In "The Family Romance of the French Revolution" author Lynn Hunt attempts to show the direct link between the private family sphere and the political sphere and how changes in either had a direct impact on the other. This is taken down to the level of the individual where changes in the individual's power would disrupt the family unit and then the political arena as a natural progression. The " authority in the state was explicitly modeled on authority in the family (Hunt p.3)." The changes in power structure triggered by the French Revolution had a profound impact on the role of men and women both within the family and the public sphere. Specifically the ideals of the Revolution had a profound impact on the role of the father figure and caused, if only briefly, a radically new range of social opportunities for the women of the French Republic.
King Louis XVI represented not just the monarchy but the entire social structure that was held together by bonds of deference," peasants to landlords, journeymen to masters, magnates to king, wives to husbands, children to parents (Hunt p.3)." This absolutism was based on patriarchal authority which meant theoretically that the end of the absolutism of the monarchy should have meant the end of patriarchy. This of course did not in fact come about as the male dominated new Republican government managed to promote the ideals of universal liberty, equality and freedom for all while in fact denying these very things to half of the population - women. The execution of the King symbolically destroyed the old order but how effective was it practically?
With the death of King Louis XVI the entire state system of authority had to be reconsidered which also entailed the re-defining of authority within the family unit. The new conception was that of the ' good father ' to replace the bad, repressive father figure of the monarchy which Louis XVI represented. This new concept was spread throughout French society through teaching, paintings, engravings, plays, novels, et cetera. These all degraded the old system of patriarchal absolute authority. The extension from bad fathers to bad husbands was primarily done by women writers: men " pretend to be made to guide, sustain, and protect the weak and timid sex, but all the while it is they alone who attack, insist on her timidity, and profit from her weakness (Hunt p.22)." The new ' good father ' was to use appeals to emotion and reason rather than just unquestioned authority backed up by physical force. They were also to take a hand in the raising of the children using the same methods.
Post 1789 laws were drawn up to make this new utopia a reality and to curb paternal power. Primogeniture was abolished in an attempt to create equality amongst the children, ' family councils ' were created to hear parent/child disputes, the age of majority was lowered to twenty-one and new divorce laws were drawn up which included the mother's equal right to control the children after a break-up, marriage became nothing more than a civil contract which could, as any other type of contract, be ended.
These laws had replaced the King as the new symbol of authority after the metaphorical slaying of the ' bad father ' figure. In the heady days of the early revolution the notions of universal equality did actually receive a hearing. For example Jean-Jacques Combaceres proposed a new civil code in 1793 calling for an end to paternal power as " it is deceiving nature to establish...rights by compulsion (Hunt p.65)." Liberty and equality were to exist in the family as well as in the state. "Excessive power leads to tyranny, tyranny embitters and too often, instead of a tender father and a grateful son, there is only a barbarous master and a slave in revolt (Hunt p.65)." Liberty was supposed to equate with individual autonomy even from those within the family. To ensure the next generation who grew up in the Republic understood the new concepts, a system of state-run, mandatory primary schools were set up to take the education of the children away from the family and put it into the hands of the ' benevolent ' state.
All of these new laws and ideals had a profound impact on the role of women both in the private and public spheres. Taking the belief in universal liberty and equality to heart some women attempted to enter into the previously male-only public political arena. Instead of being welcomed as equals however they were shunned and ostracized for " transgressing sexual boundaries and contributing to the blurring of sexual differentiation. Their actions made them look like men; they were seen as taking on a sex not their own (Hunt p.82)." This double standard is made all the more absurd by the iconography of the Revolution.
Most representations of the Republic were female as to be the exact opposite of the old male monarchical rulership symbology. This led to women being used to represent liberty, equality and freedom despite not being allowed to possess any of them themselves.
The metaphor for women in the public sphere unfortunately became the Queen, Marie-Antoinette who was publicly ridiculed in papers and pornography and then executed symbolically slaying the rising feminine power. Marie-Antoinette, to the Republican government, was the " possible profanation of everything that the nation held sacred (Hunt p.95)." She was to have ' taught ' Louis XVI duplicity ( a decidedly feminine quality in the 18th century) and to executioners this was what happened when one let women into the public sphere. Marie-Antoinette was considered the " soul of all the plots, the centre of all intrigues (Hunt p.110)." In propaganda she was the " bad daughter, bad wife, bad mother, bad queen, monster in everything (Hunt p.111)." This dehumanization of course made it easier for her executioners to carry out their sentence. After all they were killing a monster, not a woman/wife/mother.
Marie-Antoinette was not alone in coming under attack in the papers and books. One of the most outspoken of the women's critics was Jean-Jacques Rousseau who held onto a number of unsubstantiated, and in hindsight, rather bizarre beliefs. Rousseau feared that " women in public might turn men into women (Hunt p.90)." "Whether a monarch governs men or women ought to be rather indifferent to him, provided that he be obeyed; but in a republic, men are needed (Hunt p.90)." These views by a well respected philosopher and writer did not go unheard. Despite the revolution patriarchy it appeared was far from finished and was not going to disappear without resistance.
When in the face of such blatant ignorance women attempted to be heard in public forums they were denounced, degraded and likened to beasts. They lost their femininity and therefore their humanity as well. Women's clubs were under constant attack until they were finally outlawed. Leaders of the proto-feminist movement were executed. " The private functions to which women are destined by nature itself are related to the general order of society; this social order results from the difference between man and woman. Each sex is called to the kind of occupation which is proper for it...Man is strong, robust, born with great energy, audacity and courage...In general, women are not capable of elevated thoughts and serious meditations (Hunt p.119)." Male virtue was participation in the public sphere while female virtue kept them in the private family sphere.
The ideological challenge of course was to keep male-dominated patriarchal power while still paying enough lip-service to universal liberty and equality to be believed. What they came up with was the ideal of the ' Republican mother '. The aim was to separate mothers from public activity therefore the most important role for every woman was built up to be motherhood and the education of the next generation of patriots. It was a very successful tactic. " Even the most militant woman subscribed to the ideal of the republican mother (Hunt p.123)." For the militants it was only after private family obligations had been fulfilled that they could enter into the public political sphere.
Even after the laws outlawing the women's clubs some women attempted to remain within the public sphere by attending the meeting of the men's clubs and forums. Many were at the forefront of the 1794 food riots. Further measures were taken against the activists in 1795. Women were, by law, not allowed to gather in groups of more than five and they were banned from all political meetings. A bizarre paradox was created as well: women were to be denied education to make them easier to subjugate but at the same time they were supposed to educate their children...with what knowledge?
The iconography of the Revolution was also to undergo a major shift as part of this onslaught against the very rights the Revolution was supposed to stand for. The seal of state's icon was changed from a ' mother liberty ' figure to a figure of ' Heracles ' representing masculine physical power. Women's icons linked to ' Nature ' and ' Motherhood ' were kept but they were not allowed to represent ' Reason ' any longer.
All of this was an attempt to reconstruct the family along old familiar lines. The destruction of paternal power was not to lead to the end of male power within the Republic. The first assault on the women was by the intellectuals who stated that careers for women would " undermine the family and the entire basis of civil society (Hunt p.157)." The age old cries of women's passion and intuition versus man's reason and intellect came up repeatedly. As if this were not enough medical doctors joined in with some rather surprising findings. Women were deemed not only physically but physiologically weaker then men. They had " weaker cerebral pulp (Hunt p.157)" making them unsuited for "long and profound meditations (Hunt p.157)." These doctors ' proved ' that women were " scientifically...suitable only for domestic occupations (Hunt p.158)." By 1795 almost all the progressive laws had been overturned.
Pro-family laws led to higher marriage rates as all deputies of the upper house had to be married or widowed and a tax was created for all men and women who were over thirty years of age but still unmarried. The 1804 Napoleonic Code set the clock back further on reforms by, amongst other things, making divorce harder to get for women. When the monarchy was restored in 1816 divorce was abolished altogether and the patriarchal system was returned into action full force. "Father as head by strength; the mother the mediator by gentleness and persuasion; the children are the subjects and become heads in their turn; here is the prototype of all governments (Hunt p.161)." Women had to go back to their homes, but in theory more highly valued than in the past and fathers, once again in theory, had to be less despotic and had to help in the raising of the children.
Despite what was supposed to be an assault on patriarchy the patriarchal right of husband over wife was never seriously jeopardized although the paternal right of man's power as a father did change although with the restoration of the monarchy theoretically even these changes should have been entirely reversed. Many of the arguments used held to the pretence that the private and the public sphere could be separated and therefore one could work for universal equality in the household without having the same principle have to apply to the state as a whole. This of course was a convenient way of avoiding the situation that the government had brought upon themselves with their supposed belief in the universal ideals of liberty and equality. There were no true universal rights that came out of the French Revolution instead the ideals applied only to the males ( generally white as slaves were excluded as well ). Man could be political as he was rational but women were connected to nature by childbirth and due to this were excluded from the public political sphere.