The Failed Mantra of the French Revolution

and how it may illuminate the 21st century

Everywhere we see signs of ‘the old’ disintegrating, and much reason to be alarmed. But we should not be only alarmed. We should also see what is happening as part of a natural and cyclical, if turbulent, process of change. We should be turning our minds to where the process of change is leading us in the longer term. Or, better still, we should be turning to thoughts of where we would like to take it. It is not smart to simply let the process of change follow its own momentum and hope that it will lead to somewhere good. It is not smart because the deeper currents at work in the world can be both positive and evolutionary, and deeply, deeply destructive. They have led the world to many dark places before.

I do not mean by that that we can invent any kind of future vision on a whim, and then use the prevailing instability to make it happen. Such thinking - and there’s plenty of it going on - represents a complete failure to comprehend the deeper and longer term currents which really shape history, social evolution, and human progress. For as Leo Tolstoy insisted,¹ it is ultimately not the plans and policies and strategies, the presidents and kings and generals who determine the direction of the world, but the swarming minds and hearts and countless small actions of the millions on the ground, beyond the plans and the policies.

There are all kinds of deeper currents at work in the world, and in the various populations of the world: Not the short-term perceptions which get stirred up in the population and which might change tomorrow, and again the day after. But the deeper intelligence in the soul and the bone marrow, which works on longer rhythms. For it is that, and not the passing whims of the day, which ultimately move the world.

One such a deep current, beginning during the French Revolution, has been gradually making its way into the world for 200 years. And is has still not yet reached its fullest maturity. So profound is it that it may turn out to provide the basis for finding our way forward through the growing chaos and uncertainty of the 21st century:

When a mix of good and evil impulses gave birth to that turbulent period in France 200 years ago, noble intention was expressed in the rallying cry ‘Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite’. Freedom. Equality. Brotherhood. Or Sisterhood. Or perhaps let’s just call it, in the deepest sense of the word ‘Collaboration’. Noble but vague and idealistic perhaps? But this rallying cry, I argue, was not whimsical at all. It came from the depths. On the surface it may appear to be nothing more than the expression of a universal and very generalised human aspiration. But here is something more profound to think about: What if the only reason that ‘Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite’ has for 200 years remained an idealistic dream, a ‘failed mantra’, is that there was no clarity as to the areas of life in which each of the three noble aspirations should most directly apply, and in which areas they should not.

And here is something more to think about: Society, in all places and at all times in history has consisted of three basic functions: The making of rules, the activities of culture, and the production and trading of commodities. And if we analyse further the make-up of each of those three, we find that they form the basis for knowing in which situations freedom is the most fundamental principle, and in which it is not. In which situations equality is the most fundamental principle, and in which it is not. And in which situations ‘mutual support’ is primary, and which it is secondary.

‘Culture’ could be said to consist of, for instance, the sciences, the arts, education, sport, spiritual belief etc. That is, precisely the places where freedom must be an unquestioned imperative. In these areas, we are not equal. In the classroom we have different strengths and weaknesses, we have different needs (not sufficiently well catered for today). In sport, the whole idea is that competition extends the boundaries of what is possible. In matters of spirituality we have different beliefs and traditions.

Meanwhile, the law, clearly enough, is the place where we must absolutely be equal. And just as clearly, we are presently not. It is a part of the noble aspiration which was only partly achieved and, arguably, is presently degenerating. But there is no doubt that it is the place where equality most belongs.

That leaves collaboration. While it is a prinicple which serves well in most areas of life, there are activities like sport and art and science (cultural activities) where standing out as an individual can, at least some of the time, be the higher principle. There is however, one activity, not obvious at first, where collaboration is always the core principle, even when we don’t recognise it as such. The answer becomes clear when we recognise that the production of commodities is something we do for each other. And something on which each of us must depend on the others for survival. There is room in it for certain elements of competition too (it will become clear when future posts go deeper into this theme that it is in no way a manifesto for any form of communism - and certainly not for state control of production). But if competition is the unconstrained leading principle in turning finite resources into the commodities we all need to live, exploitation of both people and environment will come as surely as night follows day.

This relationship between the rallying cry of the French Revolution and the essentially three-fold structure of society is no accident. Half seen, half understood, a recognition of the essentially three-fold structure of society was trying to come up from the depths of the human spirit. Consider how, in exactly the same period, ‘tricolour’ flags were adopted all over Europe. And also how in the same period, ‘law’ was divided into ‘the legislative, the executive and the judiciary’. (Ultimately culture and commodity production can and rightly should be separated into three distinct elements too, giving a three-fold structure within a three-fold structure. But more on that another day). Consider how in the same period began the long-standing commitment to separating the church (cultural activity) from the state (law-making activity). All this is only the beginning of the implications.

It should be clear to all that the loss of freedom in cultural activity, the problem of unequal justice, and the wrong use of natural resources are all getting worse. We are in urgent need of clear principles by which to get back on track to genuine human progress. The ‘mantra’ of the French Revolution, when seen in right relation to the three core functions of society, provides them.

1. An underlying message of ‘War and Peace’, Leo Tolstoy, 1865