@phdthesis{NetchaevBakinski2014, author = {Netchaev-Bakinski, Alexandre}, title = {Les voies/voix radicales en Angleterre, 1789-1848}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-75472}, school = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, pages = {355}, year = {2014}, abstract = {What is a radical? Somebody who goes against mainstream opinions? An agitator who suggests transforming society at the risk of endangering its harmony? In the political context of the British Isles at the end of the eighteenth century, the word radical had a negative connotation. It referred to the Levellers and the English Civil War, it brought back a period of history which was felt as a traumatic experience. Its stigmas were still vivid in the mind of the political leaders of these times. The reign of Cromwell was certainly the main reason for the general aversion of any form of virulent contestation of the power, especially when it contained political claims. In the English political context, radicalism can be understood as the different campaigns for parliamentary reforms establishing universal suffrage. However, it became evident that not all those who were supporting such a reform originated from the same social class or shared the same ideals. As a matter of fact, the reformist associations and their leaders often disagreed with each other. Edward Royle and Hames Walvin claimed that radicalism could not be analyzed historically as a concept, because it was not a homogeneous movement, nor it had common leaders and a clear ideology. For them, radicalism was merely a loose concept, « a state of mind rather than a plan of action. » At the beginning of the nineteenth-century, the newspaper The Northern Star used the word radical in a positive way to designate a person or a group of people whose ideas were conform to those of the newspaper. However, an opponent of parliamentary reform will use the same word in a negative way, in this case the word radical will convey a notion of menace. From the very beginning, the term radical covered a large spectrum of ideas and conceptions. In fact, the plurality of what the word conveys is the main characteristic of what a radical is. As a consequence, because the radicals tended to differentiate themselves with their plurality and their differences rather than with common features, it seems impossible to define what radicalism (whose suffix in -ism implies that it designate a doctrine, an ideology) is. Nevertheless, today it is accepted by all historians. From the mid-twentieth century, we could say that it was taken from granted to consider radicalism as a movement that fitted with the democratic precepts (universal suffrage, freedom of speech) of our modern world. Let us first look at radicalism as a convenient way to designate the different popular movements appealing to universal suffrage during the time period 1792-1848. We could easily observe through the successions of men and associations, a long lasting radical state of mind: Cartwright, Horne Tooke, Thomas Hardy, Francis Burdett, William Cobbett, Henry Hunt, William Lovett, Bronterre O'Brien, Feargus O'Connor, The London Society for Constitutional information (SCI), The London Corresponding Society (LCS), The Hampden Clubs, The Chartists, etc. These organizations and people acknowledged having many things in common and being inspired by one another in carrying out their activities. These influences can be seen in the language and the political ideology that British historians name as "Constitutionalist", but also, in the political organization of extra-parliamentary societies. Most of the radicals were eager to redress injustices and, in practice, they were inspired by a plan of actions drawn on from the pamphlets of the True Whigs of the eighteenth-century. We contest the argument that the radicals lacked coherence and imagination or that they did not know how to put into practice their ambitions. In fact, their innovative forms of protest left a mark on history and found many successors in the twentieth century. Radicals' prevarications were the result of prohibitive legislation that regulated the life of associations and the refusal of the authorities to cooperate with them. As mentioned above, the term radical was greatly used and the contemporaries of the period starting from the French Revolution to Chartism never had to quarrel about the notions the word radical covered. However, this does not imply that all radicals were the same or that they belong to the same entity. Equally to Horne Tooke, the Reverend and ultra-Tory Stephens was considered as a radical, it went also with the shoemaker Thomas Hardy and the extravagant aristocrat Francis Burdett. Whether one belonged to the Aristocracy, the middle-class, the lower class or the Church, nothing could prevent him from being a radical. Surely, anybody could be a radical in its own way. Radicalism was wide enough to embrace everybody, from revolutionary reformers to paternalistic Tories. We were interested to clarify the meaning of the term radical because its inclusive nature was overlooked by historians. That's why the term radical figures in the original title of our dissertation Les voix/voies radicales (radical voices/ways to radicalism). In the French title, both words voix/voies are homonymous; the first one voix (voice) correspond to people, the second one voies (ways) refers to ideas. By this, we wanted to show that the word radical belongs to the sphere of ideas and common experience but also to the nature of human beings. Methodoloy The thesis stresses less on the question of class and its formation than on the circumstances that brought people to change their destiny and those of their fellows or to modernize the whole society. We challenged the work of E.P. Thompson, who in his famous book, The Making of the English Working Class, defined the radical movements in accordance with an idea of class. How a simple shoe-maker, Thomas Hardy, could become the center of attention during a trial where he was accused of being the mastermind of a modern revolution? What brought William Cobbett, an ultra-Tory, self-taught intellectual, to gradually espouse the cause of universal suffrage at a period where it was unpopular to do so? Why a whole population gathered to hear Henry Hunt, a gentleman farmer whose background did not destine him for becoming the champion of the people? It seemed that the easiest way to answer to these questions and to understand the nature of the popular movements consisted in studying the life of their leaders. We aimed at reconstructing the universe which surrounded the principal actors of the reform movements as if we were a privileged witness of theses times. This idea to associate the biographies of historical characters for a period of more than fifty years arouse when we realized that key events of the reform movements were echoing each other, such the trial of Thomas Hardy in 1794 and the massacre of Peterloo of 1819. The more we learned about the major events of radicalism and the life of their leaders, the more we were intrigued. Finally, one could ask himself if being a radical was not after all a question of character rather than one of class. The different popular movements in favour of a parliamentary reform were in fact far more inclusive and diversified from what historians traditionally let us to believe. For instance, once he manage to gather a sufficient number of members of the popular classes, Thomas Hardy projected to give the control of his association to an intellectual elite led by Horne Tooke. Moreover, supporters of the radical reforms followed leaders whose background was completely different as theirs. For example, O'Connor claimed royal descent from the ancient kings of Ireland. William Cobbett, owner of a popular newspaper was proud of his origins as a farmer. William Lovett, close to the liberals and a few members of parliament came from a very poor family of fishermen. We have thus put together the life of these five men, Thomas hardy, William Cobbett, Henry Hunt, William Lovett and Feargus O'Connor in order to compose a sort of a saga of the radicals. This association gives us a better idea of the characteristics of the different movements in which they participated, but also, throw light on the circumstances of their formation and their failures, on the particular atmosphere which prevailed at these times, on the men who influenced these epochs, and finally on the marks they had left. These men were at the heart of a whole network and in contact with other actors of peripheral movements. They gathered around themselves close and loyal fellows with whom they shared many struggles but also quarreled and had strong words. The original part of our approach is reflected in the choice to not consider studying the fluctuations of the radical movements in a linear fashion where the story follows a strict chronology. We decided to split up the main issue of the thesis through different topics. To do so, we simply have described the life of the people who inspired these movements. Each historical figure covers a chapter, and the general story follows a chronological progression. Sometimes we had to go back through time or discuss the same events in different chapters when the main protagonists lived in the same period of time. Radical movements were influenced by people of different backgrounds. What united them above all was their wish to obtain a normalization of the political world, to redress injustices and obtain parliamentary reform. We paid particular attention to the moments where the life of these men corresponded to an intense activity of the radical movement or to a transition of its ideas and organization. We were not so much interested in their feelings about secondary topics nor did we about their affective relations. Furthermore, we had little interest in their opinions on things which were not connected to our topic unless it helped us to have a better understanding of their personality. We have purposely reduced the description of our protagonists to their radical sphere. Of course we talked about their background and their intellectual development; people are prone to experience reversals of opinions, the case of Cobbett is the most striking one. The life of these personalities coincided with particular moments of the radical movement, such as the first popular political associations, the first open-air mass meetings, the first popular newspapers, etc. We wanted to emphasize the personalities of those who addressed speeches and who were present in the radical associations. One could argue that the inconvenience of focusing on a particular person presents a high risk of overlooking events and people who were not part of his world. However, it was essential to differ from an analysis or a chronicle which had prevailed in the studies of the radical movements, as we aimed at offering a point of view that completed the precedents works written on that topic. In order to do so, we have deliberately put the humane character of the radical movement at the center of our work and used the techniques of biography as a narrative thread. Conclusion The life of each historical figure that we have portrayed corresponded to a particular epoch of the radical movement. Comparing the speeches of the radical leaders over a long period of time, we noticed that the radical ideology evolved. The principles of the Rights of Men faded away and gave place to more concrete reasoning, such as the right to benefit from one's own labour. This transition is characterized by the Chartist period of Feargus O'Connor. This does not mean that collective memory and radical tradition ceased to play an important part. The popular classes were always appealed to Constitutional rhetoric and popular myths. Indeed, thanks to them they identified themselves and justified their claims to universal suffrage. We focused on the life of a few influent leaders of radicalism in order to understand its evolution and its nature. The description of their lives constituted our narrative thread and it enabled us to maintain consistency in our thesis. If the chapters are independent the one from the other, events and speeches are in correspondences. Sometimes we could believe that we were witnessing a repetition of facts and events as if history was repeating itself endlessly. However, like technical progress, the spirit of time, Zeitgeist, experiences changes and mutations. These features are fundamental elements to comprehend historical phenomena; the latter cannot be simplified to philosophical, sociological, or historical concept. History is a science which has this particularity that the physical reality of phenomena has a human dimension. As a consequence, it is essential not to lose touch with the human aspect of history when one pursues studies and intellectual activities on a historical phenomenon. We decided to take a route opposite to the one taken by many historians. We have first identified influential people from different epochs before entering into concepts analysis. Thanks to this compilation of radical leaders, a new and fresh look to the understanding of radicalism was possible. Of course, we were not the first one to have studied them, but we ordered them following a chronology, like Plutarch enjoyed juxtaposing Greeks and Romans historical figures. Thanks to this technique we wanted to highlight the features of the radical leaders' speeches, personalities and epochs, but also their differences. At last, we tried to draw the outlines and the heart of different radical movements in order to follow the ways that led to radicalism. We do not pretend to have offered an original and exclusive definition of radicalism, we mainly wanted to understand the nature of what defines somebody as a radical and explain the reasons why thousands of people decided to believe in this man. Moreover, we wanted to distance ourselves from the ideological debate of the Cold War which permeated also the interpretation of past events. Too often, the history of radicalism was either narrated with a form of revolutionary nostalgia or in order to praise the merits of liberalism. If the great mass meetings ends in the mid-nineteenth-century with the fall of Chartism, this practice spread out in the whole world in the twentieth-century. Incidentally, the Arab Spring of the beginning of the twenty-first-century demonstrated that a popular platform was the best way for the people to claim their rights and destabilize a political system which they found too authoritative. Through protest the people express an essential quality of revolt, which is an expression of emancipation from fear. From then on, a despotic regime loses this psychological terror which helped it to maintain itself into power. The balance of power between the government and its people would also take a new turn. The radicals won this psychological victory more than 150 years ago and yet universal suffrage was obtained only a century later. From the acceptance of the principles of liberties to their cultural practice, a long route has to be taken to change people's mind. It is a wearisome struggle for the most vulnerable people. In the light of western history, fundamental liberties must be constantly defended. Paradoxically, revolt is an essential and constitutive element of the maintenance of democracy.}, language = {fr} }