The modern nation of France is representative of Anderson’s definition of the modern nation. Born out of the decline of the “large cultural systems that preceded it,” as Anderson states, it prevailed to also be both limited and sovereign. It also fits the idea of an “imagined political community” (Anderson 1991). The revolution began at a time of conflict outside of France’s borders, financial crisis, and dissatisfaction with the monarchy. The outcome was a progressive struggle to define France as a nation. Through new laws and codes, a new political system, and by defining its borders, France worked towards building itself as a nation. The cause and effect of the French Revolution are parallel with Anderson’s definition of how the modern nation was born, and what a modern nation is. It will first be shown what led up to the revolution and then it will be discussed how France rebuilt itself after is similar to what Anderson believes are characteristics of the modern nation.
Leading up to the Revolution, France was in a state of decline. Increasing talk of equality before the law and abolishing arbitrary rule was causing more and more discontent among the people, especially those in lower classes. (Merriman 2010, 436-437). France had long been separated into 3 separate estates. The first estate was the clergy, the second estate was the nobles, and the third estate was everyone else. Nobles and Clergy had privileges that third estate didn’t, and this lead to the demands for reform that were previously mentioned.
In addition to the people’s discomfort with the class system, France was also going through a financial crisis. Continuous bad harvests led to outcry against the taxation and high prices of bread. In addition to rising prices of bread, landlords were raising rents and forcing sharecropping agreements on members of the third estates. Furthermore, France was recovering from war debts from the War of the Austrian Succession and the Seven Year’s War. One of the privileges of the Nobles and the Clergy was that they were exempt from taxes. Therefore, the third estate was taxed heavily, but there was a limit to how many taxes they could be forced to pay (Merriman 2010, 438-438). Mismanagement of the crown’s finances by Jacques Necker also did nothing to assuage the financial crisis. He reported that there was more income than there was spending, and due to this the monarchy continued to spend and put itself further into debt. Due to this, Charles Alexander de Calonne called the Assembly of Notables in which several reforms were proposed, one being that nobles pay more taxes on land. This idea was ultimately dismissed and the nobles convinced king Louis to replace Calonne. Calonne was replaced with Etienne-Charles de Lomenie de Breinne who also proposed further taxes. The Parlement of Paris was against most of the edicts and the issue of taxation became the most immediate cause for the French revolution. As it can be seen, it was the decline of these “cultural systems” that parallel Anderson’s idea of how the modern nation was born.
Anderson also defines a nation as inherently limited. After the French Revolution ended, France needed to define itself as a nation. A nation is most notably limited by its borders. During this time of confusion, France was in need of a strong leader to bring back stability, and Napoleon Bonaparte took that position upon himself. He attempted to expand France and define its borders, and established the Confederation of Rhine. This was a group of sixteen German states, excluding Austria and Prussia, that Napoleon named himself the proctor of. This did not last long as he was met with opposition from the Concert of Europe. This was a conservative reaction to over two decades of French Revolutionary activity and expansion. It was made up of a group of 39 German states including Prussia and Austria that hoped to restore balance of power. It’s first act was to restore the monarchy and return France to its borders. It also guarded against further French expansion. While France may not have been entirely successful, this attempt to define its borders is a characteristic that similar to Anderson’s idea of a nation being limited.
Lastly, Anderson defines a nation as being sovereign. One of France’s biggest struggles after the Revolution was creating a system in which its people felt more equal; unlike they had been in the system of the 3 estates. During the Revolution, a document called the Declaration of the Rights of Man was approved by the National Assembly of France. This document stated that, among other things, men are born free and equal in rights, men are born with certain rights, there should be no arbitrary law, and men should have the freedom of speech to voice their opinions (The Declaration of the Rights of Man 1789). Similarly, in 1791 a piece by Olympe de Gouges was released in which she cried for the rights of women in France. Her document called for the same rights as the Declaration of the Rights of Man. However, she emphasized that women should also have these rights (De Gogues 1791). Both of these documents were important because up until this point, there had been no idea of citizenship, the French were solely subjects under a king. The documents not only introduced the idea of citizenship, they also defined that citizens should have equal rights regardless of what class they were born into.
In addition to the two documents previously mentioned, Napoleon also released his own Napoleonic Code which addressed revolutionary ideas regarding sovereignty, citizenship, and natural right. He established laws that defined what makes a citizen, what rights these citizens have, and how citizens and even foreigners should be dealt with in front of the law. He, like the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Declaration of the rights of Women, believed that every French men was born with civil rights. Another important aspect of Napoleon’s code was that he also expanded the idea of citizenship. This was in response to France’s expansion. Napoleon believed that not only those born in France but those born by Frenchmen were considered citizens and they too were considered equal under the law (Napoleonic Code 1804). This code further served to unify France under a single code of laws.
France also attempted to install a government that abolished the monarchy. Instead the people wanted to establish a constitutional monarchy. The reason for this being that the revolutionaries wanted a balance of power and they wanted to be rid of the system of dynastic monarchy that impeded their right and ability to be free.
Lastly, and like all other nations, France is what Anderson claims is an imagined community. It is not feasible for all members of France to know everyone else in France. However, there is what Anderson calls a sense of horizontal comradeship in which people become invested in their nation, and therefore others that are also part of the nation.
In conclusion, it can be seen how Anderson’s definition of a modern nation and how it comes about is similar to how France became a nation. The “decline of its cultural systems” were the discontent of the people with the inequality of the estates and the financial crises. It was inherently limited by its borders and sovereign because it abolished the dynastic monarchy. It is also an imagined community in the sense that in every nation, members only know a fraction of the population. However, there is a sense of comradeship that unifies people solely because they are part of the same nation. The circumstances and the results of the revolution fit the criteria, therefore making France an example of Anderson’s modern nation.