Thought Piece - Democratic Histories

Thought Piece - Democratic Histories

“Historians who live in democratic ages exhibit precisely opposite characteristics. Most of them attribute hardly any influence to the individual over the destiny of the race, or to citizens over the fate of a people; but, on the other hand, they assign great general causes to all petty incidents. These contrary tendencies explain each other” (Ch. 25, pg. 184-185)

“Those who write in democratic ages have another more dangerous tendency. When the traces of individual action upon nations are lost, it often happens that the world goes on to move, though the moving agent is no longer discoverable. As it becomes extremely difficult to discern and analyze the reasons which, acting separately on the will of each member of the community, concur in the end to produce movement in the whole mass, men are led to believe that this movement is involuntary, and that societies unconsciously obey some superior force ruling over them. But even when the general fact which governs the private volition of all individuals is supposed to be discovered upon the earth, the principle of human free-will is not secured. A cause sufficiently extensive to affect millions of men at once, and sufficiently strong to bend them all together in the same direction, may well seem irresistible: having seen that mankind do yield do it, the mind is close upon the inference that mankind cannot resist it (186-187)”

In Seminar V, we find that conceptions of history and the power of the majority are recurring themes. In Democracy in America, De Tocqueville claims that histories in a democratic society are completely influenced by democratic ideology, which recognizes the sovereignty of the people. Tolstoy, in War and Peace, also recognizes that a new view of history is necessary. In his view, history is not driven by the great man, but by chance occurrences and the aggregate of the actions of the majority. In this thought piece, I would like to claim that De Tocqueville’s view of history is overly simplistic as it unnecessarily reduces democratic histories to the political circumstances of the state without recognizing the role of human nature.

In Chapter 25 of his Democracy in America, De Tocqueville expresses his views on the democratic society’s effect on the creation of history. Ultimately, historians are products of their own time period and culture, so the intellectual climate in which they live naturally affects their views on history. Based on this premise, De Tocqueville claims that the nature and ideals of the democratic political system in the United States are affecting the new histories that will be written in America. In his view, democratic histories are influenced by the democracy’s championing the equality of the people. In his view, this creates a political culture that does not believe that individual beings are the agents of history, but rather that history is the result of general causes. He even claims that this view of history lends itself to the recognition of a divine providence that leads history. As democracy places sovereignty in the majority, De Tocqueville believes that that political ideology affects the American’s view because they recognize that social trends are the result of the society rather than of the individual.

De Tocqueville’s claims naturally reminded me of Tolstoy’s views regarding history. In War and Peace, Tolstoy denies the agency of the great man by illustrating that great men are the most enslaved individuals. Great men are deluded when they believe that they have actual control over historical events. For Tolstoy, history is powered by the aggregate of human actions and chance occurrences. Additionally, history is not fully graspable within history. Only God can understand the direction of history.

Having examined the similarities between these two views of history, it is now fitting to look at the glaring difference: the delusion of the great man. De Tocqueville believes that the democratic historian will not focus on the agency of individual men because the democratic climate opposes this ideology. The problem, however, is that human beings by nature are enamored by “great,” powerful leaders. In War and Peace, Tolstoy explicates that humans naturally are drawn to the idea of the great man. Humans dwell on their own weakness, and through projection, they gain comfort in having a “great” leader on which they can participate with. De Tocqueville’s view on democratic histories being the direct result of the democratic political system is overly simplistic. Doesn’t the deification of the Founding Fathers in the United States refute his view of democratic histories?

520