Defining Revolution- Second Generation Theorists

The revolutionary second generation theorists, Samuel Huntington and Charles Tilley 's definitions, are all considered part of second generation theorists who deal with revolutionary problems. These theorists combine a revolutionary approach and a pluralist approach, and believe that the event is the result of a conflict between competing interest groups. Both theorists believe that the revolution is the ultimate political confrontation and ultimately weaken the political system the revolution opposes.

Perez Zagorin has defined three different query lines for the research revolution. The first is a detailed explanation of a specific revolution. The second part is a formal comparison of two or more revolution to reveal any important relationship between them. And finally, the third kind of exploration is theoretical and its aim is to establish a revolutionary theory that can interpret cause, process, and effect as change. "3 However, Perez Zagorin observes itself, this is the third theoretical study of the poorest revolution.

There seems to be nothing that can be used as general revolution theory. Furthermore, there is little accumulation of progressive ideas in theorists. The general theory of the revolution still has confusion, difference between doubt and opinion. Even the definition of the domain that I explain does not solve the basic problem of terminology and delimiters. Recent American revolution history studies (with some remarkable exceptions) focus on this. However, the most outstanding feature of the 200th anniversary ceremony is the lack of new, new interpretation that explains the broader meaning of this historical event.

Revolution is often understood as an example of fundamental social and political transformation. Since the "revolutionary era" in the second half of the eighteenth century, political philosophers and theorists decided what forms of change can be considered revolutionary, in contrast to reformative type changes We have developed a method to decide. And under what conditions such changes can be justified by normative discussion (eg relying on human rights). This term was born in the field of astrology and astronomy, but the "revolution" has gradually witnessed politicalization since the 17th century.

Thomas Kuhn identified the characteristics of the scientific revolution based on the first scientific revolution and the understanding of the second scientific revolution. His conclusion is that this revolution is the result of the scientific crisis. But he missed some important clues about how the revolution evolved. We should not see the crisis, we should see the main trends of science before human revolution and human thought, and then we better understand how the scientific revolution appeared from the normal evolution of science I can. Rather than defining the revolution through the former crisis, the revolution has actually come from the success of the previous science, each revolution contains the seeds of the next revolution. These species will eventually be in danger of causing a revolution. In this case, the relativistic space-time revolution has never been completed, so we can lay the foundation for the next scientific revolution.