“How we think about revolution,” writes my guest Dan Edelstein, “is ultimately conditioned by how we think about history.” Classical philosophers viewed history as chaotic and directionless, and sought to keep historical change—especially revolutions—at bay. “Revolutions,” so far as Greeks and Romans were concerned, “were more likely to bring about death and destruction than universal harmony.”
This conception prevailed until the eighteenth century. It was then–and only then, Edelstein argues–that Enlightenment thinkers conceived of history as a form of progress and of revolution as its catalyst, completely inverting the ancient model of revolution. These ideas were put to the test during the French Revolution and came to define revolutions well into the twentieth century. And when revolutions and progress failed to bring about consensus, the only logical explanation was that one’s enemies were wrong–certainly in error, and possibly evil, needing reeducation and even elimination from the body politic.
In this episode of Historically Thinking, host Al Zambone speaks with Dan Edelstein about his latest book, The Revolution to Come: A History of an Idea from Thucydides to Lenin. Together, they explore how the concept of revolution evolved from ancient Greek and Roman skepticism to Enlightenment optimism, and how this shift influenced modern political movements and ideologies. This wide-ranging conversation touches on the French Revolution, the philosophy of history, progressive political theory, and the intellectual roots of revolutionary violence. Listeners interested in history, political science, and the Enlightenment will find this episode especially valuable.
Dan Edelstein is the William H. Bonsall Professor of French and (by courtesy) professor of political science and of history at Stanford University. The Revolution to Come is published by Princeton University Press.
