An enjoyable read, Kurzman deconstructs the common theories used to explain the Iranian Revolution and provides reasoning as to why each of the five theories (Political, Military, Religious, Economic, etc) do not encapsulate the nuance and complexity of the revolution. As Kurzman points out, not even those participating in the revolution at the time fully understood their actions to be revolutionary.

What a mess

I broadly agree with Kurzman's implicit assertion in the introduction that society is a complex system in the technical sense, which may render precise prediction impossible, and that this has been insufficiently incorporated into social science ontology and methodology; however, the way that this is argued in the chapters is weak, even devolving into attacking straw men.

For example, in the chapter arguing against the predictive value of economic indicators like poverty, relative deprivation/income inequality, or inflation, Kurzman compares Iran with similar oil-exporting countries that did not have revolutions in the 1970s or '80s -- but that did have uprisings and rebellions. What is the point of this rebuttal if no one is arguing that a struggling economy is sufficient cause for a successful revolution? Likewise, Kurzman points out that it was not those living in shanty towns, but rather the bazaaris that took up protest early and enthusiastically. But was anyone expecting the poorest members of society to be a revolutionary vanguard against an autocratic monarch?

However, I have found idea of emergent preferences (although I don't believe Kurzman uses the word "emergent") to be influential on my own understanding of revolutions, so this is more of a 2.5-star book for me. Maybe I just want something that seriously connects complexity science and sociology, and this isn't it.