Thread by @prof_gabriele

so bear with me as I work something out. a thought about how best to understand the modern GOP via the French Revolution and the Terror (through the historian Francois Furet and the linguistic turn). a thread, I think. #twitterstorians 1/

so for those unfamiliar, Furet's INTERPRETING THE FRENCH REVOLUTION was published in French in 1978, translated into English in 1981. #twitterstorians 2/

admin.cambridge.org/academic/subje…

it's one of the foundational texts in the so-called "linguistic turn" in the discipline of history.

(and the "linguistic turn," very simplified, is the idea that we should texts/ language constructs realities for both us as historians & our subjects)

#twitterstorians 3/

ok, so Furet basically argued (and you should all read the book) that the Terror during the French Revolution came about because of discourse/ language. #twitterstorians 4/
historytoday.com/marisa-linton/…

VERY simply, the Republicans even in rejecting the monarchy adopted its mode of discourse because in part that was all that was (intellectually) available. but this created some real problems. #twitterstorians 5/

one major problem was that the king "embodied" the state. by 1789, the idea was that what the king said was good was good for the state; what was bad for him was bad for all, etc. ok but... #twitterstorians 6/

that implied that his utterances - the discourse - embodied the will of the state/ populace. if you disagreed with the king, you were a threat to the state. that works fine for absolute monarchy but creates PROBLEMS for republican governance. #twitterstorians 7/

because, of course, republics and democracies work on debate, people disagreeing then voting then deciding a policy then changing their mind, etc. #twitterstorians 8/

but with external threats to the new French Republic, the Estates-General came slowly to take on the role of the monarchy in the discourse. its pronouncements represented - embodied - the will of the people. #twitterstorians 9/

that meant to disagree with policy was to be a threat to the state, to the whole of France. then by 1793 that narrowed to the Committee of Public Safety, even more specifically to Robespierre. #twitterstorians 10/

he vocalized the public will and embodied the public good. all who disagreed were therefore existential threats to France as a whole --> needed to be eliminated --> the Terror. #twitterstorians 11/

this was only stopped when the ideology of this discourse swept up Robespierre himself and he was killed by the forces he helped unleash/ embody. #twitterstorians 12/

my apologies to all French Revolution historians for that crappy summary... #twitterstorians 13/

ok, so how does this relate to now. well think about the buzzwords of the contemporary American right/ GOP - particularly "liberty" & "freedom" 14/

(for example) home.isi.org/pillars-modern… )

but what puzzles most observers is that in advocating "religious liberty" you actually diminish the liberty of others (for example LGBTQ+ couples from buying cakes...) 15/

or in talking about "freedom of speech" you're actually using the levers of power to squelch dissent. (I won't link to anything here) 16/

what's going on here is that the modern GOP thinks they embody the discourse and hence the will of the populace. "freedom of speech" in other words means the right for ME to say whatever I want. 17/

and if you disagree with me, you become an existential threat not only to me but to the American experiment, to democracy itself because the right are the "true Americans." 18/

this position is obviously, objectively false but it's not how they've constructed their world from language/ discourse. 19/

but it still has huge implications. it means there's really no middle ground. you either accept that they're right and no dissent can be brooked or you take the other side that dissent/ argument is part of the democratic process and... 20/

that means sometimes voices won't be heard - not because it's squelching rights but because those voices are terrible.

in other words, the right's position on religious liberty and freedom of speech is anti-democratic. it's monarchical. 21/

also, in other words, the arguments on the right in support of "liberty" & "free speech" are coming from a place of bad faith. they don't actually support those for others, just for themselves - those who directly agree with them. 22/

that's fine. they can of course do that. but stop f-ing buying their claim that they supporting democracy by doing it. and there's a bit of historiography to help you understand why. 23/

and now I'm tired and going to get drunk. goodnight #twitterstorians 24/24