Abstract
Alexis de Tocqueville's De la démocratie en Amérique provides insights into the American society of the 1830s and contrasts it with the political and social conditions in France. Tocqueville's work focuses on the themes of democracy, equality, change, and the inherent dangers in democratic systems, such as the tyranny of the majority. His observations on the American society of the time offer valuable insights into the balance between freedom and equality.
He analyses the structures and institutions that help maintain freedom in American society, emphasising the importance of judiciary independence, decentralised authority, freedom of association, and religion. The author predicts and reflects on potential future challenges in America, including the dangers of materialism, self-interest, and the risks of despotism.
Context
The American background
Alexis Charles Henri Clérel, comte de Tocqueville (1805-1859) arrived in New York in 1831 charged by the French government with reporting on the American penal system. Working from notes on his trip he later wrote the sociological analysis, De la démocratie en Amérique, in two volumes, published in 1835 and 1840.
Tocqueville's arrival coincided with a period of American transformation, and it is not surprising that the main ideas of mobility and change loom large in his work. By 1831 America had grown to include 24 states, ranging from Maine to Missouri and southward to Louisiana. The population now exceeded 12 million. It had grown by more than 30 per cent and in much of the North, industrialisation and urbanisation were on the rise. The construction of the first textile mills in 1821 signalled the start of the American Industrial Revolution. Communications spread: first with canals and highways, and soon after with railroads.
The Americans of the 1830s were on an ever-westward trajectory of expansion. In Democracy in America, Tocqueville's predictions about America's rapid and expansive growth were on the mark. By 1836 Texas had declared its independence from Mexico; it would join the Union in 1845. The newspaper editor John O'Sullivan is credited with coining the phrase "manifest destiny", the belief that Americans were fated to occupy the land from the Atlantic to the Pacific Oceans. This happened within Tocqueville's lifetime, with California gaining statehood in 1850.
As Tocqueville observed, authentically American literature and the arts generally had yet to flourish since America seemed devoted to commerce. Yet this, too, would soon change with the appearance of writers such as Edgar Allan Poe (1809–49) and Nathaniel Hawthorne (1804–64) and artists such as Thomas Cole (1801–48) and his followers in the Hudson River School who were romantic landscape painters.
The French background
After the French Revolution (1789–99), Napoléon Bonaparte imparted a certain degree of unity to the country by ruling as a military despot. He was finally defeated by the British and Prussians at the Battle of Waterloo in 1815. (Alexis de Tocqueville was about to turn 10 then.) Tocqueville passed the remainder of his youth and young manhood in a period of political instability. He seems to have recalled this turbulence as he observed political and social conditions in America during his visit in 1831–32. In his work, Tocqueville often contrasts the law-abiding steadiness of American democracy with unstable political and social conditions in Europe.
After Napoléon's defeat and subsequent exile, France was ruled by a series of three monarchs, none of whom was able to ensure economic and political stability. Louis XVIII (reigned 1814–24), the brother of the last pre-Revolutionary monarch, presided over a government fractured by conflict between the liberal left and ultra-royalist reactionaries determined to restore the "old régime". Under Louis's successor, his younger brother, Charles X (reigned 1824–30), France became even less democratic, with rigid press censorship, the reduction of the already limited suffrage (right to vote), and the restoration of clerical authority, especially in education. Finally, in July 1830 an uprising forced the king to abdicate.
The new king, Louis-Philippe, was a cousin of the powerful European ruling Bourbon family. His government, known as the July Monarchy, sponsored a gradual liberalisation in political and social policy. Censorship was abolished and suffrage was expanded; the landowning aristocracy was displaced to some extent by the wealthy middle-class business owners. However, Louis-Philippe seemed unprepared to accept his role as a purely constitutional monarch, continuing to believe that his authority emanated from bloodlines, rather than from the people. Economic distress sparked insurrections and massive demonstrations in the urban centres of Paris and Lyon. Napoléon's nephew, Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte, mounted two unsuccessful coup attempts in 1836 and 1840.
During the 1840s France began its transition from a rural society to a largely industrial one, paralleling the United States. During Tocqueville’s lifetime, philosophy and political thought were heavily influenced by the transition from Enlightenment ideals to the challenges of modernity. The Enlightenment had championed reason, individual rights, and progress, but the revolutionary fervour it inspired also led to instability and reactionary forces. By the early 19th century, the Romantic movement had emerged as a counterpoint to the Enlightenment, emphasising emotions, tradition, and nationalism. Literature and the arts flourished at the height of the romantic movement in France through the novels of Stendhal and Victor Hugo, the poetry of Alphonse de Lamartine and Charles Baudelaire, the musical compositions of Hector Berlioz and the painting of Eugène Delacroix. Tocqueville’s writings were shaped by this intellectual crossroads of Enlightenment and Romanticism. He sought to reconcile the ideals of freedom and equality within the practical limitations of governance and human nature.
In 1848 the pressures of industrialisation and the currents of extremist political theory triggered a wave of revolutions in Europe. In February, clashes between protesters and the police escalated. After a futile attempt at reconciliation, Louis-Philippe abdicated and fled to the U.K. After nearly a year of temporary measures, voters elected Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte, newly returned from exile, as president of the Second Republic. But democratic aspirations were to be thwarted. In 1852, Louis-Napoléon was proclaimed emperor of the French, with the title Napoleon III. His authoritarian rule of France, known as the Second Empire, lasted until 1870, a decade after Tocqueville's death.
Tocqueville, the Social Scientist
The publication of Democracy in America in two volumes (1835 and 1840) predated the emergence of specialised disciplines in the social sciences, such as political science or sociology. The French Enlightenment writers who most influenced Tocqueville were: Pascal, a mathematician and theologian, Montesquieu, a political philosopher and Rousseau's Social Contract. In the introduction to his book, Tocqueville provides a substantial indication of his sources and methods. As the work unfolds, he reveals himself as deeply engaged in many fields such as political science, sociology, economics, anthropology, philosophy, statistics, journalism, and literary criticism.
The two volumes of Tocqueville's work have also sparked numerous comments. Are Tocqueville's outlook and approach consistent, or does the second volume reveal a more introspective, sombre and pessimistic perspective? Although the tone of the second volume may appear at times somewhat darker, Tocqueville asserts that "the two parts complete one another and form a single work."
Commentary
Having seen the failed attempts at democratic government in his native France, Tocqueville wanted to study a stable, prosperous democracy to gain insights into how it worked. His studies led him to conclude that the movement toward democracy and equality of conditions was a universal phenomenon and a permanent historical tendency that could not be stopped. Since this democratic trend was inevitable, Tocqueville wanted to analyse it in order to determine its strengths and dangers so that governments could be formed to reinforce democracy's strengths while counteracting its weaknesses. It is possible to gain a coherent sense of Democracy in America by looking at all of Tocqueville's various remarks through the lens of one paramount theme: the preservation of liberty in the midst of a growing equality of conditions.
Volume One, the more optimistic half of the book, deals with the structure of government and the institutions that help to maintain freedom in American society. Volume Two focuses much more on individuals and the effects of the democratic mentality on the thoughts and mores prevalent in society. Taking the work as a whole, the main problems the author sees in a democracy are: a disproportionately high portion of power in the legislative branch, an abuse of or lack of love for freedom, an excessive drive for equality, individualism, and materialism. The elements that Tocqueville believes can most successfully combat these dangerous democratic tendencies are: an independent and influential judiciary, a strong executive branch, local self-government, administrative decentralisation, religion, well-educated women, freedom of association, and freedom of the press.
Most of America's democratic problems, according to Tocqueville, lie in societal attitudes and tendencies, but there are a few institutional difficulties as well. The first of these is the preponderance of legislative power. Because the legislature is most directly representative of the will of the people, democracies tend to give it the most power of all the governmental branches. Yet, if there are not sufficient checks on this power, it can easily become tyrannical.
A related constitutional issue that weakens the independence of the executive and therefore indirectly increases the power of the legislature is the ability of the president to be re-elected. At first glance it is not obvious why this feature of American government weakens the president's power. It would seem, in fact, to increase his influence by allowing him to remain in office longer. The problem is that if the President has hopes of being re-elected, he will lose much of his ability to make independent decisions based on his judgements. Instead, he will have to bow to the whims of the people, constantly trying to make them happy although they may not have the knowledge to judge what the best action for the country as a whole might be. Indirectly, therefore, allowing the President to run for re-election increases the danger of the tyranny of the majority.
Another problem with the constitutional organisation of American democracy is the direct election of representatives and the short duration of their time in office. These provisions result in the selection of a mediocre body of representatives as well as in their inability to act according to their best judgement, since they must constantly be worrying about public opinion. By contrast, the Senate, whose members are elected indirectly and serve longer terms in office, is composed of intelligent and well-educated citizens. Perhaps it will be necessary to switch to a system of indirect election for representatives as well. Otherwise, the laws will continue to be mediocre and often contradictory. If the state of affairs continues, people may tire of the ineptitude of the system and abandon democracy altogether.
The overriding danger facing democracies is simply their excessive love for equality. In fact, even the institutional problems are really only symptoms of this deeper mindset which all democratic peoples tend to have. The doctrine of the sovereignty of the people and the power of public opinion are corollaries to the idea of equality. If all are equal, then no one person has any basis to claim the right to rule over another. The only just way to run a society, therefore, is to base decisions on the will of the majority. Yet the problem with this idea is that it can quite easily lead to despotism. Despotism can come at the hands of a single person or a multitude. In the case of a democracy, there is a grave danger that the majority will become despotic. If there are no checks on the power of the majority to influence the government, then it will have absolute power and those in the minority will be helpless to resist.
Perhaps even more insidious is the sheer moral force that the opinion of the majority has on society. As it has already been noted, if all are equal, then no one opinion has greater weight than another. The logical conclusion is that the opinion held by the majority must be the best one. As a result, there is a tendency to abandon freedom of thought in democratic societies. Going against the opinion of the majority is seen as an indirect claim to the superiority of one's own opinion, which is directly contradictory to the principle of equality. This form of tyranny, therefore, can be seen as even worse than past tyrannies, which involved great physical coercion and brutality. In Chapter 7, Tocqueville states:
"Formerly tyranny used the clumsy weapons of chains and hangmen; nowadays even despotism, though it seemed to have nothing to learn, has been perfected by civilisation... Under the absolute government of a single man, despotism, to reach the soul, clumsily struck at the body, and the soul, escaping from such blows, rose gloriously above it; but in democratic republics that is not at all how tyranny behaves; it leaves the body alone and goes straight for the soul."
Two other side effects of equality, both of which also increase the likelihood of despotism, are individualism and materialism. As Tocqueville points out, "individualism is of democratic origin, and threatens to grow as conditions get more equal." The reason for this phenomenon is that equality tends to make people's interests focus in on themselves. There are no societal bonds or duties, as there are in an aristocracy, which link people together and force them to realise their dependence on one another. Individualism can contribute to the growth of despotism because, if citizens become too individualistic, they will not bother to fulfil their civic duties or exercise their freedom.
Materialism results from a passion for equality because people think that they ought to be able to have as much wealth as everyone else. Indirectly, materialism also comes from the philosophical tendency fostered by democracies to disdain lofty ideas or thoughts of eternity. The effect of materialism is that people may be so absorbed in their personal pursuit of wealth that they neglect to use their political freedom. Further, people may actually willingly abandon their freedom in order to have a benevolent despotism which can provide an orderly society and ensure material prosperity.
Fortunately, however, Tocqueville recognises the existence of institutions which can help to preserve liberty, even in the midst of these despotic tendencies. Constitutionally, the independent judiciary, with the power of judicial review, is extremely important. Because it can proclaim certain laws unconstitutional. The Supreme Court provides practically the only check on the tyranny of the majority. Judges are appointed (by the President) not elected, and they serve life terms, giving them a great deal of independence to make the decisions that they think best without needing to worry excessively about public opinion.
A related beneficial institution in the American system is the jury. While juries may not always be the best means of attaining justice, they serve a very positive political function of forcing the citizens to think about other people's affairs and educating them in the use of their freedom. For these reasons, Tocqueville believes that the jury system is "one of the most effective means of popular education" (Chapter 8).
Much like the jury system, the administrative decentralisation which allows for local self-government is absolutely crucial as a means to keep liberty alive by allowing the citizens to exercise it frequently. The existence of local liberties is one of the most significant differences between America and France. Tocqueville attributes the failure of the French Revolution mainly to the overwhelming administrative centralisation which took away the citizens' ability to exercise their freedom, making them lose a taste for it and forget how to exercise it.
Non-institutional factors which help to maintain freedom in the United States are the right of association, the freedom of the press, and, most importantly, religion. Associations are an excellent tool to combat individualism and to allow people to exercise their freedom by taking part in politics. The press is intimately connected to associations in that associations need a means of communicating with their members and also a way of spreading their message to the public as a whole. In America, religion is much more than another type of association and is highly beneficial both politically and societally. Religion teaches people how to use their freedom well. Since the government provides no absolute standards, it is necessary that religion provide some moral boundaries. As Tocqueville remarks,
"Despotism may be able to do without faith, but freedom cannot... How could a society escape destruction if, when political ties are relaxed, moral ties are not tightened? And what can be done with a people master of itself if it is not subject to God?" (Chapter 9).
By bringing people together in a community of common belief, religion also combats individualism. Furthermore, religion is practically the only means of counteracting the materialistic tendencies of democratic peoples. Religion turns people's minds beyond the physical, material aspects of life to the immortal and eternal. So strongly does Tocqueville see the necessity for such a force in democratic society that he warns society's leaders not to try to disturb the people's faith, for fear that "the soul may for a moment be found empty of faith and, in love with physical pleasures, come and spread and fill all."
Most of the divergent strands of Democracy in America come together when examining the relationship between freedom and equality in society. Above all, Tocqueville has a passionate love for liberty and is concerned to point out the dangerous trends that threaten to destroy it as well as the means by which it can be preserved. In the last few lines of the book, he writes, "The nations of our day cannot prevent conditions of equality from spreading in their midst. But it depends upon themselves whether equality is to lead to servitude or freedom, knowledge or barbarism, prosperity or wretchedness." Tocqueville's hope is that through the insights he has communicated in this work, humanity will be better able to direct itself toward freedom, knowledge and prosperity.
Themes
Equality
Alexis de Tocqueville declares that political equality, pervasive in America, provides the strong foundation for democracy, a system of government in which sovereignty resides with the people and decisions are made by majority rule. Unlike the French Revolution, the American Revolution was not fought to topple an aristocracy, but to gain independence from Great Britain. Tocqueville regards the advance of equality of conditions as an inevitable, universal trend. He hopes his analysis of democracy will have the practical effect of revealing the hopes and fears inherent in this form of government.
Change
Rapid change is one of the hallmarks of the American spirit, according to Tocqueville. In addition to equality, westward expansion, land speculation, social mobility, individualism, a talent for innovation, and a ceaseless quest for material well-being are all aspects of this theme. In a psychological analysis, Tocqueville discusses the expression and causes of American restiveness (inquiétude). Of the Americans, he writes, "They encounter good fortune nearly everywhere, but not happiness."
Tyranny of the Majority
Throughout his work Tocqueville is acutely sensitive to the dangers that arise from excesses in the democratic system. For him, the most effective restraints on the potential tyranny of the majority in America are decentralised authority, voluntary associations, lawyers, juries and the court system, although he admits that there is no guarantee that such a tyranny can be altogether avoided.
A more insidious threat to democratic freedom is mild despotism. According to Tocqueville, this arises when the people surrender their independence and free will to an increasingly centralised and authoritarian government. Here Tocqueville views Americans' materialism and preoccupation with well-being as endangering authentic democracy. Almost without realising it, citizens may yield their free will to an "immense tutelary power," provided they remain prosperous and comfortable.
Self-Interest
One of the most important sections of Democracy in America is a chapter in Volume 2, where Tocqueville expounds his doctrine of "self-interest well understood". He traces the roots of this concept back to the philosopher Michel de Montaigne, one of the leading figures of the French Renaissance. Self-interest is not to be confused with selfishness. Instead, it is an outlook that properly calibrates the relative weight of individualism versus group cooperation. For Tocqueville, America exhibits a pervasive and remarkably productive acceptance of this doctrine, shared by the poor and the rich alike.
Materialism
Tocqueville observed that American society was characterised by a strong emphasis on material wealth and individualism. He noted that the pursuit of economic success often overshadowed other values, such as community and civic engagement. This materialism was not merely about the accumulation of wealth but also reflected a broader cultural attitude that prioritised personal success and comfort.
The author believed that this focus on material wealth could lead to several consequences. He argued that an excessive focus on material gain could undermine civic responsibility and participation in public life. People might become more selfcentered, neglecting their duties to the community.
On the one hand, Tocqueville saw materialism as contributing to social equality, as it allowed individuals from various backgrounds to achieve success based on their efforts. However, he also warned that it could lead to a form of social levelling that diminishes the appreciation for higher ideals and cultural achievements.
Tocqueville also expressed concern that a society overly focused on materialism could become susceptible to despotism. He feared that the pursuit of comfort and security might lead individuals to relinquish their freedoms in exchange for stability and order.
Despite his criticism, Tocqueville acknowledged that material prosperity could also foster positive outcomes, such as innovation and progress. He believed that a balance between material pursuits and higher moral and civic values was essential for a healthy democracy.
Religion
Tocqueville believed that religion played a crucial role in the functioning of democracy. He argued that it provided a moral framework that helped to maintain social order and promote civic virtue. In his view, religion was essential for the development of a democratic society because it encouraged individuals to act in ways that benefited the community rather than solely pursuing their self-interest.
Tocqueville noted that democracy tends to foster individualism, which can lead to social fragmentation. He saw religion as a counterbalance to this individualism, promoting a sense of community and shared values. He believed that religious beliefs could unite people and encourage them to engage in public life, thus strengthening democracy.
While Tocqueville appreciated the role of religion in society, he also recognised the importance of separating Church and State. He observed that in America, this separation allowed for a diversity of religious beliefs, which contributed to a vibrant civil society. He argued that this pluralism was beneficial, as it prevented any single religion from dominating the public sphere and allowed for a healthy competition of ideas.
Tocqueville specifically highlighted the influence of Christianity on American democracy. He believed that the moral teachings of Christianity helped to shape the character of American citizens, fostering virtues such as charity, humility, and a sense of responsibility toward others. He argued that these virtues were essential for the success of democratic governance.
Foresight
During the 1840s and 1850s, Tocqueville reevaluated persistent problems with American culture that he believed hadn't been addressed quickly enough. In a collection of essays and letters written later in his life, Tocqueville confessed that militarism and the perpetuation of slavery contradicted many of the principles he praised about the United States. He described American citizens as lacking "moderation, sometimes probity, above all education" and spoke of America's exaggerated pride in its strength as a tool for imperialistic militarism.
Tocqueville predicted the inevitable failure of an economic system built on slavery. Many people who have studied Democracy in America believe the text foreshadows the American Civil War of 1861–65 as well as the struggles for civil rights and racial equality that would follow. One line in particular reads:
"If America ever experiences great revolutions, they will be brought about by the presence of blacks on the soil of the United States."
Tocqueville wrote of the potential rivalry between the United States and Russia. He saw Europe as a quarrelling collection of small nations, while the United States and Russia were vast lands with swathes of resources and room to grow. Tocqueville noted:
"There are now two great nations in the world, which, starting from different points, seem to be advancing toward the same goal: the Russians and the Anglo-Americans... Each seems called by some secret design of Providence one day to hold in its hands the destinies of half the world."
In Democracy in America, Tocqueville described a social phenomenon that would later be named after him—the "Tocqueville effect." This effect describes the conditions that lead to revolutions and civil unrest in societies. Tocqueville's notion was that a society undergoing a transformation that provides more opportunities for its citizens will increase its people's appetite for upward mobility and aspiration for progressive change. Therefore revolutions breed more revolutions because people sense that positive change is possible. Sociologically speaking, "the appetite grows by what it feeds on."
No comments:
Post a Comment