You are on page 1of 11

Jason Wong

Social Studies 10b


Nicolas Prevelakis

Relational Paradox: That of the Individual and Society

Alexis de Tocqueville enjoyed paradoxes. In his visit to the United

States, Tocqueville remarked that “No novelty in the United States struck me

more vividly during my stay there than the equality of conditions.”1

Tocqueville was awed by what he observed in his trip, and he believed that

the relatively young country represented a new modern society that would

replace an aging aristocratic one. To Tocqueville, it was the basic premise of

equality and egalitarianism that gave rise to a more improved society.

Tocqueville continued his remarks on the United States’ ‘equality of

conditions’ in his introduction, where he wrote “It is easy to see the immense

influence of this basic fact on the whole course of society. It gives a

particular turn to public opinion and a particular twist to the new laws, new

maxims to those who govern and particular habits to the governed.”2 On the

other hand, especially in volume two of his great work Democracy in

America, Tocqueville paradoxically wrote about the dangers of the country’s

egalitarianism. Notably, Tocqueville feared individualism, as well as the

tyranny of the majority. The perfect state, in Tocqueville’s mind, was a

delicate balance of individual freedoms and collective cohesion that seems

impossible for any state to practically attain.

Although this paper is primarily concerned with Tocqueville’s vision of

modern societies, this paper also utilizes other notable thinkers and ideas in
1
Tocqueville, Alexis de Democracy in America translated by George Lawrence edited by J.P.
Mayer; published by Perennial Classics 2000, New York NY Page 9
2
Tocqueville, Alexis de Democracy in America translated by George Lawrence edited by J.P.
Mayer; published by Perennial Classics 2000, New York NY Page 9
Jason Wong
Social Studies 10b
Nicolas Prevelakis

an attempt to critique Tocqueville’s observations and theories. We begin

with the idea that Tocqueville, who is interested in the development of the

democratic social state, seems to inaccurately emphasize religion’s ability to

preserve mores that are essential to the maintenance of freedom. History

has shown that in reality religion can be divisive, encourage self-segregation,

and emphasize differences among individuals rather than encourage unity

among all peoples. The development of social mores that stem from equality

are also a great concern for Tocqueville, who believed that equality begot

individualism and encouraged self-centered individuals. But this paper

argues that Tocqueville is unnecessarily concerned about the ramifications of

the self-centered individual who, as Adam Smith and Friedrich A. von Hayek

would argue, can still be both self-centered and at the same time serve

society’s needs. Smith and Hayek would argue that these two points are not

mutually exclusive, whereas Tocqueville seems to imply that they are.

Furthermore, this essay looks at a possible solution to the Tocqueville’s other

problem of the “tyranny of the majority” by utilizing associations as havens

for dissent and debate. Finally, this essay goes back to Tocqueville’s major

point about the importance of equality in the modern society attempts to

piece together a coherent philosophy behind the concept of the individual in

modern society. Additionally, it is important to note that all references to

American democracy refer to republican democracy.


Jason Wong
Social Studies 10b
Nicolas Prevelakis

For Tocqueville, the origins of United States egalitarian society is

founded upon a complex interaction of the physical geography of North

America, the history of the colonies, and the religious beliefs of its people.

Inevitably, these major influences on American society assisted in its

development into an egalitarian society by helping to determine the

country’s social state. The American social state allowed individual

Americans a suitable participatory role in local and national politics that was

mutually beneficial to both individuals and the state. Tocqueville supported

this idea when he wrote that “The social state is commonly the result of

circumstances, sometimes of laws, but most often of a combination of the

two.”3 Tocqueville emphasized two factors, however, that are primarily

responsible for the culture of democracy that pervaded the country: the

interaction between the religious and political ideals among all members of

United States society. In the religious/moral world, Tocqueville wrote,

everything was ordered, coordinated and organized while everything in the

political world was chaotic, disordered and confused. “Far from harming

each other,” Tocqueville wrote, “these two apparently opposed tendencies

work in harmony and seem to lend mutual support.”4 Tocqueville explained

this idea of mutual benefit by describing religion as the “guardian of mores”

and the companion of freedom in its struggle to maintain itself.

3
Tocqueville, Alexis de Democracy in America translated by George Lawrence edited by J.P.
Mayer; published by Perennial Classics 2000, New York NY Page 50
4
Tocqueville, Alexis de Democracy in America translated by George Lawrence edited by J.P.
Mayer; published by Perennial Classics 2000, New York NY Page 47
Jason Wong
Social Studies 10b
Nicolas Prevelakis

It is important to note, however, that during Tocqueville’s visit the

entire country (excluding Native American and African Americans), was

almost entirely Christian. More specifically, most of America at that time was

Protestant. Since this is the case, Tocqueville’s observation that religion and

freedom mutually supported one another was in actually an observation that

Protestantism (rather than religion overall) and freedom are only mutually

beneficial to each other. He wrote that “For Americans the idea of

Christianity and liberty are so completely mingled that it is almost impossible

to get them to conceive of the one without the other.”5 But, if Tocqueville is

correct to assume that religion and freedom are mutually beneficial to each

other, then his conception of the development of democratic mores is almost

useless in a society that consists of different and/or several religions and

belief systems—assuming that everyone doesn’t or won’t convert to become

Protestants. Tocqueville doesn’t seem to disagree. On page 445 Tocqueville

writes how Islamic beliefs and egalitarian mores are inherently incompatible,

and therefore, Islamic countries are less susceptible to democratizing:

Mohammed brought down from heaven and put into the Koran not
religious doctrines only, but political maxims, criminal and civil laws,
and scientific theories. The Gospels, on the other hand, deal only with
the relations between man and God and between man and man.
Beyond that, they teach nothing and do not oblige people to believe
anything. That alone, among a thousand reasons, is enough to show
that Islam will not be able to hold its power long in ages of
enlightenment and democracy, while Christianity is destined to reign in
such ages, as in all others.6
5
Tocqueville, Alexis de Democracy in America translated by George Lawrence edited by J.P.
Mayer; published by Perennial Classics 2000, New York NY Page 293
6
Tocqueville, Alexis de Democracy in America translated by George Lawrence edited by J.P.
Mayer; published by Perennial Classics 2000, New York NY Page 445
Jason Wong
Social Studies 10b
Nicolas Prevelakis

Tocqueville, an imperialist, would argue that other societies and cultures

have to emulate Protestantism if they didn’t convert outright, in order to

remain competitive and/or not be conquered by Christian democratic

societies. If this is the case, that societies should first convert into

Protestantism in order to craft a workable democratic society, then

Tocqueville doesn’t explain the rise of other great democracies since his time

in Japan, India, and South Africa. Each has their own set of beliefs and

religious values that are different from Protestantism, and none of these

countries adopted Protestantism or another form of Christianity as a major

religion. If Christianity were so important to the development of democratic

culture, then why did America’s founding fathers purposefully separate the

roles of church and state in society?

History has shown that even if all of one society or country has similar

beliefs, there are times and cases from which religion is divisive, and

encourages self-destructive social behavior. For example, modern American

society is currently extremely conflicted over abortion and gay rights issues.

Even within the Protestant religious umbrella, people are fragmented on their

stances on these two issues. Some have taken to militant action, such as the

bombing of abortion clinics, or the assassination of gay rights activists (i.e.

Harvey Milk). Some churches, such as the Episcopal Church, have adopted

amended rules and/or split and formed other organizations in order to

recognize gay couples, or to allow women a place in religious organizational


Jason Wong
Social Studies 10b
Nicolas Prevelakis

leadership. These destructive social behaviors and divisions can sometimes

be primarily fueled by religious fervor. In these cases, religion can

emphasize differences among individuals rather than encourage unity, as

extremely polarized issues remain unresolved as long as opposing beliefs

exist. These conditions can make it difficult for associations to develop

and/or foster.

For Toqueville, associations are the bonds that are created among

individuals in order to utilize their collective power to influence government

and society. Associations are an important aspect of American culture

because associations help develop fellow-feeling and solidarity. Tocqueville

observed that forming and belonging to associations was one of the more

pronounced activities of American citizens. Tocqueville noted that

“Americans of all ages, all stations in life, and all types of disposition are

forever forming associations.”7 He emphasized associations because they

provide a necessary service in fighting against the problems of individualism.

“If men are to remain civilized or to become civilized,” Tocqueville wrote,

“the art of association must develop and improve among them at the same

speed as equality of conditions spreads.”8 The ramifications of the equality

of conditions are a paramount concern for Tocqueville, who believed that

equality encouraged individualism. Tocqueville had the belief that because

7
Tocqueville, Alexis de Democracy in America translated by George Lawrence edited by J.P.
Mayer; published by Perennial Classics 2000, New York NY Page 513
8
Tocqueville, Alexis de Democracy in America translated by George Lawrence edited by J.P.
Mayer; published by Perennial Classics 2000, New York NY Page 515
Jason Wong
Social Studies 10b
Nicolas Prevelakis

equality enables each person to serve their individual self interests, then

individuals were susceptible to harmful individualist tendencies that could

prove destructive. “Individualism” is an evolution from egoism, which

Tocqueville claims is “a passionate and exaggerated love of self which leads

a man to think of all things in terms of himself and to prefer himself to all.”9

Each citizen, then, is isolated from (or isolates himself from) the rest of

society into the society of his or her limited social circle of family and friends.

The individual “gladly leaves the greater society to look after itself”10 and

recuses him or herself from a responsibility to contribute back to society.

Equality of conditions demolishes human fellowship, and according to

Tocqueville, is of democratic origin and threatens to grow as conditions get

more equal.”11

However, there is no reason that individual self-interest and the

interests of society are mutually exclusive. By all accounts, Tocqueville

would prefer a kind of political man over the family man (or woman) when in

reality in a modern society they can be one and the same, or at least share

similar interests. While individualism and social isolation is a worry, it is not

as pronounced as Tocqueville believes. Smith notes that "It is not from the

benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our

dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not
9
Tocqueville, Alexis de Democracy in America translated by George Lawrence edited by J.P.
Mayer; published by Perennial Classics 2000, New York NY Page 506
10
Tocqueville, Alexis de Democracy in America translated by George Lawrence edited by J.P.
Mayer; published by Perennial Classics 2000, New York NY Page 506
11
Tocqueville, Alexis de Democracy in America translated by George Lawrence edited by J.P.
Mayer; published by Perennial Classics 2000, New York NY Page 507
Jason Wong
Social Studies 10b
Nicolas Prevelakis

to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own

necessities but of their advantages." Therefore, individual self-interest and

collective social interests can be intertwined. The family man can still serve

society by serving his family’s interests. In Smith’s example, the family man

would help provide bread, meat, or beer for society. In addition, there is little

reason for men and women to isolate themselves from politics or their fellow-

beings when most businesses and occupations require some form of social

interaction and in many cases men and women of all interests are affected

by various state legislation concerning suitable business practices, taxation,

driver’s licenses, etc.

Tocqueville’s other great concern for the individual was the tyranny of

the majority. A big question for Tocqueville was to whom individuals can turn

to when conflicts arise between the individual and the rest of society. On

page 252 of Democracy in America, Tocqueville pondered:

When a man or a party suffers an injustice in the United States, to


whom can he turn? To public opinion? That is what forms the majority.
To the legislative body? It represents the majority and obeys it blindly.
To the executive power? It is appointed by the majority and serves as
its passive instrument. To the police? They are nothing but the
majority under arms. A jury? The jury is the majority vested with the
right to pronounce judgment; even the judges in certain states are
elected by the majority. So, however iniquitous or unreasonable the
measure which hurts you, you must submit.12

James Madison, an American politician who helped oversee the development

of the United States, had a similar concern. In his editorial, Federalist #10,

12
Tocqueville, Alexis de Democracy in America translated by George Lawrence edited by J.P.
Mayer; published by Perennial Classics 2000, New York NY Page 252
Jason Wong
Social Studies 10b
Nicolas Prevelakis

Madison wrote that “Complaints are everywhere heard from our most

considerate and virtuous citizens, […] that measures are too often decided,

not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by

the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.”13 But Madison

responded to this question by stating that the only way to combat this

tyranny was to encourage associations, which he called factions, to increase

so that they could combat one another when individual associations become

too powerful. Eventually, Madison assumed, if one faction was becoming too

powerful, then that would encourage many of the other smaller factions to

work together to negate the effects of the large faction. Madison concludes

Federalist #10 by stating:

The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their


particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration
through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a
political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects
dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils
against any danger from that source.14

Thus, associations, which already constitute a major part of American

culture, can serve to both divide the interests of the majority, and also serve

to unite smaller associations against the overwhelming power of the

majority.

Tocqueville believed that equality of conditions was an important

component of any modern society. He believed the egalitarian social state of

13
Madison, James Federalist #10 http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm
14
Madison, James Federalist #10 http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm
Jason Wong
Social Studies 10b
Nicolas Prevelakis

America helped develop American characteristics of industriousness and the

desire to accumulate wealth. Tocqueville, however, may have used

observations which were too general in order to craft his theory on American

society. Tocqueville seems to have confused the effects of democracy and

egalitarianism with the effects of commercial society. Furthermore,

Tocqueville’s analysis of religion in America is incomplete; his analysis

doesn’t explain what might happen if America suddenly became less

religious, or more religious with different beliefs, and what effects these

might have on society. Tocqueville rightly concentrates on the power of the

individual in modern society, but Tocqueville fears both individualism, and

paradoxically, the tyranny of the majority. Tocqueville’s individualism is

grounded on the idea that the goals and activities political man, as opposed

to those of the family man, are mutually exclusive.

In actuality I have tried to show that this isn’t the case, and there are

many instances in business and politics that directly affect the political and

family man at the same time. Tocqueville’s concern over the tyranny of the

majority is a valid concern, and can be seen even today in the majority’s

denial of equal rights for gays and lesbians. Madison’s solution would be to

encourage the development of more factions and associations to limit any

individual association’s power. Tocqueville himself noted that associations

were an enormous part of American life. Ultimately, even though he

expresses some reservations about, and an incomplete understanding of


Jason Wong
Social Studies 10b
Nicolas Prevelakis

commercial society, Tocqueville raises two penetrating concerns of the

modern era: the risk of the individual isolating him/herself from the rest of

his/her fellows, and the risk to the individual from the tyranny of society.

You might also like