Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T04:18:29.430Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Political Decay and the European Revolutions, 1789–1848

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2011

John R. Gillis
Get access

Extract

Until very recently social interpretations of revolution have enjoyed a position of virtual orthodoxy among both historians and social scientists. Sociologists and political scientists concerned with the problem of revolution have been mainly of the structural-functional school. They describe a revolutionary situation as one of “multiple dysfunction” in the relations between the political system and the society it serves. Revolution thus interpreted is a violent redress of imbalance among functionally interrelated and historically synchronous social and political parts of one total system. It is commonly assumed that it is the social process, including economic change, that is the dynamic element in any revolutionary event, and that political institutions play a causative role only in so far as they fail to provide mechanisms for resolving the state of disequilibrium. Historians of revolution, many of them strongly if not consciously influenced by Marxist traditions of interpretation, have taken much the same position. If they tend to think more in terms of trends than of equilibrium systems, nevertheless they agree with the social scientists that revolution is primarily the result of accumulating social and economic pressures, with politics playing only a secondary role in shaping the course of events.

Type
Research Article
Information
World Politics , Volume 22 , Issue 3 , April 1970 , pp. 344 - 370
Copyright
Copyright © Trustees of Princeton University 1970

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Johnson, Chalmers, Revolution and the Social System (Stanford 1964)Google Scholar; and JrMoore, Barrington, Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy (Boston 1966)Google Scholar. A useful survey of recent work in the field is provided by Stone, Lawrence, “Theories of Revolution,” World Politics (January 1966), 159–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 A distinction must be made between those histories that treat the social aspects of the revolutionary period as such and diose studies that attempt to impose social categories on political events (or vice versa). Hampson's, NormanSocial History of the French Revolution (London 1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar is an example of a work that maintains a proper distinction between the social and political spheres. Kaplow's, Jeffry introduction to his New Perspectives on the French Revolution (New York 1965)Google Scholar, which treats social history as if it were an explanation for political events, ignoring the possibility that, social and political movements may be in opposition, or even irrelevant, to one anouier, is illustrative of structural-functionalism in history. Hobsbawm's, EricAge of Revolution (Cleveland 1962)Google Scholar, which interprets the events of 1789–1848 almost exclusively in terms of social and economic change, is in a similar category.

3 Among the historical works that attempt to revise the prevailing social interpretation are Palmer, Robert R., The Age of Democratic Revolution (Princeton 1959–64)Google Scholar; and Cobban, Alfred, The Social Interpretation of the French Revolution (Cambridge 1964)Google Scholar. A cogent criticism of the structural-functional position is found in Collins, Randall, “A Comparative Approach to Political Sociology,” Bendix, Reinhard, ed., State and Society (Boston 1969), 42–67Google Scholar.

4 Huntington, Samuel P., Political Order in Changing Societies (New York 1968), 273Google Scholar.

5 Brinton, Crane, The Anatomy of Revolution, rev. ed. (New York 1959), 38–43, 54ffGoogle Scholar.

6 Most studies of intellectuals in European revolutions concentrate on the independent professions, neglecting almost entirely the civil and military personnel. See O'Boyle, Lenore, “The Democratic Left in Germany, 1848,” Journal of Modern History, XXXIII (December 1961), 374–83;CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Lewis Namier, 1848: Revolution of the Intellectuals (London 1944).

7 Amann, Peter, “Revolution: A Redefinition,” Political Science Quarterly, LXXVII (March 1962), 38Google Scholar.

8 Eckstein, Harry, “On the Etiology of Internal War,” History and Theory, iv, No. 2 (1965), 133–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Huntington, Samuel P., “Political Development and Political Decay,” World Politics, XVII (April 1965), 393–405Google Scholar.

10 Eisenstadt, Shmuel N., “Breakdowns of Modernization,” Economic Development and Cultural Change, xii (July 1964), 345–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and , Eisenstadt, Modernization: Protest and Change (Englewood Cliffs 1966), 129ffGoogle Scholar.

11 Eisenstadt, “Breakdowns of Modernization,” 355ff.

12 Huntington, “Political Development,” 405–30.

13 Labrousse, Ernst, “1848-1830-1789, Comment naisent les révolutions,” Actes du Congrès de le Centenaire de Révolution de 1848 (Paris 1948), 1–31Google Scholar; Lefebvre, Georges, The Coming of the French Revolution, trans, by Palmer, R. R. (Princeton 1947), Part I.Google Scholar

14 Huntington, “Political Development,” 392–393.

15 On the continuities of French modernization see Brown, Bernard E., “The French Experience of Modernization,” World Politics, xxi (April 1969), 380–83Google Scholar.

16 Göhring, Martin, Die Ämterkäufiichkeit im Ancien Régime (Berlin 1938), 158ffGoogle Scholar.

17 Rosenberg, Hans, Aristocracy, Bureaucracy and Autocracy: The Prussian Experience, 1660–1815 (Cambridge, Mass. 1958), 75–87Google Scholar; Koselleck, Reinhart, Preussen zwischen Reform und Revolution: Allgemeines handrecht, Verwaltung und. soziale Bewegung von iygi bis 1848 (Stuttgart 1967), 143–49Google Scholar.

18 Ford, Franklin L., Robe and Sword: The Regrouping of the French Aristocracy after Louis XIV (New York 1965), 105–23Google Scholar; Palmer, Age of Democratic Revolution, 1, 55–52; Lefebvre, 15–34. Historians are gradually abandoning the idea that this decay was the product of an aristocratic resurgence within the civil and military services, but even if the ratio of nobles to bourgeoisie remained fairly constant throughout the eighteenth century, the decline in the level of capacity among the officials of most agencies seems undeniable. Gruder, Vivian, The Royal Provincial Intendants (Ithaca 1968), 214–16Google Scholar.

19 Behrens, C.B.A., The Ancien Regime (London 1967), 163–84Google Scholar.

20 A detailed study of reform efforts within the administration is provided by J. F. Bosher's work on the struggle to achieve a reorganization of the French customs system, The Single Duty Project (London 1964)Google Scholar. A useful survey of pre-revolutionary government is provided by Cobban, Alfred, “The Decline of Divine Right Monarchy in France,” New Cambridge Modern History, vii (Cambridge 1957), 214–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bosher, J. F., “French Administration and Public Finance in their European Setting,” New Cambridge Modern History, viii (Cambridge 1965), 565–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 Taylor, George V., “Noncapitalist Wealth and the Origins of the French Revolution” American Historical Review, LXXII (January 1967), 469–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 Bosher, “French Administration,” 577–78.

23 On the divisions among the legal profession, especially between lawyers and judges, see Dawson's, Philip suggestive article, “The Bourgeoisie de Robe in 1789,” French Historical Studies, iv (Spring 1965), 1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 Palmer, i, 4–5.

25 Cobban, 25–35, 54–67; Dakin, D., “The Breakdown of the Old Regime in France,” New Cambridge Modern History, viii (Cambridge 1967), 604–05Google Scholar.

26 Gillis, John R., “Aristocracy and Bureaucracy in Nineteenth-Century Prussia,” Past and Present, XLI (December 1968), 105–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Koselleck, 380–97.

27 Koselleck, 398–447; Gillis, John R., “The Prussian Bureaucracy, 1840–1860: A Study of Social and Political Transformation,” (unpub. diss., Stanford 1965), 102–66Google Scholar.

28 de Tocqueville, Alexis, The Old Regime and the French Revolution (Garden City 1955), 32–119Google Scholar; Heffter, Heinrich, Die deutsche Selbstverwaltung im 19. Jakrhundert (Stuttgart 1950), 109–36, 207–30Google Scholar.

29 Ford, 115ff; Göhring, 305–33; Koselleck, 398–447; Eichholtz, Dietrich, Junker und Bourgeoisie vor 1848 in der preussischen Eisenbahngeschichte (Berlin 1962), 83–135, 159–82Google Scholar.

30 Gillis “The Prussian Bureaucracy, 1840–1860,” 75–126; Koselleck, 379–97.

31 Gillis, “Aristocracy and Bureaucracy in Nineteenth-Century Prussia,” 115–26.

32 For the recollection of one prominent conservative, see von Bismarck, Otto, Gedanken und Erinnerungen, 1 (Stuttgart 1898), 20–52Google Scholar. Bismarck's lingering distrust of the bureaucracy was partly attributable to the radicalism of some of its members during the revolution. Hintze, Otto, “Bismarcks Stellung zur Monarchic und zum Beamten-tum,” Geist und Bpocken der preussischen Geschichte, ed. Hartung, Fritz (Leipzig 1943), 653–61Google Scholar.

33 Ford, 188–201; Palmer, 67–84, 439–65.

34 Taylor, 477–80. The fall in prices, particularly on the lower levels of the bureaucratic hierarchy, may have been one reason why venality was so swiftly abolished on the night of August 4, 1789. By that time the social value of state office outweighed its financial returns. For another analysis of the change from the purchase to the merit system see Hoselitz, Bert F., “Levels of Economic Performance and Bureaucratic Structures,” in LaPalombara, Joseph, ed., Bureaucracy and Political Development (Princeton 1963), 168–98.Google Scholar

35 Gruder, 24–33; Ford, 105–19.

36 Conrad, Johannes, The German Universities for the Last Fifty Years (Glasgow 1885), 19–25Google Scholar. For the role of intellectuals in developing countries, consult Shils, Edward, “Intellectuals in the Political Development of New States,” World Politics, xii (April 1960), 329–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37 Tocqueville, 138–47; Dawson, “The Bourgeoisie de Robe in 1789”; Darnton, Robert, “Grub Street Style of Revolution: J. P. Brissot, Police Spy,” Journal of Modern History, XL (September 1968), 301–27Google Scholar; Cobban, 54–67.

38 Bosher, The Single Duty Project, 170–71.

39 Krieger, Leonard, The German Idea of Freedom (Boston 1957), 329–40Google Scholar.

40 Taylor, 491; Cobban, 162–73; Behrens, 176–77.

41 Sheehan, James, “Political Leadership in the German Reichstag, 1871–1918,” American Historical Review, LXXIV (December 1968), 511–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Demeter, Karl, “Die soziale Schichtung des deutschen Parlaments seit 1848,” Vierteljakrsschrijt für Sozial- und Wirtschajtsgeschichte, xxxix (1952), 1–28Google Scholar.

42 Neumann, Sigmund, Die Stufen des preussischen Konservatismus (Berlin 1930),. 68ffGoogle Scholar. Demands for institutional reform, including the abolition of venality, are recorded in die cahiers of all three of the French estates in 1789. Hyslop, Beatrice, French Nationalism in 1789 according to the General Cahiers (New York 1934), 72–73, 86–87, 100–49Google Scholar.

43 On the character of the politics of the laboring poor see Soboul, Albert, The Parisian Sans-Culottes and the French Revolution, 1793–1794 (Oxford 1964)Google Scholar; and Noyes, Paul, Revolution and Organization: Wording Class Associations in the German Revo-tutions of 1848/49 (Princeton 1966)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Though still loyal to the Marxist traditions of his-toriography, Soboul states that the laboring poor of the Paris sections acted more like a political faction than a conscious working class. Noyes presents the German artisans as politically liberal but socially conservative, without modern class consciousness.

44 The continuity of constitutional and administrative development is treated in Huber's, Ernst RudolfDeutsche Verfassungsgeschichte sett 1789, III (Stuttgart 1963), 809ffGoogle Scholar. For France, see Godechot, Jacques, Les institutions de la France sous la Révolution et l'Empire (Paris 1951)Google Scholar.

45 On the growth and rationalization of the bureaucracy during the French Revolution consult Church, Clive, “The Social Basis of the French Central Bureaucracy under the Directory, 1795–1799,” Past and Present, xxxvi (April 1967), 59–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and die conference report on social mobility in Past and Present, xxxiii (December 1965), 7–11.

46 The expansion and development of bureaucratic institutions is described in Gillis, “The Prussian Bureaucracy, 1840–1860,” chaps. 4–6.

47 Cobban, 63; Bosher, 170–71.

48 Bendix, Reinhard, Nation-Building and Citizenship (London 1964), 55–104Google Scholar; and Marshall, T. H., “Citizenship and Social Class,” Class, Citizenship, and Social Development (Garden City 1965), 71–134Google Scholar.

49 Reinhard, Marcel, “Elite et noblesse dans la seconde moitié du XVIIIe Siècle,” Revue d'histoire moderne et contemporaine, iii (1956), 36–37Google Scholar.

50 Rémond, René, The Right Wing in France from 1815 to de Gaulle, trans, by Laux, J. M. (Philadelphia 1966), 32–78Google Scholar; Pflanze, Otto, Bismarck and the Development of Germany (Princeton 1963), 311–36Google Scholar.

51 For a view critical of the conventional interpretations of the French Revolution of 1830 see Pinkney, David, “The Crowd in the French Revolution of 1830,” American Historical Review, LXX (October 1964), 1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

52 Huntington, Political Order and Changing Society, 265.

53 A brief survey of that tradition is provided by Werner Conze, “Social History,” Journal of Social History, i (Fall 1967), 7–16.