The French Revolution: An Examination of the Semantics of Political Violence

 

 The French Revolution: An Examination of the Semantics of Political Violence

                When does violence become political? How do we know when it crosses the line between domestic violence to political violence? What are the differences between terrorism and interstate conflicts, or between revolutions and civil wars? While some clarity to these and similar questions has come in recent decades, there still remains a considerable amount of debate and disagreement about what constitutes political violence and how it should be classified. In an attempt to cut through the confusion, some scholars have offered their own definitions of political violence (Samuels 2012, 258-282). As can be expected, these definitions have been greeted with varying levels of acceptance. This blog will take one instance of political violence, categorize it according to generally accepted definitions of political violence, and then check to see if that definition reflects the reality of the event in focus.

                 To illustrate how difficult it can be to categorize political violence, I will use a famous example–the French “Revolution.” According to Samuels, a revolution is an “armed conflict within a sovereign state between insurgents and the state, in which both the insurgents and the state claim the allegiance of a significant proportion of the population; authority over the state is forcibly transferred from the state to the insurgents, and the insurgents subsequently bring about wholesale political change” (Samuels 2012, 269). This is quite a wordy definition, but basically it says that it only counts as a revolution if both of the sides that are fighting were on the same side to begin with, both sides enjoy popular support, and the side that challenge the existing government win and make big changes once they take over. With these stipulations, does the uprising of the French bourgeoisie in the late 1700s qualify as a revolution?

                As is generally the case in questions of political science, the answer is multidimensional and tricky. We will start with where the definition works well. The French Revolution was certainly an armed and bloody conflict–conservative estimates suggest that over 40,000 people lost their lives during the Robespierre’s reign of terror alone (Gogh 1998, 77). It was also clearly an example of the insurgents fighting against the state, with the bourgeoisie (peasants) attacking the proletariats (the aristocrats). Both groups of people were initially subject to the authority of the state of France embodied in King Louis XVI. Also, the authority was eventually transferred from the king (and the aristocracy in general) to people as a whole, and France underwent wholesale change from a Monarchy to a Republic (Arnold 2009, 15-18). In those ways, Samuel’s definition for a revolution work very well in this case.

                Where the definition does not match up as well in this specific comparison is the idea that in order to be a revolution, both sides must enjoy widespread popular support. The French Revolution had many aspects, but roughly numerically balanced sides opposing each other was not one of them. The peasants outnumbered the aristocrats by an overwhelming majority, and they enjoyed much higher levels of overall support than did the proletariat. This fact puts into question the validity of Samuels’ definition.  While much of his definition of a revolution falls in line perfectly with what is observed in the French Revolution, there is one aspect that seems to conflict with the case study in question. Should it still count as a revolution?

I argue that that while the French Revolution may not match every aspect of a paragraph–long definition, it follows closely enough that I feel comfortable in classifying it as a revolution. Not all aspects of a definition are created equal, and the most important parts of a revolution (an armed conflict within state boundaries that the insurgents win) are present in this case.       

REFERENCES

Arnold, James R. 2009. The aftermath of the French Revolution. Minneapolis, MN: Twenty-first Century Books.

Gough, Hugh (1998). The Terror in the French Revolution. p. 77.

Samuels, David J. 2013. Comparative politics. New York, NY: Pearson.