Sister Revolutions: French Lightning, American Light

by Susan Dunn

What the two great modern revolutions can teach us about democracy today The American and French revolutions presented the world with two very different visions of democracy. Although both professed similar Enlightenment ideals of freedom, equality, and justice and set similar political agendas, there were also fundamental differences. The French sought a complete break with a thousand years of history; the Americans were content to preserve many aspects of their English heritage. Why did the two revolutions follow such different trajectories? And what lessons do they offer us about democracy today? In lucid narrative style, Dunn captures the personalities and lives of the great figures of both revolutions, and shows how their stories added up to make two very different events.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, American History, European History, France, French Revolution, American Revolution

272 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1999

About the author

Susan Dunn is Professor of Literature and the History of Ideas at Williams College and Senior Scholar and the Academy of Leadership at the University of Maryland. She is the author of several books, including the critically acclaimed Sister Revolutions

Academic Degrees
* A. B. cum laude, Smith College, 1966. Phi Beta Kappa.
* Ph.D. Harvard University, 1973

Professional Experience
* Williams College, Preston S. Parish '41 Third Century Professor in the Arts and Humanities, 1973 to present
* Wellesley College, Instructor, 1971-1973
* Harvard University, Extension Division, Instructor, 1970-1973
* Harvard University, Teaching Fellow, 1967-1970

Reviews

[Jessica McDermitt · Rating 4 out of 5]

I don’t read a lot of nonfiction, but this one was excellent. It was well-written and moved quickly. It was fascinating to see the parallels between the American and French Revolutions as well as how wildly different they were—and how messed-up French revolutionary ideology was. Great little book, well worth the read!

[John Kaufmann · Rating 4 out of 5]

I've read a number of books on both the French Revolution and, of course, the American Revolution. Both happened in the late 1700s and were intertwined with each other. Yet one gave us the Terror and Napoleon, while the other gave us an enduring constitutional system of self-government. But I never understood why that was the case. What were the factors that accounted for this big difference in results?

This book answers that question, at least as well and as clearly as anything I've read. Dunn lays out four or five main factors that accounted for why the two revolutions turned out so differently - (spoiler, below). (The excellent The Great Upheaval: America and the Birth of the Modern World, 1788-1800 by Jay Winik came close, but focused more on relating the actual events than in distilling the reasons.) Not only that, but her style of writing is very crisp and clear - this is the second book of hers that I've read (I also read Jefferson's Second Revolution: The Election Crisis of 1800 and the Triumph of Republicanism), and I have become a fan.

The factors Dunn lays out are:
(1) Leadership. As a distant colony of England, the Americans had experience in politics and self-government, whereas the French intellectuals had no experience in government and those with experience in administration of the monarchy had neither the political theory nor experience in democracy.
(2) The Americans cherished liberty (from British authority) and accepted that conflict was inevitable; thus they looked to channel it rather than repress it. The French meanwhile, rebelled against the inequality and injustice of the Ancien regime and favored equality and unity over liberty; as a result they were intolerant of differences, leading to the Terror.
(3) America opted for a stable rather than an energetic government slow incremental change in the Burkean tradition. The French, on the other hand, opted for an energetic form of government to right all wrongs with immediacy. This introduced instability and wild swings.
(4) The Americans, following the British tradition, placed emphasis on civil discourse and moderation, whereas the French rebelled against the gentility (and their genteel language and manners) and used more extreme language.
(5) The American Bill of Rights protected individual rights against government interference; the French Declaration of the Rights of Man proclaiming broad (generic) rights, and balanced them with rights of the community (which essentially overrode the individual rights).

[David R. · Rating 3 out of 5]

Scholars have long understood the contrasts and comparisons between the American and French Revolutions of the 18th Century. Dunn hasn't brought much new to the discussion apart from some nuanced exploration of cultural differences and ways the French and American themes played into future events (Russian Revolution and VietNam conflict). The book collapses into silliness when Dunn imagines trying to fuse the so-called best of each Revolution into a synthesis and comes up with: British Parliamentarianism. I don't think so.

[Jeremy Lucas · Rating 5 out of 5]

For some, I suppose, a book is meant to provide an escape, a journey out of the time and the place we’re in, and into a time and place we are not. But for me, a book has to enlighten or illuminate both its time and its place, forcing me either to stop reading and ruminate between pages, or run from page to page in search of the next event, the next illumination. In many ways, I entered this book with enough historical and political knowledge to believe it would only confirm my understanding. But written as it was in a pre-9/11, pre-War-on-Terror, pre-Obama, pre-Trump era, I found so much of its content to be rich and layered, lighting (or lightening) my grip on the present state of America and its competitive, contentious patterns of necessity. What troubled me, however—and I believe a good book should trouble me—was the break of French revolutionaries with anything rational, with anything that seemed sensible, in order to facilitate their elusive virtues and their shifting General Will. And it only troubled me because, in light of the Terror they once produced against their own citizens in the name of patriotism once they took over control of government, I could only think of one modern party in America whose active break with reality, whose present efforts to minimize and demonize their opposition and thwart future voters, whose nationalistic fervor has upended so many norms is a marked parallel. It troubles me because, in the end, this party has enough merit on its early principles to simply build sensible, honest, and fair cases for what it wants to achieve, without resorting to such dangerous, deceptive, and diabolical means and ends, aiming only to disrupt or burn down the existing structure rather than to build on it or improve it. And if they succeed, at any point in the future, with destroying American constitutional government, and citizens as collateral damage, simply to feed the lies they believe are necessary to keep them in power, they will by no means achieve a reputation worthy of any heaven they pretend to seek.

[Howard Jaeckel · Rating 5 out of 5]

“Sister Revolutions” had been languishing on my book shelves for almost twenty years, a hardy perennial on my “Books to Read This Year” list. I’m very glad that I finally got to it, and warmly recommend Susan Dunn’s book to buffs of history, current events, political philosophy and sociology.

There is nothing obscure about the vast differences between the “sister revolutions,” the French and American, which Ms. Dunn compares: One led to the world’s most stable democracy, which pioneered the truly revolutionary concept of the peaceful transfer of power between adversarial political parties; the other resulted in a blood-drenched Reign of Terror that ultimately devoured successive groups of the revolution’s children, in a manner unmatched until the days of Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin. What is fascinating in Ms. Dunn’s work is her analysis of the underlying historical, philosophical, linguistic and sociological differences between the United States and France that account for the radically different course that each of these virtually contemporaneous revolutions took. Ms. Dunn also convincingly examines how their totally disparate models for sweeping political change are echoed in the revolutionary convulsions of our own time.

Having finished “Sister Revolutions,” I find myself hungry to learn more details about the history of each, and to read Madison, Rousseau and Burke. What better can be said of a book than that it stimulates one’s intellectual appetite in this way?

[Michael Anderson · Rating 5 out of 5]

I really enjoyed this book — easy to read, only slightly padded, and it answered my questions about the essential differences between the 18th century American and French revolutions. Why did one fail and not the other? Some takeaways —
— Madison based the American system on anticipated diversity and conflict between citizen minorities and interest groups, while the French leaders emphasized national unity, deprecating dissension and minority opinions, leading to the Terror and liberal use of the guillotine.
— Neither America or France maintained their revolutionary principles into the 20th century, denying support for nascent revolutions, such as Vietnam and Algeria. I found this to be expected.
— The American system of political parties has led to governments where modest incremental improvement or deadlock prevents needed changes from being made. Major changes have happened only after societal catastrophes happened — e.g., FDR’s New Deal after the Great Depression and LBJ’s war on poverty and Medicare after Kennedy’s assassination.
There are other insights in the book. It’s worth reading.

[Eddie Bryant · Rating 5 out of 5]

The French Revolution is a fascinating study and takes on even more importance given world/national events and conditions.

Dr. Dunn compares and contrasts two revolutions that changed the world and continue to impact society today. Many of the same players are evident in both events but what happened in America and the failed revolution in France are very different.

A parallel with the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, Ho Chi Mihn in Vietnam, and Nelson Mandela/F.W. de Klerk ending apartheid in South Africa are overlaid with the two revolutions to make for very interesting reading.

The main point of the book is highlight differences in strategy, tactics, and outcomes. This book is not an exhaustive study of what happened in America and France. You will, however, walk away with 'cause for pause' to study more of Madison's thinking in contrast with that of Jefferson. This part of the book was fascinating. Her comparison of Lenin and Robespierre is also fodder for addition reading on the topic.

I heartily recommend this book.

[Gina · Rating 2 out of 5]

There were some interesting comparisons made. I think the points that there was more governmental experience in the backgrounds of the American revolutionaries and that the French emphasis on "unity" over "liberty" contributed to the increasing violence were well made.

However, in addition to the book being dry, it often seemed to miss some key points of why some things didn't work out. This included barely alluding to slavery and the decision to allow it in the US, the mention of the French treatment of aboriginal people in their colonies without dealing with how the States dealt with our own indigenous people, and in general overlooking colonialism and greed and other things that thwarted revolutionary ideals.

That still would have given it three stars, but then the conclusion was that the English form of government had the answer, which was too ludicrous. I realize that some weaknesses would have been more obvious now than when the book was written, but Dunn could have had enough clues and it just feels like a lack of depth and seriousness.

[Susan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Clear comparison of the American and French revolutions, with a good analysis of why the former ended in a stable republic and the other ended in The Terror. I distill it down to a difference in equality and egalite/equity.

Americans defined equality as intrinsic to each individual and therefore 1) no other man, or group of men, had the right to rule over another or dictate beliefs, and 2) affording each individual the right to his own opinions.

The French defined egalite as the expression of a common will. This meant that whoever strayed from the common will was a threat to the society. Hence, no dissenting individual opinions were allowed (and dissenters were guillotined by whoever at the moment defined the common will).

This has clear ramifications for our society today.

Sadly, when the author extended her thinking into 20th century politics, she deviated from the principles she had already established.

[Elias · Rating 3 out of 5]

I had never given much thought as to why the French Revolution didn’t last compared to the American one, but this is a pretty good analysis of that. It’s engaging and doesn’t require a history degree to enjoy it. I’d say her last chapter probably aged poorly regarding US politics drifting to the center, but good overall.

[Marco den Ouden · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a superb book. Full review to follow.

[Lance Grabmiller · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting analysis of the American and French revolutions.

[Seth Bible · Rating 4 out of 5]

Insipid center ahhh

[Tahel · Rating 3 out of 5]

kinda biased against the french ngl

[Dergrossest · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent little book outlining the fundamental and important differences between the American and French Revolutions. Explains in a nutshell why the American system has endured for 200+ years while the French have been through multiple republics, a couple returns to monarchy, the Terror and everyone's favorite little dictator. Another reason to be proud that you are an American. Highly recommended.

[Sarah · Rating 3 out of 5]

I found Susan's Dunn comparison of the American and French revolutions very interesting. My history class had to use the book to write a paper for class. I chose the topic of human rights. I found out quite a bit about what the Americans and French thought about human rights when creating their new governments. This book really opened my eyes to the differences of the revolutions and their leaders.

[Mary Mancini]

HBO's John Adams promoted me to pick this book up. Rich history.

[MJ]

George Washington was a rock-star

[Katie · Rating 2 out of 5]

Fascinating topic but didn't hold my attention well