The Anatomy of Revolution

Rating:
Summary: Helping Social Studies teachers since the early 60s
Review: A former teacher, who had used this book in the mid-sixties in her social studies class, introduced me to Crane Brinton's work. The Anatomy of Revolution provides the perfect companion for high school educators who want to step away from the stodgy lecture method of teaching the English, French, American, and Russian revolutions. The book is invaluable for assisting in creating lesson plans that discuss the characteristics and commonalities of revolutions. Once learned, a model can be created that students can use to analyze and evaluate any of the world's major and minor revolutions. Crane Brinton's book is a "must have" for any high school social studies teacher interested in creating similar lessons on the topic of revolution that foster higher levels of learning.

Rating:
Summary: Very Well Thought Out (a tad confusing)
Review: After using this book for a history of revolutions course, it is clear that the concepts Brinton describes become quickly lost in extensive rhetoric. While the arguments may be clear for the sole fact that they are relatively simplistic in light of revolutionary thought, Brinton's arguments, if taken alone, are loose and incomplete. He speaks of concepts, defines them four or five times, yet somehow avoids providing a clear definition of those same concepts. If you want to read this book, read a summary instead. You'll get just as much out of it and perhaps gain a clearer understanding.

Rating:
Summary: a little contrived
Review: Brinton's Anatomy of a Revolution is based on a brilliant premise - that all revolutions go through specific "stages." Using the English, French, and Russian revolutions and the American War for Independence as his models, he seeks to show common threads between the four of them.

However, there are some flaws in his thesis. As one reader pointed out, Brinton never defines what a "revolution" is - a problem especially given the fact that many do not consider the American Revolution a revolution at all. But beyond this point, there are problems as well. His model does not fit each revolution very well - especially the English Revolution's "Thermidorian Reaction" (which Brinton uses to describe the "calm" after the relative chaos and violence one usually associates with revolution.) His argument on the origins of revolution is similarly does not fit all revolutions well.

However, it is a fascinating read, and Brinton does a remarkable job in briefly and succinctly summarizing each revolution, their causes and the major players and events in them. This, if for no other reason makes it a worthwhile read.

Rating:
Summary: a little contrived
Review: Brinton's Anatomy of a Revolution is based on a brilliant premise - that all revolutions go through specific "stages." Using the English, French, and Russian revolutions and the American War for Independence as his models, he seeks to show common threads between the four of them.

However, there are some flaws in his thesis. As one reader pointed out, Brinton never defines what a "revolution" is - a problem especially given the fact that many do not consider the American Revolution a revolution at all. But beyond this point, there are problems as well. His model does not fit each revolution very well - especially the English Revolution's "Thermidorian Reaction" (which Brinton uses to describe the "calm" after the relative chaos and violence one usually associates with revolution.) His argument on the origins of revolution is similarly does not fit all revolutions well.

However, it is a fascinating read, and Brinton does a remarkable job in briefly and succinctly summarizing each revolution, their causes and the major players and events in them. This, if for no other reason makes it a worthwhile read.

Rating:
Summary: Ambitious to say the least!
Review: The Anatomy of Revolution is a fascinating, if sometimes flowery, study of the similarities between 4 major revolutions (English, American, French and Russian). Brinton does an admirable job of pulling together some very complex pieces of history into a fairly cohesive argument.

Though there are some holes, Brinton goes to great pains to emphasize that this study is tentative, that his theorems are "vague and undramatic" (p.262) and warns the reader "not to expect too much" (p.262) from the book. His integrity is admirable.

What strikes home the most is his view that the life of the common person is not significantly changed over the long term by revolution, despite the ideals and violence associated with it, and that the increasing scale of promises made to the "average Joe" are never fully realized.

This is an ambitious book that largely succeeds in its stated goal of drawing a simple theoretical construct of revolution. I'd recommend it to students of history, sociology and politics.

Rating:
Summary: Good Writing but Sloppy Scholarship
Review: The Anatomy of Revolution is a great book, but Brinton does a dangerous thing: he fails to define revolution. This leads him to include the American Revolution, which many historians and theorists of revolution do not consider a revolution at all. Indeed, it is difficult to write a useful book if your readers do not know, exactly, what your observations refer to: do these observations hold true for a coup d'etat, for example? Without defining revolution, Brinton leaves us wondering what his book does and does not appply to.
This book examines four events: the French, Russian, English and American Revolutions. Of the four, two are controversial, the American and British Revolutions. While the observations mostly dovetail with the more scientific literature on revolution and are presented in an interesting and readable format, a careful reader will be struck by how many of the comments refer only to the French and Russian revolutions, while noting that the British and American revolutions were "exceptions".
With its faults, this book ends up being more a historical case study rather than a study of revolution. It's observations are no less useful for that, however, and for those new to the field, Brinton's book makes for a readable and survivable introduction; something not to be underestimated.

Rating:
Summary: Good Writing but Sloppy Scholarship
Review: The Anatomy of Revolution is a great book, but Brinton does a dangerous thing: he fails to define revolution. This leads him to include the American Revolution, which many historians and theorists of revolution do not consider a revolution at all. Indeed, it is difficult to write a useful book if your readers do not know, exactly, what your observations refer to: do these observations hold true for a coup d'etat? Without defining revolution, Brinton leaves us wondering what his book does and does not appply to.
This book examines four events: the French, Russian, English and American Revolutions. Of the four, two are controversial, the American and British Revolutions. While the observations mostly dovetail with the more scientific literature on revolution and are presented in an interesting and readable format, a careful reader will be struck by how many of the comments refer only to the French and Russian revolutions, while noting that the British and American revolutions were "exceptions".
With its faults, this book ends up being more a historical case study rather than a study of revolution. It's observations are no less useful for that, however, and for those new to the field, Brinton's book makes for a readable and survivable introduction; something not to be underestimated.

Rating:
Summary: Truly a classic
Review: To those who argue that this book is confusing, I have to disagree. This is one of the true classic texts in the study of revolution and the ideas here have been spun out for 3 decades or more by 'revolution theorists.' As someone who has completed a degree in revolution, I have to say that this is one of the best books out there for someone interested in the anatomy of the great revolutions. A real winner and a highly recommended book.

Rating:
Summary: GREAT BOOK. VALUABLE IDEAS
Review: While it is true that comparisons of the American and English, especially the American, with the Russian and French Revolutions are very imperfect, theories proposed by Britton in
examining these revolutions are interesting. One of the most valuable ideas of his is that revolutions tend not to occur when things are really horrid, but when they are getting better. This concept proposes a tool for examining socities and predicting the future. This is consistent with the urban riots of the late 1960s with the rights gained by Blacks as opposed to the absence of such riots under Jim Crow. This could be expected using Britton's analytical tool. Another valuable concept is the return of the old order, perhaps in a different form, following the revolution, therefore Stalin follows the Czars and the First Empire after the killing of the king. Britton offers King George and the re-establishment of central authority by the Constitution, court rulings and such as an American comparison. This is really stretching a valuable idea. The British king before the revolution was certainly not a tyrant in North America. In fact the Royal Governor in Virginia was so popular that his statue still stands in front of the Wren building at William and Mary, as it did before the revolution. To compare the power of the Georges in America to that of the Czars is stretching a point. But to compare George Washington, John Adams and John Marshal to Stalin is absurd. Britton's real point is that centralization followed centralization. As Patrick Henry said of the Constittution "I smell a rat." Of course the centralization of power in Washington today is vastly greater than it ever was before 1776. The analytical tools Britton proposes are useful in predicting what will happen in particular situations , but they cannot be applied in the manner of
mathamatical formulars predicting physical, chemical or even biologic events.