The first thing that comes to mind when mentioning revolutions is the upheaval of a dominant system of abusive power by an oppressed citizenry. This is not an easy task to achieve, thus explaining why not all “nations wronged by history…live with the constant thought of revolution” (Kapuscinski). Moreover, the fact that revolutions are such a difficult thing to execute is the very reason why the study of them is such an attractive topic to many people.
In simplistic terms, revolutions are underdog stories, and this is a genre that has been beloved since biblical times (i.e. David and Goliath). They provide hope and empowerment to disadvantaged groups, and allow for them to cling to a notion of possible change to their own situations; nonetheless, the question remains of what actually happens after a revolution is successfully carried out. Does the aftermath truly outweigh the prior circumstances that initially sparked a change? The answer is often torn, and many times the end of a revolution leaves people wanting more. In other words, the actual act of carrying out a revolution is exhilarating—it makes people feel alive, important, and as if they are truly doing something to improve their own lives and the lives of others; however, once change has finally happened and the corrupt group has been ousted, people are left with a sense of emptiness. This thing that they have devoted so much time and energy to is all of a sudden over.
What do they do now; go back to their normal lives before the revolution? If this is the case (which it oftentimes is), it seems as if the meaning of the term revolution is closer to that of something that is revolving, and these people, while in an attempt to create something new, are actually stuck in a cycle of disempowerment.
Revolutions tend to kickstart an eighty year cycle. Upheaval, pragmatism, overconfidence, stagnation, collapse, new Upheaval. Think soviet union 1917 – 91.
‘the revolution ends when the crowd disperses’ is a neat definition though.
As you have said, both revolutions and championship celebrations are similar in that they allow individual people to come together and take part in something that is much larger than themselves. However, not only do they compare in the ways that they unify, but also in the ways that they end. In Shah of Shahs it says that the revolution ends when the crowd disperses. Just like a revolution, a championship celebration creates a community of people that care deeply about their team, however, when the parade is over, each fan is alone once again as the crowd similarly disappears. In both revolutions and championships, when the crowd disperses, we tend to ask, “what now?” Whereas with a sports team you can always look towards the next title but with a revolution, do we look forward to the next upheaval? Maybe that is why we say that societies revolt at the first opportunity. Maybe thats the “pebble nagging at our sides” that Shah of Shahs alludes to.