Scan barcode
sbenzell's review
4.0
This book was recommended to me by Christophe Chamley, a French professor of mine, who recommended it as his favorite on political economy. He ranked it much higher than Democracy in America, which I am yet to read. However, I strongly suspect that this is due to his own cultural predispositions. 'The Ancient Regime' ends with a thrilling pseudo-paean to the French people who he describes as "today the declared enemy of all obedience, tomorrow devoting to servitude a kind of passion which nations best suited to slavery cannot manage" (shades of Sartre here) and as "more capable of the heroic than the virtuous, of genius than common sense." I'll have to compare this to 'Democracy in America' myself to see if I find his description of the American spirit equally compelling.
Despite the ending, the book attributes the French revolution as much to a unique political economic climate than some essential characteristic of the French nation. It is hard to summarize a book with so many insightful details and anecdotes. That being said, I take the books' essential political thesis as the following:
1) The King of France had lots of incentives to remove the political power of the aristocracy. For short-termist reasons, the monarchy decided to let the aristocracy maintain its economic privileges
2) The removal of the ancient responsibilities of the nobles left a political and technical power vacuum in the countryside
3) The centralization of power and ideas in cosmopolitan Paris led to the development of a highly abstract political philosophy focused on things like 'universal rights' and 'the original position.' This philosophy was appealing to the middle and lower classes who felt the current system was anti-egalitarian, inefficient and outdated.
4) The indolent aristocracy tolerated this intellectual development as a kind of fun word game. They never took seriously its implications.
5) The monarchy actually encouraged and propagated these ideas, because they tended to agree with the Kings' centralization and modernization programs. The monarchy used enlightenment rhetoric when removing privileges from guilds, towns and aristocrats. Technocrats and 'economists' agreed that the main problems of the peasants could be solved through the correct application of centralized power.
6) While centralization sometimes allows for greater efficiency in collective action, it also enables both accidental and intentional tyranny. The recent book "Seeing Like a State" is a modern retelling of this dilemma -- far off, 'scientific', technocratic governance, even when benevolent, often makes things worse.
7) Ancient prerogatives, institutions and relationships -- things like guilds and aristocracies -- are sometimes good and sometimes bad for welfare. However, organized factions like these are ALWAYS opposed to the centralization which enables tyranny. This is one important sense in egalitarianism and liberty are opposed. For example, he says of the corrupt judicial system "The irregular interventions of the courts in government, which often disturbed the efficient administration of business, thus served as a safegaurd of men's freedom from time to time. This was a case of one great evil setting limits on an even greater one" because it sometimes impeded the growth of a tyrannical monarchy.
8) For all of these reasons, the French revolution was - ironically - committed to actually accelerating the monarchical project of centralization. With the goals of equality and rationality it abruptly eliminated the Church and the aristocracy, further transforming the country into a uniform mass - ready for technocratic manipulation, 'education' and 'improvement'. This rapid and idealistic unmooring of society made the reign of terror possible. At its height, the revolution sought even to reorganize and standardize things like months and seasons. Some liberal institutions were established at the beginning of the revolution, but these were soon abandoned as barriers to 'efficiency'. Think here of the different emphasis on individual versus collective rights in Scottish and French Enlightenment thought.
9) On the eve of the French Revolution the King was actually making some steady progress towards eliminating stupid elements of ancient feudalism. This made the moment ripe, as the progress made the common people hopeful and impatient.
Ultimately, de Tocqueville thinks the French revolution had a bit too much égalité and not enough liberté. Frenchmen were fascinated by the concept of rights and freedom, but the key thought leaders put efficiency and égalité first. The author writes, "They seemed to love freedom; it turns out they simply hated the master." Liberty was seen as an intriguing element of Anglo-Dutch-American political economic success and as a useful rhetorical weapon -- not as the main end. And in the words of de Tocqueville "It is indeed true that in the long term, freedom always brings with it, to those who are skilled enough to keep hold of it, personal comfort, well-being and often great wealth... [But] whoever seeks anything from freedom but freedom itself is doomed to slavery."
Among other things, this book should be a stern warning to those who see freedom as merely an instrumental good.
Ultimately a great book. It just misses 5 stars because some of the discussions are hard to follow without a better descriptions of the various main actors. It also sometimes drags. The edition I had was the one pictured. It seemed a solid translation and contained the often interesting original endnotes.
As a final note, I was reading this book, sometimes aloud at my Grandfather's sickbed. For what it's worth.
Despite the ending, the book attributes the French revolution as much to a unique political economic climate than some essential characteristic of the French nation. It is hard to summarize a book with so many insightful details and anecdotes. That being said, I take the books' essential political thesis as the following:
1) The King of France had lots of incentives to remove the political power of the aristocracy. For short-termist reasons, the monarchy decided to let the aristocracy maintain its economic privileges
2) The removal of the ancient responsibilities of the nobles left a political and technical power vacuum in the countryside
3) The centralization of power and ideas in cosmopolitan Paris led to the development of a highly abstract political philosophy focused on things like 'universal rights' and 'the original position.' This philosophy was appealing to the middle and lower classes who felt the current system was anti-egalitarian, inefficient and outdated.
4) The indolent aristocracy tolerated this intellectual development as a kind of fun word game. They never took seriously its implications.
5) The monarchy actually encouraged and propagated these ideas, because they tended to agree with the Kings' centralization and modernization programs. The monarchy used enlightenment rhetoric when removing privileges from guilds, towns and aristocrats. Technocrats and 'economists' agreed that the main problems of the peasants could be solved through the correct application of centralized power.
6) While centralization sometimes allows for greater efficiency in collective action, it also enables both accidental and intentional tyranny. The recent book "Seeing Like a State" is a modern retelling of this dilemma -- far off, 'scientific', technocratic governance, even when benevolent, often makes things worse.
7) Ancient prerogatives, institutions and relationships -- things like guilds and aristocracies -- are sometimes good and sometimes bad for welfare. However, organized factions like these are ALWAYS opposed to the centralization which enables tyranny. This is one important sense in egalitarianism and liberty are opposed. For example, he says of the corrupt judicial system "The irregular interventions of the courts in government, which often disturbed the efficient administration of business, thus served as a safegaurd of men's freedom from time to time. This was a case of one great evil setting limits on an even greater one" because it sometimes impeded the growth of a tyrannical monarchy.
8) For all of these reasons, the French revolution was - ironically - committed to actually accelerating the monarchical project of centralization. With the goals of equality and rationality it abruptly eliminated the Church and the aristocracy, further transforming the country into a uniform mass - ready for technocratic manipulation, 'education' and 'improvement'. This rapid and idealistic unmooring of society made the reign of terror possible. At its height, the revolution sought even to reorganize and standardize things like months and seasons. Some liberal institutions were established at the beginning of the revolution, but these were soon abandoned as barriers to 'efficiency'. Think here of the different emphasis on individual versus collective rights in Scottish and French Enlightenment thought.
9) On the eve of the French Revolution the King was actually making some steady progress towards eliminating stupid elements of ancient feudalism. This made the moment ripe, as the progress made the common people hopeful and impatient.
Ultimately, de Tocqueville thinks the French revolution had a bit too much égalité and not enough liberté. Frenchmen were fascinated by the concept of rights and freedom, but the key thought leaders put efficiency and égalité first. The author writes, "They seemed to love freedom; it turns out they simply hated the master." Liberty was seen as an intriguing element of Anglo-Dutch-American political economic success and as a useful rhetorical weapon -- not as the main end. And in the words of de Tocqueville "It is indeed true that in the long term, freedom always brings with it, to those who are skilled enough to keep hold of it, personal comfort, well-being and often great wealth... [But] whoever seeks anything from freedom but freedom itself is doomed to slavery."
Among other things, this book should be a stern warning to those who see freedom as merely an instrumental good.
Ultimately a great book. It just misses 5 stars because some of the discussions are hard to follow without a better descriptions of the various main actors. It also sometimes drags. The edition I had was the one pictured. It seemed a solid translation and contained the often interesting original endnotes.
As a final note, I was reading this book, sometimes aloud at my Grandfather's sickbed. For what it's worth.
More...