Francois Furet saw the answers to these questions within Rousseau’s writings. He saw the advancement of the general will as the solution to the problem of political justice: “For the general will presupposes the atomization of society into myriads of ‘autarchic’ individuals who communicate with each other only through the general will; the general will must also identify itself fully with each individual will, so that in obeying the general will each individual obeys only himself.”41
Rousseau’s writings on the Social Contract reflect the social and political problem of individualism. If one submits to the will of another, or to that of a nation, then that person loses his/her individual will. They are submissive to the will of the other. However, Rousseau responds to this dilemma by saying that the will of a nation reflects the collective will of the population, so that the individual will is still expressed. By becoming part of the national consciousness, and adding the individual to the general, the will expressed is that of the good of the nation.
“Each of us places his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will; and as one we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole.”42
Nationalism reflects the general will Rousseau writes about. Indeed, in Geoffrey Best’s collection of essays, Connor O’Brian states that “the general will in question can only be that of the nation.”43 Without a unified national consciousness, the general will would not exist. As long as several men consider themselves to be a unified single body, they have a single will. This single will expresses the common preservation and well-being of the body.44
Furet also argues that Revolutionary ideology was not born so much in the Cahiers as through the political elections. While the Cahiers show the development of a national identity, the actual ideology of nationalism developed after the 1789 Revolution. There had to be a manifestation of the peoples’ will.45 This was provided by the balloting of 1789. It played a pivotal role in deciding which political figures would continue to influence the Revolution. Those who were elected had an important bearing, obviously, on the proceedings of the Revolution of 1789.
An important feature of the French Revolution was the role of social salons and journals. The salons of the social elite provided venues to discuss social and political issues, fashion, and literature. They were gatherings of writers, philosophes, musicians, and artists, as well as members of the court and the clergy, and held in the homes of hostesses with some social finesse and financial means.46
Among the salons, usually hosted by upper class women, there were subtle rivalries. Salons reflected the social and political opinions of their members, so naturally there were differences among them. The salons provided the aristocrats opportunities to speak and interact with writers, philosophers, and artists who would normally reside in separate social circles. “Madame du Deffard greatly admired Voltaire, whom she succeeded in attracting to her salon for many years. Twice a week Mme Geoffrin invited different guests: on Monday a salon of artists, architects, and sculptors, on Wednesday a salon of men of letters- Diderot, Alembert, Marivaux, Marmontel, abbé Reynal, Saint-Lambert, Holbach, and the comte de Caylus.”47
