And now... TMA 05

So, I'm quite pleased with this one! Surely a sign that it will be dreadful as the previous one, which I thought was awful turned out not too bad! Well, not as bad as I expected!

Have a read, we'll see how I got on in a couple of weeks! Now, Religion!

TMA 05
Art History and Philosophy

1 How does Rousseau argue that obedience to the general will increases our moral liberty? Briefly discuss one reasonable objection to the claim that obeying the general will would increase our freedom.

Rousseau published his social contract in 1762, opening with the words, 'man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains'. His philosophical argument is based around human freedom, human reasoning or morality and a unity, bringing men together as non-reasonable animals can never be.

To answer the first half of the question, we initially have to understand the terms general will and moral liberty, as used by Rousseau. Rousseau describes general will as; 'that which is in the best interests of the group taken as a whole rather than as a collection of individuals'. The general will is determined by the reasoning of the sovereign or population. It looks beyond individual desires and dictates that if humans follow the general will, rather than their base desires, they will be free. Humans may feel that they know what they want, their particular will, but if this differs from the general will then they are binding themselves in bestial chains.

To discover how Rousseau sees the term moral liberty we must look to his own reasoning. Rousseau believed that nature lacked both nobility and reason. He suggests that legitimacy can only be derived through following the will of the sovereign, an individuals will has no legitimacy. He believed in the liberty derived from following this general will, in a sense, a feeling of belonging and having brought about your own place in the world. This is true moral liberty, legitimate and reasoned.

We can therefore, start to see how Rousseau took a view which on the surface looks extraordinary. The idea that following the crowd makes us free! When deciding on the general will, man must use reason to look beyond his own needs and see the needs of the many. Only once this need has been satisfied will man ascend to nobility and take steps away from the animals. This looks to civility, intelligence and a lack of any limiting ambition and appetite.

One objection to this political philosophy is that the general will persecutes any suggestion of reasoned deviation. It accounts for an individual who uses the state for personal gain, forcing them to accept their freedom, but when an individual uses reason to develop an argument which differs from the general will they are forced to dismiss their differed opinion. The entire social contract is based on reasoning, looking to the good of the many, but it can only see one correct answer. It doesn't look to the future or accept that there can be more than one correct solution to a problem. In many ways this allows it to fall back into the world it is so desperate to claw its way out of, the natural world. It mirrors sheep walking together and herds packing for safety, not nobility.

2 What evidence can be put forward in support of the claim that David sought to give visual form to political ideas in The Lictors Returning to Brutus the Bodies of his Sons?

To answer this question we need to look at both the setting of the picture itself and the time in which David painted it. This gives us our first major piece of evidence that David could have been portraying political ideals in his work. The Brutus painting depicts a time in Roman history of great change. The forming of a great republic. Although David began his painting in 1788, before the beginning of the French Revolution, and it is based on much earlier sketches, it could be argued that David was adding suggestion to a build up of feeling and the beginnings of change in France which he was sensing around him at the time. Surely, it is no coincidence that David's Brutus and the time it was painted both share the same political backdrop. Periods of history when law and consensus replaced individual rule and autocracy.

Further evidence is portrayed in the content of the painting. The lictors carrying Brutus' sons are carrying fasces. Fasces are bundles of rods which were known to represent solidarity and fraternity, bywords of the revolution. They were commonly used symbols of the revolution and their presence in the painting is again, no coincidence. The painting is split into two halves. On the right, the grieving family, women, filled with emotion and feeling. On the left we see the bodies being carried by the lictors, very formally and without fuss. Again, this seems to suggest that the system, the rulers, were in charge of themselves whilst the nobility were falling apart. The family are surrounded by white sheets, framing them in their vivid colour whilst also promoting their failure whilst the lictors, or the state if you will, are subtle and almost faceless, but nevertheless, effective.

More evidence of the political effects of Davids' Brutus is in the evidence we get from the people who saw it at the time. In a letter to Joseph Vien in 1789, Cuvillier, of the Royal Fine Arts Office argues that the painting has the potential to 'inflame political passions' and he is worried that it should not be a part of an exhibition to be opened on the king's feast day. Hardly surprising if he felt the painting supported a republicanism which was building in France at the time. There is, however, no evidence that anybody who saw the painting was stirred to dash off and start chopping the heads off the ruling classes! In fact, the people who saw the painting, and had the intelligence to understand its contents were almost certainly those who might fear any portentous content.

David must have know the feelings his paintings could stir when he began Brutus and although there is plenty of evidence suggesting that he was 'giving visual form to political ideas', in reality, there is no hard evidence that David was, in fact, doing this. One could be cynical and suggest David was doing what entertainers have done throughout history in mirroring their times for personal gain. One could suggest that David, who had no particular political leanings before Brutus actually changed his views and Brutus was his first step towards a more politically active future. One things is certain however, Brutus is both an inflammatory and succinct observation of the time is was conceived.


3 What areas of shared concern can you identify between Rousseau's argument in The Social Contract and David's Brutus?

In comparing Rousseau and his philosophical thinking, to David and his imagery, we can firstly look to the effect both men had on the time they lived. Whilst they were both 'performed' to crowds and were held up as bastions of change and visionaries, they neither of them actually facilitated any of this change, simply forming a piece of a new mindset which was sweeping France at the time. Both men saw a need for change and used the resource they had to do what they could to promote this. While we can definitely see that Rousseau was a political animal, although he'd hate such a description, David's role is slightly more ambiguous, in as much as he can be seen as either an entertainer or social commentator, with possible political leanings.

Both The Social Contract and Brutus share a determination that the state works at its best without the autocracy. Brutus depicts the ruling class falling apart whilst The Social Contract gives power to the population and in both cases, this results in order from chaos and a faceless, but nonetheless, reasoned and noble calm. Freedom from tyranny has been achieved in both pieces of work, Rousseau in the power of the General Will and David in the rule of law dictated by the population.

Derek Matravers. (2005) Units 10 and 11, Rousseau and Democracy, Block 3 - History, Classicism and Revolution, Second Edition. pp. 91-154

Linda Walsh. (2005) Unit 12, Art History and Politics, David and Friedrich, Block 3 - History, Classicism and Revolution, Second Edition. pp. 156-200

The Open University. An Introduction to Humanities, Illustration Book. Colour Plate 41

Over Christmas...

Hiya,

Ok, so Christmas and new year were a little testing, and my OU work got a little forgotten about, along with this blog! I applied for, and got, an extension for TMA04 and then left it to the very last minute anyway and wrote it in just over an hour on the night it had to be in, a week late. I'm not proud! I know the whole idea behind this has now vanished in smoke! Work hard at it! My ass!

Anyway, my result, well, it wasn't too bad to be honest!


TUTOR'S COMMENTS AND ADVICE TO STUDENT: 66%

Dan,You are certainly heading in the right direction with your comments and you make some interesting observations about Roux's speech.

The source is indeed public (it was a speech given before the Convention), however, as it reveals opinions and views it is actually discursive and not a document of record. You are correct to suggest that the speech may contain bias, however, the main weakness which you neglect to mention is that it gives us the views and opinions of one radical faction in Paris in the summer of 1793. The accuracy of the events it describes is secondary.

Well done for mentioning the Constitutional Act and the Declaration as two things that would need elucidation. Capets and sovereign don't really need elaborating on as they are discussed in the notes at the bottom of the speech. The reference to Marseilles, which refers to the success of the Jacobin camp there, might also need explaining.

You provide an interesting, and overall relevant, synopsis of the contents of the speech, however, you never really differentiate between witting and unwitting testimony, therefore, it is difficult to conclude whether or not you fully understand each. Well done for mentioning Roux's accusation that the Convention is condoning hoarding. This wittingly reveals that Roux believes that those who do so are part of the counter revolution, the existence of which is revealed in the references to the Capets and emigres. Roux's suggestion that hostages be taken reveals the extreme measures that some believed were needed to deal with that counter revolution. Roux's emphasis on hoarding suggests that there is a subsistence crisis in Paris in the summer of 1793, which has a class dimension to it with the rich oppressing the poor. Reference to rights and sovereign people reveals the presence of a political culture in which men were demanding their rights, something that Roux unwittingly extends to the economic realm when he demands freedom from want and economic rights for all. The tone of the speech, which is critical and condescending, unwittingly reveals the distrust in which the enrages held the Convention. Roux also claims to speak on behalf of the people, which can be read as an attempt to bargain with the Convention. Discussion of some of the other points that are wittingly and unwittingly revealed, plus distinction between the two would have strengthened your essay, but in general you are heading in the right direction.

TMA04: History
Daniel Tarry

Imagine that you are writing a study of Paris during the Terror. In an essay of no more than 800 words consider the following three questions;

1. What kind of primary source is this and what strengths and weaknesses does it have as a source for your study?

2. Are there any particular words and phrases in the document that require elucidation or special comment before you can make use of it?

3. What can you learn from this source with respect to Paris during the Terror? You should distinguish, where appropriate, between witting and unwitting testimony.

The extract is taken from a speech given by Jacques Roux before the French Convention on 25th June 1793. As such, the type of primary source would be considered to be an unpublished document. It would, however, have been made in front of a large number of people and therefore it would not have been as difficult to find as letters home to the family or school report cards I can see the point you are trying to make here, but this isn’t really answering the question and reference to school report cards is anachronistic. . It is also a document of record, having been aired very publicly Yes, it is a public source, but it is not a document of record. As a speech that reveals opinions and views it is actually a discursive source. Block 3, p. 25.. This is a strength as we can trust the source.

One weakness is that we are not told if the speech was written down by one of these spectators or by Roux. If a spectator transcribed it then it is a discursive document. If Roux kept a written copy of the speech he gave then it is a document of record. A discursive document would not be the best source as there can be inaccuracies or bias. One of the weaknesses of this discursive source is that, yes, there may be bias and Roux could be open to claims of exaggeration in order to make his point. We can assume, as the speech was given to a crowd, that it did actually happen, however! A bit repetitive. You have already said this above.

As the speech was given in France in 1793 we can expect it to contain elements that would need clarifying today. The extract we are given has two notes attached for a start. Which means that you don’t really need to explain the terms that the notes provide definitions for. Whereas we, today, would see sovereign as a single supreme authority, Roux was referring to the people of France. This, in context, does still ring true as Roux saw the common population as the power or rulers of France, as one, enmasse.

Combine this paragraph with the one above; you are still discussing terms that require elucidation.
We are also told that Capet was the family name of the French Royal Family, something we would need to know for the speech to make complete sense to us. There are other 'French' phrases that we would need to look-up to ensure complete accuracy before we could use the document. These include 'sans-culottes and émigrés.

There are two separate acts which are referred to by Roux during the extract. 'The Constitutional Act' and the 'Declaration of the Rights of Man'. If we were to make proper use of this extract then we would need prior knowledge of these two acts,ü along with a clear background on the time Roux lived in, the world around him and the events he was referring to. Yes, but the latter is contextual information and isn’t really examples of words or phrases in the document that require elucidation.

From the extract you Try not to use ‘you’. Perhaps, ‘it can be determined…’ or ‘one can determine…’ can determine that Paris was confused, dangerous and in the midst of change. Although we know this much from other background reading, the clues are in this extract. Roux is speaking to the French Convention. He urges them to pass decrees, which shows us that they still had the power to govern Jacobins in control of Convention for the first time. and that Paris was not entirely anarchic. The Convention is urged to pass a decree outlawing speculation and hoarding, stopping the merchants oppressing the poor, bringing the people into the revolution and increasing its Vague reference. To what does ‘it’ refer? power.

Reference is made to the striking dead of those who 'dare propose a king' and the outlawing of counter revolutionaries, showing us that the people are beginning to be heard. Their power is beginning to come to the fore. Royalty, however, has not yet been chased out and this shows us that the Convention still has not bowed completely to the will of the revolution. They do not expel nobles, and in Roux’s opinion most importantly, they are allowing the merchants to continue their monopolistic stranglehold over commerce and food.ü which wittingly suggests that those who condone hoarding are part of the counter revolution.

We learn that the merchants still have control of Paris. They keep the 'sans-culottes' unfed, fuelling counter-revolution as the citizens starve and wonder whether this really is the way forward. The idea that France could revolutionise is hanging in the balance, regardless of the steps already taken, because the poor majority is not yet taking part, and Roux is pleading for the half measures to stop and the Law and the Constitution to be used to finally bring down all of the ruling classes. ü an interesting suggestion.


Arthur Marwick. (2005) Units 8 and 9, Introduction to History, Part 1 : Issues and Methods, Block 3 - History, Classicism and Revolution, Second Edition. pp. 1-88

http://www.edteck.com/dbq/more/types.htm#oral