In addressing this issue you should keep in mind the different kinds of people who played active roles in France during these years. Try to figure out what they wanted, how they understood the situations they faced, and what they thought they were doing when they acted. Then assemble an explanation based on perhaps three or four central interpretative ideas.  This is a tall order -- but do the best you can!

There are no simple answers about the French Revolution, which is considered one of the starting points of modern Western history.  People have been debating its origins and meaning for a long time. Some historians hold that the Revolution arose from social and economic change that caused conflict among France’s major social groups, or classes. On this view the middle class, or the artisans and shopkeepers (the "sans-culottes"), or all the poor people in the cities, or the peasants, or some combination or sequence of these groups, rose up against the old regime and brought about revolutionary changes -- though not necessarily the changes they wanted!. Seen in this way, the Revolution expressed the needs of a changing social and economic order through conflicts between identifiable social groups. Many people (especially Marxists, but others as well) interpret much of modern history in this way, as a conflict of classes. In these terms, the French Revolution is the start of modern times because it brought on (or at least began) a change in ruling class: from rule by the aristocracy or nobles, to rule by the middle class or bourgeoisie (the two terms are equivalent in each case). Very roughly, this is the "social interpretation" of the French Revolution.

The social interpretation is not the only one. Instead of looking at the French Revolution as a conflict of objective class interests, some people see it as a clash of ideology and politics. Social structure and social change were a crucial part of the setting in which these clashes occurred, but some historians doubt that class interests provide a good explanation. Critics of the social interpretation suggest that each major class was divided in its purposes and outlook, and that important groups pursued goals that can't be traced to their interests in any simple way. Perhaps the Revolution can be understood better by examining the preconceptions of the participants, their goals and their political activity, rather than by seeing people as acting simply from their social or economic interests. In this way of thinking, the actions of particular people are not so predetermined, and individuals become more important. There may be a role for pure chance in such a picture. This, very roughly, can be called the "political interpretation" of the French Revolution.

As you read, notice that historians differ in more than their conclusions. Some look for evidence in different places than others; their questions require different sorts of answers, so they rely on different sorts of materials. Authors also differ in how they make their points. Historians always interpret what they recount -- there can be no account without interpretation and implied explanation -- but some writers present their accounts as narratives (stories) that convey their understanding of events implicitly, while others state their interpretations and explanations explicitly, along with or even instead of telling the story. Both tendencies are represented in your reading. We’ll talk about these things in class.