The French Revolution
"Externally all the despots surround
you; internally all the friends of tyranny conspire...It is necessary
to annihilate both the internal and external enemies of the republic
or perish with its fall. Now, in this situation your first political
maxim should be that one guides the people by reason, and the
enemies of the people by terror...terror is the only justice that
is prompt, severe, and inflexible; it is thus an emanation of
virtue"
----- Maximilien Robespierre's "Republic of Virtue."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Marxist/Classic Interpretation
The Bourgeois Revolution
Key Scholars:
* George Lefebvre, The Coming of the French
Revolution (1939/1947)
* Albert Soboul, A Short History of the French Revolution (1965/1977)
The Marxists view the entire period (there were numerous revolts led by different groups) as one inseparable and inevitable process that represented the decisive stage between feudalism and capitalism . The Revolution ultimately occurred because of a growing discrepancy between public pretension and economic reality. In the Old Regime, land ownership was the basis of privileged position the nobility enjoyed. This arrangement became increasingly obsolete because of the rise of commerce gave rise to the numbers and economic power of the bourgeoisie. The aristocratic landed order still retained social predominance despite economic eclipse. Although still dominant in virtually every aspect of society, the nobles resented the growing influence of the bourgeoisie and wished to stifle the lower classes while regaining the prerogatives they surrendered to Louis XIV - what the Marxists term the Aristocratic Reaction . This frustration on the part of the nobility kicked off the first salvos against the French monarch that would ironically destroy their own privileged order. The bourgeoisie did not begin the Revolution, but it was they who would pour through the open breach the aristocracy made and emerge victorious by establishing a regime that more closely reflected the new distribution of economic power. The aristocracy lost because they stubbornly clung to their birthrights and prevented a weak king from making necessary reforms. Class Conflict is the engine that drives the French Revolution.
Although depicting the Revolution as a singular event, Lefebvre identified 4 stages in the French Revolution:
1. Aristocratic - This represented the
climax of the Aristocratic reaction. The nobility recruited the
bourgeoisie as allies Vs. the King.
2. Bourgeois - After just bitching over legal aristocratic
privilege, they took advantage of the National Assembly to enact
civic equality reforms that were heavily influenced by the Enlightenment.
The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen is the
most famous example.
3. Popular - The coup of the Parisians and the storming
of the Bastille. The urban masses rose because they feared a possible
royal attempt to dissolve National Assembly. This development
was crucial for energizing a timid bourgeoisie.
4. Peasant - A nationwide uprising brought about by a poor
harvest. It was only from this intense pressure from below did
the revolutionaries destroy feudalism in its entirety.
Like the acts of a play, these separate strands were meaningless
in and of themselves. Together, they comprise a grand symphony
of a bourgeois and liberal revolution with support from the masses
driven to eradicate the feudalistic Old Regime.
In responding to the various critiques against
the classic interpretation, the Marxists in essence use the ends
to justify their analysis. Lefebrve himself noted a study of the
actual delegates revealed a number of inconsistencies with the
Bourgeois Revolution thesis (e.g. a number of nobles acted like
the bourgeoisie and vice-versa). Despite this, he claims that
it is still best thought of as such because even if the revolutionaries
were not capitalists their actions still favored capitalism. Soboul
similarly argues claiming though the masses may appear anti-capitalist,
their overall goal was to destroy feudalism and their actions
allowed the power of the bourgeoisie to reach maturity. In short,
because the end result of the Revolution favored the bourgeoisie,
it was a bourgeois revolution. Defenders of this school also accuse
revisionists as trying to denigrate the French Revolution into
a nonentity - something it clearly was not.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Revisionist Critique
The Myth of the Bourgeois Revolution
Key Scholars:
* Alfred Cobban, "The Myth of the French
Revolution" (1954?)
* Cobban, The Social Interpretation of the French Revolution
(1964)
* George V. Taylor, "Noncapitalist Wealth and the Origins
of the French Revolution" (1967)
Cobban launched the first serious and sustained
attack against the Marxist interpretation during a 1954 lecture
with broadside against the 'myth' of feudal order passing away
in favor of rule of bourgeoisie. Cobban's main theses was that
feudalism was already destroyed by 1789 and the revolution was
hardly a revolt of bourgeoisie since only 13% of the delegates
could be classified as such. In truth, according to Cobban, the
vast majority of "revolutionaries" were rentiers, lawyers,
officials, and landowners who were incompatible with the Marxist
definition of bourgeois. Instead of a rising bourgeoisie, Cobban
depicts them as a declining class that allied with the nobility
to stop monarchial reform.
Rather than seeing the French Revolution as a singular process
of class conflict, Cobban maintains that there is:
* No such thing as a single French Revolution.
* Allegiances were basically the poor Vs. the rich (i.e., aristocrats
and bourgeoisie).
* The Revolution did not result in a new social order.
Collectively, these assertions downplay the "revolution"
part of the French Revolution. Whatever remnants remained of feudalism
in France in 1789 were swept away by the peasants, not the revolutionaries.
Cobban also rejected any supposed intellectual origins that stemmed
from the Enlightenment.
Whereas the Classic interpretation forwards a coherent theory, Cobban and the revisionists that followed do not have a tidy explanation for the French Revolution, however defined. Rather, they seem content to simply attack the Marxist view. Although some have decried this as "nitpicking", it would appear that there are simply too many problems unearthed by new research - in short too many targets - for the Classic school of thought to be taken seriously
The most striking problem the revisionists have with the Marxist view is the supposed class conflict between the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie - a central tenet of Marxism. Anything beyond a rudimentary analysis of the delegates who made the "revolution" reveals the two supposed heated antagonists had so much in common regarding composition (wealth, equity), thought (both wanted a reformed constitutional monarchy), and action (if anything, the voting records show the nobles were more liberal than their bourgeois counterparts) that some historians have classified them as a solitary group - the notables. Lefebrve's own research pointed out inconsistencies when trying to divide them into neat and distinct classes (which he conveniently explained away). This is a common problem when social scientists try to employ inflexible models to fluid phenomena; history is rarely so accommodating and a certain amount of bullshitting is required. The simple truth remains there is difficulty defining whom exactly was a noble and a bourgeoisie, which renders the class conflict analysis problematic.
* George V. Taylor notes the two were economically
indistinguishable . Both invested the vast majority of their wealth
in proprietary (non-capitalist) ventures. Furthermore, what little
capitalist elements existed in the French economy were in the
hands of the nobility. This extremely important research irreparably
damages an explanation for Revolution based on socio-economic
terms. Taylor instead forwards the radical reforms during the
revolution were products of a political crisis.
* William Doyle points out that the nobility was not a closed
sect; anybody could buy their way into this privileged order.
He also convincingly dismisses the "Aristocratic Reaction"
theory by showing the various institutions that were ennobled
in the 1780s were so a century earlier as well. Furthermore, there
was a great deal of conflict within as the "Sword"
- aristocrats that could trace their lineage centuries back -
resented the upstarts in the "Robe" who had recently
bought their way into the privileged order.
In short, rather than a vicious struggle between the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie, it would appear that there was little difference between the wealthy members of the Third Estate and the aristocracy. They conducted business with each other, got drunk together, intermarried, and had the same mistresses. They were separated by privilege, but it was possible to gain a noble title through service for the king or by simply buying it. Together, they comprised the beautiful people of 18th century France, they looked down at the peasantry, and they sought to end the absolute rule of the king. If this depiction is accurate - that is harmony at the top of France's social strata - then the Marxist interpretation is untenable. Some historians have suggested the Revolution was more the result of crises, both political (bankruptcy) and economic (poor harvest and increasing population pressure).
Taylor suggests the best way to understand the Revolution is to reject the economic interpretation and as envision it as a political contest for power. This makes sense in several regards. It would explain why wealth and role often conflicted with a delegates order. Considering the vast majority of the National Assembly were legal representatives and not industrialists, it logically follows that politics and legal issues, not finances, would be prioritized. After all, it was not the businessman looking for monetary gain that sat at the Assembly, but the lawyer. Finally, post-revolutionary France hindered capitalism, not helped it. After the notables regained power during Thermidor, they ruled a country whose economy had changed astonishingly little during the Revolution. The vast majority of peasants were still tied to small units and aimed at merely providing self-sufficiency; the only real difference was the abolition of seigniorial dues. The manufacturing sector remained unchanged. In fact, historian Roger Price has posited that it was the railroad, not the Revolution, which truly destroyed the Old Regime.
The revisionists are fairly thorough in their
demolition of the Marxist interpretation, but their failure to
provide a systemic theory explaining the events in late 18th century
France clouds the issue rather than clarifies it. To the Marxist
rejoinder, "Ok, if it was not a Bourgeois Revolution, what
was it?", the revisionists have responded with more or less
collective silence. The truth is the revisionists are better at
explaining what the French Revolution was not rather than what
it was. If there is one conclusion that holds a consensus in the
revisionist camp, it would be that the 2nd and 3rd Estates wanted
a moderate and peaceful change to a Constitutional Monarchy that
would be mutually beneficial. Why this rational vision did not
happen and instead we got the guillotine, Napoleon, mobs in the
streets parading heads on pikes, apocalyptic rhetoric, and millions
dead in the French Revolutionary Wars is something they have no
collective explanation for.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post-Revisionism
A Cultural Clash
Key Scholars:
* Francois Furet, Interpreting the French
Revolution (1978/1981)
* Keith Baker, Inventing the French Revolution: Essays on French
Political Culture in the Eighteenth Century (1990)
* Timothy Tackett, Becoming a Revolutionary: The Deputies of
the French National Assembly and the Emergence of a Revolutionary
Culture (1996)
Francois Furet, a former communist zealously determined to make amends for what he believed were his earlier insidious loyalties, came out with Penser la Révolution francaise (Interpreting the French Revolution) in 1978 which renounced the Marxist interpretation and diverged from the revisionists at the same time. Furet rejected the notion that the Revolution had skidded off course during the Great Terror (a favorite Marxist argument that conveniently removes the wholesale slaughter from the glorious Revolution) and argued for an ideological unity where the guillotine and bloodshed were implicit and integral parts in the liberal ambitions of 1789 - a contention conservatives had advanced for a century. Furet also revitalized the long neglected work of 19th century thinker Alexis de Tocqueville who believed the Revolution emerged from cultural structures of the Old Regime that became strained as the French state became more centralized.
With this, Furet's Revolution was not an event based on contingency, but a consequence of political culture. This culture was from the beginning extremist and non-pluralistic. There was no place for honest disagreement or debate; only by exterminating the enemy could a natural unanimity be restored. Thus, he sees no qualitative change from 1789 to 1794. Furet's interpretation is best thought of as a cultural revolution brought upon by the long process of centralization of the French state.
Other post-revisionists have followed Furet's lead in stressing the importance of culture in explaining the French Revolution. Tackett notes the importance of a revolutionary mindset (caused by resistance to reform) that emerged from the Revolution. Tackett discounts the Enlightenment as an agent (bc/ delegates were lawyers) and claims it was used after the fact to justify the Revolution, hence the title of his book. Hunt believes that the new republican political class forever transformed politics through their use of unifying symbols. The French Revolution created politics and ideologies; it was this emergence of political culture that was revolutionary.
The other significant post-revisionist is Baker. Baker downplays ideological origins such as the Enlightenment and instead forwards a cultural interpretation ala Furet. Baker's contribution is his emphasis on the importance of discourse. This is logical as the core of any definition of political culture is bound to be linguistic since politics is all about making claims, convincing others about their worthiness, and then enforcing them. Instead of analyzing abstract concepts, Baker feels it is more worthwhile to look at the actual language used in the Revolution. An analysis here allows for a connection between the rise of political consciousness and the importance of public opinion. In short, the creation of a revolutionary language was the vital prerequisite for the Revolution.
Baker's reasoning is germane to late 18th century France because the monarchial institution set up in medieval times was becoming increasingly obsolescent. Long after Galileo and Newton's great scientific discoveries and centuries after Gutenberg's printing press made disseminating information easy, kings could not simply rely on pomp and circumstance to convince millions of subjects they were ordained to rule by God. Louis XIV never had to concern himself with the masses as he only had to humor a few snooty aristocrats at Versailles to maintain his authority. By way of comparison, Louis XVI's Paris was replete with coffee houses and clubs where the patrons talked politics. Baker draws attention to this public space where observation and criticism of Louis XVI came from. This new concept, public opinion, laid the ultimate principle authority for this nascent political culture. Louis VXI simply could not hightail to Versailles while the common people gossiped, debated, and schemed in this new public space. Above all, public opinion created an expectation for change and public anticipation when the Estates General met in 1789. With the emergence of a public opinion and politically literate culture where discourse becomes a potentially very potent, the stage becomes set for the French Revolution.
The post-revisionists do not have a all-embracing
theory for the French Revolution. A (very) rough amalgamation
goes as follows: Autonomy must be granted for politics; it cannot
be reduced to a byproduct of class conflict or even friction between
interest groups. A new political culture emerged from the dynamism
between various groups vying for Revolutionary legitimacy. This
political culture was a mortal struggle to decide which one faction
would interpret the peoples' will. With the losers labeled (not
metaphorically) as "counterrevolutionaries" and "traitors",
there could be no dissent, let alone debate - hence the Revolution's
instability. Thus, the Great Terror was not generated by social
pressure but was an inevitable outcome of revolution's political
culture.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Enlightenment and the French Revolution
Which came first? Was the Enlightenment bourgeois?
Key Scholars:
* Roger Chartier, The Cultural Origins of
The French Revolution (1991)
* Robert Darton
The classic answer is the Enlightenment is a bourgeois ideology and was a prerequisite for the Revolution. However, many Enlightenment authors, like Montesquieu, were nobles. The consumers of this literature were also a mixed lot. These findings are logical as Enlightenment interests and aristocratic interests were not mutually exclusive. Consider Voltaire. Ridiculed and laughed out of Paris for his writings in his youth, at the end of his life he made a triumphant return as the archetype philosophe when the establishment rolled out the red carpet because of these very same writings. Voltaire's apotheosis demonstrates how comfortably assimilated into the Old Regime the Enlightenment became. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen is often seen as the quintessential Enlightenment document. Even a quick glance would reveal that it called for a meritcratic social order, not an egalitarian one - equality was conspicuously absent. Baker claims the Declaration, like the Enlightenment, was not the culmination of the philosophes but a complex document cramped with too many different ideologies.
Chartier says the popular notion that the Enlightenment caused the Revolution makes the mistake of post hoc ergo propter hoc - "after the fact, therefore because of the fact" and instead emphasizes the de-Christianization and centralization processes as agents for the Revolution. Darton's study of what the Parisians read lends credence to this. Rather than what the sell-out Enlightenment authors put out, most people buried their heads in pornography and banned polemics attacking the establishment written by angry young men who failed to break into high society. Indeed, if anything it may have been Grub Street, not the Enlightenment, which gnawed away the foundations of the Old Regime. Of course, the Revolutionaries could hardly claim legitimacy being inspired by Darton's gutter press so they appropriated the philosophes as their own. With this, they ensured later day historians would look upon their illusionary predecessors through a distorted lens. Thus, Chartier and other historians claim it was the French Revolution that made the Enlightenment.