« The counter-revolution will be the contrary of the revolution ». Explain and Discuss

Résumé du document

De Maistre's conservative monarchism and fervent criticism of the revolution reasons on a theocratic basis and on a historicist perspective; but he also admits the faults of absolutism and stresses how revolutionary violence is a punishment for the evil and corruption of Christian France, partly caused by the Enlightenment. His theory of sacrifice, therefore, explains the revolution as a purification, where the death of the innocent is useful to redeem the guilty world

Extraits

[...] In contradiction to radical royalists who advocated force, De Maistre argues that the counterrevolution should be reformist in principle rather than reactionary. Firstly because of practical reasons: “militarily, the émigrés are nothing and can do nothing”, but mostly because of the dangers of armed counterrevolution that would inevitably prolong the conflict and exacerbate the violent tensions between the two camps. Restoration and counterrevolution should be expressed by a general passive recognition and acceptance rather than by popular deliberation: “people will no more decree the monarchy's restoration than they decreed its destruction or the establishment of the revolutionary government.” While De Maistre doesn't believe in people's deliberation, the restoration can be seen as the only natural outcome of the revolution itself, understood as a sacrificial crisis independently of people's will. [...]

[...] For De Maistre, the ideological successes of the revolution are to a certain extent imputable to the ideological failure of the monarchy and its decline into the rule of force. Nevertheless, De Maistre is a counterrevolutionary who argues in favour of restoration against the evilness and vice of the revolution. His traditionalist argument centred on legitimacy and continuity opposes the ideas of the Enlightenment and those of individualist Protestants. His providential philosophy of history is, besides, fundamental in anticipating the restoration. In a famous maxim, he asserts that the counterrevolution will not be a contrary revolution but the contrary of revolution. [...]

[...] He argues that the excesses of the ancien regime required revolutionary violence as its punishment. Therefore, the revolution embodies an autodestructive process against the bad, when once great work accomplished, the instruments will become useless and will be, by their very existence, an anomaly, a scandal to the world. Therefore, etc., etc.” The revolutionary dynamic that would purify France is accordingly the result of divine work; the people carrying the revolution being only ‘simple instruments', which, by punishing the enemies of order, would only serve the project of restoration. [...]

[...] De Maistre expands into explaining how the counterrevolution will be a revolution in reverse, a return to normal, the rebirth of a new order that would mark the passage from violence to order, from sickness to health and from vice to virtue. The convalescence metaphor (p. 132) symbolizes the restoration, which would bring innumerable benefits to the French people: Revolution made you suffer because it was the work of every vice, and the vices are very justly man's executioners”, on the contrary, the Restoration, from producing the evils you fear for the future, will arrest those who devour you today. All your efforts will be positive; you will destroy only destruction”. [...]

[...] In that sense the revolution is a total rupture with the ancien regime and the restoration is more than ever a matter of convalescence. Patience is hence required, for the French revolution has permanently transformed the context and real of politics in France. Conclusion De Maistre spoke of the revolutionary mechanism as irrational and evil but his providentialism also provided him with a rational interpretation: it is a punishment which permits a ‘regeneration' of the ancien regime. Besides he is not strictly reactionary since he criticizes the absolutist tradition for its reliance on force alone. [...]