Changes

The Marxist approach was a simple model that claimed to simultaneously explain the Revolution's origins, its internal dynamics and its long-term consequences. The dominance of the Left in French intellectual life ensured the theory was dominant for decades, but it had serious flaws. As English scholar Alfred Cobban explained, feudalism as a system had withered away long before the Revolution abolished its last vestiges in the form of seigniorial rights. Furthermore where Marxists saw a self-conscious, capitalist bourgeois class, Cobban revealed only a loose collection of disparate social groups that did not include the industrialists and businessmen but rather the officeholders and lawyers. These men led the revolution not as spokesmen for the forces of capitalism; rather they were state-builders.  Other scholars showed the nobility was not parasitic obstructionist and reactionary caste of Republican or Marxist writing, but rather a diverse and open group whose leaders actively promoted political and economic modernization.<ref> Alfred Cobban, ''The Social Interpretation of the French Revolution'' (1962); Doyle (1999) ch 2; John Dunne, "Fifty Years of Rewriting the French Revolution: Signposts Main Landmarks and Current Directions in the Historiographical Debate," ''History Review.'' (1998) pp 8+ [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5001505046 online edition] </ref>

The Marxist approach was a simple model that claimed to simultaneously explain the Revolution's origins, its internal dynamics and its long-term consequences. The dominance of the Left in French intellectual life ensured the theory was dominant for decades, but it had serious flaws. As English scholar Alfred Cobban explained, feudalism as a system had withered away long before the Revolution abolished its last vestiges in the form of seigniorial rights. Furthermore where Marxists saw a self-conscious, capitalist bourgeois class, Cobban revealed only a loose collection of disparate social groups that did not include the industrialists and businessmen but rather the officeholders and lawyers. These men led the revolution not as spokesmen for the forces of capitalism; rather they were state-builders.  Other scholars showed the nobility was not parasitic obstructionist and reactionary caste of Republican or Marxist writing, but rather a diverse and open group whose leaders actively promoted political and economic modernization.<ref> Alfred Cobban, ''The Social Interpretation of the French Revolution'' (1962); Doyle (1999) ch 2; John Dunne, "Fifty Years of Rewriting the French Revolution: Signposts Main Landmarks and Current Directions in the Historiographical Debate," ''History Review.'' (1998) pp 8+ [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5001505046 online edition] </ref>

===Furet and conservatives===

===Furet and conservatives===

To replace Marxist interpretations was the goal of [[François Furet]] (1927-97)), the head of the history section of the Ecole pratique des hautes etudes. He argued instead that the Revolution is best understood as the victory of the [[Enlightenment]]--particularly the [[Jean Jacques Rousseau|Rousseauian]] version--over social interests. Intellectual forces were dominant, not class conflict or materialistic forces.  Furet's influential American ally was Keith Baker, of the University of Chicago. Baker, influenced by the linguistic turn pioneered by [[J. G. A. Pocock]] identified three competing discourses that shaped how people thought in the second half of the eighteenth century. The "language of will" promised rights to the majority while the "language of justice" and the "language of equality" also shaped political values. Justice emphasized history and the desire to maintain contracts; proponents of equality wanted reason to prevail in governmental decision making. According to Baker, in the summer of 1789 the revolutionaries suddenly embraced the language of will. Once embarked on this course, the Terror followed from their insistence that the majority should realize its ambitions. Political and social factors were not necessary to arrive at this unfortunate result, said Baker; instead it was the embrace of the three political discourses of will, justice and equality that drove the revolution.<ref>Censer, "Amalgamating the Social in the French Revolution" (2003) </ref>

To replace Marxist interpretations was the goal of [[François Furet]] (1927-97)), the head of the history section of the Ecole pratique des hautes etudes. He argued instead that the Revolution is best understood as the victory of the [[Enlightenment]]--particularly the [[Jean Jacques Rousseau|Rousseauian]] version--over social interests. Intellectual forces were dominant, not [[class conflict]] or materialistic forces.  Furet's influential American ally was Keith Baker, of the University of Chicago. Baker, influenced by the linguistic turn pioneered by [[J. G. A. Pocock]] identified three competing discourses that shaped how people thought in the second half of the eighteenth century. The "language of will" promised rights to the majority while the "language of justice" and the "language of equality" also shaped political values. Justice emphasized history and the desire to maintain contracts; proponents of equality wanted reason to prevail in governmental decision making. According to Baker, in the summer of 1789 the revolutionaries suddenly embraced the language of will. Once embarked on this course, the Terror followed from their insistence that the majority should realize its ambitions. Political and social factors were not necessary to arrive at this unfortunate result, said Baker; instead it was the embrace of the three political discourses of will, justice and equality that drove the revolution.<ref>Censer, "Amalgamating the Social in the French Revolution" (2003) </ref>

===Class and culture===

===Class and culture===