Historical Interpretations

What is Historiography Literally historiography refers to the study of the academic study of history. One of the areas of interests of historiography is therefore the different theories, perspectives and interpretations historians bring to historical events. For your study – the French Revolution – there have been a number of important interpretations. You will need to show an awareness of these in your evaluation of causes.

The Marxist View The Marxist interpretation of the French revolution is often referred to as the ‘classical’ view because it came first. Marxists see the French Revolution as a ‘bourgeois’ revolution. It was caused by the demands of a growing middle class or bourgeoisie and once it had occurred it set the scene for bourgeois or middle class dominance of French politics and French society.

The Marxist View of History Such a view is based on the Marxist view of history summarised by Karl Marx in the ‘Communist Manifesto’ in 1848 ‘The history of all hitherto society is the history of class struggle’ The conflict between classes is seen as the ‘motor’ of history – i.e. The thing that drives it forward. Individuals and ideas in history are therefore not particularly important as it is economic and social forces which drives history forward

Stages of History Marxists say history therefore progresses in stages: Feudalism – economic dominance based on ownership of land – class struggle between landowners and the middle class gives rise to- Capitalism – economic dominance based on ownership of factories, capital, land, business – class struggle between owners (bourgeoisie) and workers (proletariat), gives rise to – Communism – workers abolish all classes and class struggle is ended.

Criticism of Marxist View It can appear deterministic - history seen as rigidly following a set path. It underemphasises the role of the individual in history. It can produce a closed approach to research.

Marxism and the French Revolution The first historian to describe the French evolution as a ‘bourgeois revolution’ was the French socialist and historian Georges Lefebvre (writing in the 1930’s). Lefebvre asserted that the Revolution resulted in a shift in power from the old landed feudal class to the new middle class (bourgeoisie) The Revolution was caused by bourgeois grievances and the ideas of the Enlightenment are characterised by Lefebvre as a new bourgeois ideology The Revolution got rid of feudalism and replaced it with a society in which the bourgeoisie could dominate and capitalism develop. A more recent example of a Marxist interpretation of the French Revolution is Roger Magraw (University of Warwick) in ‘France : the Bourgeois Century’ (note – this is in the library – read the introduction on interpretations of the French Rev for a good overview!)

The Revisionist View A revisionist is someone who revises or changes an established view or orthodoxy. As the Marxist interpretation quickly became the accepted orthodox view of the French revolution historians who cast doubt on it are referred to as ‘revisionists’ The main example is Alfred Cobban and English historian writing in the 1950’s onwards

Cobban and the ‘myth’ of the French Revolution Cobban refers to the idea of the French Revolution as the death of feudalism and the start of capitalism and bourgeois dominance as a ‘myth’ Evidence 1. Cobban claims that feudalism was long dead before the French Revolution in He also argues that a recognisable bourgeoisie in Marxist terms did not actually exist in 1789 – the ‘middle classes’ who dominated the Revolution far from being a new assertive industrial class were in fact lawyers, professionals and state officials – a class in decline out to protect their narrow interests. 3. Cobban produced a mass of evidence of the social make up of members of the national and legislative assemblies to prove this Revisionists like Cobban are therefore far more likely to see the Revolution as a response to a financial crisis than a massive social upheaval

The Marxist Response Marxists have dismissed revisionist evidence by saying that what the assemblies did was far more important than who they were. The assemblies set the conditions by which industrial capitalism could develop and bourgeois dominance assert itself – votes for the middle classes, a constitutional monarchy, confiscation of church and aristocratic lands, formal abolition of feudalism – ending of feudal rights and duties

Role of the Individual/Cultural approaches Historians like Daniel Mornet see cultural factors (ideas, values) as more important than economic factors Mornet describes the French revolutions as a ‘conspiracy of Enlightenment intellectuals’ Enlightenment ideas and the central importance of key thinkers therefore seen as more important than big social and economic factors Mornet argues that the ‘pillars’ of the old order – church, monarchy and feudalism – were brought down by the power of revolutionary ideas

How to use this in your assignments A02(b) marks Analysis and evaluation of differing interpretations and representations of the past, in relation to the historical context Level Shows little, if any, understanding of historical debate or interpretation Level Shows some understanding of a limited range of historical debate or interpretation Level Shows an understanding of the nature of historical debate and/or interpretation and provides some evaluation of it Level Shows good understanding of the nature of historical debate and is able to assess the relative value of interpretations Level Shows clear and consistent understanding of the nature of historical debate and is able to appreciate effectively how others have interpreted the past Assesses the relative merits of differing interpretations and provides a convincing, well supported judgement