Ohkay, so i've wanted to know who this guy is for a while now, and after much research, I can't say that i've been disappointed. In fact i've come to the conclusion that I will be using his piece (or an extract of it) called 'Du Contrat Social' (1762) as one of my primary sources for the project. After reading a few things it in many ways has parallels to Karl Marx and the Communist Manifesto, but obviously not as much into socialism as Mr Marxy was.
His texts have all been described to be very passionate about liberalism and freedom from oppression. Whilst I have not read his text called the social contract, I have learned the kind of ideas that were promoted in it. In a time of many monarchies, and unequal wealth, Rousseau preached a society that was governed by the 'general will' of the people. This general will is considered to be a collective desire for the welfare of society as a whole and according to Rousseau, "the citizens of a properly-contracted civil society are infallibly guided by the general will, rather than by their conflicting individual self-interests."
I must admit this sounds a little utopian to me. But at the same time it calls for equality, and fraternity. It calls people to believe in working for a society as a whole and not just for themselves. And because of this, it stirred up some opposition who obviously did not want this 'equality' to occur as they liked their little world with all their possessions and didn't exactly want to give it up. Rosseau's book was condemned in Paris and Geneva on the ground of religious heterodoxy, and thus began the tension within the societies at the time.
I have decided to include a few key quotes from Rousseau's book, which certainly helped me understand where the French people were getting their ideas from.
“...in respect of riches, no citizen shall ever be wealthy enough to buy another, and none poor enough to be forced to sell himself.”
Here Rousseau is clearly alluding to the slavery present within his society at the time. He is reminding the people of a problem within their society and stating that if the people follow his ideas, this slavery will be abolished. Which was a very appealing statement to be making to a bunch of desperate people at the time.
“The greatest enemies of freedom are the extremely rich and the extremely poor, because one is willing to buy it while the other is willing to sell it.”
Here, Rousseau identifies the issue in the current society and the reasons in the society as to why there is such a lack of freedom and rights for individuals in this time period. Rousseau implies greatly that it is the unequal balance of money in the society which is causing the issues and calls the people to change things.
“In any case, frequent punishments are a sign of weakness or slackness in the government. There is no man so bad that he cannot be made good for something. No man should be put to death, even as an example, if he can be left to live without danger to society... In a well governed state, there are few punishments, not because there are many pardons, but because criminals are rare; it is when a state is in decay that the multitude of crimes is a guarantee of impunity.”
Rousseau in this case looks at the sometimes unjust punishment within a society and the oppressive nature of the authorities. He attempts to appeal to the people at the time by opposing the execution and punishment of men in a society and stating that it is government weakness and due to a bad and oppressive government, encouraging negative thought to be stimulated surrounding the regime. He then goes on to say that within a society that is governed well, there is little need for crime and hence little need for punishment. Once again he appeals to the people and promotes a society that is utopian, but at the same time desirable, and once he identifies the problem, it is only up to the people to then overthrow the government in an attempt to achieve what Rousseau preached.
“To renounce liberty is to renounce being a man, to surrender the rights of humanity and even its duties.”
This simple quote is playing on the ideas of liberty and promoting them in this particular society. Rousseau stresses that liberty, liberalism is so essential to humanity, as without it humanity has no true rights or duties. He basically states that without liberty, the people will have what they fear, or continue to live in what they fear. Rousseau offers the people a solution, to promote liberty.
Overall, reading Rousseau's work was very interesting and even looking at how passionate the text was and how much it would have appealed to the audience, there is no doubt with this book circling France, and even Europe at the time that the people would not feel a need for change, and liberation. Whilst this is only one piece of many texts that would have encouraged and influenced the people at the time, I must admit that it was a brilliant opportunity to see the kinds of material these people were exposed to, and how these texts that were written by philosophers were not only derivative of the enlightenment and the attitudes people had prior to the French and even American revolutions, but also inspired people at the time to seek change, and ultimately, revolution.
There will be more posts to come, I promise! I know this one is short, but I felt it was necessary before moving on.
I do need to say something. Namely what i've been doing for this entire past week to make NO posts whatsoever. It was VERY VERY VERY VERY busy. VERY busy. And i'm really tired now and I need to make my American revolution post and its coming I swear! Its just that I like to post all of the information in one big chunk and I have not yet completed the post on the American Revolution. I've done a little Cowie overview. Thats it. Though I must admit even that was very informative.
Over the past week, I have found two more books that I really want to get stuck into because even just flicking through them they look like they'll really aid in my question which focuses on the ideologies that drive a revolution. One book is Revolution! by K.J. Mason and F.J. Marriner (1982), which is kind of more a textbook on revolution. It has segments dedicated specifically to the ideas surrounding each of the revolutions it examines. For my research project it includes both the French and Chinese revolutions but no American revolution (How sad :( ). The other book I managed to find is called On Revolution by Hannah Arendt (1963). This is essentially a novel on revolution in general. The factors of revolution and how revolution occurs. I think I shall actually make this novel one of the sources I will analyse.
Another reminder, is this. Which is a very good page outlining Jean-Jacques Rousseau. This guy just keeps coming up everywhere, so I thought it would be good to take a look at him and perhaps I can find a primary source to analyse from it. His ideas and philosophies have been quite responsible for igniting a number of revolutions, so he is therefore, I suppose a very important figure to research.
This week, I MUST post my American revolution post. And I MUST look at, and analyse at least one of the books I have borrowed from the library. I'm making that promise now. Which could potentially be difficult to keep, but i'm hoping that i'll still get there.
On a non panicky note, I have decided that I won't be including a summary of the revolutions i'm investigating, but rather, will jump straight into the ideologies and factors behind them. So there will be some element of assumed knowledge with the revolutions I am investigating. This should certainly enable me to cut down information and fit my entire investigation within the ten minutes i'm allocated (Just a side note, can we have like an afternoon thing where members of the modern class can have like an extended presentation time just for fun? That would be awesome!). So whilst it will still be difficult for me to cut down what I do have, there is some relief in not having to present absolutely everything.
I know what you're thinking. This isn't very relevant to revolutions. And I must admit that this book certainly isn't about revolutions, but rather a history of Europe since Napoleon - as indicated by the title. However, Thomson still manages to discuss a number of factors that were strengthened or affirmed as a result of the french and even American revolutions (yes, I know I still owe you an analysis of this revolution). However, I certainly found it interesting the kinds of ideas that initiated by these revolutions, and were furthermore a result of them.
Towards the end of part two in his novel, there is a chapter on 'The forces of change' after the napoleonic era (1815 - Waterloo). He splits this chapter into a number of parts including 'growth of population', 'Industrialism and urbanism', 'Nationalism', and 'Liberalism, Democracy and Socialism'. Whilst the first part obviously isn't an idea, it can certainly be linked to a number of ideas and furthermore, was certainly responsible for initiating a number of ideas. Whilst Thomson does speak about these ideas in the 1800's, many of them existed or at the very least were coming about prior to this time, and still also prior to the French and American revolutions.
Growth of Population (because Europe likes baby making)
Now obviously growth of population doesn't have much at all to do with ideology (Growth in population is caused by hormones. Not thinking). However the fact that the population did increase sparked ideology and thought from a number of nations within Europe. Thomson states "No social and political order could have remained unaffected by so immense an increase of humanity". The growth of the population caused mainly due to two factors, an increase in food production and breakthroughs in medical research. Thompson continues to state that "If nineteenth-century Europe appears in history as unusually restless, explosive and prone to revolution, this remarkable demographic fact is at least one explanation. Against this tide no political and social order could stand intact. No mere 'restoration' of old institutions and traditions could suffice to meet the needs of the new masses of humanity which so abruptly made their appearance on the old soil of Europe." This demonstrates how this growth impacted, very much so, Europe in the 1800's and even prior to this time period. This new growth in population meant that things needed to change, which furthermore meant that that people began to think about methods in which they could or would change. And henceforth it was these ideas that became the heart of any revolution.
Industrialism and Urbanism
This segment wasn't entirely relevant to the triggering of the revolutions I am studying, apart from maybe the Chinese one, where imperialism brought these particular concepts which were perceived to be a more 'sophisticated' way of living by many Chinese civilians, however their monarchy struggled to apply the ideas of industrialism to their country and hence it became a factor for revolution. However, to sum up perhaps the effect of these advancements in technology, Thomson states "The Chief way in which industrialism affected government and politics was conferring new wealth and power upon the growing middle class of enterprising traders, manufacturers and financiers, and in its creation of a new industrial proletariat." Additionally, he states "Revolutions were precipitated by the discontent of manufacturers and workers alike with the inadequacy of the existing regimes." So, all in all, that was the extent in which 'industrialism' and 'urbanism affected revolutionary ideas. Once again, these weren't so much politically revolutionary ideology, but rather caused revolutionary trains of thought.
Nationalism
This is a HUGE concept and in a sense, an ideology related to revolution. It is often described as a patriotic feeling, principles or efforts, and often the revolutionaries of a revolution can develop a different feeling of nationalism as opposed to the regime. This was seen in the French revolution where the third estate where able to form their own 'nation' as such where they were united in their quest to achieve 'bread', or simply, better conditions for living. Interestingly, in Thomson's segment he makes the comment that "By 1815, nationalism was a much livelier force in Europe than was democracy". Whilst once again Thomson is talking about the 1800's, it is still very interesting that out of events such as the french revolution, and then of course Napoleon whom came after, there was a need for the unification of provinces and the unification of people to make strong nations. No longer did the people depend on 'gods' or the church, but they found that they had the capability to do great things if they came together. Thomson also makes an interesting comment about Russia and their delayed revolution stating that "But so backward was national feeling in Russia, so divorced from popular life was the regime, that these events had little immediate effect on nationalism". Which would henceforth explain why their revolution took so long, which would then explain why China would not have been considered able to have revolution until these kinds of ideas were brought to them from europe via imperialism.
Liberalism, Democracy, Socialism
I think it's kind of obvious how these particular ideas had a role in revolution. Particularly since the French and American revolutions contained slogans or forms of propaganda which so often included some form of 'liberty'. Thomson states that liberalism, like nationalism was founded on the idea that there should be an "organic and complete" relationship between a government and its people, or "state and society", and hence we can see why this particular ideology triggered revolution. When governments and ruling monarchies did not have such a connection with their people and as a result were unable to please them, the people disliked this, very much so, and then came up with this idea with 'liberalism' in a quest to form government that would appease the society's wants.
Additionally, Thomson makes a comment on both the French and American revolutions:
French: "The biggest obstacles to a broader basis of government were the powers and privileges of the aristocracy and the church, and the lack of privileges of the merchant, business, and manufacturing classes. Thus the spearhead of the liberal attack against feudal rights and clericalist power was, in each european country, the underprivileged middle and professional classes. It was these classes, backed in the course of events by the peasants and paris mob that had been the central driving force of the french revolution" and "To liberals, the french revolution had condemned itself by its excesses: the reign of terror and mob democracy had bred the era of reaction and led to military dictatorship" (NAPOLEON!! WOO!!)
American: "The ideas that the Americans had asserted in 1776 had still not been accepted by the European governments: ideas that "governments are instituted among men" to secure individual rights, and derive their just powers from the consent of the government."
Both of these demonstrate how the ideology of liberalism was a working force in the revolutions i'm studying, and once again reflects how the concept initiated a 'revolutionary fever' in Europe years later.
Thomson affirms that liberalism was:
an attack upon inequality and arbitrary power
it favoured the ideas of sovereignty of parliamentary assemblies rather than sovereignty of the people (and here it differs from democracy and radicalism)
it valued liberty over equality
He then goes on to speak about democracy saying that it:
reassembled liberalism in that it derived its ideals from rationalism and inequality of the old order
had the idea that sovereignty was not within constitutional systems, but in the "general will of the whole people"
was devoted to equality as well as political and civil rights
in extreme forms demanded greater social and economic equality
was often treated as more 'revolutionary' and frightening as liberalism -this could be potentially as it demanded equality more so than liberalism did, and it was a faster and bigger change for people in Europe to undertake than liberalism
was a central cause of change and revolution in the century after waterloo -> and very much responsible for the revolution in China
And finally, analyses socialism stating that:
it was less frightening than democracy -> interesting considering how much it was feared post ww2, and how much democracy was glorified
derived from the doctrines of Rosseau and the ideals of the french revolution
socialists cherished the ideal of fraternity
it works on the Principle that men, without the "artificial distortions" of social inequality and poverty, they would naturally behave to one another as brothers
Whilst once again all these concepts were spoken about in connotative nature with the nineteenth century, it was interesting reading about them, as they were very much relevant and a major part of revolution as indicated by Thomson himself. I feel its given me an ever greater understanding of these concepts, and furthermore, how they impacted and helped form the conditions for revolution. Also, just a self reminder I suppose, I really want to get a look at Rosseau to perhaps draw connections between his ideology and revolution. And, I am onto the American revolution. I am getting there!
In this article Halsall highlights the fact that previous intellectual, social and political elements contributed to the revolution. I don't usually copy and paste, but due to the nature of Halsall's article, a lot of it will be - He relays the causes of revolution into three main areas; intellectual, social and political.
Quite a few good points that he makes I have pasted below:
"The Enlightenment: scientific and philosophical thought had been generalized in the 18th Century. There was now a much larger intellectual class with the political ideas that the Enlightenment had spread around Europe. What was later called Liberalism was popular.Liberty - Human Rights/Natural Rights. The sovereignty of the people. Equality - meant equal rights for all under the Law. Liberals also wanted freedom from a state-controlled economy. Property was seen as sacred. These were middle class property owners by and large."
- Here Halsall is commenting on the fact that it was these ideas that came from the enlightenment were ones that got people thinking and eventually sparked revolution.
"Intellectual causes are difficult to quantify in terms of their effects, but they are nonetheless important in effecting actions and ideologies of participants. After Montesquieu, a republic was regarded as at least theoretically noble and possible. Rousseau had an effect during the long but, as we shall see, most of the unrolling of the Revolution came in response to events; actual actions were often intensely pragmatic."
- Halsall mentions two philosophers of the enlightenment and attempts to explain their role in the revolution. He concludes however, that actions, probably inspired by these ideologies and theories were the key to revolution.
"Under Louis XIV flaws in theory of absolutism had been apparent: now they become obvious; the misuse of power, kings who couldn't rule."
- King Louis XIV is brought up here - He was a king prior to Louis XVI and relished the ideas of absolutism, but as shown here, when this theory was passed down through the line of kings, trouble emerged when these kings were unable to exercise this power successfully.
The direct translation of this is a little confusing, but it essentially proposes an 'indivisible' group striving for a republic under liberty, equality and fraternity, and then at the end kind of says its that, or death - It's kind of like a 'stand or be stood upon' slogan thing (Complicated x1000 because they're French and that's what they do).
"There was a rapid discussion of ideas, more radical than anything in the Enlightenment. The weeks after 25th Sept 1788 saw most radical change of all. The most famous pamphlet was by the Abbe Sieyes 1748-1835 - "What is the Third Estate? Everything. What has it been until Now? - Nothing. What does it ask? - to become something". The ideas feed on themselves. This is part of the structure of revolutions: a long period of preparation, then developments at an intense speed leading to conclusions none of those at the beginning could have envisaged. At just the moment it thought it was victorious, the nobles faced a real and new revolution which would sweep it away."
- Once again, Halsall assesses the role of ideas in this particular revolution, and explains that these ideas or elements of 'ideology' are crucial in the 'preparation' stages of the revolution. One must question here, that if this ideology is so crucial, then can a revolution ever be staged without or with little of it?
The Ideology of the French Revolution - Raymond F. Betts
This particular article is interesting in the sense that it is looking at the impact of the French Revolution and what it demonstrated for europe at the time, and continues to demonstrate for people in the world today. As explored by Bett's article, it seems to relish in the fact that humanity has power, contrary to the old and more superstitious belief in fate and life being controlled by God or the gods. It looked beyond the teachings of the church where class divisions and positions of power were everlasting and permanent, but looked to the individual ability to determine their own fate. Of course there were implications regarding this belief, and since the French revolution there has only ever been a slow and progressive movement towards this train of thought, however, in many ways, the French revolution was an outburst of this ideology, more specifically liberalism - a concept that defines much of the modern world today and has branched off and separated into other ideologies such as democracy, capitalism and have even further progressed in extreme ways and formed concepts like socialism. However, whilst it is not entirely important to know the impacts of the revolution itself, what is important is what the French revolution has said about revolution and how ideologies were rooted within this way of thinking. Once again, I have included a few good quotes from Betts.
"In rhetoric and institution, the French Revolution was a liberal revolution, in which the liberty of the individual was proclaimed, private property was respected. Later, when Napoleon announced his doctrine of "careers open to talent," he was following revolutionary thought and also anticipating the Horatio Alger theme of "pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps." In truth, the ideology of the Revolution amounted to extended praise of the "self-made man.""
- Betts is basically giving a name to the type of revolution it was because of the ideas that were so deeply rooted within it.
"The Parisian crowds were set upon relieving the unsatisfactory living conditions they felt had resulted from a government both mismanaged and insensitive.This urban crowd was made up of the sans-culottes, the craftsmen, skilled and semi-skilled workers who wore no knee breeches (culottes ), hence who enjoyed few of the benefits of the wealthy and the aristocratic. They were interested in having their immediate grievances righted; high-flung ideological considerations were of no concern to them.In a way, therefore, the revolutionary forces that disturbed France in the summer of 1789 were coincidental: the coming together at a particular time of people protesting their economic plight and people seeking fundamental governmental reform. As many critics have asserted, it was the weight of the urban crowds and the direction of the reform-minded bourgeoisie that gave the French Revolution its force."
An Artist's depiction of 'The Tennis Court Oath' - Even here it is evident that the Bourgeoisie had a rather significant role in the revolution, as with them they held they held the education, and hence the ideology that the French Revolution was fuelled by.
- Betts makes an interesting comment here when he basically states many of the peasants did not have access to this particular ideology as the bourgeois class did. The bourgeois then therefore became the fundamental force behind the revolution in the sense that they were the ones bringing the ideas to the rest of the public, those who simply wanted and strived for change. We only have to look at examples like Robespierre to see that it was the bourgeois class that encouraged these ideas and strived for change.
"The fact was that the bourgeoisie were the most significant economic element within France. The wealth they generated and the professions they filled were far more important than the political role they were allowed by tradition and law to play. Through revolutionary ideology and institutional change, the bourgeoisie gained a political authority not known before in any European country. In this sense, the French Revolution was a bourgeois revolution. The abolition of aristocratic privileges, the confiscation of church and aristocratic lands and their purchase by the bourgeoisie, and the removal of internal obstacles to trade and commerce allowed the middle class greater economic and social mobility."
- Once again, Betts highlights the fact that the Bourgeoisie were a class heavily involved with the revolution, and furthermore, aimed to benefit from the overthrow of the monarch.
"It must be remembered that the French Revolution was the first major social revolution, of far greater dimensions and of deeper purpose than the American Revolution that had preceded it. Only the Russian Revolution of November 1917, the one that ushered in modern Communism, would rival in world importance what occurred in France between 1789 and 1799. Underlying this extended dramatic development was the new belief that revolution was the most effective means to achieve political and, consequently, social change. Not reform from within, but overthrow from without appeared to be the new law of political physics."
- Here, Betts is saying that after the French revolution, it was a widely held belief that revolution became ideally the new way in which nations could achieve political and social reform, and essentially, that the way to change was through revolution.
Overall, I must admit that looking at this 'French revolution' was particularly tiring however very rewarding and interesting. I must admit that through looking at the ideas and trigger of revolutions, I always find myself looking at the events prior to the revolutions more than the revolutions themselves. But even so, I admit that it was interesting to read just how much a particular way of thinking and how its difference to the traditional way of thinking could spark an event so huge and important to modern history in itself. Next up, is the American revolution!
Finally deciding to base my research around the 'trigger' of a revolution has made things a dozen times easier for me (it means I only have to read the first few pages or paragraphs of a source documenting the entire revolution). In terms of ideas, its a very large scope, but I think a few of the sources I have looked at do a good job of uncovering what I mean in terms of ideas - I think it should be better referred to as 'ideology'.
A Facebook Depiction of the revolution
Ideology can be defined as a system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy. So here we're looking at essentially, ways of thinking, and how ways of thinking trigger revolution. Or even more specifically, what ways of thinking. I am a little concerned that this may be drifting into the philosophy kind of area, but there will clearly be much historical research and evidence represented to support whatever i'm trying to say. But anyway, onto the revolution!
Now, because i've decided exactly what i'm looking at, i've decided to do this blog post a tad differently to the Chinese Revolution one. On this blog, i'm only going to recount where relevant, and talk about the french revolution being specific to its origins and the force of ideology behind it. So i'm not just going to blurt out everything I know about the revolution, or everything i've found about the revolution, because that would seriously take me forever... (On a side note, I may need to redo my chinese revolution post like this... eek!)
So for this particular revolution, as one could imagine, I found a tonne of sources and a really great list of sources here. However, like the chinese revolution, I have decided to use only three sources as I used three for the chinese revolution, which should equate to 9 sources overall for the revolutions, plus like five for the historians and whatever else I happen to find after i'm finished pulling apart the separate revolutions.
In case you, the reader, were going to freak out at the fact that you know nothing at all about the french revolution, what I have done is included a video below, from horrible histories, that does a good job at covering the revolution in three minutes.
But as I have said previously, it isn't what happened in the revolution that matters, but rather, why the revolution had occurred at all.
All three sources I have investigated include mention to 'the age of reason' or 'the enlightenment'. In fact, it is clear that is post middle age philosophy that I am beginning to investigate, and why it has provoked revolution.
My three sources are: The Political and Cultural revolutions in France 1789-1815 - H.R. Cowie The Ideology of the French revolution- Raymond F. Betts The French Revolution: Origins - Paul Halsall
The Political and Cultural Revolutions in France 1789-1815 - H.R. Cowie
Cowie, once again, spends a considerable amount of time relaying the causes of revolution in this chapter before relaying the subsequent events that built up for the revolution to actually occur. Cowie looks at a statement made by the foster brother of Marie Antoinette, Joseph Weber to relay 'the' four primary causes of this revolution. They are:
- The Disorder in the Finances
- The State of Minds
- The Character of King Louis XVI
- The War in America
My focus will be of course the point about the 'State of Mind', however, it would be logical to consider the three other points since I am considering the 'role' of ideology in revolution, and its role cannot be entirely determined without having a quick look at the role of other factors.
Disorder in the Finances
A French Cartoon depicting 'The Burden of the Third Estate'
The writing around the circumference reads: "Explaination of
the allegory. The third estate alone bears the weight of the
kingdom, under which he sags; a noble, instead of easing the
burden, adds to the weight by leaning on it; the Priest seems to
want to help but uses only the tips of his fingers".
- Perfect depiction of the inequality suffered by the Third Estate
This, in other words, should be considered as the economic, and in part the social conditions of pre revolutionary France. This disorder is easily demonstrated through the economic conditions of the three estates.
The First Estate: The Office Bearers/Clergy of the Roman Catholic Church
- Position highlights the connection between the monarchy and church
- Estimated to have owned 10% of the land
- Collected a tax (tithe): Usually equated to 10% of the income of all common people
The Second Estate: Aristocratic landowning nobility
- Made up 1% of the population
- Owned over 20% of all the land
- Had privileges but little and ineffective political power (monarchy was absolute)
The Third Estate: 'Everyone Else' - Subdivided into the Bourgeoisie, the Peasants, the Town Artisans and Poverty-stricken Unemployed
- The Bourgeoisie owned 25% of land & Commercial capital: "All the ramifications of the feudal system were regarded by the bourgeoisie as intolerable intrusions upon the liberty of the individual. They resented the taxation they paid, the trade barriers that restricted their activities as merchants and the codes of privilege that denied them entry into the government service" (Cowie)
- The Peasants made up 67% of the population - used land of wealthy landowners but had to pay for this concession through tax or service - taxed a tithe, the taille and the gabelle and paid a corvée (service) - paid between 70 to 80 per cent of income in taxes - source of wealth for the kingdom
- 4 million poverty stricken and unemployed individuals became a dangerous pool of discontent
As would be understood, the Third estate were particularly angry at the fact that they were being exploited in such a manner - That the poor were getting poorer and that the rich were getting richer. This inequality in wealth and the disorder of finances simply proved to the French people that the ancien régime (old order) was not working and henceforth they looked to the philosophies and political ideologies with alternate political systems that could serve them better.
It is also worth noting that the French Monarchy was in a lot (and I mean a lot) of debt.
The Character of King Louis XVI
Put simply, he was a moron. This factor could be labelled as leadership, and how ineffective leadership, or the ineffective nature of this leadership could trigger the belief in a different system, or an alternate ideology. The leadership in general of the monarchy came down to two people:
- Louis XVI who was well-meaning but weak-willed and vacillating
- Marie Antionette was strong willed but impulisive
And henceforth, when any crisis came, the King and Queen acted with poor judgement and imprudence. This factor however, is said to have caused a complete deposition of the monarchy as opposed to what a portion of the Third Estate strived for - A constitutional monarchy. The incompetent leadership of the King and Queen eliminated any possibility of this.
The War in America
This particular factor made me realise that I probably should have looked at the American revolution first, but silly me worked backwards. Anyway, this War in America refers to the American revolution whereby Amercian colonies, with the aid of the French, won independence from the British. This war had two major effects on France.
- Increased the intensity of the French debt - Weber states that: "The French participation was of critical significance to France because the enormous associated costs precipitated the financial crisis of the monarchy".
- It provided the French with an example where an established order had been successfully overthrown with a popular uprising - It demonstrated that these particular ideologies were functional and effective.
The State of Minds
The Monarchy, The First and
Second Estate, 'catching a ride'
on the labour of the Third Estate.
(The French seem to enjoy their
riding.... )
Cowie doesn't actually go into much detail specifically about the 'State of Minds' however it is alluded to throughout the entire chapter and is rooted in all the other three factors. Specifically, he states that "Drastic change to centuries old established practices was unlikely to occur unless the leaders of a rebellion have an alternative system under consideration". He then goes on to state that it was the philosophies of the enlightenment that had contributed to this challenging of authority.
These philosophies of the enlightenment include:
- Abolition of Absolutism (a system where one person would have absolute authority and control over all others in the state)
- Based on the fact that humanity was intellectually intelligent enough to work out better systems of government as opposed to traditional ones.
- René Descartes promoted humanity's ability to think for themselves through the statement Cogito ergo sum; I think, therefore I am
- Eighteenth century saw a movement towards intellectual freedom and challenging tyranny
- There came a great demand for individual freedom in religion, social standing and conduct of commerce
And from all of this Cowie concludes that "The activities of the philosophies created a reforming state of mind in the active literate members of society. There was a surging demand for the emancipation of the individual from the political tyranny of absolute monarchy, the intellectual dominance of the church, and the social inhabitations of the feudal system."
This comparison is made through the fact that these philosophies:
- Advocated principle of government by consent- yet France still obtained absolute monarchy
- Advocated freedom and promotion of talent - yet France privileged only the church and nobility
- Advocated capitalism through free trading - yet they were inhibited by restrictions from the system
- Promoted the individual mind - yet France faced traditionalism of the middle ages and inhibitions to social and intellectual progress from the teachings of the church.
All of these aspects of the philosophies and ideologies indicated that a change needed to take place in their systems of government, and this way of thinking was critical in giving the french an alternative to Absolutism and Traditionalism. A free system based on liberté, egalité, fraternité.
It is said that the ideals of liberté, egalité, fraternité in themselves promote certain ways of living and thinking for the french.
Liberté (Liberty) - It was the demand for freedom of the individual in economic endeavor, expression and arbitrary authority
Egalité (Equality) - It stressed that all men (are not equal, but) should enjoy equal opportunity and be equal in the eyes of the law
Fraternité (Fraternity) - The concept of brotherhood within a nation - This led to agressive nationalism of the French
Overall, Cowie has made it clear that ideology had quite a significant role in triggering, or being the cause behind this particular revolution (since the trigger, I suppose, were more practical factors), and therefore he becomes one thorough source that suggests the importance of ideas in this revolution.
I figured since I just spewed out a huge slab of information regarding the Chinese revolution, I should also make an effort to just give a brief update in regards to the actual nature of the task.
I am seriously considering scrapping the African revolution as I just cannot find what information I need on it. Unlike the other three revolutions, I am not finding sources that compare that revolution with the other two.
I have however, found a good source regarding the revolution in Ethiopia which I have not yet read into. From my skimming, it certainly seems as if it will have potential, but I am unsure. In a sense I an hoping that I can dismiss it as I am already having a dilemma in terms of fitting all this reasearch into ten minutes (we should have an hour! At LEAST half an hour...).
I think the biggest problem with my topic is that by using actual revolutions and examining them in multiple theories, I have to firstly outline what happened in the revolution, introduce the factors for revolution, and THEN once I've done that for all I can look at them through different revolutionary theories. I will need to work out how to condense my research.
In terms of a question, well, I'm still looking for one. I like the quote from Che Guevara "The revolution is not an apple that falls when it is ripe. You have to make it fall".
It inspired me to look at 'ideas' within revolution, and their capacity to cause, or set the parameters for revolution. So I suppose my research can surround the impact of ideas on revolution. Perhaps:
Evaluate the role of ideas in triggering a revolution.
It's not perfect, but if I did something along those lines, I'd be looking at ideas versus action, and how much those ideas matter to the action that takes place. I could also be looking at the ideas versus the conditions of society at the time. I am still unsure, but once I research at least the American and French revolutions I should be able to decide what to do.
Firstly, this is a big revolution to cover, for a number of reasons. One, I could look at the first revolution, but both the communist and Xinhai revolutions are quite connected, two, because the factors for revolution can date back to 270 years prior to the actual revolution and three, because the factors are huge areas of study in themselves. I must consider how on earth i'm actually going to present three revolutions, and discuss their factors IN TEN MINUTES! (Pattern of current thought: wiuvcbwhibaiuycbwiyfbic2biwqfbiyv4cbiy!!!!!!). Anyway, i've done a large amount of research on this one revolution and must admit that it has been particularly interesting. My information has come from three major sources Alpha History's page on the 1911 Xinhai revolution, H.R Cowie's chapter on 'European Imperialism in China and the first chinese revolution' in his book I have mentioned in previous blogs, and a little embellishment from the film 1911 Revolution, which proved to be a decently accurate depiction of the revolution (and a brilliant movie might I say, I do recommend!).
Alpha History - The 1911 Xinhai revolution
This page was used majorly to give me a general idea as to what exactly occurred with the 1911 revolution, what it was about and who overthrew who etc etc. Similar to many other revolutions, the Xinhai revolution was the overthrow of the chinese monarchy that had been in place for centuries prior. This was the Qing (Ching) dynasty, which was said to be gravely weakened through the humiliation China suffered throughout the 1800's and early 1900's.
As an outline to what happened, the boxer rebellion prior to 1911 (which was a movement that seeked to destroy western and christian influence by targeting western 'messiahs' and chinese christian converts - it resulted in brutal slaughter of both these christian people from the chinese rebels and also slaughter then of these rebels from the european powers seeking revenge) had led to the Boxer protocol, which meant that the Qing now owed large reparations to the alliance of european powers as they were all annoyed that their people had died. This sum of money was so large that it would not have been paid off until 1940, should the Qing government had remained in power. The Qing was now greatly in debt and unable to produce what it needed for its country and then people got angry and decided to remove this totalitarian monarchial power that they'd had and believed in for thousands of years.
This article goes on to address the failing monarchy as a reason or factor for revolution, claiming it occurred as a result of the dispute regarding the ownership of a railway, which isn't at all false. But what it failed to address, is that unlike any previous rebellion, the Qing were not overthrown and replaced with another family who ruled with the same system of government, but for the first time in all of China's history, there was an overthrow and a quest for a Chinese republic. The question that needs to be asked in this case is 'why?'.
Art depicting the struggle between republican and Qing
forces in 1911
Apart from this, the article does a very good job at examining the trigger for this revolution (I do detest the point that the 'cause' was a railway dispute, this was another trigger, the 'cause' occurred many years before). The following is what the article claims to be the 'catalyst' for revolution: "The catalyst for revolution was a Qing decision to nationalise two privately-owned railways in central China, to help fund the government’s Boxer Protocol reparations. When this nationalisation was announced in May 1911 it created a firestorm of protest, particularly in Sichuan province, where a large number of businessmen had invested their own money in the railway. Facing considerable losses, these investors created the Railway Protection Movement, which organised strikes and protests in Chengdu, the Sichuan capital." The Qing government fearing the loss of power, then went and formed counter revolutionary groups, but these were filled with soldiers and officers who had secretly joined literature groups and met regularly to discuss political literature, they had connected and been conversing with these radical revolutionaries. The Wuchang regiment eventually mutinied, declaring Hubei (the province in which they were situated) a republican province. This then sparked a revolutionary 'fever' in many other provinces, and they too began to rebel.
Historian Michael Dillon, who was quoted in this article, makes an important point by stating “The Qing government was overthrown, not by a single rebellion but by a decentralised movement that devolved power to the provinces. However it proved extremely difficult to replace it with a government that was acceptable to all the provinces and regional economic and political interests that had been involved in the struggle to bring down the Manchus. Support for a constitutional monarchy had ebbed away and there was broad agreement among political activists that China needed a republican government – but there was no common understanding of what that would involve in practice, how it should be implemented and, of more immediate importance, who should be in power.”
This suggests that one of the largest and most important key factors of this revolution was the inadequacy of the Qing government. Secondly, it provides a reason as to why this revolution can be considered almost unsuccessful - whilst the republicans claimed power, China, previously a unified power for many years, found itself split once again, until the communist revolution in 1949.
These five points at the end of the article provide a good summary of the revolution:
The 1911 Revolution was a spontaneous nationwide rebellion that erupted across China in the last weeks of 1911.
The catalyst for this revolution was the Railway Protection Movement that emerged in Sichuan in mid-1911.
New Army units were mobilised in Hubei but more than 2,000 soldiers were republican and potentially revolutionary.
Incidents in October led to a mutiny in Wuchang, where these soldiers took the city and formed a rebel government.
Dissatisfaction with the Qing and the success of the Wuchang uprising inspired rebellions in a multitude of cities and regions around China. By the end of 1911 the nation was in chaos and republicans had formed a nationalist government in Nanjing, led by Sun Yixian – however the Qing remained.
I must admit I am writing this prior to looking at all three sources, and I must simply add here to the end, that an abdication of Puyi (the two year old emperor at the time), was eventually forced and President Yuan took over, in hope of reuniting china - The exact opposite was a result.
Historical Film - 1911 Revolution
I obviously can't take a great deal of information from this source, but I cannot deny that it aided so much my understanding of the chinese revolution, and I must admit, that it was in particular the end of this film that triggered some thought regarding the nature of revolution.
"Today you ask me, what does revolution mean? Perhaps people will ask the same question, centuries later. Qiu Jin, our Tongmenghui member, who was killed in Shaoxing said, Revolution will provide all children a peaceful and gentle world. Lin Juemin, one of the martyrs of Huanghuanang, wrote to his wife: Revolution seeks eternal happiness for everyone in the world. I believe the revolution enables a republican system to reach the people. People will understand we'll fight whoever dares support the monarchy. Revolution enables factories, banks, railroads, mines owned by Chinese to benefit the people. Revolution enables our Chinese race to become strong, no longer bullied by others. We will no longer be slaves. Revolution can take place anywhere, anytime, in any heart, forever, forever, no longer afraid of foreign powers, ridding the country of feudalism and royalty. No one will be impoverished, and the Chinese people can stand tall in the east. This is the meaning of revolution."
Now, what needs to be considered here, is that this was a film created to commemorate the revolution in 1911 (it was made in 2011, as part of the centenary celebration), and so therefore, it doesn't exactly explore its failings beyond the rise of the President Yuan and the abdication of Puyi, the Qing emperor. However the end explores a number of points regarding the purpose of this particular revolution, and at the very least, what the revolution was 'meant to' achieve.
It also highlights one of the factors touched on in the Alpha History article, and explored thoroughly in Cowie's book. This was the need for revolution and the effect the European imperialist powers had on China, furthermore, its push to industrialise with the external influence of Europe and the Americas bringing forth to China, ideas of democracy and republicanism, where ideas of feudalism and monarchy were accepted within government.
I have posted below the video of the trailer for the movie. The entire movie is also on youtube, but lacking english subtitles.
European Imperialism in China and the First Chinese Revolution - H.R. Cowie
I must admit that this was the most helpful in looking at the factors of revolution. In fact the first half of the chapter explicitly explains the cause of this revolution which can be dated back to the rise of the Qing dynasty, almost 270 years prior to the revolution. It cannot be denied that the catalyst for this revolution was indeed European Imperialism (yes, Europe are at it again...). Of course it wasn't imperialism in itself that caused a revolution as it was not the imperialist powers the revolutionaries sought to overthrow, but it was the driving force that weakened the Qing dynasty through two things:
- Western Political Ideas
- Western Military and Trade Influence
Now, as Cowie states, the Manchu (Qing) dynasty were from the north, or Manchuria. And henceforth, already, they were seen as foreigners, imposing a foreign rule. Here already, we find that the foundations in which this dynasty came to power was significantly weak. The Manchu had to find means to promote their rule as righteous and legitimate, they even renamed the dynasty 'Qing' which means pure or clear, to further impose this legitimacy. Cowie states "When Chinese civilisation was forced, through its military weaknesses, to yield so many humiliating concessions to the West, doubts grew about the authority of the Qing", and so therefore, whilst the power was already somewhat weak through its foundation, natural rebellion and overthrow of this dynasty would simply lead to another dynasty in its place, as what had occurred many times in Chinese history. However, from this, it can be argued that European influence, European Imperialism of China, was what led this country to so strongly believe, that not only did it need an overthrow of power, but it needed a revolution, and a different form of government - A republic.
Western Military and Trade influence
I will begin with this component of imperialism as it was probably a big instigator of political ideas as well as the revolution. Overall, this military influence proved the idea that the Qing dynasty was weak and unable to rule China, and essentially led to its collapse. I also think this map in Cowie's book is very relevant in determining why the Chinese had such a distaste for the European powers.
I mean, EXCUSE you Britain!? How would you like it if I took a big CHUNK out of you like that? And France, just take the entire bottom of China why don't you!? I think the worst part here is that none of these 'claims' were never officially 'claimed'. In the sense that colonies were never established, only trading ports, and Europe took control of these areas in ways where they could gain all the advantages of trade but were not responsible for the welfare of the Chinese people. I think that was rather RUDE of them. Apologies, I digress and will now proceed to comment on a number of factors and events which led to this particular issue, and I will attempt to be as brief as possible.
Political Cartoon - From left to right you have Britain,
Germany, Russia, France and Japan. Then you have
what appears to be China in the background doing
the whole 'WHAT THE HELL!?' pose (I would be like
that too China...), simply, it does a good job at
summarising European imperialism in China.
(I love political cartoons!)
- Primarily due to an Inferior military: Untouched for thousands of years, whilst an advanced race in ancient times, had since failed to advance and industrialise with the rest of Europe, as Cowie states "In a series of bitter experiences, the Chinese discovered that they lacked the technology to resist the demands of European powers... the Chinese people, acting on the conviction that their ruling dynasty could no longer resist the foreign intrusions, staged a revolution and proclaimed a republic ... carried hopes ... Chinese people could be independent of foreign domination and free to devise their own system of government"
- The Opium Wars (1839-42 and 1856-60):The port of Guangzhou was the first concession of permitted trade with the Europeans, which inevitably led to disaster. The Chinese here believed they had the power to control the 'foreign devils' and trading was good for the first few years where Europe mainly purchased from China (goods such as silk and tea), yet China, hoping to prevent European influence did not purchase from the Europeans - until they began to offer opium. Opium was not legally permitted to be imported, but however was still bought and spread across China. This led to Chinese authorities asking Britian to remove their supplies, which resulted in a scramble, which resulted in a death, which resulted in two British frigates, without warning, blowing up two chinese boats (what the hell Britain!?), which then finally, resulted in the opium wars. Because of China's weak naval power, Britain carried this battle all the way up into ports along the Yangzi river. In short countries kept attacking China and they kept losing military power. Cowie states "The chinese were grossly humiliated by these European and American intrusions. Exposed by their relative military weakness in contrast with the industrially powerful European nations, the Chinese had been forced to agree to treaties that stressed their inferiority."
- Japanese War with China (1894-95):Here the Japanese destroyed all of what was left of the Chinese navy and China was forced to sign the Treaty of Shimonoseki, which meant China had to pay a huge indemnity to Japan (they had to borrow from European powers to do this), they had to recognise independence of Korea, concede Taiwan and the Pescadores Islands to Japan and grant Japan access to trading ports. Cowie states "The total powerlessness of the Manchu regime was now revealed".
- The Boxer Rebellion:As the intrusions of european powers in China grew, so did the resentment towards them, and particular anger was directed towards Christian missionaries. The boxer rebellion was essentially an uprising against European missionaries and the Chinese Christian converts, Cixi (the Dowager Empress at the time), was found to be secretly encouraging this movement as she believed it would repel the European 'intruders'. However it did not work and China ended up with the 'Boxer Protocol' (and a bunch of slaughtered rebels as a form of revenge from the European powers), which were more heavy financial reparations imposed on the Chinese. Cowie concludes that "The officials of the Qing dynasty, propped up by western powers survived until 1912, but they carried the shame of persistent humiliation. Through their refusal to implement systematic reforms of Chinese society they kept China weak in the face of Western challenge, allowed the Middle Kingdom to become a pawn to European imperialism, and virtually ensured their own eventual overthrow through revolution"
Western Political ideas
Whilst the influence of the European imperialist powers inflicted damage militarily, and reduced the amount of power the Qing dynasty had over Europe, it also did something else. Whilst the above paragraphs are more concerned with the fact that the factor of imperialism weakened the government in place, this paragraph in terms of 'political ideas' suggests that not only did this imperialism bring superior military, which was able to oppress the Chinese, but it also brought with it ideas regarding different political system, and ideas of democracy and republicanism, that the Chinese had not heard of before. It could be said that this was a driving factor behind the revolution being a revolution and not a rebellion.
A number of instances had occurred in Chinese history where there has been a rebellion and a replacement of one dynasty with another, but there were no changes made to the methodologies of ruling. These new ideas that imperialism had brought to China were crucial to the outcome of the Xinhai revolution.
Sun Yatsen, who becomes the first president of China is a prime example of the implementation of these ideas. He had not lived in China since he was 12 and through living overseas, he became educated in the western ways and experienced western principles of liberalism and democracy. And henceforth, he brought to China these ideas of republicanism. Not only did he bring these ideas to China, but also many other Chinese men who had received western education.
The Taiping rebellion was an example where the western influence could be seen in Chinese rebellion, this was for the fact that it showed reliance on Western influences in that it was vaguely based on Protestant Christian teachings. Interestingly, it is said that "Leaders of modern-day Communist China acknowledge the Taiping rebellion as a prelude to their regime, not for its christian associations, but because of its anti-western policy and its programmes for land reform and the redistribution of wealth to ensure the elimination of inequality". And so here we find that imperialism, and the western powers have influenced ways of thinking amongst the Chinese, once again, crucial to the revolution.
There were still a number of points that Cowie made in regard to the revolution. Like the Russian revolution, there was a monarchy that existed that was unwilling to concede its power to the people, and unwilling to change to suit the kind of government that China did need at this time. So here we can probably conclude that it was a combination of poor leadership of the Qing dynasty, Chinese discontent for the negative effects imperialism suffered from the European powers, and the new and refreshing ideas of liberalism and democracy brought from the west that instigated, and led to the Xinghai revolution of 1911.
Wow I spent a lot of time on that post! Good thing is, that all my research for china is now completed, obviously i'll still be looking at historians who will look at this particular Chinese revolution and evaluate it as a revolution, and the factors for revolution etc. Now just for three other revolutions.
.jpg)
