The storming of the Bastille prison was a microcosm for the desire for a republic free from oppressive rule among the French people. Yet, a few years after the proclamation of the republic, France embraced a new emperor. However, in the case of Napoleon Bonaparte, it is unfair to assume hypocrisy. It was he who, based on the ideals of “liberty, equality and fraternity” derived during the early stages of the revolution, promoted French nationalism. Here the notion of freedom and nation seem to be synonymous. However, this is still problematic since the ultimate goal of a revolution is transformation, integration and nationalism. These concepts, which seem to go hand in hand, fundamentally undermine each other later, during the French Revolution. Furthermore, while on the one hand the revolutionary armies wanted the French people to be liberated from the oppressive rule of despots; this is because those who were not part of the Third Estate had no say in matters concerning politics. As a result, political discussion became significantly prevalent during the revolution. The aim of the revolution here was to turn France into a republic. Here, the consistent argument is that freedom motivated the revolution and the formation of a nation – or at least the concept of nationalism – was an inevitable byproduct that occurred. However, the ambiguities and contradictions that I myself have experienced in this investigation suggest that, depending on their current condition, the French Revolution was about many different things for many different people. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The multiplex nature of the French Revolution means that ambiguities are present when investigating the motivations behind that revolution. The multiverbal themes that have prevailed since the revolution appear to be, at times, counterintuitive and/or obscure. In fact, it was those who stormed the Bastille on 14 July 1789 - a decisive move to counter the despotism and oppressive regime of the Old Regime - who paraded the severed heads of officials through the streets. While some scholars argue that violence/brutality was necessary during the Revolution, revisionist historians would go on to argue that violence and revolution were synonymous. However, it is reasonable to say that the themes of violence and freedom were both symbolic of the Revolution. However, a problematic factor for the freedom issue requires the proclamation of a republic only before the acceptance of an emperor a few years later. During the Revolution, freedom was established relatively earlier in the revolutionary period with the storming of the Bastille. prison is a blatant act to overthrow the Old Regime. Liberty, in the case of the French Revolution, recognized that all citizens were equal with common rights and interests. Even during the Terror, this premise remained quite transparent and consistent throughout the Revolution. However, when it came to nationalism, this was not the case. The notions of nationalism and revolution are generally intertwined as they share origins and often lead to the emergence of nation-states. However, this is problematic – in the case of the French Revolution – as the aim of a revolution is transformation, nationalism and integration (Kumar p. 2). Here, the French people (the bourgeoisie and the common people) wanted a change from the oppressive system of the Old Regime. During the early stages of the Revolution period (1790), the notions of nationalism, patriotism and cosmopolitanism, inspired by theEnlightenment, they were aligned. However, in 1791, these ideals came into conflict when Anarcharsis Cloots redefined the defined meaning of patriotism and citizenship to that of a universal Republic and cosmopolitanism making French expansion no longer a priority. Being in line with Robespierre, Cloots' school of thought gained popularity (p. 591-2). Here the principles of nationalism begin to deviate and undermine the interests of the Revolution. In response to this, the revolutionary armies ironically appealed to a sense of xenophobic nationalism – among the French people – by endorsing counter-nationalism and allowing kings and aristocracy to develop state patriotism. From this moment on, the doctrine of the revolution became that of the sovereignty and autonomy of the nation. Another plausible interpretation of the Revolution made by contemporary historians, in the 1960s and 1970s, concludes that the Revolution originated from conflict between social classes over property then the current oppressive feudal system. This conflict was between the nascent capitalist bourgeoisie and the noble/Third Estate class, whose interests were protected by the feudal and agrarian system of the Old Regime. Here, the bourgeois class sought the freedom of free trade and representative democracy to satisfy their capitalist interests (p. 1295). However, there is empirical evidence present in this text – and others – that makes this narrative redundant and/or contradictory. On the one hand, revisionist historians attack this line of approach by arguing that there were members of the Third Estate who were capitalists - in a general sense - but invested their money in a non-capitalist way ("land, offices and rents") (p. 1295). Furthermore, Heuer introduces another possible perspective, derived from revisionist theories, which implies that, before the revolution, the bourgeoisie and the nobility were in fact in competition instead of being "a single landowning elite with shared interests", thus making it redundant the notion of an oppressive system and the conflict over free trade for the bourgeoisie. Similarly, regarding the aforementioned point, Lewis (1993: 119) argues that rather than being a class issue, the Revolution was instead a conflict between the capitalist bourgeoisie and the nobility. Lewis (1993: 119) argues that before the Revolution, France had already experienced an industrial “take-off” as a result of the old regime. However, it was the post-feudal structure and mentality of aristocratic society that hindered modern forms of capitalist production. It is plausible that the Revolution was exacerbated by the fact that the already existing capitalist growth was led by the nobility rather than the bourgeoisie. So, instead of there being a class war, the conflict resulting from this capitalist growth was actually between the capitalist “elite” bourgeoisie and the feudal nobility (Lewis: 1993: 119-21). So instead of being about individual freedom – for the bourgeoisie – the Revolution was about control over the state. However, this premise does not appear to acknowledge that there were inequalities present within society prior to the Revolution. The desire for freedom before/during the Revolution called for equal representation between the French people (commoners and bourgeoisie) and what was previously known as the ruling class (nobility and Third Estate). This notion of equality was to be applied both politically and generally, while the proclamation of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen was a good indicator of the motivation for the Revolution. On November 14, 1793, a resolution was passed prohibiting the use of any language that referred to others as less superior to oneself, which was fundamental to thedirection of the Revolution, for example the term 'vous' had to be replaced by 'tu' and/or 'toi'. The petition for the National Convention to abolish the “vous” in 1794 was a microcosm for the desire for less social secrecy and discrimination and for more open familiarity, fraternity, and equality (p. 22). These ideals placed a strong emphasis on the transformation of social relations through which individuals and certain classes were to be liberated from the oppressive social norms causally directed by the Old Regime. From this, it is reasonable to conclude that the symbolic trinity of the Revolution (liberty, equality, and fraternity) was synonymous during the Revolution. However, that being said, some events that occurred as a result of the Revolution - such as the Terror - were highly questionable in terms of morality and usefulness. Before proceeding, it is worth noting that there are apparent ambiguities and contradictions when investigating this aspect of the Revolution. The event in question here is the Terror which occurred later in the revolutionary period around the year 1794 (p. 25). We can see that the initial interests of the Revolution seemed to be about the class in which the rising bourgeois class overthrew the aristocrats who thrived under the Old Regime. However, the motivations behind the violence inflicted during the Terror appeared to address all forms of inequality and counterrevolution. Ironically, it was the Committee of Public Safety and the Revolutionary Tribunal that orchestrated the official Terror that cost approximately 17,000 lives, of which 85% of those executed were ordinary citizens. At this point, an "aristocrat" was anyone who was considered an enemy of the state. (page 25-6). Here, the narrative of the Revolution seems to have transgressed in a way that contradicts its initial interests. The Terror reflects a totalitarian state mentality in opposition to the republic desired and for which the revolutionaries fought. Darnton (19989: 28), argues that this happened because people cannot live long in a state of “epistemological euphoria” -created after the siege of the Bastille-. At this point in the Revolution, the people seem to have taken justice into their own hands and are led by blood. It is reasonable to argue that the violence inflicted was a necessary evil to ensure the destruction of the Old Regime (p. 27). However, having said this, it is important to recognize the fact that, at this point, the Revolution may have lost direction and the violence inflicted was the result of blind populism. The arguments put forward seem by far to indicate that the Revolution was about freedom. -in the most general and broadest sense- for everyone. And while this was the case, it was only the bourgeois class that acquired any immediate political and individual freedom from the Revolution. It is also reasonable to argue that the bourgeoisie was the only class to benefit from the Revolution. Almost immediately after the siege of the Bastille, members of the Third Estate were unjustly and brutally persecuted by ordinary people as part of a public protest against the soaring prices of bread due to the political instabilities soon after the collapse of the Old Regime ( Darnton: 25 ). Furthermore, patterns of work, the position of the poor, and social injustices remained unchanged (McPhee: 182). For the sake of their survival, the poor continued to live and work the same way they had before the Revolution (McPhee: 182). It seems that both the aristocracy and the poor were the most negatively affected by the revolution, despite earning the least. However, it is worth noting that these immediate effects of the Revolution, as negative as they may seem, paved the way for a new social landscape that is still effective to this day (Darnton: 28). Here.