Notes on Tocqueville

Below is a two-page overview of Tocqueville's argument that I delivered to my Deep Springs students a few years ago while we were reading selections from Democracy in America. I've also attached my own set of notes from graduate school -- a rough outline of the entire argument. (Both have page number references to the Mansfield and Winthrop University of Chicago Press edition; I didn't have you buy this because we're only reading the first volume.)

Here also is a recent review of Leo Damrosch's book Tocqueville's Journey to America: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/05/17/tocqueville-in-america. It points out some of the salient facts to keep in mind as you reflect on Tocqueville's text: his aristocratic background; his fascination with democracy and sense of its arrival as a world-changing event; and -- perhaps most striking to us -- that he set off on his journey not to write Democracy in America but rather to write an official report on the American penal system. Among the places they visited -- Eastern State Penitentiary, which we'll be visiting next week!

*

A Quick and Dirty Guide to de Tocqueville

The political theorist Jack Schaar reportedly commented that Volume I of DA was written by “a liberal worried about democracy” whereas Volume I, published five years later, was written by a “democrat worried about liberalism.” Since we will not have the time this summer to read every last word of Tocqueville’s magnum opus, I offer this sketch of the work to give you a sense of how these two different sentiments are joined and what key concepts and ideas arise in the course of the work.

VOLUME ONE

Tocqueville emphasizes the point of departure as key to understanding the future of the American colonies. The colonies began with no idea of superiority and cut up into small estates. These early conditions set the stage for everything that followed. Nonetheless, Tocqueville also worries about the division between Virginia area colonies, influenced by slavery, and the “idealistic and enlightened” New Englanders. (Tocqueville will later suggest that if the US ever experiences a revolution, it will be brought about by the presence of the blacks: 611.)

The spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom combined in these early days. Colonists seeking to create religious communities nonetheless created institutions for public education and equal self-government. Estate laws helped reinforce this equality by preventing the mass accumulation of property.

Two principles of government strike Tocqueville as especially important: the sovereignty of the people and federalism. Sovereignty of the people takes root in local government of the townships but extends throughout America. Federalism describes a system of separate state and national governments: local, state governments respond to immediate needs and create forums for participation, teaching citizens “the art of being free” (229). The national government has limited power: centralization is not administrative but rather establishes laws and rights to counterbalance the individual states.

Tocqueville also finds a number of other facets of American democracy important: the freedom of the press; freedom of political association; and American public spiritedness (Americans’ “irritable patriotism,” 227).

That said, Tocqueville is worried about American democracy. His main concern stems from the omnipotence of the majority. The majority has not only political power but moral power; it can influence thought as well as decisions. Tocqueville hopes that the spirit of lawyer can help this by creating a class opposed to the Americans’ revolutionary spirit and beholden to stare decicisis. The Jury can also preserve a love of the laws in the people. “One ought to consider it a school,” Tocqueville writes of the jury (262).

What principally maintains a “democratic republic” in America, however, is more complicated. Tocqueville names “accidental and providential causes” such as the point of departure, lack of neighbors, geography; he also names laws such as the federal form, townships that moderate despotism, and the judiciary’s correction of democracy’s excess (274). Perhaps most important is religion (275). It has an indirect influence but powerfully shapes mores, creating habits of the heart that support stability.

VOLUME TWO

Volume Two takes a different tack from Volume One. Whereas Volume One explained the American democracy and then reflected on why it has persisted, Volume Two traces the subtler effects of democratic life on American citizens. Tocqueville has embraced the American democracy but he is concerned about the kinds of human beings it tends to create. His chief worries focus on individualism, a loss of greatness, commercialism and materialism, and the threat of despotism.

The four parts of Volume Two trace the influence of democracy on beliefs, sentiments, mores, and political society. Beliefs in America are general, pragmatic, and dogmatically committed to equality. This makes their arts practical, their science “free and sure” but “not lofty,” and generally entertainment-seeking. Tocqueville suggests that Americans might study ancient languages to develop eloquence and fight a tendency toward bombast among American writers and orators.

Democracy also influences the sentiments of Americans. Above all else, Americans love equality. This is the “mother idea” of democracy and equality furnishes “a multitude of little enjoyments to men.” However, with equality comes individualism, one of Tocqueville’s major concerns. Believing that no one has authority over him, the American man creates a little society for himself. Democratic revolution disposes men to flee from each other. Free institutions can address this by charging citizens with small affairs that in turn interest them in the public good. Similarly, the American tendency to unite in associations helps. Tocqueville hopes that self-interest well understood can develop this way; he sees this especially prevalent in religious associations. Still, individualism paired with materialism threatens to overwhelm Americans’ associative tendencies; Tocqueville worries about an aristocracy arising from industry.

Mores are a third area of influence. Mores become milder with equalization, making Americans simple and easy. Tocqueville sees a “natural pity” arising. However, structures are imperiled by a lack of firm commitments: “democracy loosens social bonds, but it tightens natural bonds.” Hence the family is very important as a place for mores to develop. Still, Americans tend to establish, alongside political society, “small private societies in which the conditions, habits, and mores will be the same”; this can cause fragmentation. One finds many cases of small ambition but few great ambitions.

Last, democracy’s ideas and sentiments influence political society. Here another danger surfaces because democracy tends toward both independence and servitude. Universality appeals to democrats; private life also leaves little time for public life. Centralization thus seems natural and a soft tyranny a likely outcome. Tocqueville thus ends DA concerned not about omnipotence of the majority but about despotism. When we feel satisfied in our comfortable, well-equipped private lives, we leave the door open for complete domination in our public ones. “Let us therefore have that salutary fear of the future” (673), Tocqueville writes.