In the latter portion of Wednesday’s class, we discussed the social importance of revolts in an historical context, a notion relevant to Hobswan’s discussion. The question presented dealt with the social implications and importance, as opposed to the political importance, and I believe that the direct relationship between the two is a distinct factor when speaking about the reasons, and subsequent results of, revolts in history.
While political motives are more obvious when speaking about the influence of revolts in history, the social necessity that they imply are arguably more powerful because it more directly deals with the persons involved. Essentially, the social motives, whether macro or micro, fuel both violent and non-violent revolts. For example, the rise of science and the fall of religion are particular to Hobswan’s interpretation and nicely illustrate the point that political results of these “revolts” were desired, it was only through conscious social thought, and the results of these revolts relied upon how people responded to these conquests – through the social implications rose the political change that was sought.
I wonder if these revolutionaries made these types of distinctions, differentiating between social and political, or whether this argument is purely an analytical interpretation of how late 18th century revolutions began and then culminated.