Keith Peterson’s talk on being revolutionary was difficult for me to wrap my head around. The lack of breaking down philosophers’ opinions and Peterson’s inability to make them relevant to the present day resulted in me not gaining much from the talk. Rather than draw from philosophers, it would have been intriguing to evaluate different actions on what it means to be revolutionary. Throughout the course, we were exposed to a number of speakers, all of which touched upon components of what it means to be revolutionary.
Despite not gaining much from the last talk, I gained a richer perspective of the many ways one could be revolutionary. A revolution doesn’t have to be a revolt, or a protest. Rather, it is making a statement, changing opinions, and spreading beliefs. Given this versatility, how would lead a revolution at Colby College, or is there a revolution already taking place on-campus? These talks showed the many ways in which revolutions can occur, but did not provide insight into how to lead or notice one.
Another side note is who leads revolutions? Is there a certain type of person that can execute a successful revolution? Or is this restricted to the situation? Much of the talks pertained to contexts, often discussing favorable or unfavorable situations and resources. None of them addressed specific characteristics of a successful revolutionary.
Perhaps looking at the revolutionaries themselves is another area ready for exploration, or something of interest for individualistic cultures only. Regardless, it would offer additional perspectives to the wide definition of what it means to be revolutionary.