Reviews for The social interpretation of the French revolution

The average rating for The social interpretation of the French revolution based on 2 reviews is 4 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2013-09-16 00:00:00 Nasser Al Amiri This is very well-considered and well-researched book. However, I found it to be somewhat misleading. Cobban seems to have no use for sociology, and to his credit, he states that he finds sociological interpretations of history to be both suspect and incorrect. He does not use sociology in the formation of his argument. He does, however, continually refer to the sociological interpretation of the French Revolution - that of a bourgeois class triumph over the ruling monarchy and arisotcratic class - as he refutes it. Cobban refutes the sociological theory with factual events that contradict the theory. Technically, he is correct. The bourgeois and the nobles (and the "peasants" for that matter) were very ambiguous distinctions in practice in France at that time. The stated aims of the causes of the revolution were not against class, nor were they an attempt to improve social mobility. Without sociology to frame issues like power (over taxation, primarily), economy (labor, in particular), and individual and national identities, Cobban describes a very complex set of forces that almost defy categorization. Yet power, economy, and identity are real and compelling agents of change throughout history. Sociology wouldn't consider itself to be wrong or useless in identifying trends and developing theories; that's what it's for. The interpretation of the French Revolution is, I think, a different thing from the facts and actors of the French Revolution, so I felt that Cobban was treating sociology as a straw dog. The French Revolution was interpreted, at the time and in retrospect, by internal and international minds, and it was concluded that in fact power in France had shifted from absolute to republican, that economy had seen a new recognition of labor and capital rather than ownership as primary, and identity had become individual rather than communal (feudal or religious) during that period. These trends were noted and imitated, and were polished to be agents of change throughout the Western world. Cobban's book struck me as picky and somewhat irrelevant. Interpretation of the revolution seems to be more relevant than the factual details simply because the interpretation was monumentally influential on the formation of modern societies. My understanding is that the neighboring feudal/aristocratic nations had much less internal fluidity and ambiguity, so the sociological interpretation of the French Revolution actually describes the "bourgeois revolution" in those nations more accurately than what occurred in France. This makes the interpretation especially important and any contradictory facts of French history somewhat less so. Cobban's book would be particularly useful for scholars of French history, but not terribly helpful in expanding or developing a working model of the changes in the West during the late 18th century and the dawn of the Industrial Age.

Review # 2 was written on 2019-06-06 00:00:00 Crystal Witchley Completely changed my understanding of the French Revolution. It was a revolution against the evolution of capitalism where it was not the poor against the rich but instead the new meritocratic middle and upper class taking the reins of power against the nobles. Only in the most extreme parts of the revolution were reforms made for the poor such as laws that redistributed large land tracts in the countryside. Yet, even these did not come into effect because the rich landowners held out long enough to reverse these proposals. In the end, there was only a change in power from aristocrats to meritocrats. The new meritocrats were harsher than the aristocrats because at least the meritocrats were marked by traditions and customs which showed much grace to the poor. We have an eerie similarity in the transfer of power that took place in the United States. Those who took power show contempt more for the poor than there has ever been because these meritocrats have no commitment to the American community or God. Nor do they follow the customs and traditions of their forefathers which shows grace for the poor in every sense. Noblesse oblige died with the French Revolution and it has already died in the United States too in a spiritual revolution that has led to economic, social, and spiritual stagnation. A great book. You will unlearn whatever positive thought you had of the French Revolution and learn that it was worse than you ever thought possible. Fin.