Category Archives: FYS

This course is for my first year seminar on utopias and dystopias.

Religion and Utopias

Posted on by

Religion and Utopias

 

In their works on utopian societies, Plato and More believe that religion is key to the function of a society. They suggest that religious beliefs affect the morality of a society’s members and thus the preservation of the society itself.  While Plato believes in “gods” and that society members should strive to attain the Form of the Good, a strict moral code, More believes that although many religious sects can exist in a society, society members should acknowledge one true deity. In the paper, Plato’s Republic and More’s Utopia will be analyzed to determine what role they believe religion plays in the overall function of their utopian societies. Then, their ideals will be compared to those of four religious communities that were founded in 18th and 19th century America.  These communities were created as “utopian” societies that were founded upon very different religious ideals. The ideals of these American communities, The Shakers, Brook Farm, the Rappites, and The Oneida Community, will be presented to highlight the way in which religious beliefs affect the overall structure and success of the community.  Finally, how Plato and More operationalize religion in their utopias will be compared to the way in which religious beliefs were implemented in the four American communities and eventually contributed to their demise.

 

This paper will look at how important religion is to the creation of Plato and More’s utopias.  Next, it will examine whether Plato and More’s religious ideals were realistic or too idealistic to be implemented into an actual society.  The Shakers, Brook Farm, the Rappites, and the Oneida Community were American communities that expressed their religious beliefs in different and radical ways for the time period.  The similarities and differences between the communities will be discussed.  One important question will be examined in relation to each community.  How did the practices of each community affect its longevity?  Were the religious ideals of these communities too radical for the times?  Is it possible for a religious community to continue to function if a core belief is celibacy?  Why did all of the American communities ultimately fail? Finally, how can the ideals of these communities be compared to those of Plato and More?  Would Plato and More’s communities be successful if their religious ideals were implemented in present day society?

 

Little research exists on the comparison of Plato and More’s ideas on religion and the ideals of religious communities in 18th and 19th America. Exploring this topic will allow readers to create connections between two of the greatest works of all time and the way in which different religious beliefs of early American religious “utopias” affected their viability. Analyses of the religious ideals of early American “utopias” that failed can provide us information about how to create an actual utopian environment that may succeed.  How religious views of a society’s members affect the morality and social structure of the community can also be examined. The study of utopias is still very important today because even though a true utopia is not attainable, if society strives to become better and uses the ideals of Plato and More and the four religious communities, society will be able to function better as a whole.

 

The concept of utopia is still relevant today because individuals throughout history have been discussing this idea, but have never been able to create a true utopia. Numerous books, articles, and websites will allow me to explore this topic in depth. I own both the Republic and Utopia. Using the library’s website I was able to find five books that I will use as secondary sources for my paper. The books are Brook Farm, Religion and Sexuality, Oneida Community an Autobiography, 1851-1876, and The Cambridge Companion to Plato. In addition, I have found a website that was created by the National Park Service that provides a lengthy description of the four religious communities I will discuss. The short annotated bibliography below gives a more in depth description of the sources I have listed.

 

Primary Sources:

 

Jowett, Benjamin. Plato The Republic. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 2000.

This book discusses Plato’s ideas on creating a utopia and how he believes society must be structured and how individuals need to be trained to form his ideal utopia. In addition, it discusses his ideas on religion and what part he believes religion plays in society.

 

More, Thomas. Utopia. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 1997.

This book discusses More’s ideas on society and how he conceptualizes a utopia. More discusses the island of Utopia where Raphael traveled.  He describes Utopia’s way of life and how they live. More also discusses his ideas on religion and what role he believes it plays in society.

 

 

Secondary Sources:

 

Swift, Lindsay. Brook Farm: Its Members, Scholars, and Visitors. New York,

New York: Corinth Books, 1961.

This book describes the Brook Farm community and details  how it is structured, the buildings and grounds of the community, the industries of the community, the household work, and the amusements and customs of the community. In addition, the book addresses the school system of the community, its members, and visitors.

 

Foster, Lawrence. Religion and Sexuality: Three American Communal Experiments of the Nineteenth Century. New York, New York: Oxford University Press, 1981.

            This book discusses the Shaker community. The book explains the origins of Shakerism, early growth of the movement, organizing the movement, daily life among the Shakers, membership, and the spiritual manifestations: crisis and renewal.

 

Robertson, Constance N. Oneida Community: An Autobiography, 1851-1876.

Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1970.

 

This book discusses the Oneida Community. It goes into detail about where they lived, how they lived and worked, what they believed, their education, their idea of complex marriage, the role women played in the community, and stirpiculture.

 

Kraut, Richard. The Cambridge Companion to Plato. New York, New York: Cambridge

University Press, 1992.

This book tells us about Plato’s ideas on religion. It also compares Plato’s religious ideas to the ideas of religion that the Greeks had.

 

“Utopias in America.” National Park Service, n.d. Web. 30 Sept. 2012

<http://www.nps.gov/nr/travel/amana/utopia.htm>.

 

Kibbutzim Illustrating the Limits of Authority’s Power on Culture

Posted on by

I would like to examine where culture comes from. Plato argues that they come from education and government-organized social conditioning, and More seems to say that they come from leadership; it was, after all, Utopus that set the tone for a culture of acceptance and tolerance of different beliefs in Utopia. Marx, by contrast, argues that the economy is the root of all culture; every element of our culture and society is really a tool for and product of bourgeois power. I would like to argue that all three of these theories are wrong, and that culture is not as malleable under government’s or the economy’s hand as Plato, More, and Marx argue it to be. My paper will examine the limit of authority’s effect on culture, and point out what forces actually do shape societal attitudes; right now, it appears from my research that these forces are largely biological, and thus, it may be that culture is completely beyond authority’s control.

I plan to examine the success actual societies had in following Marx’s directions, since communism specifically sought to reinvent culture. Specifically, I will look at the success of socialism in kibbutzim. Kibbutzim are communities in Israel that are structured after communist ideology; even though modern kibbutzim have some deviations from the basic format, members of kibbutzim generally all work together on the kibbutz, live together, raise their children together, and share almost all property. Despite their long success—the first kibbutz was founded in 1909[1]–it appears that even kibbutzniks, residents of kibbutzim, have resisted the kibbutz tenets. There have been movements to create a wage system within kibbutzim, and parents have even resisted the kibbutz’s socialization of their children. In fact, in a recent article, “Discontent from Within”, Yael Darr points out the ways that literature overtly published by kibbutzniks for kibbutznik children and adolescents was actually a subversive weapon to voice dissatisfaction with the communal living model[2]. This dissatisfaction indicates the limits of the kibbutz government’s power in controlling kibbutz culture; though it tried to create a tightly controlled environment, it fomented a rebellious undercurrent. Even the generations that have lived their whole lives in kibbutzim are often discontent with the principles of collective property and collective living, according to Melford E. Spiro[3]. Thus, neither those who actively choose to live in kibbutzim (the parents of the 1940s and 1950s) nor the children who lived their whole lives in kibbutzim were able to fully submit to the kibbutz culture. There must, therefore, be an underlying force that opposed the kibbutz authority’s power over culture.

Spiro offers some guidance as to what these forces are. As he points out, the failure of kibbutz socialization may in fact be due to evolutionary psychology; the biological predispositions of kibbutzniks oppose kibbutz socialization. Spiro actually references one study that found that young children had difficulty sharing toys and caregivers’ attention with other children, even though sharing was the most important goal of kibbutz socialization; the biological predispositions of the children overpowered their socialization[4].

I would also like to examine the role of oxytocin, a hormone responsible for bonding, might have in forming an ideal society; one study[5] found that humans are more willing to help people of their own ethnicity. It is possible that the increasing heterogeneity[6] of kibbutzim has decreased a sense of bonding and unity among kibbutzniks, and so has made them less willing to live completely communally.

The fact that the socialization of children within the kibbutz is so limited by biological attitudes could be the downfall of Plato’s theory; the stability of his society relied almost entirely on socializing his citizens from birth in the proper attitudes and beliefs of his city-state. Marx and More similarly thought societal attitudes came from outside the individual; both believed that things as simple as the economy or leadership could revolutionize society, when it appears that values like greed are rooted deeply within each individual. Perhaps it is impossible that anyone can ever create an ideal society; that would require absolute control, as Kumar points out[7], something that biology is not willing to give.

Meanwhile, the studies coming out on oxytocin may show the impracticality of Marx’s communism; if even small kibbutzim are not bonded together tightly enough to live communally, then the large, international proletariat would never be able to hold itself together.

I believe my paper will be original. Spiro is the only article I’ve found thus far that looks at the relationship of evolutionary psychology to the failings of kibbutzim. My paper will be different from his because he did not consider the role of oxytocin in the unraveling of certain kibbutz values, nor did he use that unraveling to criticize the theories of Plato, More, and Marx.

The research for my paper will also be practical. All of the articles thus mentioned are available through the library website, and for more research on evolutionary psychology, I can use the free online journal, Evolutionary Psychology. The library many more available articles on kibbutzim, as well as commentaries on Plato, More, and Marx.

[1] Kerem, Moshe, et al. “Kibbutz Movement.” In Encyclopaedia Judaica, edited by Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik, 121-138. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007. Gale Virtual Reference Library, http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CCX2587511103&v=2.1&u=carl22017&it=r&p=GVRL&sw=w

[2] Yael Darr, “Discontent from Within: Hidden Dissent Against Communal Upbringing in Kibbutz Children’s Literature of the 1940s & 1950s,” Israel Studies 16 no. 2 (2011), 127-150.

[3] Melford E. Spiro, “Utopia and Its Discontents: The Kibbutz and Its Historical Vicissitudes,” American Anthropologist 106 no. 3 (2004), 556-586.

[4] Spiro, “Utopias and Its Discontents,” 564.

[5] De Dreu, Carsten K. W., Lindred L. Greer, Gerben A. Van Kleef, Shaul Shalvi, and Michel J. J. Handgraaf, “Oxytocin Promotes Human Ethnocentrism,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108 no. 2 (2011), 1-5.

[6] Kerem, “Kibbutz Movement,” 126.

[7] Krishan Kumar, Utopianism: Concepts in Social Thought (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1991), 19.

 

Bibliography

 

Primary Sources

Plato. The Republic. Translated by Benjamin Jowett. Mineola, New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 2000.

Through the voice of Socrates, Plato outlines a design for an ideal city-state, where all the inhabitants are raised by the state from at least the age of ten, and rulers are chosen based on their success in the educational system. This dependence on socialization is up for criticism in my paper, as it does not seem to have succeeded in kibbutzim.

Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. “Manifesto of the Communist Party.” In The Communist Manifesto and Other Revolutionary Writings, edited by Bob Blaisdell, 124-150. Mineola, New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 2003.

Marx and Engels list the reasons why the proletariat, or working class, must rebel against the bourgeoisie, or the owners of the means of production. They call for an worldwide revolution that would eliminate all personal property and create a classless society. The Communist Manifesto serves as the backbone for kibbutz theory and culture; kibbutzim essentially create the society that Marx dreamed of, with no private property, and theoretically no class.

More, Thomas. Utopia. Mineola, New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1997.

Secondary Sources

Darr, Yael. “Discontent from Within: Hidden Dissent Against Communal Upbringing in Kibbutz Children’s Literature of the 1940s & 1950s,” Israel Studies 16 no. 2 (2011): 127-150.

De Dreu, Carsten K. W., Lindred L. Greer, Gerben A. Van Kleef, Shaul Shalvi, and Michel J. J. Handgraaf, “Oxytocin Promotes Human Ethnocentrism,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108, no. 2 (2011): 1-5.

Kerem, Moshe, et al. “Kibbutz Movement.” In Encyclopaedia Judaica, edited by Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik, 121-138. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007. Gale Virtual Reference Library, http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CCX2587511103&v=2.1&u=carl22017&it=r&p=GVRL&sw=w

This article gives a brief history of the kibbutz movement. Despite its brevity, it gives crucial information regarding the changes in kibbutz culture, such as the movement in the 1980s to have children sleep with their families. These changes could give important indications of dissatisfaction with kibbutz culture, and thus the limit of the kibbutz in socializing kibbutzniks.

Kumar, Krishan. Utopianism: Concepts in Social Thought. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1991.

Schon, Regine A., “Natural Parenting: Back to Basics Infant Care,” Evolutionary Psychology 5 no. 1 (2007): 102-183.

Spiro, Melford E. “Utopia and Its Discontents: The Kibbutz and Its Historical Vicissitudes,” American Anthropologist 106 no. 3 (2004): 556-586.

Spiro examines the failings of kibbutzim, or, specifically, the discontentment of kibbutzniks with kibbutz rules. He hypothesizes that this discontentment is due largely to evolutionary psychology, a finding that could be useful to my paper because it illustrates the inability of authority to completely control culture as Marx, Plato, and More believe authority should; authority is at war with biology.

American and French Revolutionary Documents

Posted on by

The late eighteenth century was a transitional era: a time when feudal dominance was coming to an end in Europe and when thirteen North American colonies began to feel the oppressive hand of imperialist Great Britain. History was made in 1776 when the thirteen colonies united in defiance of their mother country and penned the Declaration of Independence. Only a few short years later the French masses revolted in a similar fashion under the Declaration of the Rights of man. Both documents were inspired by living under an oppressive rule, but the methods each used to inspire a following we’re different. Because of their geographic locations, the Declaration of Independence is an aggressive list of complaints meant to unify the colonies, and the Declaration of the Rights of Man contains more possible solutions meant to incite action.

The colonists of North America felt that the country was theirs for the taking. They had become tired with subscribing to law that came from an entire Ocean away without their representation in government. They believed that this separation between ruler and ruled violated their unalienable right to liberty. Following the French philosophers Rousseau and Montesquieu, writers such as John Locke and Thomas Pain began to emphasize the grievances that the British were forcing on the colonies. When Thomas Jefferson then wrote the Declaration of Independence, his words focused on the wrongdoings of the king and on creating a unified colonial mindset. The colonists knew that there was a revolution coming, but because of the geographic distance between the two nations, the most pressing issue to revolutionaries was creating a unified American front for when conflict ensued. There is no urgency in this declaration because of the distance between ruler and ruled so instead the focus is primarily on promoting patriotism and on forcing the colonists to think of themselves as a unified nation.
Similarly, the Declaration of the Rights of Man hopes to inspire the third estate of France to rebel against the first and second. Using the principles of those from the Declaration of Independence, the Declaration of the Rights of Man  defines what the third estate believes to be their undeniable rights. In Contrast to the American writing however, the French propose a solution; a whole new legislative government. In this way they learned from their American predecessors and created a plan of action instead of a list of complaints. This was because of the greater sense of urgency in their proximity to those thy we’re rebellin against.
Both documents are a symbol of freedom and liberty, uniting oppressed groups under tyrannical regimes. Their writings differed however because ogeographic location and urgency.

French and American Revolutions

Posted on by

The American Revolution and the French Revolution may have been at separate times, but the societies of both influenced the genesis of their respective revolutions. The relations of the revolutions to each other can be described as symbiotic. French philosophers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau or Montesquieu and English thinkers that influenced American revolutionary thought such as John Locke all drew from each other to spur revolution. Because of the different situations of oppressive rule in their respective countries, however, their declarations are notably different. While the Declaration of Independence and the Declaration of the Rights of Man were different documents in terms of structure and language, the reason for writing was the same: namely to remedy the violation of the rights the writers believed were inalienable. The differences in these natural rights between the two declarations are a foreshadowing of the future success of these revolutions.

The revolutionaries in the American colonies did not need to worry about immediate retaliation from their King; he was overseas. In addition, the concerns of the people were mostly political and not social. Over all, the Declaration emphasized the violation of certain natural rights and the need to regain these rights: “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” (Blaisdell 64). The Declaration also mentions the importance of prudence in the upheaval of government. These rights are concerned with stability and the overall happiness of the country as a whole; it is clear that the American revolutionary thinkers proposed the Declaration of Independence with the intention to eventually create a stable, functioning, and independent country that attempts to address the concerns of its citizens to a reasonable degree.

The Third Estate of the French, or the entire population of France save the clergy and nobility, faced a different dilemma: they lived in close proximity to their ruling class. However, the discontent of their audience from the wrongdoings of the ruling class was much more widespread than in the colonies. As a result, revolution was possible at the cost of social upheaval with no insurance of stability. Natural rights are also addressed first and foremost in the Declaration of the Rights of Man. However, these rights differ from the Declaration of Independence because of the writers’ contrasting priorities. By emphasizing “Liberty, Property, Security, and Resistance of Oppression,” it becomes obvious that the French are more concerned with social upheaval through the elimination of the First and Second Estates than with political change (Blaisdell 80).

These differences in priority can be thought of as a foreshadowing of the success of these revolutions. In focusing on outright social upheaval without thinking about the political consequences, the French failed to create a stable basis for government the first time. On the other hand, the American, future-oriented approach to revolution created a secure starting point to create a new government.

 

Comparing American and French Complaints and Proposals

Posted on by

The Declaration of Independence and What Is the Third Estate? go about discussing their complaints and proposals in very different fashions. The Americans list many complaints but they provide few solutions to their grievances. On the other hand, the French list many complaints but also provide solutions to their issues. The Americans believe it is their duty to revolt and that they are suffering from cruel mistreatment. In the Declaration of Independence the Americans complain about how the King of Great Britain is denying them of their liberties and ruling unjustly. They propose that ‘these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the State of Great Britain (Blaisdell 66).” This quote illustrates how the Americans complained about how they were being ruled but never provided any solution to the issues only complete separation from Great Britain. This was a very bold statement and anything of this nature was unheard of during that time period. Few believed that the colonists would be able to successfully revolt against one of the world superpowers.
In the discussion of What is the Third Estate? the French are complaining about how they are being governed and how the political and social systems are unjust. The French have much more organized complaints and proposals than the Americans. On page 80 of The Communist Manifesto and Other Revolutionary Writings, the French state that in order for the society to be just and ruled properly they must “set forth in a solemn declaration, these natural, imprescriptible, and inalienable rights.” The French want to institute change in society through a peaceful way instead of an all out revolt against the existing government. They discuss exactly what the Third Estate is and how it will be created and governed. This structure is far more sophisticated than the Americans. The French may have these more structured ideas and plans because they were able to witness the American Revolution and what the Americans did properly and improperly. In addition, the French may have been more structured due to the fact that they had been a united country far longer than the colonies had existed. The Americans and French both went about complaining what they wanted to change in government in different manners and also proposed these changes differently but overall the French and Americans shared the same ideas in what they wanted to change in their countries.

The Power Of a Unified Nation

Posted on by

The revolutionary texts of both France and the United States focus on the injustices of the people have faced, and both appeal to the natural rights of man. One crucial difference between the two country’s texts, though, foreshadowed the ultimate success or failure of their respective revolutions: who the texts targeted as the barrier to the health of the nation. While the United States looked to the foreign, English King as the enemy of the people, France looked at members of its own citizenry as enemies of the country—a difference that proved destructive to France after its Revolution.

The Declaration of Independence paints the King as the source of all of the colonies’ problems. It is he who has refused to pass laws for the good of the people, and he who has prevented the people from receiving their proper representation. It is, in fact, one long catalogue of every way the King has wronged the American people. By targeting one single person as not only separate from, but an enemy to, the people, the Declaration of Independence was able to unite the people around a shared anger and identity; by clearly identifying the King as their common enemy, they were better able to band together as a unified nation. Indeed, the Declaration repeatedly refers to the collective “us”; it was “our most valuable Laws” that the King abolished, and the King has forced troops among “us” (p. 65). Thus, it creates a unified mass of people, banding together against the King.

France, by contrast, points its finger at its own people as the enemy. As Sieyès rallies the Third Estate together, he declares that “nineteen-twentieths” of France is burdened with the jobs that the privileged “refuse to perform” (p. 72). Thus, he creates a sharp division between 96% of the country, and the seemingly lazy remainder of the population. The First and Second Estates, he makes clear, are the enemies of the Third. Even in the Declaration of the Rights of Man, there is a division among the people; the Declaration only supplies for rights that would help the Third Estate. For instance, it provides for the freedom and equality of all men at birth, something that the First and Second Estates had no need for. Thus, even the Declaration of the Rights of Man, a document meant to protect the whole citizen body, really only belonged to the Third Estate, and was forced upon the First and Second. A document that truly belonged to the whole populace would have included provisions for not just the Third, but the First and Second Estates as well. Unlike the United States, which were able to unify around a common enemy, France was only able to have its Third Estate come together against its First and Second.

As the revolutions in both the United States and France went underway, it became clear what the consequences of this difference in enemies were. The United States was able to unite all thirteen colonies against the King, and, after winning the War, was able to unify under one confederation. France, by contrast, had a revolution where the people were unable to find an outsider against which the whole populace could unify; the people had no common cause, and so turned against each other even after the monarchy had been overthrown. Indeed, the Reign of Terror that followed the Revolution was largely caused by government officials’ own paranoia that their own people were turning against them. Thus, the inability of the country to unite in revolution caused instability and danger for years afterwards.

And so, even though both France and the United States had similar goals—to better the government’s representation of the people and to structure the government to best protect Man’s natural rights—it was not the systematic change that ultimately made the difference in the success of their governments; it was whether or not their people had ever been able to join together as one, single nation.

Comparing Revolutionary Documents

Posted on by

The difference between the Declaration of Independence and “What is the Third Estate?” is the inflammatory nature of the latter. The Declaration of Independence was written by the Americans in order to outline the grievances they had against the crown. They had no reason to expect any immediate retaliation by the king because the main body of the king’s forces was all the way across the Atlantic Ocean. Not only that but the king would not even hear about the document for months because of that distance. “What is the Third Estate?” was written under a different set of circumstances. The piece was written in France within easy reach of the French government and military. There was much more danger associated with a revolution on French soil because of the potential immediate response times.
The Declaration of Independence was written in a tone that inspired patriotism in the readers. This was because many of the citizens were still loyalists and wanted to remain a British colony. There was no need to incite the citizens themselves to rise up and fight the British because they were so far removed from the King. There was no need for the average citizen to take up arms against British soldiers. The same was not true of “What is the Third Estate?” Abbe Sieyes was well aware of the clear and present danger that accompanied the proliferation of this document, both to the author and to the citizenry as a whole. He knew that it would take much more forceful language in order to incite every citizen to take up arms, especially with the proximity of so much raw power nearby.
The difference between the two documents is mainly because of the context in which they were written. If the colonists of America had an entire army breathing down their necks they would have been less easy to rile up. An army is usually a pretty good deterrent. The fiery speech of Abbe Sieyes was necessary, however, because of the great danger that the French were up against.

Differences Between American and French Revolutionary Documents

Posted on by

By the late eighteenth century, America and France had developed a politically and socially symbiotic relationship.  It was the tail end of the enlightenment, and France’s famous Encyclopédie had been published and read by thousands European and American citizens.  This massive set of books contained subtextual political jabs and criticisms hidden in works from many famous philosophers.  Their revolutionary ideas, such as Voltaire’s separation of church and state and Montesquieu’s separation of powers had heavy influences on their own country, as well as on the American colonists, who were becoming increasingly unwilling to cooperate with their mother country, Britain.  Although each country’s revolutionary documents (America’s Declaration of Independence and France’s Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen) were written in retaliation against oppressive governments, they were written to achieve different goals.  The former was written to highlight mankind’s right to institute a new government when its current one is corrupt, whereas the latter was written to highlight and stress the importance of inalienable and universal human rights.

Thomas Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence to unify the colonies and persuade Britain to renounce its sovereignty over America.  The piece declares that it is the sole job of a government to protect the basic rights of man—including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness— and if it fails, it is the people’s right to institute a new government.  It then lists the most prominent ways in which the British King is governing his colonies tyrannically, and urges the people of the thirteen American states to unify and forcefully emancipate themselves from Great Britain completely, thus beginning the American Revolution.

France’s National Assembly wrote its Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in a similar context: a time in which over ninety percent of French citizens were being underrepresented and mistreated by their government.  Also a precursor to a revolution, this document stressed the basic rights of every man, which should be unanimously recognized and respected.  It lists seventeen human rights, such as liberty, security, and resistance of oppression.

Although they have more similarities than differences, each document was written to inspire social and political change.  Each group felt that its rights were being infringed upon, and the respective declarations of France and America illustrate their ideas of what they, as nations and as people, deserve.

The American and French Revolutions: Complaints and Proposals

Posted on by

The differences between American and French complaints and proposals lie in the extent to which each is valued: The Americans focused more on complaints while the French focused more on proposals. The Declaration of Independence, written by the Americans, and the numerous French writings such as the Decree Upon the National Assembly, The Declaration of the Rights of Man, and What is the Third Estate were all written to propagate governmental change, and were concerned with the overthrow of oppressive rule. The manner in which the French and Americans carried out their written outcries was different; however, it was through their differences that they helped each other gain independence.

It can be said that the Americans were first enticed to rebel against the British by the French. French political philosophers published writings on liberty that inspired American writers to do the same, spreading a rebellious spirit amongst the American people. Ultimately, the Declaration of Independence was written, primarily as a list of complaints against the British King but also as a declaration of the natural rights of man: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. While the Declaration of Independence was a public outcry that represented the free spirit of the Americans, it lacked any real solutions to governmental problems and therefore was not directly constructive in causing governmental reform.

The Declaration of Independence, nevertheless, inspired the French to take action as well. There were many writings produced that not only declared natural human rights, like the Americans, but also provided clear proposals to reform government. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen was, as the title suggests, a declaration of man’s natural rights; however, it attempted to expand upon the central rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, producing laws that would enforce them. The Third Estate’s Decree upon the National Assembly proposed an entirely new component of government: a legislature that would represent the interests of the people.

The French were more constructive in their fight for freedom, while the Americans were more aggressive and inspirational. Because of their differences in regards to how they fought against their oppressors, the French and American peoples formed a symbiotic relationship. The French, through their writings and proposals, inspired the Americans to stand against the British through the Declaration of Independence, which inspired the French to propose governmental reformation. Through their combined efforts, as well as different approaches towards freedom, the American and French were able to attain the goal of freedom they so ardently desired.

Comparing American and French Revolutionary Documents

Posted on by

Though the American and French documents we studied were written with the idea of change in mind and were somewhat inspired by each other, they had different views on property and the function of such. Property was a very important aspect to take into account because these documents were not only directed towards the public, but towards the higher power (ie. the government) that would end up reading them.

The American Declaration of Independence put a distinct focus on property. The majority of the document listed the negative actions that the King inflicted on the people, and in doing so the reader can see that instead of the citizens being treated like citizens, they were essentially the property of the King. An example of this is how he “[cut] off our Trade with all parts of the world,” which was obviously a huge decision, but not one that the citizens had any say in. The action reminds me of a parent scolding a child; having the right to trade taken away and the isolation that comes with such is almost like being grounded. Property is also addressed in a more typical manner- in the context of owning something- when it is mentioned that “[he imposed] Taxes on us without our Consent.” By being so dominating and overbearing, the King makes it clear that he had total control over his governed people.

On the other hand, the French documents of independence put a slightly different twist on the concept of property. While the American document mentioned taxes being imposed without any warning, the French government actually gave the citizens a say in such (through a vote), though they only did so because they knew the odds would never be in the favor of the citizens. This led the writer to call property an “an inviolable and sacred right” and mention that it should only ever be taken away if it was legally determined to do so. With some historical context we know that the French rulers oppressed their citizens just as much as the English ones did, but such was not implicitly state as it was in the American Declaration of Independence. Personally I think this lack of specificity strengthens the French document; saying less rather than more is often powerful.

In The Declaration of Independence the King not only abused his power through raising taxes, but through treating his people like property, while The Declaration of Rights of Man and of the Citizen focused less on listing complaints, and more on introducing solutions.