Understanding the Society of Estates and Its Transformation
A Society of Estates
– Society of Estates: This refers to organized estates. The estates were closed groups primarily accessed by birth. Each sector corresponded to a group defined by a common lifestyle and similar social function. It was waterproof, meaning its members could not change their condition.
– Characteristics of the Society of Estates: What characterized this society was the stability of inertia. Unlike capitalism, which is divided into groups according to wealth and is therefore more variable and dynamic, the estates were almost unchanged. Legally, it was uneven. Each person who was a member had privileges or not, depending on their membership in one of the groups.
– Why Did the Estate Society Enter a Crisis in the Eighteenth Century?
The estate society entered a crisis in the wake of the changes occurring throughout the 18th century, which involved the strengthening of the bourgeoisie, who owned much of the craft economy, trade, and finance.
– What Did This Class Demand from the King and the Privileged?
Not content with their economic opulence, the bourgeoisie also demanded political rights and social prestige, which the privileged were unwilling to grant. Such discrimination pushed the rising bourgeoisie toward revolutionary action aimed at the destruction of feudal privileges and the old regime.
From the ruins of the old regime, a capitalist and bourgeois liberal society was erected.
– What Kind of Monarchy Was Dominant During the Old Regime?
The absolute monarchy was the most common political system in Europe during the old regime.
– Why Is It Called Absolutist? What Is the King’s Power?
Absolutism is the system by which all branches of government (executive, judicial, and legislative) are concentrated in the monarch. Derived from sovereignty, the power of the absolute monarch is above the law, although they are required to do justice and respect the covenants with their people. The monarch’s power is believed to come directly from God, and they are not accountable to their subjects but to the divine instruments they use. The kings maintained unlimited power through their councils of ministers, military, bureaucracy, and diplomacy.
– In What Countries Did Parliamentary Monarchy Prevail?
In response to absolutism, some republics and the British adopted a parliamentary system that spread to the rest of Europe during the 19th century.
In contrast to absolutism, parliament has a conception of human nature based not on evil, but on the goodness of human beings, which can be improved through free association among individuals.
– What Year Did Two Revolutions Occur Before the English Kings Attempted to Restore Absolutism?
England moved toward European absolutism, but during the reign of Charles I, there were two revolutions against the monarch’s attempts to consolidate absolutism. The first revolution occurred between 1642 and 1649. The parliament, convened for money, turned against the king and formed an army that ultimately led to Cromwell defeating Charles I, who was arrested and executed. After Cromwell’s dictatorship, the monarchy was restored, attempting to reinstate absolutism, leading to the revolution of 1688.
– What Were They Forced to Accept?
The victory of these monarchs forced parliament to accept the Declaration of Human Rights of 1689, which limited royal power and transformed the country into a constitutional monarchy based on the bourgeois model that spread throughout contemporary Europe.
– Enlightened Despotism: A form of government that sought to reconcile absolutism with new ideas from the Enlightenment.
– What Reforms Did They Want to Implement?
They aimed to modernize the economic, administrative, educational, judicial, and military structures of their respective states.
– What Limits Did These Reforms Have?
They did not want to change the system of government; they were not inclined toward parliamentarism and did not wish to end absolutism.
– Why Did Enlightened Despotism Fail, and What Led to This Failure?
Because they wanted to reform only minimally, they paved the way for more radical positions.