No doubt, revolution may be acknowledged, in general, as one of the most important or critical happenings in history, and while in political science, revolution may be defined as a prompt, essential change of a society's administration, structure, or principles, all revolutions may denote a great alteration in sociopolitical foundations. Since anchors, politicians, and campaigners, or each person, may use a range of swappable terms for the description of a single unrest, in the present review the concept of revolution has been evaluated, again, lexically and briefly.

While in political science, revolution may be defined as a prompt, essential change of a society's administration, structure, or principles; all revolutions may contain a shared set of features at their core, like efforts to change the locus of control and mass mobilization for remonstrations, strikes, rallies, or violence. Disregarding the different roots that make an administration vulnerable to revolution, it usually denotes a great alteration in sociopolitical foundations (1). Since there are a number of interrelated terms, which, though generally denoting stormy modifications, may be used individually, informally, or incorrectly, in the present article, the concept of revolution has been evaluated, again, lexically and briefly.

Philological Standpoints:

In the dictionary, ‘revolt’ and ‘revolution’ have a shared origin because both have roots in ‘revolvere’ (in Latin), which means ‘to revolve’ or ‘to roll back’ in English. Likewise, while in English, it customarily referred to the movement of a celestial body in orbit, ‘a progressive motion of a body around an axis,’ or ‘completion of a course,’ and a predictable return to an original position, politics developed a sharply operating meaning, namely, ‘a sudden radical or complete change’ (2, 3). In the same way, while ‘disgust,’ ‘repulse,’ or ‘sicken’ may be used as comparable verbs to them, ‘insurrection,’ ‘uprising,’ ‘mutiny,’ or ‘rebellion’ may also be used as comparable nouns (4, 5) (Table 1).

Table 1: Glossarial Definition of Some Interrelated Terms.

Psychological analysis of revolution:

From a psychological standpoint, as stated critically by Gustave Le Bon in ‘The Psychology of Revolution’ (1913) (6), we may formulate a revolution as a phenomenon, which usually involves elements like the transitory mentality of crowds, along with the permanent soul of the people, in addition to the action of beliefs, the influence of mystic, affective, and collective elements, and the conflict between the various forms of logic. Accordingly, masses, which are usually timid and impulsive, may be dominated by a small number of frontrunners and may act in a sense contrary to the desires of their individual members. Nonetheless, there may be a complete contradiction between the distinct drives of the men of the revolutionary period and the later deeds of the leaders. The truth is that they may comply with invisible forces of which they are not the controllers, and while believing that they are acting in the name of pure reason, they may really be subject to mystic, affective, and collective inspirations, which may be incomprehensible to them and which they may understand later. In this regard, though brainpower has advanced in the course of the centuries and has opened a marvelous view to man, his character, the real foundation of his thoughts, and the sure motive of his activities have barely altered. While it seems that human nature must be accepted as it is, leaders of revolutions usually do not resign themselves to the facts of human nature and may attempt to transform men and society in the name of reason. Nevertheless, despite acquired power and success, a revolution may eventually pile destruction upon destruction and may end in a new despotism. On the other hand, without analysis of historical revolutions, it would have been difficult to prove that pure reason, aim, or object does not enable us to change human nature, and, consequently, that no society can be rebuilt merely by the will of policymakers. While it is usually by relying on the principle of popular sovereignty that the reformers may attempt to impose their doctrines and to attribute all the advantages to the popular soul, a people freed from social restrictions, the bases of civilization, and abandoned to its innate instincts may promptly relapse into its ancestral savagery. Thus, every popular revolution that succeeds in triumphing may be, in essence, a temporary return to barbarism. Similarly, while in normal times we are guided by the various forms of logic—rational, collective, affective, and mystic—which more or less perfectly balance one another, during seasons of upheaval they enter into conflict, and man is no longer himself. As a result, some scholars may believe that, in spite of today's preference of action to thought, the prize gained at the cost of revolutionary complications, like collapse or bloodshed, may be obtained at a later date without effort, by the mere progress of civilization. Consequently, though action is surely an admirable thing, and all real advancement is a result of action, it is only valuable when correctly directed. One cannot experiment with society as with apparatus in a laboratory (6).

Discussion:

No doubt, revolution may be acknowledged, in general, as one of the most important or critical happenings in history, because it is, by definition, groundbreaking, world- shattering, and occasionally avant-garde, depending on its genesis, outlook, and progression. A fruitful revolution may result in copycat movements somewhere else as well. Accordingly, while it has always been a local phenomenon, its reverberations could be, emblematically, boundless, or endless. On the other hand, a revolution may be regarded as reformist or reverting, depending on its internal aftermaths, general outlooks, or inevitable impressions.  Factually, revolutions could be regarded as a problem-solving mechanism, though the coarsest one, for resolution of an overall political impasse that, maybe, could not be solved otherwise, whether constitutionally, diplomatically, or even tactlessly. Alternatively, a revolution could be acknowledged as a milestone if it could mobilize masses to build a new civilization, configuration, or groundwork.  Except for political revolution, which is usually the end result of politically aware brawls, a revolution may be regarded, representationally, as scientific, cultural, or economical as well, which are typically peaceful, academic, and overhauling.  Meanwhile, one kind of revolution, or, better to say, significant change, may lead to other meaningful alterations, too, and a revolutionized system may prepare backgrounds for supplementary reforms. As said before, revolt is not limited to any specific place or time, though its presentation or development may vary conspicuously. Though, conceivably, the bare essentials of political revolutions are existent in all civilizations, administrations may delete, delay, or disguise them by means of asset, assistance, or accommodating strategies.

So, a revolution may happen if the administrative system does not overhaul prevailing breaks, complaints, or deficiencies properly or prudently. On the other hand, a riot or revolt may fail recurrently, strategically, or ideologically due to the existence of a mismatch between the silent majority’s demands and the revolutionaries’ intentions, conflict between opposing radicals, the expression of new irrelevant objectives that had not been articulated until that time, or incongruity between the prevalent state of affairs and the rebels’ standards. Moreover, revolution may happen, abstractly, at an individual level, like the big discovery of a scientist, which may be prosperous for human beings, or substantial reform by a leadership, which may cause great socioeconomic amendments, or mobilization of masses by activists or agitators, which may result in the collapse of a system, whether tranquilly, destructively, legitimately, or illicitly. But, sometimes, a revolution may turn into its opposite, like an insurrection of masses for the achievement of a worldly system, who had rampaged before on behalf of an otherworldly one. Also, revolution may be assumed to be industrial, for example in developing countries, or philosophical, like theoretical novelties or groundbreaking approaches in art or medicine.  Hence, public usage of the concept of revolution does not seem to be limited to its terminological or formal criteria. Nevertheless, it gives the impression that the essence of a revolution may be acknowledged in its ingenuity, inimitability, immaculateness, or importance. Accordingly, frequency of mutinies, existence of outsiders’ stimulus, manifest mismatch between earlier announcements or expressions and later achievements or programs, unshakable excitation, partiality, and forecasts or verdicts of recluse’s media, politicians, or think tanks may demand suspicion, hesitation, or scrutiny regarding the roots or genuineness of any uprising. On the other hand, though, tentatively, every new generation may produce the necessary power for new insurrections; historically, substantial revolutions were, geologically or genealogically, matchless, because mobilization of crowds for a pandemonium demands, initially, destabilization of numerous foundations, countrywide, and, later, convergence of them for formation of complaining and bellicose masses. So, revolution, in its customary concept, may not take place without annexation of various age groups, genders, social classes, professions, and disciples of different sociopolitical parties, sects, or movements. Likewise, though some political paradigms believe in the legitimacy of conquest and confiscation of power during existing conflict between internal rivals and external adversaries, any seizing of power by help of exterior assailants is, figuratively, similar to a coup d'état (Table 1). Similarly, new communicative technology, with its dazzling and ubiquitous impact, may insinuate motivation, whether munificently or malevolently, in untried, unaware, or uninformed admirers, on the one hand, or irritated, unsure, or novelty-seeking fans, on the other hand, for setting up enough protestors or militants. Also, conflicts of interest between internal elites, circles, or even deep state

members may bring about social unrest. Today, the disguised conflicts between masquerading groups or underground assemblies have made a true judgment regarding the faithfulness of many sociopolitical movements, whether domestic or international, difficult. Moreover, in contrast to some genuine ideological revolutions that had occurred successfully in spite of strong political challengers, movements with different structures but comparable political and economic approaches or similar substructures may generate more doubt regarding their historical value or truthfulness. Besides, campaigners, who have been sheltered financially, politically, or militarily by aliens, may never be free from unrecorded anticipations of their previous protectors and present allies or superintendents. Above and beyond, when an apparent revolution or something like that turns a stable realm into a failed state, nothing except doubt regarding its trustworthiness may result. Surged, speeded, or sponsored mutinies, too, may produce no other sense except mistrust in exploited victims or vigilant observers. Today, there is no lack of states, which are, ostensibly, the end result of some kind of revolution but lack the necessary foundations for sovereignty, except for a chair in international organizations, a chairperson for preaching, and a flag for wavering in the wind. On the other hand, a crowd devoid of patriotic spirit, a web-absorbed generation, people with paranoid (2.3% – 4.4%), schizotypal (0.6% – 4.6%), antisocial (0.2% - 3.3%), borderline (1.6% - 5.9%), negativistic, sadistic, or depressive personality traits, or with clinical psychopathology, like depressive disorders (12%), bipolar disorders(1.5%),  delusional disorder (0.2%), schizophrenia (0.3%-0.7%), schizoaffective Disorder (0.3%), substance/medication-induced psychotic disorder (7% to 25%), psychotic disorder due to another medical condition (0.21% to 0.54%), borderline intellectual functioning (13.6%), adult antisocial behavior (5% – 15%),  posttraumatic stress disorder (0.5% - 3.5%), adjustment disorders (5% to 20%), oppositional defiant disorder (3.3%), intermittent explosive disorder (2.7%), conduct disorder (4%), pyromania (1.13%), or substance-related disorders , like alcohol (8.5%), cannabis (3.4%), hallucinogen (2.5%), inhalant (0.4%), opioid (0.37%), sedative-, hypnotic-, or anxiolytic (0.3%), stimulant (0.2% - 0.3%), anabolic steroids (0.5% – 12%) [7], who may not analyze deeply, may add extra marchers to existing rebels, campaigners, or radicals. In addition, while, hypothetically, it seems that non-ideological approaches may turn some impending revolutions into unsighted unrest, contemporary circumstances, on the whole, may not be in favor of the lexical concept of revolution, which is supposedly free from underground, unrecorded, or undeclared truths.

Though broadcasters, politicians, analysts, or campaigners may use a range of swappable terms for the description of a single unrest, it is the duty of literati to determine the real core or concept of each term distinctly (8-24).