The Bastille jail storm was a microcosm to the desire of French people for a republic with no oppressive rulers. France was able to embrace a new Emperor after just a few more years. It’s not fair to assume hypocrisy with Napoleon Bonaparte. He promoted French nationalism, basing on the ideals ‘liberty and equality’ that were created during the initial stages of revolution. The concepts of liberty, nation and democracy are now synonymous. This is problematic, however, as the ultimate goal for a revolution is integration, transformation and nationalism. These concepts, although they seem to go hand in hand, fundamentally undermine one another – later on- in France’s Revolution. Furthermore, although the revolutionary armies wanted France freed from the oppressive rule despots, it was clear that the Third Estate did not have any control over matters of politics. Political discussion was a key feature of the revolution. This revolution was designed to make France a republic. The argument here is that liberty motivated the revolution. However, the formation and eventual acceptance of nationalism was an inevitable byproduct. However, this inquiry has revealed that the French Revolution was not about one thing for all people.
There are many ambiguities in the investigation of the motivations for the French Revolution’s multiplex nature. Multi-verbal themes that emerged from the revolution can sometimes be counterintuitive or shadowy. It was the Bastille Prison stormers on July 14, 1789 that made a pivotal move against despotism. While some historians might argue that violence/brutality was needed during the Revolution, revisionist historians would say violence and revolution are synonymous. It is possible to conclude that both the Revolution’s themes of violence/liberty were symbolic. The proclamation and acceptance of an Emperor several years later is a problem for liberty. Liberty was established during the Revolution much earlier than the revolution. The storming of Bastille prison was an act to overthrow Old Regime. In the French Revolution liberty recognized the equality of all citizens with common rights, interests, and rights. This premise was consistent and transparent throughout the entire Revolution period, even during the Terror. This was not true for nationalism. The concepts of revolution and nationalism are usually intertwined, as they often have the same origins. This is problematic for the French Revolution as it is aimed at transformation, nationalism, integration (Kumar p. The French people (the bourgeoisie, commoners) desired a break with the oppressive Old Regime. In the early stages of Revolution (1790), the concepts of nationalism and patriotism -inspired by Enlightenment thinking – were in agreement. These ideals were reinterpreted by Anarcharsis Cloots in 1791. He changed the definition of citizenship and patriotism to one of universal Republic and cosmopolitanism. French aggrandizement was no longer a priority. Cloots’ school drew popularity as it was consistent with Robespierre (p. 592-2). The principles of nationalism start to diverge from the interests of the Revolution. In response to this, the revolutionary armies ironically mustered a sense xenophobic-nationalism -amongst the people of France- by endorsing counter-nationalism as well as allowing for kings and the aristocracy to develop state patriotism. The doctrine of the Revolution was a doctrine of sovereignty, autonomy, and national self-government.
Modern historians believe that the Revolution was born out of conflict between social classes against the oppressive feudal regime. This is another plausible interpretation. This was between the capitalist bourgeoisie, the rising nobility class/those belonging the Third Estate whose interest were protected by feudal and agricultural systems of the Old Regime.
Here, the bourgeoisie wanted freedom for free trading and a representative democratic to serve their capitalist needs (p. 1295). This text and others contain empirical evidence that makes the narrative redundant or contradictory. Revisionist historians take aim at this approach by suggesting that Third Estate members were not capitalists in general, but instead invested their money differently (‘land. offices. rentes’, p. 1295). Heuer offers another perspective, drawing on revisionist theories. Heuer suggests that before the revolution, the nobility and bourgeoisie were actually competing. Heuer thus makes redundant the notions of an oppressive regime and the struggle for free-trade.
Lewis (1993 : 119) agrees with the previous point. The Revolution was not about classes, but a conflict of capitalist and nobility. Lewis (1993, 119) asserts that France had seen an industrial ‘take off’ before the Revolution. The post-folkal structure and mentality inherited from the aristocratic class was what hampered capitalist production. The Revolution may have been exacerbated by current capitalist growth that was led by the nobility, rather than the bourgeoisie. The conflict that resulted in capitalist growth was not a war of classes. It was between the capitalist ‘elite bourgeoise’ and feudal nobles (Lewis, 1993: 119-21). The Revolution was not about individual liberty, but about controlling the state. However, this notion doesn’t seem acknowledge the fact that inequalities existed within society before Revolution.
Prior to/during Revolution, Liberty was sought by equal representation among the peoples of France (commoners, bourgeoisie) as well as what was known previously as the dominant classes (nobility, Third Estate). This idea of equality was to be applied politically as well as generally. The proclamation The Declaration of The Rights of Man and Citizen was an indicator of the motivation behind Revolution. The direction of the Revolution was determined by the November 14th 1793 resolution. It prohibited the use of any language that refers or addresses another person as inferior to oneself. The petition to the National Convention in 1794 to repeal ‘vous was a microcosm that reflected the desire for less discrimination and social reserve as well as more familiarity, fraternity, and equality (p. 22). These ideals were focused on social transformation, with individuals and groups being freed from the old regime’s oppressive social norms. This makes it clear that the Revolution’s symbol trinity (liberty/equality/fraternity) was synonymous.
With that said, some Revolution-related events -such the Terror – are highly questionable as to their morality or utility. It is important to note that this aspect of Revolution has many contradictions and ambiguities.
This refers to the Terror that took place in revolutionary time around 1794 (p. It is clear that the Revolution’s initial goals were to overthrow the Old Regime-thriving aristocrats. However, the motivations behind the violence inflicted during the Terror seemed tackle all forms of inequalities and counter-revolutionaries. Ironically, the Committee of Public Safety and the Revolutionary Tribunal were the ones who orchestrated the official Terror. It claimed 17,000 lives and 85 percent of those who were executed were commoners.
This was the definition of an “aristocrat”, which meant anyone who was deemed an enemy to the state (pp. 25-6). The Revolution’s narrative seems to have strayed from its original interests. The Terror reflects a totalitarian, state-oriented mindset that is opposed to the republic Revolutionaries fought and wanted. Darnton (19989; 28) suggests that this is because people are unable to live in an “epistemological bliss” -created by the Bastille siege – for long.
The Revolution is over and people have become driven by blood. It is possible to argue that violence was necessary to end the Old Regime. This being said, it is important that we acknowledge the fact that the Revolution lost direction at this point, and that violence was caused by blind populism.
These arguments all seem to show that the Revolution was a struggle for liberty for all. The Revolution did not grant any individual or political liberty to the bourgeoisie, even though this was true. The Revolution was not only good for the bourgeoisie, but also for the rest of society. Commoners began persecuting Third Estate members almost immediately following the Bastille siege. They were protesting the rise of bread prices as a result the political instability immediately following the collapses the Old Regime. McPhee, 182. Moreover, the working patterns, social status, and working conditions of the poor remained unchanged. The Revolution did not affect the living and working conditions of the poor. The revolution was most detrimental to the aristocracy than the poor. But they also gained the most. It is important to note that the Revolution’s immediate aftermath, regardless of how negative, helped create a new social landscape that continues to be effective today (Darnton, 28).
In my research into the topic, it became clear that ‘Liberty//or ‘Nation” are broad terms that do not accurately describe the French Revolution. The French Revolution had multiple vocabularies and different significance for different people. For example, the Revolution was not perpetuated by capitalist bourgeoisies. The siege of Bastille was a turning point in the Revolution’s history. This conclusion comes from both the conflicting historical views and the contradictory and undermined ideals of French Revolution. And whilst it is very plausible -from the enquiry- that the Revolution was ultimately about class with nationalism being a necessity/by-product, the discussion regarding this is a wide and far. It is possible, however, that the Revolution’s conflicting ideas were symbolic of the desire of societal and structural reform.
