Friday, September 1, 2017

Compare and contrast Siey¨s's, Burke's, and Paine's understandings of how the three estates worked in practice, and relate this to the work of...

Siey¨s
and Paine had similar views of what needed to be changed in France and in Europe overall.
Siey¨s saw the Third Estatethe ordinary people of France, as opposed to the clergy (the First
Estate) and the nobility (the Second)as the "nation." The Third Estate is
"everything" so far as he is concerned, but in the "political order" until
the present (1789 at the time of writing), it has been "nothing." The common people,
both the bourgeoisie and the laboring class, do all the productive work, but they are not part
of the political process. Instead, the classes of people who do "run things"the clergy
and aristocracy, together a tiny minority of the population of Franceare basically parasites,
holding onto power by means of traditional beliefs that have become outdated and pernicious.
This must change, Siey¨s asserts, and the Third Estate needs to become empowered.


Thomas Paine says essentially the same thing in Rights of Man,
published two years later (1791). His concern is primarily the situation in Britain,
a country which, according to Paine, claims to have a constitutional system but in reality is a
despotic state run by the monarch and his courtjust as France was before the Revolution that
began with the meeting of the States-General in 1789 and the subsequent storming of the
Bastille. Paine's ideas in Rights of Man are an extension of those in the
pamphlets he had written fifteen years earlier during the American Revolutionary War:
Common Sense and the Crisis papers.


In between the publication of Siey¨s's pamphlet and Paine's Rights of Man,
wrote and published his (1790). This is a seminal (if not
the seminal) work of what we now routinely label "conservatism."
Burke views the French Revolution in near-apocalyptic terms: as a movement that he believes will
destroy European civilization. His greatest fear is, therefore, that the disorder created by the
Revolution in France will spread to Britain and the rest of Europe.

Burke
sees no contradiction between the existing monarchy in Britain and the Constitutional rights of
the common people, and even goes so far (or seems to) as to claim that because of Parliament's
declaration of loyalty to William and Mary a century earlier, the English have deliberately
relinquished any right to alter the existing form of government. In Burke's mind, the
traditional political order of Europe is at least implicitly based on religion, on Christianity.
He rails against the liberal writers of the Enlightenment, asserting that their aim has been
"the destruction of the Christian religion." Though he does not literally say that
kings rule by divine right, this is his implication. The attacks on, and disempowerment of, the
clergy and monarchy in France are, in Burke's view, a violation of the ordinary human
rights the French revolutionaries claim to uphold.

Burke's
thinking appears the exact opposite of what is represented by Siey¨s and Paine. Yet to this
point in this life, Burke, a member of the Whig Party, had in some sense been the
eighteenth-century equivalent of what we would today label a liberal or progressive. During the
American Revolutionary War, he had denounced the tyranny of George III and his administration in
violating the rights of the Americans.

When he published his attack on the
French Revolution, therefore, liberals like Paine, Mary Wollstonecraft, and many others were
taken aback. One might ask which was the "real" Burkethe liberal or the conservativeor
whether his fundamental ideas about human rights are as different from the views of Siey¨s and
Paine as they appear.

No comments:

Post a Comment

How is Joe McCarthy related to the play The Crucible?

When we read its important to know about Senator Joseph McCarthy. Even though he is not a character in the play, his role in histor...