How the political and cultural revolution worked together in France

Before the French Revolution, there was a separation of power in France based on the way the country segmented their society. The society was split into three groups: the clergy, the nobility and the third estate. The leaders of the French Revolution sought to alter the power and create their own culture to overthrow the monarchy run under Louis XVI and establish an entirely new society.

In Emmanuel Joseph Sieyes’ What is the Third Estate? he argues that the Third Estate of France was entitled to more respect and power than they were currently given, being that the Third Estate makes up the majority, “nineteen-twentieths”, of France (Blaisdell 72). Sieyes motivates his people in the text by challenging them to rise up against the limitations placed on the third estate, as it “contains everything that pertains to the nation” (Blaisdell 74). Sieyes pushes this revolution on the grounds that a monarchy isn’t necessary for the people of France to operate and that they would live in a better society if they were to overthrow the monarchy.

In order to unite the people of France, culturally speaking, Maximilian Robespierre wrote The Cult of Supreme Being, advocating for the revolution under religious grounds. He advocated against the catholic church because many of the followers perceived the church as a way of repression and subjugation by the monarchy. Robespierre incorporates many atheistic views, under the concept of reason in his new religious system. Under this system there are many religious views of deism, where there was belief in a god, but a god that didn’t intercede with the plans of the people of the Third Estate. He also argues that humanity was designed to exist in harmony but the tyrants in power have polluted the system of power in France by oppressing its people. Without the writings and leadership of Robespierre, the French Revolution may not have been possible.

The French Revolution’s success can be attributed to the combination of the political and cultural revolution that occurred before it. Without revolutionary writers and leaders like Robespierre and Sieyes, motivating the majority of the Third Estate wouldn’t have been possible and the shift towards a more enlightened society would never have became a reality.

Questions to consider:

Do you think the French Revolution would’ve been possible without the combination of the  political and cultural revolution?

Are there any power shifts (clergy, nobility, third estate) throughout world history similar to the one caused by the French Revolution?


4 thoughts on “How the political and cultural revolution worked together in France

  1. Both political and cultural revolution were essential parts to the success of the French Revolution. The separation within French society prior to the revolution is summarized by Sieyes’ three estates. He called for the Third Estate to rise to power because it includes the majority of people responsible for the success of the nation. His actions demonstrate the political upheaval needed against the monarchy necessary for Frenchmen to prosper. On the other hand, Robespierre argues that a cultural revolution was needed. He focuses on religion as a way to connect people to the cause of revolution. Together, both Sieyes and Robesprierre were instrumental to the success of the French Revolution.

  2. In response to your first question to consider, I think it would not have been possible at that time in history without the combination of both the political and cultural revolution because the education at that time would have made it difficult for the lower class to comprehend along with other aspects.
    In a way, the dark times of the communist movement could be comparable with equality being distributed to the masses and not just to the upper class.

  3. “Do you think the French Revolution would’ve been possible without the combination of the political and cultural revolution?”
    I do not think that this necessarily would have been possible. With just the one side of things: either political or cultural, a small revolution may have occurred, but not of the magnitude of the French Revolution. The combination of both politics and culture was what really caused the French Revolution to be what it was. With just one, there may have been some smaller problems in France, but definitely not anything quite as revolutionary as the French Revolution itself.

  4. In regards to your first question, I think it would have been extremely difficult for the French Revolution to occur had their not been both political and cultural revolutions. Although these are two different extremes within a nation, they form the country. The cultural revolution was representative of what the common people wanted to change and how they went about doing so such as the change of style and the forbidding of previous kings’ names. The political revolution was just as important because as these new cultural changes were occurring, new and more modern policies needed to be implemented. The two revolutions worked off of each other to create a new France.

Comments are closed.