|
Alexis de
Tocqueville's Observations on American Society
Old-Thinker News | March 31, 2008
By Daniel Taylor
Written in 1835, Alexis de
Tocqueville's Democracy in America discusses in depth the
political, social and governmental aspects of American society from
an outsiders perspective. Tocqueville observes the human
nature that still remains today which allows for deception through ideas
that are "...precise even though false," as well as the tendency even
in the earlier days of America to rely on "...ready-made opinions"
rather than our own.
Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859)
was a French Historian and political thinker. While I don't
necessarily agree with every one of Tocqueville's positions,
Democracy in America is an important book that can be used as a
guide to measure change that has taken place since its writing, as
well as to gain perspective on what has always been.
When reading through this book it is
difficult not to see parallels between American society in the
1800's and the America of today. However, there are glaring
differences as well. Already
existing negative tendencies in human nature have been exacerbated
by social
engineers that have attempted to alter and guide society according to their own
visions. Power and authority are now largely trusted and seen as
sources of protection by a large portion of the population rather
than threats to personal liberty and freedom, though this is
changing. True community is becoming increasingly rare. Government
has expanded exponentially.
All of these changes have an
impact on how much freedom we enjoy - and how much freedom can be
taken away without much resistance.
Tocqueville points out possible
weaknesses in our system of governance, stating that if Americans
abandoned the republic, "...they would move quickly to despotism
without tarrying for long in monarchy." He observed even in his
day a trend away from "that virile candor, that manly independence
of thought, that often distinguished Americans in earlier times..."
Tocqueville's insight into the
world of America 170 years ago provides an important perspective and
path to introspection for present day Americans.
Below are some interesting
excerpts from Democracy in America:
Americans rely on authority only when
they cannot do without it
"Americans are taught from birth
that they must overcome life's woes and impediments on their own.
Social authority makes them mistrustful and anxious, and they rely
upon its power only when they cannot do without it. This first
becomes apparent in the schools, where children play by their own
rules and punish infractions they define themselves. One encounters
the same spirit in all aspects of social life. An obstruction blocks
a public road, interrupting the flow of traffic. The neighbors
immediately set up a deliberative body. Out of this improvised
assembly comes an executive power that will remedy the ill before it
occurs to anyone to appeal to an authority..." (p. 215)
Enlightenment disseminated
throughout the country
"The United States has no capital.
Enlightenment, like power, is disseminated throughout this vast
country. Hence the beams of human intelligence do not all emanate
from a common center but crisscross in every direction. Nowhere have
the Americans established any central direction over their thinking,
any more than they have established any central direction over
affairs of state." (p. 210)
The intelligence of ordinary
Americans
"Nothing makes me admire the
common sense and practical intelligence of the Americans more
than the way in which they avoid the countless difficulties
arising from their federal constitution. Seldom have I met an
ordinary American who could not distinguish with surprising ease
between obligations stemming from laws passed by Congress and
obligations originating in the laws of his state..." (p. 187)
Ready made opinions
"In the United States, the
majority takes it upon itself to provide individuals with a range of
ready-made opinions and thus relieves them of the obligation to form
their own." (p. 491)
An idea that is clear and
precise...
"Generally speaking, only simple
conceptions can grip the mind of a nation. An idea that is clear and
precise even though false will always have greater power in the
world than an idea that is true but complex." (p. 186)
Rise of aristocracy
"What can be foreseen right
now is that if the Americans did abandon the republic, they
would move quickly to despotism without tarrying for long in
monarchy. Montesquieu said that there is nothing more
absolute than the authority of a prince who succeeds a republic,
because the indefinite powers once fearlessly entrusted to
elected officials would then be placed in the hands of a
hereditary leader. This is true in general, but particularly
true of a democratic republic. In the United States, officials
are not elected by a particular class of citizens but by the
majority of the nation; they directly represent the passions of
the multitude and are entirely dependent on its will. They
therefore inspire neither hatred nor fear. Thus, as I noted
earlier, little care has been taken to limit their power by
circumscribing their action, and the range of arbitrary
discretion left to them is vast. The habits fostered by this way
of ordering things could outlast it. American officials could
keep their indefinite power yet cease to be answerable to
anyone, and it is impossible to say where tyranny would then
end.
There are some among us who
expect to see an aristocracy arise in America and who are
already predicting exactly when it will seize power." (p.
460) [emphasis added]
That virile candor...
"Among the droves of men with
political ambitions in the United States, I found very few with
that virile candor, that manly independence of thought, that
often distinguished Americans in earlier times and that is
invariably the preeminent trait of great characters wherever it
exists." (p. 297)
Distinguished men shun careers
in politics
"While the natural instincts
of democracy lead the people to banish distinguished men from
power, an instinct no less powerful leads distinguished men to
shun careers in politics, in which it is so very difficult to
remain entirely true to oneself or to advance without
self-abasement." (p. 227)
An immense tutelary power...
"I therefore believe that
the kind of oppression that threatens democratic peoples is
unlike any the world has seen before. Our contemporaries will
find no image of it in their memories. I search in vain for an
expression that exactly reproduces my idea of it and captures it
fully. The old words "despotism" and "tyranny" will not do. The
thing is new, hence I must try to define it, since I cannot give
it a name.
I am trying to imagine what
new features despotism might have in today's world: I see an
innumerable host of men, all alike and equal, endlessly
hastening after petty and vulgar pleasures with which they fill
their souls. Each of them, withdrawn into himself, is virtually
a stranger to the fate of all the others. For him, his children
and personal friends comprise the entire human race. As for the
remainder of his fellow citizens, he lives alongside them but
does not see them. He touches them but does not feel them. He
exists only in himself and for himself, and if he still has a
family, he no longer has a country.
Over these men stands an
immense tutelary power, which assumes sole responsibility for
securing their pleasure and watching over their fate. It is
absolute, meticulous, regular, provident, and mild. It would
resemble paternal authority if only its purpose were the same,
namely, to prepare men for manhood. But on the contrary, it
seeks only to keep them in childhood irrevocably. It likes
citizens to rejoice, provided they think only of rejoicing. It works
willingly for their happiness. It provides for their security,
foresees and takes care of their needs, facilitates their
pleasures, manages their most important affairs, directs their
industry, regulates their successions, and divides their
inheritances. Why not relieve them entirely of the trouble of
thinking and the difficulty of living?
Every day it thus makes man's
use of his free will rarer and more futile. It circumscribes the
action of the will more narrowly, and little by little robs each
citizen of the use of his own faculties. (p. 818) [emphasis
added]
Reduced to timid and
industrious animals...
"The sovereign, after taking
individuals one by one in his powerful hands and kneading them
to his liking, reaches out to embrace society as a whole. Over
it he spreads a fine mesh of uniform, minute, and complex rules,
through which not even the most original minds and most vigorous
souls can poke their heads above the crowd. He does not break
men's wills but softens, bends, and guides them. He seldom
forces anyone to act but consistently opposes action. He does
not destroy things but prevents them from coming into being.
Rather than tyrannize, he inhibits, represses, saps, stifles,
and stultifies, and in the end he reduces each nation to nothing
but a flock of timid and industrious animals, with the
government as its shepherd." (p. 819)
In absolute governments...
"In absolute governments, the
high nobles who surround the throne flatter the passions of the
master and voluntarily bend to his whims. But the masses of the
nation are not inclined toward servitude; often they submit out
of weakness, habit, or ignorance, and occasionally out of love
for royalty or the king. It is not unknown for a people to take
pleasure and pride of a sort of sacrificing their will to that
of the prince, thereby marking a kind of independence of soul in
the very act of obedience. In such nations degradation is far
less common than misery. There is a great difference, moreover,
between doing what one does not approve of and pretending to
approve of what one does: one is the attitude of a man who is
weak, the other a habit that only a lackey would acquire." (p.
296)
The people maintain
sovereignty...
"As the first people to face the
redoubtable alternative I have just described, the Anglo-Americans were
fortunate enough to escape from absolute power. Their circumstances,
background, enlightenment, and, most of all, mores enabled them to
establish and maintain the sovereignty of the people." (p. 61)
In closing I think that it is worthy
to again mention Tocqueville's comments on education in America, for
schooling is one of the most obvious methods of molding society.
Tocqueville writes,
"Americans are taught from
birth that they must overcome life's woes and impediments on
their own. Social authority makes them mistrustful and anxious,
and they rely upon its power only when they cannot do without
it. This first becomes apparent in the schools, where children
play by their own rules and punish infractions they define
themselves."
Having been released at last from
my 12 year prison sentence in public school a short time ago,
memories of what I was taught - but mostly what I was not - are
still fresh. Anyone who has been through public school knows that
they no longer operate the way Tocqueville describes them. At the
time of Tocqueville's writing, most schools were still free from the great
managerial system that would eventually swallow the nation.
The
Rockefeller family and other interests had yet to
fully seize
control of the
school system and begin molding the minds of generations.
In 1839, echoing many of
Tocqueville's observations of American society, Orestes Brownson
wrote "In Opposition
to Centralization" that,
"A government system of
education in Prussia is not inconsistent with the theory of
Prussian society, for there all wisdom is supposed to be lodged
in the government. But the thing is wholly inadmissible here . .
. because, according to our theory, the people are supposed to
be wiser than the government. Here, the people do not look to
the government for light, for instruction, but the government
looks to the people. The people give the law to the government.
To entrust, then, the government with the power of determining
the education which our children shall receive is entrusting our
servant with the power to be our master. This fundamental
difference between the two countries [United States and
Prussia], we apprehend, has been overlooked by the board of
education and its supporters."
The "new" oppression of an immense
tutelary power that Tocqueville struggles to define is here and now.
We must remember where we came from. We must re-discover the wisdom
of our ancestors.
Citation:
Tocqueville, Alexis de.
Democracy in America. New York, NY: Library of America, 2004.
|
