Alexis de Tocqueville, profound French aristocrat, political scientist, philosopher, and so on, with one of his best-known works being the 2 volumes of “Democracy in America” (1835 and 1840), which will surround this piece of text. Just as Tocqueville’s travels in America inspired his works, his works in turn motivated me to jot my immature thoughts down, as I saw a reflection of the United States today in his work, despite it being a century-old text. Therefore, this piece of text will essentially be divided into 2 parts: the first being an introduction, background check, and a sort of summary, with the second having some comments on US society today.
If you already know why Tocqueville decided to travel to America, please do skip this paragraph as I provide a summary and some background information. Tocqueville intended on studying American prisons, but returned instead with a trenchant observation on American democracy, along with its dedication to individualism and equality, etc. He saw America as a perfect experiment for democracy, with its advantages of having no history, plus its geography being a notion away from Europe. In contrast, a country like France has had centuries of hierarchy and established social structures that even after the 1789 Revolution, were still constrained by the history that shaped the paths it could take. Therefore, America as a “newborn” could afford to make mistakes and get away with them. The Hidden Difference in Society
There were 2 layers of Tocqueville’s observations of American society. At first, he was alarmed by the lack of control in society and thought this was a country deficient in hierarchy and order. Yet gradually, underneath this seemingly volatile impression, American society was actually filled with stability, accompanied by the individualistic subscription to the US Constitution and the ideas of equality that produced many of its unique social relations. Although ironically, equality was only valid among the “white male adults”, not amongst women, nor amongst the slaves back then, and neither was the country founded democratically, except for the brains of the founders. But nonetheless, religion was deeply incorporated in US democracy, with citizens strongly believing in religion and providence, which Tocqueville thought was an expression of faith.
This idea of surface volatility and underlying stability in a way perpetuates life in US society. Let me give a simple explanatory example -- US Presidential Elections. Arguably these are extremely volatile times where every ordinary person voices their own individualistic opinion. The population is mobilised, thousands of voices heard at once, each having different requirements. But as soon as elections end, things become “normal” again, where nothing has actually changed: partisanship, red and blue states, right and left etc.
The True Danger
Tocqueville worried that surface volatility and the underlying stability would fall apart, where one overpowers the other. Either way, it could descend into majoritarian politics, leading to perhaps the most well-known Tocquevillian quote -- “Tyranny of the Majority” -- the greatest risk of democracy (for him).
Yet there are 2 sides to majoritarian politics.
The first -- when the ruling majority have untravelled power and are not qualified or wrong. They try to stir up or exacerbate the ripples of floating discontent so as to gain attention and popularity. Such an America would resemble a riot, drowned in violence, force and conflict, which I would say mirrors US society today: Race riots, hate crime, increased terror activities, hyper-partisanship, conspiracy theories … What’s worse, the people who speak out for such groups will have their supporters more and more attached to them, mentally and psychologically, regarding no more of what is the truth. Looks like we do live in a post-fact world! As of writing this, it made me recall one of my favourite quotes from Machiavelli’s “The Prince”.
“... he who seeks to deceive
will always find someone who will
allow himself to be deceived”
In Tocqueville’s time, the then great calamity was the US Civil War. Racial tensions ran through the country and the burdensome noise, anger and surface activity made for fewer and fewer attempts to solve or reform. America during this period was not an experiment for democracy but was heading towards catastrophe.
The second -- the tyrannical majority does not become wild, but instead stifles imagination with no attempts on rioting. There will be a gradual decrease in societal liveliness and people become conformist, narrow and simplistic. Seemingly this resembles peace, yet for Tocqueville, the appealing experimental side of US democracy will dissipate. (Unconsciously it reminds me of Fukuyama’s argument of the “End of History”)
For Tocqueville, these 2 sides will always be present, but from time to time it will not be clear which one is more dominant, nor can there be an absolute judgement on which side is more dangerous.
As he wrote towards the end of the 2 volumes, his tone did become more pessimistic, whether it is due to the excessive attachment to equality, or the fact that ordinary people become sheep-like prey to the tyrants. But Tocqueville did rationally acknowledge that if democracy was to be an experiment, like how he saw in the new America back then, then there has to always be a risk that it ultimately ends in complete failure.
Comments