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!
As always:
VIVA LA REVOLUTION!
No comments:
Post a Comment