最新提问
我的动态
登录后查看动态
题目内容双击单词支持查询和收藏哦～
题目材料：
Many nineteenth-century historians of the French Revolution of 1789 argued that the overthrow of the monarchy grew out of class struggle: a self-conscious bourgeoisie (middle class) attempted to wrest socioeconomic control from an aristocracy associated with the monarchy. Many twentieth-century historians argue that in 1789 there was no truly self-conscious bourgeois class ready to eliminate the aristocracy, and insofar as a bourgeoisie existed, it sought to reform the monarchy, having no conscious objective of constructing a new socioeconomic system.
These different views in part reflect differences between nineteenth- and twentieth-century notions of class. If by “bourgeoisie" we understand a class of profit-making business people, we cannot rate its importance in 1789 highly. But nineteenth-century historians meant by “middle class” the stratum of people whose position in the social order rested not on birth or hereditary privilege but on individual worth: in the France of 1789, urban adults situated by status and income between the aristocracy and manual laborers. According to nineteenth-century historians, this middle class was subsequently vindicated by the revolution, which eliminated the privilege of “noble” birth; aristocrats were not to be regarded as naturally more capable than other people. And although this new “equality” was not democratic, those who framed a constitution in 1791 were selected for talent, irrespective of birth. the talent being demonstrated by property and education. Aristocrats were not excluded if they fulfilled the selection criteria independently of their hereditary status. Individuals from lower orders were excluded only insofar as they failed to make their way into the ranks of the “talented.”
In support of twentieth-century historians, it is doubtful whether the stratum described above saw itself as a social class at the time of the revolution. Insofar as it did so, it was paradoxically by placing greater emphasis on individual achievement than on group membership. And members of this stratum did not see their individual merit as identified with entrepreneurial ambitions, although most businesspeople were part of this stratum. It was the revolution itself that transformed groups of individuals into self-conscious classes with a common political agenda. When it became increasingly evident that reform could not be achieved by the monarchy but only by a revolution, a collective struggle of commoners of all backgrounds against aristocrats was initiated, such that the former were mobilized by their action into a representative voice of the revolution. The “middle class" then had to struggle to retain its particular voice as it sought to craft a new regime, sandwiched as it was between the interests of aristocrats and those of the less advantaged. In effect, members of the middle stratum recognized themselves retrospectively as a class, and the historians writing immediately after the revolution, some of whom observed its events, were disposed to believe that such class consciousness had always been present.
These different views in part reflect differences between nineteenth- and twentieth-century notions of class. If by “bourgeoisie" we understand a class of profit-making business people, we cannot rate its importance in 1789 highly. But nineteenth-century historians meant by “middle class” the stratum of people whose position in the social order rested not on birth or hereditary privilege but on individual worth: in the France of 1789, urban adults situated by status and income between the aristocracy and manual laborers. According to nineteenth-century historians, this middle class was subsequently vindicated by the revolution, which eliminated the privilege of “noble” birth; aristocrats were not to be regarded as naturally more capable than other people. And although this new “equality” was not democratic, those who framed a constitution in 1791 were selected for talent, irrespective of birth. the talent being demonstrated by property and education. Aristocrats were not excluded if they fulfilled the selection criteria independently of their hereditary status. Individuals from lower orders were excluded only insofar as they failed to make their way into the ranks of the “talented.”
In support of twentieth-century historians, it is doubtful whether the stratum described above saw itself as a social class at the time of the revolution. Insofar as it did so, it was paradoxically by placing greater emphasis on individual achievement than on group membership. And members of this stratum did not see their individual merit as identified with entrepreneurial ambitions, although most businesspeople were part of this stratum. It was the revolution itself that transformed groups of individuals into self-conscious classes with a common political agenda. When it became increasingly evident that reform could not be achieved by the monarchy but only by a revolution, a collective struggle of commoners of all backgrounds against aristocrats was initiated, such that the former were mobilized by their action into a representative voice of the revolution. The “middle class" then had to struggle to retain its particular voice as it sought to craft a new regime, sandwiched as it was between the interests of aristocrats and those of the less advantaged. In effect, members of the middle stratum recognized themselves retrospectively as a class, and the historians writing immediately after the revolution, some of whom observed its events, were disposed to believe that such class consciousness had always been present.
以上解析由 考满分老师提供。
