In this chapter, I observe that some cognitive film theorists appear to have uncritically accepted basic emotions theory in their approach to cinematic expressive depiction. Instead, I argue that the theory of constructed emotion, in which emotional concepts are socially constructed categorizations of affect, better fits the available empirical data and presents greater opportunities for productive interdisciplinary synthesis. First, I draw the relevant distinctions between the two theories, noting that the former posits that each basic emotion has a distinct neurophysiological signature and a facial/vocal expression that is universally recognized, whereas the latter permits more complex relationships among brain states, physiological signs, facial movements, and their meaning. Second, I review evidence regarding the brain basis of emotion, cross-cultural research on emotional recognition, and the roles of concepts and words, noting opportunities to place the cognitive neuroscience of emotion in dialogue with philosophy of film. Third, I observe an opportunity for robust interdisciplinary triangulation in the Kuleshov effect, a phenomenon of film editing in which the meaning of a facial expression is thought to change in the context of a montage. Overall, the theory of constructed emotion might draw greater attention of experimentalists to questions of cultural relativity and historical specificity.

This chapter summarizes the main findings, arguments, and contributions of the book. It reviews the theoretical arguments and discusses promising avenues for further research on revolution and counterrevolution. Then it explains how the book’s findings speak to a number of scholarly and public debates. First, for scholars of violence and nonviolence, who have argued that unarmed civil resistance is more effective at toppling autocrats than armed conflict, the book raises questions about the tenacity of the regimes established through these nonviolent movements. Second, it speaks to scholarship on democratization, highlighting the important differences between transitions effected through elite pacts versus those brought about through revolutionary mobilization. Third, it offers lessons about how foreign powers can help or hinder the consolidation of new democracies. Next, the chapter discusses implications for Egypt and the broader Middle East, including the possibility that future revolutions might avoid the disappointing fates of the 2011 revolutions. The chapter ends by reflecting on what the book has to say about our current historical moment, when rising rates of counterrevolution appear to be only one manifestation of a broader resurgence of authoritarian populism and reactionary politics worldwide.

The book concludes with a brief epilogue that recapitulates the exploration of cognition and the arts.

What is a counterrevolution? And how often do they occur? Chapter 2 is devoted to answering these foundational questions. According to this book, a counterrevolution is an irregular effort in the aftermath of a successful revolution to restore a version of the pre-revolutionary political regime. The chapter begins by explaining and contextualizing this definition. It reviews the various alternative understandings of counterrevolution that have been invoked by both scholars and activists. It then explains the decision to adopt a definition of counterrevolution as restoration and shows how this definition was operationalized in building the original dataset. The second half of the chapter lays out the main high-level findings from this dataset. About half of all revolutionary governments have faced a counterrevolutionary challenge of some type, and roughly one in five of these governments was successfully overturned. Moreover, these counterrevolutions have been distributed unevenly: the vast majority have toppled democratic revolutions, rather than ethnic or leftist ones. And counterrevolutions had for years been declining in frequency, until the last decade when this trend reversed. These descriptive findings provide the motivation for the theory developed in Chapter 3.

Chapter 3 describes the imagery and production of the murals of the Old Testament in the Camposanto of Pisa completed in by Benozzo Gozzoli in 1484. Archbishop Filippo de’ Medici’s (1426–74) role in the commission is placed in the expanded context of his patronage and diplomacy throughout a long, distinguished career. These murals, painted during Pisa’s subjection to Florence, enhanced an impressive locus of Pisan identity and pride, while signalling the political reality of Florentine control.