Whose Revolution?

This essay grapples with the concept of categories in historical writing: When are they useful, and when do they lead us astray? Covert recounts an episode in their own research that began with a mistaken assumption based on predominant ideas in the historiography about who was “revolutionary” and who was “counterrevolutionary.” Upon realizing the mistake, Covert recalibrated their project, resulting in a more nuanced interpretation of the subject. The essay acknowledges the utility of categories for making comparisons and broad claims, but also reminds the reader that many major historiographical breakthroughs have occurred as a result of revisiting or questioning previously accepted categories. It therefore makes the case for a more expansive approach to categories as dynamic, rather than static, and reminds historians to embrace contingencies and always go back to the historical context to understand what those terms meant to the individuals who used them.