That’s the question I had after I sat in on K.P’s lecture. It was one that I perhaps lacked the philosophical background to deal with, but it left me with the impression that it’s message was that we, as humans will the idea of revolution into being, and therefore can will it out again.
And I do think this is a valid point. For there are periods in every individual life, and in larger social movements where we get to the end and simply have to define it-ask “What was that?” When something appears different than it was before we call it a revolution, and therefore the idea of revolution is not definable in a moment, but as a hindsight. And therefore it is all in our heads.
I guess this doesn’t surprise me. “Revolution” is a noun that doesn’t fit the person, place or thing definition. It’s an idea. And because of that it carries a lot of ambiguity to what it means to a person. Thus the person can define it for themselves, they can make it what they want it to be. The idea that we have never been revolutionaries then is possible.
But yet, there must have been revolutions. What do we as a society call those moments where we changed. That’s why I think that we are all, in contrary to the assertion of this lecture revolutionaries. We to a certain extent comment on how life could be better and some of us act on it. It is in our nature to question. To want to change. To be revolutionary.
So where the idea of revolution might be one that is malleable it is one that exists as a part of our nature. Therefore we have not never been revolutionaries but instead have always and still are revolutionaries.