Post-Impressionism: A Contrived Revolution?

Although my title already reveals my own views on Post-Impressionism vis-à-vis Impressionism, I especially in light of the fact that I do not know enough on this subject to make any sort of conclusive opinion on these movements. However while reading (and synthesizing it with the analyses of past readings) chapters in Richard Shiff's Cézanne and the End of Impressionism, I somehow could not help but. . .have my sensations and impressions guide my line of thinking concerning Post-Impressionism; and this is what I would like to express:

Lets briefly explore the name of the movement itself. Shiff explains that the name "Post-Impressionism" could be credited to Roger Fry who "settled on what he thought to be an innocuous term of chronological identification." Immediately one senses not only the name's unoriginality but also, the designation's unrevolutionary-like nature. True, an aesthetic revolution indeed uses the former prevalent movement in a way to bolster itself; but including the word 'impressionism' within the name itself has implications for a non-traditional type of movement. Now then, what can we infer from this shared name? Does the shared name suggest shared techniques or similar theoretical underpinnings? And if this is the case, would it be a fair assessment to conclude that these movements share much more in common than what the "Post-Impressionists" would like to think?

Shiff explains that the "impressionists were too partial to finding and not sufficiently involved with making," thus implying that the post-impressionists were partial to the latter (as it is "increasingly of expressive design"). Such a reliance on being diametrically opposed suggests that post-impressionism is inextricably and heavily linked to the former movement such that, in some ways, it can be perceived as its rebellious extension.