A counter voice: Gustave de Beaumont and the theory of national characters

A character for the Irish?

Gustave de Beaumont was clearly a counter voice within the debate about national characters that engaged nineteenth-century French political thought. This was not the first time that Beaumont set himself apart for the originality of his convictions. For instance, on the Irish question, he did not take Ireland's part against England out of allegiance to the Catholicism of the Irish as opposed to the Anglicanism of the English (which was why most of French public opinion was for Ireland); rather, studying the issue led him to see the English presence in Ireland as a policy of oppression and discrimination.

Beaumont discusses the causes of Ireland's troubles at the end of the first part of L’Irlande sociale, politique et religieuse.¹ He cites evidence and studies that deny the theory that Irish people are prone to idleness and insubordination, saying that Irish people were generally good workers, proud of their work, loyal and very strong. He says that if they are treated correctly, they do not differ from English workers. Moreover, it is difficult to tell a pure Irishman apart from a pure Englishman because the two peoples have mixed for centuries. Beaumont states his position from the start: “Le mauvais gouvernement auquel l’Irlande a été sujette ne donne pas seulement la clé de toutes ses misères ; il explique encore le caractère moral de ses habitants.”² He quickly adds, explaining his controversial statement: “Il existe de nos jours une école de philosophes qui semble vouloir appliquer aux nations le système phrénologique dont ils se servent pour juger les individus. (...) Et quand ils ont ainsi palpé la tête des nations, attribué à l’une le génie de la guerre, à l’autre celui du commerce ; quand ils ont proclamé la troisième propre à l’état aristocratique, la quatrième à la démocratie, ils s’arrêtent presque effrayés de leur puissance prophétique ; car ils croient avoir décrété pour les peuples les arrêts solennels d’une inflexible destinée.”³

He thus lays out the terms of the problem. The English mistakenly believe that nature produces character rather than the institutions. They believe this both of Ireland and of themselves. Based on this idea they come to strong convictions about the destiny of their nation and other nations. This evokes two key points in the theory of national characters. First, there is the contrast between the nature of a nation that is a given once and for all (which is typical of the theory of national characters), and a nation's institutions as a cause of the nation's features. Second, there is a cause-and-effect relationship between national character and the nation's destiny, which is another defining feature of the theory. If we take a nation's character as a fact that is true once and for all and caused by its specific nature, it follows that that character determines the nation's life and future.

Next he makes a critical analysis of national characters. In the idea that the (strong, tenacious) English character is what produces wealth and the (lazy, shifting) Irish character is what produces hardship, Beaumont perceives “préjugé” and “injustice”. He does not at all deny that there are significant differences in character and customs of different peoples. He also does not deny that a nation may be endowed with certain inclinations that together give it particular features compared to other peoples. Returning to the topic of the differences between the English and Irish, he agrees that they certainly exist, that the English have “fermeté d’âme, qui préside à toutes [leurs] entreprises,” and have “cette constance inaltérable en présence de l’obstacle, cette impassible perséverance (steadiness) qui ne l’abandonne pas un instant jusqu’à l’accomplissement de l’œuvre.” He sees the Irish as “léger, inconstant, prompt à passer de l’abattement à l’espérance, de l’effort au découragement,” and “plein d’ardeur, d’imagination, d’esprit,” but “il...