On Revolution

Context and Aims

Hannah Arendt’s On Revolution (1963) is a major work of twentieth‑century political theory that examines the nature and meaning of modern political revolutions. Written after The Origins of Totalitarianism and The Human Condition, the book continues Arendt’s project of clarifying core political concepts—above all freedom, action, and founding—in light of the upheavals of the modern age.

Arendt focuses primarily on the American Revolution and the French Revolution, treating them as paradigmatic attempts to found new political orders. Her central aim is to distinguish liberation from oppression (the removal of tyranny or poverty) from political freedom (participation in a public realm of action and deliberation), and to show how this distinction has been obscured in modern revolutionary thought and practice.

Core Themes and Arguments

A key claim in On Revolution is that the idea of revolution is distinctly modern. Earlier rebellions or uprisings sought to restore an older order; by contrast, modern revolutions are animated by the project of founding something new. For Arendt, a revolution is truly revolutionary when it brings into being a lasting public space where people can act together as citizens.

She introduces a series of distinctions:

• Liberation vs. freedom:

  • Liberation involves escaping tyranny or necessity (for example, overthrowing an autocratic ruler).
  • Freedom, in Arendt’s sense, is the positive capacity to engage in public action and speech among equals.
    Arendt argues that many revolutions achieved liberation but failed to institutionalize this deeper form of political freedom.

• The social question vs. political action:
  Arendt claims that when revolutions become dominated by the “social question”—the urgent demand to relieve mass poverty and material distress—this can displace the original political aim of creating durable institutions of freedom. She argues that the turn toward social and economic problems in the French Revolution contributed to its increasing violence and instability.

• Founding and constitution:
  Arendt places particular emphasis on constitution‑making as the high point of revolutionary action. The task is not only to overthrow an old regime but to stabilize the new beginnings through laws and institutions that preserve a space for public participation. She is interested in how promises, covenants, and pacts can serve as political techniques for binding people to a new order.

Arendt also insists on a specific, non-instrumental view of political action. For her, politics is not merely a means to external ends (such as wealth or security) but a sphere of human plurality, where individuals reveal who they are through joint action and deliberation. A successful revolution, on this account, is one that secures and preserves this sphere.

Comparing the American and French Revolutions

The contrast between the American and French revolutions is the book’s most controversial and influential feature. Arendt treats both as originating in similar demands for liberation but diverging sharply in outcome.

In her reading, the American Revolution is portrayed as comparatively successful in achieving freedom in her strong sense. She highlights:

• The role of local political bodies (such as town meetings and councils) as schools of self-government.
• The emphasis on constitution‑making and the creation of a federal system that dispersed power.
• The use of founding documents—the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and subsequent amendments—as expressions of a collective promise to maintain political freedom.

Arendt argues that American revolutionaries managed to keep the focus on constructing a durable public realm rather than being overwhelmed by the social question. For her, the lasting institutions of representation and the relatively stable constitutional order exemplify how a revolution can “found” freedom.

By contrast, Arendt interprets the French Revolution as initially driven by political goals but soon overtaken by the imperative to address mass poverty and suffering. She maintains that:

• The focus on the misery of the people led to an ethos of compassion that made stable, deliberative politics more difficult.
• Revolutionary leaders increasingly appealed to the “general will” and to moral purity, contributing to the logic of the Terror.
• The attempt to resolve deep social inequalities through political will alone contributed to cycles of violence and reaction.

In this account, the French Revolution is emblematic of how revolutions can lose sight of the project of building enduring institutions, becoming instead consumed by social demands that politics alone cannot easily satisfy.

Arendt uses this contrast not to idealize the United States or condemn France in a simple way, but to underscore what she sees as the fragility of revolutionary beginnings and the difficulty of translating them into lasting constitutional orders. She also suggests that later revolutions (including those in the twentieth century) have often repeated the French pattern rather than the American one.

Reception and Influence

On Revolution has been widely discussed in political philosophy, intellectual history, and revolutionary studies. It is frequently paired with The Human Condition as a key statement of Arendt’s theory of action and freedom.

Proponents value the book for:

• Re‑centering the idea of political freedom as active participation rather than mere non-interference.
• Highlighting the importance of founding, constitutionalism, and public spaces (such as councils and assemblies) in revolutionary movements.
• Offering a nuanced critique of how the social question can reshape revolutionary aims.

Critics, however, have raised several objections:

• Historians argue that Arendt’s account of both the American and French revolutions is selective and idealized, downplaying factors such as slavery, colonialism, and internal conflicts in the American case, and oversimplifying social dynamics in France.
• Some political theorists contend that her sharp distinction between the political and the social is unsustainable, since material conditions and political freedoms are often tightly interwoven.
• Others question whether her demanding conception of political action—public, participatory, non-instrumental—can serve as a realistic model for modern mass societies.

Despite these debates, On Revolution remains a standard reference in discussions of revolutionary legitimacy, constituent power, and the meaning of modern freedom. It continues to inform analyses of both historical revolutions and contemporary movements seeking to create new forms of democratic politics.