Revolution” belongs to that expanding list of English words whose multiple meanings make any precise usage elusive, if not impossible. The misuse and abuse of the term “revolution” in ordinary communication is enough of a problem, but the flexibility of the term in scholarly writings makes reasonable discourse across disciplinary lines a monumental task.

Humanists, social scientists, and natural scientists have contributed in various ways to the ambiguity of the word. Invite three theologians, let's say, to discuss “revolution in the modern world” and witness the use of the same grammatical substantive to describe ecclesiastical reform, or any given number of societal changes, or the violent overthrow of an established political regime. Under such circumstances communication is as difficult as it is for a trio of recent immigrants engaged in a conversation that includes the English word “rose,” each having reached the separate conclusion that the speaker is referring to a flower, or a color, or an action just performed.