What do you think?
Rate this book
Praxis and Revolution: A Theory of Social Transformation
The concept of revolution marks the ultimate horizon of modern politics. It is instantiated by sites of both hope and horror. Within progressive thought, "revolution" often perpetuates entrenched philosophical problems: a teleological philosophy of history, economic reductionism, and normative paternalism. At a time of resurgent uprisings, how can revolution be reconceptualized to grasp the dynamics of social transformation and disentangle revolutionary practice from authoritarian usurpation?
Eva von Redecker reconsiders critical theory's understanding of radical change in order to offer a bold new account of how revolution occurs. She argues that revolutions are not singular events but extended processes: beginning from the interstices of society, they succeed by gradually rearticulating social structures toward a new paradigm. Developing a theoretical account of social transformation, Praxis and Revolution incorporates a wide range of insights, from the Frankfurt School to queer theory and intersectionality. Its revised materialism furnishes prefigurative politics with their social conditions and performative critique with its collective force.
Von Redecker revisits the French Revolution to show how change arises from struggle in everyday social practice. She illustrates the argument through rich literary examples--a m�nage � trois inside a prison, a radical knitting circle, a queer affinity group, and petitioners pleading with the executioner--that forge a feminist, open-ended model of revolution.
Praxis and Revolution urges readers not only to understand revolutions differently but also to situate them elsewhere: in collective contexts that aim to storm manifold Bastilles--but from within.
Eva von Redecker reconsiders critical theory's understanding of radical change in order to offer a bold new account of how revolution occurs. She argues that revolutions are not singular events but extended processes: beginning from the interstices of society, they succeed by gradually rearticulating social structures toward a new paradigm. Developing a theoretical account of social transformation, Praxis and Revolution incorporates a wide range of insights, from the Frankfurt School to queer theory and intersectionality. Its revised materialism furnishes prefigurative politics with their social conditions and performative critique with its collective force.
Von Redecker revisits the French Revolution to show how change arises from struggle in everyday social practice. She illustrates the argument through rich literary examples--a m�nage � trois inside a prison, a radical knitting circle, a queer affinity group, and petitioners pleading with the executioner--that forge a feminist, open-ended model of revolution.
Praxis and Revolution urges readers not only to understand revolutions differently but also to situate them elsewhere: in collective contexts that aim to storm manifold Bastilles--but from within.
289 pages, Kindle Edition
First published August 1, 2018
2 people are currently reading
97 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
July 14, 2023
Fantastic book which, in critiquing theories of revolution that think with notions of rupture, event, & contradiction, lays out a sort of ‘praxis monism’. All social phenomena are practices which repeat prior practices based on agents’ knowledge of what constitutes the practice, what standards of excellence are internal to it, and what know-how is required to perform it. From this rather conservative-seeming position, she seeks to think through the notion of practice to yield a convincing portrait of radical social change. Chapters present praxes basic elements, forms of connection, modes of transmission, and levels of social rigidity, all of which are lucid, convincing, and helpfully demonstrated with literary examples. Particularly virtuosic is the re-reading of Butler on drag and subversion, which draws out a submerged dimension of collectivity in their early texts.
A few comments. While I largely agree with the critique of traditional Marxist portraits of revolution which threads itself throughout the book, I still think that there are plausible reasons to treat capitalism as a determining, ontologically unique object of the social and its possible change. While I would also like to rid us of a portrait of all of history as determined through modes of production necessarily leading to contradiction then rupture, which is shown to simply not accurately capture the French Revolution, I think that there are strong reasons to treat capitalism as a uniquely totalizing social form, which is a primary condition limiting possibilities for egalitarian, pleasurable practices and their spread.
I also wonder if we do not miss something specific about the political in this model, which does not make a qualitative distinction between political and social practices and their change. What does not feature prominently in the book, but political science would emphasize, is the primacy of elite activity and its effects on social identification, which I’m prone to argue operate from above through practices that are received in a uniquely passive mode most of the time. There is a fantastic analysis inside the book of how popular sovereignty appears as a new practice linked to violence in the French revolution, but I think this account may undersell the impact of elite authorization regarding which practices emerge as primary and how they are linked to others. I wonder whether the aspiration to the form of social revolution the book theorizes perhaps imports democratic model of power and how it can be amplified into political domains in which we might have to retain a rigid elite/mass separation to accurately capture degrees of possible agency.
A few comments. While I largely agree with the critique of traditional Marxist portraits of revolution which threads itself throughout the book, I still think that there are plausible reasons to treat capitalism as a determining, ontologically unique object of the social and its possible change. While I would also like to rid us of a portrait of all of history as determined through modes of production necessarily leading to contradiction then rupture, which is shown to simply not accurately capture the French Revolution, I think that there are strong reasons to treat capitalism as a uniquely totalizing social form, which is a primary condition limiting possibilities for egalitarian, pleasurable practices and their spread.
I also wonder if we do not miss something specific about the political in this model, which does not make a qualitative distinction between political and social practices and their change. What does not feature prominently in the book, but political science would emphasize, is the primacy of elite activity and its effects on social identification, which I’m prone to argue operate from above through practices that are received in a uniquely passive mode most of the time. There is a fantastic analysis inside the book of how popular sovereignty appears as a new practice linked to violence in the French revolution, but I think this account may undersell the impact of elite authorization regarding which practices emerge as primary and how they are linked to others. I wonder whether the aspiration to the form of social revolution the book theorizes perhaps imports democratic model of power and how it can be amplified into political domains in which we might have to retain a rigid elite/mass separation to accurately capture degrees of possible agency.
December 20, 2025
Remarkable explanation and recap of what the heck is ‘revolution’ is about. Tracked down by some classic literature explaining what revolution means in personal spaces depending on who and where.
Revolution in itself is complex and incomprehensible if not involved. From the perspective of women, perspective of society. And what it means (the slow trickle effects) on the remainder of humanity (regardless if the revolutionary ideas are incorporated or rejected).
Say no more - advised to read all the used literature references as well. With this analysis in mind, be sire that will be a different read all through.
Revolution in itself is complex and incomprehensible if not involved. From the perspective of women, perspective of society. And what it means (the slow trickle effects) on the remainder of humanity (regardless if the revolutionary ideas are incorporated or rejected).
Say no more - advised to read all the used literature references as well. With this analysis in mind, be sire that will be a different read all through.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews