François Furet | |
|---|---|
| Born | (1927-03-27)27 March 1927 Paris, France |
| Died | 12 July 1997(1997-07-12) (aged 70) Figeac, France |
| Known for | Historian of theFrench Revolution |
| Academic background | |
| Alma mater | University of Paris |
François Furet (French:[fʁɑ̃swafyʁɛ]; 27 March 1927 – 12 July 1997) was a French historian and president of theSaint-Simon Foundation, best known for his books on theFrench Revolution. From 1985 to 1997, Furet was a professor of French history at theUniversity of Chicago.
Furet was elected to theAcadémie française in March 1997, just three months before he died in July.
Born in Paris on 27 March 1927 into a wealthy family, Furet was a bright student who graduated from the Sorbonne with the highest honors and soon decided on a life of research, teaching and writing.[1] He received his education at theLycée Janson de Sailly and at the faculty of art and law of Paris. In 1949, Furet entered theFrench Communist Party, but he left the party in 1956 following theSoviet invasion of Hungary.[2] After beginning his studies at the University of Letters and Law in his native Paris, Furet was forced to leave university in 1950 due to a case oftuberculosis. After recovering, he sat for theagrégation and passed the highly competitive exams with a focus in History in 1954. After a stint teaching in high schools, he began work on theFrench Revolution at the National Center of Scientific Research (CNRS) in France, supporting himself with a journalist job at theFrance Observateur between 1956 and 1964 andNouvel Observateur between 1964 and 1966. In 1966, Furet began work at theÉcole des hautes études en sciences sociales (EHESS) in Paris, where he would later be president (from 1977 to 1985).[3] Furet served as Director of Studies at the EHESS in Paris and as a professor in the Committee on Social Thought at theUniversity of Chicago. In March 1997, he was elected to theAcadémie française. He died in July 1997 in aToulouse hospital while being treated for head injuries he incurred in an accident on a tennis court. He was survived by his wife Deborah, daughter Charlotte and son Antoine from a previous marriage toJacqueline Nora.[4] There is now a François Furet school in the suburbs of Paris as well as a François Furet prize given out every year.
Furet's major interest was the French Revolution. Furet's early work was a social history of the 18th centurybourgeoisie, but after 1961 his focus shifted to the Revolution. While initially aMarxist and supporter of theAnnales School, he later separated himself from the Annales and undertook a critical re-evaluation of the way the French Revolution is interpreted by Marxist historians. He became the leader of the revisionist school of historians who challenged the Marxist account of the French Revolution as a form ofclass struggle. As other French historians of his generation likeJacques Godechot orEmmanuel Le Roy Ladurie, Furet was open to ideas of English language historians, especiallyAlfred Cobban. Likewise, Furet frequently lectured at American universities and from 1985 onwards taught at theUniversity of Chicago. In his first work on the Revolution, 1966'sLa Révolution, Furet argued that the early years of the Revolution had a benign character, but after 1792 the Revolution had skidded off into the blood lust and cruelty of theReign of Terror. The cause of the Revolution going off course was the outbreak of war in 1792 which Furet controversially argued was intrinsic to the Revolution itself, rather than being an unrelated event as most French historians had argued until then.
The other major theme of Furet's writings was its focus on the political history of the Revolution and its relative lack of interest in the Revolution's social and economic history. Other than a study ofLire et écrire (1977), a study co-edited with Jacques Ozouf concerning the growth of literacy in 18th century France, Furet's writings on the Revolution tended to focus on its historiography. In a 1970 article inAnnales, Furet attacked "the revolutionary catechism" of Marxist historians. Furet was especially critical of the "Marxist line" ofAlbert Soboul which Furet maintained was actually moreJacobin than Marxist. Furet argued thatKarl Marx was not especially interested in the Revolution and that most of the views credited to him were really the recycling of Jacobinism.[3]
Furet consideredBolshevism andfascismtotalitarian twins in terms of violence and repression.[5]
From 1995 until his death on 12 July 1997 inFigeac, Furet's views abouttotalitarianism led to a debate via a series of letters with the German philosopherErnst Nolte. The debate had been started by a footnote in Furet'sLe passé d'une illusion criticising Nolte's views over the relationship between Bolshevism and fascism, leading Nolte to write a letter of protest. Furet defended his view about totalitarian twins sharing the same origins while Nolte argued that fascism was a response to Bolshevism.
The Parisian newspaperLe Figaro called him "a revolutionary of the Revolution". According to the newspaper, "One could even say that there is a Furetian school (of the Revolution)," with a "galaxy" of professors and writers, influenced by Furet, living in France, the United States and the United Kingdom.[6]
Furet was a member of both theAmerican Academy of Arts and Sciences and theAmerican Philosophical Society.[7][8]
Furet was the leading figure in the rejection of the classic or Marxist interpretation. Desan (2000) concluded he "seemed to emerge the victor from the bicentennial, both in the media and in historiographic debates".[9]
Furet, an ex-French Communist Party member, published his classic[citation needed]La Révolution Française in 1965–1966. It marked his transition from revolutionaryleft-wing politics tomoderatecentre-left position and reflected his ties to the social-science-orientedAnnales School.[10]
Furet then re-examined the Revolution from the perspective of 20th-century totalitarianism as exemplified byAdolf Hitler andJoseph Stalin. HisPenser la Révolution Française (1978), translated asInterpreting the French Revolution (1981), was a breakthrough book that led many intellectuals to reevaluate Bolshevism and the Revolution as inherently totalitarian and anti-democratic.[11] Looking at modern French communism, he stressed the close resemblance between the 1960s and 1790s, with both favoring the inflexible and rote ideological discourse in party cells where decisions were made unanimously in a manipulated direct democracy. Furet further suggested that popularity of thefar left to many French intellectuals was itself a result of their commitment to the ideals of the Revolution. Furet set about to imagine the Revolution less as the result of social and class conflict and more a conflict over the meaning and application of egalitarian and democratic ideas. He sawRevolutionary France as located ideologically between two revolutions, namely the first egalitarian one that began in 1789 and the second theauthoritarian coup that brought aboutNapoleon's empire in 1799. The egalitarian origins of the Revolution were not undone by the Empire and were resurrected in the July Revolution of1830, the1848 Revolution and theCommune of Paris in 1871.[12]
Working much of the year at the University of Chicago after 1979, Furet also rejected the Annales School with its emphasis on very long-term structural factors and emphasized intellectual history. Influenced byAlexis de Tocqueville andAugustin Cochin, Furet argues that Frenchmen must stop seeing the Revolution as the key to all aspects of modern French history.[13] His works includeInterpreting the French Revolution (1981), a historiographical overview of what has preceded him andA Critical Dictionary of the French Revolution (1989).[14][15]
Because of his influence in history and historiography, Furet was granted some of the field's most prestigious awards,[citation needed] among them:
Furet's concerns were not only historical, but historiographical as well. He attempted particularly to address distinctions between history asgrand narrative and history as a set of problems that must be dealt with in a purely chronological manner.
