Historical Interpretation of The Causes of The French Revolution

Until 60 years ago, the Marxist interpretation of the origins of the French Revolution was the most widely accepted in society—so widely accepted that it was often called the Classic interpretation. By using this interpretation, the revolution was looked upon as the result of the classic Marxist struggle of a rising bourgeoisie. During this time in France, it was believed that wage earners had become disillusioned when it was more evident that they had growing economic influence which could not be reflected under the constrictions of the Old Regime. Albert Soboul has also recognized the significance of lower classes in his publication during 1968, The Sans-Culottes, where it was expressed that life was difficult for the peasantry who had suffered bad harvests in 1787 and 1789. Examples whereby the bourgeoisie were unable to influence the fiscal system of France can be seen by The Assembly of the Notables on February 22, 1789. Then the Controller of General Finances, Charles Calonne, urged those who had tax exemptions that financial reform was needed to improve the dire financial straits of France and that they must either accept new taxation or forfeit their previous tax exemptions. Instead, they refused to do so. Many historians believe that if his proposals had been accepted, then France may have been able to climb a ladder of economic recovery. However, without having representation from either the 2nd or 3rd estate, the decision was inevitable as the nobility wanted to choose what was best for them instead of best for the country as a whole (Soboul, 1968).

Criticism of Marxist Interpretation

The Marxist historical interpretation can be suggested to be correct due to its recognition of how bourgeoisie disgruntlement with the limitations that the Ancien Regime imposed upon them led them to challenge the monarchy and higher authority. It can be seen as particularly more credible due to the fact that the urban population grew faster in the lead-up to the revolution, and by 1789 there were roughly 30 towns in France whose population exceeded 150,000 inhabitants. However, the main flaw in the Marxist interpretation is its oversimplification, where they argue the causes of the revolution as from only this factor alone. George Taylor, a revisionist historian, suggests that the interpretation is ‘interred in the graveyard of lost paradigms assassinated by critical research,’ which many would consider to be largely true (Taylor, 1989). The criticism that came from revisionists directly challenged this doctrine's approach by highlighting that some ‘enlightened elites’ ‘actively promoted France’s political and economic modernization’ and were in alignment with the wants of the bourgeoisie rather than in opposition. The revisionist view, alongside the fact that the ‘wealthiest and most doubtless individual members of post-revolutionary society came from noble backgrounds,’ discredits the notion of Marxists that the revolution was caused solely by class conflict or led to the bourgeoisie triumphing over noblemen. As well as this, historian Alfred Cobban established that change in history is never the product of neatly defined class interests (Cobban, 1964). While his interpretation does much to discredit the Marxist interpretation, its shortcoming lies in the fact that it does not offer an original interpretation to contest it; instead, it just belittles the Marxist view without offering an alternative explanation.

Emergence of the New Revisionist Interpretation

Contrarily, this outlines the strengths of the New Revisionist interpretation, which tends to focus on political facts as ways to understand the causes of the French Revolution. Given this, it must be considered that Post-Revisionism’s sole focus is not just on ‘political policies, institutions or processes’; instead, it focuses on how culture ‘made possible the emergence of distinctive policies and the appearance of new kinds of politicians, conflicts, and organizations’ (Ozouf, 1988). Arguably, out of all the historical viewpoints, this is the most interesting interpretation as it recognizes that the major factor causing the French Revolution was political change through many social factors. Historian Mona Ozouf noticed the link between the Ancien Regime’s demise and the rise of public opinion: ‘There was no public opinion under Louis XIV, for the brilliance of the monarch outshone it. Similarly, when public opinion had become king, it led to no place for royal authority.’ In looking at how the opinion of the public had changed in the rise up to the revolution, it foregrounds the effect of the Enlightenment in causing the revolution by noticing that ‘the concern is not so much what the classic texts of the most famous philosophes actually meant, but how their ideas, principally Rousseau’s, were made available to and re-interpreted by the men of 1789’ (Ozouf, 1988). Although this recent and arguably more useful interpretation has many successes, as with other sources previously mentioned, it is incomplete as it fails to realize the impact that financial ruin in France had on leading to the political changes which created the French Revolution.

Conclusion: The Most Useful Interpretation

Given this, after consideration of the different trains of thought, the post-revisionist idea comes across as being the most useful for reflecting on the causes of the French Revolution. By looking at the revolution through a political perspective, there is more ability to consider both social and economic factors regarding their influence on politics during the period. This broader approach allows for a more nuanced understanding of the complex interplay of forces that led to such a transformative historical event. The integration of cultural, social, and economic dimensions provides a richer narrative of the French Revolution's origins and outcomes.