Kant and the French Revolution

76 Pages·2022·2.469 MB·English

by  Reidar Maliks

M
a
To Kant, the French Revolution’s central events were the l
ik
transfer of sovereignty to the people in 1789 and the trial and s
execution of the monarch in the period 1792–3. Through a
contextual study, this Element argues that while both events
manifested the principle of popular sovereignty, the first did
so in lawful ways, whereas the latter was a perversion of the The Philosophy of
principle. Kant was convinced that historical examples can help
immanuel kant
us understand political philosophy, and this Element seeks to
show this in practice.
k kant and
a
n
t
a
n
d
t
h the French
e
F
r
e
n
c
h
R Revolution
e
v
o
lu
t
about the series series Editors ion
This Cambridge Elements series provides Desmond Hogan
an extensive overview of Kant’s philosophy Princeton
and its impact upon philosophy and University Reidar Maliks
philosophers. Distinguished Kant Howard Williams
specialists provide an up-to-date summary University of Cardiff
of the results of current research in their Allen Wood sserP
y
fields and give their own take on what Indiana tisre
they believe are the most significant University vinU
debates influencing research, drawing e
g
d
original conclusions. irb
m
a
C
y
b
e
n
iln
o
d
e
h
silb
u
P
3
2
7
9
2
5
8
0
1
1
8
7
9
/7
1
0
1
.0
1
/g
ro
.io
d
Cover image: Grafissimo/Getty //:sp IISSSSNN 22359174--93486214 ((opnrilnint)e)
tth
sse
rP
y
tisre
v
in
U
e
g
d
irb
m
a
C
y
b
e
n
iln
o
d
e
h
silb
u
P
3
2
7
9
2
5
8
0
1
1
8
7
9
/7
1
0
1
.0
1
/g
ro
.io
d
//:sp
tth
ElementsinthePhilosophyofImmanuelKant
editedby
DesmondHogan
PrincetonUniversity
HowardWilliams
UniversityofCardiff
AllenWood
IndianaUniversity
KANT AND THE FRENCH
REVOLUTION
Reidar Maliks
University of Oslo
sse
rP
y
tisre
v
in
U
e
g
d
irb
m
a
C
y
b
e
n
iln
o
d
e
h
silb
u
P
3
2
7
9
2
5
8
0
1
1
8
7
9
/7
1
0
1
.0
1
/g
ro
.io
d
//:sp
tth
UniversityPrintingHouse,CambridgeCB28BS,UnitedKingdom
OneLibertyPlaza,20thFloor,NewYork,NY10006,USA
477WilliamstownRoad,PortMelbourne,VIC3207,Australia
314–321,3rdFloor,Plot3,SplendorForum,JasolaDistrictCentre,
NewDelhi–110025,India
103PenangRoad,#05–06/07,VisioncrestCommercial,Singapore238467
CambridgeUniversityPressispartoftheUniversityofCambridge.
ItfurtherstheUniversity’smissionbydisseminatingknowledgeinthepursuitof
education,learning,andresearchatthehighestinternationallevelsofexcellence.
www.cambridge.org
Informationonthistitle:www.cambridge.org/9781108438735
DOI:10.1017/9781108529723
©ReidarMaliks2022
Thispublicationisincopyright.Subjecttostatutoryexception
andtotheprovisionsofrelevantcollectivelicensingagreements,
noreproductionofanypartmaytakeplacewithoutthewritten
permissionofCambridgeUniversityPress.
Firstpublished2022
AcataloguerecordforthispublicationisavailablefromtheBritishLibrary.
ISBN978-1-108-43873-5Paperback
ISSN2397-9461(online)
ISSN2514-3824(print)
sse CambridgeUniversityPresshasnoresponsibilityforthepersistenceoraccuracyof
rP URLsforexternalorthird-partyinternetwebsitesreferredtointhispublication
y
tisrev anddoesnotguaranteethaactcaunraytecoonrteapntproonpsruiacthe.websitesis,orwillremain,
in
U
e
g
d
irb
m
a
C
y
b
e
n
iln
o
d
e
h
silb
u
P
3
2
7
9
2
5
8
0
1
1
8
7
9
/7
1
0
1
.0
1
/g
ro
.io
d
//:sp
tth
Kant and the French Revolution
ElementsinthePhilosophyofImmanuelKant
DOI:10.1017/9781108529723
Firstpublishedonline:February2022
ReidarMaliks
UniversityofOslo
Authorforcorrespondence:ReidarMaliks,reidar.maliks@ifikk.uio.no
Abstract:ToKant,theFrenchRevolution’scentraleventswerethetransfer
ofsovereigntytothepeoplein1789andthetrialandexecutionofthe
monarchintheperiod1792–3.Throughacontextualstudy,this
Elementarguesthatwhilebotheventsmanifestedtheprincipleof
popularsovereignty,thefirstdidsoinlawfulways,whereasthelatter
wasaperversionoftheprinciple.Kantwasconvincedthathistorical
examplescanhelpusunderstandpoliticalphilosophy,andthisElement
seekstoshowthisinpractice.
Keywords:Kant,FrenchRevolution,popularsovereignty,revolution,reform
©ReidarMaliks2022
ISBNs:9781108438735(PB),9781108529723(OC)
ISSNs:2397-9461(online),2514-3824(print)
sse
rP
y
tisre
v
in
U
e
g
d
irb
m
a
C
y
b
e
n
iln
o
d
e
h
silb
u
P
3
2
7
9
2
5
8
0
1
1
8
7
9
/7
1
0
1
.0
1
/g
ro
.io
d
//:sp
tth
Contents
1 IntroductionandHistoricalContext 1
2 PhilosophicalFoundations 9
3 Reform:1789 21
4 Revolution:1792 39
5 Conclusion 55
ListofAbbreviations 58
References 60
sse
rP
y
tisre
v
in
U
e
g
d
irb
m
a
C
y
b
e
n
iln
o
d
e
h
silb
u
P
3
2
7
9
2
5
8
0
1
1
8
7
9
/7
1
0
1
.0
1
/g
ro
.io
d
//:sp
tth
KantandtheFrenchRevolution 1
1IntroductionandHistoricalContext
MostscholarsbelievethatKantstronglysupportedtheFrenchRevolutionand
itsidealsofliberté,égalité,fraternité,eventhoughhecouldnotjustifyarightof
revolution. Kant admired the enthusiasm of the spectators who sympathised
withtheFrenchnation’seffortstoprovideitselfwitharepublicanconstitution,
saying,inConflictoftheFaculties,‘suchaphenomenoninhumanhistorywill
notbeforgotten,becauseithasrevealedatendencyandfacultyinhumannature
for improvement’ (CF 7: 88). Other sources supporting scholars’ claims that
KantwasasympathiserincludecontemporaryaccountscitinghisKönigsberg
reputation as a ‘Jacobin’, anecdotal information relating his single-minded
interestinthetopic,andhisstaunchdinnerpartydefencesoftheevent.When
therepublicwasdeclared,heapparentlysaid,‘Nowletyourservantgoinpeace
tohisgrave,forIhaveseenthegloryoftheworld’.1
Yetthisreadingofhissympathiesmustbeinaccurate,forthesimplereason
thattheFrenchRevolutionwasacomplexhistoricalevent,somepartsofwhich
Kantwholeheartedlyendorsed,whilecondemningothersinthestrongestpos-
sible terms. This Element looks beyond the received version and argues for
a nuanced view. It aims to present a more contextually sensitive analysis of
popularsovereignty,anunderlyingprincipleofboththerevolutionandKant’s
political philosophy. Historians often distinguish between two revolutions in
France: the liberal one in 1789, then the radical one in 1792.2 This Element
exploresKant’sdetailedanalysisofthephilosophicaljustificationsofeach.He
sawthefirstasaninstanceofalegitimatereformleadingtothepeopletaking
power,andthelatterasoneoflawlesspopularrebellion.
sserP The first revolution began in the spring of 1789, when King Louis XVI, an
y
tisre absolutemonarch,summonedtheEstatesGeneral,theancientassemblyofnobility,
vin clergy,andcommoners,todeliberateinVersaillesaboutthenation’sproblems.In
U
eg June, the commoners, claiming to speak for the nation as a whole, rejected the
d
irbm king’ssovereigntyanddemandedrecognitionasaNationalAssembly.Theking’s
a
C y capitulation precipitated the institution of a constitutional monarchy, which was
b
en philosophicallyjustifiedintermsofpopularsovereignty.Popularparticipationin
iln
o d theconstitutionaltransitionfromautocracytoconstitutionalrulewasthekeyissue
e
hsilb forKant.Heconsideredthepeople’swillanidealstandardforpublicjustice,and
u
P 3 thepublicsphereasanessentialspacefortheexpressionofpoliticalviews.Butthe
2
79 people’s will and actions could only be legally binding if they were established
2
5
8
0
1
1
8
7
9/7 1 ManfredKuehn,Kant:ABiography(NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,2001),p.342.
1
01 2 Francois Furet, Revolutionary France: 1770–1880, translated by Antonia Nevill (Oxford:
.01 BlackwellPublishing,1988),p.109;AlbertSoboul,AShortHistoryoftheFrenchRevolution
/gro 1789–1799(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1977),pp.38and84.
.io
d
//:sp
tth
2 PhilosophyofImmanuelKant
withinaconstitutionalframework.Withoutproperinstitutions,therearenostand-
ardstodistinguishbetweentheviewsofafactionandthewillofthewhole.This
raisestheissueofthepeople’sroleinchangingtheveryconstitutionalstructurethat
authorisesitscollectivevoice.Whatauthorisedthecommonerstoclaimthatright?
And did they act legitimately on behalf of ‘the people’, or were they just one
political class with no right to speak on behalf of the whole? Kant believed the
answerlayinwhatheclaimedwastheking’sabdication,andthepeople’srightto
actthrougharepresentativeassembly.
ThesecondrevolutionbeganinAugust1792,whenradicalfactionsaccusing
Louis XVI of plotting counter-revolution stormed the Tuileries Palace,
imprisonedtheking,abolishedtheNationalAssembly,proclaimedtherepublic,
and judged and executed the king, despite his constitutional inviolability. For
Kant, these events raised the issue of a popular right of resistance, and the
associated right to act as judge and jury over the sovereign. It also raised the
issue of whether regicide can ever be justified by appealing to a right of
necessity,andoftheinstrumentaluseoflawforthesakeofcoveringupwhat
areactually crimes. Finally, itraised questionsaboutwhether a former sover-
eignwhohasbeenunjustlydeposedmayseektoregainpower.
ThisElementarguesthatKant’sresponsetothesequestionsisgroundedinthe
requirement that popularsovereignty beexpressed through representationwithin
aconstitutionalsystem.Kantsympathiseswiththecommoners’deputiesin1789
because,unliketherabble-rousersonthestreetsofParisin1792,theydidnotuse
force against an existing regime. The two events illustrate the legitimate and
illegitimate roles ‘the people’ can play in political transformations. In the first
sse case,thepeopleactedindirectly,throughtheirrepresentatives,whodeliberatedin
rP y a public forum that had a legal foundation; in the second, the people, led by
tisre agitators, took the law into their own hands, stormed the seat of the executive
v
in
U power(theroyalpalace),andtheninstrumentalisedlawforpoliticalends.
e
g
dirb AlthoughthereisextensivescholarlyliteratureonKant’sviewsofresistance
m
a andrevolutioningeneral,hisjuridicaldiscussionoftheexampleoftherevolu-
C
yb e tion in France has attracted less attention. Kant’s views of the French
n
iln Revolutionaretypicallydeducedfromhisviewoftherevolutionasanhistorical
o
deh event,whichhediscussesinConflictoftheFaculties,butthatdiscussionisnot
silbu aboutthejuridicalprinciplesthatwereatstake(Iwillreturntothatattheend).3
P
3
2
7
9
25 3 ChristianFerrié,forexample,hasrecentlyarguedthatKantlegitimatedtheuseofrevolutionary
8
01 violencebecausehethoughthistorynaturallydevelopsthroughviolentrevolutions,excusedthe
187 regicidesbytheirfearofcounter-revolution,andwasgivenhopeformankind’smoralimprove-
9/7 mentbythespectators’enthusiasmforthestruggleforfreedom.Suchhistoricalexplanationsdo
1
01 not,however,amounttoajustificationoftheuseofforcetooverthrowagovernment.SeeFerrié,
.01 ‘Leréformismeenrévolution’,inLaPensée386,no.2(2016):64–77.DomenicoLosurdomade
/g
ro similarclaimsinImmanuelKant:Freiheit,RechtundRevolution(Köln:Pahl-Rugenstein,1987).
.io
d
//:sp
tth
KantandtheFrenchRevolution 3
Hisjuridicalviewsaredifficulttounderstandbecausetheyanalysethesignifi-
cance of historical and legal facts in light of both his own legal and political
principles,andthoseoftheactorsthemselves.Makingsenseofthemmaysound
likeanarcaneenterprise,butitisworthourtime.Kantintendedhisanalysisof
therevolutiontoilluminatetheprinciplesdevelopedinTheMetaphysicalFirst
PrinciplesoftheDoctrineofRight,thefirstpartoftheMetaphysicsofMorals,
from 1797. The treatise, which today would be called jurisprudence or legal
philosophy,is,asthenameindicates,asystemfoundedonreason.Kantapplies
theseaprioriprinciplestotheempiricalcasesoftheEstatesGeneralandthetrial
andexecutionofthemonarch(thesereflectionsareindentedandinfootnotesso
thathisreaderscouldtellthedifference).Assumingtheroleofjudge,heapplies
standards to specific circumstances, formulating tests to explicate the signifi-
canceofabstractlegalprinciples.KantthoughthisexamplesfromFrancecould
‘throwlightontheprinciplesofpoliticalrights’(MM6:321).Wecanhopeto
learn how Kant himself understood his metaphysical principles by observing
howhesoughttoparserealityaccordingly.Wecanalsohopetogainunexpected
perspectivesonthepast.
Karl Marx famously stated in 1842 that ‘Kant’s philosophy is rightly to be
regardedastheGermantheoryoftheFrenchRevolution’.4Severalauthorshave
followedMarxinclaimingthatKant’sturntopoliticsinthe1790swasadirect
response to the revolution.5 This might seem intuitive, since all his published
attemptstojustifyprinciplesofrightcameinthewakeoftherevolution.Yet,
thiscannotbethecase,sinceKanthadlongpromisedtowriteatreatiseonlaw
andpolitics,andhadwrittenandlecturedonnaturallawfordecadesbeforethe
sse revolution without publishing anything on it.6 Yet as scholars point out, the
rP
y
tisrev 4 ScholarsseemtohavemissedthefactthatMarxwasspecificallyreferencingthe1789revolution.
in
U SeeKarlMarx,‘ThePhilosophicalManifestooftheHistoricalSchoolofLaw’,inWritingsofthe
e
gd YoungMarxonPhilosophyandSociety,translatedandeditedbyLoydEastonandKurtGuddat
irb (Indianapolis,IN:HackettPublishingCompany,1997),pp.96–106,p.100.Differentversionsof
m
aC theclaimwerecommonamongKant’ssupportersduringthe1790s.Theclaimwaspopularisedby
yb Heine and, according to Michael Morris, it dominated interpretations of Kantian philosophy
en during the first part of the nineteenth century. Morris, ‘The French Revolution and the New
ilno SchoolofEurope:TowardsaPoliticalInterpretationofGermanIdealism’,inEuropeanJournal
deh ofPhilosophy.19,no.4(2011):532–60.
silb 5 PaulSchrecker,‘KantetlaRévolutionFrançaise’,inRevuePhilosophiquedelaFranceetde
uP l’Étranger,128,no.9/12(1939):394–426;JacquesDroz,L’AllemagneetlaRévolutionfrançaise
3
27 (Paris:PressesUniversitairesdeFrance,1949),p.156;FerencFehér,‘PracticalReasoninthe
9
25 Revolution:Kant’sDialoguewiththeFrenchRevolution’,inTheFrenchRevolutionandtheBirth
801 ofModernity,editedbyFerencFehér(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1990),pp.201–
1
87 18; and André Tosel, Kant révolutionnaire. Droit et politique, suivi de textes choisis de là
9
/7 Doctrinedudroit,traduitsparJ.-P.Lefebvre(Paris:P.U.F.,1988).
1
01 6 Peter Burg, Kant und die Französische Revolution (Berlin: Duncker und Humblot, 1974).
.01 ChristianRitterhastrackedtheincrementaldevelopmentofKant’slegalandpoliticalphilosophy
/g
ro inDerRechtsgedankeKantsnachdenfrühenQuellen(Frankfurt:V.Klostermann,1971).
.io
d
//:sp
tth
4 PhilosophyofImmanuelKant
revolution inspired him.7 He defined the citizen with the term Citoyen, and
addedapropertyqualificationforthefranchise,closelyfollowingthoseadopted
in France in 1789 (TP 8: 295). When defending the sovereign’s authority to
repealthehereditarypropertyrightsofthenobilityandtheclergyoncepublic
opinion ceased to favour them, he defended some of the most momentous
policiestheNationalConstituentAssemblytooktodismantletheancienregime
(MM6:324).WhenKantarguedthatrepublicsaremorepeaceful,sincerulers
willbeunabletowagewariftheyneedtheconsentofthepeoplewhobearthe
financialandmilitaryburdenofwar(TPP8:350),hewasechoingasentiment
voiced by Jean Francois Reubell, thedeputy ofthe ThirdEstate, who blamed
wars on dynastic pacts and unaccountable rulers who start wars ‘without the
nation’sconsentbutatthecostofthenation’sbloodandthenation’sgold’.8In
such instances, Kant adopted the revolution’s policies and institutions and
soughttoprovidetheprinciplesforthem.
Ratherthanmerelyreactingtotherevolutionordevelopinghisprinciplesin
isolationfromit,Kantseemstohavedevelopedhislegalandpoliticalphiloso-
phy through a process of reflective equilibrium, moving between legal and
political practice in France and the principles he had deduced a priori (aided
byhisdeepknowledgeofthenaturallawtradition,inparticularthewritingsof
Achenwall, Rousseau, and Hobbes). The approach recalls his Groundwork of
The Metaphysics of Morals, which assumes that ordinary cognition has an
intuitive graspofmorals, tasking philosophywith providing thea prioriprin-
ciples(4:392).Apologisingfortheundevelopedstateofhissectionsonpublic
right,hewrotethatthetopicis‘currentlysubjecttosomuchdiscussion,andstill
sse soimportant,thattheycanwelljustifypostponingadecisivejudgmentforsome
rP y time’ (MM 6: 209). Kantwas an avidfollower ofthese debates. No doubthe
tisre was thinking of people like himself when noting that ‘in this crisis of the
v
inU metamorphosis of the French state’, the enlightened man is ‘desperate to
e
g
dirb knowthe situation with his impatient and ardent desirefor newspapers asthe
m
a
C
yb 7 KarlVorländer’searlycontributionhighlightedKant’scritiqueofthenobility,oftheestablished
en church, and his restriction of citizen rights. Many have identified the influence of Sieyès.
ilno AccordingtoFehérandGarethStedmanJones,heinfluencedKant’sseparationofpowersand
d
eh defenceofconstitutionalmonarchy,andaccordingtoIngeborgMausandUlrichThieleSieyès
silb inspiredKant’sbeliefinthepeopleasthePouvoirConstituant.KarlVorländer,‘KantsStellung
uP zurFranzösischenRevolution’,inPhilosophischeAbhandlungen(Berlin:VerlagBrunoCassirer,
3
27 1912),pp.247–69;Fehér,‘PracticalReasonintheRevolution’;StedmanJones,‘Kant,theFrench
9
25 RevolutionandtheDefinitionoftheRepublic’,inTheInventionoftheModernRepublic,edited
801 byBiancamariaFontana(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1994),pp.154–72;Maus,Zur
187 Aufklärung der Demokratietheorie: Rechts – und demokratietheoretische Überlegungen im
9/7 AnschluβanKant(Frankfurt:Suhrkamp,1992);Thiele,RepräsentationundAutonomieprinzip:
1
01 KantsDemokratiekritikundihreHintergründe(Berlin:Duncker&Humblot,2003).
.01 8 Cited in Tim Blanning, The Pursuit of Glory: Europe, 1648–1815 (London: Penguin books,
/g
ro 2007),p.617.
.io
d
//:sp
tth