Enlightenment Philosophy and the French Revolution's Declaration

Enlightenment Philosophy and Intellectual Foundations

The 18th century was marked by the development of Enlightenment philosophy, which questioned traditional allegiances to king and religion. John Locke famously proclaimed that all citizens possessed inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property that no sovereign could override. He further argued that if a monarch ignored this implicit contract between himself and his people, then rebellion was justified. This concept was adopted by the American Revolutionaries and, with slightly altered wording, was transposed into the Declaration of Independence.

According to Enlightenment thinkers, reason—rather than unquestioned loyalty to past superstition—was what mattered most. French writers such as Rousseau supported this concept, as delineated in his Social Contract (1762). Rousseau idealized the "state of nature" that human beings existed in outside of government, rather than fearing it as Thomas Hobbes did. He argued that a monarch must provide advantages for the individual to justify that individual's surrender of rights to a social organization. The author Voltaire similarly ridiculed the Catholic Church in his novel Candide and called for a new era founded upon religious liberty and protection of freedom of speech.

All of these Enlightenment authors stressed a crucial principle: when the negatives of belonging to a state outweighed the positives, the citizen was justified in withdrawing his or her agreement to be governed. This philosophy directly challenged the legitimacy of absolute monarchy and ecclesiastical authority.

The Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen

The Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen of 1789 brought together two streams of thought: "one springing from the Anglo-American tradition of legal and constitutional guarantees of individual liberties, the other from the Enlightenment's belief that reason should guide all human affairs" ("Enlightenment and human rights" 2001:1). Belief in the divine right of kings—the notion that the monarch ruled as God's anointed representative on earth—and the institution of religion in general were now considered irrational superstitions.

In some ways, the Declaration was even more radical in its scope than the American Constitution, despite being inspired by the American Revolution. The American Constitution still permitted slavery and did not grant full rights to men without property or women. Although the Declaration said nothing about women, religious minorities, propertyless men, or enslaved persons, "the moment the declaration passed, the status of all these groups became the subject of heated debate" ("Enlightenment and human rights" 2001:2). The Declaration thus opened the door to future expansion of rights, even as it fell short of universal application.

Radical Implementation and Legislative Action

For a brief time, a radical movement to accord liberty to all and to do away with the superstitions of the past was championed by the National Assembly, particularly religious superstitions as embodied by the once-powerful Catholic Church in France. The practical implementation of these ideals proved volatile and contested: "The National Assembly instituted property qualifications only to rescind them in 1792 and reinstitute them after 1795" ("Enlightenment and human rights" 2001:3).

Nevertheless, significant gains were achieved. Protestants and later Jews were given full rights, and "the National Convention, on 4 February 1794, finally abolished slavery in all the colonies. It would be reestablished under Napoleon in 1802" ("Enlightenment and human rights" 2001:3). These measures demonstrate how the National Assembly attempted to translate Enlightenment principles of reason and universal liberty into law, even as political circumstances forced retreats and reversals.