On the eve of the Revolution, nationally-minded salons promoted nationalist thinking and material. They continued the criticisms of the monarchy and Catholic Church that were propagated during the Enlightenment. Because the hostesses, and occasionally hosts, of the salons were prominent figures in society, with prominent friends, they were able to influence the downfall of the monarchy.
Likewise, pamphlets and journals reflected the growing national ideology. Even the words increasingly used to express ideas about government and country show a striking change in loyalties and psychology. More and more, la patrie was used instead of le pays, le citoyen instead of le sujet, and la nation instead of l’état.50 From these pamphlets emerged three fundamental ideas: “the idea of a declaration of rights, the conception of national sovereignty and the necessity of endowing France with a constitution.”51
As a whole, these demands anticipated the response of the Third Estate to the political challenge of the privileged orders.52 The pamphleteers realized that the old conception of a state made up of the king and his three classes of subjects no longer made sense. They knew that to achieve the new social order they desired, they needed a nation of citizens who realized that their own best interests lay in the national interest, and who would act in unison to achieve these interests.53 Among these pamphlets was Sieyès’ “What is the Third Estate.”
The Abbé Emmanuel Sieyès also wrote about the social contract. In contrast to Rousseau, Sieyès assumed that the nation could not manifest itself directly, meaning that it could not become a nation-state naturally. That process required assistance. He stated that it must make itself heard, and proposed the National Assembly as this voice.54 His theory of national unity also relied greatly on the idea that the delegates to the National Assembly were representative of the entire nation, not merely their own electoral districts. Otherwise, what would benefit one district might be detrimental to another.55 He also took issue with the ‘two-step system’ as portrayed by Locke (consisting of the formation of the people, followed by the contractual establishment of government) and even with the idea of a contract existing between the government and the governed at all.56 He argued that the national interest could only be located in and expressed by the Third Estate. He saw the other Estates as corrupt and virtually useless. He viewed the Third Estate as the embodiment of the nation.
