Chapter 1: The Idea of Sociabilité and Association

In the course of the 1820's, Masonic public opinion was generally opposed to the Restoration regime. It was a passive resistance, which didn't manifest itself in deeds, because the Freemasons were afraid that the "Grand Orient de France" (GO) would be abolished. The law's prohibition of conducting discussions of a political or a religious nature was respected, for fear of informers. However, there existed all the time a few republican lodges. In 1821 one of them introduced certain innovations in its Masonic protocol of ceremonies. They were based on rational grounds and introduced free political debates, expressing highly critical opinions of the regime and the Church, and gave vent to extreme Republican aspirations. These debates attracted hundreds of new recruits which were initiated by great numbers. An insurrection attempt by two Republican lodges failed in 1822. Some of the leaders escaped to Italy where they joined the revolutionary Carbonari movement. Upon their return they imported the idea to France and founded secret societies. These Charbonnerie societies terrorized the regime for a while but were soon liquidated.

Charles the 10^th lessened somewhat the oppression of the GO and the Freemasons were quick in grasping the opportunity to voice publicly their liberal aspirations. La Fayette who was a Freemason, attracted most of this enthusiasm and became its leader. When this liberal Renaissance was translated into the insurrection of July 1830, many Freemasons joined it. The July euphoria among the Freemasons and the Republican Camp as a whole, was shattered by Louis -Philip, who opted for a restricted constitutional monarchical regime. Indeed, the police intensified their supervision of Masonic republican activity. But from 1835 on it could no longer stop the republicans of the GO from articulating their wishes for a radical democratization of its institutions and constitution, as was shown, for example, by the emergence of a massive, critical and independent Masonic press.

The "Revue Maçonnique" (1834-1837) for instance, fought for the termination of the oligarchic reign of appointed functionaries in the GO and supported the idea of elected representatives of the lodges. These views resulted in banishing the editors from the GO and end was put on the activity of lodges that supported them. However, "La Revue Maçonnique de Lyon et du Midi" encountered no such difficulties, though it was republican and Fourierist. The reason was that the journal made a point of never directing its criticism personally at the leaders of the Order. The constant pressure exerted by this progressive stream, finally bore fruit in 1839, when the GO adopted a new revisable constitution. In 1844 the GO decided to lessen its objection to the lodges involvement in the administrational affairs of the Order. One year later it started the publication of the "Bulletin du Grand Orient de France". This bulletin turned into its official mouthpiece, informing the GO's members of its and those of its lodges.

The members of the Masonic Orders firmly believed that any issue happening to be on the national agenda, had something to do with the Order - a view which gradually led to discussions of a political, social and economic nature. The "Revue Maçonnique", for instance, recommended an agenda to be discussed in the lodges that included such issues as the improvement of the lot of male and female workers, the establishing of agricultural and industrial settlements, the improvement of work conditions in industry, the elimination of beggary and the dissemination of the idea of a national and secular educational system.

Masonic republicanism was extremely varied, reflecting the manifold attitudes and tendencies of the French left during the thirties and the forties. After the July 1830 revolution the GO was inundated by socialistic theories which dealt primarily with the ideas of Saint-Simon, Fourier, Cabet and Lammenais. Though their concepts were not absorbed in their original form, they nevertheless helped in strengthening the Masonic republican camp, whose members believed in progress, freedom of conscience and equality before the law. In 1843 the "Revue Maçonnique de Lyon" tried to unify the various republican Masonic trends by calling upon freemasonry to lead the whole left in its struggle for the dissemination of the idea of happiness for all people, under all forms of government, provided it was based on the principles of 1789.

It is hardly surprising, then, that the liberalism of the revolution did not encounter many difficulties in its attempt at winning over Masonic public opinion, during the second half of the forties. It failed, however, to solve the complex problems involved in turning freemasonry into an effective, leading elite with a broad social basis, which could help in the establishment of a democratic political system. The idea of sociabilité and association suggested a solution to this problem. Its roots were in the 1840's, when it existed side by side with socialist theories. However, in a few years it combined with 18th century liberalism and turned into a dominant factor in the ideology of the freemasonry. Its main advantage over other solutions lay in having made revolutionary violence unnecessary and in having provided a fertile and creative ideological framework within which methods of political struggle appropriate for a democratic régime, its management and its defense, could be thought out. Thus, the concept of sociabilité and association enabled the freemasonry to become the leader of the Republican camp in its thirty years' journey towards the establishment of a democratic and stable régime in France.

Undoubtedly, the number of the Freemasons could have bolstered their status as a leading group. Quantity however, was not central, and their strength was manifested primarily by the achievements of the freemasonry as such, particularly its success in establishing lodges all over France and in turning them into centers of influence within civil society. Indeed the number of Freemasons had always been low. In 1817 the GO - the greatest Order - consisted of no more then 370 lodges. During the twenties and thirties their number decreased, reaching 238 lodges in 1836. Only during the forties was this trend reversed and in 1845 there were 281 lodges. On the whole, the number of French Freemasons never exceeded 12,000 members.

The idea of sociabilité and Association constituted the basis of Freemasonic elitist awareness. The penetration of this idea, starting around the middle of the 1840's is fully documented. At that time Ratte, the venerable of the Parisian lodge "Saint Jean de Jérusalem", inaugurated a "Masonic Course" on ethics and philosophy. Carbonnet, a member of the lodge, undertook to lecture on "The Contribution of Culture to Peoples". He rejected the argument that an excess of culture may result in the degeneration of a people and that,

Carbonnet added that norms, technology and industry have emerged from the matrix of a culture which promoted ethical progress and a rise in the standard of living. He believed that a high standard of living without social justice, as well as a high sense of morality without the appropriate standard of living, were bound to fail to provide the conditions for high culture. The problem of the 19th century was that its social order was still relatively backward. Carbonnet analyzed the problem by comparing the individual's standard of living to his moral and material progress. According to him, people in his time were less poor, less barbaric, healthier and better educated then people of earlier times. He admthat poverty was still rife, but was noculture that was to blame but human nature. In fact, modern culture offered the "proletariat" work in industry and supported it by means of numerous welfare institutions, such as shelters for the poor, charity organizations, etc. Culture was not to blame for the people's failure to take advantage of the various means of insuring themselves against old age and other dangers of the future.

In his analysis of the meaning of social progress, Carbonnet made use of a utopian social model - that of an imaginary nation whose population was politically active, whose members were intelligent and conformed to progressive norms. The members of this nation would entertain far-reaching intellectual and material aspirations that could be fulfilled by means of a high technological and industrial standard. This was indeed the ideal that Carbonnet's generation should have aimed at, despite the fact that no nation in the past had ever succeeded in creating such a state.

So, the central task which the progressive nations of the 19^th century faced was, according to Carbonnet, to change the fate of their people, to grant them "freedom, save them from their own passivity, and define their social role". He suggested that when people will work and produce, neither for themselves only, nor for their employers, a process of intellectual change will be under way, and the workers' output will increase. England and France have led the rest of the world in this direction, but France was ahead of England, despite its industrial and commercial backwardness. It was characterized by a more advanced cultural state, the possession of high norms, artistic achievement, actual equality before the law and religious tolerance. Carbonnet presented the following quotation as the basis for his prediction:

This is a quotation from the first lecture on "Modern History" in Guizot's course3.It is noted as a footnote in Carbonnet's brochure, an academic habit that characterized most of the Masonic intellectual tradition of the time. Carbonnet was impressed by Guizot's assertion that modern France was characterized by a political culture centered around the phenomenon of intellectual openness vs-à-vs the general public. He defined this phenomenon as sociabilité and according to his opinion, it was the base of France's superiority, even in comparison with the achievements of the British industrial revolution. But Carbonnet emphasized more strongly the practical outcome of sociabilité.

He argued that sociabilité must be enlisted in the struggle for cultural progress, by turning it into the basis of the principle of association. This principle encourages the spread of voluntary social organizations which the masses could use to insure their rightly deserved share of the achievement of technological and economic progress. Only the wide circulation of such organizations would ensure the actual translation of the phenomenon of sociabilité into moral and material progress. In other words, Carbonnet viewed Guizot's sociabilité as a basic characteristic of French society, which had to be nurtured and developed so that its social contribution would be effective. The purpose of this mobilized sociabilité was then, to realize Carbonnet's Utopian idea. It was supposed to direct the wealth of France towards an implementation of social reforms in education, towards the development of social norms and the supporting of creative social ideas as to how to improve social conditions.

The main problem which cast a dark shadow over the present, Carbonnet claimed, was the problem of poverty which was still not suppressed despite the fact that prosperity had now become more prevalent then in the past. This, Carbonnet believed, ought to be the main task of freemasonry as an organization of a mobilized sociabilité. An effort had to be made to improve the industrial system which was the main characteristic of 19th century culture. Carbonnet envisioned solutions to the problem of "the organization of the process of production" and of the achievement of greater quality in the division of profits. He believed that those solutions would neutralize as far as possible the objective conditions which resulted in an imposed inequality. Freemasonry, Carbonnet argued, had to channel all its public and philanthropic activities to the promotion of such reforms4.

There is no data concerning the circulation figures of the pamphlet in which Carbonnet's lecture was published, but it is possible to evaluate its predominant influence by noting the importance attributed to its ideas in later publications of freemasonry, and the manner in which these ideas inspired new forms of activity. In 1841, about four years prior to the appearance of Carbonnet's pamphlet, a report concerning the "means of eliminating beggary in Reims" was published. This report was presented to the local lodge "Saint Jean de la sincerité" by an anonymous lecturer that has signed by initials. The idea of sociabilité and association is mentioned at the end of the report; it was clearly still very marginal at the time.

After explaining his policy of the elimination of beggary, the writer listed ways for treating poverty which were not covered by it. The preferred way was that of founding a mutual fund which would enable people lacking financial means to protect themselves from poverty by collective financial saving. The author based his views concerning the usefulness of mutual funds on those funds which were established by the workers, at times under the aegis of industrialists and municipal officials. It turned out that they could provide relief during an illness and even ensure a modest pension. The author's recommendation was to encourage existing mutual societies, not so much financially, but by cultivating an atmosphere fostering organization and nurturing a sense of morality and fraternity. The writer emphasized the idea that it was possible to educate mutual aid societies to civic values by persuading the proletariat to join the 'cercle' - the principal institution of bourgeois sociabilité,

The greatest part of the "Reims Report" defined an overall policy of combating poverty and beggary by establishing industrial shelters for the poor, in which they could earn their living. Characteristically to this kind of Masonic literature, it describes in detail the financial and organizational means of making it profitable, so that it need not rely on public resources.

The report is one of the first and most successful examples of the kind of Masonic literature that began to develop towards the end of the thirties and the beginning of the forties, as a by-product of the Masonic courses, where Carbonnet gave his lecture. This kind of literature, namely booklets of lectures and discussions concerning major issues on the national agenda which took place in the lodges, was constantly growing throughout the 19^th century. During the 184's these discussions centered on economic and social analyses. After the 1848 revolution, they tended to concentrate more on educational and political issues. However, the emphasis on rational analysis, accuracy and sociabilité was common to all of them. This intellectual activity was covered in a lively manner by the Masonic Press, enabling all to participate in it6.

As stated, Carbonnet's booklet didn't initiate this intellectual activity. It only focused it on the idea of sociabilité and association. This idea which was still marginal in the Masonic political literature of the early forties became central after its publication. That was the case, for instance, with a booklet published by J. E. Precorbin in 1844 and entitled, "A Plan for Reforming the Workers' Union". The point of departure of this booklet was already the idea of sociabilité and association. Precorbin insisted that industrialists exploited the proletariat by not sharing with it the profits of production, according to the principle of "distributive justice". Instead, it offered the workers merely a minimal part of the revenues in wages which were insufficient to cover their most basic needs. In fact, the proletariat was kept in a state of near slavery, and at times the workers were denied even the right to work, a right without which talk of basic human rights becomes empty rhetoric. Despite all this, the author stated his belief that the direction of historical progress was, after all, positive. It was expressed in a growing need for "UNITY" in human society in general, and among the various nations,

Justice and unity were the basic conditions of the rule of morality, and it was on morality that the existence of all human association and material growth depended. Any element in the institutions of society which adversely affected the principle of justice and social awareness, was a barrier to the progress and the circulation of science, and would result in the deterioration of society into a state of poverty and barbarism. Modern society tended towards peace, justice and industriousness, and was therefore ready to become the arena of action of "Modern freemasonry". Owing to its nature and unity, freemasonry could lead the reformist movement in the organization of the workers. Such a reform would usher in a new era in human history, characterized by the participation of all in the profits of production. The unity of the Masonic organization, based on universal morality and democracy, was believed to enable it to initiate the investment of small sums which would eventually, add up to a very high sum. With the help of this money it would be possible to finance a reform in the industrial system and free most mankind from debilitating.

According to Precorbin's opinion, "the new science of political economics" enabled men to identify the destructive factors lurking within modern culture. Such factors were to be found not within the political and beaurocratic systems, but rather within the economic system, which was not based on legal principles. This destructive element was expressed in an intense struggle among the industrialists themselves and among the various social classes. As a result of the workers' exploitation, Capitalism failed to gain what it could have obtained from free workers who get a relative share of the revenues rather then minimal wages. the workers on their part, revenged themselves on their employees by sabotaging production lines as well as products. But the chief problem raised by exploitation, affirmed Precorbin, was the social division it created, a division which threatened to dominate all interrelations in society. Economic competition and unorganized industrial production resulted in surplus production, unemployment and the rise in the price of basic products.

Precorbin maintained that it was possible to improve the lot of the working class as well as that of many in the liberal professions by means of the formulation of a general theory of a just workers' union, based on scientific principles, which could be immediately implemented and would hasten the realization of the required changes in the system. Like Guizot, Precorbin believed that the cultural superiority of France could assist in the matter of the workers organization, since public administration, industry, science and technology, were all led by common people, who did not in any way differ from members of the higher classes, except for their lowly origin. He maintained that such an achievement was due also to the desire of members of the lower classes for general and immediate freedom and to their rejection of Old Régime values. This made it possible to direct the overall interests of society towards a productive aim, thereby creating a harmony between workers and capitalists. Thus, the proletariat could join the system of industrial production by sharing its profits according to every worker's skill and amount of work he put in.

Since politically active class had proved always and everywhere unable to implement this kind of necessary reforms, freemasonry had to undertake this task. It was its duty to establish an industrial organization which would combine the interests of both capital and labor, and skills in all areas of human occupation, and then become a model which society in general would imitate. In a way that was typical of the political culture of freemasonry, Precorbin explained that this new organization should be established by Masonic financial resources and then become economically independent. He suggested the issuing of shares that would be bought by Freemasons, thereby mobilizing the necessary initial capital. His cooperative was meant to deal, by means of "scientific research", with all human activities, from food and clothes manufacturing to the liberal professions. However, its first task was to concentrate on areas of simple production which were the most profitable.

According to Precorbin's assessment his project would yield high annual dividends for its shareholders and provide the workers with a minimal wage which would be approximately twice as high as the average wages of his day. However, its main merit would be in assuring workers stable, secure and honorable jobs. Precorbin affirmed that the success of the first Masonic cooperative, would generate a process of founding many more cooperatives all over France. This process would culminate with their unification in a national "general union" of regional cooperatives. Such a union would offer the public-at-large a wide choice of skills, provide every child with a general education, as well as a pension and an insurance scheme. Furthermore, the reorganization of the French economy on a cooperative basis, would considerably increase the state's income from taxes and yet the citizenry will have to pay less. As a result it would be possible to increase the national budget and to raise the salaries of all. It was highly unlikely, Precorbin concluded, that well-to-do members of the proletariat would then go on entertaining revolutionary ideas. In this way, the establishment of cooperatives would eliminate the danger of revolution 8.

Precorbin's cooperative purpose was political. It was supposed to reorganize French economy, thus putting an end to wild and disorganized competition and to the class-struggle. But, in spite of its political nature, this project did not contradict free market norms. It had to be profitable for capital, labor and the state treasury. The change in the national economy should be achieved by imitation and later on, by founding a nation-wide federation of regional cooperative unions. The process would begin at the bottom and end up at the top, without clashing with the principles of sociabilité which were supposed to serve as the basis for the initial cooperative. Thus, the principle of sociabilité would eventually turn into a federal system based on respect for the autonomy of basic organizations, whose would determine its overall policy. Precorbin thus considered the initiative of tsociabilité-based organizations, such as that of the Freemasons, as the prime of reform. The importance of the initiative of freemasonry was reflected in Precorbin's meticulous financial evaluations and calculations, whose purpose was to convince freemasonry that it was able to finance the project as well as profit by it.

Indeed, the principle of political reform which was based on sociabilité values and at the same time, on cautious and methodical economic thought, gradually became pivotal among radical Freemasons. This principle based on the ideas of Carbonnet, Guizot, the Reims report, Precorbin and others, was partially implemented by the regional Masonic congresses movement. It was fully achieved only during the last quarter of the 19th century, under the Third Republic. Nevertheless, the Masonic congress of Western France", which initiated the Masonic congresses movement should be considered as the ancestor of the democratic political culture created later, with this principle serving as a solid basis.