The nineteenth-century French writer examines the development of democratic government in the United States and the state of political and social life.

Über die Demokratie in Nordamerika.--Über dei Demokratie in Amerika,--Rede zur Aufnahme in die Französische Akademie.--Über Politik und Wissenschaft.--Aus den "Erinnerungen".--Aus dem Briefwechsel.--Aus "Das ancien Régime und die Revolution."--Aus den Fragmenten zur Fortsetzung von "L'ancien régime et la révolution."--Allgemeine Bemerkungen über die Florentinische Republik, besonders über den Unterschied zwischen der sogennanten Florentiner Demokratie und unserer heutigen Demokratie.--Aphorismen.

Alexis de Tocqueville, 1805 geboren, war ein um dreizehn Jahre älterer Zeitgenosse von Karl Marx. Beide beherrschte vom ersten Erwachen ihrer geistigen Regsamkeit an das Bewußtsein, in einer Zeit unerhörter Umwäl zungen aller Prinzipien und aller Bedingungen zu leben, die bis dahin für die Ordnung und den Geist des täglichen Lebens in der menschlichen Ge sellschaft maßgebend gewesen waren. Was die geistige Leidenschaft beider - so ver~chiedenartiger, so entgegengesetzter Menschen - von vornherein fesselte, war die Frage nach der Bedeutung, (...) nach dem Wo-Hinaus dieser Entwicklung und ihr Verlangen, die entscheidenden Momente dieser Ver änderung bestimmen zu können. In der Unmittelbarkeit und Eindringlich keit der Beobachtung, in der Kraft und Schärfe der Analyse und was die grundsätzliche Bedeutung des Aspektes anbetrifft, unter dem sie die Er eignisse ihrer Zeit begriffen, konnte wohl einer dem anderen die Waage halten. Ja, in einer Hinsicht mindestens mochte Tocqueville sogar Marx übertreffen: in dem aufrichtigen Bemühen um vollständige Vorurteils losigkeit und in dem ernsten Bewußtsein der Verantwortung als Mitleben der seiner Zeit. Beide, Marx wie Tocqueville, konstatieren übereinstimmend - wenn auch aus sehr verschiedener Perspektive - zwei entscheidende Merkmale ihrer Zeit: einmal die Tendenz zu einer vollständigen Aufhebung aller gesell schaftlichen Unterscheidung, den Zug zu einer fortschreitenden Gleichheit der Vielen. Und ferner: den zwangsläufigen Charakter dieser Entwick lung, die ihre Antriebe aus der gesamten Vergangenheit und Geistesart des Abendlandes erhält. (shrink)

The Old Regime and the Revolution is Alexis de Tocqueville's great meditation on the origins and meanings of the French Revolution. One of the most profound and influential studies of this pivotal event, it remains a relevant and stimulating discussion of the problem of preserving individual and political freedom in the modern world. Alan Kahan's translation provides a faithful, readable rendering of Tocqueville's last masterpiece, and includes notes and variants which reveal Tocqueville's sources and include excerpts from (...) his drafts and revisions. The introduction by France's most eminent scholars of Tocqueville and the French Revolution, Françoise Mélonio and the late François Furet, provides a brilliant analysis of the work. (shrink)

This book provides the first complete, literal English translation of Alexis de Tocqueville’s and Gustave de Beaumont’s first edition of On the Penitentiary System in the United States and Its Application to France. The work contains a critical comparison of two competing American penitentiary disciplines known as the Auburn and Philadelphia systems, an evaluation of whether American penitentiaries can successfully work in France, a detailed description of Houses of Refuge as the first juvenile detention centers, and an argument against (...) penal colonization. The work provides valuable insights into understanding Tocqueville as a statesman, as well as a comparative look at civic engagement in early American and French penal reform movements. The Translator’s Introduction provides historical context for understanding Tocqueville’s work in French penal reform and the major themes of the report. The book thus fills a void in Tocquevillian studies and extrapolates the roots of American and French criminal justice systems in the nineteenth century. (shrink)

One of Tocqueville’s best-known empirical claims in Democracy in America is that there is no national-level public administration in the United States. He asserts definitively and repeatedly that “administrative centralization does not exist” there. However, in scattered passages throughout the text, Tocqueville points to multiple federal agencies that contemporary historians and APD scholars characterize as instances of a growing national administrative system, such as the Post Office Department and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. I reevaluate Tocqueville’s treatment (...) of bureaucracy in America in light of this evidence. I contend that Tocqueville, perhaps in spite of himself, reveals even the most paradigmatic examples of active, democratic self-government in Democracy in America—townships and other voluntary associations—to be embedded in and causally supported by a network of interrelated, centralized public administrative institutions. Crucially, Tocqueville never resolves the tension between his acknowledgment of the causal power of these institutions and his claims that they do not exist. This new picture of the empirical and normative complexity of Tocqueville’s treatment of bureaucratic institutions offers a rich set of conceptual resources for contesting, among other claims, the political construction of nostalgia for a lost age of do-it-yourself White settler democracy in a time before bureaucracy in America. (shrink)

Most students of Tocqueville know of his remark, “There are three men with whom I live a little every day; they are Pascal, Montesquieu, and Rousseau.” In this paper I trace out the contours of Pascal’s influence upon Tocqueville’s understanding of the human condition and our appropriate response to it. Similar temperaments lead both Tocqueville and Pascal to emphasize human limitations and contingency, as Peter Lawler rightly emphasizes. Tocqueville and Pascal both emphasize mortality, ignorance of the (...) most important subjects, the effects of historical contingency on what we take to be human nature, and both represent the complex internal dynamic of human nature in terms of the interplay of “angel” and “brute.” The most important difference between them concerns their relative estimates of human power and the significance of human action. Whereas the motif of human weakness is fundamental for Pascal, Tocqueville repeatedly affirms that, under the right conditions, human beings are “powerful and free.” Beginning from Pascalian premises, and endeavoring to be more faithful to some of those premises than Pascal himself was, Tocqueville aims to illuminate the possibility of an amelioration of the human condition through a “new political science” that redeems the political realm without divinizing it. -/- . (shrink)

Cette étude traite de la redécouverte de l'oeuvre de Tocqueville à travers les différentes lectures (politique, phénoménologique, individualiste) qui en ont été proposées.

While Alexis de Tocqueville described America as the 'absolute democracy,' Karl Marx saw the nation as a 'defiled republic' so long as it permitted the enslavement of blacks. August J. Nimtz argues that Marx, unlike Tocqueville, not only recognized that the overthrow of slavery and the cessation of racial oppression were central to democracy's realization but was willing to act on these convictions. This potent and insightful investigation into the approaches of two major thinkers provides fresh insight into (...) past and present debates about race and democracy in America. (shrink)

Alexis de Tocqueville is one of the most renowned and debated figures in contemporary political and social theory. This clear new introduction to de Tocqueville's thought examines in detail his classic works and their major themes. Beginning with an analysis of de Tocqueville's philosophy against the historical background and intellectual context of his time, Welch traces the development of his philosophy on democracy, revolution, history, slavery, religion, and gender--including chapters on de Tocqueville's writings on France and (...) the United States. This volume also explores de Tocqueville's historical legacy as well as his contemporary significance, illuminating the reasons why this displaced nineteenth century aristocrat has become one of the most popular figures in current political and social thought. (shrink)

This article assesses to what extent the future of democratic liberty depends upon its citizens employing a proper approach to the past, by analyzing Tocqueville’s views of three kinds of historical consciousness—aristocratic, revolutionary, and democratic. It is argued that democracies require certain aristocratic assumptions about historical dynamics to cultivate a historical consciousness that fosters liberty. Key to this is the belief in the human capacity to influence the trajectory of history. Tocqueville’s historical approach, which blends aristocratic and democratic (...) elements, is identified as the most effective method for tempering the fatalistic tendencies of the democratic point of view. Thus, for democracies to maintain liberty, citizens should recognize the dual role of general causes and human agency in directing the course of historical events. Tocqueville’s insights on the effects of historical consciousness on the future of democratic liberty remain particularly relevant today when Western democracies confront internal polarization and external anti-democratic challenges, whether neoliberal, illiberal, populist, or fascist. (shrink)

Tocqueville’s imperialism has recently attracted much attention in Tocqueville studies. The challenge is to reconcile his imperialism to his liberalism. Is Tocqueville merely a classical liberal thinker who based his liberal theory on human rights and universal humanism? If so, then his support for imperialism would inevitably seem irrational and awkward. The present contribution questions this approach and argues that Tocqueville is more influenced by a republican tradition of freedom, on account of which he grants a (...) positive value to both the state as a political community and to its power as a necessary instrument in the protection of freedom. On these grounds we may explain his sense of empire from the perspective of his liberal theory, while simultaneously adjusting our understanding of his liberalism. (shrink)

This article assesses to what extent the future of democratic liberty depends upon its citizens employing a proper approach to the past, by analyzing Tocqueville’s views of three kinds of historical consciousness—aristocratic, revolutionary, and democratic. It is argued that democracies require certain aristocratic assumptions about historical dynamics to cultivate a historical consciousness that fosters liberty. Key to this is the belief in the human capacity to influence the trajectory of history. Tocqueville’s historical approach, which blends aristocratic and democratic (...) elements, is identified as the most effective method for tempering the fatalistic tendencies of the democratic point of view. Thus, for democracies to maintain liberty, citizens should recognize the dual role of general causes and human agency in directing the course of historical events. Tocqueville’s insights on the effects of historical consciousness on the future of democratic liberty remain particularly relevant today when Western democracies confront internal polarization and external anti-democratic challenges, whether neoliberal, illiberal, populist, or fascist. (shrink)

ABSTRACT This article analyzes the concept of leveling as a political and social phenomenon in the mass society of the nineteenth century by Alexis de Tocqueville and Søren Kierkegaard. The use of this concept in the works of both authors is explained and, subsequently, a comparative analysis is carried out to find the common aspects and the differences that exist between the two. This analysis allows us how to understand the complexity of the phenomenon of leveling and of democratic (...) equality, considering their effects on individuals and their social ties in the mass society. (shrink)

This article explores several key aspects of Tocqueville's "new science of politics". By focusing on its cross-disciplinary, comparative, normative, and political components, it highlights Tocqueville's conceptual and methodological sophistication as illustrated by his preparatory notes for Democracy in America and his voyage notes. The essay also defends Tocqueville against those critics who took him to task for working with an imprecise definition of democracy or with an ambiguous conception of equality.

The influence of Tocqueville in Australian cultural criticism is powerful, not least in the concern with the question of egalitarian democracy and its propensity to breed mediocrity. This article traces European criticism of Australia as the antipodes or other of Europe through the 19th century, ending with D. H. Lawrence's Kangaroo. It tracks the effect of the mediocrity thesis in local criticism, through Hancock and Horne to the work of Paul Kelly in The End of Certainty. How should we (...) live? The argument is posited that Australia is a kind of alternative modernity or civilization which can still be exemplary; a little mediocrity goes a long way, in a world obsessed with the spirit of inner restlessness prescribed by the endless pursuit of the project of rational mastery. (shrink)

Tocqueville considers that authoritarian forms fo government can find support among citizen in “democratic times”. He argues that the erosin of social and political conditions is not the result of external oppressive action, but something that cuts across social and political relations. Maintaining formally, or in appearance, certais conditions of equality and freedom, wich are in line eith the interests of individuals, democracy itself can open space for the emergence of various forms of inequality and oppression. Based on the (...) author, we propose to discuss this phenomenon that tends to give rise to violating social and political forms emerging from within democracia itself. (shrink)

Tocqueville est l’un de ceux qui au XIXe siècle, ont le mieux reflété la situation de leur temps et prévu, pour le XXe siècle, les développements à venir. C’est à ce titre qu’il est un authentique “maître moderne”. Cet ouvrage cherche à s’adapter à la démarche même de Tocqueville, dont la pensée, essentiellement empirique, s’enrichit dans l’action. Finalement, le penseur et l’homme politique se rejoignent.

This study envisions Tocqueville as a political man, and a politically committed one, rather than as an omniscient and solitary prophet of the age of the masses. A historical account of one of the essential liberals of the nineteenth century cannot ignore the fact that Tocqueville's views of both the present and the future were formulated in terms of the outlook of his own generation and class. The British Isles were the source of some of Tocqueville's most (...) significant insights, especially of the historic connection between the rise of democracy and the extension of bureaucratic centralization. They furnished him with two examples from which he eventually drew a theory of the evolution of aristocracies. They gave him a comparative basis for a theory of the relation of ideas to social change, of the causes of and antidotes to revolutions. His ideas on institutional and economic reform and on the ingredients of a great foreign policy bore the English trademark. If at times he protested against a lifeless imitation of an insolent rival, more often than not what the rival was doing became the basis for his own solutions to French problems. Finally, England provided Tocqueville with a refuge from the intellectual and political isolation of his last years. He found there, not only the consensus which was necessary for him to grasp his own reality and purpose, but the opportunity to continue to influence the course of events, however diminished his range. At the end of his life England was his second homeland, and assumed the prime place in his vision of the history of human liberty. A discussion of Tocqueville's intellectual relationship with his lifelong friend, Gustave de Beaumont, is indispensable to this study. Tocqueville brought to their common fund of ideas a wealth of insight which justly claims greater scholarly attention, but it was Beaumont who, after their journey to England and Ireland in 1835, attempted an extended study of the British constitution, while the ideas of his traveling companion remained in undigested notes. Despite the fact that the inseparability of their ideas on democracy was recognized a generation ago, the unity of their careers and ideas after the appearance of their books on America here receives due analysis for the first time. (shrink)

Este artículo intenta identificar los acuerdos y desacuerdos entre Benjamin Constant y Alexis de Tocqueville en torno a la pregunta de cómo fundar un orden político respetuoso de las libertades y que, al mismo tiempo, asuma y proyecte la ruptura revolucionaria. En otras palabras, cómo articular orden, libertad y política. nuestra tesis es que la diferencia en el modo de aproximarse a la cuestión encuentra su origen en diversas concepciones de la historia. Para los efectos de evaluar los procesos (...) históricos, Constant nunca abandona del todo ciertas intuiciones progresistas. Tocqueville, por su parte, se mantiene siempre a distancia de las distintas versiones de la filosofía de la historia. Para ilustrar el argumento, nuestro trabajo se divide en cuatro partes. En la primera, exponemos la relación entre ambos autores y su concepción del movimiento histórico. Luego, examinamos cómo entiende cada uno de ellos el concepto de perfectibilidad, siempre a la luz de la primera diferencia. En la tercera parte, exploramos la noción de anacronismo empleada por Constant, y las críticas —más o menos implícitas— de Tocqueville a esa idea. Por último, analizaremos las distintas concepciones de política que se deducen de cada uno de los sistemas. (shrink)

This paper compares Tocqueville's concept of democracy to the social and political evolution of Brazil. It draws attention to the different points of departure which marked the establishment of American and Brazilian societies, through the works of authors such as Laura de Mello e Souza, Gilberto Freyre, Florestan Fernandes, Celso Furtado, and Sérgio Buarque de Holanda. It notes that, despite conditions being more favourable for the formation of a democratic society in the United States than in Brazil, subsequent to (...) the founding periods a certain coming together occurred in the process of formation of the two societies. The 'similarity of differences' between American and Brazilian societies becomes clear as soon as one brings together the roles played by the three constituent ethnic groups of these societies, which, by their simple existence, link difference to inequality. (shrink)

Tocqueville’s gifts as an observer and commentator on American life and democracy are brought to vivid life in this splendid volume. In On Tocqueville, Alan Ryan brilliantly illuminates the observations of the French sociologist Alexis de Tocqueville, who first journeyed to the United States in 1831 and went on to catalog the unique features of the American social contract in his two-volume masterpiece, Democracy in America. Often thought of as the father of "American Exceptionalism," Tocqueville sought (...) to observe the social conditions of emerging political equality in America, "a river that may be channeled but cannot be stopped in its course." In choosing America, he posed a central question of how a moderate, stable, and constitutional government is to be maintained in the wake of a revolution. As a dispassionate visitor, Tocqueville wanted to discover the social, moral, and economic arrangements that made liberty and self-government possible. In doing so, Tocqueville made a number of prescient observations about American life—whether it be the contrast between equality and liberty or Americans’ belief that they all belong to the middle class—that remain as relevant today as when they were first written. While Tocqueville is often praised by both conservatives and liberals, either for his distrust of big government and fondness for decentralized power or for his concern with association and community, both tend to overlook his contempt for the “coarse appearance” of the individual members of Congress as well as his enthusiasm for the brutal nature of our prison system. Alan Ryan examines the often complicated and elusive Democracy in America, tracing the influence of writers such as Rousseau, Montesquieu, and Guizot, and explaining Tocqueville’s original conceptions of equality and individualism within their historical context. In Ryan’s hands, On Tocqueville becomes the perfect introduction and guide to Democracy in America. On Tocqueville: Democracy and America features: • a chronology of Alexis de Tocqueville's life • an introduction and text by Alan Ryan that provides crucial context and cogent analysis • key excerpts from Democracy in America. (shrink)

The Arab Spring, with its calls for sweeping political change, marked the most profound popular uprising in the Middle East for generations. But if the nascent democracies born of these protests are to succeed in the absence of a strong democratic tradition, their success will depend in part on an understanding of how Middle Easterners view themselves, their allegiances to family and religion, and their relationship with the wider world in which they are increasingly integrated. Many of these same questions (...) were raised by Alexis de Tocqueville during his 1831 tour of America, itself then a rising democracy. Joshua Mitchell spent years teaching Tocqueville’s classic account, _Democracy in America, _in America and the Arab Gulf and, with _Tocqueville in Arabia_, he offers a profound personal take. One of the reasons for the book’s widespread popularity in the region is that its commentary on the challenges of democracy and the seemingly contradictory concepts of equality and individuality continue to speak to current debates. While Mitchell’s American students tended to value the individualism of commercial self-interest, his Middle Eastern students had grave doubts about individualism and a deep suspicion for capitalism, which they saw as risking the destruction of long-held loyalties and obligations. When asked about suffering, American students answered in psychological or sociological terms, while Middle Eastern students understood it in terms of religion. Mitchell describes modern democratic man as becoming what Tocqueville predicted: a “distinct kind of humanity” that would be increasingly isolated and alone. Whatever their differences, students in both worlds were grappling with a sense of disconnectedness that social media does little to remedy. We live in a time rife with mutual misunderstandings between America and the Middle East, and _Tocqueville in Arabia_ offers a guide to the present, troubled times, leavened by the author’s hopes about the future. (shrink)

This article discusses Tocqueville’s and Mill’s views of the cultural progress of indigenous colonial societies in the context of the current debate about the Enlightenment. The analysis of their philosophical outlooks tends to support Jonathan Israel’s interpretation of the Enlightenment, yet with one important difference: while Israel emphasizes the Radical Enlightenment as the chief instigator of the movement towards modern democracy, Tocqueville’s and Mill’s views emphasize the preponderance of the Moderate Enlightenment, which, while sharing the radical advocacy for (...) rationalism, broad education, religious toleration, the critique of despotism, and other enlightened ideals, nonetheless shunned support of full democracy or universal suffrage. Tocqueville’s and Mill’s Eurocentric views regarding the possible ameliorative influence of colonialism emphasize how the ideals of the Moderate Enlightenment had an overriding effect on the emergence of nineteenth-century liberalism. While this conclusion broadly accepts Israel’s outline of the intellectual history of the Enlightenment, it gives greater weight than he does to the Moderate Enlightenment. (shrink)

ABSTRACTFew studies of Democracy in America give substantial weight to Tocqueville’s analysis of the United States Constitution in volume 1, part 1, chapter 8. In this article, I argue that Tocquev...

This paper revisits Tocqueville’s famous portrait of the American female, which begins with assertions of her equality to males but ends with her self-cloistering in the domestic sphere. Taking a cue from Tocqueville’s extended sketch of the “faded” pioneer wife in “A Fortnight in the Wilderness” and drawing connections to Tocqueville’s criticisms of the division of industrial labor, I argue that the American girl’s ostensibly free choice to remove herself from public life is not an act of (...) freedom. Rather, it is a manifestation of a particular type of unfreedom that reveals underappreciated connections between the two great dangers about which Democracy in America warns: tyrannical majoritarianism and soft despotism. My argument that the girl’s choice to withdraw from public life is coerced rather than free thus highlights the nonpolitical sources of oppression that exist within democratic societies. The paper concludes by raising questions about the need for coercion within Tocquevillian democracy and the implications of this for Tocqueville’s “new” political science—indeed, for his liberalism more generally. (shrink)

L.M. Siedentop's short introduction to Tocqueville's life, work, and contribution to modern political theory demonstrates lucidly both the force and the subtleties of Tocqueville's ideas, and their importance for societies now embracing modern democracy.

Although it is commonplace for political scientists to draw upon historical thinkers and the ‘great books’ of the past, the practice of using historical works as reference points for contemporary issues remains under-investigated. To address this practice, this article is positioned at the crossroads of social science and intellectual history. By examining the relationship of political economists Elinor and Vincent Ostrom with Alexis de Tocqueville, the article demonstrates some of the potential risks incurred by social scientists drawing on historical (...) thinkers. After exploring the similarities between the Ostroms and Tocqueville, it identifies three key pitfalls of the Ostroms’ ‘Tocquevillian’ rhetoric. These pitfalls result in obscuring meaning and overlooking philosophical insights, both of which detract from the Ostroms’ project. Insights from the field of intellectual history are offered. A final section presents a key example of Vincent Ostrom overlooking Tocqueville's thought where Tocqueville's insights were directly applicable to his work. The article parses political science's relationship with the past and offers a critique that is applicable beyond Tocqueville and the Ostroms. (shrink)

Si es cierto que Tocqueville apreció grandes virtudes en el sistema democrático, tampoco dejó de señalar sus peligros. Con arreglo al diagnóstico de Tocqueville, sobre sus contemporáneos –y por ende sobre todos nosotros– actuarían incesantemente dos pasiones opuestas: la necesidad de ser conducidos y el deseo de ser libres. No sabiendo acabar con ninguna de tales inclinaciones contradictorias, nos esforzaríamos por satisfacer ambas a la vez., concibiendo un poder único, tutelar, todopoderoso, pero elegido por los ciudadanos. La dialéctica (...) entre igualdad y libertad representa el núcleo de sus inquietudes. Los trabajos reunidos aquí fueron debatidos en el Ateneo madrileño al cumplirse 150 años del fallecimiento de Tocqueville. Todos ellos nos invitan a revisitar las múltiples facetas de un autor imprescindible, si queremos revisar los avatares de la democracia y proceder a repensar cómo deberíamos actualizar sus reglas de juego. (Este volumen se inscribe dentro del Programa sobre “Cultura de la Legalidad” TRUST-CM liderado por José María Sauca). Diálogos con clásicos europeos La Colección Clásicos europeos (que dirige Roberto R. Aramayo) pretende rescatar del olvido algunos textos fundamentales para comprender mejor nuestro presente, al poner en valor la impronta que han legado a Europa y al mundo determinados pensadores europeos. Como complemento a esa colección de textos, este volumen sobre Tocqueville prosigue la serie de Diálogos con clásicos europeos, que quisiera cumplir en castellano un papel similar al jugado por los Companions filosóficos de Cambridge. Conviene seguir dialogando con ciertos autores que forman parte del entramado de nuestro acervo cultural, pues no en vano el diálogo es condición sine qua non del filosofar. (shrink)

This essay examines Tocqueville's conception of the “social” against the background of debates over the relationship between the social and the political in France from the Revolution to mid-century. It focuses on three groups: those associated with the social philosophy of industrialisme, those concerned with the evils of pauperism from the standpoint of Catholic social reform, and those allied with the new Doctrinaire view of society and politics. It argues that Tocqueville consistently resisted the primacy of the “social” (...) as articulated by these thinkers, even in the seductive form offered by François Guizot, whose influence on Tocqueville is examined in light of recent debates over this issue. (shrink)

Tocqueville passe pour le penseur de la démocratie et de la liberté dans un monde qui n'aime ni la démocratie ni la liberté. En fait, à le lire vraiment, on découvre qu'il fut assez peu démocrate et très peu défenseur de la liberté : en effet, ce philosophe justifie le massacre des Indiens d'Amérique, la société d'apartheid entre Noirs et Blancs, la violence coloniale en Algérie, le coup de feu contre les ouvriers quarante-huitards qui demandent du travail et du (...) pain pour leur famille. Il ne faut pas s'étonner que ce libéral de gauche ait pu servir sous Mitterrand à justifier la conversion du socialisme au libéralisme en 1983 et, sous couvert de droit d'ingérence, les guerres néocoloniales initiées dès 1990. Si l'on est Blanc, catholique, Européen, propriétaire, Tocqueville est le penseur ad hoc. Sinon, l'auteur de La démocratie en Amérique ne craint pas de justifier et de légitimer ce que l'on nomme aujourd'hui ethnocide ou crime de guerre."--Page 4 of cover. (shrink)

This essay critically revisits Jiwei Ci’s prudential argument for political democracy in China from the very Tocquevillian standpoint on which Ci’s core theoretical argument is predicated. I argue that Ci’s underlying assumption and argument regarding the enabling conditions of democracy actually depart significantly from Tocqueville’s own view due to Ci’s overly positive understanding of equality of conditions as directly constitutive of a democratic society and his assumed causal connection between capitalist society and political democracy. After clarifying what Tocqueville (...) meant by equality of conditions and discussing his prudential remedy for the perils of democracy, I conclude by suggesting an alternative pragmatic and prudential justification for democracy in China that is more consistent with the Tocquevillian conception of democracy. (shrink)

On the evening of November 5, 1831, a young Frenchman by the name of Alexis de Tocqueville met the last surviving signer of the Declaration of Independence, Charles Carroll of Carrollton. Just a little over a year after their meeting, Carroll, age 95, would pass away to much acclaim from the young republic. He would be memorialized as a great man in Israel and as the last of the Romans. That he would be remembered as both a Hebrew prophet (...) and a Republican demigod would not shock the young Frenchman. Indeed, Carroll impressed Tocqueville so much that he lamented that “this race of men is disappearing now after having provided America with her greatest spirits.” With the passing of the revolutionary generation, Tocqueville continued, “the tradition of cultivated manners is lost; the people is becoming enlightened, attainments spread, and a middling ability becomes common. The striking talents, the great characters, are rare. Society,” he thought, “is less brilliant and more prosperous.” Whereas Europe had theorized about such great men in the eighteenth-century Enlightenment, America had actually produced a genius generation. Carroll was the last remnant. Carroll reminisced proudly about his days in the American Revolution, his own thoughts on independence, and his respect for the English. Tocqueville, it seems, listened with rapt attention. (shrink)

In this chapter I argue that Alexis de Tocqueville describes the virtue of citizenship in a way that is relevant to contemporary virtue ethics. He explains how a group can possess a virtue that is distinct from the virtue of individual members of the group. (this is an unofficial draft).

Many American readers like to regard Alexis de Tocqueville as an honorary American and democrat--as the young French aristocrat who came to early America and, enthralled by what he saw, proceeded to write an American book explaining democratic America to itself. Yet, as Lucien Jaume argues in this acclaimed intellectual biography, Democracy in America is best understood as a French book, written primarily for the French, and overwhelmingly concerned with France. "America," Jaume says, "was merely a pretext for studying (...) modern society and the woes of France." For Tocqueville, in short, America was a mirror for France, a way for Tocqueville to write indirectly about his own society, to engage French thinkers and debates, and to come to terms with France's aristocratic legacy. By taking seriously the idea that Tocqueville's French context is essential for understanding Democracy in America, Jaume provides a powerful and surprising new interpretation of Tocqueville's book as well as a fresh intellectual and psychological portrait of the author. Situating Tocqueville in the context of the crisis of authority in postrevolutionary France, Jaume shows that Tocqueville was an ambivalent promoter of democracy, a man who tried to reconcile himself to the coming wave, but who was also nostalgic for the aristocratic world in which he was rooted--and who believed that it would be necessary to preserve aristocratic values in order to protect liberty under democracy. Indeed, Jaume argues that one of Tocqueville's most important and original ideas was to recognize that democracy posed the threat of a new and hidden form of despotism. (shrink)

The title of this article has been chosen deliberately, for we find interesting parallels in the careers and outlooks of Alexis de Tocqueville and the great Prussian theorist of war, Carl von Clausewitz whose master work, On War, remains sui generis. They overlapped in time, but, more importantly, their major theoretical works dealt in large measure with the same problem – the democratic revolution and its impact on politics. As Clausewitz argued, the warfare of the new era was caused (...) by the new political conditions which die French Revolution created both in France and in Europe as a whole, conditions that set in motion new means and new forces, and have thus made possible a degree of energy in war diat odierwise would have been inconceivable. It follows that the transformation of the art of war resulted from the transformation of politics. (shrink)

The essays collected here aim to set up a dialogue between the 'historical' and the 'contemporary' Tocqueville. In what ways does a contextualization of Tocqueville throw new light on his relevance as a political thinker today? How can a focus on his embeddedness in the political culture of the nineteenth century contribute to our understanding of his political thought? Or, conversely, how has the usage of Tocqueville's writings in day-to-day political debate influenced the reception of his work (...) both in the past and today? (shrink)

After publishing the first part of Democracy in America, Tocqueville travelled through England and Ireland. With his impressions of the early industrial revolution still fresh, he read and annotated Machiavelli's Florentine Histories. Tocqueville's interest was present-minded: could Florence be used 'as an argument for or against democracy in our time?' Rejecting charges that modern democracies share the defects that bought down the Florentine Republic, Tocqueville contrasted late medieval and modern republicanisms; direct and representative democracies; the politics of (...) city states to those of larger modern nations with substantial urban and rural populations. Comparing renaissance Florence to industrial revolution Manchester and Birmingham led Tocqueville to consider redefining equality in economic rather than purely social terms. These notes suggest that in 1836, he held a view of the relationships between manufacturers and workers different from that of his later chapter 'How Industry could Give Rise to Aristocracy' in the 1840 Democracy. (shrink)

Alexis de Tocqueville (1805–1859) was convinced that without a new possibility for transcendence, democracies would be ill-prepared to allow for actual freedom. In Democracy in America, his study of the United States, he explained that when self-interest was enlightened, individuals would tend to identify their personal benefits with the well-being of the community. By transcending their individualistic tendency to self-enclose, they would contribute to forming and maintaining a real sovereignty of the people. However, unless the “doctrine of self-interest well (...) understood” was aided by a higher ideal, by itself it would eventually fall short, thus paving the way for new forms of despotism. Religion, and more specifically, reformed versions of Christianity, seemed to effectively elevate the outlook of the early Americans. As I will argue, however, Tocqueville ultimately held that those versions lacked the profundity and stability required to resist the strong materialistic and individualistic tendencies of people living in a democracy. Tocqueville’s apparent, if anxious-ridden, preference for Catholicism as the more adequate civil religion resonates with important aspects of Augustine’s theory of the Two Cities, the earthly and the heavenly city. For both Tocqueville and Augustine, the Roman Church’s stable doctrine was what could more successfully teach mankind the truth about their limited condition, hence making them more capable of learning the “art of being free.”. (shrink)

Tocqueville’s incomplete, conflicted reflections on whether honor and war have been safely consigned to the past should alert us to the psychological, not merely sociological, difficulty of adjusting to modernity. His thoughts about memory suggest that one form of adjustment is the attempt to re‐enchant the world. Among such attempts are both the European ideologies that have spread to the Middle East—nationalism, communism, and fascism—and religious fundamentalism. The latter, in particular, responds not only to the loss of premodern enchantment, (...) but to the complexity that makes the modern world so chaotically contingent and changeable—deepening the allure of simple precepts, imposed from above, experienced directly, and adhered to inflexibly. (shrink)

Starting from the contemporary processes of “fragmentation of societies” (pluralization of individual lifestyles, the increasing ethnic‐cultural diversity, de‐solidarity, the melting away of political loyalties) and of “dissolution of the nation” (the erosion of the monopoly of the state, economic globalization), the author examines Tocqueville's question about what holds society together. This problem of integration is analysed in the perspective of social and legal sciences. Accordingly, the author stresses that solutions to such a problem should come from a constitutional theory (...) which is open to debates and answers developing in other disciplines, thus obtaining relevant information concerning the role of law and of constitution for integration. (shrink)

Democracy is admired for fostering deliberation, debate and innovation. Yet there is also the persistent suspicion that it is anti-intellectual. This article turns to one of the foremost theorists of modern democracy, Alexis de Tocqueville, to assess his contribution to the debate on democratic anti-intellectualism. It argues that Tocqueville denies democracy is anti-intellectual, yet he also claims democracy favours a distinctive intellectual life, informed theoretically by a Cartesian scepticism and practically by the dominance of a practical and commercial (...) perspective in the sciences, arts and literature. The article concludes by examining the technocratic implications of this form of intellectualism for democratic stability and legitimacy. (shrink)

Did Tocqueville treat democracy as a type of society, as a political regime, or in terms of their interactions? This paper argues against the assumption that Tocqueville's concept of this relationship remained constant over his three decades as a theorist. Beginning with his literal acceptance of Guizot's doctrinaire definition of democracy as an état social, Tocqueville then developed an eclectic political sociology. Without rejecting the significance of social organization for politics, he often reverted to Montesquieu's theory of (...) the complex interaction between the social and political. Finally, after the Second Republic's violent end by the coup he had as a statesman sought to prevent, Tocqueville was disgusted by the pseudo-democratic Bonapartist arguments used by the Second Empire's apologists to legitimate it. His final position was that any adequate definition of democracy had to include, not only social equality, but also political liberty and the participation of citizens in a government incorporating a genuine political life. (shrink)