Samuel

Are Revolutions in our period better understood as a kind of natural phenomenon or as a form of learned behaviour?

At this stage, it is particularly important to be precise in the terms which we will use. In the absence of any commonly-accepted usage of the phrases natural phenomenon and learned behaviour when it comes to applying them to revolutions, I think the following descriptions will serve as good markers to serve as the boundaries for argument. Revolution should be taken to mean physical force (or the threat of it) successfully challenging and changing existing political organisation. As a result of this, political upheaval during our period which did not result in significant change will mostly not be discussed. Revolution as a natural phenomenon should be regarded as revolution which came about primarily through as a (perhaps predictable) reaction to social and economic conditions. Learned behaviour will be taken to mean something distinct to this a revolution not primarily caused by wider context but by more secondary factors such as political ideologies or imitation of other revolutionary movements. Obviously, all revolutions take place within a social context and so in many ways the two definitions of revolution are intertwined; however one key distinction is that revolution as a natural phenomenon implies a certain degree of inevitability and self-sufficiency which does not necessarily apply for revolution as learned behaviour. The overall trend which we find in our period is that over time there is a shift from revolutions as a natural phenomenon to revolutions which would be better described as learned behaviour, with the 1848 revolutions as a key moment in this transition. The first set of revolutions which we need to examine took place in 1830, although there had been revolutionary-style tumult in Europe for at least a decade beforehand. These revolutions were clearly natural phenomena, with what few revolutionaries there were merely taking advantage of existing upheaval rather than initiating and guiding it. Ideologies such as utopian socialism and nationalism were only just beginning to enter the public consciousness and they had none of the authority which was conferred on Marxism and refined intellectual theories of the state in future years. Steady population growth across Europe, industrialisation and reorganisation of society away towards more capitalistic systems were some of the key social pressures which created tensions. The middle classes and the nobles began to emerge as challengers to autocratic government and this combined with working class grievances led to the July Days in Paris. That this revolution was not primarily a revolution of learned behaviour is shown by the fact that initially there was no wider revolution inspired by the example of Paris and when revolution did spread across Europe it was not seeking to imitate the French model. To an extent, the July Days were incidental to the process of revolution except as a spark the basis for revolution had been formed through the many social and economic grievances which the people had accumulated since the ending of the Napoleonic War. Radicalism and the seeds of nationalism began to emerge, but they did not happen soon enough to fully exploit the unrest of the 1830s revolutions and so challenge the European status quo decisively. There were two levels to these revolutions. Firstly, on a continental scale, a struggling radical consciousness began to emerge which would become more and more significant to revolution in the later parts of the nineteenth century. Secondly, at the more local level, we can see that revolutionaries challenged the existing power structures and succeeded in forcing political change, for example in France and Switzerland. The Swiss movements obtained fairer canton democracy

Samuel while class consciousness began to become a political influence in French politics. The 1830 revolutions represent (at the local level) natural phenomenon versions of revolution which succeed, even in a limited fashion, in changing power structures. They also represent an important set of concept which would have a significant impact on later revolutions witness Victor Hugos enshrining of the barricades in his seminal novel Les Miserables. The 1830 revolutions were a natural phenomenon, yet they influenced later revolutions in such a way that those revolutions would be classed as ones of learned behaviour because they imitate the 1830 upheavals. When we examine the wave of revolutions which erupted across Europe in 1848, and continued until 1850, we see that they were a form of natural behaviour in the sense that they can be seen as inevitable but on the other hand they were also a kind of learned behaviour because of their strong imitation of the French Revolution. It had been widely predicted in the years before 1848 that revolution would occur not just revolution confined to individual nations, but Europe-wide revolution. The key factors that observers thought were crucial to this were the increased social misery and poverty which economic development had caused, rising social tensions as a reaction to economic inequality and the injustices of early nineteenth century European society, emigration and forced displacement of populations and lastly the economic crisis which had been largely caused by the Irish potato blight and agricultural depression. To an extent, therefore, we should think of the 1848 revolutions as a natural phenomenon because they were predictable and so somewhat inevitable. Yet the strong ideological component of the revolutions, especially in the early stages, and also the large degree of imitation which occurred both between contemporary revolutionary movements and also mimicry of the historical example of the French Revolution suggests that the 1848 revolutions were not so much a natural phenomenon as one that was artificially induced by political groups. At the beginning of the revolutions, there was strong popular sentiment in favour of a European-wide democratic revolution. Ideologies such as a desire for socialism or nationalist selfdetermination played a role in causing revolution which they had never done so before. Improved communications, more coherent intellectual syntheses of these ideas and a dramatic increase in political publications (in Prussia the number of political newspapers increased by 56% from 1847-50 alone1) all allowed political revolutionaries to become the primary cause of violence, instead of economic hardship, for the first time. In addition, the relatively speedy failure of the 1848 revolutions supports the notion that the revolutions were a form of learned behaviour had they been a natural phenomenon they perhaps would have lasted longer and resulted in more transformation. While the 1871 Paris Commune insurrection was not successful enough to be seriously considered as a revolution in our period, it conveniently illustrates both the differences between the natural phenomenon/learned behaviour interpretations of revolution and the shift that occurred after the 1848 revolutions. In one sense the revolt was a reaction to the Prussian-dominated National Assembly after the collapse of the Second Empire, and that would suggest that it was a natural phenomenon; a normal and indeed inevitable backlash. Yet this over-simplification obscures the reality of the ideological roots of this movement. It was born out of the frustrations of the 1848 revolutions. Writers and intellectuals such as Jules Valles saw the repression of the June Days as the spark that prompted socialism to come about, while radicals were bitter about the promise of the
1

p. 3 Evans

Samuel 1848 revolutions having not been realised. They saw the 1848 revolutions as a betrayal of democratic revolution by the bourgeoisie and set up the Paris commune as a revolutionary proletarian government seeking to prevent such an abuse from happening again. Although the budding revolution was quickly and bloodily snuffed out, it is significant because of the fact that it was primarily driven by ideological concerns. Had it been a natural phenomenon the revolution would have consisted of mass uprisings in the cities and rural areas over a wide geographical area, which then could have been harnessed by one particular revolutionary group towards a particular aim. As it was, the Commune collapsed through a lack of support and a splintering of the radical movement into ideological camps. That the 1871 Parisian revolt was one based on learned behaviour is shown by the lack of general support for the revolution outside of radical parties and the lack of a specific agenda for social and economic reform. In order for it to have been successful, it needed to have been based on widespread upheaval and revolutionary unity which could only really have been provided by a revolution that had arisen as a natural phenomenon. It must be said that the 1905 revolution in Russia is a partial exception to the trend described here of revolutions over time becoming ones of learned behaviour rather than natural phenomenon because it had some of the characteristics of a natural phenomenon revolution. It was made possible by mass upheavals in Western Russia of the peasantry and the proletariat, which was caused by a desire on the part of the masses for improved social conditions and a greater share in political power. Had it not been for the strikes and other actions of the organised populace, the revolution would not have been able to extract the concessions which it did from the Tsar. However, these considerations must be balanced against the fact that there was a decline in mass-movement activity over the period of the revolution and afterwards, and the new political constitution was limited with the Tsar still as the absolute ruler. In addition, the nationalist movements and socialist revolutionaries played a crucial role in directing the revolution and using violence to confront the government. We see a different process being effected in the revolution of the Young Turks in the Ottoman Empire in 1908. A relatively small, but influential, group of bourgeoisie and military officers suddenly coalesced when threatened with a purge, and launched a revolution in order to survive. By depriving the sultanate of the use of the army the Young Turks made a revolution possible in 1908 even if they didnt manage to complete reforms owing to the beginning of the First World War. However, the Young Turks were able to gain control of the mechanisms by which the government exerted force namely, the army while the Russian revolutionaries did not. Ultimately, this was the difference between the two revolutions in this period. Both revolutions can be described as a mixture of natural phenomenon and learned behaviour, but they show us as historians the significance of the control of the instruments of force. In conclusion, we can clearly see that there is a trend in our changing attitudes towards how we define revolutions over this period. The 1830 revolutions, and to a lesser extent the 1848 and even 1905 revolutions, exhibit the characteristics of natural phenomena in that they rely on mass movement but arise as a consequence of the broad economic and social conditions. Natural phenomenon revolutions typically seek to expand the franchise, remove inequality of status before the law, try to improve social conditions and they tend to not be so dependent on a particular ideology to justify using physical force against the existing regime. It is true that the majority of revolutions and upheavals during the nineteenth century belonged to this category to a greater or lesser extent. However what we see over our period is that the description of revolutions as learned

Samuel behaviour (meaning ideologically based, led by a specific group of radicals rather than being a popular demonstration and consciously imitating and working with other revolutionary movements) becomes more and more significant. Learned behaviour is not a label that we can truthfully employ to speak of the 1830 revolutions, yet by the end of the period we can certainly describe the 1905 and 1908 revolutions as belonging in such a category. As long as we are careful to emphasis the limits of this distinction and note that there is much area of overlap between the two groups, it is legitimate to make this distinction and see how revolutions evolve in our period from natural phenomena to ones based on a learned behaviour.

Bibliography Peter Calvert - Revolution Robert Gildea - Barricades and Borders: Europe 1800-1914 Evans & Pogge von Strandmann - The Revolutions in Europe 1848-1849 M.E. Yapp The Making of The Modern Near East Clive Church Europe in 1830 Nader Sohrabi Historicizing Revolutions Jonathan Sperber The European Revolutions 1848-51