition expressed freely and legally; 4, mature
civil society. Huntington describes the development of revolution. However, the
following part presents the picture of revolution in more detail and tries to reveal that
revolution is not surely the bridge linking traditional society and modern society..
Usually, the revolution can be divided into several stages:
1, Social mobilization and social stability
Modernization theory has two key hypotheses. One is the antithesis between
tradition and modernity. The other is the antithesis between social mobilization and social
stability. Social mobilization means that new groups step into political life. When a new
political power which is against existing political institutions has formed and is becoming
stronger and stronger, the traditional society is in danger of disintegration. Some conflicts
emerges which cannot be resolved by traditional methods. More and more social
members are involved in acting against the existing social institution and public order.
Along with the steady growth of social mobilization, traditional society declines and
disappears in the end. It is the conflicts among various groups that leads to the end of
traditional society.
2, The invalidity of traditional values
Values might refer to a set of rules which control people’s actions in social life.
Social values adjust and change all the time. Otherwise, the civilization would decline.
But mobilization is quite different from adjustment. The latter is a kind of gradual,
limited change, and will not cause the end of traditional society in most of cases.
The validity of traditional values is in doubt when some problems not only cannot be
resolved by traditional methods, but also cannot be settled within the existing social
framework. Compared to that in western countries, traditional values become invalid
much more sharply in non-western countries. In the original place of modernization, the
invalidity of traditional values is the result of self-examination or introspection, that is,
new values has already been created before old ones are disposed. Traditional values are
found useless during introspection. On the contrary, the traditional values become invalid
at the very beginning of the revolution in non-western countries. In western countries,
although the change of ideas is the result, it is also one of the conditions of revolution in
non-western countries. The invalidity of traditional values is the first step to social
mobilization. At this stage, only a few persons who are in the front line of cultural
conflicts can feel such a crisis. The whole society is in order and far away from upheaval
at that time.
3, The split of the elite
The elite split when traditional values become invalid. This also deepens the social
mobilization. The elite who are in the front line of cultural conflicts and who belong to
the minority culture realize first the dilemma the society is facing. Even though the mass
are more and more involved in the social activity during modernization, the elite in
traditional society act first at the very beginning of modernization, just as in other
historically important events.
At first, the elites split into revolutionaries and counterrevolutionaries.
Revolutionaries advocate change in the political institutions while counterrevolutionaries
object any alternation. The focus between revolutionaries and counterrevolutionaries is
whether or not the exist institutions should be changed in order to deal with new
circumstances. If the power of counterrevolutionaries is not so strong, the central
government might lead an effective reform, just like the case of Japan. However, if the
power of revolutionaries is less than that of counterrevolutionaries, the prospect of
modernization is obscure. Ironically, the more powerful the counterrevolutionaries are ,
the more probable the society steps into violent revolution. Then another group, the
radicals, emerges from the revolutionaries. Now, three groups, moderate,
counterrevolutionaries, and radicals are struggling for power.
In the early stage of modernization, when the society splits according to
different political ideas, who makes public policies becomes very crucial. Generally, the
group that owns the greatest power and has the most substantial social foundation makes
policies. In such circumstances, both political principles and political skills are needed to
keep the society in order. When the moderates control the government, the society seems
to be stable for some time if the moderates master the skill of negotiation and
cooperation. However, this kind of order is weak and can easily be disturbed even by an
accident, because the social foundation is changing.
4, The conflict between the radicals and the counterrevolutionaries
Usually, the revolutionaries and the counterrevolutionaries can exist in the same
political system. But after the creation of the radicals, it is impossible to keep the old
political framework untouched. When the radicals stand in the front of history, they resort
to violent tools in order to realized their ideas absolutely. In the eyes of the radicals, the
only aim of revolution is to overthrow the existing government , to smash the old social
order, to build up a completely new set of social and political institutions.
If modernization is defined as radical changes in politics, economy, society and
culture, each country that seeks modernization might experience revolution. But the time
the revolution lasts is quite different in different countries. In England, it takes 20 years
to complete the revolution, from 1640 to 1660; 26 years in France, from 1789 to 1815; 8
years in America, from 1775 to 1783. The time a revolution takes has great effects on
the social development after conflict and disorder.
Revolution stops only when the old social order disappeared completely. In
other words, revolution will not end unless the radicals come into power. During the
conflicts between the radicals and the counterrevolutionaries, most social resources are
used up. The development of domestic economy slows down. The longer the revolution
lasts, the more severe the revolution is, the less successful the modernization is. The
revolution can lead to modernization, but it is the most painful road of modernization one
country might have.
5, After revolution
Order and revolution are two wholly different values. During the progress of
modernization, revolution destroys various orders belongs to traditional society.
However, when the radicals succeed, when they come into power, some problems remain
unsolved. (Engles discusses the social disorder caused by the conflicts between ideal
society and reality after France Revolution.) Disappointed by the social reality after
revolution, social members regard economic development as the most important thing.
Political rights become trivial suddenly, they can be dispended to get social stability and
order.
The immediate result of revolution is not modernization, at least it is the case in
some South-east Asian countries and Latin-American countries. Military dictatorship can
result in some countries. The results are not the same in western and non-western
countries might because domestic social conditions and international environment are
greatly different in these two kinds of countries.
Source: http://web.stanford.edu/class/polisci311/xzliu/Polisci311-week9.doc
Web site to visit: http://web.stanford.edu
Author of the text: indicated on the source document of the above text
If you are the author of the text above and you not agree to share your knowledge for teaching, research, scholarship (for fair use as indicated in the United States copyrigh low) please send us an e-mail and we will remove your text quickly. Fair use is a limitation and exception to the exclusive right granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work. In United States copyright law, fair use is a doctrine that permits limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holders. Examples of fair use include commentary, search engines, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship. It provides for the legal, unlicensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test. (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use)
The information of medicine and health contained in the site are of a general nature and purpose which is purely informative and for this reason may not replace in any case, the council of a doctor or a qualified entity legally to the profession.
The texts are the property of their respective authors and we thank them for giving us the opportunity to share for free to students, teachers and users of the Web their texts will used only for illustrative educational and scientific purposes only.
All the information in our site are given for nonprofit educational purposes