French Revolution: Gains and Losses in Individual Freedom

Introduction

The French Revolution occurred during a time when Europe was experiencing a number of social, economic, political, and philosophical changes (Troyansky, Cismaru, & Andrews, 1991). Historians David G. Troyansky, Alfred Cismaru, and Norwood Andrews Jr. write that there was an old and new mindset at work, and that the new ideas of the Enlightenment, which also carried remnants of Renaissance thinking, were reshaping French society (Troyansky, Cismaru, & Andrews, 1991). The authors clarify, stating that "as Condorcet argues in his Esquisse, generations tend to retain the prejudices of youth and, as the language of eighteenth-century biology puts it, harden as they age" (p. 21). This means that the youth — the product of the Enlightenment — were coming of age in conflict with the remnants of the Renaissance. In doing so, they leaned more toward science and toward the political ideals that facilitated science, namely democracy.

At the same time, the progressive thinking of the revolutionaries was limited by the prejudices they held toward the ruling elite, and those prejudices may have caused them to be less democratic or progressive in their own revolution. As a result, the outcome of the French Revolution involved both gains and concessions with respect to individual rights. That exchange — what was lost and what was gained — is the focus of this paper.

Pre-Revolution: Competing Visions of Reform

The months and days leading up to the Revolution are an important period when examining what was gained and what was lost. With the remnants of the Renaissance came the "old guard," so to speak (Troyansky, Cismaru, & Andrews, 1991). The players involved must be considered carefully, because what was gained and lost would reflect who was behind the effort to bring new and nontraditional freedoms to the population, and who opposed the existing traditional order and worked to prevent its replacement.

Condorcet saw France in its pre-revolutionary Renaissance past and recognized the need to release the French from that past (Troyansky, Cismaru, & Andrews, 1991): "He sees the modern history of science, politics, and society as depending upon release from the past. That past is dominated by selfish, avaricious, and despotic elders. He had evidence from history and his own career" (p. 24).

Mirabeau père, even though he was a citizen of the "old guard," saw the future of France in terms of youth and economics (Troyansky, Cismaru, & Andrews, 1991). "He called for rejuvenating or renovating the national spirit. We are struck by the obvious contradiction between this public stance and his despotic behavior in private, using the lettre de cachet to imprison his own son. That contradiction was hardly missed at the time. After all, Mirabeau junior wrote treatises on prisons and despotism in which he demonstrated the connection between public and private power" (p. 24). It was precisely this tension between public and private stances among the revolutionaries that facilitated the give-and-take nature of the French Revolution.

What emerged were different groups — not quite factions — within the pre-revolutionary activist community, giving way to ongoing debate and argument (Troyansky, Cismaru, & Andrews, 1991). The historians write:

"In the contentious atmosphere of the prerevolution, different groups seized upon the language of renovation and rejuvenation. François Furet and Denis Richet recognized this when they called the last decades of the Ancien Régime an age of reform. Government ministers, from Jacques Necker to Charles-Alexandre de Calonne, spoke this language, as did parlementaires and rural communities demanding the recognition of traditional rights. Whatever the final consensus on the question of seigneurial reaction, the demands of the old nobility can also be subsumed beneath the idea of rejuvenation or renovation. In effect, any group or corporation could adopt such terms. During the forthcoming Revolution, though, the sides were more sharply drawn" (p. 24).

The concept of regeneration was, in fact, widely shared. Historians Linda S. Frey and Marsha L. Frey (2004) write about the impressions conveyed by people of the time: "The nineteenth-century historian Tocqueville talked of the revolutionaries' 'fanatical faith' in 'transforming the social system, root and branch and regenerating the whole human race.' In so doing they were prepared to act with 'unprecedented ruthlessness'" (p. 37). The authors call this "possibilism" — "the sense of boundless possibility" (p. 37).

At the forefront of regeneration was the economic disparity that existed between the elite and the working poor, who had been taxed in support of King Louis XVI's military campaigns and his extensive court holdings. The French Revolution brought about the liberation of the peasantry, enabling peasants to take ownership of the lands they had worked to sustain the monarchy (Soboul, 1988). In other words, the Revolution abolished elitist privilege sustained by the working poor. Most of the rights that the revolutionaries fought for arose from the right to own land, since land was virtually the only source of wealth at the time (Soboul, 1988).

Conclusion: The Balance of Freedom

The French Revolution was an action brought about by despair, extreme poverty, and people who had been taxed to their limit by King Louis XVI. It was the bridge between the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, and it marked the end of medieval feudalism. The people of France sought a Constitution that would enumerate their freedoms, although those freedoms decreed on August 4, 1789, were significantly less expansive than many had hoped. The right to own land — confiscated from wealthy royalty and nobility — had been won, but it still required the new landowners to pay taxes and find the means to sustain and harvest those lands.

The people wanted, and won, a Constitution, but as Mary Desaulniers (1995) points out, citing Kenneth Burke, "If the Constitution is to be more than a paper machinery for reform, it has to get beyond mere galvanic measures; it has to change the fundamental nature of motivation itself" (p. 83). The Constitution could not guarantee wealth, but it could guarantee free enterprise and the opportunity to benefit from the fruits of one's labor — and to be compensated for labor performed on behalf of others. It was, in short, the end of the feudal system in France.

These are the rights that compelled the impoverished and disheartened to take up arms against Louis XVI. The people of France wanted to fashion themselves after a democracy, but gave little thought to what they would surrender in the process. It probably did not occur to them that their relationship with the Catholic Church in Rome would be, at least periodically, altered — or that their efforts would ultimately lead to the despotic reign of Napoleon Bonaparte.

However, having succeeded in their Revolution and having gained the right to own property — an enormous step forward in the rights of French citizens — there was always the prospect of asserting themselves yet again, which they subsequently did, in order to continue perfecting their government and securing greater rights and equality. It must be said that much more was gained by the French than was surrendered or lost through the French Revolution.

References

Baker, L. (2005). The French Revolution as local experience: The Terror in Dijon. The Historian, 67(4), 694+.

Desaulniers, M. (1995). Carlyle and the economics of terror: A study of revisionary Gothicism in the French Revolution. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.

Frey, L. S., & Frey, M. L. (2004). The French Revolution. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Soboul, A. (1988). Understanding the French Revolution. New York: International Publishers.

Troyansky, D. G., Cismaru, A., & Andrews, N. (Eds.). (1991). The French Revolution in culture and society. New York: Greenwood Press.