The Psychology of Revolution
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 มิ.ย. 2024
- This lecture is based on Dr. Fathali M. Moghaddam’s new book "Psychology of Revolution" (Cambridge University Press, 2024) devoted to understanding the psychology of revolution-the first since Gustav Le Bon’s now classic book of 1894.
This event was organized on May 2, 2024.
Fathali Moghaddam, a psychologist who experienced revolution in Iran, his own country of birth, presents a psychological analysis and a new model of revolution based on both objective research and personal experience. The first part of the lecture critically examines revolutionary movements and the process of regime change, with reference to psychological theories of collective mobilization. In the second part, and unique to this new book on the psychology of revolution, the focus moves to what happens after regime change. It is argued that only by understanding what happens after regime change, a neglected topic, that the enigma of revolution can be solved. The concept of political plasticity is used to explain how and in what ways change does and does not take place after regime change, why so many revolutions against dictatorships lead to new dictatorships, and why in the 21st century the momentum of democracy is being challenged by authoritarian movements in many parts of the world.
Fathali M. Moghaddam is Professor of Psychology at Georgetown University. Prior to joining Georgetown, he worked for the United Nations and for McGill University. His research and publications are mostly on collective mobilization, radicalization, human rights and duties, political plasticity, and intergroup conflict. He has also published on psychology and Shakespeare.
Learn more about Dr. Moghaddam's new book: www.cambridge.org/core/books/...
The most sane psychoanalysis of revolution I ever heard. Thank you
Read my response to this speaker. A pseudoscientist.
Excellent presentation ! Thanks
Brilliant talk.
Brilliant analysis , thanks .
The best topic to speak about it
excellent.
I like the parts when he is talking about the power struggles after revolution that are probably based on personal experience, I'm very sceptical on the human nature approach and the idea that the Soviets just did not work hard enough. I mean they persisted for 70 years, started from a very low basis and had just terrible mismanagement due to ideological restraints - one might even consider the possibility that people had to work considerable harder just to keep the system going under this circumstances.
Concerning the specific topic of the collectivization of agriculture it is more than attested that Soviet peasants consciously hated collectivization as they had their own ideas about private property that had grown from specific historical and cultural circumstances. This does neither need psychology, nor shaky references to human nature, especially as this fits well into a pattern of strained relationships between urban revolutionaries and the rural population (e.g. in the French revolution).
Iranian revolution was engineered by USA therefore in this case psychology was not a factor!
Are you sure - back in 1979 Iran - you were in search of freedom and democracy - whatever that now you understand of it?
Birds of a Feather Flock Together. You should feel sorry for being in the same chicken coop as Milani who has Bird Flu.
Gunga-dins
"Hejab is just a piece of cloth and some people are willing to die for it" says the learned professor.
JUST AS A FLAG IS SOMETHING THAT SOME PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO DIE FOR IT. DYING FOR AN IDEA OR WAY OF LIFE !
THINK AGAIN PROFESSOR ! AVOID PATHOLOGIZING PEOPLES WAY OF LIFE. YOUR PSEUDOSCIENCE HAS NO PLACE IN A UNIVERSITY.
I don't support anyone or any types of govrnment in the world..
sometimes Dictatorship is better and sometimes democracy..
science is not democracy.. physics have rigid rules and is a dictator..
gay marriage is not the purposes of democracy..
take example of compulsary hijab.. Hijab reduces aggression in societies... if you inforce Hijab then you have to spend millions of dollars to employ police to deal with aggression..
Dictatorship is cheaper and has its advantages..
perhaps one should alternate between ductatorship and democracy. neither is the answer.
as we have seen democratic countries such as USA .. has been responsible for all wars in the world after the 2nd war..