Seminar Reading: Week 13

Political Economy and Economic Justice

For much of the twentieth century, many historians saw the French Revolution through the lens of 'class'. The story went like this: over the eighteenth century, the bourgeoisie grew in wealth and numbers but lacked political power, which was in the hands of the aristocracy. In 1789, the bourgeoisie joined with the popular classes (workers and peasants) to overturn the aristocracy. Since workers and peasants lacked class consciousness, they were unable to challenge the bourgeoisie's seizure of political power.

Revisionists challenged this interpretation in two ways. First, they adopted a 'social' lens to show that the bourgeoisie and aristocracy had overlapping interests and behaved in many of the same ways. There was not much of a 'class struggle' between them. Second-wave revisionists turned the conversation towards ideology, language and culture, putting socioeconomic interests aside almost entirely.

One influential strand of second-wave revisionism stressed the dangers of Jacobin ideology: collective sovereignty (how can 28 million people be sovereigns?), moral regeneration (how can you morally engineer a society without oppression?), and social equality (a pipe dream... people can be legal equals but not equal in wealth). The philosopher Hannah Arendt developed this last point. Two decades before post-revisionism took root, she argued in her 1962 essay 'The Social Question' (i.e., political relief from social misery) that Jacobin commitments to social equality led to terror and authoritarianism. These views chimed with liberal anti-communist views of the Cold War. They gained further traction with the rise of neoliberalism in the 1980s and 1990s. The thinking went like this: social equality and social rights were dangerous if treated as political matters. By setting the bar impossibly high, they led to frustration and violence/terror. While revolutions about liberty were good (e.g., the American Revolution), revolutions that try to address the 'social question' are utopian and illiberal.

Historians have moved away from this line of thinking recently. Some have even revived 'class', though they approach it differently than the old Marxists. They now focus on the transformative impact of commerce, consumption and political economy rather than class interest. Some of the Enlightenment physiocrats' ideas about free-markets and private property, together with consumer demand for cheap access to desirable commodities, have found their way to the centre of the discussion.

Core primary readings

* Dupont de Nemours: Model Declaration of Rights, 1789 [first five articles, my translation]

* Decree of 29 August 1789 (my translation)

* Le Chapelier Law of 1791, in Baker, ORFR, p. 247-248. (ALSO SEE MOODLE)

* Barère on the Law of the Maximum of 1793, in Mason & Rizzo, FRDC, p. 238-240.

Core secondary readings

H. Arendt, On Revolution, ch 2, ‘The Social Question’ (course extracts)

J-P Hirsch, ‘Revolutionary France: Cradle of Free Enterprise’, American Historical Review 94:5 (1989)

Questions

1. Why does Hannah Arendt think the French Revolution was 'doomed to terror'? Do you agree?

2. What overlaps can you discern between Arendt and de Tocqueville?

3. How did the Revolution's economic liberalism come about according to Jean-Pierre Hirsch?

4. Problematise the two primary documents from 1789. How do you interpret Dupont de Nemours' model declaration of rights, which called for social assistance for the poor and infirm? He was a free-market physiocrat? What does the decree calling for freedom of the grain trade reveal about Revolutionary principles and dynamics?

Department of History

Seminar Reading: Week 13

Political Economy and Economic Justice

Core primary readings

Core secondary readings

Further readings