Reviews for The Permanent revolution

The average rating for The Permanent revolution based on 2 reviews is 4 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2021-02-02 00:00:00 Andrew Grinton Takeaway quote follows. . . . as François Furet pointed out in his Interpreting the French Revolution (1978) . . . the period was unique in French history in the sense that it was a time when the normal agencies of political authority failed to function and the country was dominated by the practitioners of an ideology. Norman Hampson, “The French Revolution and its Historians,” in The Permanent Revolution, Geoffrey Best, Ed., (University of Chicago Press, 1989), p. 233 Question: Have we just experienced, in the US, a similarly unique period where the "country was dominated by the practitioners of an ideology," albeit the domination began on the right?

Review # 2 was written on 2013-03-11 00:00:00 Steven Scarborough This text is useful as an exploration of different methodologies/approaches to the study of history. Some of the assumptions made in Kates's introduction read as very dated for 21st century academic study though this is understandable considering it was written in 1998. The self-importance of the historian focused on France reads as part of the death knell of late 20th century academia and can be connected with the ways in which the humanities have desperately been trying to reinvent themselves in the early 21st century. Some of the essays make for interesting reading - particularly Part IV with the focus on gender and (post)colonial study. Overall, this is a good text for anyone looking for an overview of some of the key controversies of historical discourse in the mid to late 20th century. If you're not interested in the study of the French Revolution, it can still serve as a useful resource for examples of different lenses with which to view (Euro-centric)history.