For both Tocqueville in his “Democracy in America” and Locke in his “Second Treatise of Civil Government”, liberty holds a place of paramount importance in the pantheon of political values, specifically those in relation to democratic and republican systems (though Locke does not explicitly demand a republic as Tocqueville does) . From Tocqueville’s belief in the supremacy of liberty over equality , to Locke’s inclusion and conflation of liberty with property and life itself in his natural rights , liberty plays the crucial role of linchpin in both author’s political philosophy. Though this belief in the centrality of liberty is found in both Tocqueville and Locke, they each derivate liberty from fundamentally disparate sources, and thus hold …show more content…
differing conceptions of the meaning of the term. As a result of this divergence in their conceptions of liberty, and because of government’s arguable ties to liberty through its definitive constriction of said liberty, the two thinkers hold disparate views of the proper role of government in society. Thus it is from this point of divergence that we are able to define each author’s theory in relation to the other, making it possible to parse Locke and Tocqueville’s relatively comprehensive frameworks into digestible pieces, which when highlighted, can answer the question of whether or not government and individual liberty are mutually compatible. To do so we will first focus upon where each author derives his concept of liberty and the resulting meaning of liberty through what it does and does not encompass for both Locke and Tocqueville. From here we are then able to compare and contrast the conceptions of government anchored in liberal-theory that Locke and Tocqueville argue in their books. Finally, after each argument regarding government’s proper role is disbursed, we will be able to comprehensively answer our research question through text-based quotation of whether or not liberty and government are mutually compatible through the comparative synthesis of Locke and Tocqueville’s arguments for the proper role of government. We will delineate what these disparate views of the proper role of government mean in real terms and how each author reaches his view of government’s proper role, specifically within the realms of centralization or de-centralization of political powers and competences, civic engagement in response to governmental actions or the lack of action, and the role of the individual and majority within society. Finally, it is also important not to forget the similarities and temporal qualities of Locke and Tocqueville’s oeuvres.
Locke and Tocqueville were born nearly two hundred years apart from each other. This span of time corresponds to great changes in the European political spectrum, with Locke being born before the English Glorious Revolution (1688) and Tocqueville born after the French Revolution (1789). Much of what Tocqueville and his contemporaries would have written would have taken for granted the innovations to political thought which Locke and his contemporaries would have fostered. Thus, in areas such as the primacy of human self-interest, to the necessity of nominal societal participation in government, to the belief that “freedom cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith,” our authors share a common ground. It is from this common ground that Locke and Tocqueville most radically depart from one another, beginning with Locke’s conception of …show more content…
liberty. To exact a general definition of liberty for Locke, one must place liberty within the wider framework of Locke’s theoretical groundwork. As Locke’s political theory stems from his social contract and state of nature theory, his genesis of liberty does the same, and as a theorist of the seventeenth century, Locke derives much of this from both theoretical supposition and the Christian tradition. In Locke’s First Treaty, in opposition to Robert Filmer’s Patriarcha, he establishes that as no King can claim direct descent from the first man, Adam; “insert quotes” the divine right of kings is an impossibility and man’s slavery (the ultimate restriction of human liberty) is equally infeasible; “insert quotes”. Thus it is in the Second Treaty where Locke develops his theory of government through the state of nature, conquest, slavery, property, governance, and finally the right to revolution, all being buttressed by natural law. Locke asserts that men in the state of nature are free and equal, and at liberty to do as they wish, but only “within the bounds of the law of nature.” It is from this state of nature that men enter into “commonwealth” through their own volition in order to better preserve their property, meaning: “life, liberty, and estate.” As a result, for Locke, man’s liberty is unalienable; “this freedom from absolute arbitrary power, is so necessary to, and closely joined with, a man’s preservation and life together.” Locke pushes his belief in this inalienability to it’s logical limits, even stating that man cannot even place himself under slavery by his own volition, “ for a man, not having the power of his own life [due to all life being the property of God] “The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to have only the law of nature for his rule.” Though Locke does present his reader with the caveat that slavery itself is possible, though only categorically falling under the state of war, as “[slavery] is nothing else but the state of war continued, between a lawful conqueror and captive,” ultimately ceasing when “compact [is] entered between them” . It is in this way that Locke’s definition of liberty stems from natural law, and is unable to be bridled by any man, be it in the form of absolute monarchy, despotic power or individual contract. Concurrently, Tocqueville’s definition of liberty does not stem from a traditional, contractual or natural viewpoint, but rather through that of the historical advent and evolution of equality.
Tocqueville (rather bizarrely in retrospect) conceived of America as having “an almost complete equality of conditions”. While in respect to the French alone, Tocqueville argues, “the taste and the idea of freedom began to exist and to be developed only at the time when social conditions were tending to equality and as a consequence of that very equality.” Tocqueville draws the first stirrings of equality to the “political power of the clergy,” which upon being consolidated began to spread and upon its ranks to “all classes, to rich and poor, commoner, and noble.” Thus “through the Church, equality penetrates into the government, and he who as a serf must have vegetated in perpetual bondage could, as a priest, take his place in the midst of nobles, and would often sit above kings.” Tocqueville continues to trace the ascent of equality and descent of aristocracy to the financial demise of kings “ruining themselves by their great enterprises; the nobles exhausting their resources by private wars, [while] the lower orders enriching themselves by commerce”. And with the advent and spread of education, the “value attached to high birth declines just as fast as new avenues to power are
discovered.” Once citizens could begin to hold land in ways outside of feudal tenure, and “when personal property could in its turn create influence and confer power, once could not make a discovery in the arts, once could not introduce an improvement in commerce and industry, without creating so many new elements of equality among men. From this moment onward, every new invention, every new want which it occasioned, and every new desire that had to be satisfied were steps toward a general leveling,” leading ultimately to an equality of conditions in a country such as America where about liberty flourished, though not without danger of demise. Liberty weaves a powerful trail through Tocqueville's understanding of government. The way he uses this notion implies that he interprets liberty not only as protection from the abuse of governmental power (be it monarchical, despotic, or tyrannical), but more as a positive idea (in the constitutional spirit of the term) of liberty as an asset which each citizen is obliged to make active use of, for it is this active use of his liberty (political and other wise) which solely guarantees the functioning of his democratic and republican state due to the apparent issues innate within a society of equality and individualism. Proof of the later being when Tocqueville references that “The Americans have used freedom to fight the individualism that arises from equality, and they have beaten it,” and the former being Tocqueville’s contention that “in order to combat the evils which equality may produce, there is only one effectual remedy: namely, political freedom. Lastly and chief among such issues related to liberty being a tyranny of the majority, for “of all political institutions, the legislature is the one that is most easily swayed by the will of the majority.” If we expand upon Tocqueville’s conception of the tyranny of the majority, it becomes apparent that liberty is not only the right to act as you wish so long as you don't hurt
The reasoning behind the Constitution of the United States is presented as 'based upon the philosophy of Hobbes and the religion of Calvin. It assumes the natural state of mankind in a state of war, and that the carnal mind is at enmity with God.' Throughout, the struggle between democracy and tyranny is discussed as the Founding Fathers who envisioned the Constitution in Philadelphia in 1787 believed not in total democracy, but instead saw common man as selfish and contemptuous, and therefore in need of a 'a good political constitution to control him.' Being a largely propertied body, with the exception of William Few, who was the only one who could honestly be said to represent the majority yeoman farmer class, the highly privileged classes were fearful of granting man his due rights, as the belief that 'man was an unregenerate rebel who has to be controlled' reverberated.
Tocqueville seems to like democracy in its ideal form. However, nothing can be perfect and thus America is not a perfect democracy. Tocqueville found numerous problems with democracy and the influence it had on the populace. These problems range from their distrust of dogmatic beliefs to the imperfect equality that is in place in America. He also found the effects of these problems to be quite problematic as well. For instance, individualism, an effect of equality, is very problematic to democracy. Tocqueville enjoys considering America as an experiment in democracy, but does not find it to be faultless.
Alexis de Tocqueville's visit to the United States in the early part of the nineteenth century prompted his work Democracy in America, in which he expressed the ability to make democracy work. Throughout his travels Tocqueville noted that private interest and personal gain motivated the actions of most Americans, which in turn cultivated a strong sense of individualism. Tocqueville believed that this individualism would soon "sap the virtue of public life" (395) and create a despotism of selfishness. This growth of despotism would be created by citizens becoming too individualistic, and therefore not bothering to fulfill their civic duties or exercise their freedom. Tocqueville feared that the political order of America would soon become aimed at the satisfaction of individual needs, rather than the greater good of society. Alexis de Tocqueville viewed participation in public affairs, the growth of associations and newspapers, the principle of self-interest properly understood, and religion as the only means by which American democracy could combat the effects of individualism.
Alexis De Tocqueville painted a portrait of a flourishing democracy within the text, Democracy in America. Tocqueville proposed that equality was one of the fundamental tenets that aided the success of American democracy. He defined equality of conditions as the end of aristocracy: “the noble has fallen on the social ladder, and the commoner has risen; the one descends, the other climbs. Each half century brings them nearer, and soon they are going to touch” (Democracy in America, book, 6). American democracy flourishes because there is an established equality of conditions for all; American democracy enforced the absence of formal rank and the end of births into positions of power while encouraging forms of power that challenged rank and privilege. However, in his analysis, Alexis De Tocqueville recognized the presence of race based inequality and cautioned that the reinforcement of a racial hierarchy could be detrimental to American democracy. Such observations characterize Tocqueville as insightful and
America is viewed around the world as the land of opportunities, where anyone willing to work hard and help their neighbor is welcomed with open arms. The one thing that many seek out of the United States is the equality and natural rights bestowed upon all in the Bill of Rights. Alexis de Tocqueville, a French diplomat, wrote about the United States and the basic founding principles of its democracy as well as how the people of America utilize their rights to create a better common good for everyone. The communal effort, to Tocqueville, symbolized an equality of conditions that would slowly filter itself into law, creating laws for the betterment of society as a whole and not just the individual. He also believes that the progress of equality
But roughly a century later a change in this mindset was given evidence by the French nobleman Alexis de Tocqueville’s sociopolitical work, Democracy in America, which identified the need for and unavoidability of the abolition of slavery and that it was America’s greed that was keeping this from happening. Both Wheatley and Tocqueville show the changing view of slaves and slavery in America within a
In Democracy in America, Alexis De Tocqueville explains the dangers of democracy and explains the virtues that temper these dangers. In this paper, I will look at two issues Tocqueville discussed extensively in late 19th century American democracy and posit what Tocqueville may say about these issues today. The points I will discuss are materialism and religion. In a democracy, such as America, the individual’s opportunity to succeed makes him more likely to become attached to material and money. However, in Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, this danger is tempered by religion, which quenches the lust for material by reducing its importance in comparison to good mores. These two elements of American democracy are a small portion of the “Habits of the hearts” of Americans; they are two ideas that complement each other to make democracy appealing and possible anywhere and everywhere. Is this the case today? Is the American’s relationship to materialism and religion similar today to what it was when Tocqueville visited America?
Compare John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau all dealt with the issue of political freedom within a society. John Locke's “The Second Treatise of Government”, Mill's “On Liberty”, and Rousseau’s “Discourse On The Origins of Inequality” are influential and compelling literary works which, while outlining the conceptual framework of each thinker’s ideal state, present divergent visions of the very nature of man and his freedom. The three have somewhat different views regarding how much freedom man ought to have in political society because they have different views regarding man's basic potential for inherently good or evil behavior, as well as the ends or purpose of political societies. In order to examine how each thinker views man and the freedom he should have in a political society, it is necessary to define freedom or liberty from each philosopher’s perspective.
Locke and Rousseau present themselves as two very distinct thinkers. They both use similar terms, but conceptualize them differently to fulfill very different purposes. As such, one ought not be surprised that the two theorists do not understand liberty in the same way. Locke discusses liberty on an individual scale, with personal freedom being guaranteed by laws and institutions created in civil society. By comparison, Rousseau’s conception portrays liberty as an affair of the entire political community, and is best captured by the notion of self-rule. The distinctions, but also the similarities between Locke and Rousseau’s conceptions can be clarified by examining the role of liberty in each theorist’s proposed state of nature and civil society, the concepts with which each theorist associates liberty, and the means of ensuring and safeguarding liberty that each theorist devises.
On June 12, 1776, in Williamsburg, Virginia, the Virginia Convention unanimously agreed to adopt George Mason’s declaration of rights, now known as the Virginia Declaration of Rights. Much of the Virginia Declaration was influenced by the writings of John Locke. During the seventeenth century, shortly after King James II was overthrown, John Locke wrote the Second Treatise of Civil Government to explain why King James’s II overthrow was justifiable. Through much of Locke’s writings, his main idea was how man was born with natural rights, specifically property and liberty. This can be seen when he writes “the state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.” This influences George Mason in section one where he wrote “ That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.” Locke also speaks about how the legislative gets its power from “the hands where the community placed it.” George Manson shows his influence on this in section two where he writes “That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants and at all times amenable to them.” Not only was the Virginia Declaration of Rights an important piece of our history of America, but it leads to and influenced a...
De Tocqueville’s argument was between equality versus individualism. He describes individualism as “a calm and considered feeling which disposes each citizen to isolate himself from the mass of his fellows and withdraw into the circle of family and friends” (De Tocqueville, 506). His perspective was that individualism empowers people to become competent but also strengthens and reassures society to work with the others in the community to magnify the possibilities for humans. As stated by Professor Veugelers “De Tocqueville happened to see that the inequality between the rich and the poor became more restricted, and thought that at some point the gap will close.”
Furthermore, Locke's passion for morality is also seen in his interpretation of the social contract. We see that Locke's ideas in freedom of life, liberty, and property have formed the basic morals of past and current governments. One of Edwards's morals that have been seen throughout American history is the infinite sovereignty of G...
In The Social Contract philosophers John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau discuss their differences on human beings’ place of freedom in political societies. Locke’s theory is when human beings enter society we tend to give up our natural freedom, whereas Rousseau believes we gain civil freedom when entering society. Even in modern times we must give up our natural freedom in order to enforce protection from those who are immoral and unjust.
In “What is an American” by Hector St John de Crevecoeur, the writer described many notable differences that he discovered when he first arrived in America. He marveled at the many differences in structure, diversity, and the overall equality of this new land. Crevecoeur’s early America was much different than the land that he once knew. America gave him a sense of freedom, hope, and possibility. He wrote letters in hope to inspire all who were looking for a change in their lives, and who would be ready to contribute to the advancement of such a great land. America was more united, with every man working for themselves. There were no monarchies with Kings and Lords who contained all wealth while others suffered. Every
Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau are all social contract theorists that believe in how the people should have certain rights with allows them to have individual freedom. They also believe that the people must give consent in order for the government to work and progress. Although Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau have similar aspects in their theories, they differ from each other through the reason why a government should be created.