The collective can be defined in many ways, but its definition is far less important than its relationship with the individual. Alexis de Tocqueville and John Stuart Mill similarly characterize the collective as the majority and champion individual thought in their respective works, Democracy in America and On Liberty; however, Mill supports all individualistic tendencies, while Tocqueville rejects individualism fearing that it may lead to egoism. Interestingly, in his novel, Hard Times, Charles Dickens ascribes the name, “the Hands,” to the collective in order to illustrate a recent dehumanization of the individual in society. In this essay I argue that, although Tocqueville’s opposition to individualism, Mill’s plea to citizens to completely …show more content…
reject the majority and Dickens’ disapproval of the dehumanization of the individual seem unrelated, an overarching theme arises when one reflects on all three works. Namely, that it is human nature to want to express one’s will and be seen as a person with desires and emotions. Although these authors disagree on the extent to which an individual should exercise their will, they all acknowledge this innate desire to do so. Tocqueville supports democracy and believes that the equality achieved by the majority is a necessary component thereof, but laments the fact that equality encourages individualism and, eventually, egotism.
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, …show more content…
and they have defeated it”. The celebratory tone of “ they have defeated it” suggests that although Tocqueville may criticize democracy a lot throughout the text, democracy’s ability to combat individualism is one positive attribute that Tocqueville can’t seem to ignore. Furthermore, Tocqueville emphasizes that egoism is a greater threat to society than mass conformity. By submitting to mass conformity under the majority Tocqueville explains that, “one sometimes sees citizens of the United States [...] yielding to the disinterested, spontaneous impulses that are part of man’s nature. But Americans seldom admit that they give in to enthusiasms of this kind. They would rather do honor to their philosophy than to themselves”. The juxtaposition between “their philosophy” and “themselves” suggests that Americans may have combatted the potential threat of individualism, but in doing those they have suppressed human nature, that is, the innate desire to be spontaneous and exercise one’s will. Tocqueville’s negative feelings towards individualism reveal a perplexing encouragement to ignore one’s human nature. Tocqueville supports freedom of thought, but when evaluating the United States, Tocqueville had to relinquish this idea in order illustrate the necessity of an equality of the mind. According to Tocqueville, a collective consumed by egoism is worse than a collective that lacks individuality amongst its citizens. Unlike Tocqueville, Mill encourages citizens to take advantage of their freedom and to express their individuality rather than conforming to the will of the majority.
Mill first acknowledges that the majority fears individualism. Despite the worth of individual spontaneity, Mill explains that, “Spontaneity forms no part of the ideal of the majority of moral and social reformers, but is rather looked on [...] as a troublesome and perhaps rebellious obstruction to the general acceptance of what these reformers, in their own judgement, think would be best for mankind”. The negative tone of “a troublesome and perhaps rebellious obstruction” illustrates the majority’s disdain for originality because it interferes with their commonly-held beliefs. Interestingly, Tocqueville would support the viewpoint of the majority; however, unlike the Americans who ignore their desires, Mill encourages citizens to embrace their individuality because he believes that it will be beneficial to society rather than “troublesome.” The sarcastic tone of “in their own judgement” highlights Mill’s argument that most of the majority’s opinions are not infallible and that it is the individual's job to continue to question these ideas, despite the majority’s constant unwillingness to accept criticism. In addition, Mill argues that “In proportion to the development of his individuality, each person becomes more valuable to himself, and is therefore capable of being more valuable to others”. The comparison
between “himself” and “others” suggests that the majority should support the development of individuality because inevitably it will lead to a more developed society. Mill further points out that, when citizens are constantly developing their minds by expressing their ideas while remaining open to criticism, society will grow as a whole intellectually and will be better equipped to create a stronger government. If the previous statement holds true, then Tocqueville should support individualism because it will lead to the development of a stronger government. Since “Individualism is democratic in origin” a governmental system superior to a democracy should be well equipped to ward off egoism and maintain a healthy about individualism in its society. When discussing the importance of individuality Mill argues that, “Human nature is not a machine to be built after a model, and set to do exactly the work prescribed for it, but a tree, which requires to grow and develop itself on all sides, according to the tendency of the inward forces which make it a living thing”. Mill and Tocqueville both acknowledge the innate desire to exercise one’s will. Like a tree, humans want to “grow and develop itself on all sides,” but this can only be achievable under a government that encourages freedom of thought and action. Mill urges individuals to reject the effortlessness of conforming and, instead, to openly express all of their ideas and continue to think freely despite pushback from the majority. While Tocqueville praises Americans for suppressing their desires in order to avoid egoism, Mill not only rejects the dehumanization of individuals, but argues that the expression of our individuality is what makes us human. Similarly, Dickens rejects the dehumanization of individuals through the characterization of the collective as “ the Hands” in his novel. Dickens introduces the character Stephen Blackpool, the token factory worker of the novel, as part as a group “Generically called ‘the Hands,’- a race who would have found more favor with some people, if Providence had seen fit to make them only hands, or, like the lower creatures of the sea-shore, only hands and stomachs”. The condescending tone of “like the lower creatures of the sea-shore, only hands and stomachs” implies that wealthy business owners would probably like the workers better if they were just hands and stomachs in order to create and consume their products. By defining the collective as “the Hands” and eliminating all individuality Dickens illustrates the negative effects capitalism can have on society. Reducing everyone to their labor eliminates people’s originality and strips them of their will and creativity. Dickens uses the unfortunate life of Stephen Blackpool to criticize the dehumanization of laborers and remind the reader that sometimes laborers aren’t even treated with the courtesy of being characterized as a body part and are simply reduced to a statistic. Dickens poetically proclaims that, “not all the calculators of the National Debt can tell me the capacity for good or evil, for love or hatred, for patriotism or discontent, for the decomposition of virtue into vice, or the reverse”. The juxtaposition between “good and evil, for love or hatred” reminds the reader of the laborers emotions. Rather than looking at “the Hands” as statistics or machines, Dickens and Mill highlight the importance of acknowledging the individuals’ humanity and emotional capacity. Finally, Dickens uses the relationship of Sissy and Louisa to emphasize the importance of seeing people as individuals with emotions and desires. Sissy turned to Louisa after struggling with her fact-based education and explained “And my remark was- for I couldn’t think of better one- that I thought it must be just as hard upon those who were starved, whether the others were a million, or a million million”. Louisa’s inevitable regrets over her marriage and her aspiration to be as emotionally aware as Sissy illustrates Dickens’ rejection of the dehumanization of the individual and the importance of not looking at people as a collective, but rather looking at them as the individuals that they are. Sissy’s answer embodies the opinions of Dickens and Mill, in that, rather than being consumed by statistics, Sissy focuses on the suffering of each individual. Sissy not only acknowledges the emotions of the individuals that make up the collective, but the fact that it is human nature to want to express oneself. On the other hand, Tocqueville would disapprove of “the Hands” looking inward and focusing on their emotions rather than their work. He would encourage them to continue to abide by public opinion and labor for the good of the many, even though only a few are truly benefiting from the fruits of their labor. In sum, although Tocqueville and Mill similarly define the collective as the majority, their ideas diverge with regards to individualism. Interestingly, Mill and Dickens both reject the dehumanization of the individual because they believe in the importance in exerting one’s will and expressing one’s emotions. An overarching theme arises, however, expressed by all three authors; namely, that although these authors disagree on the extent to which an individual should exercise their will, they all acknowledge that it is human nature to desire to do so.
He is was total opposite of Metternich. Mill’s “On liberty” essay was about the individual liberty. To Mill’s, the only important thing is the happiness of the individual, and such happiness may only be accomplished in an enlightened society, in which people are free to partake in their own interests. Thus, Mills stresses the important value of individuality, of personal development, both for the individual and society for future progress. For Mill, an educated person is the one who acts on what he or she understands and who does everything in his or her power to understand. Mill held this model out to all people, not just the specially gifted, and advocates individual initiative over social control. He emphasizes that things done by individuals are done better than those done by governments. Also, individual action advances the mental education of that individual, something that government action cannot ever do, and for government action always poses a threat to liberty and must be carefully
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.
Tocqueville, a foreigner, came to the United States to study American prison reform, but was so disgusted with the way our society was and how our government functioned under Jackson that he changed the focus of his study to an analysis of democracy. He saw democracy by our example as “far from accomplishing all it projects with skill” and that “Democracy does not give people the most skillful government.” Jackson’s example of democracy was horrible.
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
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
Although Anthem’s society seems extremely surreal, aspects of its collectivist society closely mirror today’s society. By its use of majority rule, America’s democracy models a collectivist society. Take elections for an example. Although, Americans vote individually, the decision ultimately is based on the country as a whole. The use of majority rule relates to
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?
For more than two thousand years, the human race has struggled to effectively establish the basis of morality. Society has made little progress distinguishing between morally right and wrong. Even the most intellectual minds fail to distinguish the underlying principles of morality. A consensus on morality is far from being reached. The struggle to create a basis has created a vigorous warfare, bursting with disagreement and disputation. Despite the lack of understanding, John Stuart Mill confidently believes that truths can still have meaning even if society struggles to understand its principles. Mill does an outstanding job at depicting morality and for that the entire essay is a masterpiece. His claims throughout the essay could not be any closer to the truth.
In this excerpt from Democracy in America Alexis Tocqueville expresses his sentiments about the United States democratic government. Tocqueville believes the government's nature exists in the absolute supremacy of the majority, meaning that those citizens of the United States who are of legal age control legislation passed by the government. However, the power of the majority can exceed its limits. Tocqueville believed that the United States was a land of equality, liberty, and political wisdom. He considered it be a land where the government only served as the voice of the its citizens. He compares the government of the US to that of European systems. To him, European governments were still constricted by aristocratic privilege, the people had no hand in the formation of their government, let alone, there every day lives. He held up the American system as a successful model of what aristocratic European systems would inevitably become, systems of democracy and social equality. Although he held the American democratic system in high regards, he did have his concerns about the systems shortcomings. Tocqueville feared that the virtues he honored, such as creativity, freedom, civic participation, and taste, would be endangered by "the tyranny of the majority." In the United States the majority rules, but whose their to rule the majority. Tocqueville believed that the majority, with its unlimited power, would unavoidably turn into a tyranny. He felt that the moral beliefs of the majority would interfere with the quality of the elected legislators. The idea was that in a great number of men there was more intelligence, than in one individual, thus lacking quality in legislation. Another disadvantage of the majority was that the interests of the majority always were preferred to that of the minority. Therefore, giving the minority no chance to voice concerns.
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
Wright Mill’s, regarding the fact that freedom, wealth, and equality are things that are not properly exercised in the “new society of America”. “We confront there a new kind of social structure, which embodies elements and tendencies of all modern society, but in which they have assumed a more naked and flamboyant prominence”. Essentially Mills is stating that the methods in which we as a society used to interpret politics, economics, etc. cannot be applied anymore due to the fact that modern society has evolved so much. Due to the fact that in modern day, the upper class elites have the largest influence on how essentially all aspects of society are run, it disregards the lower class’s abilities to exercise their rights to freedom and
The very history of the country, a major contributor to the evolution of its political culture, shows a legacy of democracy that reaches from the Declaration of Independence through over two hundred years to today’s society. The formation of the country as a reaction to the tyrannical rule of a monarchy marks the first unique feature of America’s democratic political culture. It was this reactionary mindset that greatly affected many of the decisions over how to set up the new governmental system. A fear of simply creating a new, but just as tyrannic...
Fitzpatrick, J. R. (2006). John Stuart Mill's political philosophy: Balancing freedom and the collective good. London [u.a.: Continuum.
middle of paper ... ... Philosophers, such as John Stuart Mill, have debated the role and the extension of government in the people’s lives for centuries. Mill presents a clear and insightful argument, claiming that the government should not be concerned with the free will of the people unless explicit harm has been done to an individual. However, such ideals do not build a strong and lasting community. It is the role of the government to act in the best interests at all times through the prevention of harm and the encouragement of free thought.