When Alexis de Tocqueville traveled to America, he hoped to acquire a better understanding of the principles of democracy that the young country was exhibiting. Tocqueville had noticed his native country France slowly but surely moving towards those democratic standards He saw that over the past 700 years events seemingly beyond anyone’s control had been driving the nation towards that specific form of government. He believed that eventually the rest of France and the rest of the Western World would follow at least the principles of equality shown in the New World. However, he also noted that there were certain impediments slowing down the change to democracy. Tocqueville did not think that democracy was the right form of government for every …show more content…
The country was a feudal aristocracy. A few wealthy people owned the land, and therefore held all the power. The aristocrats doled out their land to their vassals and serfs so they could work the land and return most of the profits back to the land-owner, or lord. The king ruled above them all, exerting his power over the nobility to keep them in line. During feudalism, there was no way to move up the social ladder, castes were hereditary and immutable. The people learned to be satisfied with their lot in life simply because there was no hope or opportunity to move up in society. The castes co-existed because of their ingrained beliefs; serfs believed that they would never be able to equal the power that the nobility held, and the nobility looked down on the peasants as if they were shepherds attending to a flock of sheep. They also believed that the power they held was legitimate, and no one could rightfully take it from them (8). The distance in between the two social classes only reinforced those beliefs, and there was too large a gap to even hope of crossing it to equality. There was only one way that power could exchange hands, and that was through force. Then, Tocqueville noted, the power seemed to begin shifting in favor of the lower classes as time progressed. The aristocratic government was crumbling in favor of a more democratic one, based
... insight into how the peasant judicial system attempted to benefit the peasants but was mostly filled with inadequacies.
Democracy in America has been a guiding principle since the foundation of the country. Many over the years have commented on the structure and formation of democracy but more importantly the implementation and daily function within the democratic parameters that have been set. Alexis de Tocqueville was a French political thinker and historian born July 29, 1805. He is most famously known for his work Democracy in America. Democracy in America has been an evolving social and economic reform, and has continually changed since it’s founding.
de Tocqueville, Alexis. Democracy in America. Translated by Henry Reeve. New Jersey: The Lawbook Exchange, 2003.
Alexis De Tocqueville is a well-known political philosopher known for his ideas that last far past his lifespan and apply to almost every situation of America’s government as it has progressed. These long-lasting predictions and basic principles of government that De Tocqueville spoke of in his works heavily capture the American government from a perspective that existed at the very introduction of such a government. While some of De Tocqueville’s ideas continue to to exemplify America’s government, not every idea De Tocqueville has had can continue to as the nation goes through it’s sharp, unexpected changes.
The France practically changed from being an absolute monarchy to a republic overnight. Everything that the people of France had ever known was changed in a heart-beat. Their once beloved king had just been guillotined and it was now time to set up a new political system. The leaders of the revolution, the Jacobins, imagined a representative government that ruled on the principals of “liberte,” “egalite,” and “fraternity,” liberty, equality and broth...
Tocqueville’s analysis for the potential of an industrial aristocracy to grow in a democracy is useful in analyzing America prior to and during the Gilded Age. This time period in American history exhibits the growth of an industrial aristocracy that Tocqueville prophetically warned readers possibly happening in democracies. To fully understand how the growth of such an elite can develop, it’s necessary to first look at Tocqueville’s arguments on how the opportunity of political freedom can give a democracy two tendencies: that of the despot or the sovereign. Also, the Tocquevillian perspective of the economic animal in a democracy helps reinforce the inevitable notion of American’s transition from an agrarian society to an industrial empire. However, what came with the preference for the efficiency of industry over the equality of republican values was a select few reaping the benefits of the rest. The aristocratic class that grew in America during Gilded Age occurred for many reasons. The American-will, coupled with technological advancement and a large European immigrant labor supply, had changed the structure of labor. This division of labor made
Before the Revolution, France experienced a period of time called the Enlightenment. Traditional concepts, such as religion and style of government, were debated upon by scholars, philosopher, and ordinary people. One of the most famous writers of the Enlightenment was philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau. He introduced the concept that the people should be in charge instead of an individual ruler. This idea became known as the general will. In his “Ths Social Contract” Rousseau states, “Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will, and, in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole” (Rousseau). Throughout the future French Revolution, Rousseau’s writings became a cornerstone to the French people. His ideas gave the French people a definition on why the position of the King should be abolished. What was even better, Rousseau even described why the people be placed in charge. At the time of the Revolution an enormous amount of France’s power was allocated to the King and very little was left for the people. In order to achieve more power for themselves, the citizens of France lobbied against a monarchy and instead for Rousseau’s philosophy that the collective whole should rule. Under the ideas of Rousseau, all French citizens would receive power because the collective whole was the governing power. However, obtaining such intentions required that the people abuse the traditional powers of France as Furet
To conclude, seeing that Tocqueville appears to be a big proponent of equality, he may praise America as a country heading toward improvement while criticizing Russia for going back to the old ways. Tocqueville may express belief that the former needs to eliminate all forms of discrimination (ex. Subversive forms of racial discrimination) while the latter needs to de-centralize the government (less power wielded by the president).
Enter Tocqueville. After visiting and evaluating America, Tocqueville claims, “I confess that in America I saw more than America; I sought the image of democracy itself, with its inclinations, its character, its prejudices, and its passions, in order to learn what we have to fear or to hope from its progress” (Tocqueville, 8). The last part of this quote the key to unlock Tocqueville’s understanding of American democracy. America offered Tocqueville a clear picture of democracy, and in this clear picture of democracy Tocqueville was able to distinguish the value and the harm that comes with
Alexis de Tocqueville was a French politic who studied American Society and its democracy. One of the things that he admired the most about America was the democracy that existed in the government, however this democracy generated some problems. One of them was the level of power that a majority could have. Since all the citizens were equal among them, a problem that existed was that the interests of majorities will have more importance than the ones of minorities. In a democracy people will be actively participating in the decisions that are taken and when a group of people has different interests than other, a tyranny of majority can appear. This can be defined as when the opinions and points of view
Democracy, the form of government that is emerging exponentially around the globe, does not, to the bewilderment of many, protect against tyranny (252). This notion echoes throughout Alexis de Tocqueville’s two-volume work, Democracy in America. Tocqueville is careful to explain that there is no perfect government. Consequently, the strength of freedom associated with democracy can easily be displaced; such power can be usurped by an unkind and unjust majority, resulting in tyranny, not the liberty desired by the people. While Tocqueville’s thoughts regarding this concept are flawlessly articulated, they wavered to a small effect. The tyranny Tocqueville imagines initially, the vision of despotism he concludes with, and the shift that
When describing the omnipotence of the majority in the United States, Tocqueville argues that,“It is of the very essence of democratic government that the majority has absolute sway, for in a democracy nothing resists the majority”. The threatening tone of “nothing resists the majority” not only defines the collective, but suggests that the individual has no chance in defeating the majority. Moreover, Tocqueville emphasizes that individuals are the foundation of the majority; however, Tocqueville points out that the foundation will inevitably rot away if citizens decide to focus only on themselves and those closest to them. Tocqueville believes that “Individualism at first dries up only the source of public virtues, but in the long run it attacks and destroys all the others and in the end will be subsumed by egoism[...] Individualism is democratic in origin, and it threatens to develop as conditions equalize”. The personification of individualism as a being that eventually “attacks and destroys all [public virtue]” highlights Tocqueville’s hatred of individualism and points out that the equality of conditions found in a democracy catalyzes individualism. Fortunately, Tocqueville reveals that, “The Americans have used liberty to combat the individualism born of equality,
As it turns out, Alexis de Tocqueville had a great many ideas and views on the different aspects of democracy in America. Everything from political parties in the United States to freedom of the press and the principal causes of maintaining a Democratic Republic were on the table for discussion. It must have been quite shocking for the American of the time to read Democracy in America after it was translated. Tocqueville had many opinionated views that directly clashed with the ideals of the typical American’s feelings of exceptionalism. Though not every thought he expressed issued concern, many of his observations call and the question the intricate workings of democratic America.
In the book, Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville discusses a wide range of topics, with a prevalent topic being American attitudes and the democratic values of equality and freedom. But, there are some threats to the ideal democracy everyone visualizes when they think of America. These are mass society, democratic despotism and extremes of wealth and poverty. Tocqueville suggests multiple solutions to these issues, such as increasing judiciary power, utilizing social institutions to increase social awareness and SOMETHING>!!!@WRER. I think the issues of mass society, democratic despotism and the extremes of wealth and poverty are effectively dealt with through an increased social awareness and voluntary societal institutions, as
On August 26, 1789, the assembly issued the “Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen.” Through judicial matters, this document was written in order to secure due process and to create self-government among the French citizens. This document offered to the world and especially to the French citizens a summary of the morals and values of the Revolution, while in turn justifying the destruction of a government; especially in this case the French government, based upon autocracy of the ruler and advantage. The formation of a new government based upon the indisputable rights of the individuals of France through liberty and political uniformity.