Political Pathologies: Barnave and the Question of National Identity in Revolutionary France
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the influential revisionist interpretation of the French Revolution initiated by François Furet, the radical conception of the nation as genuinely “one and indivisible” has been condemned as a dangerous pathology that led to the violence of the Terror. In this context, neglected figures such as Joseph Barnave have been rehabilitated as members of an alternative political tradition, a liberal one that would eventually supplant the “totalitarian” tendencies of early revolutionary thought. If Barnave has often been marginalized because of his seemingly inconsistent political positions—his conservative views on political authority and the colonies, for example, were complemented by an almost materialist perspective on the Revolution as an economic event — he is today celebrated for his historical realism, his pragmatism, and his attention to economic interests. In this essay the author shows how Barnave’s historical sense must, however, be understood in light of his strong belief in the idea of the “spirit” of the genuine French nation. Using medical parallels, Barnave believed that the Revolution was a “crisis” that had resulted from a pathological turn in French — and European — history. His complex understanding of the tension-filled relation between a metaphysical, organic national identity and its shifting concrete institutional forms invites a reevaluation not only of the liberal tradition, but more importantly, of the supposedly “pathological” character of all revolutionary concepts grounded in the idea of a single and unitary nation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".