Insurgent Identities: Class, Community, and Protest in Paris from 1848 to the Commune

by Roger V. Gould

In this important contribution both to the study of social protest and to French social history, Roger Gould breaks with previous accounts that portray the Paris Commune of 1871 as a continuation of the class struggles of the 1848 Revolution. Focusing on the collective identities framing conflict during these two upheavals and in the intervening period, Gould reveals that while class played a pivotal role in 1848, it was neighborhood solidarity that was the decisive organizing force in 1871.

The difference was due to Baron Haussmann's massive urban renovation projects between 1852 and 1868, which dispersed workers from Paris's center to newly annexed districts on the outskirts of the city. In these areas, residence rather than occupation structured social relations. Drawing on evidence from trail documents, marriage records, reports of police spies, and the popular press, Gould demonstrates that this fundamental rearrangement in the patterns of social life made possible a neighborhood insurgent movement; whereas the insurgents of 1848 fought and died in defense of their status as workers, those in 1871 did so as members of a besieged urban community.

A valuable resource for historians and scholars of social movements, this work shows that collective identities vary with political circumstances but are nevertheless constrained by social networks. Gould extends this argument to make sense of other protest movements and to offer predictions about the dimensions of future social conflict.

Genres: History, Sociology, France, Political Science, Politics

262 pages, Paperback

First published December 1, 1995

Reviews

[Lori · Rating 5 out of 5]

Absolutely brilliant! A comparative analysis between the driving force behind two urban-centered revolutionary movements: 1848 Paris, and the 1871 Paris Commune. This work almost unequivocally demonstrates that while the former was distinctly a working class movement, the latter was more of a neighborhood solidarity one.

The author goes about illustrating this difference by comparing discursive differences leading up-to and during the events, looking at the arrest patterns and correlating them with the class-composition (or lack thereof), and other reasonable inferences.

By no means is the comparative analysis of this book the main contribution, but it is well worth the read for this alone. The actual use of this analysis was as mere justification for a theoretical framework developed here which seeks to analyze mass movements from the lens of the "participation identities" of individuals, and how they react when having multiple conflicting identities.

These insights are absolutely indispensable to anyone trying to understand revolutionary movements.

[Agon Maliqi · Rating 5 out of 5]

I wrote a review of this book for a class on Collective Action and Social Movements, so I thought I'd post it here for anyone who might be interested.

Insurgent Identities: Class, Community, and Protest in Paris from 1848 to the Commune

Roger V. Gould's book introduces a theoretical framework which stresses the critical role of social networks and institutions as mobilizing forces for collective action. Gould attempts to illustrate the validity of his theoretical approach by providing an analytical and comparative overview of two urban uprisings in Paris (in 1848 and 1871). In addition, he suggests that his theoretical argument “either makes sense of or makes predictions about other empirical settings” (Gould, 1995, pg, 202) – indicating Gould's intent to place social networks at the center of broader theoretical explanations of collective action and social movements. While most of the book is spent detailing the complex circumstances of the two uprisings and demonstrating their compatibility with the theoretical framework, the latter is clearly outlined in the first and last chapters.

At a general level, Gould approaches the issue of collective action from the perspective of the dynamics which frame conflicts and thus also the behavior of individuals. Namely, his focus is on the processes (“discursive behavior”, “patterns of mobilization”) through which citizens develop what he calls their “participation identities” - namely, “the social identification with respect to which an individual responds in a given instance of social protest to specific normative and institutional appeal.”( Gould, 1995, pg.13). Gould's starting point is the assertion that any mobilizing ideology has a conceptual framework of the world which does two main things: (a) provides a structure of social relations which explains grievances; and (b) clusters individuals in collective identities based on their similar positions within this social structure. (Gould, 1995, pg.16) Therefore, in order to understand social movements we must know what makes individuals understand themselves in a certain way within a certain situation and, most importantly, why and how this self-understanding makes them join others in collective action.

In this sense, Gould's analytical standpoint is largely culturalist. In the comparative analysis of the two Paris uprising, he spends a lot of time arguing against the structuralist, deterministic and normative Marxist narrative which views the two protests as mere episodes of a continuous process of class awareness and revolutionary mobilization. While the latter approach would view other any non-class self-understandings of insurgents as instances of “false consciousness”, Gould views identity as something that is continuously reconstructed in response to circumstances and does not follow any predetermined path. To this end, the central argument resulting from Gould's analysis of the two insurgencies is the claim that, while the protesters of the 1848 uprising did view and articulate their movement in class terms, those taking part in the Commune insurrection of 1871 identified themselves with their neighborhoods (later also with the broader city of Paris) and understood their struggle as one for autonomy from a repressive central government, and not as a battle in the name of class.

With regard to social movement theory, the theoretical question which Gould seems to raise is this: while at any moment individuals in a society carry multiple identities, what makes any single one of them more responsive to calls for solidarity and collective action? In his attempt to explain the development of such participation identities, Gould goes back to adopting a more structuralist position by outlining the importance of large-scale shifts in the socio-political context, institutions/networks, urban/spatial planning factors, etc.

He notes, first and foremost, the self-evident role of sudden shifts in the economic and political landscape (“critical events” or “shocks”). For example, the Paris insurgency of 1848 took on a distinctively class oriented character partly because of a long-lasting economic crisis and unemployment wave that had affected the livelihood of the city's wage laborers. On the other hand, during the Commune insurgency of 1971, Parisians rose to defend their neighborhoods and their city not only because of local frustrations with the repression of the centralist state, but also because of its timid response to the Prussian invasion.

However, the key and quite elaborately described argument in Gould's theoretical framework is that external events do not incite the development of collective identities out of nowhere. A fundamental role in this direction is played by the formal or informal networks/institutions within which individuals conduct their social life – like neighborhood cabaret's, factory floors, public debate halls, etc. The latter are all mechanisms or platforms through which citizens become aware of their similarities and through which they influence one another's behavior. As such, networks are key in both the development of collective identities and the mobilization that occurs during collective action.

Gould provides an impressive empirical account on how identities were developed through such networks and institutions in 19-th century Paris. He demonstrates that the class awareness that emerged in the 1848 uprising largely resulted after the French state had approved the law on the the right to work and had created the National Workshops through which tens of thousands of workers were hired to work on public infrastructure projects. While workers had previously created group identities and mobilized only within their respective trades (ex. bronze workers), the institution of the workshops had created a platform for cross-trade socialization of workers and thus the emergence of a consciousness in terms of a broader group identity (i.e. social class). The government's decision to suspend the National Workshops faced a violent and massive reaction because the workshops had created a new reality - workers had by now framed their grievance within a more inclusive and wider identity.

Similarly, in the case of the 1871 insurgency, two important institutional/social network factors had played key role in developing strong neighborhood identities and framing the conflict as one between neighborhoods/city against the centralized conservative state. The first one was a process which had occurred for a longer period of time – namely, the implementation of Haussman's urban plan which had reorganized Paris in such a way that it created dense peripheral residential areas (“urban villages”) where social life developed unique local dynamics and bonds which cut across social classes. A second factor was the two year period 1868-1870 when the government allowed the organization of public meetings and debates within communities where grievances started to be framed (often through verbal assaults at present policemen) in the context of “us” (neighborhood citizens) against “them” (the state).

While neighborhood identities had gradually developed and the National Guard had, completely by accident, started its uprising, it was during the process that a city-wide identity started to emerge. As Gould notes, identities “are both affirmed and forged in the course of protest” (Gould, 1995, pg.15). Social networks again played a key role in this identity reconstruction/expansion. While membership in the insurgent National Guard was mostly neighborhood-based, its units consisted of members from other neighborhoods as well. It was due to such ties between the various local networks that, during the resistance, the insurgent identity expanded beyond neighborhood limits and residents from various parts of the city began to see each other as sharing a common cause.

As far as the mechanisms through which networks were useful in ensuring mobilization, Gould demonstrates that individual decisions to join were largely subjected to factors such as peer pressure, people taking cues from their surrounding environment, or outright forceful mobilization. Gould finds that “recruitment by example and by social influence almost invariable occurred through social relations that were based on residential proximity and explicitly construed in neighborhood terms” (Gould, 1995, pg.178). The social bonds between the residents created a deeper sense of mutual obligation since battalion members were not merely comrades – “they also, crucially, belonged to the same social group – the neighborhood that had constituted the basic collective identity.” (Gould, 1995, pg.181) Furthermore, the network effect “simplified the process of monitoring and sanctioning non-participation by ensuring that those who had wholeheartedly joined in the defense of the commune knew exactly what was missing and where to find them”. (Gould, 1995, pg. 181).

While Gould's book is wonderfully researched and the theoretical framework seems very well constructed, this last reference to those who “wholeheartedly joined” leads me towards an aspect which, while being marginally referenced as important in the account of events in Paris, does not seem to have any importance within his theoretical framework – and that is the role of human agency. Even though it is hard to refute the role of social networks or external shocks as key factors in shaping social movements, it is similarly hard to refute the significant role played by individuals, risk-takers, political entrepreneurs – some of whom, through their visions, ideas and decisions, helped shape the insurgent networks or influence the large-scale events.

When King Louis-Philippe abdicated his throne on February 24-th in 1848, Gould notes that “there was no agreement either in the streets or among political figures as to what kind of revolution had taken place” (Gould, 1995, pg.33). There was no wide mobilization to frame the revolution as class-based or to force the new republican government to adopt socialist policies. Instead, a group of Parisian workers led by “a young machinist named Marche”, simply forced their way into a government meeting demanding that the government acknowledge the right to work. The demand was approved and the National Workshops were established. It is hard to imagine how class consciousness would be developed within these networks without people like the machinist Marche playing an important role by framing the grievances in ideological terms.

Just like collective identities are not shaped in vacuum by external events but are dependent on established social ties, these ties themselves are also shaped by the ideas and influence of individuals with strong convictions and the will to engage. These individuals might be driven by factors such as moral indignation (normative perception of rights) or rational calculations/interests to gain power. However, their actions and motivations cannot be considered as inconsequential when developing theoretical frameworks of collective action. Leaders, especially those with transformational ideas, are by definition not entirely constrained by structural factors.

[DoctorM · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very well-crafted look at urban space and the idea of class and revolution in Paris, comparing the June Days of 1848 with the Commune of 1871. Gould looks at what mobilised the rebels in each case and looks, too, at Henri Lefebvre's ideas of urban space and urban identity and critiques them in light of Gould's own analysis of 1848 and 1871.

Gould argues that June 1848 was about class, about workers organising themselves as workers in order to demand jobs promised them in the aftermath of the February revolution, whereas the rebels of 1871 mobilised by neighbourhood rather than by craft or class. Gould devotes too little time to events, to the war and the siege of Paris in 1871 and to the overall course of violence in 1848. He also, I think, too easily discounts nationalism and patriotism in the Parisian mobilisation of 1871 and neglects the effect of the Prussian siege on bringing Parisians together into armed resistance first against the expected Prussian onslaught and then against the French government at Versailles. Still--- his point that the Communards sought municipal autonomy and increased local control in the aftermath of the Second Empire's fall is well-taken, and one bolstered by the similar, smaller municipal revolts that took place in 1871 across France.

"Insurgent Identities" is a slender book, but one that opens up new avenues of looking at urban mobilisations and the construction of working-class identity, as well as one that looks at using urban theory (e.g., Lefebvre) to re-define the idea of class in cities.

[Lindsay Campbell · Rating 2 out of 5]

does it count as read if you read the first chapter, last chapter, appendix, and first and last paragraph of each inside chapter? i had no critical frame of reference to assess the historic arguments in this book.

[Peach P 📆📚 · Rating 4 out of 5]

ได้อ่านไปบทเดียว แต่ก็คือboldมากๆ ชอบ