By Lynne Ann Hartnett, Villanova University
Revolutions, in the words of the British historian Christopher Hill, turn the world upside down. They challenge the fabric of society and people’s most basic assumptions. The radical energy of the 1960s and early 1970s signalled the spirit of a generation determined to transform the world. It defined an era.
Defining Societies, Cultures, and Nations
Revolutions offer the rare opportunity to see the hopes and priorities of the political underclass emerge from the shadow of powerful elites. We loudly hear the voices of those who are usually consigned to silence. We bear witness to the hopes and fears of women and men who might otherwise leave little, or no, historical record.
By looking at revolutions, we find differences that help to define societies, cultures, and nations. But we also find commonalities of humanity and experience.
Revolutions systemically alter the dynamic between the state, authorities, elites and the people; they attempt to fundamentally transform power relationships.
This article comes directly from content in the video series The Great Revolutions of Modern History. Watch it now, on Wondrium.
Reframing Popular Conceptions
Only in the wake of the Renaissance, from the 14th to 17th centuries, and the Reformation of the 16th and 17th centuries, did human beings begin to shift their thinking towards the here and now, rather than maintain a singular focus on a redemptive afterlife.
In reframing popular conceptions about what is possible as opposed to what must simply be endured, the conviction developed in Western Civilization that systemic problems and failings not only might be addressed and changed but should be. And this made revolution possible.
Revolutions are predicated on the idea that when the state is unresponsive, dismissive, or exploitative, the citizenry can exercise its agency through extra-legal means.
Romanticizing Revolutions
In revolutions, people refuse to be silent; they refuse to accept the status quo; they step outside traditional parameters to imagine new social, political, economic, and cultural structures. And they try to realize them.
People, therefore, are central characters in the drama of revolutions. However, some of the most turbulent and repressive revolutions are those in which ‘the people’ are simply invoked rather than directly involved.
It’s easy to get swept up in a romantic idealization of revolution. Revolutionaries want us to romanticize. In order to legitimize turning the world upside down, revolutionary actors need to convince their peers and posterity that disorder, upheaval, bloodshed and even death—all of which come with revolution—are worth the sacrifice.
We see this romanticization of revolutions in a 19th century painting by the French artist Eugène Delacroix depicting the revolution that overthrew King Charles X. Liberty Leading the People from 1830 literally paints revolution as an inspiring, sanctified event.
The Barricades
Delacroix was not among the revolutionaries in the streets. His romanticization came second hand. But soon after painting his majestic piece, he wrote to his brother that he felt rejuvenated. He said: “My bad mood is vanishing thanks to hard work. I’ve embarked on a modern subject—a barricade. And if I haven’t fought for my country, at least I’ll paint for her.
Delacroix describes the barricade as a modern subject. Why is this? Barricades first made their appearance in France in the 16th century during a period of dynastic and religious struggle. But by the 19th century, they came to symbolize the distinctly modern phenomenon of revolution.
And, more than any other symbol, the barricades conveyed popular collective action.
Delacroix’s letter also demonstrates that he envisioned a revolutionary role for himself, even if it was not manning the barricades. In this way, the artist intimated that revolutions are more than seizures of political power.
They are protracted processes in which every citizen can become an agent for a revolution’s success. Moreover, joining in brings legitimacy to a revolution.
With Us or Against Us
But if the legitimacy of a revolution is dependent upon collective support and action, we need to ask how to make sense of residual apathy, neutrality, and resistance. Does collective imply unanimity and homogeneity? For most modern revolutionaries, the answer to that question has been yes.
And yet, there is no homogenous society. So how do revolutionaries explain such resistance? They explain it through the principle of whomever is not with us is against us. And for this reason, revolution is often accompanied by violence.
Princeton historian Arno Mayer explains this as revolution’s ‘Furies’— a reference to the Greek goddesses of vengeance. Revolutionary violence, Mayer argues, is associated primarily with “the inevitable and unexceptional resistance of the forces and ideas opposed to it, at home and abroad.”
The more transformative and thorough a revolution, the greater the polarization, and the more ravenous the Furies.
Iconoclast Revolutionaries
Notable revolutionaries like Maximilien Robespierre, Vladimir Lenin, Mao Zedong, Martin Luther King, Jr., Nelson Mandela, and Mahatma Gandhi, all believed that fundamental transformation would be successful only if previous systems, relationships, identities, and attachments were fully demolished.
These revolutionaries were iconoclasts. They believed they needed to build new worlds upon cleared foundations. However, doing so was no easy project; it entailed challenging political elites.
Conflict and Chaos
It’s also important to bear in mind that the longer revolutionary transformations took, the more likely it was that consensus would falter. Diversity of opinion often emerged during the process of reconstruction. At that point, consensus devolved into conflict, and from there into chaos.
In 1793, the Swiss royalist Jacques Mallet du Pan captured this phenomenon, writing: “Like Saturn, the Revolution devours its young.”
Mallet du Pan was watching the euphoria of the French Revolution give way to seemingly daily executions of citizens for allegedly counter-revolutionary behavior. Revolutionary experience over the next two centuries confirmed that terror and violence in the name of revolution was not particular to France alone. It was an all too common consequence of revolution.
Common Questions about the Romantic Idealization of Revolution
Revolutions are predicated on the idea that when the state is unresponsive, dismissive, or exploitative, the citizenry can exercise its agency through extra-legal means.
Revolutionaries want us to romanticize revolutions in order to legitimize them. Revolutionary actors need to convince their peers and posterity that disorder, upheaval, bloodshed and even death—all of which come with revolution—are worth the sacrifice.
Eugène Delacroix’s letter demonstrates that he envisioned a revolutionary role for himself, even if it was not manning the barricades. In this way, the artist intimated that revolutions are more than seizures of political power.
