The international relations of ‘bourgeois revolutions’: Disputing the Turkish Revolution
| Author | Eren Duzgun |
| Published date | 01 June 2018 |
| Date | 01 June 2018 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1354066117714527 |
E
JR
I
https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066117714527
European Journal of
International Relations
2018, Vol. 24(2) 414 –439
© The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1354066117714527
journals.sagepub.com/home/ejt
The international relations
of ‘bourgeois revolutions’:
Disputing the Turkish
Revolution
Eren Duzgun
University of Kyrenia, North Cyprus
Abstract
The study of revolutions is at the forefront of the growing field of International Historical
Sociology. As International Historical Sociology scholars have sought to uncover the
spatio-temporally changing character of international relations, they have come a long
way in overcoming ‘unilinear’ and ‘internalist’ conceptions of revolutionary modern
transformation. In this article, I re-evaluate the extent to which the International
Historical Sociology of ‘bourgeois revolutions’ has succeeded in remedying unilinear
conceptions of the transition to modernity. I argue that ‘consequentialist’ approaches
to the study of bourgeois revolutions tend to obscure the radically heterogeneous
character of revolutionary transformations, both within and outside Western Europe.
Drawing on Political Marxism and Robbie Shilliam’s discussion of Jacobinism, I first
provide a non-consequentialist reading of the revolutions of modernity within Western
Europe, and then utilize this reinterpretation to provide a new interpretation of the
Turkish Revolution (1923–1945). My aim is to demonstrate that a non-consequentialist
conception of ‘bourgeois revolutions’ will enable us to historicize and theorize more
accurately the co-constitution of international relations and revolutionary processes,
hence providing a stronger foundation for the International Historical Sociology of
modern revolutions.
Keywords
Capitalism, historical sociology, international system, Jacobinism, Marxism, Middle
East, revolution, Turkey, uneven and combined development
Corresponding author:
Eren Duzgun, University of Kyrenia, Girne, North Cyprus, 99320, via Mersin 10, Turkey.
Email: duzgunerenler@gmail.com
714527EJT0010.1177/1354066117714527European Journal of International RelationsDuzgun
research-article2017
Article
Duzgun 415
Introduction
Since the historical sociological turn in International Relations (HSIR), there has been a
resurgence of interest in the study of revolutions (Anievas, 2015; Halliday, 1999; Lawson,
2004; Matin, 2013; Morton, 2011; Shilliam, 2009; Teschke, 2005). As HSIR scholars
have begun to uncover the historicity of the modern international system, revealing inter-
national relations’ incomprehensibility via an approach based on a timeless logic of
‘anarchy’, they have become increasingly involved in the study of revolutions. This is
understandable given that, according to one estimate, since 1492, over half of world his-
tory has been punctuated by revolutionary and counter-revolutionary situations (Martin
Wight, quoted in Anievas, 2015: 842). Furthermore, revolutions have gained new spatio-
temporal dimensions since the 20th century as the wave of modern revolutions, losing
steam in the West, has permeated the non-Western world. A multiplicity of revolutionary
movements consequently emerged under new spatio-temporal circumstances, giving
birth to novel conditions of being ‘modern’. From the revolutionary uprisings in the first
part of the century in Russia, Mexico, Persia, Turkey and China, to the upheavals of the
Cold War years in Egypt, Algeria, Cuba, Vietnam, Ethiopia, Angola, Iran and elsewhere,
revolutions generated new socio-institutional forms that altered the tempo and substance
of international activity, thereby resetting the conditions of entrance to global modernity
(Lawson, 2005: 474).
If the study of the modern world order is inescapably grounded in the study of revolu-
tions, the most immediate challenge that confronts us is the question as to how to theo-
rize the relation between revolutions and the international system. Indeed, this has been
a formidable task for IR. For one thing, neo-realism (even when it moves beyond its
traditional unwillingness to analyse internal processes) invokes revolutions only to reas-
sert the persistence of ‘anarchy’, that is, to show how even the most revolutionary states
eventually conform to the dictates of the international system (e.g. Walt, 1998). Of
course, there are alternate accounts that emphasize the co-constitution of revolutions and
international relations (e.g. Armstrong, 1993). Yet, even here, revolutions are seen as
temporary anomalies, that is, mere exogenous shocks that can produce dramatic changes
in intentions, yet eventually are subject to international pressures that usually force revo-
lutionary states to quickly conform to established norms. From this perspective, then,
revolutions hardly seem a topic in their own right for IR and, by implication, there is, for
the most part, little need, let alone willingness, to historicize and theorize how revolu-
tions transform the social content and speed of international relations and vice versa.
In this respect, the late Fred Halliday’s work, which provided the first and one of the
most sophisticated analyses of revolutions from an HSIR angle, stood out as an important
advancement. Halliday (1999) not only recognized the mutually constitutive character of
international relations and revolutionary situations, but also hinted at the need for a ‘uni-
fied’ social theory in order to better explain this co-constitutive relation. According to
Halliday (2002), an ‘international sociology’ is necessary to theorize and historicize the
reciprocity of revolutions and international relations. Until recently, however, Halliday’s
call for an ‘international sociology’ remained merely a fleeting reflection. Halliday him-
self planted the seed of a unified theory, yet never gave it a systematic treatment. Justin
Rosenberg’s reworking of the notion of ‘uneven and combined development’ (UCD) has
To continue reading
Request your trial