State Revolutionary situation Political situation Socio-economic conditions & culture Revolutionary ideology & forces Counterrevolutionary ideology & forces Impact & Consequences
1. “Political” — revolution as the extreme form of political process2. (Marxist) revolution as the “history of class struggle” – defined in terms of relationship between the forces of production and the forces of exploitation3. “Behavioral” - suppression of basic instincts (self-preservation, survival, etc.) generate revolutionary explosion4. “Motivational deprivation” - realization or perception of socio-economic inequality necessitate aspirations to correct it5. “Progressive deprivation” (revolution of lost illusions) – unfulfilled aspirations for better future provoke revolutionary explosion6. “State-centered” revolution – the combination of a massive crisis within the state-machinery and the part of lower classes 7. National revolution – strives for sovereignty of a national group or a country
Causes of Revolution:- weakening/erosion of power of the ruling elite- the ruling elite can not manage political crisis or effects of war- the ruling elite can not manage economic instability- the ruling elite can not/will not accommodate groups aspiring more political participation- the ruling elite can not/will not accommodate national aspirations of ethnic minorities
Success of revolution depends on:- the unity among revolutionaries - the ability of revolutionaries to keep and consolidate power- the determination of revolutionaries to achieve their objectives regardless of cost- the ability of revolutionaries to convince the population of the benefits of revolution
Pattern of European Revolution # Ideals of Justice? # Leadership: Bourgeois, Populist, Liberal, or Other? # Followers: Nobility, Burghers, Clergy, Peasantry? # Organization: Spontaneity or Structure? # Technique: Peaceful or Violent?
Your essay will be graded according to the following criteria: # It should be no more than 3 pages (double-spaced for a printed paper). If you write at home, you must use and cite two additional sources (electronic sources are off limits) outside of your main reading. Use a simple parenthetical citation (for example, George, 54), but do include the full bibliographical citation on a separate page. # Thesis (25% of the grade): the essay must have a clear and sharply focused thesis (underline it), which offers your opinion and serious insight into the topic. # Analysis (50% of the grade): you should analyze(rather than narrate) the topic and support your argument with specific examples. # Organization, grammar, and style (25% of the grade): the essay should be well organized, written in a clear and concise manner, and free of misspellings, verbosity, etc. If the reader has difficulty comprehending your arguments, your way of communicating them is inadequate.
Sample Original source: The early year 1874 will be remembered by the French merchant communities in this Consular district (Syria) with pain and distrust towards the Turkish authorities. Despite the traditional rights granted to the communities by his Majesty the Sultan, the Governorate of Syria acts as if independently from Istanbul. In many cases, its officials in ports impede the departure or arrival of our vessels unless a huge bakshish (bribe) is paid. Market and road supervisors act in a similar fashion and there are substantiated rumors that they receive a regular pay-off from the bands operating in the mountains. In fact, the entire administrative structure has become so corrupt that it is increasingly difficult to distinguish between the bandits and state officials, since both often operate in a similar brutal manner. Therefore, I have the honor to inform your Excellence that if such situation continues to exist, I would be perforce to seek the intervention of my government, whatever form that intervention may assume. Remain your humble servant, S.R. Bartolli, State Assistant Secretary, January 23, 1874
Sample response paper (part 1) The author of the letter is an official French representative to the Syrian provincial government of the Ottoman Empire. Bartoli wrote the letter presumably to the Ottoman government, perhaps to the Sultan himself although it is possible that the letter would be first received by the Minister of the Interior or other high Ottoman officials. Judging from the language of the letter, it may seem that Bartoli was trying to provoke a diplomatic incident. However, if placed in the broader context of the Ottoman-French relations in the 1870s, the letter acquires a rather different meaning. Written three years after France's humiliating defeat in the war against Prussia, the letter clearly indicates that the attitudes of the Ottoman officials, who had previously regarded France as a European superpower, started to shift and the admiration for the French army and navy has changed to a barely concealed condescension. In fact, in the 1870s inebriated by the victories over Austria and France, the united Germany began claiming its position as a world power. Accordingly, German military and diplomatic missions to the Middle East sidelined their French, British, and Russian counterparts. More and more the Ottomans and the Persians favored German military experts and engineers over the French and the British. As importantly, the “capitulations” (trade privileges) previously granted exclusively to the French and British merchants, who considered these privileges as inalienable right, now were extended to the Germans.
Sample response paper (part 2) At the same time, Bartoli is raising an important issue of the sustainability of the Ottoman government, which by this time was ridden with corruption and inefficiency. By the early 19th century the Ottoman empire was but a bleak image of the once-mighty state. Its armed forces were poorly trained and paid, its officers lagged far behind their European counterparts in training and experience, and its outdated navy was no match for French or British steamboats. The situation in finances and administration was as appalling. Some provincial governors, who accumulated considerable wealth by mercilessly taxing their subjects, ruled as they pleased in total disregard of the government in Istanbul. Others such as the Governorship of Syria, which elicited Bartoli's complains, had virtually become a safeheaven for smugglers, pirates, and bandits who ran entire districts unopposed since the administration was on their payroll. In my opinion, Bartoli's letter would be of no avail. Even if the Sultan wanted, his power over his governors had faded, and starting a war against Syria entailed the intervention of the European powers, ever ready to exploit the empire's political instability. For that matter, Bartoli's undisguised threat portends just that. In addition, in 1874 the situation in the Caucasus and in Moldavia required the deployment of the bulk of the Ottoman army against the potential Russian invasion, leaving the situation in Syria as it was. The Berlin Congress of 1878 would further weaken the centralized power of the Sultan, opening the road to eventual break-up of the empire.