Latest / Sleepy Facts About History / How Do Old Political Orders Lose Their Legitimacy? - The Contested Transfer of Legitimacy | Sleepy Facts About History

Transcript

How Do Old Political Orders Lose Their Legitimacy? - The Contested Transfer of Legitimacy | Sleepy Facts About History · Sleepy Facts About History

• 0:04
  welcome to sleepy facts about history the violence
• 0:13
  of revolution is easy to photograph but the true
• 0:16
  historical turning point happens when people
• 0:19
  stop acting as if the old order is legitimate
• 0:22
  and begin organizing as if a new one is possible
• 0:25
  this episode examines the precise differences
• 0:29
  between revolutions coups revolts civil wars
• 0:34
  and independent struggles. By looking at examples
• 0:37
  from the French Revolution and the English Civil
• 0:39
  War, to the Haitian Uprising and the Russian
• 0:42
  Revolution, it explores how organized alternatives
• 0:45
  propose a new basis for who may rule and for
• 0:49
  whose benefit. I wanted to understand why we
• 0:53
  often confuse these upheavals, given that the
• 0:56
  violence looks so similar. While working on this
• 1:00
  episode, I kept returning to one question. What
• 1:03
  actually makes a transformation revolutionary?
• 1:06
  It turns out that the answer lies not in the
• 1:10
  scale of force, but in the claims people make
• 1:13
  about the right to rule, the documents they produce
• 1:16
  to justify their power, and the slower, uneven
• 1:19
  transformations that outlast the dramatic days
• 1:22
  of conflict. The violence of revolution is easy
• 1:28
  to photograph. What the camera cannot capture,
• 1:32
  is the precise moment when people stop acting
• 1:35
  as if the old order were legitimate and begin
• 1:38
  organizing as if a new one were possible. This
• 1:42
  program will examine that moment. When we hear
• 1:46
  the word revolution, most of us picture a crowd
• 1:49
  storming a palace, a flag being raised over a
• 1:53
  barricade, a king fleeing into exile. The image
• 1:57
  is violent, sudden and decisive. But here's the
• 2:01
  problem. The same image could describe a coup,
• 2:05
  a revolt, a civil war, an independence struggle,
• 2:10
  or even a reform movement that got out of hand.
• 2:13
  The violence looks similar. The difference lies
• 2:17
  in something we cannot photograph. It lies in
• 2:20
  the claims people are making about who has the
• 2:23
  right to rule, and what happens to those claims
• 2:26
  afterward. Tonight, I want to help you see that
• 2:30
  difference clearly, because it changes how we
• 2:33
  understand almost every major upheaval in history.
• 2:36
  Let me begin with six short examples that look
• 2:40
  alike at first, but belong to different categories.
• 2:44
  In 1799, Napoleon Bonaparte, already a famous
• 2:49
  general, walked into the French legislature with
• 2:52
  a small group of soldiers and dissolved the Directory.
• 2:55
  the government of revolutionary France. He then
• 2:59
  had himself appointed First Consul. This was
• 3:03
  a coup d 'etat. It was a seizure of power by
• 3:06
  someone already inside the state apparatus, using
• 3:10
  force or the threat of force. Napoleon changed
• 3:14
  who ruled France, but he did not initially claim
• 3:17
  to be founding a new kind of legitimacy. He presented
• 3:21
  himself as restoring order to the revolution.
• 3:24
  not redefining who could rule or why. Now consider
• 3:29
  the German Peasants' War of 1524 -1525. Tens
• 3:34
  of thousands of peasants across central Germany
• 3:37
  rose against their lords, demanding an end to
• 3:40
  serfdom and the right to choose their own pastors.
• 3:43
  They were armed, organized, and in some regions
• 3:46
  they held territory for months. But their claims
• 3:50
  were largely local and restorative. They wanted
• 3:54
  to restore what they believed were ancient rites,
• 3:57
  not to create a new political order. When the
• 4:00
  revolt was crushed, perhaps 100 ,000 peasants
• 4:04
  dead, it was remembered as a rebellion, a failed
• 4:08
  unlawful rising. The late football field itself
• 4:12
  was a judgment. The English Civil War of 1642
• 4:17
  -1651 looks different again. Hartham raised an
• 4:21
  army against King Charles I, defeated him tried
• 4:25
  him for treason against his own people and executed
• 4:27
  him in 1649 for years afterward the conflict
• 4:32
  was called the great rebellion by royalists only
• 4:36
  gradually did some call it a revolution and even
• 4:40
  then the meaning was uncertain it was sustained
• 4:44
  armed conflict within a single political community
• 4:47
  it was civil war But it also involved claims
• 4:51
  that sovereignty lay with the people or their
• 4:54
  representatives, claims that went beyond mere
• 4:57
  rebellion. The American War of Independence,
• 5:01
  beginning in 1775, was initially an armed protest
• 5:05
  within the British Empire. The Continental Congress
• 5:08
  did not declare independence until July 1776,
• 5:12
  more than a year after fighting began. Even then,
• 5:16
  the primary claim was separation. national self
• 5:19
  -determination, not necessarily the transformation
• 5:23
  of society. Yet the Declaration of Independence
• 5:26
  made revolutionary assertions about natural rights
• 5:30
  and the consent of the governed. It was an independent
• 5:33
  struggle that became, in part, a revolution.
• 5:37
  The Haitian uprising that began in 1791 presents
• 5:41
  yet another pattern. Enslaved people in the French
• 5:45
  colony of Saint -Domingue rose against plantation
• 5:47
  owners, then against the French Republic, then
• 5:51
  against Napoleon's attempt to restore slavery.
• 5:55
  They organized armies, wrote constitutions, and
• 5:59
  in 1804 declared independence as Haiti. This
• 6:03
  was simultaneously a slave revolt, an anti -colonial
• 6:07
  war, and a revolution. and claimed citizenship
• 6:14
  for people of African descent in a world that
• 6:17
  denied them humanity. Finally, consider the Reform
• 6:21
  Act of 1832 in Britain. No barricades, no executions,
• 6:27
  no foreign war. Yet it fundamentally altered
• 6:31
  who could vote and how representation was distributed,
• 6:34
  responding to decades of organized pressure.
• 6:37
  It was reform within the system. but its effects
• 6:41
  on British political life were arguably deeper
• 6:43
  than many violent upheavals elsewhere. These
• 6:47
  six cases share moments of violence and confrontation.
• 6:51
  They include a coup, a revolt, a civil war, an
• 6:56
  independence struggle, a revolution, and a reform.
• 7:00
  But they differ in their relationship to legitimacy.
• 7:04
  Legitimacy is the belief that a ruler or system
• 7:07
  has the right to command obedience. and they
• 7:11
  differ in what comes after because the labels
• 7:13
  we apply are not neutral descriptions. They are
• 7:17
  retrospective claims, often made by winners,
• 7:20
  to justify what happened and what replaced it.
• 7:24
  To understand when a rebellion becomes a revolution,
• 7:27
  we need to look at two things that usually happen
• 7:30
  together. First, a crisis of authority in which
• 7:33
  the existing order loses its capacity to command
• 7:36
  belief and obedience. Second, The emergence of
• 7:41
  organized alternatives that do not merely resist
• 7:43
  the old order, but propose a new basis for who
• 7:46
  may rule and for whose benefit. Let us examine
• 7:50
  the crisis of authority first, because without
• 7:53
  it, no uprising becomes more than a revolt. In
• 7:58
  France in 1788, the monarchy faced bankruptcy
• 8:01
  after decades of war and court extravagance.
• 8:05
  The King Louis XVI could not raise taxes without
• 8:08
  consent. The only body that could grant consent
• 8:12
  was the Estates General, an assembly that had
• 8:16
  not met since 1614. When he called it, he opened
• 8:20
  a door he could not control. The fiscal crisis
• 8:24
  was not unique. Many states have faced bankruptcy.
• 8:28
  But the monarchy's visible inability to solve
• 8:31
  it without help exposed a deeper incapacity.
• 8:35
  The king was supposed to embody the state. Now
• 8:39
  he needed permission to govern. The Russian autocracy
• 8:43
  collapsed under similar pressure in 1917, but
• 8:47
  faster. The Empire had fought the First World
• 8:50
  War for three years with inadequate supplies.
• 8:54
  catastrophic casualties and a transport system
• 8:57
  breaking down in february 1917 food shortages
• 9:02
  in petrograd led to strikes and demonstrations
• 9:04
  the czar's troops the ultimate guarantor of autocratic
• 9:09
  power refused to fire on crowds within days the
• 9:14
  monarchy that had ruled for three centuries simply
• 9:16
  dissolved nicholas ii abdicated not because he
• 9:21
  was defeated by a revolutionary army but because
• 9:24
  no one, including his own generals, believed
• 9:27
  he could still govern. England in 1640 presents
• 9:32
  a slower crisis. Charles I had ruled without
• 9:36
  Parliament for 11 years, raising money through
• 9:39
  archaic and resented expedients. When he needed
• 9:43
  funds to suppress rebellion in Scotland, he was
• 9:46
  forced to recall Parliament. The long parliament
• 9:49
  that assembled in November 1640 immediately moved
• 9:53
  to limit his power, abolish his courts, and secure
• 9:57
  regular meetings. The crisis was not sudden bankruptcy.
• 10:01
  It was the accumulated demonstration that the
• 10:04
  king could not manage his kingdom without his
• 10:07
  subjects' cooperation. And when he asked for
• 10:10
  it, they would demand transformation in return.
• 10:14
  In each case, the crisis was not merely material.
• 10:18
  It was a crisis of belief. People stopped acting
• 10:22
  as if the old order were legitimate. Soldiers
• 10:26
  refused orders. Officials delayed implementation.
• 10:31
  Ordinary people stopped paying taxes or obeying
• 10:34
  courts. This is the moment when rebellion becomes
• 10:37
  possible. But it does not yet make a revolution.
• 10:42
  For that, something else must emerge. an organized
• 10:46
  alternative that claims not merely to resist
• 10:49
  but to replace. On June 28, 1789, deputies of
• 10:55
  the Third Estate in France, locked out of their
• 10:57
  usual meeting hall, gathered in an indoor tennis
• 11:01
  court near the Palace of Versailles. The space
• 11:04
  was a bare rectangular hall with high windows.
• 11:07
  Wooden benches pushed aside. The deputies crowded
• 11:11
  together in ordinary clothes rather than the
• 11:13
  robes of clergy or nobility. They raised their
• 11:17
  hands, voices overlapping in the improvised setting,
• 11:20
  and swore an oath not to disperse until they
• 11:23
  had given France a constitution. This was not
• 11:27
  a riot. It was a deliberate, organized claim
• 11:30
  that they, not the king, not the traditional
• 11:33
  orders of clergy or nobility, represented the
• 11:36
  nation. When they later declared themselves the
• 11:39
  National Assembly, they were not simply rebelling.
• 11:42
  They were proposing a new foundation for legitimate
• 11:45
  rule. That foundation was the nation itself,
• 11:49
  embodied in elected representatives. The English
• 11:53
  Parliament in 1649 went further. It created a
• 11:58
  court, put the king on trial, and executed him.
• 12:02
  The scene was unprecedented. Charles I sat in
• 12:06
  a chair before the court that claimed authority
• 12:08
  over him. The prosecutor read charges of treason
• 12:12
  against his own people. The king refused to recognize
• 12:16
  the court's legitimacy because no earthly body
• 12:19
  could judge a monarch. The man who claimed to
• 12:22
  rule by divine right was now required to answer
• 12:25
  to a body that claimed to represent the people
• 12:27
  of England. This inversion of the entire hierarchy
• 12:31
  of legitimacy. was visible in the physical arrangement
• 12:34
  of the room. Whether most English people agreed
• 12:38
  mattered less than the fact that an organized
• 12:40
  body had acted on the claim and made it stick,
• 12:44
  at least for 11 years of Republican government.
• 12:48
  The Haitian revolutionaries organized armies
• 12:51
  under military discipline, negotiated with foreign
• 12:54
  powers and wrote constitutions. The 1805 Haitian
• 12:59
  Constitution, drafted under Jean -Jacques Dessalines,
• 13:02
  declared all citizens equal regardless of color
• 13:05
  abolished slavery forever and restricted land
• 13:08
  ownership to citizens this effectively meant
• 13:12
  people of african descent the document itself
• 13:15
  was written in french the language of the former
• 13:18
  colonizer because the revolutionary culture of
• 13:21
  the era had no other available idiom for universal
• 13:24
  claims a piece of paper carried the weight of
• 13:28
  an impossible claim Freedom was announced in
• 13:31
  the language of enslavement. Citizenship was
• 13:35
  asserted in a world built on racial hierarchy.
• 13:38
  This was not merely independence from France.
• 13:42
  It was a revolutionary redefinition of who could
• 13:45
  be a citizen. In Russia, in 1917, the crisis
• 13:50
  of February produced two competing organized
• 13:52
  alternatives. The provisional government, formed
• 13:57
  from the old Duma, claimed continuity with parliamentary
• 14:00
  legitimacy. The Petrograd Soviet of workers'
• 14:05
  and soldiers' deputies, formed spontaneously
• 14:07
  from striking workers and mutinous soldiers,
• 14:10
  claimed to represent the revolutionary masses.
• 14:14
  This dual power was itself a symptom of revolutionary
• 14:17
  uncertainty. Two organized alternatives coexisted,
• 14:22
  neither fully legitimate, neither able to govern
• 14:25
  alone. The Bolshevik seizure of power in October
• 14:29
  1917 was, in military terms, a coup. A small
• 14:34
  discipline party took control of railway stations,
• 14:37
  telegraph offices and bridges across Petrograd
• 14:41
  at night, isolating the provisional government
• 14:43
  in the Winter Palace. It was a military operation,
• 14:47
  not a popular uprising. A small number of people
• 14:51
  seized the infrastructure of communication and
• 14:53
  transportation. But it succeeded because it could
• 14:57
  claim to act through the Soviets, the councils
• 15:00
  that had emerged from the revolutionary process.
• 15:03
  The coup was wrapped in the language of revolutionary
• 15:06
  legitimacy. Whether that claim was genuine or
• 15:10
  instrumental has been debated ever since. The
• 15:13
  point for our purposes is that the Bolsheviks
• 15:15
  understood they needed more than force. They
• 15:19
  needed an alternative claim to rightful rule.
• 15:23
  This is what distinguishes revolution from other
• 15:26
  forms of upheaval. A coup changes the ruler.
• 15:30
  A revolt resists the ruler. A civil war contests
• 15:35
  control of the state. An independence struggle
• 15:38
  seeks separation. But a revolution proposes a
• 15:42
  new basis for legitimacy itself. It proposes
• 15:46
  popular sovereignty, national representation,
• 15:49
  racial equality, workers' power. and it organizes
• 15:53
  institutions to embody that claim. The organized
• 15:57
  alternative matters, because revolution is not
• 16:00
  simply a day of violence. It is a process, and
• 16:05
  processes unfold over time in ways that their
• 16:07
  participants rarely foresee. Consider what happened
• 16:12
  after the dramatic moments. The French Revolution
• 16:15
  is conventionally dated to 1789. but its transformations
• 16:20
  extended for years and decades. The National
• 16:23
  Assembly abolished feudal privileges in August
• 16:26
  1789, but the legal restructuring of property,
• 16:30
  inheritance and local government continued through
• 16:33
  the 1790s and beyond. The metric system, introduced
• 16:37
  in 1799, replaced a patchwork of local measures.
• 16:42
  Each of those measures was tied to local lords,
• 16:45
  markets and customs. The new system used a single
• 16:49
  universal standard based on the meter, defined
• 16:53
  as a fraction of the Earth's meridian. This was
• 16:56
  a claim that legitimate measurement came from
• 16:59
  nature and reason, not from local authority or
• 17:02
  tradition. The old measures were not merely inconvenient.
• 17:06
  They were embedded in the old order of privilege
• 17:09
  and local power. The revolutionary transformation
• 17:13
  of everyday measurement outlasted every revolutionary
• 17:17
  government. The English Revolution presents a
• 17:21
  more paradoxical pattern. The Republic established
• 17:24
  after Charles I's execution collapsed in 1660
• 17:29
  with the restoration of the monarchy, yet the
• 17:32
  limits on royal power that Parliament had asserted
• 17:34
  became established practice. Lees included regular
• 17:38
  sessions, control of taxation, and no standing
• 17:42
  army without consent. Charles II and James II
• 17:46
  tested these limits and found them real. The
• 17:50
  Glorious Revolution of 1688 -1689, itself a contested
• 17:56
  label, was in part a confirmation that the revolutionary
• 17:59
  assertions of the 1640s had become unspoken constitutional
• 18:03
  fact. The revolution had failed institutionally
• 18:08
  but transformed expectations. The Haitian Revolution
• 18:12
  abolished slavery and established independence,
• 18:15
  but it did not end racial hierarchy or economic
• 18:18
  dependency. The new state faced international
• 18:21
  isolation. It was forced to pay indemnity to
• 18:26
  France where lost property and enslaved people,
• 18:29
  a debt that crippled its economy for generations.
• 18:32
  The revolution succeeded in its central claim.
• 18:36
  the end of slavery, but reproduced new forms
• 18:38
  of inequality and authoritarianism. Success and
• 18:43
  failure were not binary. This brings us to a
• 18:47
  difficult point. We often judge revolutions by
• 18:50
  whether their new government survives. But this
• 18:54
  is misleading. Revolutions can fail politically
• 18:57
  while transforming society. They can succeed
• 19:00
  politically while betraying their transformative
• 19:03
  claims. The Russian Revolution produced a new
• 19:07
  authoritarian state that lasted 74 years, but
• 19:11
  the workers' democracy its leaders claimed to
• 19:13
  build never materialized. The American Revolution
• 19:17
  established a durable republic, but it preserved
• 19:20
  and expanded slavery for decades, excluded women
• 19:23
  and the poor from political participation, and
• 19:27
  dispossessed indigenous peoples. Institutional
• 19:30
  survival is one measure. It is not the only measure,
• 19:35
  and it may not be the most important. The slower
• 19:38
  transformations matter as much as the dramatic
• 19:41
  days. Revolutionary changes in taxation, property
• 19:45
  law, social rank, gender relations, and political
• 19:49
  language often outlast the revolutionary governments
• 19:52
  that initiated them. The French Revolution's
• 19:56
  reorganization of local administration into departments
• 20:00
  replaced a patchwork of provincial privileges
• 20:02
  with uniform citizenship. The Russian Revolution's
• 20:06
  expansion of literacy and education reached remote
• 20:09
  regions that the Tsarist state had neglected.
• 20:12
  The Bolshevik state sent teachers, printed materials,
• 20:16
  and literacy campaigns into regions where the
• 20:19
  Tsarist state had provided almost no schooling.
• 20:22
  This was not merely benevolent. It was also a
• 20:26
  way of extending state power and revolutionary
• 20:29
  ideology into the countryside. The transformation
• 20:33
  was real, but it was also instrumental. These
• 20:37
  were not the headlines of revolutionary violence,
• 20:39
  but they shaped how ordinary people lived. The
• 20:44
  slower transformations are also uneven. They
• 20:47
  change some aspects of life more than others,
• 20:50
  and they often reveal the limits of revolutionary
• 20:52
  claims. Gender offers a particularly telling
• 20:56
  example. The French Revolution proclaimed universal
• 21:00
  rights but excluded women from political citizenship.
• 21:04
  Yet the revolutionary language of rights and
• 21:06
  equality became available for later claims. The
• 21:10
  Haitian Revolution abolished slavery without
• 21:13
  fully addressing the specific exploitation of
• 21:15
  women within plantation labor and family structures.
• 21:19
  Revolutions often reproduce old inequalities.
• 21:23
  even as they open new possibilities for challenging
• 21:26
  them. The contradiction is not accidental. It
• 21:30
  is built into the gap between revolutionary claims
• 21:33
  and the social materials available to realize
• 21:36
  them. Now we can return to our central question
• 21:39
  with fuller understanding. When does a rebellion
• 21:43
  become a revolution? The answer is not found
• 21:47
  in the scale of violence, the overthrow of a
• 21:49
  government, or the survival of a new regime.
• 21:53
  It is found in the contested transfer of legitimacy.
• 21:56
  It is found in the struggle over who may rule,
• 21:59
  by what authority, and for whose benefit. This
• 22:03
  struggle is visible in the documents revolutionaries
• 22:06
  produce. The English Bill of Rights of 1689,
• 22:10
  the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and
• 22:13
  of the Citizen of 1789, the American Declaration
• 22:16
  of Independence of 1776. the Haitian Declaration
• 22:21
  of Independence of 1804, the Soviet Decrees of
• 22:25
  1917. These are not mere propaganda. They are
• 22:30
  attempts to articulate a new foundation for legitimate
• 22:33
  rule, to explain why the old foundation has failed,
• 22:37
  and to persuade others to recognize the new one.
• 22:40
  They are the paperwork of revolutionary legitimacy.
• 22:44
  But the same documents reveal the contested nature
• 22:47
  of the transfer. The English Bill of Rights was
• 22:51
  framed as a restoration of ancient liberties,
• 22:53
  not a revolution. The word revolution itself
• 22:57
  still carried its older meaning of cyclical return.
• 23:00
  It meant the restoration of a proper order that
• 23:03
  had been disturbed. Only gradually, especially
• 23:07
  after the French Revolution, did revolution come
• 23:10
  to mean fundamental, forward -looking transformation.
• 23:14
  The change in the word's meaning is itself a
• 23:17
  historical record of how political language evolves.
• 23:21
  The French Declaration of the Rights of Man claimed
• 23:24
  that sovereignty resided in the nation, but it
• 23:27
  left undefined who constituted the nation and
• 23:30
  how that sovereignty was to be exercised. The
• 23:33
  American Declaration asserted that all men were
• 23:36
  created equal while its author owned enslaved
• 23:38
  people, and the new nation protected slavery
• 23:41
  in its constitution. The Haitian Declaration
• 23:44
  wrote freedom in the language of the colonizer,
• 23:46
  French, because the revolutionary culture of
• 23:49
  the era had no other available idiom for universal
• 23:52
  claims. Each document is simultaneously a genuine
• 23:56
  revolutionary assertion and a compromise with
• 23:59
  the limits of its moment. The labels applied
• 24:02
  to these events are similarly contested. The
• 24:06
  English events of 1688 -1689 were called the
• 24:10
  Glorious Revolution by weak supporters. They
• 24:14
  used the label to celebrate the replacement of
• 24:16
  James II by William and Mary as a bloodless,
• 24:20
  constitutional, and providentially favoured transfer
• 24:22
  of power. For Catholics, for the Irish who suffered
• 24:27
  under William's campaigns, for the poor who gained
• 24:30
  nothing, it was not glorious. For Jacobites who
• 24:34
  supported the Stuart claim, it was not legitimate.
• 24:38
  The label was a political act, not a neutral
• 24:41
  description. The American War of Independence
• 24:45
  was called a revolution by some participants,
• 24:48
  and many later historians, but the Continental
• 24:51
  Congress initially claimed to be defending traditional
• 24:54
  English liberties against an overreaching ministry.
• 24:57
  The revolutionary character of the event grew
• 25:00
  in retrospect. The new nation needed a founding
• 25:04
  mythology. and the social transformations, expanded
• 25:09
  white male suffrage, weakened aristocratic privilege,
• 25:12
  religious disestablishment in some states, became
• 25:16
  visible. The Russian events of 1917 were called
• 25:20
  the February Revolution and the October Revolution
• 25:23
  by the Bolsheviks. They had an interest in presenting
• 25:27
  both as moments of popular uprising rather than
• 25:30
  as a collapse followed by a coup. Their opponents
• 25:34
  called October a coup, a seizure of power by
• 25:37
  a minority against the will of the elected constituent
• 25:41
  assembly. The label revolution was itself a stake
• 25:44
  in the ongoing struggle. This is why the question
• 25:48
  of when a rebellion becomes a revolution has
• 25:51
  no single objective answer. It depends on who
• 25:55
  is asking, when and for what purpose. A historian
• 25:59
  writing in 1950 may see patterns invisible to
• 26:03
  participants in 1789. A defeated royalist may
• 26:07
  call an event a rebellion forever. A victorious
• 26:11
  nationalist may call the same event a revolution
• 26:14
  to legitimize the new state. The label is not
• 26:18
  arbitrary. It must be supported by evidence,
• 26:22
  organization, and outcomes. But it is never simply
• 26:26
  a description. What we can say with confidence
• 26:30
  is this. Revolution is not simply rapid disorder.
• 26:34
  It is not merely successful rebellion. It is
• 26:38
  a specific kind of political transformation in
• 26:41
  which a crisis of existing legitimacy produces
• 26:44
  organized alternatives that claim to redefine
• 26:47
  the basis of rule. These alternatives may succeed
• 26:50
  or fail institutionally. They may transform society
• 26:54
  or reproduce old inequalities. They may be remembered
• 26:58
  as glorious or criminal, but their defining feature
• 27:02
  is the contested attempt to answer the question,
• 27:05
  who may rule, by what authority and for whose
• 27:09
  benefit? The violence of revolution is real.
• 27:14
  The storming of the Bastille, the trial of Charles
• 27:17
  I, the burning of plantations in Saint -Domingue,
• 27:21
  the mutiny of the Petrograd garrison. These are
• 27:25
  not symbolic gestures, but material events in
• 27:28
  which people risked and lost their lives. But
• 27:31
  the violence is not what makes them revolutionary.
• 27:34
  What makes them revolutionary is the claim that
• 27:37
  emerges from them, the alternative organization
• 27:39
  that sustains the claim, and the longer transformation
• 27:42
  of how people understand legitimate authority.
• 27:46
  When we understand this, we can look at any upheaval,
• 27:50
  past or present. and ask better questions not
• 27:55
  simply who won but what claims to legitimacy
• 28:00
  were made what organized alternatives emerged
• 28:04
  what transformations outlasted the immediate
• 28:08
  conflict and how the labels apply to the events
• 28:11
  served later political purposes The study of
• 28:15
  revolution is ultimately the study of how political
• 28:18
  orders establish and lose their hold on the belief
• 28:21
  that they are rightful. It is the study of the
• 28:24
  moment when soldiers refuse orders, officials
• 28:27
  delay, and ordinary people stop acting as if
• 28:31
  the old order were legitimate and begin organizing
• 28:34
  as if a new one were possible. That hold is never
• 28:37
  permanent. It is always contested. and the moments
• 28:42
  when it breaks are among the most consequential
• 28:45
  and difficult to understand in all of history.
• 28:48
  We do not need to celebrate them or condemn them.
• 28:51
  We need to see them clearly, in their complexity,
• 28:55
  their contingency, and their lasting effects
• 28:58
  on how we have come to think about who should
• 29:01
  govern and why.