reflection

This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Four Versions part 3 - 1

Four Versions of Progress part 3

Radical Liberalism & Radical Communitarianism

The third and fourth Enlightenment ways of thinking about society and politics are radical liberalism and radical communitarianism. Each of these ways of thinking also promoted their own versions of progress.

• The Englishman Thomas Paine is a radical liberal. He wrote Common Sense (1776) and Rights of Man (1791-92).

• The Swiss born Jean Jacques Rousseau is a radical communitarian. He wrote The Social Contract (1762).

Let’s begin discussing these two ways of thinking with the following quotes.

• Paine wrote: “We have it in our power to begin the world over again.”

• Rousseau wrote: “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.” Both of these quotes call for liberation. Let’s look at Paine first. To say that humans “have it in our power to begin the world over again” means we can liberate ourselves from history; we can free ourselves from the culture, laws, institutions, and practices we inherited from previous generations; we can begin “over again” and remake society from scratch. As Paine declared “The birthday of a new world is at hand.” Now Rousseau: When he said that humans are “born free” but are now “in chains,” he used the term “chains” as a metaphor (not a literal reference to the worldwide practice of slavery). His logic resembled Paine’s. Rousseau’s “chains” refer to the laws and institutions, culture and norms which exist now because earlier generations created them. Rousseau wants freedom from these things, liberation from what history has passed down to us. He wants his generation to remake society. Paine and Rousseau disagree on a lot. But Paine’s radical liberalism and Rousseau’s radical communitarianism both view progress as liberation from history, transforming society by abolishing the politics, culture, religion, and social relations we inherited from previous generations. Paine and Rousseau both aspire to radically remake society. Contrast this emphasis on liberation with the emphasis on restraint which we saw in conservative liberalism and classical liberalism.

• Recall how conservative liberals and classical liberals share a skeptical view of human nature. They think human passions can easily get of control and create disorder and

This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Four Versions part 3 - 2

violence. They emphasize the need to restrain and civilize the passions through social and cultural institutions like the family, law, culture, religion, schools, etc.

• Radical liberals and radical communitarians share a more optimistic view of human nature. They believe human reason can effectively control the passions. They thus think it is possible to use reason to remake society – overthrowing existing social and cultural institutions, and creating new ones, without the passions causing chaos and violence (or justifying violence in the name of liberation).

With this foundation in mind, let’s further explore Paine’s radical liberalism and Rousseau’s radical communitarianism in the context of the French Revolution.

The Old Regime & the Outbreak of the French Revolution

The French Revolution began in 1789. To discuss its development, we need to understand French society before the Revolution, what’s called Old Regime France. Old Regime society rested on two ideas: 1) hierarchy based on birth and 2) privilege. Let’s look at each. Hierarchy based on birth means a person was born into a certain status and remained in that status for life.

• If one were born into a noble family one kept that high noble status for life. If one were born into a peasant family, one kept that low peasant status for life. The system did not encourage individuals to use their talents to rise from one class to another (social mobility).

• The hierarchy of statuses in France went like this:

o the King was at the top

o beneath him was the first estate – the clergy

o then the second estate – the nobility

o beneath them was the third estate – the commoners. These included professionals (lawyers, doctors, intellectuals), merchants, then skilled tradesman (artisans), and at the bottom unskilled workers and peasants.

This hierarchy of statuses involved privilege. Privilege means special legal rights based on birth status. It is the opposite of equal rights and equality before the law. Here are examples of privilege in Old Regime France:

• The first two estates – clergy and nobility – had the privilege of not paying most taxes. They didn’t pay salt or wine taxes, for example. Most nobles also didn’t pay land taxes, even though they owned most of the land. It was the opposite of our system today when the wealthier one is the more one pays in taxes.

• Guilds and monopolies had their own privileges. These privileges included some commoners. For example, only members of the glassmaker guild had the special legal right to make stained glass. Only certain merchant companies had the special legal right to trade goods like fish or sugar (monopolies).

This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Four Versions part 3 - 3

• 80% of the population were peasants. Most lived on land owned by nobles. The peasants owed dues to the nobility: dues to grind grain in the noble’s mill, dues to bake bread in noble’s ovens, dues to press grapes in the noble’s wine press. The peasants also paid most of the royal taxes.

One can obviously see the injustice of this Old Regime system of privilege and hierarchy based on birth. But French society had functioned like this for centuries. Indeed, privilege and hierarchy characterized many pre-modern societies around the world. In many cultures on different continents, hierarchy was seen as natural. During the 18th century, though, Enlightenment authors increasingly criticized privilege. French writers like Voltaire and Diderot criticized the Catholic clergy in France who were privileged members of the first estate. The French writer Beaumarchais criticized noble privileges in his play, The Marriage of Figaro (1778). Figaro was a servant who constantly outsmarted his master. He also voiced anger at the privileges of hierarchy based on birth. As Enlightenment authors criticized privilege – special legal rights based on birth status – they promoted dislike of the Old Regime system. This dislike of the Old Regime became more intense in late 1780s when a series of events helped spark revolution. Let’s look at three of these events: bankruptcy, food shortages, and economic hardship.

• Bankruptcy: France was ruled by an absolutist King, Louis XVI. He embodied the French state. But in 1788 King Louis went bankrupt. The French state not only lacked money, but struggled to convince investors to lend it money. As the situation worsened, it became obvious the King and his advisors had no plan to solve the financial crisis. They began to lose credibility.

• Food shortages: 1785, 1786, and 1788 included terrible harvests, resulting in food shortages. Shortages lead to high prices – inflation. The price of food shot up, especially for bread which was crucial for the working classes. The food shortages and price spikes led to social unrest and protests.

• Economic hardship: French textile business faced increasing competition from imported English and Indian textiles. The imported textiles were often cheaper. This led to bankruptcies of textile and merchant businesses in France. Unemployment for weavers and dyers spread, especially in northern France. With the price of bread rising, grain riots broke out.

The bad harvests and business bankruptcies fueled anger. What’s crucial about these events is this: French elites failed to respond to the economic hardships felt by many. Societies can often withstand a crisis when the public has confidence in its leaders – when the public perceives its leaders as having the understanding and ability to address the crisis. In the late 1780s, though, French leaders appeared to be failing.

• In spring 1789, King Louis called representatives of the three estates to meet in the Estates General.

This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Four Versions part 3 - 4

• The Estates General was based on privilege. Each estate – clergy, nobility, and commoners – had one collective vote, even though the commoners outnumbered the other two estates.

• The commoners’ representatives quickly lost confidence in the Estates General and broke from it. These representatives created a new institution called the National Assembly. They claimed that they – not the King or the first two estates – represented the French people. The Revolution had begun.

The French Revolution, 1789: Radical Liberal Progress

As 1789 unfolded, two types of events characterize the French Revolution:

1. Radical liberal ideas: a declaration of rights to end the long history of privilege.

2. Social disorder: the unleashing of terrifying violence. Let’s look at radical liberal ideas first. In August 1789, the National Assembly published the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen.

The French Declaration resembles Thomas Paine’s radical liberalism. Remember, Paine said humans “have it in our power to begin the world over again.” To begin the world over means liberating ourselves from history – freeing ourselves from the institutions, culture, and laws made by previous generations – and radically remaking society. Let’s explore this idea. The radical liberal Paine views human beings as born free and remaining free.

• This means that each individual has no inherent obligations.

• Each person might choose obligations – choose to develop relationships and attachments which include obligations. But these are matters of choice, for Paine.

• Radical liberalism views humans as born free and remaining free to choose which obligations to have – obligations to people, institutions, and cultural norms, etc.

• Paine calls this freedom “natural rights.” But unlike classical liberals who combine natural rights with restraining human passions, the radical liberal Paine combines natural rights with liberation – born free and remaining free – not restraint.

• Paine’s combining natural rights with liberation – freedom from the institutions, laws, and culture made by previous generations – reflects his optimistic view of human nature. He thinks it is possible for humans to use their reason to remake society – overthrowing existing institutions and laws – without their passions getting out of control and causing chaos and violence (or justifying the violence in the name of liberation).

The French Declaration of the Rights of Man & Citizen (1789) expresses the radical liberal idea of being born and remaining free. It declares, “Men are born and remain free.” It described this freedom as natural rights, “the natural, inalienable and sacred rights of man.” Be sure to follow the logic of radical liberalism.

This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Four Versions part 3 - 5

• If we are born and remain free, and only have obligations we choose, then we are free or liberated from history – liberated from the institutions, laws, and culture of previous generations.

• This sound abstract, but think it through: Everything which existed when we were born – the laws, the political and religious institutions, the social relations and culture – all of these things represent the choices of previous generations. They represent the obligations which previous generations chose.

• The radical liberal idea “to begin the world over again” means individuals are free from these inherited obligations, free from these inherited institutions, free to remake society.

Radical liberalism thus presents the constant remaking of society as the key to progress. Progress requires freeing each generation from the laws, institutions, and practices of the past. Each generation can then choose new obligations in hopes of creating a new and better future. The French Declaration of the Rights of Man & Citizen expresses the radical liberal idea of progress to promote the remaking of Old Regime society. By declaring that “Men are born and remain free,” the document promises freedom from the obligations of previous generations, freedom from the social hierarchy of privilege, from the system of special legal rights based on birth status. We have now discussed the first type of event that unfolded in 1789, radical liberal ideas which influenced the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen. Before we continue to discuss the second type of event, social disorder and violence, let’s pause to do some comparing.

Comparing Radical Liberalism & Conservative Liberalism

Let’s compare the radicalism liberalism of Thomas Paine with the conservative liberalism of Edmund Burke. Let’s start with the idea of obligations.

• Paine’s radical liberalism sees individuals as born free and remaining free, meaning the individual has no inherent obligations, but only the obligations s/he chooses.

• Burke’s conservative liberalism says individuals do have inherent obligations. The individual is not “born free,” but is born into a set of relationships called the family. An individual is born with the unchosen obligation of being a son or daughter, the unchosen obligation of being a brother or sister, the unchosen obligation of being a niece or nephew, etc.

Consider how this different view of obligations – born free or born into obligations – includes different views of human nature and different views of progress.

• Paine’s radical liberalism has an optimistic view of human nature. Paine thinks human reason can control human passions; each human can make free and rational choices about

This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Four Versions part 3 - 6

obligations. This optimism about human nature leads to the radical liberal understanding of progress.

o Follow the logic of radical liberal progress: since humans have the rational ability to choose their own obligations, they can liberate themselves from the obligations of previous generations – the laws, institutions, and practices of the past – and remake society as they wish. This constant remaking of society by each generation is the radical liberal understanding of progress.

• Burke’s conservative liberalism has a skeptical view of human nature. Burke thinks human passions easily get out of control; the passions are often not controlled by reason but only restrained by a web of unchosen obligations – the family we are born into; the laws, institutions, and culture which already existed when we were born. This skepticism about human nature leads to the conservative liberal understanding of progress.

o Follow the logic of conservative liberal progress: the web of human obligations evolves over time because each generation builds on and develops what already works from previous generations. This building on and developing inherited laws and institutions – not liberating ourselves from them – is the conservative liberal understanding of slow and gradual progress. Attempts at quick, radical change – attempts at liberation from inherited institutions and practices – will likely unleash the passions and lead to social disorder, decay, and even violence. Attempts of liberation, in other words, will lead to regress, the opposite of progress.

These two versions of progress include one more point of comparison – the role of politics in progress.

• Paine’s radical liberal progress is often the result of direct political action. Because progress comes from each generation freeing themselves from the past and remaking society, the politics and political activities of each generation play a central role in promoting progress. Political leaders and government can lead and direct radical liberal progress.

• Burke’s conservative liberal progress is not the result of direct political action. Progress is not led by politicians promising quick changes. It is not directed by government. Rather, progress evolves like genetic traits in populations, with successive generations building on and developing the working institutions and practices inherited from the past.

Now that we’ve compared the conservative liberal and radical liberal understandings of progress, let’s return to the second type of event which unfolded in the French Revolution in 1789: social disorder and violence.

The French Revolution, 1789: Social Disorder and Violence

In July 1789, there were unprecedented riots and looting in Paris. Mobs began challenging the basis of law and order by openly confronting the French military in the streets. On July 14, events escalated on the east side of Paris where a mob stormed a famous prison called the Bastille.

This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Four Versions part 3 - 7

• Ironically, the Bastille was mostly empty. It was old and only had a handful of prisoners left. But it was a long-standing symbol of royal authority, with high, thick walls defended by royal troops. After intense street battles with guns, cannon, and fire, an urban mob captured the Bastille and took its governor hostage. The rioters marched the governor through the streets of Paris before chopping off his head. They then parading his severed head on a pike through the streets in celebration.

• In the summer 1789, such displays of rage occurred not only in cities like Paris, but also in the French countryside. Rural peasants (not always the poorest peasants) engaged in riots and massacres. They burned mansions of the nobility and attacked members of noble families. These attacks included all kinds of assaults as well as murder. This rural mob violence was called the Great Fear, and it spread intense anxiety about who the next victims would be and the seeming inability of the French government to maintain order.

These intense displays of rage – urban and rural mob violence – happened the same summer as the creation of the National Assembly.

• Recall we said above that when the Estates General met in June 1789, representatives of the third estate – the Commoners – broke away from the Estates General and created their own institution called the National Assembly. They were professionals like lawyers, doctors, and intellectuals.

• They declared that the National Assembly represented the French people. It was the National Assembly which issued the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen (1789) declaring the radical liberal idea that “Men are born and remain free.”

So now we come to a crucial question. We said that two types of events characterized the French Revolution in 1789:

• 1. Radical liberal ideas: a declaration of rights to end the long history of privilege

• 2. Social disorder: the unleashing of terrifying violence. So the crucial question is this. When we look at these two types of events, what do we see?

• Is France on the verge of creating a new enlightened society based on radical liberal ideas?

• Or is France on the edge of falling into chaos, and unleashing a mad and violent terror? One British writer clearly thought France was creating a new enlightened society based on radical liberal ideas. This writer was enthusiastic about the violent storming of the Bastille. He declared, “How much the greatest event it is that ever happened in the world!”

• The radical liberal Thomas Paine agreed with this writer’s assessment. He insisted France was undergoing radical liberal progress, creating a new enlightened society.

• The conservative liberal Edmund Burke disagreed. He thought France was on the edge of madness.

Let’s look more closely at Burke’s and Paine’s reactions.

This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Four Versions part 3 - 8

• Burke was troubled by the violence in France. “Parisian ferocity has broken out in a shocking manner,” he wrote. He thought the violence might be exposing the character of the Revolution itself: “if it should be character rather than accident, then the people are not fit for liberty.”

• Paine accused Burke of simply not understanding. Paine said he could not “account for Mr. Burke’s astonishment; but certain it is, he does not understand the French Revolution.”

Burke’s and Paine’s reactions reflected their different ways of thinking and thus their different understandings of progress. Paine’s radical liberalism defined progress as each generation liberating itself from history; each generation liberating itself from the obligations of previous generations – from inherited laws, institutions, and practices – and remaking society as it wishes. That’s why Paine said, “We have it in our power to begin the world over again.”

• Paine saw the French Revolution as advancing this kind of radical liberal progress. Referring to the events in France, he proclaimed, “the new order of things has naturally followed the new order of thoughts.”

• More broadly, Paine thought the French Revolution was part of an international movement for radical liberal progress. He interpreted the American Revolution as part of this movement. He also viewed rebellions in Belgium and the Netherlands in the 1780s as advancing radical liberal progress. As he declared, “It is an age of revolutions in which everything may be looked for” – i.e., everything is possible.

• This sense of boundless possibilities to remake societies permeated Paine’s writings. He described “the present Governments of Europe [as] a scene of iniquity and oppression.” He thought these governments needed to be overthrown. “Mr. Burke and some others” may think the French Revolution “has gone too far,” he said, but that only means “it has gone too far for them.” Indeed, Paine proclaimed that “nothing of reform on the political world ought to be held improbably” – i.e., nothing ought to be considered impossible.

• Some Enlightenment intellectuals agreed with Paine. They described “the glorious example given in France to encourage other nations to assert the unalienable rights of Mankind, and thereby . . . to make the world free and happy.”

Burke doubted whether events in France represented progress. Burke’s conservative liberalism defined progress as the gradual evolution of society across generations; each generation inheriting the complex web of attachments of previous generations – their laws, institutions, and practices – and building on and developing those inheritances in ways that restrain human passions. Progress for Burke is a slow and gradual process, not a quick and radical uprising.

• Burke saw the French Revolution as undermining the possibility of progress, breaking the gradual evolution across generations with radical promises that unleashed dark human passions.

• In October 1789, a French mob attacked the royal palace at Versailles, about twelve miles outside of Paris. The mob killed royal guardsmen and threatened the Queen. Burke was

This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Four Versions part 3 - 9

criticized for defending the Queen and being out of touch with the working classes and poor.

• But Burke saw it differently. He believed humans were naturally sensitive to displays or spectacles of violence. As he explains, “we are so made as to be affected at such spectacles with melancholy.” But he thought intellectuals like Paine who excused or defended violence in the name of liberation were desensitizing people to bloodshed. This desensitizing meant losing a basic sense of right and wrong. As Burke explains: “Such must be the consequence of losing, in the splendor of these triumphs of the rights of men, all natural sense of wrong and right.”

• So Burke viewed the Revolution as undermining the possibility of progress because it was destroying the basic sensitivities – basic social attachments – which hold a people together. And once this happens, he warned – once humans are desensitized to violence – the human passions are let lose in dangerous ways. As Burke explains, “the elements which compose human society seem all to be dissolved, and a world of monsters to be produced in the place of it.”

The “elements” which compose human society – the attachments and obligations that evolve across generations – were central to Burke’s conservative liberal understanding of progress. For Paine, those same elements – those inherited attachments and obligations – were obstacles to his radical liberal understanding of progress. Inherited ways of doing things were not to be built upon and developed, for Paine, but to be rejected and thrown away.