Timothy Lambert McDaniel, Professor of Sociology at the University of California, San Diego, died in San Diego on March 10, 2009, after a brave fight against colon cancer that lasted more than a decade. He was one of the leading comparative-historical sociologists of his generation, an inspiring teacher, and a man of unwavering probity and extraordinary erudition. A dedicated scholar, he contributed greatly to the growth of the university during his three decades on the faculty.
Tim was born in San Francisco, California on October 11, 1947. He received his undergraduate education at Yale and at the University of California, Santa Cruz, from which he graduated in 1972. He began his graduate studies at the University of North Carolina, at that time planning to specialize in the study of Latin America (he had lived for extended periods in Chile and Northeast Brazil), but his growing interest in the comparative study of revolutions prompted him to transfer to the University of California, Berkeley. At Berkeley, he set about learning the Russian language and read omnivorously, primarily under the guidance of the historian Reginald Zelnik. Having lived in Chile during the Allende revolution and the US-inspired coup, Tim now turned his attentions to a revolution of much greater notoriety and world-historical consequence. He was soon busy with a thesis on the Russian labor movement and its connections to the Russian Revolution. Completing his dissertation in 1979, he joined the department at UCSD, a place that would be his intellectual home throughout the remainder of his career.
Product Description
What did the Russian revolution of 1917 and the Iranian revolution of 1978-1979 share besides their drama? How can we compare a revolution led by Lenin with one inspired by Khomeini? How is a revolution based primarily on the urban working class similar to one founded to a significant degree on traditional groups like the bazaaris, small craftsmen, and religious students and preachers? Identifying a distinctive route to modernity--autocratic modernization--Tim McDaniel explores the dilemmas inherent in the efforts of autocratic monarchies in Russia and Iran to transform their countries into modern industrial societies. What did the Russian revolution of 1917 and the Iranian revolution of 1978-1979 share besides their drama? How can we compare a revolution led by Lenin with one inspired by Khomeini? How is a revolution based primarily on the urban working class similar to one founded to a significant degree on traditional groups like the bazaaris, small craftsmen, and religious students and preachers? Identifying a distinctive route to modernity--autocratic modernization--Tim McDaniel explores the dilemmas inherent in the efforts of autocratic monarchies in Russia and Iran to transform their countries into modern industrial societies.
發表於2024-11-01
Autocracy, Modernization, and Revolution in Russia and Iran 2024 pdf epub mobi 電子書 下載
圖書標籤: 比較政治 寡頭政體 伊朗 俄羅斯 革命 社會 政治 sociology
理論頗有亨廷頓和斯考切波影子。俄國和伊朗革命比較研究,認為兩者由於政治上都有皇朝完全控製本國政治的年代,都可以歸入獨裁現代化模式中—這點似可討論,伊朗巴列維王朝背後的英國勢力較少考慮。獨裁現代化試圖在幾乎隔絕現代化所産生新階層對政治産生影響前提下推行工業化、市場化和現代官僚政治,卻同時得罪保守和激進勢力:利益受損的保守派試圖維護傳統觀念和製度,謀求自由化改革卻受獨裁挫敗的自由派逐漸轉化為要求激進改變,兩者都有革命潛力。新成長資産階級和工人階級未能受惠於獨裁政治的虛假保證和低政治參與度,亦逐漸激化;農民雖態度偏保守,但農村現代化改革往往又得罪之,故高度自主而缺乏社會掌控力的獨裁政權現代化後反成結構上的孤傢寡人。伊朗強大的伊斯蘭傳統和教士勢力促成保守革命,布爾什維剋則發起專業激進革命。
評分理論頗有亨廷頓和斯考切波影子。俄國和伊朗革命比較研究,認為兩者由於政治上都有皇朝完全控製本國政治的年代,都可以歸入獨裁現代化模式中—這點似可討論,伊朗巴列維王朝背後的英國勢力較少考慮。獨裁現代化試圖在幾乎隔絕現代化所産生新階層對政治産生影響前提下推行工業化、市場化和現代官僚政治,卻同時得罪保守和激進勢力:利益受損的保守派試圖維護傳統觀念和製度,謀求自由化改革卻受獨裁挫敗的自由派逐漸轉化為要求激進改變,兩者都有革命潛力。新成長資産階級和工人階級未能受惠於獨裁政治的虛假保證和低政治參與度,亦逐漸激化;農民雖態度偏保守,但農村現代化改革往往又得罪之,故高度自主而缺乏社會掌控力的獨裁政權現代化後反成結構上的孤傢寡人。伊朗強大的伊斯蘭傳統和教士勢力促成保守革命,布爾什維剋則發起專業激進革命。
評分理論頗有亨廷頓和斯考切波影子。俄國和伊朗革命比較研究,認為兩者由於政治上都有皇朝完全控製本國政治的年代,都可以歸入獨裁現代化模式中—這點似可討論,伊朗巴列維王朝背後的英國勢力較少考慮。獨裁現代化試圖在幾乎隔絕現代化所産生新階層對政治産生影響前提下推行工業化、市場化和現代官僚政治,卻同時得罪保守和激進勢力:利益受損的保守派試圖維護傳統觀念和製度,謀求自由化改革卻受獨裁挫敗的自由派逐漸轉化為要求激進改變,兩者都有革命潛力。新成長資産階級和工人階級未能受惠於獨裁政治的虛假保證和低政治參與度,亦逐漸激化;農民雖態度偏保守,但農村現代化改革往往又得罪之,故高度自主而缺乏社會掌控力的獨裁政權現代化後反成結構上的孤傢寡人。伊朗強大的伊斯蘭傳統和教士勢力促成保守革命,布爾什維剋則發起專業激進革命。
評分理論頗有亨廷頓和斯考切波影子。俄國和伊朗革命比較研究,認為兩者由於政治上都有皇朝完全控製本國政治的年代,都可以歸入獨裁現代化模式中—這點似可討論,伊朗巴列維王朝背後的英國勢力較少考慮。獨裁現代化試圖在幾乎隔絕現代化所産生新階層對政治産生影響前提下推行工業化、市場化和現代官僚政治,卻同時得罪保守和激進勢力:利益受損的保守派試圖維護傳統觀念和製度,謀求自由化改革卻受獨裁挫敗的自由派逐漸轉化為要求激進改變,兩者都有革命潛力。新成長資産階級和工人階級未能受惠於獨裁政治的虛假保證和低政治參與度,亦逐漸激化;農民雖態度偏保守,但農村現代化改革往往又得罪之,故高度自主而缺乏社會掌控力的獨裁政權現代化後反成結構上的孤傢寡人。伊朗強大的伊斯蘭傳統和教士勢力促成保守革命,布爾什維剋則發起專業激進革命。
評分理論頗有亨廷頓和斯考切波影子。俄國和伊朗革命比較研究,認為兩者由於政治上都有皇朝完全控製本國政治的年代,都可以歸入獨裁現代化模式中—這點似可討論,伊朗巴列維王朝背後的英國勢力較少考慮。獨裁現代化試圖在幾乎隔絕現代化所産生新階層對政治産生影響前提下推行工業化、市場化和現代官僚政治,卻同時得罪保守和激進勢力:利益受損的保守派試圖維護傳統觀念和製度,謀求自由化改革卻受獨裁挫敗的自由派逐漸轉化為要求激進改變,兩者都有革命潛力。新成長資産階級和工人階級未能受惠於獨裁政治的虛假保證和低政治參與度,亦逐漸激化;農民雖態度偏保守,但農村現代化改革往往又得罪之,故高度自主而缺乏社會掌控力的獨裁政權現代化後反成結構上的孤傢寡人。伊朗強大的伊斯蘭傳統和教士勢力促成保守革命,布爾什維剋則發起專業激進革命。
Autocracy, Modernization, and Revolution in Russia and Iran 2024 pdf epub mobi 電子書 下載