People Don't Change: Understanding Occurs in Communities

Timothy Tackett is an accomplished author of the French Revolution. I recommend his book When the King Took Flight as well as The Glory and the Sorrow. 

The second book is based on the letters of a thoroughly middle-class man who lived in a non-affluent (but not poverty-stricken) part of Paris--what we might refer to as blue-collar. Tackett tells the story of the French Revolution up to The Terror where Tackett must, by necessity, summarize. The man of the book, Adrien-Joseph Colson, wrote fewer letters during The Terror, in part, most likely, because ordinary citizens' homes were raided and correspondence read during this time. 

Colson was a supporter of the Revolution--but not in the all-or-nothing way often presented by fiction writers, historians, and social media watchdogs. Rather, Colson reacted in line with how people actually do react to events. 

Colson was a supporter of the Revolution but not in some carefully crafted streamlined way. He was drawn in more by events and circulars than by the seminal works that NOW students of history would point to as important: writings by Voltaire and company. He certainly didn't follow the Revoluton as laid out in history books. Tackett points out, "One must constantly keep in mind that Colson and his neighbors had no foreknowledge of what was happening, of where things were leading, or of what it all meant" (80). To a great extent, Colson and others didn't become interested in the Revolution until political meetings occurred before the eyes of the world. 

Like all human beings, Colson selected what he valued and what he didn't from the Revolution. That makes him sound inconsistent, but human beings don't operate according to textbooks. They operate according to what strikes them. 

It does help to realize--since Colson continued to work for a noble family as basically an estate lawyer--that many nobles, including the king, adopted Revolutionary parlance early on. It was the popular thing to do! Colson apparently harbored no resentment towards people born into the Second Estate. Like many French people, including Parisians, he had a positive attitude towards the king, up until the king's flight. 

Remains of local church

destroyed at The Terror.

Nor did he harbor resentment--as did later revolutionaries--towards the First Estate, the clergy. He remained a devoted Catholic, likely even through The Terror. As with the initial proclamations by nobles, the clergy in Paris were initially quite supportive of the revolution. 

In fact, the later attack on Catholic institutions reminded me less of Henry VIII (who just wanted the money) and more of the fortunate circumstances of the American Revolution: no king on the premises to have to bother about (let him stay in England!) plus an acknowledgment from the start that religion and government cannot share power. The ancient world combined religion and government and nobody batted an eye--but early moderns struggled with the problem since the two roles, by their nature, can be divided and, if both retain equal rights, cause equal problems. The British solved the issue by making the religious arm merely ceremonial. The Americans acknowledged the reality and made government secular. 

Colson's neighborhood

In any case, Colson did not look upon the Revolution in absolutist terms. And like Roman soldiers who converted from Mithraism to Christianity yet retained their Mithraic interests, Colson's reactions to the Revolution were formed in part by his personality and in part by the environment in which he lived (Roman soldiers were mostly converted by their families who lived in towns--Christianity was initially an urban phenomenon). 

Colson separated "good" poor (the poor artisans who shared his neighborhood) from all the other poor. He attended the church in his neighborhood with his neighbors. He believed in some of the many conspiracy rumors that characterize the French Revolution and distrusted others. He supported some events and not others and was relatively powerless to stop the others (he had no power over what happened to the king). That is, he was to a huge extent (without his free will or self being overridden) impacted by his immediately community, and he valued--as did his neighbors--the immediate benefits of the Revolution, such as better street lights.   

Arguably, we are the same today--despite social media. People operate, still, within social communities. I am not the product of my surroundings but my understanding of the world around me is influenced by what I hear and see, by what others value, by what others support. Even if I disagree, I remain a member of at least three different communities (work, church, neighborhood) and my disagreements will be in reaction to those communities. A car, free press, easier communication, and increased options due to increased rights give me more flexibility than Colson--nevertheless, I'm not living in the 19th century or the 22nd. I'm not living in a different country or on a different planet. Here and now is what I deal with--just as he did.