Audrey Livingstone

Imagine, if you will, living in a time in which your country’s governmental and political systems are completely void of stability.  Imagine living in fear of a bloodbath taking place a block away from your home.  Imagine a man rising to power who beheads a man, woman, or child at the snap of a finger.  Imagine living in a society in which almost anything can be justified under the guise of pursuing liberty, equality, fraternity; imagine living in complete and utter chaos.  Millions of French people experienced these things daily throughout the French Revolution. This was perhaps the darkest period of French history, and its effects linger in society today.

The following information is based off of historian Robert Wilde’s summary of the French Revolution.  The French Revolution is one of the most widely recognized historical events to ever have taken place.  Its most crucial events occurred between the years 1789 and 1802, when the country was wracked with political and social turmoil.  The absolutist monarchy was under attack by those who wished to transform it into a Republic, and all the uprising caused riffs among the French people.  Originally brought upon by financial crisis in France, the beginning of the Revolution is traced back to May 5, 1789, when the États-Généraux, or the General Assembly, gathered for the first time since 1614.

Louis XVI called the Assembly, which was composed of three different estates.  The first was the clergy, the second the nobility, and the third the general public.  This was done in order to assess the country’s financial situation and form solutions to whatever issues were identified.  However, instead of coming to a unanimous agreement on what was to be done, the Assembly fell to pieces.  After having been locked out of a meeting, the third estate met in an indoor tennis court and took the Tennis Court Oath, vowing “never to separate till they had done something” (Bunker Hill Monument Association 50).  The third estate then overtook the General Assembly and declared itself a National Assembly.  The king, who wished to avoid more of a power struggle than had already taken place, gave the Assembly power.  It then suspended tax laws and began reforming France.

As the Old Regime (or Ancien Régime) fell, the National Assembly formed the Legislative Assembly, who drew up a new Constitution.  Unfortunately, the Legislative Assembly also took it upon themselves to legislate against the church and turn against any who supported the king and his monarchy.  As the changes brought upon by the National and Legislative Assemblies became more drastic, the Revolution changed direction in 1792.

The National Assembly was replaced by the National Convention, who officially abolished the monarchy and, a year later in 1793, executed the king (Louis XVI).  After his execution, France was declared a Republic and was then plunged into one of the bloodiest and most terrifying parts of the period: the Terror.  Spearheaded by Robespierre, the Reign of Terror was a period in which anyone noble, anyone related to the monarchy, was sent to the guillotine.  Nearly a year later, after tens of thousands of deaths, the people turned against Robespierre and those who aided him in leading the Terror.  Robespierre was himself sent to the guillotine, and the Reign of Terror came to an end.

A new constitution was then drawn up.  This constitution put five men, labeled as the Directory, in charge of the country.  However, due to election rigging and political corruption, the Directory became quite a dishonest affair.  Napoleon Bonaparte became involved in the Directory, and he ended up bringing the Revolutionary Wars to a close as well as having himself declared consul for life (sole leader of France).  In 1804, he declared himself Emperor; the Revolution had ended, and France had become an empire.

Since the focus of my thesis is showing how the Revolution is still alive today, I will not be surveying French history from the Revolution to now.  I would now like to define a few terms I will be using throughout my thesis: secularism; the Revolution’s slogan “liberté, égalité, fraternité”; and contemporary France.  According to Princeton’s WordNet, secularism is “rejection of religion and religious considerations.”  The phrase “liberté, égalité, fraternité” served as the Revolution’s slogan; though many people are aware of its meaning, I will define it for the sake of clarity. In English, it translates to “liberty, equality, fraternity.”  I will also consistently refer to contemporary France throughout my thesis.  What I mean by “contemporary” is anywhere from the 1950s to the present.

All of this being said, you may be wondering why my thesis is important.  Understanding history, the events which lead up to and formed our modern world, is extremely important.  Specifically in regard to understanding modern Europe and its secular nature, revolutions are extremely important.  Identifying French secularism and analyzing its origins and growth helps us to better understand the France we see today, which tends to be at the forefront of international affairs and issues.

In order to prove my thesis, that contemporary French secularism was inaugurated by the French Revolution, I will prove French secularism manifests in government, the country’s religious climate, and its attitude toward sexuality; and I will show how these things resulted from the Revolution.  In addition, I will refute two counterarguments.  I will dispel the ideas France is more religious than secular (specifically regarding Muslims and Catholics), and the Revolution has been made redundant regarding secularism.

My first proof to confirm my thesis is French secularism manifests today in French government.  Nothing has happened in the past several hundred years since the Revolution to demonstratively change the secular political climate in France.  This is specifically evident in the most recent election.  In 2012, Nicolas Sarkozy’s presidential term ended, and elections took place in late April.  Unfortunately, Sarkozy’s conservative values were not as popular among the people as those of socialist candidate Francois Hollande, who won the popular vote.

Sarkozy was one of the most right-wing and conservative presidents France has seen, and, according to Tony Cross of the RFI (Radio France Internationale), a large part of his election was “his promise to ‘modernise’ [sic] the French economy” (par. 3).  Even though he was conservative in the eyes of the French, he was still rather secular, seeing as his platform was to modernize the country.  Unfortunately, during his office, he began to lose popularity.  Perhaps the most decisive factor in his loss to Hollande was difficulty he encountered in leading the country through its economic crisis (par. 12).  BBC’s Schofield says, “By the left he was despised as the uncultured friend of the rich; by the far right as the man who broke his word; by liberals as the president who began to reform then stopped” (par. 9).  It was not only the economic crisis that brought Sarkozy out of his presidency, though; the French were looking for someone more liberal and more secular, and this is where Hollande comes in.

As the French grew increasingly unhappy with Sarkozy’s leadership, Hollande seized his opportunity to gain popularity and secure a win for the socialist party.  He nearly came from out of the blue into the running for the socialist party when Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the original socialist candidate, was caught in a sex scandal.  Hollande’s slogan “Le changement, c’est maintenant” (“change is now”) brought assurance to the French people he would handle things differently if they put him in l’Élysée (the French equivalent of the White House).

Several of Hollande’s most widely-embraced campaign pedestals display the secularism that has rooted itself in French society since the Revolution.  He is the quintessential socialist.  This is seen in his plans for tax reform, his desire to legalize gay marriage, and his openness concerning his agnostic beliefs.  Hollande, in typical socialist fashion, hopes to redistribute wealth.  He wants to raise taxes for those he deems rich while simultaneously lowering taxes for the middle and lower classes.  He promises he will enforce a 75% income tax on those who earn 1 million or more euros per annum.  Taking more money from the upper class gives him more room to benefit those with less, he says (“Q&A” 1).

He also hopes to legalize gay marriage.  As evidenced by many intense protests occurring in the streets of France, it is an issue that has impassioned many of the French.  The issue has and continues to cause divisions throughout the country, due to the tenacious nature of the “conservative” part of the French population.  These “conservatives,” however, are really quite secular in their own right.  They are not against the idea of gay marriage because it violates religious beliefs; they are against it because it violates their idea of a traditional family: a husband, wife, and children.  Despite these protests, Hollande remains steadfast in his belief it ought to be legalized.  He also supports the legalization of gay couples’ ability to adopt.  The people cry the government passing these laws (a higher income tax for the rich, legalization of gay marriage, and legalization of adoption for gay couples) is a manifestation of true equality among all French citizens.  Not so ironically, equality was one of the main cries of the Revolution (liberté, égalité, fraternité).  The modern demand for equality takes a bit of a different shape than it did during the Revolution. During the 1700s and 1800s, it was more so directed toward the unfairness of so large a social gap between noblemen and the clergy and the common people rather than gay marriage being equal to heterosexual marriage.  Despite the practical differences, the spirit of the cry remains the same.  The French, as they did so long ago, desire complete equality among themselves, even with the presence of the conservatives, who are themselves still secular.

In addition to these government reforms, France elected an openly agnostic man.  Hollande says, “J’ai longtemps été agnostique, désormais mes doutes se sont transformés en certitudes,” (“I have been agnostic for a long time, and henceforth my doubts have become certainties”) (“Dieu” par. 3).  Had the spirit of secularism died with the Revolution, the French would certainly not have been so open to electing this man as their president.  The beliefs of a people are reflected in who they choose to lead them.  So, it is clear France remains secular in their election of the socialist Francois Hollande and in their support of his secular governmental reforms.

My second argument regarding my thesis is French secularism is evident in the current religious climate in France.  As James Leith explains in Culture and Revolution, “The major symbols that played an important role in the Revolution often took on a religious aura” (174).  What is interesting about this, however, is this “religious aura” merely denotes the fact religious symbols were taken and transformed into secular Revolutionary symbols.

For instance, la Montagne (the Mountain) became an important Revolutionary symbol after radical Jacobians, who had a great deal of influence in the Convention and Committee of Public Safety, took this phrase on as a nickname (174).  Mountains have very important representations in Christianity, e.g. Mount Sinai where God revealed the Ten Commandments to Moses, Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, and the mountain as the kingdom of God in Daniel 2.  However, during the Revolution, a mountain became something very different from its originally generally-accepted religious connotation.  Leith says, “At the peak of the Revolution, symbolic mountains appeared repeatedly on engravings … or were constructed on festival grounds.  Often orators emphasized that they represented the holy Mountain from which leadership and enlightenment radiated through the Republic” (176).

This trend continued throughout the Revolution with other religious symbols, such as the equilateral triangle, which was normally used to represent the Trinity.  It took on a new meaning as tri-part slogans such as “liberté, égalité, fraternité” and “la nation, la loi, le roi” (the nation, the law, the king) appeared.  It was also used as a symbol for the cult of the Supreme Being, which was a Revolutionary movement and a symbol of “the sanctity of Republican legislation” (176).  The cult of the Supreme Being became prominent around the time during which the Reign of Terror began.  Now, a cult being somewhat prominent may seem to contradict my thesis a bit, so I would like to clarify this.

The cult of the Supreme Being was a tool used by Robespierre to further his political agenda, which was to wipe out the nobility.  In 1794, on the day of the Festival of the Supreme Being, he said,

The eternally happy day which the French people consecrates to the Supreme Being has finally arrived.  Never has the world he created offered him a sight so worthy of his eyes.  He has seen tyranny, crime, and deception reign on earth.  At this moment, he sees an entire nation, at war with all the oppressors of the human race, suspend its heroic efforts in order to raise its thoughts and vows to the Great Being who gave it the mission to undertake these efforts and the strength to execute them.

Did not his immortal hand, by engraving in the hearts of men the code of justice and equality, write there the death sentence of tyrants?  Did not his voice, at the very beginning of time, decree the republic, making liberty, good faith, and justice the order of the day for all centuries and for all peoples?

He did not create kings to devour the human species.  Neither did he create priests to harness us like brute beasts to the carriages of kings, and to give the world the example of baseness, pride, perfidy, avarice, debauchery, and falsehood to the world.  But he created the universe to celebrate his power; he created men to help and to love one another, and to attain happiness through the path of virtue.

The Author of Nature linked all mortals together in an immense chain of love and happiness.  Perish the tyrants who have dared to break it!

Frenchmen, Republicans, it is up to you to cleanse the earth they have sullied and to restore the justice they have banished from it.  Liberty and virtue issued together from the breast of the Supreme Being.  One cannot reside among men without the other.

Generous people, do you want to triumph over all your enemies?  Practice justice and render to the Supreme Being the only form of worship worthy of him.  People, let us surrender ourselves today, under his auspices, to the just ecstasy of pure joy.  Tomorrow we shall again combat vices and tyrants; we shall give the world an example of republican virtues: and that shall honor the Supreme Being more (“Religion” 1).

As you can see from Robespierre’s words, this was a way to manipulate the people and accomplish his Revolutionary agenda.  He created the cult himself at the beginning of the Terror and when he died, the cult ended a mere few months after it began.  So, it was a short-lived, political-agenda-ridden movement that ended up being firmly rejected by the people.

But perhaps one of the most outright ways in which we see religious symbols taken for secular purposes is the use of hymns, which used to be written only inside the church for worship, to encapsulate the spirit of the Revolution.  For example:

O Liberté, Liberté sainte !

Déesse d’un peuple éclairé !

Règne aujourd’hui dans cette enceinte,

Par toi ce temple est épuré !

Liberté ! devant toi, la raison

chasse l’imposture ; l’erreur s’en fuit, le

fanaticisme est

abattu,

Notre évangile est la nature,

Et notre culte est la vertu (180).

O Liberty, holy Liberty!

Goddess of a knowledgeable people!

Reigns today in this house,

This temple is purified by you!

Liberty!  Before you, reason

Hunts deception; error flees,

Fanaticism is

Demolished,

Our gospel is nature,

And our religion is virtue.

These religious symbols stolen for secular use display the people’s rejection of the church and Christian faith, which has been passed down to modern-day France.

Additionally, Roman Catholicism was a state religion before the Revolution, during which the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen was drawn up.  It declared every man had the right to freedom of religion (which was more so freedom from religion, as the people rejected the idea of any state religion) and freedom of thought.  A recent re-manifestation of this is the 1905 French Law on the Separation of Church and State, which cemented the public’s desire to be a secular society, not bound by religion.  The French Enlightenment played a large part in instilling this desire in the common man.  “The idea of separating the churches and the state was defended by many intellectuals and politicians, and came to prevail against the counter-revolutionary and anti-republican attitude of the Catholic Church” (“The Law of 1905” par. 1).  France carries the spirit of the Revolution with them by continuing to diminish the importance of the Church and religion as a whole.

My third and final argument pertains to the modern attitude toward sexuality in France.  The stereotype of the French being one of the most sex-mad populations in existence seems a bit silly sometimes, but it’s true.  While open sexual immorality certainly isn’t uncommon in today’s world (we see it nearly everywhere nowadays), it is more potent in French society.  “Just look at the things that reflect their cultural mindset,” like art and advertising (e.g. in magazines, the metro).  France has never had the religious influence or restriction that other countries have had, like America had with the Great Awakening” (Cochrane, personal interview).  As a people, the French’s inclination toward exaggerated openness concerning sexuality continues to rise (especially in women) and can be traced back to the Revolution.

During the Revolutionary period, liberté (alongside égalité and fraternité) was something the people felt they were deprived of and strived for desperately.  It was fuel to the fire that was the Revolution.  Liberty brought everyone together because it was a common interest; it was what drew those who opposed the monarchy against it in the first place.  For years, they became a restless people, fighting ideologically against any restraints placed on them.  As seen during the Reign of Terror under the leadership of Robespierre, they were willing to take drastic measures to be a free people.  Hundreds of years later, liberty takes on a different connotation.

Though governmental freedom was eventually achieved years after the storming of the Bastille, the desire for liberty did not fade.  It continues to be extremely valuable in French society.  The continuation of this emphasis on liberty and freedom is especially visible in the realm of sexual mores.  This is certainly not difficult to see.  For instance, upon a simple scroll through the French subgenre of foreign films on Netflix or glance at movie advertisements in the Metro, one will find modern French movies raunchy at the least.  A couple of these include Chroniques sexuelles d’une famille d’aujourd’hui (Sexual Chronicles of a French family), L’apollonide : Souvenirs de la Maison Close (House of Pleasures), and Cliente (the Client).  Elaine Sciolino of the New York Times writes “you have images in the Métro of a woman paying for sex who could be the middle-aged woman next door, and a single pregnant Muslim justice minister and no one seems to care” (par. 11).

Though we find ourselves hundreds of years past the Revolution, the desire for liberté remains central to French society.  Sexual liberty is not only something the French pursue; they are proud of it.  In May of 1968, a revolution began whose slogan “pleasure without obstruction” can still be seen in French life today, as “both the number of partners and diversity of sexual activity has significantly increased in France in the last decade” (Crumley par. 2).  The French have not only deservedly earned the title of a very sexual people; they continue to further it.

I would now like to address two counterarguments that attempt to disprove my thesis.  The first is France is more religious than secular because the Muslim population has grown so much recently and is taking over the country.  Soeren Kern, a Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Gateway Institute, states Islam is growing at a rapid rate in France and is indeed taking over the country (par. 3).  He says this is seen through the increase of construction of mosques (there are now more than 2,000) throughout the country, in addition to the fact France has the largest European Muslim community.

What Kern (and many of the French) fail to realize, however, is while the amount of nominal Muslims may be in the millions, the amount of those who actually practice the religion is far smaller.  Out of the 75 percent who claim to be Islamic, a mere 3.8 percent of the French population practices Islam (Kerr par. 2, 3).  While Islam appears to be taking over France, it is just that: an appearance.  This shows though many claim to be religious, secularism remains prominent.

In addition, the French government and general population have been actively pursuing a decrease in religious rights for Muslims.  In September of 2004, the French government (under Nicholas Sarkozy) passed a law prohibiting female Muslims from wearing headscarves to school.  The law banned other religious symbols (such as large Christian crosses and Jewish yarmulkes) from being brought into schools as well.  So, even though Islam seems to be growing, secularism remains very much active in French society and cultural life.

The second counterargument to my thesis is the general idea a part of history that occurred so many hundreds of years ago and that was so exaggerated and bloody compared to the political/governmental reforms we see now could not have such a deep impact on modern society.  Many are under the impression because all countries go through ebbs and flows and undergo different movements, one state of mind does not necessarily stay embedded in the culture long after.  This, however, is not the case with French secularism.

France prides itself on being a secular state and on having no state religion or even practiced majority religion.  The government protects that.  The people value it.  They believe it to be a good thing.  On December 9, 1905, the law that separates church and state was passed.  According to the Musée Virtuelle du Protestantisme Français (Virtual Museum of French Protestantism), “Today within the European Union, the 1905 law is a French peculiarity.  In other countries the churches are not strictly limited to the domain of worship, but are also allowed to carry out social activities.”  The French wanted to be secure in the knowledge that they would not be subjected to any religion, and this law did exactly that.  We can see that though the Revolution is certainly technically well in the past, having occurred several hundred years ago, its ideas are still present.  They are still being acted on legally and societally, like with the previously mentioned laws against Muslims.

To say the Revolution does not affect the modern French mind relays a lack of understanding of the true modern French mind.  One sees, for example, when surveying the religious atmosphere of the country, that separation of church and state does not imply freedom of religion, as it does, for example, in the United States of America.  It is technically there, yes.  A French citizen is free to claim any religion.  But to practice it and be overt with it raises many hackles, which is a clear sign of the presence of secularism.

All said and done, hopefully you can now clearly see the secularism that lies in French culture today.  It manifests in government, and many different aspects of popular culture (e.g. music, art, advertisements).  While it is true secularism is all around us, inescapable, if you will, evident in some way in every society, the current situation in France can be clearly traced back to the Revolution.  This sets French secularism apart from what we see in the rest of the world today.  Though the Reign of Terror has passed and the guillotine comes in different forms, the spirit of Robespierre and the revolutionaries lives on.

Works Cited

Bunker Hill Monument Association. Proceedings of the Bunker Hill Monument Association at the Annual Meeting. Concord: The Rumford Press, 1914. Print.

Cochrane, Maria. Personal interview. 26 March 2013.

Cross, Tony. “Why did Sarkozy lose the French presidential election?” Radio France Internationale. Radio France Internationale Online. 15 February 2013. Web. 8 May 2012.

Crumley, Bruce. “More Sex Please, We’re French.” Time. Time Online. 7 March 2008. Web. 23 May 2013.

Dive, Bruno. “Election présidentielle: et Dieu dans tout ça ?” Sudouest. Sudouest Online. 15 February 2013. Web. 8 April 2012.

Kern, Soeren. “Islam Overtaking Catholicism in France.” Gatestone Institute: International Policy Council. Gatestone Institute Online. 18 Aug. 2011. Web. 23 Jan. 2013.

Kerr, David. “Islam set to be dominant religion in France.” Catholic News Agency. Catholic News Agency Online. 17 Sept. 2011. Web. 23 Jan. 2013.

“The Law of 1905.” Musée Virtuel du Protestantisme Français. Musée Virtuel du Protestantisme Français Online. 22 Jan. 2013. Web.

Leith, James and George Levitine. Culture and Revolution: Cultural Ramifications of the French Revolution. University of Maryland at College Park: Department of Art History. 1989. Print.

“Q & A: Sarkozy’s and Hollande’s plans for France.” BBC News Europe. BBC News Online. 3 May 2012. Web. 15 Feb. 2013.

“Religion: The Cult of the Supreme Being.” Rory Rosenzweig Center for History and New

Media. Rory Rosenzweig Center for History and New Media Online. N.d. Web. 26 March 2013.

Schofield, Hugh. “France election: How François Hollande won.” BBC News Europe. BBC News Online. 15 February 2013. Web. 6 May 2012.

Sciolino, Elaine. “France. Sex. Problem?” The New York Times. The New York Times Online. 29 October 2008. Web. 27 Feb. 2013.

“Secularism.” WordNet. Princeton University. N.d. Web. 23 March 2013.

Wile, Robert. “French Revolution 101.” About.com. About.com Online. 8 February 2013. Web.