The Cause of The French Revolution: Debunking The Myths

Introduction

Revolutions are social and political movements in which a population revolts against their ruling institutions in order to overthrow them and implement a new political and or social system. This usually happens when the population perceives themselves as being oppressed and or that the current ruling institution is incompetent in ruling the population. History is rich with revolutions that have happened in many varying countries, with some of the most famous revolutions being the American Revolution, the Haitian Revolution, the Russian revolution and the Chinese revolution. But among these historical political revolts, one of the most iconic revolutions is the French Revolution.

The French revolution encompasses a period of radical societal and political change which began on the 5th of May 1789 with the Estates General, and ended on the 9th of November 1799 with the formation of the French Consulate. At the time of the revolution France was under the rule of King Louis XVI, who was the last King to rule France before the fall of the French monarchy. So which would make an effective thesis for an essay on the cause of the French Revolution? I will tell you. Many people believe that the revolution was manifested because of the incompetence of King Louis XVI, and this is what this essay should disprove. The present essay will show that I disagree with the notion that the French revolution was caused by the incompetence of Louis XVI alone; instead I think that the French revolution was caused by many factors, including social, economic, political. And cultural. To show this I will compare and contrast three different interpretations on the cause of the French revolution, these interpretations being: the Marxist interpretation, the revisionist interpretation and the post-revisionist interpretation. In doing so, I hope to conclude with a rounded idea about the possible causes of the French revolution, justifying my opinion that there isn't just one, and that multiple factors all have some contribution.

One of the first interpretations on the origins of the revolution is the Marxist interpretation. This interpretation is based on the argument that the revolution was the product of a class war between the bourgeoisie and the privileged. This interpretation was largely developed by Georges Lefebvre and Albert Soboul. This is a socialist perspective on the revolution that sees the French Revolution as a catalyst for the destruction of the French monarchy but also as a destroyer for the old social regime that supported the noble aristocracy who had the unfair privilege over the rest of the population. Of course, the class struggle between the nobles and the bourgeoisie in France was said to be prominent around this time of the revolution. The clergy would never subscribe to the social wishes of the bourgeoisie and the common people and because of these disagreements between the classes, the apparent threat of danger loomed over most. This is a basic approach to the Marxist interpretation; the development of capitalism in France; the social changes and developments that brought down the old regime that supported the nobles and the clergy, and instead subscribed more to the bourgeoisie class. The collapse of the old regime and the beginnings of the revolution are usually linked by historians in support of the Marxist interpretation, but it is not exactly clear whether the collapse of the old regime is the actual cause of the revolution itself, as it has so been believed by many in the past. The classic view of the origins of the French Revolution has been challenged by newer historians who bring in other interpretations of what may have been the exact cause. But there are apparent complications over whether the revolution was caused by class struggle and capitalist formation, and many nowadays critique the social interpretation of the origin of the revolution.

Which leads into the second relevant interpretation, which is the Revisionist interpretation. This interpretation focuses less on the class struggle within the French population and puts more emphasis and relevance on the political and financial crisis in France. In terms of the economic state of France during this time, it did not look good. Platière describes an atmosphere in which hundreds of cotton and or woolen things are being destroyed, because of the distress the financial crisis has put the manufacturers in. This interpretation that puts these contingent crises at the forefront of the reasons relating to the origins of the French Revolution, was mostly developed by the historians Furet and Cobban. These historians argued that the origins of the revolution come down more to the political and financial situation and viewed the revolution as a political one rather than a social one. According to this interpretation, the rise of the state was the nail in the coffin, in terms of the decline of the monarchy, nobility power, etcetera. This perspective also doesn’t do much for Louis XVI. With the economic aspect being put on display here, the monarchy left France with twenty years of revenue in dept in 1715 and had cruel taxation, with heavy tax being applied after and during wars. This interpretation seems to be a criticism of the Marxist interpretation, with the revisionist take challenging the idea that a revolution was started merely by a class struggle, and instead having the class struggle be a secondary element behind the two contingent viewpoints. Although, both these interpretations have some merit and foothold into why the French Revolution began. However, there is another prominent interpretation over the cause of the French Revolution, which seems to shift focus from the social, economic and political arguments.

The third prominent interpretation in this argument is the Post-Revisionist interpretation. This interpretation focuses on the cultural aspect of French society and puts a magnifying glass on the political rhetoric and propaganda, and the public opinions that were circulating around French society at the time, and the failure of the monarchy in terms of controlling public opinion. This Post- Revisionist interpretation was largely developed by historians such as Lynn Hunt. This idea of public opinion being the main cause of the French Revolution can be supported by the observations made by Young; He describes the climate of political opinions being mainly liberal, violent and against the clergy and nobility. He also tells of the fast production of the political pamphlets and the heightened popularity that these pamphlets and violent, liberal opinions that the propaganda produced. Can you blame a revolution on developed popular public opinion and propaganda that sets itself against the reigning political and financial institutions? A cultural take on the origin of revolution does however seem to put a more intimate aspect into the argument.

Conclusion

Thus, historical events such as a revolution cannot be boiled down to one thing as the culprit for the reason as to why a revolution happens. In French society there seemed to be problems in the social, economic, political and cultural aspects, and can you really argue one without the other. In terms of laying the blame completely on King Louis XVI and his incompetence in ruling a country, it is evident that him and his incompetence does come into play, with the Revisionist and Post-Revisionist historians both shining substantial light on the failures of his economic plans and controlling the opinion of the public in his favor. However, with everything else that was happening in French society at the time, I do not think that you can put the entirety of the French Revolution onto Louis XVI incompetence alone. In conclusion, I think that the French revolution was not caused by the incompetence of King Louis XVI alone, but instead, a mixture of social, political, economic and cultural crises all had some contribution.

Primary sources:

1. Young, A. 1789 [extract]. In M. Betham-Edwards (Ed.), Arthur Young’s Travels in France during the years 1787, 1788, 1789 (pp. 151-156.) london: G Bell, 1917
2. Jean-Marie Roland de la Platière: The State of the French Economy, 1789, Internet Modern History Sourcebook, https:sourcebooks.fordham.edumod1789platiere.asp
3. Secondary sources:
4. Campbell, Peter, McPhee, Peter (Ed.). A Companion to the French Revolution, Blackwell, 2014.
5. Vovelle, Michel, Timothy Tackett, and Elisabeth Tuttle. 'Reflections on the Revisionist Interpretation of the French Revolution.' French Historical Studies, 16, no. 4 (1990): 749-55. doi:10.2307286317.
6. Amariglio, Jack, and Bruce Norton. 'Marxist Historians and the Question of Class in the French Revolution.' History and Theory, 30, no. 1 (1991): 37-55. doi:10.23072505290.
7. Hammersley, Rachel. “The French Revolution: recent debates and new controversies” History of European Ideas (2002): 28:4, 328-331. doi: 10.1016S0191-6599(01)00032-8