The Psychology of Revolution

Рет қаралды 6,331

Ай бұрын

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/...

Пікірлер: 34

@Nilu1114 Ай бұрын

The most sane psychoanalysis of revolution I ever heard. Thank you

@homayounshirazi9550 Ай бұрын

Read my response to this speaker. A pseudoscientist.

@homayounshirazi9550 14 күн бұрын

SANE ARGUEMENT IS BASED ON SANE THESIS. HE HAS NO THESIS TO SHOW THAT A RELIGION ADOPED BY 1.5 BILLIONS OF MOSLEMS, INCLUDING IRANIANS, HAS NO BASIS OR LEGITIMACY. THESIS IS AN ELEMENTARY REQUIREMENT IN ALL LOGICAL ARGUEMENTS. HIS STATEMENTS AVOID THIS BASIC REQUIREMENT OF LOGIC, NOT TO MENTION HIS BIASED OPINION.

@Not_Yourbusiness Ай бұрын

The best topic to speak about it

@Lobishomem Ай бұрын

Excellent presentation ! Thanks

@homayounshirazi9550 14 күн бұрын

What he said was a PSEUDO-SCIENCE. NOT SCIENCE!

@marcseghatol6583 Ай бұрын

Brilliant analysis , thanks .

@realfinderrftube6140 28 күн бұрын

Really interesting

@HuynhPaul Ай бұрын

excellent.

@omarsharifi5663 29 күн бұрын

Brilliant talk.

@aaron.aaron.v.b.9448 29 күн бұрын

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.

@aaron.aaron.v.b.9448 29 күн бұрын

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).

@JDNM2024 Ай бұрын

Are you sure - back in 1979 Iran - you were in search of freedom and democracy - whatever that now you understand of it?

@hadisadrosadat1913 24 күн бұрын

This discussion does not apply to ALL revolutions - as many examples were mentioned, including US, Rwanda, South Africa, India. It was however, an accurate account of the five revolutions listed.

@user-cg5jx2oz1p 28 күн бұрын

Why does a dictator take over from another? The equation is so simple. The so-called free world (the West) provides the dictator with unconditional support, and, in exchange, the dictator becomes their faithful stooge. In case the dictator has to quit under duress, they (the West) replace him with another under the same conditions. International politics is defined by national interests and power politics.

@user-yp6in8nl9z 23 күн бұрын

and the millions of people are like cattle? do they not have a role and responsibility? everything is always someone else's fault and always the victim.

@ampm9771 Ай бұрын

Gunga-dins

@kevinwellwrought2024 Ай бұрын

Iranian revolution was engineered by USA therefore in this case psychology was not a factor!

@user-yp6in8nl9z 23 күн бұрын

oh come on.

@kevinwellwrought2024 23 күн бұрын

@@user-yp6in8nl9z It takes decades of academic studies and research to understand the role of America in many nasty revolutions and wars in the world.

@RippleDrop. 16 күн бұрын

Psychology is always a factor when it comes to humans

@kevinwellwrought2024 16 күн бұрын

@@RippleDrop.we are talking about the main cause of Iranian revolution which was USA plot to prevent the fast development of Iranian economy and military same way USA has been doing to Russia and China. Psychology, biology, physics and chemistry are always a factor in everything including the earth atmosphere!

@hansfrankfurter2903 28 күн бұрын

This entire talk can be summarized by “l like western liberalism, everything else bad” .

@user-yp6in8nl9z 23 күн бұрын

funny how western liberal democracies are where most people in the world like to immigrate to.

@homayounshirazi9550 Ай бұрын

Birds of a Feather Flock Together. You should feel sorry for being in the same chicken coop as Milani who has Bird Flu.

@faramarzsoltani2564 Ай бұрын

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..

@user-yp6in8nl9z 23 күн бұрын

your comment and photo are a perfect match.

@homayounshirazi9550 Ай бұрын

"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.

@user-yp6in8nl9z 23 күн бұрын

settle down baba