François Furet stands as a towering figure in twentieth-century historical thought, particularly renowned for his transformative work on the French Revolution. Born in Paris in 1927 and passing away in 1997, Furet was not a painter or an artist in the traditional sense, but rather a historian whose intellectual canvas was the tumultuous landscape of modern French and European history. His career was marked by a courageous willingness to challenge dominant narratives, particularly the Marxist interpretations that held sway for much of the mid-twentieth century. His legacy lies in reshaping our understanding of revolutionary dynamics, the power of political ideas, and the complex trajectory of ideologies like communism.
Early Life and Intellectual Awakening
François Furet's journey into the world of history was shaped by his experiences in mid-century France. Born into a Parisian banking family, his early academic path led him through literature and then law at the University of Paris. However, the post-war intellectual climate, charged with political fervor, deeply influenced him. Like many young intellectuals of his generation grappling with the legacy of war and the promise of radical change, Furet was drawn to the French Communist Party (PCF) in the late 1940s.
His time within the PCF, however, was relatively brief. The rigid dogmatism and intellectual constraints of the party, coupled with unfolding international events like the Soviet suppression of the Hungarian Uprising in 1956, led Furet to break decisively with communism. This departure was not merely a political act but a profound intellectual reorientation. It instilled in him a deep skepticism towards totalizing ideologies and deterministic historical explanations, particularly those rooted in Marxist class struggle, which would become a central theme in his later work. This early engagement and subsequent disillusionment provided a critical lens through which he would later analyze both the French Revolution and the allure of communism itself.
Challenging the Revolutionary Orthodoxy
Furet's most significant impact came through his revisionist interpretation of the French Revolution. For decades, the study of the Revolution, particularly at the Sorbonne, was dominated by a Marxist, or Jacobin-Marxist, framework championed by historians like Albert Mathiez, Georges Lefebvre, and later, Albert Soboul. This school viewed the Revolution primarily as a bourgeois uprising against feudalism, driven by class conflict and economic forces, culminating necessarily in the Jacobin Republic and the Terror as steps towards a more egalitarian society.
Furet, initially in collaboration with Denis Richet in their two-volume La Révolution Française (1965-66), began to dismantle this orthodoxy. They argued against the idea of a single, unified bourgeois revolution, suggesting instead a more complex process involving distinct revolutionary phases. Crucially, they introduced the concept of the dérapage (skidding off course), suggesting that the Revolution, initially driven by Enlightenment ideals of liberty shared across elite groups (nobility and bourgeoisie), tragically deviated into the violence and extremism of the Terror in 1793-94. This was seen not as an inevitable outcome of class struggle but as a contingent political development.
This interpretation sparked fierce debate. Marxist historians accused Furet and Richet of downplaying the social dimensions of the Revolution and rehabilitating a more conservative, liberal view. Albert Soboul, in particular, engaged in heated polemics with Furet, defending the traditional narrative of a necessary, class-driven progression. The controversy highlighted a fundamental divide in historical methodology: Furet prioritized political culture, language, and ideology, while his opponents emphasized socio-economic structures.
Interpreting the Revolution: Penser la Révolution française
Furet's seminal work, Penser la Révolution française (1978), translated as Interpreting the French Revolution, solidified his position as the leading revisionist historian. This influential book is divided into two parts. The first is a powerful critique of what Furet termed the "revolutionary catechism"—the commemorative, quasi-religious historiography inherited from the Third Republic and perpetuated by the Marxist school. He argued that historians had become too invested in celebrating or condemning the Revolution, rather than analyzing it coolly as a historical problem. He targeted the conflation of historical analysis with political commemoration.
The second part offers Furet's own conceptual framework. He moved away from a purely chronological narrative to explore the Revolution's inner dynamics, focusing on the power of political discourse and ideology. He argued that the vacuum of power created in 1789 was filled by a new form of democratic politics centered on the idea of popular sovereignty, articulated through revolutionary language. This language, however, became increasingly radical and exclusionary, driving the dynamic towards the Terror. Furet emphasized the Revolution's role in inventing modern democratic culture but also highlighted its inherent instability and potential for totalitarianism, seeing the Terror not as an unfortunate byproduct but as intrinsically linked to the revolutionary ideology itself. He drew intellectual inspiration from earlier thinkers like Alexis de Tocqueville, who had analyzed the continuities between the Old Regime and the Revolution, and Augustin Cochin, who studied the role of Jacobin societies in shaping revolutionary ideology.
Major Works and Expanding Scope
Beyond his groundbreaking work on the Revolution itself, Furet authored and co-authored several other significant books that broadened his historical inquiries.
Revolutionary France, 1770-1880 (1988, English translation 1992): This work extended his analysis beyond the typical 1789-1799 timeframe, arguing that the revolutionary process and the struggle to establish a stable political order continued long into the 19th century, only truly concluding with the consolidation of the Third Republic. It emphasized the long durée of political conflict and ideological uncertainty in France.
The Critical Dictionary of the French Revolution (1989, co-edited with Mona Ozouf): Published for the bicentennial of the Revolution, this massive volume eschewed a traditional encyclopedic format. Instead, it offered thematic essays grouped under categories like Events, Actors, Institutions, Ideas, and Historians. It brought together leading scholars (many associated with the revisionist school, such as Keith Baker, Lynn Hunt, and Bronisław Baczko) to provide nuanced analyses, reflecting Furet's emphasis on conceptual understanding over simple narrative.
The Passing of an Illusion: The Idea of Communism in the Twentieth Century (1995, English translation 1999): This major work represented a return to the ideological questions that had marked his early life. Furet analyzed the powerful appeal of the communist idea throughout the 20th century, treating it not just as a political movement but as a secular religion that captivated intellectuals and masses alike. He explored its roots in the French Revolution's universalist aspirations and its complex relationship with fascism, arguing that both were responses to the crises of liberal democracy. The book was both a historical analysis and a reflection on the end of the communist utopia after the fall of the Berlin Wall.
The Historian's Craft: Style and Method
Furet's approach to history was deeply analytical and conceptually driven. He belonged to a generation influenced by the Annales School, known for its focus on long-term structures and social history (associated with figures like Fernand Braudel and Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie). Furet served as president of the prestigious École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales (EHESS), a key center for Annales-inspired research, from 1977 to 1985.
However, Furet carved his own path, moving away from the strong socio-economic determinism sometimes found in the Annales tradition. He championed a return to political history, but infused with new methods focusing on intellectual history, political culture, semantics, and the power of ideas and discourse in shaping events. His writing style reflected this intellectual rigor; it was often elegant and powerful, but could also be dense and abstract, demanding close engagement from the reader. He was less concerned with recounting events minute-by-minute and more interested in uncovering the underlying logic, assumptions, and conceptual shifts that drove historical change. His work demonstrated a mastery of synthesizing complex ideas and engaging with political philosophy alongside historical narrative.
Controversies and Intellectual Debates
Furet's revisionism was inherently controversial and placed him at the center of intense intellectual debates in France and beyond. His critique of the Marxist interpretation of the Revolution was seen by many on the left as an attack on the Revolution's progressive legacy and an attempt to minimize the importance of social justice and popular struggle. Historians like Claude Mazauric fiercely contested Furet's ideas, defending the centrality of class conflict and the bourgeois nature of the Revolution. The bicentennial celebrations in 1989 became a major battleground for these competing interpretations, with Furet's views gaining significant public prominence.
Another significant controversy arose from his intellectual engagement with the German historian Ernst Nolte in the mid-1980s, published as the book Fascism and Communism (1998, English translation 2001). Nolte had sparked the Historikerstreit (historians' dispute) in Germany by suggesting parallels between Nazi and Soviet crimes, arguing that Nazi atrocities were in part a reaction to the perceived threat of Bolshevism. While Furet did not fully endorse Nolte's more controversial claims (like the idea of the Gulag as a "logical and factual precedent" for Auschwitz), their dialogue explored the comparative nature of 20th-century totalitarianisms. Furet insisted on the distinctiveness of the Holocaust but argued for the necessity of comparing Nazism and Communism as related phenomena born from the crisis of European liberalism. This willingness to compare the two regimes, particularly in The Passing of an Illusion, drew criticism from some who felt it risked relativizing Nazi crimes.
Later Years and Enduring Legacy
In his later career, Furet divided his time between France and the United States, notably holding a professorship at the University of Chicago's Committee on Social Thought. This transatlantic presence helped disseminate his ideas within the Anglophone academic world, where revisionist interpretations of the French Revolution, championed by historians like Keith Baker and Lynn Hunt, were also gaining ground. His work resonated with the intellectual climate following the collapse of communism, offering powerful tools for analyzing the trajectory of modern political ideologies.
In 1997, François Furet was elected to the prestigious Académie française, a testament to his stature as one of France's leading intellectuals. His acceptance speech, delivered shortly before his death, was a profound reflection on the historian's role in navigating the passions and memories surrounding the French Revolution. Tragically, he died suddenly later that year following a tennis match, cutting short a remarkably productive intellectual life.
François Furet's legacy is immense. He fundamentally shifted the paradigm for understanding the French Revolution, moving the focus from socio-economic determinism towards political culture, ideology, and language. His work revitalized political history and demonstrated the power of ideas in shaping historical events. While his interpretations continue to be debated, his challenge to the old orthodoxies forced a deeper and more complex engagement with the Revolution's meaning and consequences. Historians working on the Revolution today, even those who disagree with him, must grapple with the questions Furet raised. Figures like Timothy Tackett, who emphasized the role of revolutionary psychology and fear, or Roger Chartier, exploring cultural origins, built upon or reacted against the landscape Furet had reshaped. His analyses of communism and totalitarianism in The Passing of an Illusion also remain vital contributions to understanding the ideological dramas of the 20th century. He remains a key figure for anyone seeking to comprehend the origins and complexities of modern democracy and its challenges.
