Discussion Starter: Revolutions, Social and Political

In “What is the Third Estate,” Abbé Sieyès makes an argument for the reformulation of the Estates General largely on the idea that the Third Estate is in itself a nation. The Third Estate comprises the laborers without whom society would not be able to function, though the privileged order possess all positions of power and esteem. This civil partition between the Third Estate and the First and Second Estates precludes the members of the former from achieving the economic (and social) success readily bestowed upon members of the latter, even if the privileged are less skilled than the oppressed. That being said, members of the Third Estate who are economically successful and manage to weasel into the privileged order immediately cease to belong to the Third Estate, which is to say that they no longer can represent common order by virtue of their distinct interests. In conjunction with the purpose of abolishing privileges being to make such privileges common to all members of the populace, Sieyès’ emphasis on the notion of Third Estate comprising the nation instills a strong drive toward a more egalitarian existence. Sieyès’ proposal in response to the subjugation of the common order under the First and Second Estates is to overhaul the centuries-old Estates General by giving the Third Estate a greater number of representatives and by changing the voting system to count heads instead of Estates. While it would surely challenge the privileges excluded from the Third Estate, it respects the existence of a separation between Estates in its redistribution of the number of representatives from each Estate. The patriotism encouraged by Sieyès’ extensive illustration of the privileged order as parasitic foreigners seems incompatible with the continued existence of such a separation, even if that distinction loses its legal component.

The us vs. them mentality adopted by Sieyès has its reflections in the other writings to the effect of identifying and unifying the group for which justice is sought via revolution. The consonance of the will in the common order with the intentions of the government is a necessary condition protecting against that government falling into tyranny. For Robespierre, the common order is identified as the republicans of the National Convention, and those outside the common order are excluded from the citizenry such that their elimination would reflect the government’s concern for, not abuse of, its people. Robespierre claims that “to love justice and equality, the people does not need great virtue; it only has to love itself.” It seems that, in order to love itself, a body of people cannot admit systemic divisions between factions like the Estates. Was the thorough destruction of the preexisting civil and legal relations in France thus inevitable? May there be any circumstances under which demands like Sieyès’, if met, would prove sufficient in addressing the grievances of the oppressed population?