West European Studies

The 17th century scientific and intellectual development, which included Isaac Newtons discoveries, and the empiricism of Rene Descartes together with that of John Locke, encouraged not only the principle of natural law and universal order but also human reason confidence which later spread to influence society as a whole in the 18th century (Cassirer 15894). There were many and varied currents of thought though some may be considered as pervade and dominant. A coherent and scientific approach to religious issues, social, political and economic issues encouraged a secular perspective of the world and a general sense of development and perfectibility. The philosophers were the major champions of these concepts and went ahead to popularize them to the general public. Proponents of the enlightenment shared particular basic attitudes. They were eager to discover and act upon principles that were governing humanity, society and faith. This they did with absolute faith in rationality.  It was common for them to attack scientific and spiritual authority as well as economic and social restraints. The state according to them was a rational instrument of progress. Deism was the result of the extreme rationalism and skepticism of the age hence the spirit of the Age of Enlightenment, or the Age of Reason, as it is known was born. The movement was centered in Europe and acquired international disposition at the cosmopolitan salon. All through Europe Masonic lodges played a crucial role in the dissemination of the new ideas. Among the first proponents of the Enlightenment in France were de Montesquieu, Voltaire, and other physiocrats.

The French revolution particularly represented the philosophy of Enlightenment through a brutal lens, and this was especially in the short dictatorship period of Jacobin. In addition to implementing changes in the legal system, monetary system as well as the measuring system into something rational, France desire for rationality in government eventually led to the attempt to do away with the Roman Catholic Church and in general Christianity. France also managed to take social and economic ideals further than any other state ever did.

According to Frey and Marsha (xiii) the French Revolution has been seen as the main difference between the prehistoric regime and the modern world, in short it has been seen as the dawn of the modern era. The French revolutionaries all had that perception in common as they perceived revolution as a break form the past where the past was done away with, the present put in place and the future consequently shaped. The authors note that the French revolution was caused by a number of events and not one or two as previously thought. Some like Alexis de Tocqueville however argued that the attempt by Louis XV and Louis XVI to implement reforms in the ancient regime led to its downfall. Upon their failure, France was swept by revolution. Many blamed the outbreak of the revolution to Louis XIV, Louis XV and Louis XVII. Having reigned from 1643-1715, Louis XIV managed to weaken the nobility but somehow still left them strong in such a way that they could frustrate a weak king. On the other hand, neither Louis XV nor Louis VI was a strong leader. In the onset of the 18th century, the nobles were at it again. They became adamant in retaining and also getting back their old rights and privileges. In their quest, they blocked they restrained any social advancement for instance from not only joining the navy or army, but also from holding certain positions in the government. As the resurgence from the nobility grew, tension continued to rise and this made it even more difficult for the king to be able to enact meaningful reforms. In addition to this, Louis XIV left to his successors a country that was overwhelmed by debt due to the destructive engagement in several wars. More to this, the last of the wars, the War of the Spanish Succession had really ruined France (Frey and Marsha xiii).

But why of all places did a revolution have to take place in France in 1789 and no where else in Europe Rud poses this question having in mind the Belgium and Poland rebellion against the Australians which never succeeded (1). He also notes the attempted todays Holland political revolution by the patriots and the 1768 Geneva coup detat carried out by the city Burghers who modified the constitution balance in their favor.

Like all the rest, they did not also succeed. Rud notes that in none of these conflicts, was decisive victory achieved for a particular social group over the other. None was also in any way democratic as they were not able to transfer the weight of political influence to the state at large. This only happened in France. Other countries only followed in the wake of France revolutionary change. Rude acknowledges that the French revolution was the outcome a long as well as short term factors arising from the socio-political affairs and the ancient regimes conflicts. Among the long-standing complaints included the frustration of growing expectations among well to do peasants and bourgeoisie, government breakdown and insolvency, the spread of radical ideas among a variety of people, financial and economic crisis, and the consecutive triggers of state bankruptcy. All these factors were in one way or another involved in the revolution (10).

The historians however have been divided on this issue. Some tend consider the problems of the revolution in terms of politics and ideology, paying little or no attention to its economic and social foundations. Burke for instance never made attempt in trying to study the society where the revolution grew. According to his findings, the old system was in no way hostile. Only a few and minor adjustments were required to be added to it. The revolution he says was caused by the intrigues and aspirations of a few and was in no way an outcome of a general and honest desire for reform. The question however remained why was there a revolution in France, and the peasants, associated with poverty and backwardness were now becoming literate and at the same time owned one third of the land in France Compared to other nations, peasants were more oppressed that those in France but still no revolution was heard from those nations. The answer to this he states was as because those that belonged to the middle class were becoming wealthier by the day and were now more aware of their social importance, and since the peasants were not only prospering but also becoming free and literate that the older feudal survivals  as well as noble privileges appeared more intolerable. For a state to fall into a revolution, it must not necessarily be going from a bad to worse situation. The people, he states, having supported these oppressive laws all through, throw them out as soon as their load is lightened. For example, feudalism had not inspired the French with so much hatred at the height of its power than it did on the night it disappeared.

The legacy of the French revolution can be viewed in a positive and a negative perspective all together. Arnold (2008) states that Louis XVI regime came to its downfall because it was not able to form representative bodies through which the state could be in a position to execute the reform program. In short, the French government failed to adapt to its citizens desires to allow them to have more say in their government.

However, there were notable changes that took place in different and varied sectors after the revolution. For instance, Arnold states that one of the notable changes that took place after the revolution was the end of the feudal rule. This unfortunately for most French people did not change their lives (126). As Arnold explains, peasants paid their rent to rich landlords instead of paying it to lords of noble birth. In addition to this, Napoleon collected tax to finance new wars instead of imposing tax to rehabilitate and pay off war debts. The rural folks particularly gained very little from the revolution. Before the revolution, the Catholic Church owned huge chunks of land. The revolutionary government then forced the sale of church property and his brought about major wealth transfer. More saddening was that the people who bought these pieces of land were neither the poor nor the wealthy. They were the wealthy who owned large pieces of land already. The benefits that came with the transfer of wealth evaded the poor in the process. Arnold also notes that there was the emergence of two political ideologies after the French revolution which were conservatism and liberalism. Liberalism advocated that citizens by birth had certain rights and also had the right to influence their future. Conservatism on the other hand concentrated on preventing new revolutions. The two ideologies dominated the politics of Europe until the late nineteenth century. Another notable change according to Arnold was that of nationalism. There arose the sense of national identity where citizens felt they had a combination of rights and duties to the state in which they lived. The ancient sense of national identity where only rights of the rulers and duty by the citizens were emphasized was hence replaced.