The Economic and Social Origins of the French Revolution of 1789

The French Revolution was one of the greatest socio-political upheavals of European and World history. So dramatic was the event that its tremors can still occasionally be felt. In the popular imagination, the magical figure of 1789 conjures up conflicting images of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity alongside the tricoteuse and guillotine, and of a revolution that offered individual choice and freedom. From the time it started, until a decade, the revolutionaries brought many changes into France. The old French monarchy was removed from power, the social order of l’ancien regime was overturned and then a transformation of France’s religious institutions took place.

The French Revolution was so dynamic and so threatening that it could not be contained within France. The news alone of what was happening in France spread fear among those hoping to maintain the status quo, and stirred the hopes of others who were longing for a monumental change. Then, by the force of arms, the French revolutionaries carried the ideas and institutions of the revolution beyond its borders. Thus, the next half-century was dominated by French ideas and institutions and by French military expansion on a scale unmatched by any state since the days of Charlemagne.

In the 18^th century, the old order in Europe rested on an alliance between the monarchy and the aristocracy. It was the age when the European powers were constantly waging wars for the acquisition and defence of newly acquired territories. Thus, there was a consistent need for the mobilization of resources to finance their militaristic ambitions. Those countries, where the kings sought to tax the aristocracy and restrict their privileges to increase state finances, a breach in this age-old alliance took place. In order to fully comprehend origins of such a crisis in France- the crisis of the l’ancien regime- the socio- economic conditions of 18^th century France needs to be analysed.

Marxist historians like Lefebvre and Hobsbawm have studied the origins of the French Revolution based on its socio-economic factors. They believe the Revolution was brought about by the rise to power of an increasing capitalist wealthy bourgeoisie rebelling against the antiquated and restrictive feudal system. They also claim that discontent amongst the people was augmented by the fact that even though they had gained economic supremacy, their socio-political status remained by and large the same.

Revisionist historians like Alfred Cobban criticized the above classical theory. He asserted that French society in the 18^th century was divided and sub-divided into different groups, and social diversification among each group was so diverse that it was impossible to talk in terms of clear cut class based revolution. It is this factor that accounts for the uniqueness of the French society. Hence there was no class-based struggle.

Until the middle of the 20^th century, historians approached the French Revolution believing that it was an enormously significant epoch, either in the progress of mankind, or in its own doom, depending on their political sympathies. Those who believed in the perfectibility of man were again dived into liberals (who thought that individual freedom and parliamentary democracy held the key to progress) and socialists (who argued that progress was determined by economic development). For the liberals, it was a stage in the struggle for political freedom; while for the socialists, 1789 marked the first stage in the decline of the feudal elite, and the transfer of economic and political power to a commercial and industrial middle class. Though we have some new historiography, the tradition has more or less remained of a two- sided interpretation of the events of and after 1789. Keeping this fact in mind, one must proceed with the essay even though one hopes to resist any whiff of determinism in the interpretation of the revolution.

In order to understand the question of the social origins of the French Revolution closely, we need to study French society of 18^th century. The whole social structure of l’ancien regime was divided into orders or ‘estates’. The First Estate comprised of the clergy. Although the clergy amounted to no more than a hundred thousand men, they owned about 1/10^th of the land in France. The clergy enjoyed many privileges. In addition to the income derived as landowners from rents and feudal dues, they drew the ‘tithe’, which amounted to 1/12^th of the yield from land. In return, however, they paid a very small percentage of their income to the king as ‘don gratuit’ or voluntary gifts. For our purpose of analysis, the clergy should be divided into different groups.

The Upper Clergy was drawn entirely from the ‘noblesse’ and the relatively poor Lower Clergy were drawn from the ‘ronturier’ or the non-noble classes. There was no representation from the lower nobility to the upper clergy. This was deeply resented by the former, and in the course of the revolution, those dissatisfied with their lot joined the revolutionaries.

The Second Estate comprised the nobility, who like the clergy constituted a small fraction of the population. The power of this class was based on the feudal seigniorial system. Historians continue to disagree about the extent of social tension in the countryside, but there is no doubt that this system was greatly resented. Traditional prejudice kept this class from indulging in productive activity. They served as councillors to the royalty, diplomats and governors. They enjoyed rights of local justice, village surveillance, monopoly over hunting and the maintenance of wells and wine presses. The most important differentiation between the nobles and the non-nobles was that the former enjoyed immunity from direct taxation in the form of ‘taille’ and various other taxes.

The nobility did not constitute a homogenous class. There existed tensions within the nobility as well. The traditional nobility or the ‘noblesse d’epee’ held political authority on the basis of landed wealth and got this as a reward to the military aid given to the king.

Since wars no longer offered booty or resources in the scale like in the past, further conflicts exhausted the coffers of the nobility, whose fortunes had been reduced through rising prices, extravagant lifestyles and division of land through inheritance. A significant part of the landed aristocracy was thus no longer adverse to the procurement of profit through capitalist enterprise. They had begun involving themselves with financial and industrial enterprise, thus, drawing closer to the bourgeoisie. To augment state revenue, the monarchy began to sell certain administrative, judicial and military offices assuring noble status. Increasingly wealthy upper middle class men, the ‘noblesse de robe’, bought them up. It was because of their wealth and high position in the government that they were often more powerful than the older aristocracy. The older aristocracy, still however, looked down upon them as socially inferior.

This challenges the Marxist belief that the entire nobility comprise of feudal landlords, who desired their existence from the traditional feudal rights over the soil. Many of the nobles could be referred to as capitalist and many members of the bourgeoisie could be termed as feudal. They were also significant differences between the court nobility and those in the provinces. The former, resided in the court in Versailles, and as a result, could bag lucrative government posts. Their effluence enabled them to buy up large estates in the countryside. This aroused the jealousy of the relatively poorer provincial nobility who naturally felt threatened. Thus, although feudalism was on decline, their insecurity prompted them to make special efforts to revive the feudal structure and gain as much as possible from it. The Revisionist historians, however, claim that this revival was neither successful nor effective.

The Third Estate comprised the rest of France. At the head of this social group lay the bourgeoisie. At the head of the bourgeoisie were the ‘haute bourgeoisie’ or ‘grande bourgeoisie’, who were the great bourgeoisie of finance. They were a group of non-nobles, but not necessarily non-privileged people. They had risen into affluence by means of their hard work, frugality and commercial speculation. They began to ape French nobility and were similar to them in many respects, except that they were not confirmed noble status.

18^th century French society gave limited approval to social mobility and provided correspondingly limited opportunities for the achievement of such nobility. The finance bourgeoisie benefited most from these opportunities for they possessed the wealth and competence, which were a prerequisite for social improvement. These bourgeoisies could also afford the price of disengaging themselves from their socially inferior status, and become part of the esteemed nobility. As long as the monarchy had the powers to do so, it made available to the bourgeoisie, noble status and its symbols at a price. But, as the balance of power shifted to the nobility, it became possible for them to bar the bourgeoisie’s access to its ranks and with the result that the available channels of mobility became more limited. This increasingly rigid social structure in 18^th century France had potentially far reaching consequences. Hobsbawm states that it created discontent amongst the finance bourgeoisie, who were rising economically and wanted to achieve social recognition and political powers as well.

Another type of bourgeoisie were the commercial and industrial bourgeoisie, and the representation of the old order led the former to lead in the revolution, culminating in the destruction of medieval institutions and the creation of a new social order. The Revisionists argue that on the eve of the revolution, feudalism was a dying institution. It was essentially different from what it represented in the Middle Ages, when it originated. Not only had the feudal aristocracy ceased to govern the country, but they had also ceased to own large parts of the land in France. Cobban estimates that approx. one third of the land had passed into the hands of the peasantry, and the remainder comprised of the forest or wasteland. This feudal system existed only in the form of feudal dues and services owed to the feudal seigniors. Hence, it could not create a major barrier for the development of capitalism, as stated by Marxist historians.

The Revisionists, view further, asserting that in this period capitalism was still in the nascent stage, and had not yet taken off in the big way. Thus, to say that the revolution was led by a rising industrial capitalist class would be incorrect.

Furthermore, it is claimed that the finance bourgeoisie constituted a relatively small group of the Third Estate. Cobban provides us the statistics of those manufacturers who actually sat in the assembly to provide inkling as to their actual importance in the society. He claims that out of a total of 648 deputies who represented the Third Estate in the assembly, only 85 represented the merchants, financiers and manufacturers. Thus, few seem to have played a very important role in the revolution, rejecting the Marxist assertion that the capitalist bourgeoisie led the revolution.

Another important class in 18^th century France, was the middle bourgeoisie or the professional classes, which included people like lawyers, doctors, teachers etc. There also existed the petty bourgeoisie, comprising of shopkeepers, artisans, small retail traders etc. Due to their standard of living, they were often clubbed together with the lower working groups. These groups constantly dreamed of attaining the noble status. They were, however, afraid of the large-scale capitalists, as they would not be able to compete with them. They constantly pressurised the government for granting them protection and for measures to safeguard their businesses. This was in sharp contrast to the upper bourgeoisie who supported large-scale capitalist ventures.

Thus, the Marxist claim that the bourgeoisie were a homogenous class with a united outlook and common goals is difficult to accept. A further indication of the invalidity of the Marxist assertion of bourgeoisie homogeneity becomes clear, when we witness that a fear of large scale capitalism and hatred for the privileged orders, prompted the petty bourgeoisie to ally themselves with the lower working classes during the revolution, and not with the haute bourgeoisie.

Below the bourgeoisie were the lower working classes, which included urban factory workers and peasants, even they cannot be labelled as of being a consolidated working class. The prerequisites of a working class, as such, would be the factory system, resulting in the specialisation of labour and a well-defined body of men with the common socio-political and economic interest. In the 18^th century, neither the peasants nor the urban working group fell into this category. The urban workers were tightly bound to the revolutionary bourgeoisie by hatred for the aristocracy, who exploited them and for l’ancien regime, whose full burden they bore. They, nonetheless, were divided into diverse categories whose behaviour was not uniform in the course of the revolution. Their attitudes varied regarding the successive factions of the bourgeoisie that led the movement. The peasant class was also affected with internal contradictions that brought them together, and at the same time tore them apart. All kinds of dues were taken from them. The ‘taille’, the ‘capitaille’ and the ‘vingtieme’ absorbed 53% of their income, ecclestiacal titles 14% and other dues amounted to another 14%. Out of the remaining 19%, indirect taxes like the ‘gabelle’ or salt tax were also exacted. The Revisionists assert that many of these dues were dying out. However, as mentioned earlier, the provincial nobility made efforts to revive the old feudal order to enhance their resources throughout this period, though it served to unite the group against them.

In the 18^th century, capitalism had made inroads into the countryside and tended to transform it. A new group of capitalist farmers grew at the end of l’ancien regime. They began to amalgamate common land and smallholdings to farm huge estates based on capitalist agriculture. In addition, these newly rising capitalist bourgeoisie also encroached upon the communal rights of the peasants. Thus, in the course of the Revolution, the peasants expressed their grievances towards the bourgeoisie by attacking new estates and castles made at their expense.

However, we cannot generalise these traits and extend them to the whole of France. Historians point out that capitalism did not exist on a very large scale, and on the eve of the revolution, large parts of the country still practised old-fashioned agriculture. The unskilled workers and small peasants depended on the affluent peasantry for their employment. They were essentially different from capitalist farmers, but as they produced for the market, they more or less adapted to the agricultural revolution. The poorer peasantry, on the other hand, became over attached to its collective rights and traditional modes of existence, which it felt were slipping away. They were opposed to any change in the traditional structure. Thus, during the revolution, they attacked the new privileged classes, but also weakened their own groupings as well.

After analysing the complexities of French society, it is now important for us to analyse the economic factors behind the outbreak of the French Revolution. The doors of the revolution were prised open by the political repercussions of a financial crisis, which began in the summer of 1786. The Controller of Finances, Calonne informed Louis XVI that the budget deficits had reached astronomical heights, and only some drastic remedies could save the state. The economic crisis badly hit the French agriculturists. The price of grain fell drastically by two-thirds between 1788-89, and the rural market for consumer goods fell by half. The inflation affected the urban workers too. Thus, an industrial crisis was underway.As markets declined, productivity fell leading to large scale unemployment. The Anglo-French Treaty of Commerce of 1786, further heightened the crisis; British exports reached the French ports without any fuss leading to the decline of local small-scale industries.

On the economic crisis, contemporary writers like, Michelet and Taine commented that oppression, misery and poverty were enhanced by the oppressive fiscal policy of the government. The inequalities of the socio-economic system put the peasants at the mercy of the feudal lords.

Alexis de Tocqueville directly challenged Michelet’s view on the socio-economic conditions of 18^th century France. He says the position of the French peasantry was much better than any other country of Europe. Unlike the peasant-serf of Eastern Europe, the French peasant was relatively free. He also suggests that although the seigniorial monetary obligations in the 18^th century were greatly resented, they did not constitute a serious financial burden. Tocqueville, thus, claims that the period preceding the revolution was one of exceptional prosperity, which ultimately promoted a spirit of unrest. The people decried all old institutions. He stressed that those parts in France in which the improvement in the standard of living was most marked, it became the chief centre of the revolution.

Another set of interpretation has come from French economic historian, C.E. Labrousse. After studying French society in the 18^th century, he has been able to put the previous conflicting interpretations into their proper perspective. He says that the period between 1733-1817, was overall, a period of economic ascendancy for the French, within which there were fluctuations. The years 1788-89, in which France witnessed an exceptionally severe crisis, was a short phase of relative weakness within the broad framework of economic development and prosperity.

Thus, even though the economic crisis served as the backdrop for the revolution, it cannot be called as the sole factor for the outbreak of the revolution. Economic leadership and social discontentment needs a framework, through which they can be expressed. To give cohesion to the discontent and aspirations of wide ranging social classes, there had to be a unified body of ideas. The writers of Enlightenment discussed these ideas. The first contributions of enlightened thought in France were the works of Voltaire. He carried out liberal and an anti-classical propaganda, and considered the clergy to be the worst enemy of free thought. The French philosophy Montesquieu had written about the degenerating nature of French society long back. He spoke against the disposition and stated that monarchy’s power should be under some check and that political authority should be divided between different autonomous bodies thereby supporting a constitutional monarchy.

Apart from Voltaire, the other most influential thinker of the period was Rousseau. He spoke of a ‘social contract’ between the ruler and the ruled. He emphasised that people were sovereign. They entrusted their executive powers to the government with the government being subordinate to the people. Law, according to Rousseau, was not the will of the class, but the whole nation. Law was therefore, a symbol of ‘general will’. His idea of liberty, equality and fraternity became the watchwords of the French Revolution. Interestingly, most of the enlightened men of the century came not from the middle classes, but from the nobility. Here we can name a few like Mirabeau, who believed that the French government should model itself on the British government and develop a constitutional monarchy.

Although the revolution was not initiated to uphold the ideas of Enlightenment, it is interesting to note that the revolutionaries needed these ideals to justify their attack on l’ancien regime and to further their economic and political objectives.

The financial crisis that hit France, dealt earlier in this essay, was the immediate origin of the revolution. The crisis arose because of the four great wars that France fought between 1733-1783. Since the budget deficit had reached astronomical proportions, Calonne proposed a thorough overhaul of the taxation system with the introduction of a new tax called ‘subvention territoriale’ for the already overburdened peasantry. A host of measures to promote trade and industry by the abolition of internal tolls and duties were planned for implementation. Measures were also chalked to abolish the privileges of the nobility and the upper bourgeoisie. An ‘Assembly of Notables’ was called in to provide a semblance of public consent for these measures. This ended the tradition of royal absolutism dating back to the time of Cardinal de Richelieu.

The tensions before the revolution were further heightened when Louis XVI took a potentially dangerous step by asking the notables to interest themselves in the states’ financial matters. A rift was therefore created between the notables and the monarchy. The notables revolted against the reform measures and sponsored uprisings. They also demanded the calling of the ‘Estates General’ to mobilise public opinion against the king. They argued it was the only body qualified to grant new taxation. Louis XVI had once said that he would rather abdicate than call the Estates General, but now the already beleaguered king could do nothing else, but to agree. Louis XVI himself schemed to mobilise public opinion against the notables through this measure, but as history tells us, the revolution had already begun. Historians have called this as the first phase of the revolution, the Aristocratic Revolution.

The whole opposition was united as long as they struggled for calling the Estates General. However, once it was called, the struggle took the shape of a conflict between the very classes who had once been united. The Third Estate demanded as many deputies to represent them as those by the nobles and clergymen. Therefore, the calling of the Estates General crystallised the revolution. While the seeds of the revolution had already been sown, the oscillating position of Louis XVI further helped to precipitate the crisis. The middle classes, who were the most frustrated, lot with the lack of much political, economic and social prestige to match their talents and expectations took the lead in the revolution and supported the lower classes against the monarchy and the nobility.

References:

Georges Lefebvre (1957), The Coming Of The French Revolution

George Rude’ (1963), The Fontana History Of Europe: Revolutionary Europe

Alfred Cobban (1968), Aspects Of the French Revolution

Eric Hobsbawm (1975), The Age Of Revolution 1789-1848

Albert Soboul (1989), Understanding The French Revolution

Francois Furet (1981), Interpreting The French Revolution

William Doyle (1977), Origins Of The French Revolution

Alexis de Tocqueville (1955), The Old Regime and The French Revolution

Advertisements

• Resource a Day
• 18th Century History FriendSearch
• Get Paid to Learn

Special Editions