THE FRENCH REVOLUTION.   Term Paper ID:29866 Click to get this paper

Essay Subject: Historiographical analysis.... More...

10 Pages / 2250 Words 2 sources, 42 Citations, APA Format $40.00 Return to List of Papers

Paper Abstract: Historiographical analysis. Two texts used as basis of analysis. Differences between the two based on the era in which they were written. Lefebre's book emphasizing the role of the peasantry in the origins of the Revolution. Aristocratic revolution against the French crown. Cobban's revisionist analysis of social explanations of the Revolution. Paper Introduction: Historiographical Analysis: The French Revolution Summary of the Texts Two texts serve as the basis of this analysis: Georges Lefebvre’s (1988) The Coming of the French Revolution and Alfred Cobban’s (1999) The Social Interpretation of the French Revolution. Lefebvre’s (1988) text was written and published 1939 and very much represents the renewed fervor of revolutionary idealism that was present in France at that time a few months before the Second World War began. In contrast, Cobban’s (1999) text was published first in 1964 and served then as a revisionist analysis of many of the social explanations of the origins of the French Revolution. Lefebvre (1988) addresses only the period at the very beginning of France’s great evolution. The text combines some of the e Text of the Paper: The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper. Lefebvre's (1988) goal is to demonstrate that a revolutionaryideology first adopted by the aristocracy led to the collapse of theBourbon monarchy. This in turn made it possible for the bourgeoisie tocome to the fore, with resulting divisions between the various groups thatwere involved in the fray. The Social Interpretation of the French Revolution. The text combines some of the elements ofMarxist thought with the foundations of republicanism, emphasizing the roleplayed by the peasantry in the origins of the French Revolution andshowcasing the influence of the ordinary, common people as opposed to thebetter-known intellectuals and political elites that are associated withthe Revolution. Cobban (1999) differs from Lefebvre (1988) in his assessment of therole of the bourgeoisie. Cobban 91999), in contrast, asserts that Marxisant historyinvents class cohesion (among such groups as the nobles, the bourgeoisie,and the urban poor or rural peasantry) to bolster theory and that, in fact,such class cohesion is an illusion rather than a reality. (1999). The nearly opposite view is presented by Lefebvre (1988), whoargues that the bourgeoisie of the ancien regime was a vital source ofrevolutionary ideals and instrumental in both town and countryside inbringing about the changes that shook France. Cobban (1999) takes theposition that that wealthy rural bourgeoisie who were able to hire laborerswere conservative rather than radical; like the land-rich and cash-poornobles, these individuals or classes did not want to lose their ownprivileges in society. Both the revisionists and the Marxists (or quasi-Marxists) turned to the peasantry for an understanding of how notions suchas equality and the rights of man were truly understood.The Historical Context Both of these explanatory texts were written within a specifichistorical context, a context that did much to shape the biases andinterpretations of the authors and to inform their relative positions onsuch matters as the role of classes in the French Revolution. The second text, Cobban's (1999) The Social Interpretation of theFrench Revolution, was written after the Second World War and falls withinthat category of "revisionism" in which a new sociological and theoreticallens is applied to a subject. Lefebvre (1988) underplays the role of the Enlightenment thinkerssuch as Rousseau and Voltaire and contends that class struggle wassomething that addressed the rights of all rather than a single groupwithin French society. First and perhaps most significantly, Cobban (1999)totally rejected any Marxisant or quasi-Marxist interpretation of theFrench Revolution. While the role played by the oppressed "lowerclasses" was important, that role was at least partially shaped by theinvolvement of other groups. The former analyst states that this class wasmade by the Revolution - rather than a group that made the Revolutionoccurs. Thisis not to say that Cobban (1999) in any way denies that classes did existin France in 1789 or that there were class tensions that fosteredresentment and even hatred among the peasantry and the urban masses. It is important to note that Lefebvre (1988)begins his analysis by identifying the "revolutionary" interests of anaristocracy which saw in the Bourbon monarchy an ultimately inefficientgovernment that could not support the state. Cobban's (1999) text demonstrates that it is simplyinappropriate and inadequate to posit that the French Revolution was aconflict between classes; where Lefebvre (1988) saw some overlap betweenthe revolutionary ideals of different classes in French society, Cobban(1999) held that the notion that feudalism continued to exist was invalidand that the association of seigniorial rights was wrongfully linked to thenobility and should be understood as held by non-nobles.Critique of the Texts Each of these authors - Lefebvre (1988) and Cobban (1999) - bring totheir subject matter a particular ideological bias or set of prejudices.Lefebvre (1988) is orthodox in his insistence on the overarching conflictof class struggle as the central source of impetus for the FrenchRevolution. Cobban (1999) admits that he borrowedsome of his thesis in this regard from Lefebvre (1988), but says that thiswas a result of Lefebvre's willingness to think or analyze like the peasantrather than the Marxist. In contrast, Cobban's (1999) text waspublished first in 1964 and served then as a revisionist analysis of manyof the social explanations of the origins of the French Revolution. Cobban's (1999) text begins with anassessment of the then-current state of history and moves to an analysis ofthe preconditions necessary for the Revolution, the roles of various groupsin the process, the dichotomy of country and town, the social cleavagesamong the peasantry, the role of the urban sans-culottes, and the conflictof poor and rich in a society that Cobban (1999) characterized as tooextreme in its allocation of wealth and resources. (1988). Historiographical Analysis: The French RevolutionSummary of the Texts Two texts serve as the basis of this analysis: Georges Lefebvre's(1988) The Coming of the French Revolution and Alfred Cobban's (1999) TheSocial Interpretation of the French Revolution. Thus, their participation in any meaningful acts ofrevolution was limited. Hesees in the Revolution a universal rather than a particularisticideological orientation. Lefebvre 91988) also addressed the role played by the so-called aristocratic revolution against the French Crown and argues thatthis growing disenchantment with the monarchy on the part of the powerfuland affluent classes influenced the ideas then adopted by other classes. The debate, so to speak, is between therelatively orthodox Marxist treatment of all revolutions as a classstruggle that erupts because of the totally incompatible interests ofvarious classes in society and a more expansive view in which revolution ina monarchial system is the result of new ideas and new aspirations. The main theses presented by Cobban (1999) include: 1) Marxistinterpretation of the nature and causes of the R4evolution are inadequateto the task at hand; 2) the French Revolution, apart from its more bloodyand violent episodes such as the Terror, was the product of the liberal andintellectual ideas of the Enlightenment; 3) at its essence or heart, theRevolution was not a socialist movement, but a movement toward a moreegalitarian capitalism that was evolutionary and inclusionary in itsresults. The Coming of the French Revolution. Cobban (1999) differs from this interpretation in several key ways,but has his own biases. Lefebvre's (1988) text waswritten and published 1939 and very much represents the renewed fervor ofrevolutionary idealism that was present in France at that time a few monthsbefore the Second World War began. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. The regime that was then introduced - and whichproduced the Declaration of the Rights of Man, which Lefebvre (1988)analyzes in detail - was one in which the potential for greater realizationof social justice was possible. His goal was to undermine the verynotion of a class struggle as the de factor impetus for any and allrevolutionary upsurges. This sectionof the report will consider the historical context in which Lefebvre (1988)and Cobban (1999) wrote. The argument advanced by Lefebvre 91988) was logical andwell-reasoned, but it was an argument flowing from the premise that a classstruggle linked to the persistence of feudalism was the primary source ofthe revolutionary impulse. Lefebvre 91988) insists throughout his analysis that while some ofthe intellectual ideals - such as the theories of the Enlightenmentphilosophers and the Encyclopedists - were instrumental in fosteringdisenchantment among the aristocracy, this disenchantment alone was notsufficient to explain the origins of the Revolution. Simply put, there were insufficient industrial, capitalistoperations in France in 1789 to serve as any meaningful source ofwidespread discontent. Lefebvre's orthodoxy and his willingnessto depend largely on a standard Marist interpretation of events, comparedto Cobban's (1999) more expansive assessment, falls short of explanation.Cobban's (1999) work seems more balanced and less insistent on interpretingall revolutionary struggles as emanating from the class tensions that existin society. Cobban (1999) holds that there were few truly influentialindustrialists in France as of 1798 and that the notion of an "industrialcapitalism" as leading to the alienation of workers is itself revisionary -or another example of the Marxisant attempt to make history fit theory whenthe facts are not present. This analysis has examined the similarities and differences betweenthe views of Lefebvre (1988) and Cobban (1999) on the causes and influencesacting in the French Revolution. Cobban (199), agreeing that all elements in society helped create theRevolution, deconstructs feudalism and argues that it was a lesssignificant influence than Lefebvre (1988) believed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Lefebvre, G. ReferencesCobban, A. Lefebvre (1988) holds that the Revolution was necessary - a pointwhich Cobban (1999) also seems to support, though clearly for differentreasons. It was necessary forall classes in a sharply divided and stratified French social system toparticipate in the development of revolutionary fervor. Cobban (1999) takesissue with Lefebvre's (1988) orthodox, quasi-Marxist interpretation of theFrench Revolution as a de facto class struggle in which an oppressedproletariat and peasantry rebelled against their aristocratic and bourgeoisoppressors. Cobban (1999) also rejects the idea that the so-called"rural bourgeoisie" that Lefebvre (1988) identified as instrumental inadvancing the cause of the Revolution were of any significance, just as herejected the notion that a substantial class of "industrial capitalists"was a focus of the urban masses' and their anger. Clearly, this is a far different approach and analysis than thatoffered by Lefebvre (1988), for whom the "uprising" of various "masses" wasfar more critical a determinant of revolutionary impulses than any proto-capitalist upsurge. All classes are seenby Lefebvre (1988) as having been instrumental in bringing about theRevolution, though its final goals and objectives were shaped not by thearistocracy, but rather by the roles of the bourgeoisie, the urban massesand the rural peasants. Lefebvre (1988) divides his analysis into several sections, eachfocusing on the role played by a specific group within France (i.e., thearistocracy, the bourgeois, the popular revolution) the mobilization of theurban masses), and the peasantry (the rural masses). Among the main thesescontained in these chapters are: 1) a precursor to the revolution of theurban masses and the agrarian peasantry was the revolutionary orientationof first the aristocracy and second the bourgeoisie; 2) all theserevolutions overlapped and flowed together; 3) multiple class divisions andsubdivisions were at work in this era, leading to competition for controlof the Revolution; and 3) the Revolution was necessary to ensure thecontinued capacity of France to exist as a state and because of the myriadfailures of the old government (Lefebvre, 1988). In this book, analysis of the composition andactins of the social classes is most important, with the emphasis not onlyor even primarily on their conflicts, but rather on their ultimate fusionas a revolutionary force. Specifically, it will be argued that therevisionism of Cobban (1999) was not so strict that he ignored theimportant role played by the peasantry, a role that Lefebvre (1988) alsosaw as of vital importance in shaping the outcome of the Revolution. Both writers believe, though to differing degrees,that it was the struggle of the peasantry to advance their interestsagainst those of both the bourgeoisie and the aristocracy which ultimatelyshaped the new government and social system that would emerge in theaftermath of the Revolution proper. Cobban(1999) insisted that the participation of the rural peasantry in theRevolution was essential, but he downplayed (and in some instances denied)that any capitalist, industrial force of any significance advanced classtensions. This analyst'sview of the Revolution is that it moved from one level of society toanother, but that it was only when the lower levels of society and itsclasses became involved that the most important issues of the Revolutionwere addressed. Both Cobban (1999) and Lefebvre (1988) arguedforcefully that the role played in the Revolution by the peasantry wasperhaps most vital and shaping the eventual outcome of the Revolution of1789 and the later (and perhaps more definitive in terms of land ownership)Revolution of 1815. Lefebvre (1988) also held that the Revolution was pushed forwardby small groups within all the involved classes, including those who wouldrule by mob violence and through the use of terror. As a republican, Lefebvre (1988) was a staunchsupporter of notions such as equality, liberty and freedom for all. He then turns to ananalysis of the rights of man and citizen and finally discusses the"October Days" in which the various forces fostering and defining theRevolution coalesced and its focus was established. He did not believethat the entire Revolution could be neatly identified as a struggle betweenthe nobility and the bourgeoisie. There are some areas of congruence between the two texts and thepositions of their authors. As might be expected, Lefebvre (1988) considered the role of theindustrialists to have been significant in shaping the struggle in France.Cobban (1999), in contrast, denigrates this notion and argues instead (andwith more force) that the limited "industrial sector" that then existed hadrelatively little influence over the emergence of revolutionary ideas andideals. This analyst rejects the notion that there was arural, revolutionary bourgeoisie that did much to bring the ideas of theRevolution to the countryside - a position that Lefebvre (1988) affirms inhis own analysis. Lefebvre (1988) addresses only the period at the very beginning ofFrance's great evolution. If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again: Search for: or Click here to request an essay written just for you.