What constitutes a revolution for Tocqueville? What makes a “revolution” different from just a regular change? Do you agree with Tocqueville’s analysis? Is there a “revolution” here? If so, what kind? If not, what is it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comments:
For Tocqueville, the combination of political and societal upheaval, and the change of both the "apex" and body of the government, make the French
Revolution in 1789 a different form of revolution from all previous revolutions. Perhaps to use an anachronistic term, the events he describes constitute the first "social revolution". Although describing all of
the differences would be longer than the scope of this answer, here are three good examples that show the essence of these differences.
First, in Part I, Chapter 3, 2nd paragraph (I have the Anchor Books edition so page numbers do not match), Tocqueville writes that, for the French Revolution, "In all the annals of recorded history, we find no mention of any political revolution that took this form; its only parallel is to be found in certain religious revolutions." This concept, that the basic intellectual and spiritual basis of a nation was changed, is exemplified in later sections such as Part III, Chapter 1, where Tocqueville describes how the writers of the 18th century inspired a desire for equality and revolt that took over all classes of society. For the actual religion of the French people, although the basic religious beliefs of the people remained, the Church as a political and economic institution was indeed swept away in the "religious revolution".
Second, the sudden elimination of the feudal and clerical classes, distinctions from the Old Regime, was new to all revolutions in Europe. Tocqueville writes in Part I, Chapter 5 that the "chief permanent achievement of the French Revolution was the suppression of those political institutions, commonly described as feudal...". Later in the same chapter, he writes that "what it was destroying affected the entire social system". While Burke wondered why the French could not return to the old system after making reforms in the revolution, Tocqueville answered that the revolution's "aim was precisely to abolish that 'ancient common law of Europe', and that there could be no question of putting the clock back." Hence, the aspect of societal revolution was unprecendented before the French Revolution, although it would be followed in later cases like the Russian Revolution.
Finally, the fact that both the administrative body and the head of the government changed made the French Revolution unique. Although the process of equalizing all subjects under the rule of a centralized administration had already begun in the Old Regime, this process would finish in 1789 as class distinctions were destroyed. In Part III, Chapter 7, he compares the French to the English Revolution, which "made sweeping changes in the political constitution of the country and even overthrew the monarchy, but hardly affected the secondary laws or the customs and habits of the nation... The apex was shattered, but the substructure stood firm." Later, Tocqueville compares the 1789 revolution to later revolutions in France, which did not have nearly the same degree of change because "the administrative system has always stood firm amid the debacles of political systems." Hence, "the disturbances they caused never were widespread or lasted long."
By looking at these points, I would tend to agree with Tocqueville's analysis that the 1789 revolution was a new movement that the world had not seen before. Since both the societal, intellectual, and cultural foundations of the previous regime were altered, this represented a greatly different type of revolution from contemporary examples (e.g. the US Revolution, English Civil War, etc.).
Post a Comment