Epistemologies and the Structure of Comparison in the Study of Revolution, 1970-2009

• In Event: 411 - Regular Session. Comparative Sociology: The Paradoxes of Success and Failure in Comparative Sociology

Abstract

The social scientific study of revolution has been deviled by a lack of progress in recent years, divided between competing views of whether or not there are universal causes of revolution. Drawing on an insight that different modes of comparison yield different types of knowledge, this study argues that comparison can be conceptualized as a network of cases. The structure of comparison enables or constrains different meta-theoretical positions, affecting knowledge accumulation. Analysis of all comparative social scientific studies of revolution published from 1970 to 2009 shows that a particular, non-representative variant of revolution is preferred for study, and that comparison overall is most amenable to particularistic rather than universal knowledge. Examination of changes in the study of revolution over time demonstrates that casing and comparison precede the development of the field’s epistemologies.

Author

• Colin J. Beck, Pomona College