Tocqueville and the Either-Or of World-Creation

Time flies when you’re constructing a new universe.

In one of the most interesting passages in Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville lays out the hard distinctions between aristocracy and democracy.  In considering what separates the old order from the new, he sounds a bit like an author setting out to create a science-fiction universe, or least as a philosopher giving advice to a fiction writer about the creating coherent and credible alternate universes.  Here is the section in which Tocqueville describes the defining traits of aristocratic societies:

“What are you requiring of society and its government?  One must be clear about that.  Do you wish to raise the human mind to a certain lofty and generous manner of viewing things of this world?  Do you wish to inspire in men a kind of scorn for material possessions?  Is it your desire to engender or foster deep convictions and to prepare the way for acts of deep devotion?  Is your main concern to refine manners, to raise behavior, to cause the arts to blossom? Do you crave poetry, reputation, glory?

Are you intending to organize a nation so that it will exercise strength of purpose over all others?  Are you giving it the aim of undertaking mighty projects and leaving an impressive mark upon history, however its efforts may turn out?

If, in your estimation, that should be the main objective of government, do not choose a democratic government because it would not steer you to that goal with any certainty” (286).

As for democracy, its merits and limitations are of an almost entirely different order:

“But, if it seems useful to you to divert man’s intellectual and moral activity upon the necessities of physical life and to use it to foster prosperity; if you think that reason is more use to men than genius; if you aim to create not heroic virtues but peaceful habits; if you prefer to witness vice rather than crime and to find fewer splendid deeds provided you have fewer transgressions; if, instead of moving through a brilliant society, you are satisfied to live in a prosperous one; if, finally, in your view, the main objective for a government is not to give the whole nation as much strength or glory as possible but to obtain for each of the individuals who make it up as much well-being as possible, while avoiding as much suffering as one can, then make social conditions equal and set up a democratic government” (286-287).

These passages are indicative of what I consider to be Tocqueville’s realism, in which he not only reflects on the respective advantages of the two forms of society, but also specifies their respective shortcomings and how these deficiencies are at the same time bound to what he finds meritorious in each system.  Aristocracy is by far the more extreme arrangement: tremendous injustices side-by-side with glittering achievements, in which intense devotion, unconditional commitment, and deep piety are balanced out, as it were, by debauchery and transgression.  Democracy, on the other hand, seeks to look after the good of the many, which yields a milder and more relaxed society, where virtue can be joined to happiness through good habits and reasonable and moderate aspirations.  Tocqueville is clear about the trade-off involved in building a society in which the majority can enjoy well-being and prosperity: democratic culture will be far less brilliant and much more materialistic than those produced by aristocracies.  The fact that aristocrats are prone to dissipation and excess also make them capable of demonstrating a “haughty scorn” for material comforts and therefore of displaying “unusual powers of endurance when ultimately deprived of them” (616).

For Tocqueville, what matters most in an aristocracy is a “lofty idea” of man it raises up for itself.  It is not any artist or general but Blaise Pascal, demystifier of the superiority of the nobility by asserting its basis on convention, who for Tocqueville exemplifies the highest fulfillment of the aristocratic drive for splendor and greatness.  Democratic societies, on the other hand, exist within a materialistic horizon, in which lofty ambitions and tyrannical injustices alike have become alien.  In a sense, Tocqueville is saying that if one lives in a democracy, one cannot hope for more than a wide distribution of well-being.  One must make peace with the reality that great and outstanding works of human genius, like the political revolutions that produce democracies, will become rare.

The value of Tocqueville’s thought for contemporary politics consists in how it may shake us free of the currently accepted constellation of designations and values that structure the oppositions between left and right, Republican and Democrat.  Perhaps environmentalism, which seeks, if not to “inspire scorn” for consumer goods, at least attempts to make us more open to the idea of living with less, contains a strong aristocratic dimension, which is not surprising if we consider that it is generally the well-off who espouse environmentalism as a kind of lifestyle choice.  Perhaps it makes more sense to view socialism, which entails imposing limitations on the aspirations of those seeking to increase their wealth, in certain vital respects being much closer to aristocracy than to democracy.  Democracy itself is hostile to the principle of authority as such, with the consequence that democratic peoples, by their nature, cannot allow “any innovator to gain and exercise great power over the mind” (745).  Whereas it is authority that allowed for the abuses of the aristocracy, its erosion under democracy is what, Tocqueville predicts, will serve to immobilize political life in democracy.  It is hard not to regard Tocqueville as a prophet when surveying the current political landscape:

“It is generally believed that new societies will change shape day by day but my fear is that they will end up by being too unalterably fixed in the same institutions, the same prejudices, the same customs, with the result that the human race may stop moving forward and grind to a halt, that the mind of man may forever swing backwards and forwards without fostering new ideas, that man will wear himself out in lonely, futile triviality and that humanity will cease to progress despite its ceaseless motion” (750).

Text cited:

Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America and Two Essays on America, trans. Gerald Bevan.  New York: Penguin, 2003.


2 responses

  1. The immobilization of politics in democracy seems to become more apparent when contrasted with emergences such as the environmentalism example. I am thinking that Tocqueville’s prediction of “ceaseless motion” without “progress” illuminates a dilemma through the use of metaphors about motion and change. Movement can only be discerned via difference—by something not moving or something moving differently. And vice versa, immobility can only be discerned with reference to movement. The feeling of immobility produced by the erosion of authority by democracy suggests that there is some sense of, or recollection of, or reference to another political landscape. In other words, the either/or condition of choosing aristocracy or democracy that you find in Tocqueville, and reminds you of science fiction writing, seems to constitute Tocqueville’s descriptions and predictions. In its simplest form: because there are and have been alternative political systems, the cost or tragedy of democracy continues to disturb us. Hence, the resonance of your statement: “One must make peace with the reality that great and outstanding works of human genius, like the political revolutions that produce democracies, will become rare.” The ability to think about choosing a system of politics to organize society amplifies this sense of tragedy, which is certainly one of the virtues shared by science fiction and political philosophy.

  2. Eric, the aristocratic past is important for Tocqueville as it provides a baseline from which to understand the new type of society that emerged with the American and French revolutions. But he realizes that there is no going back to the old order, and so his focus is to understand the potential and the pitfalls of democracy. I should add that he was hostile to socialism, as it was bound up for him with an overbearing and capricious state that lays claim to the prerogative to confiscate property from its owners. In linking socialism to aristocracy, I am thinking of Walter Dean Burnham’s dictum, “no feudalism, no socialism” (quoted by Morris Berman in Dark Ages America), in which socialism emerges from the network of mutual dependence that characterizes feudalism.

    But the deadlocks of contemporary political life indicate that something fundamental has gone awry within democratic society. For Tocqueville, religious faith was far more important for free societies than for authoritarian ones: “In my opinion, I doubt whether man can ever support at the same time complete religious independence and entire political freedom, and am drawn to the thought that if a man is without faith, he must serve someone and if he is free, he must believe” (512). While Americans for Tocqueville live in the freest society of all, with laws that permit them to do everything, religious belief not only keeps them from “daring to do everything,” but more importantly, “from imagining everything” (342). Of course, we are far past that historical stage in which the expectations of the vast majority of people were narrow, local, and communal, and when their lives revolved around their families and neighbors. But I think that it is in more traditional communities, in which peoples’ imaginations are not given over to dreams of self-invention, that politics truly becomes possible. People have to think of themselves less as individuals and more as members of a community if they wish to engage in politics and even to bring about political change. I think today we might think that it is a good thing to value community, but what bonds us to it lacks strength and vigor.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: