Radio Free Beszel

Fanaticism Without Faith: The Internet and the French Revolution

Alphonse Season 1 Episode 9

"Fanaticism without faith, discipline without loyalty, excommunication without communion." Augustin Cochin.

Sound familiar? The Internet is not the first time a new forum for communication turned society upside down. The French Revolution did not come from nowhere in 1789, Cochin says: the ideas and the fanaticism had already been worked out in members-only philosophical societies, where men united around dreams of remaking society.

These societies were supposed to be places of free thought. In fact, they were manipulated by inner circles and insulated from the realities of life. They tended towards conformity and extremes. They built imaginary cities in the clouds: but when the Revolution came, they tried to build those cities in reality, and ultimately in blood.

The story Cochin tells is strikingly familiar. The radical dogmatism emerging from the Internet today echoes his depiction of revolution at the beginning of the modern era. It explains how a few people can secretly manufacture public opinion, gain power, create the illusion that they are simply representing the will of the people and defending human rights.

See Augustin Cochin, Organizing the Revolution.

0:01
Good evening. This is
Radio Free Beszel.

0:03
I am Alphonse. Tonight:
the Internet and

0:05
the French Revolution. Many
social dysfunctions

0:09
today are blamed on the
Internet - things like

0:12
echo chambers, polarization,
fake news,

0:15
conspiracy theories,
denial of science.

0:19
And the reason for all
of this is often

0:22
given to be the technology:
the Internet,

0:24
social media, smartphones.
And I think there are

0:27
excellent arguments to be
made for all of that.

0:31
And yet it seems some of this
has happened before.

0:36
I'm going to talk about the
analysis of a French

0:39
historian, Augustin Cochin,
who died in 1916

0:43
fighting for France in
World War I. You can

0:45
find some of his writings
in a book titled,

0:47
Organizing the Revolution.
Cochin was

0:50
opposed to the revolution,
to its democracy,

0:53
and to its murderous terror,
but he argued that

0:56
the cause of this was not
the psychology of the

1:00
participants. It was not
even the circumstances.

1:03
It was a particular form
of social organization,

1:07
and it began decades before
the Revolution itself

1:11
with the philosophical
societies. This was the

1:15
time in the 18th century
of the Enlightenment,

1:19
and men across France
formed societies

1:22
for talking about the new
ideas - for talking

1:25
about human reason, the rights
of man, democracy.

1:29
And these societies, Cochin
said, went astray.

1:32
Their discussion of ideas
became detached from

1:35
the real world, and when
the Revolution happened

1:38
men from these societies
ended up in positions of

1:41
influence and they tried
to apply the ideas that

1:45
they had had in conversation.
And the results,

1:48
as Cochin sees it, were
catastrophic. The core

1:52
problem with these societies,
Cochin says,

1:56
is free thought.
Now free thought

1:58
seems like a good thing.
Free thought,

2:01
free speech - but free
from what? Cochin says

2:04
that they were free from
attachments. Freedom,

2:08
in effect, meant freedom
from reality, because

2:11
the goal of the societies
was only to talk,

2:14
not to act, not to do, but
just for men to talk

2:18
and to achieve agreement.
But if their agreement

2:23
is the assumed outcome, that
means that the test

2:26
of success, the test of
truth, is not whether

2:30
something corresponds to
reality, but whether the

2:33
participants agree on it.
What the participants in

2:36
the societies were searching
for was not truth

2:39
but consensus and the approval
of their peers.

2:43
And so the ideas they had
were ultimately reduced

2:47
to mere words and forms,
and actual truth itself

2:50
was cast aside. These societies
were egalitarian:

2:55
every man was equal, every
man had a vote.

2:58
That was the principle. But,
as usually happens,

3:01
as I've talked about before
when I talk about

3:04
hierarchy versus centralization,
that wasn't

3:07
the outcome. A few members
were more passionate,

3:11
more engaged, more involved
than anybody else. And

3:13
often these were the men
who were least involved

3:16
in the outside world. Because
if you're busy with

3:18
your job, busy with your
family, then you don't

3:20
have that much time to go
to a talk shop in the

3:24
evenings. And these inner
circles that sprang up,

3:27
a few members in each
society, would end up

3:31
directing the society as
a whole. If the society

3:34
was going to have a formal
meeting in the evening,

3:37
the inner circles might
meet in the morning,

3:40
and they would talk about
the issues to be

3:42
discussed at the later
meeting of the whole.

3:45
And they would come to their
conclusions, and then

3:48
they would contact other
members of the society

3:50
and pressure or persuade
them. So that then when

3:53
the greater meeting happened
in the evening,

3:55
there would be many members
who would be willing

3:58
to stand up and attest to
the consensus that had

4:00
already been agreed upon
by the inner circles.

4:03
And when there was a vote,
the measure would pass.

4:07
So in effect, the inner
circles were

4:09
able to direct the
society as a whole

4:11
without appearing
to: because for

4:13
other members there
they would see,

4:15
There's so many other people
who already think

4:17
this way. I guess that's
the general opinion.

4:20
I should go along with
it. A further feature

4:22
of the societies was that
it was a condition

4:25
of membership that although
you had free thought

4:28
and free discussion within
the society, outside

4:31
you are expected to be bound by
the decisions of the society.

4:35
So once the vote was taken,
that was the position

4:37
that these men would express
in the outside world.

4:42
So when the Revolution
happened, and many of

4:44
the old structures and
the old hierarchies

4:46
were torn down, it
was the societies,

4:49
the men of the societies,
who stepped up

4:52
and stepped into positions
of influence

4:54
and the new chaotic systems
of government.

4:59
Now the ideal of Revolutionary
France

5:01
was that France would
be governed

5:03
by the will of the people.
This is the idea of

5:05
Rousseau. This is the ideal
of the Enlightenment.

5:09
Direct democracy was the goal.
But how can the people rule,

5:13
especially when they
don't actually have

5:15
representatives? Because
revolutionary France

5:18
did not have a parliament.
Well there were

5:20
representatives in that
people were sent

5:23
from the regions and from
towns to the center

5:25
- and the societies engineered
that as well.

5:29
They couldn't ensure that
they would be elected,

5:32
that they would be voted
in when this process

5:34
began, but what they could
do is ensure that

5:37
others would not be chosen
by excluding them.

5:41
They made rules about
this. They would say

5:44
aristocrats should not
be eligible - but

5:47
Jean here has demonstrated
that he is a true

5:50
revolutionary so he should
be. And so they

5:52
were able to get themselves
elected, Cochin

5:55
says, by excluding the
competition and then

5:58
making exemptions for themselves
on the basis of

6:00
their virtue and their
revolutionary credentials.

6:04
Now just as the inner
circles had been able

6:07
to manage the ideas within
their societies,

6:09
they came to be able to
do the same thing in

6:12
France. Now France had
hundreds of societies,

6:16
and they themselves formed
a hierarchy, and at

6:19
the top was the Jacobin
society. And in effect

6:23
they were able to launder
the ideas of the

6:26
few to appear to be the
will of the majority.

6:30
And the way it would
work was the same:

6:32
the inner circles would
disseminate their

6:35
ideas out to the individual
societies in

6:37
the in the provinces
or the département,

6:41
and then within those
societies the process

6:43
would go to work. The
societies would vote,

6:46
they would approve,
they would send

6:47
back their message
to the center.

6:50
The consequence was a
kind of control that

6:53
appeared to go from the
edges to the center,

6:56
but had in fact originated
at the center, gone

6:59
out to the edges, and
then come back again

7:02
with the authority of
the popular will. It

7:05
appeared that the people
ruled; in fact the

7:08
societies ruled. And just
as within individual

7:12
societies themselves a
counterfeit public opinion

7:16
came to appear to be the
majority opinion - and

7:18
then it actually became
the majority opinion.

7:22
And for those who were
recalcitrant - towns,

7:24
for example, who didn't
want to go along with

7:27
new consensus - they could
get sent letters

7:29
saying you are the only
one who doesn't agree.

7:33
And in one instance, Cochin
said, sixty towns

7:36
were sent letters, each
told that it was the

7:38
only one that didn't agree.
Which of course

7:41
was not the case, but
then the individual

7:44
or the town or the community
that feels that it is

7:47
the lone outlier falls in
line with the majority.

7:51
Now it's characteristic
of this form of

7:53
organization, Cochin says,
that it's leaderless,

7:57
it's anonymous. These
inner circles have

8:00
influence but they don't
have authority.

8:02
And their power comes from
their anonymity. If

8:05
it was seen that a few men
were leading France,

8:08
that would be the end of
them: but so long as

8:11
they were able to operate
effectively in secret,

8:14
so long as they were able
to launder their power

8:17
through the will of the people,
they held power.

8:20
It was by exposing and
identifying their opponents

8:23
that their opponents could
be taken down. But as

8:26
long as they themselves kept
anonymity they were

8:29
safe. The people were the
marionettes - that was

8:32
the word they would use -
and they were the wire

8:34
pullers. And they talked
about the entire system

8:36
as a machine - and an
efficient machine it

8:40
was. Cochin says one of
the evidences that

8:43
it was the machine that
was guiding France

8:46
was abrupt reversals of
policy and direction.

8:50
When the people rule there's
no need to protect

8:52
them from themselves. There's
no need for freedom

8:55
of speech when the people
speak. There's no

8:57
need for freedom of the
press when the people

8:59
own the press. There's no
need for people to be

9:02
protected by the courts
when the people judge.

9:07
And so this regime could
be exceptionally

9:09
oppressive because it appeared
to be so free.

9:13
As the regime established
itself, at first

9:16
people would go along
because they had

9:18
something to gain. They
had something to win

9:21
by conforming with the
consensus. They could

9:23
perhaps achieve a position
in the government.

9:25
Perhaps they could get work.
But as more and more

9:28
people joined there were
fewer and fewer goodies

9:31
to give out. And so in
order to get people

9:34
to comply, the regime
had to shift from the

9:37
carrot to the stick. Cochin
says the terror became

9:41
more necessary when people
were more submissive.

9:46
Public safety was a priority.
France did face

9:50
real threats. It was at
war with its neighbors.

9:54
There was basically civil
war in many of

9:56
the regions, and there
were foreign spies,

9:59
and there was immense chaos
and violence and

10:02
shortages. But the regime
didn't really have

10:05
the muscle to force people
in many instances to

10:08
do what it wanted. Instead
it used surveillance.

10:11
Not surveillance by the regime
itself so much as

10:14
mutual surveillance. When
edicts were made they

10:17
were sent out to the people
in such a way that

10:20
people would monitor their
neighbors to make

10:22
sure their neighbors weren't
taking advantage,

10:25
to put towns and people
into competition where

10:27
they were eager to report
on one another and

10:30
monitor one another and
call one another out

10:34
in this atmosphere of fear of
threats of counter-revolution.

10:39
Violence was seen
to be a good

10:41
thing. One of the
leaders, Marat,

10:43
said, "Don't lay down your
gun until all our

10:46
enemies are dead. This is
humanitarian advice."

10:51
The result, Cochin says,
was a society of

10:54
oppression - de facto
oppression, not de jure

10:58
oppression. It wasn't the
laws in the government

11:00
that forced people to do things
for the most part;

11:03
it was the people forced
each other. The freedom

11:06
of the Revolution, he says,
meant moral isolation.

11:10
Quote: "The regime of
absolute freedom

11:13
and equality . . . is
the most powerful

11:15
one that can exist,
the most extensive,

11:18
the most hierarchical,
the most stable,

11:22
and the most demanding."
And the revolutionary

11:25
man, the man who actually
managed things,

11:28
Cochin says, was the
bureaucrat. He was

11:30
free of attachments. He
was free of pride,

11:34
dignity, intelligence,
independence - these things

11:37
he did not need. And when
the revolution ended,

11:41
and when some of the murderers
of the Terror were

11:43
brought to court, they did
not stand up and say,

11:47
"I did this because I
had principles. I did

11:49
this because I believed
it was right." Instead

11:52
they said something that
we heard in the 20th

11:54
century: "I did it because
I acted under orders

11:59
now." As I say, what
interests me most

12:01
about this is not the
Revolution itself.

12:05
There are continuing debates
about whether the

12:07
Revolution was a good
thing or a bad thing,

12:09
even whether the Terror was
a good thing or a bad thing,

12:12
and I don't particularly
want to get into that.

12:16
What interests me is the
comparison to today.

12:20
Like the hierarchy of
philosophical societies

12:23
that existed in Revolutionary
France,

12:25
societies where people
got together just to

12:28
talk, not to do things,
disconnected from

12:30
their work-a-day lives -
just so, today we have

12:34
people who get together to
talk on social media.

12:38
And just as then the
philosophical societies

12:41
were not really tied to
activity in the world,

12:44
today most social media
is not tied to activity

12:47
in the world, not tied to
productive activity,

12:51
not tied to actual positions
of authority. And

12:54
so again inner circles have
tremendous influence.

12:58
Sometimes as inner circles
are hidden, sometimes

13:01
they're formal. They might
be cliques of editors

13:04
on Wikipedia. They might
be moderators

13:06
on reddit or some other
discussion forum.

13:09
And they have tremendous
power to

13:11
influence the direction
of those forums

13:14
and the perception of what
majority opinion is.

13:18
And ideas develop in these
systems that can

13:21
be detached from reality,
and then emerge into

13:24
politics in the outside world
- not through formal

13:28
routes but through the informal
social pressure of

13:31
people who monitor the activity
and the beliefs of

13:34
other people and put pressure
on them to conform.

13:39
Now, as then, these are
movements without leaders,

13:42
movements with influence
but not authority,

13:45
movements where the most
important people may

13:48
be anonymous or almost
completely unknown.

13:52
Now, as then, many of the
most active individuals

13:55
are people who spend huge
amounts of time online

13:59
and little in the outside
world. Now, as then,

14:02
many of the most active
influential people

14:05
online are much less
connected offline.

14:09
And now, as then, the opinions
of minorities can

14:12
be laundered through these
forums to appear to

14:16
be the opinions of majorities,
or at least

14:18
of large groups or pluralities
of people.

14:23
And while again there are
certain opportunities

14:26
to be had - positions to
be gained by adhering

14:29
to the dogma, by adhering
to the party line -

14:32
for most people it's fear
of being called out

14:36
of being cancelled that
puts pressure on them

14:39
to conform. Cochin's summary
of the character

14:43
of the regime is striking.
He writes, "One does

14:46
not generally imagine fanaticism
without faith,

14:50
discipline without
loyalty,

14:52
excommunication without
communion,

14:55
opprobrium without strong
active convictions -

14:58
no more than one imagines
a body without a soul."

15:03
This is Alphonse for Radio
Free Beszel, www.beszel.ca.

15:11
Good night.