In ‘What is the Third Estate?’ Joseph Sieyes summarises his arguments with the phrase “What is the Third Estate? It is the whole.”. This extract clearly highlights Sieyes opinion that the Third Estate is the backbone of French society. It is Sieyes belief as stated in the text “Who then shall dare say that the Third Estate has not within itself all that is necessary for the formation of a complete nation?” that if the Third Estate refused to work all of society would seize to function, whereas if the noble order and “higher classes” of society were to be abolished the common people would not only continue, but be better off without them. It is this that Sieyes also believes is the main dividing factor between the classes, the Third Estate contributes greatly to the everyday tasks required to sustain a society, and in contrast the noble order contributes almost nothing to the community. Sieyes also draws attention to the differences between the Third Estate and other Estates in the way they are represented and given rights. Sieyes says “The bodies of its deputies sit apart; and when it is assembled in the same hall with the deputies of simple citizens, it is none the less true that its representation is …show more content…
Sieyes brings the notion that nobles should be excluded from the nation forward twice in the text saying, “Such a class is surely estranged to the nation by its indolence” and then again more harshly, “it is a stranger to the nation”. These two statements stand out as the most important of his claims because they introduce and support one of the main driving factors behind the French Revolution, the idea that the common people could and should hold political
Under the rule of Louis XVI, the people of France were divided into three main social classes or estates as they are called. The First Estate featured wealthy members of the Church such as Bishops and Priests who held great political power due to their influence on government affairs. The Second Estate was a class comprised of the wealthy nobles and political officials who held all power in government affairs.
Sieyes also identifies the reality that if as a society if we were to remove the nobility that The Third Estate could in fact run on its own, if not “something less but something more”. In fact, society as a whole might actually go better without the two others but would cease to exists without The Third Estate. Sieyes actually goes as far to say that the nobility are a “burden for the nation and it cannot be a part of it.” Sieyes speaks to not only the social inequality between the classes but the lack of political representation of more than what is ninety percent of the population. Then nobility itself possess their own representation that was not appointed by the majority, who does not owe any powers to the people due to divinity, and finally it is foreign for the fact that it’s interests lie with private concern rather than public. In chapter two of What is the Third Estate Sieyes proclaims that up until now The Third Estate has been nothing and reform is coming. He says “Freedom does not derive from
In Political Testament, Cardinal Richelieu explains that the nobility is something to be used as a tool, a perpetual game of appeasement and request of services. He understood that the nobility could be a nuisance and a body of dissent against the King, but that they were necessary to the crown to provide military aid and money. Richelieu explains that one must know how to manage and manipulate them: “To take away the lives of these persons, who expose their lives every day for a pure fancy of honor, is much less than taking away their honor and leaving them a life which would be a perpetual anguish for them. All means must be used to maintain the nobility in the true virtue of their fathers, and one must also omit nothing to preserve the advantages they inherited.” ...
Some people like Emmanuel Sieyès, middle-class writer who was taken by the Enlightenment ideas, believed that all of French Society lay on the backs of the third estate. On the contrary, Robespierre, the monarch at the time, believed that the third estate did not have the power to do anything important to society. The third estate had to pay taxes like the Gabelle and Taille while the first and seconds estates did not have to pay any taxes to the king. Also, the third estates had less of a representation in voting. The first and second estate could outvote the third estate every time and this was a huge inequality. The condition of the third estate was horrible but a good portion of this third estate was the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie had some wealth and social class, so they influenced the rest of the third estate about their rights, while also inspiring some lower clergies and provincial nobles and thus led to a group of rebellious people to fight the monarchy. This fight for political representation and political rights was only one cause of the French Revolution. Another causes lies in the French Monarchs: Louis XlV, Louis XV, and Louis XVl. When Louis XlV was ruling, the monarchy had unlimited power and was known as a
When Abbé Sièyes wondered, "What is the Third Estate [or are slaves]? Nothing. What has it [have they] been until now in the political order? Nothing. What does it [do they] want? To be become something…" (65), he could have just as easily spoken of slave's misery rather than the Third Estate's plight. While, his scope was limited, his pains were not. Following their first revolution, the French National Assembly helped to change the world. Enlightened, they saw, they defined, they tried to ease all of mankind's suffering. Finally, the term man began to transcend color. If man has rights, they must apply to all men. And thus, the concept of racial equality is born. I will argue in order to achieve this end, and to prove the necessity of racial equality, Enlightened thinkers exposed flaws in current social philosophy, demonstrated the logical conclusions of their progress, and finally addressed the implications of abolition.
In its first article, it states “Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good (emphasis mine).” The first part of the paragraph does not exclude any person (while it can be disputed that it is ambiguous with the status of women) and serves the equalization of all people, regardless of the birth. It disposes any assumed privileges of the nobility, and if read in conjunction to the sixth article, is not shy from stating that the source of power or the imperatives of the government rests at the hand of the public. The second part limits the occasion if there is to be one, in that without the great justification, there would be no official distinction that will lead to the faction of the society. Considering France had the aristocracy and the king, it is the biggest shift in power yet to come, in that the mass now controls the steering wheel, which is rarely seen during this period of
The essential cause of the French revolution was the collision between a powerful, rising bourgeoisie and an entrenched aristocracy defending its privileges”. This statement is very accurate, to some extent. Although the collision between the two groups was probably the main cause of the revolution, there were two other things that also contributed to the insanity during the French revolution – the debt that France was in as well as the famine. Therefore, it was the juxtaposing of the bourgeoisie and the aristocracy as well as the debt and famine France was in that influenced the French Revolution.
Each social class in France has its own reasons for wanting a change in government. The aristocracy was upset by the king’s power, while the Bourgeoisie was upset by the privileges of the aristocracy. The peasants and urban workers were upset by their burdensome existence. The rigid, unjust social structure meant that citizens were looking for change because “all social classes.had become uncomfortable and unhappy with the status quo.” (Nardo, 13)
However, the noble-born were not ready to lose their supremacy, and there are very high chances that had they been aware of what the low-class citizens were planning, they would have retaliated with brutal force. Consequently, an upheaval was a need to change France, and anything contrary to that would need concrete proof that the Crown was ready to consider the problems of the people. On that note, contrary to Burke’s views, the people obviously had enough sense to realize that they were never going to have any privileges without force.
They were only two percent of France’s population, but owned twenty percent of the land. They paid no taxes (Krieger 483). The third estate accounted for ninety-eight percent of France’s population. The third estate was divided into three groups; the middle class, known as the bourgeoisie, the urban lower classes, and the peasant farmers. The third estate lost about half their income in taxes.
The Third Estate consisted of everyone else, the pheasants, farmers, landless labourers, serfs and the emerging middle class called the bourgeois. 80% of the population was rural and were very highly taxed by the king, like the rest of the Third Estate.... ... middle of paper ... ... Overall, the weakness and indecisive actions of France's monarch, King Louis XVI, did not make those serving him respect or be loyal to him and his choices.
Providing food and abode for the Guardians is the only governmental responsibility the lower class has. The Auxiliaries are in charge of the military, police, and executive duties. Ruling and making laws is reserved for the Philosopher Rulers, whose actions are all intended for the good of the state. To ensure that public good continues to be foremost on each Ruler's agenda, the Rulers live in community housing, hold wives/children in common, and do not own private property. The separation of classes is understood by everybody.
A small number of people said that the Third Estate, that which was drawn from the towns, should have power to equal the other Estates. Clubs of the bourgeoisie. the middle class, were formed, proclaiming, "Salus populi lex est. " It was a simple cry meaning "the welfare of the people is law." To these people, Estates General was like a pair of shoes that no longer fit.
This was an ancient stratification system that does not exist today anymore. However, to illustrate the estate system, we go over its three categories: the nobility, the clergy and the commoners.
At the start of the revolution, in 1789, France’s class system changed dramatically (Giddens, 2014). Aristocrats lost wealth and status, while those who were at the bottom of the social ladder, rose in positions. The rise of sociology involved the unorthodox views regarding society and man which were once relevant during the Enlightenment (Nisbet, 2014). Medievalism in France during the eighteenth century was still prevalent in its “legal structures, powerful guilds, in its communes, in the Church, in universities, and in the patriarchal family” (Nisbet, 2014). Philosophers of that time’s had an objective to attempt to eliminate the natural law theory of society (Nisbet, 2014). The preferred outcome was a coherent order in which the mobility of individuals would be unrestricted by the autonomous state (French Revolution). According to Karl Marx, economic status is extremely important for social change. The peasants felt the excess decadence of the ancient regime was at the expense of their basic standards of living, thus fuelling Marx’s idea of class based revolutions and the transition of society (Katz, 2014). This can be observed, for example, in novels such as Les Liaisons Dangereuses, a novel that had a role for mobilizing the attitudes of the