Soci 50

May 27

 

Notes on Tocqueville

 

Alexis de Tocqueville was a French aristocrat (as we shall see, this was important in how he understood what the US was like) who lived from 1805-1859. He came to the US for nine months in 1831 to observe revisions of the prison system, but ended up seeing so much more. His two-volume work Democracy in America (the final volume was published in 1840) was an immediate classic and remains one of the most influential books on political thought (and is now enjoying something of a renaissance).

Tocqueville saw the US as the country of the future. By this I mean that he recognized that the changes that had taken place in the US would inevitably arrive in Europe as well. Thus, he wanted to learn all he could about them.

In a sense, Tocqueville was concerned with those three pillars of the French Revolution: Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity (though today we might use a more gender-neutral term). Liberty and equality might, at some extreme point, be equivalent:

"Let us suppose that all the members of the community take a part in the government, and that each one of them has an equal right to take a part in it. As none is different from his fellows, none can exercise a tyrannical power: men will be perfectly free, because they will be entirely equal; and they will be perfectly equal because they will be entirely free."(Vol.2, Book 2, Chap. 1) Since this was not likely to happen in practice, Tocqueville thought it useful to separate these two human ideals. Tocqueville believed that the ideal of equality was the "ruling passion" in democratic ages. He was concerned that this love of equality might open citizens up to breaches of their liberty - or in Tocqueville's words, to despotism. One of Tocqueville's most important arguments is that, in short, in the US, despotism was prevented by fraternity (this may be a stretch in the use of the word fraternity) - that is, by associations between people. But let's look in more detail:

Tocqueville argues that individualism (as opposed to the more general egotism) is a peculiar problem under democracy, that spreads in proportion with the equality of conditions.

In aristocracies, each member of a community from peasant to the king is a link in a chain of obligation. Each then, is closely linked to several fellow citizens of different classes - "the result is that each of them sees a man above himself whose patronage is necessary to him, and below himself another man whose cooperation he may claim."(Vol 2, book 2, Chap. 2) According to Tocqueville, this means that they are likely to often forget themselves.

(Recall social structure diagrams from class)

In democracies, on the other hand, the past and the future are frequently forgotten and people are more and more likely to believe that they are "self-made men" - that is that they don't owe anything to anybody and no one owes them, that they solely control their own destinies.

"Aristocracy had made a chain of all the members of the community, from the peasant to the king: democracy breaks that chain, and severs every link of it." (Vol. 2, Book 2, Chap. 2) (Tocqueville here seems to be thinking of the classical liberal social structure.)

One of the great advantages for Americans, according to Tocqueville, is that democracy was instituted without a democratic revolution. (He means that there was never a feudal social structure in the US to be dismantled - this is part of an important social science thesis on American exceptionalism.)

Despotism:

As noted above, equality leads to isolation of individuals. This is just what despotism requires.

"Equality places men side by side, unconnected by any common tie; despotism raises barriers to keep them asunder; the former predisposes them not to consider their fellow-creatures, the latter makes general indifference a sort of public virtue." (Vol2, Book2, Chap4) Combating Despotism:

Democratic communities are, then, at particular risk of the ravages of despotism. However,

"When the members of a community are forced to attend to public affairs, they are necessarily drawn from the circle of their own interests, and snatched at times from self-observation. As soon as a man begins to treat of public affairs in public, he begins to perceive that he is not so independent of his fellow-men as he had at first imagined, and that, in order to obtain their support, he must often lend them his co-operation."(Vol2, book2, Chap4) So, it is getting involved in local affairs that brings citizens out of their isolation. The free institutions at the local level constantly remind citizens that they live in society.

But, it is not just through involvement in political associations that the dangers of tyranny in a democracy can be avoided. It is also through civil associations. By this Tocqueville means non-governmental associations such as NAACP, American Medical Association, and bowling leagues.

In aristocratic societies, there is little need for people to unite to act since every aristocrat is the head of "a permanent and compulsory association." In democratic countries, no one is head of such an association, so an individual can do hardly anything by him/herself.

Of course, the other possibility is for the government to be responsible for all the tasks that associations do. But we have seen that this is precisely what Tocqueville fears most. The more the government does, the more individuals, losing the sense of banding together to achieve common goals, will need its assistance. As Tocqueville wrote, "No sooner does a government attempt to go beyond its political sphere and to enter upon this new track, than it exercises, even unintentionally, an insupportable tyranny; for a government can only dictate strict rules, the opinions which it favors are rigidly enforced, and it is never easy to discriminate between its advice and its commands."(Vol2,book2,chap5)

And, fortunately for democracy, political association helps increase civil association. As Tocqueville famously wrote, "Political associations may therefore be considered as large free schools, where all the members of the community go to learn the general theory of association."(Vol2, book2, chap.7)

In turn, civil associations act to increase political associations. Freedom of association, then, can lead to an ever increasing cycle of association - supporting democracy and preventing tyranny/despotism.

Self-Interest Rightly Understood:

Here Tocqueville returns to his comparison of democracy and aristocracy. In an aristocracy, the nobility often speaks of forgetting oneself and working for the good of all without any hope of a reward. On the other hand, in the US, citizens frequently speak of self-interest; that is, they don't talk about the sacrifice of virtue, but about how it is in everyone's interest to be virtuous.

Thus, a noble helping a neighbor might consider this a virtuous act of self-sacrifice, whereas an American would likely consider it enlightened self-interest: if I help my neighbor, then, when I am in need, he will likely help me.

This is another way that Americans combat the potentially insidious effects of individualism.