In class today, we explored the cultural and political climate which surrounded the English Jacobins. In reaction to The Terror which followed in the wake of the French Revolution, many liberally minded Britons were branded as French-sympathizing traitors and their beliefs were cast as anti-British. Specifically, Canning's Anti-Jacobin poetry played heavily on this France-England divide by presenting Jacobinism as diametrically opposed to English nationalism.
In searching for source material, it was much easier to find expressly Anti-Jacobin texts. This is due in part to the fact that the Jacobins were less of a cohesive group than the Anti-Jacobins. That is, many people wrote on certain social issues but did not necessarily identify as Jacobins. On the other hand, Anti-Jacobins tended to oppose such progressive writers by grouping them together and attacking them as pro-French or anti-British. In many instances, such as in Canning's Ode to Jacobinism, Anti-Jacobins simply painted a gross caricature of the Jacobins. In class, it was suggested that, by doing so, the Anti-Jacobins were guilty of a kind of fear mongering by suggesting that progressive writers would lead England and its people to hell.
The Anti-Jacobins tended to write off Jacobins as undereducated. This attitude is evident in Canning's works when he attacks the "philosophic train" of the Jacobins, which included the works of writers such as Paine and Rousseau. In contrast, Paine's writing is rather respectful of Edmund Burke and maintains a fairly professional air throughout.
Question: To what extent were the English Jacobins a real threat to English nationalism? Conversely, to what extent did the Anti-Jacobins overreact? Consider the way in which Canning's poetry addresses Jacobin texts such as Paine's essay.
9 comments:
I really enjoyed the discussion in class today about political arguments and what makes a productive argument. I thought it was also very well structured that we were asked about today's world and current day politics. I think that was a positive way to open up class because it is easy to think "oh, the C18 was SOOO LONG ago...It wasn't that serious... It was blown out of proportion...yadayadayada." But, put in to today's context, it is very easy and familiar to see how people become passionate about issues.
With that said, I do think that Jacobins were a real threat to nationalism. I think their arguments were based on principles important to numerous people who banned together for a common cause. What is most noteworthy, however, is not the cause they were fighting for (although that is indeed the issue at heart), but it was the activism of numerous people to ban together for a common cause and stand up for what they believed was wrong with their society. The arguments were strong, spoken, but some of the poems we discussed in class today were just "fighting words." It is hard to be taken seriously as an activists if all you have to stand on is your emotions. So much of rallying people up for a cause is one's ability to convey a message, which is where passionate, powerful speech comes into play; but, what is most important, and perhaps where the Jacobins went awry, is that they portrayed their sentiments too strongly while not focusing on the main issues. (Wow.. that was a long sentence :/ )
I also think that the Jacobins were a real threat to nationalism because of what they were able to achieve during the Reign of Terror. Also they must have been a threat if, as mentioned in class, Canning and his comrades had to meet in a secret location to publish The Anti-Jacobin because they feared the threat of the Jacobins. A way in which the Anti-Jacobins may have overreacted is by being a bit too dramatic when criticizing them in their Anti-Jacobin works. For example, Canning refers to Jacobins as “Daughter of Hell” and “Destroyer of the human race.” I feel like these choice of words are more suited for someone like Hitler who committed horrific acts for no good reason or justification, whereas the Jacobins were fighting for political issues that could benefit everyone.
On another note, I’m curios as to why people did not identify themselves as Jacobin when they wrote about Jacobin issues. Was being called a Jacobin an offensive term just used by Anti-Jacobins or maybe it was a term people were afraid to associate themselves with in fear of being attacked by the right wing? In terms of having difficulty finding Jacobin texts, I wonder if it has to do with the fact that Jacobins had the support of the working class people who did not have the means or education to write in favor of the party. Whereas, the Anti-Jacobins, who consisted of mainly upper classmen, would have more opportunity in being able to publish works against the group.
I, too, agree that the Jacobins posed a significant threat to English nationalism at the time. In many ways England's social and political systems mirrored that of France, and any discourse threatening such systems posed a threat to the Nation's contemporary structure. Though people may claim otherwise, it seems contradictory to rile against a nation's constitution, while still espousing its glory and superiority. In regards to the second question, if only judging by the texts provided in class, it would seem that the Jacobins were over the top in their accusations and reproaches. But these texts were in an anti-jacobin publication, and some of the writers, being aware of their anti-jacobin audience, may have written melodramatically just for entertainment. The newspaper may have consisted of these slanderous, over-the-top articles, along with more serious, rational anti-jacobin treatises.
Something that I think got lost in Wednesday's discussion is that, even though people were generally quick to agree that the anti-Jacobin arguments were inflammatory and reliant on emotional arguments and not logically-sound reasoning, the fact remains that those arguments are simply more effective when it comes to political discourse and convincing people. If the Anti-Jacobins had written a 100-page dissertation on why Jacobinism was a poor philosophy, would that have rallied more people?
The reason people use these tactics is simple: they work. Perhaps, instead of critiquing anti-Jacobin writers for what they were writing, we should critique the people who eat up this information without demanding nuanced arguments and fair representations of both sides. To do so, however, would show ignorance of the fact that the 18th century enemies of the Jacobins (or, for that matter, Fox News) have no monopoly on ignorance, oversimplification, and poor reasoning. What we saw on Wednesday is the nature of political discourse, and it is the most reasonable methodology for politicians, as a more reasonable approach would almost certainly be ignored.
I also too think that the Jacobins were a threat to English nationalism. However, just as discussed in class, political discourse has existed throughout all of history. Just as PMV expressed, although C18 was so long ago, the same type of political battles existed as we see today. We have Democrats vs Republicans, United States vs Middle East, Religion versus State, Cubs vs White Sox (yes, for some this constitutes political/religious viewpoint). The Jacobins did indeed rile against England, but without an opposing view to combat the "norm," there could never be any growth or improvement.
Anti-Jacobin texts seem to be the dominant texts because their viewpoints most coincided with the popular viewpoint. This being said, the Jacobin texts seem melodramatic because they are made to look that way.
Part of me wondered if another reason Anti-Jacobin literature is more prevalent now is not just due a fact that more was written. Instead, I wonder if the fact that view ended up "winning" had something to do with it. As with most cases of history, the story seems to be written by whichever side "wins". Just a thought I was pondering.
As far as Jacobinism being a threat, I agree with those above that it was. I find myself skeptical that the Jacobins were as extreme as presented in the anti-Jacobin texts we read in class. If they were able to present the ideas in a more moderate and reasonable manner, I do see people accepting those ideals on some level. Especially after seeing this sort of idea in France, it could have caused some reason for alarm in the English government. Had it not been a true threat, why would so many have bothered to write anti-Jacobin texts?
Overall I agree with the posts above about the Jacobins being a real threat to English nationalism. I think a political group which disrupts any real or imagined sense of unity can pose a threat, regardless of whether or not that group is actually creating change. I also agree with what RS said about emotional arguments being more effective in politics, and I think it’s fairly easy to find contemporary political arguments which mirror the discourse in work such as Canning’s Anti-Jacobin poetry. It’s ironic that the Anti-Jacobins wrote off the Jacobins as undereducated and then produced texts which pandered to people’s emotional sensibilities. Canning writes that the Jacobins are “Traitors to God and Man avow’d” and yet doesn’t offer any concrete evidence that this serious accusation has any truth.
Post a Comment