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

Power of Politics

Power of Politics

De Tocqueville spends a large section of his work discussing how the arts affect various other fields, like history and literature. Do we agree with his assumption that politics has such a pervasive on society? Is politics the highest study, above these others and dictating how the other forms will play out?

Selfishness, Equality, and the Public Welfare

Selfishness, Equality, and the Public Welfare

"Although private interest directs the greater part of human actions in the United States, ....it does not regulate them all. I must say that I have often seen Americans make great and real sacrifices to the public welfare... [Free institutions and political rights, as reminders of citizenship,] every instant impress upon [the American's] mind the notion that it is the duty, as well as the interest, of men to make themselves useful to their fellow-creatures..." Part II, Bk II, Chpt 28, p 197

Last class we discussed the idea of equality de Tocqueville lays before us, and its role in today's America in contrast with the America of his trip. I think we should continue this discussion, particularly in the strain related in the above quote, on whether the average citizen of today's America truly feel this duty and desire to help his fellow man (or her fellow woman...). I find this especially interesting in light of the selfish reasoning, if you will, that Alexis raised in chapters 16 and 17.

What could happen?

What could happen?

"This brings me to a final consideration, which compromises, as it were all the others. The more the conditions of men are equalized and assimilated to each other, the more important it is for religion; whilst it carefully abstains from the daily turmoil of secular affairs, not needlessly to run counter to the ideas which generally prevail, or to the permanent interests which exist in the mass of the people. For as public opinion grows to be more and more the first and more irrestisible of existing powers, the religious principle has no external support strong enough to enable it long to resist its attacks..."

P 154

For some reason this made me think of the gradual disappearance of religion and the rise of government in certain socialist countries in Europe. With the disappearance of religion in Countries like Sweden, The Netherlands, and others, we see that more and more countries are relying on their governments for the needs of the people. No longer do we see citizens of these countries going to their church for help in times of need, instead we see people turning to their local government for money and charity. In a small population, where socialism seems to be working, there is a lack of religion. What would James say about this? What would he think about these countries, who were once rich in Christian tradition, now helping its people through government, rather through prayer and charity?

Women in Tocqueville

Women in Tocqueville

“I believe that the social changes which never bring nearer to the same level the father and son, the master and servant, and in general, superiors and inferiors, will raise woman, and make her more and more the equal of man” (243).

What is Alexis de Tocqueville’s opinion on the position of women in democratic America? Do his writings and opinions provide the possibility for their inclusion in the social condition of equality?

De Tocqueville and Newman

De Tocqueville and Newman

In chapter 17, De Tocqueville observes that, "At the present time, more than in any preceding age, Roman Catholics are seen to lapse into infidelity, and the Protestants to be converted to Roman Catholicism" (156). This immediately made me think of John Newman; a former Anglican who converted to Catholicism (although it might be important to point out that Newman lived in Great Britain rather than in the United States).

De Tocqueville argues that the men of the age are not prone to believe in much, but when they do choose to believe in something a "latent instinct" urges them towards the Roman Catholic church. De Tocqueville says these men become Catholics because they admire the discipline and unity of the Catholic Church. Essentially, democracy will divide men into two camps - those who do not believe in any God and the Catholics.

Does De Tocqueville predict these two camps because they are polar opposites on the spectrum of belief, believing in nothing being an extreme of freedom of religion provided for by democracy and dogmatic Roman Catholicism being the other extreme? How can we relate this back to Newman and his conversion experience?

Teleological History

Teleological History

My question was similar to Rob's. I couldn't help but notice that De Tocqueville bore some similarities to Hegel regarding teleological history. De Tocqueville sees the spread of democracy as inevitable, and even he even suggests that it is perhaps the apex of political development. I don't think he explicitly says this, but it's definitely implied. How do we feel about this treatment of democracy. It almost reminded me neoconservative theory.

Is this real life?

Is this real life?

"The institutions are democratic, not only in their principle, but in all their consequences; and the people elect their representatives directly, and for the most part annually, in order to insure their dependence. The people are, therefore, the real directing power; and although the form of government is representative, it is evident that the opinions, the prejudices, the interests, and even the passions of the people are hindered by no permanent obstacle from exercising a perpetual influence on the daily conduct of affairs" (p 87).


This particular situation does not seem to be the case today; how many times have we seen candidates run an a certain platform to get elected and then act in opposition to that position once in office? The majority of deTocqueville's description seems idealistic and I wonder if he is painting a truly accurate portrait of American democracy, or if it's been jazzed up to show that a "perfect" democracy can exist.

The return of the invisible hand

The return of the invisible hand

I'd like to look at this passage:

Nothing is more striking to an European traveller in the United States than the absence of what we term the Government, or the Administration. Written laws exist in America, and one sees that they are daily executed; but although everything is in motion, the hand which gives the impulse to the social machine can nowhere be discovered.
--pg. 62?

...in terms of this earlier passage:

If [American] society is tranquil, it is not because it relies upon its strength and its well-being [as people might in a feudal society, for example], but because it knows its weaknesses and its infirmities; a single effort may cost it its life.
--p. 33?

How do you convince a people disabused of the notion of authority to accept peaceable government? This was an issue Jefferson, at least, was aware of (in the Declaration). Somehow, today, this has come about. I think the first quotation can be applied to today. Why are we fearful of changing the Constitution? our healthcare system? Why do causes that have not gained legitimate legislative traction after years of lobbying so consistently seek change within the system (e.g. abortion protesters, etc.)? There is a sense in America that the system works because and only because we obey it.

De Tocqueville suggests an answer. In a feudal society, peasants obey because of the strength of the state. In a democracy, do we really obey because of the debility of the state? If not, where did this local sense of self-government come from?

My question is similar to Mike's. It seems that the the United States today is very different from what Toqueville observed. Wealth hangs around families for more than two generations, and there does seem to be the creation of an elite aristocracy. Further, democracy does not seem to be the direction in which all of the world is heading. Can the changed nature of the U.S. and the continued non-democratic principles of the Mid-East be offered as a counter argument to Toqueville? Is this just a case of someone seeing in history what they want to see? Did he publish too early?

De Tocqueville and Hegel

De Tocqueville and Hegel

What do we make of this passage in the author introduction "The gradual development of the principle of equality, is, therefore a Providential fact (29)." In what ways is this claim similar to Hegel's teleological claims about the progression of history? Why do both men seem to suggest that these ideas are tied to Protestantism? Also does this gradual development only apply to Western democracies or to all nations (this is especially interesting given the political developments in the Middle East over the past several years)?

The United States of Today: Fundamentally Different?

The United States of Today: Fundamentally Different?

"The cares of politics engross a prominent place in the occupations of a citizen in the United States; and almost the only pleasure which an American knows is to take part in the government, and to discuss its measures. This feeling pervades the most trifling matters of life; even the women frequently attend public meetings, and listen to political harangues as a recreation from their household labors. Debating clubs are, to a certain extent, a substitute for theatrical entertainments: an American cannot converse, but he can discuss; and his talk falls into a dissertation. He speaks to you as if he was addressing a meeting; and if he should chance to become warm in the discussion, he will say 'Gentlemen' to the person with whom he is conversing" (108).

In this and other passages, De Tocqueville refers to the incredible political fervor and involvement that he has witnessed in the United States. Attitudes toward politics, as well as many other aspects of the nation that De Tocqueville discusses, seems to be rather different in the United States of today. Is the United States of today fundamentally different from the United States that De Tocqueville speaks of? Often, De Tocqueville mentions the unique size and geographic isolation of the U.S. as some of its most defining qualities. If the modern U.S. is in fact fundamentally different, could changes with regard to these qualities be partially responsible?