The nineteenth-century French writer examines the development of democratic government in the United States and the state of political and social life.

The Old Regime and the Revolution is Alexis de Tocqueville's great meditation on the origins and meanings of the French Revolution. One of the most profound and influential studies of this pivotal event, it remains a relevant and stimulating discussion of the problem of preserving individual and political freedom in the modern world. Alan Kahan's translation provides a faithful, readable rendering of Tocqueville's last masterpiece, and includes notes and variants which reveal Tocqueville's sources and include excerpts from (...) his drafts and revisions. The introduction by France's most eminent scholars of Tocqueville and the French Revolution, Françoise Mélonio and the late François Furet, provides a brilliant analysis of the work. (shrink)

Alexis de Tocqueville, 1805 geboren, war ein um dreizehn Jahre älterer Zeitgenosse von Karl Marx. Beide beherrschte vom ersten Erwachen ihrer geistigen Regsamkeit an das Bewußtsein, in einer Zeit unerhörter Umwäl zungen aller Prinzipien und aller Bedingungen zu leben, die bis dahin für die Ordnung und den Geist des täglichen Lebens in der menschlichen Ge sellschaft maßgebend gewesen waren. Was die geistige Leidenschaft beider - so ver~chiedenartiger, so entgegengesetzter Menschen - von vornherein fesselte, war die Frage nach der Bedeutung, (...) nach dem Wo-Hinaus dieser Entwicklung und ihr Verlangen, die entscheidenden Momente dieser Ver änderung bestimmen zu können. In der Unmittelbarkeit und Eindringlich keit der Beobachtung, in der Kraft und Schärfe der Analyse und was die grundsätzliche Bedeutung des Aspektes anbetrifft, unter dem sie die Er eignisse ihrer Zeit begriffen, konnte wohl einer dem anderen die Waage halten. Ja, in einer Hinsicht mindestens mochte Tocqueville sogar Marx übertreffen: in dem aufrichtigen Bemühen um vollständige Vorurteils losigkeit und in dem ernsten Bewußtsein der Verantwortung als Mitleben der seiner Zeit. Beide, Marx wie Tocqueville, konstatieren übereinstimmend - wenn auch aus sehr verschiedener Perspektive - zwei entscheidende Merkmale ihrer Zeit: einmal die Tendenz zu einer vollständigen Aufhebung aller gesell schaftlichen Unterscheidung, den Zug zu einer fortschreitenden Gleichheit der Vielen. Und ferner: den zwangsläufigen Charakter dieser Entwick lung, die ihre Antriebe aus der gesamten Vergangenheit und Geistesart des Abendlandes erhält. (shrink)

Über die Demokratie in Nordamerika.--Über dei Demokratie in Amerika,--Rede zur Aufnahme in die Französische Akademie.--Über Politik und Wissenschaft.--Aus den "Erinnerungen".--Aus dem Briefwechsel.--Aus "Das ancien Régime und die Revolution."--Aus den Fragmenten zur Fortsetzung von "L'ancien régime et la révolution."--Allgemeine Bemerkungen über die Florentinische Republik, besonders über den Unterschied zwischen der sogennanten Florentiner Demokratie und unserer heutigen Demokratie.--Aphorismen.

This book provides the first complete, literal English translation of Alexis de Tocqueville’s and Gustave de Beaumont’s first edition of On the Penitentiary System in the United States and Its Application to France. The work contains a critical comparison of two competing American penitentiary disciplines known as the Auburn and Philadelphia systems, an evaluation of whether American penitentiaries can successfully work in France, a detailed description of Houses of Refuge as the first juvenile detention centers, and an argument against (...) penal colonization. The work provides valuable insights into understanding Tocqueville as a statesman, as well as a comparative look at civic engagement in early American and French penal reform movements. The Translator’s Introduction provides historical context for understanding Tocqueville’s work in French penal reform and the major themes of the report. The book thus fills a void in Tocquevillian studies and extrapolates the roots of American and French criminal justice systems in the nineteenth century. (shrink)

Why did the French Revolution lead to the Terror when the American Revolution yielded a liberal democracy? Tocqueville spent his life trying to understand the paradox. This book on the genesis of Democracy in America considers themes of democracy and revolution in light of his early political activities and subsequent studies of the past.

How Tocqueville’s ideas can help us build resilient liberal democracies in a divided world How can today’s liberal democracies withstand the illiberal wave sweeping the globe? What can revive our waning faith in constitutional democracy? Tocqueville’s Dilemmas, and Ours argues that Alexis de Tocqueville, one of democracy’s greatest champions and most incisive critics, can guide us forward. Drawing on Tocqueville’s major works and lesser-known policy writings, Ewa Atanassow shines a bright light on the foundations of liberal (...) democracy. She argues that its prospects depend on how we tackle three dilemmas that were as urgent in Tocqueville’s day as they are in ours: how to institutionalize popular sovereignty, how to define nationhood, and how to grasp the possibility and limits of global governance. These are pivotal but often neglected dimensions of Tocqueville’s work, and this fresh look at his writings provides a powerful framework for addressing the tensions between liberalism and democracy in the twenty-first century. Recovering a richer liberalism capable of weathering today’s political storms, Tocqueville’s Dilemmas, and Ours explains how we can reclaim nationalism as a liberal force and reimagine sovereignty in a global age—and do so with one of democracy’s most discerning thinkers as our guide. (shrink)

Cette étude traite de la redécouverte de l'oeuvre de Tocqueville à travers les différentes lectures (politique, phénoménologique, individualiste) qui en ont été proposées.

This is the first concise study to give full credit to the collaboration of works between French nobleman, writer and politician Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-59) and his travel companion and friend Gustave de Beaumont (1802-66), and puts this collaboration into its social, historical and theoretical context. It accompanies the two friends to the US and analyses the fruitful encounter between the New and the Old World that was the result of that journey, particularly in relation to emerging Atlantic democracies (...) and revolutions. This includes the hopes but also the problems and contradictions that they have come to represent. The book also follows Tocqueville and Beaumont to England, Ireland, and Algeria. It discusses their political careers and their engagement in the abolitionist movement, their fight for liberal social and political reform, as well as their futile attempt to rationalize French colonization in Algeria. (shrink)

Democracy in America never mentions the Declaration of Independence. Is this perhaps a sign of hostility to the Declaration’s natural-rights teaching or to abstract principles? Or is it no more significant than The Federalist’s silence on this matter? Both are books of political science, not political philosophy; yet, when appropriate, Tocqueville addresses first principles, and endorses a natural-rights doctrine similar to Locke’s. He wrote primarily for the French, addressing issues he thought decisive for them, especially reconciling the ultra-royalists and (...) the French Catholic Church to the new democratic order. This guided the aspects of American democracy he wanted to emphasize. Thus Jesus Christ’s coming to earth was a political turning point in human history because he “made it understood that all members of the human species are naturally alike and equal.” Given aristocratic dominance in ancient society, without that event the principle of equality might never have been discovered. (shrink)

On the evening of November 5, 1831, a young Frenchman by the name of Alexis de Tocqueville met the last surviving signer of the Declaration of Independence, Charles Carroll of Carrollton. Just a little over a year after their meeting, Carroll, age 95, would pass away to much acclaim from the young republic. He would be memorialized as a great man in Israel and as the last of the Romans. That he would be remembered as both a Hebrew prophet (...) and a Republican demigod would not shock the young Frenchman. Indeed, Carroll impressed Tocqueville so much that he lamented that “this race of men is disappearing now after having provided America with her greatest spirits.” With the passing of the revolutionary generation, Tocqueville continued, “the tradition of cultivated manners is lost; the people is becoming enlightened, attainments spread, and a middling ability becomes common. The striking talents, the great characters, are rare. Society,” he thought, “is less brilliant and more prosperous.” Whereas Europe had theorized about such great men in the eighteenth-century Enlightenment, America had actually produced a genius generation. Carroll was the last remnant. Carroll reminisced proudly about his days in the American Revolution, his own thoughts on independence, and his respect for the English. Tocqueville, it seems, listened with rapt attention. (shrink)

The Religion of Humanity has typically been associated with Auguste Comte's positivism. Within liberal philosophical debate, John Stuart Mill's measured advocacy for it has received some attention, especially given his otherwise well-known emphasis on the tension between religion and liberty. Yet Alexis de Tocqueville's perceptive awareness of the Religion of Humanity as an evolving phenomenon, expressed through his discussion of democratic poetry, remained largely unnoticed. Of course, Tocqueville's essential religio-political task was to promote a modified version of Christianity (...) and buttress the standing of religious morality as an outside barrier against human action motivated by democratic materialism, notwithstanding the secular doctrine of self-interest well understood. Indeed, despite the neutral tone of Tocqueville's discussion of democratic poetry, elsewhere his critique of democratic pantheism, writers and orators, theatre, and historians warned against excessive veneration of humanity, which amounted to a sublimation of the dogma of the sovereignty of the people. (shrink)

Most students of Tocqueville know of his remark, “There are three men with whom I live a little every day; they are Pascal, Montesquieu, and Rousseau.” In this paper I trace out the contours of Pascal’s influence upon Tocqueville’s understanding of the human condition and our appropriate response to it. Similar temperaments lead both Tocqueville and Pascal to emphasize human limitations and contingency, as Peter Lawler rightly emphasizes. Tocqueville and Pascal both emphasize mortality, ignorance of the (...) most important subjects, the effects of historical contingency on what we take to be human nature, and both represent the complex internal dynamic of human nature in terms of the interplay of “angel” and “brute.” The most important difference between them concerns their relative estimates of human power and the significance of human action. Whereas the motif of human weakness is fundamental for Pascal, Tocqueville repeatedly affirms that, under the right conditions, human beings are “powerful and free.” Beginning from Pascalian premises, and endeavoring to be more faithful to some of those premises than Pascal himself was, Tocqueville aims to illuminate the possibility of an amelioration of the human condition through a “new political science” that redeems the political realm without divinizing it. -/- . (shrink)

This article explores several key aspects of Tocqueville's "new science of politics". By focusing on its cross-disciplinary, comparative, normative, and political components, it highlights Tocqueville's conceptual and methodological sophistication as illustrated by his preparatory notes for Democracy in America and his voyage notes. The essay also defends Tocqueville against those critics who took him to task for working with an imprecise definition of democracy or with an ambiguous conception of equality.

One of Tocqueville’s best-known empirical claims in Democracy in America is that there is no national-level public administration in the United States. He asserts definitively and repeatedly that “administrative centralization does not exist” there. However, in scattered passages throughout the text, Tocqueville points to multiple federal agencies that contemporary historians and APD scholars characterize as instances of a growing national administrative system, such as the Post Office Department and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. I reevaluate Tocqueville’s treatment (...) of bureaucracy in America in light of this evidence. I contend that Tocqueville, perhaps in spite of himself, reveals even the most paradigmatic examples of active, democratic self-government in Democracy in America—townships and other voluntary associations—to be embedded in and causally supported by a network of interrelated, centralized public administrative institutions. Crucially, Tocqueville never resolves the tension between his acknowledgment of the causal power of these institutions and his claims that they do not exist. This new picture of the empirical and normative complexity of Tocqueville’s treatment of bureaucratic institutions offers a rich set of conceptual resources for contesting, among other claims, the political construction of nostalgia for a lost age of do-it-yourself White settler democracy in a time before bureaucracy in America. (shrink)

While Alexis de Tocqueville described America as the 'absolute democracy,' Karl Marx saw the nation as a 'defiled republic' so long as it permitted the enslavement of blacks. August J. Nimtz argues that Marx, unlike Tocqueville, not only recognized that the overthrow of slavery and the cessation of racial oppression were central to democracy's realization but was willing to act on these convictions. This potent and insightful investigation into the approaches of two major thinkers provides fresh insight into (...) past and present debates about race and democracy in America. (shrink)

This paper investigates the relation between Tocqueville's conceptual framework and the political thought of the French doctrinaires (Guizot, Royer-Collard, Remusat), that has been unduly neglected by political theorists in the English-speaking world. After a brief description of the doctrinaire group, the paper points out similarities and differences between Tocqueville and the doctrinaires with regard to such issues as history, civilization, the French Revolution, the politics of the July Monarchy, centralization and local liberties, and the contrast between aristocratic and (...) democratic societies. The most important section is devoted to democracy as social condition, a theme which appeared in the political writings of the French doctrinaires more than a decade before Tocqueville's Democracy in America. The final section explores the fundamental distinction between social and political order, which looms large in both Guizot's and Royer-Collard's writings and speeches. (shrink)

The influence of Tocqueville in Australian cultural criticism is powerful, not least in the concern with the question of egalitarian democracy and its propensity to breed mediocrity. This article traces European criticism of Australia as the antipodes or other of Europe through the 19th century, ending with D. H. Lawrence's Kangaroo. It tracks the effect of the mediocrity thesis in local criticism, through Hancock and Horne to the work of Paul Kelly in The End of Certainty. How should we (...) live? The argument is posited that Australia is a kind of alternative modernity or civilization which can still be exemplary; a little mediocrity goes a long way, in a world obsessed with the spirit of inner restlessness prescribed by the endless pursuit of the project of rational mastery. (shrink)

Did Tocqueville treat democracy as a type of society, as a political regime, or in terms of their interactions? This paper argues against the assumption that Tocqueville's concept of this relationship remained constant over his three decades as a theorist. Beginning with his literal acceptance of Guizot's doctrinaire definition of democracy as an état social, Tocqueville then developed an eclectic political sociology. Without rejecting the significance of social organization for politics, he often reverted to Montesquieu's theory of (...) the complex interaction between the social and political. Finally, after the Second Republic's violent end by the coup he had as a statesman sought to prevent, Tocqueville was disgusted by the pseudo-democratic Bonapartist arguments used by the Second Empire's apologists to legitimate it. His final position was that any adequate definition of democracy had to include, not only social equality, but also political liberty and the participation of citizens in a government incorporating a genuine political life. (shrink)

"Alexis de Tocqueville compte parmi le petit nombre de penseurs dont la réputation ne fait que s’affirmer avec le temps. Depuis la parution de sa Démocratie en Amérique, il y a près de deux siècles, des études innombrables ont souligné la justesse et la perspicacité de sa vision de l’histoire moderne. Dans ce livre, Claude Corbo met en lumière des aspects moins connus de l’homme et de l’œuvre, qu’il connaît de longue date. Au cours de son célèbre voyage de (...) 1831-1832, Tocqueville rencontre non seulement des citoyens de la jeune république américaine, mais aussi ceux qui ont pris figure de vaincus. Il prend le temps d’observer les Autochtones aussi bien en périphérie des villes qu’aux confins que constitue la Frontière. Du 23 août au 2 septembre 1831, visitant Montréal, Québec et les campagnes environnantes, il fait avec ravissement la connaissance des Canadiens français du Bas-Canada. Dans les deux cas, ses rencontres et ses observations lui inspirent des réflexions lucides et sombres à la fois. Des nations autochtones, il écrit sans ménagements: "La ruine de ces peuples a commencé du jour où les Européens ont abordé sur leurs rivages; elle a toujours continué depuis; elle achève de s’opérer de nos jours." Des Canadiens français, il se désole d’avouer que "ce ne sera jamais un peuple nombreux. Tout deviendra anglais autour de lui.""--Page 4 de la couverture. (shrink)

The title of this article has been chosen deliberately, for we find interesting parallels in the careers and outlooks of Alexis de Tocqueville and the great Prussian theorist of war, Carl von Clausewitz whose master work, On War, remains sui generis. They overlapped in time, but, more importantly, their major theoretical works dealt in large measure with the same problem – the democratic revolution and its impact on politics. As Clausewitz argued, the warfare of the new era was caused (...) by the new political conditions which die French Revolution created both in France and in Europe as a whole, conditions that set in motion new means and new forces, and have thus made possible a degree of energy in war diat odierwise would have been inconceivable. It follows that the transformation of the art of war resulted from the transformation of politics. (shrink)

Si es cierto que Tocqueville apreció grandes virtudes en el sistema democrático, tampoco dejó de señalar sus peligros. Con arreglo al diagnóstico de Tocqueville, sobre sus contemporáneos –y por ende sobre todos nosotros– actuarían incesantemente dos pasiones opuestas: la necesidad de ser conducidos y el deseo de ser libres. No sabiendo acabar con ninguna de tales inclinaciones contradictorias, nos esforzaríamos por satisfacer ambas a la vez., concibiendo un poder único, tutelar, todopoderoso, pero elegido por los ciudadanos. La dialéctica (...) entre igualdad y libertad representa el núcleo de sus inquietudes. Los trabajos reunidos aquí fueron debatidos en el Ateneo madrileño al cumplirse 150 años del fallecimiento de Tocqueville. Todos ellos nos invitan a revisitar las múltiples facetas de un autor imprescindible, si queremos revisar los avatares de la democracia y proceder a repensar cómo deberíamos actualizar sus reglas de juego. (Este volumen se inscribe dentro del Programa sobre “Cultura de la Legalidad” TRUST-CM liderado por José María Sauca). Diálogos con clásicos europeos La Colección Clásicos europeos (que dirige Roberto R. Aramayo) pretende rescatar del olvido algunos textos fundamentales para comprender mejor nuestro presente, al poner en valor la impronta que han legado a Europa y al mundo determinados pensadores europeos. Como complemento a esa colección de textos, este volumen sobre Tocqueville prosigue la serie de Diálogos con clásicos europeos, que quisiera cumplir en castellano un papel similar al jugado por los Companions filosóficos de Cambridge. Conviene seguir dialogando con ciertos autores que forman parte del entramado de nuestro acervo cultural, pues no en vano el diálogo es condición sine qua non del filosofar. (shrink)

In this paper for the Aspen Institute, the author illustrates again his own wisdom and lucidity as well as the enduring nature of many of Tocqueville's questions and judgments.

Este artículo intenta identificar los acuerdos y desacuerdos entre Benjamin Constant y Alexis de Tocqueville en torno a la pregunta de cómo fundar un orden político respetuoso de las libertades y que, al mismo tiempo, asuma y proyecte la ruptura revolucionaria. En otras palabras, cómo articular orden, libertad y política. nuestra tesis es que la diferencia en el modo de aproximarse a la cuestión encuentra su origen en diversas concepciones de la historia. Para los efectos de evaluar los procesos (...) históricos, Constant nunca abandona del todo ciertas intuiciones progresistas. Tocqueville, por su parte, se mantiene siempre a distancia de las distintas versiones de la filosofía de la historia. Para ilustrar el argumento, nuestro trabajo se divide en cuatro partes. En la primera, exponemos la relación entre ambos autores y su concepción del movimiento histórico. Luego, examinamos cómo entiende cada uno de ellos el concepto de perfectibilidad, siempre a la luz de la primera diferencia. En la tercera parte, exploramos la noción de anacronismo empleada por Constant, y las críticas —más o menos implícitas— de Tocqueville a esa idea. Por último, analizaremos las distintas concepciones de política que se deducen de cada uno de los sistemas. (shrink)

Tocqueville’s incomplete, conflicted reflections on whether honor and war have been safely consigned to the past should alert us to the psychological, not merely sociological, difficulty of adjusting to modernity. His thoughts about memory suggest that one form of adjustment is the attempt to re‐enchant the world. Among such attempts are both the European ideologies that have spread to the Middle East—nationalism, communism, and fascism—and religious fundamentalism. The latter, in particular, responds not only to the loss of premodern enchantment, (...) but to the complexity that makes the modern world so chaotically contingent and changeable—deepening the allure of simple precepts, imposed from above, experienced directly, and adhered to inflexibly. (shrink)

L.M. Siedentop's short introduction to Tocqueville's life, work, and contribution to modern political theory demonstrates lucidly both the force and the subtleties of Tocqueville's ideas, and their importance for societies now embracing modern democracy.

Tocqueville’s gifts as an observer and commentator on American life and democracy are brought to vivid life in this splendid volume. In On Tocqueville, Alan Ryan brilliantly illuminates the observations of the French sociologist Alexis de Tocqueville, who first journeyed to the United States in 1831 and went on to catalog the unique features of the American social contract in his two-volume masterpiece, Democracy in America. Often thought of as the father of "American Exceptionalism," Tocqueville sought (...) to observe the social conditions of emerging political equality in America, "a river that may be channeled but cannot be stopped in its course." In choosing America, he posed a central question of how a moderate, stable, and constitutional government is to be maintained in the wake of a revolution. As a dispassionate visitor, Tocqueville wanted to discover the social, moral, and economic arrangements that made liberty and self-government possible. In doing so, Tocqueville made a number of prescient observations about American life—whether it be the contrast between equality and liberty or Americans’ belief that they all belong to the middle class—that remain as relevant today as when they were first written. While Tocqueville is often praised by both conservatives and liberals, either for his distrust of big government and fondness for decentralized power or for his concern with association and community, both tend to overlook his contempt for the “coarse appearance” of the individual members of Congress as well as his enthusiasm for the brutal nature of our prison system. Alan Ryan examines the often complicated and elusive Democracy in America, tracing the influence of writers such as Rousseau, Montesquieu, and Guizot, and explaining Tocqueville’s original conceptions of equality and individualism within their historical context. In Ryan’s hands, On Tocqueville becomes the perfect introduction and guide to Democracy in America. On Tocqueville: Democracy and America features: • a chronology of Alexis de Tocqueville's life • an introduction and text by Alan Ryan that provides crucial context and cogent analysis • key excerpts from Democracy in America. (shrink)

After publishing the first part of Democracy in America, Tocqueville travelled through England and Ireland. With his impressions of the early industrial revolution still fresh, he read and annotated Machiavelli's Florentine Histories. Tocqueville's interest was present-minded: could Florence be used 'as an argument for or against democracy in our time?' Rejecting charges that modern democracies share the defects that bought down the Florentine Republic, Tocqueville contrasted late medieval and modern republicanisms; direct and representative democracies; the politics of (...) city states to those of larger modern nations with substantial urban and rural populations. Comparing renaissance Florence to industrial revolution Manchester and Birmingham led Tocqueville to consider redefining equality in economic rather than purely social terms. These notes suggest that in 1836, he held a view of the relationships between manufacturers and workers different from that of his later chapter 'How Industry could Give Rise to Aristocracy' in the 1840 Democracy. (shrink)

Many American readers like to regard Alexis de Tocqueville as an honorary American and democrat--as the young French aristocrat who came to early America and, enthralled by what he saw, proceeded to write an American book explaining democratic America to itself. Yet, as Lucien Jaume argues in this acclaimed intellectual biography, Democracy in America is best understood as a French book, written primarily for the French, and overwhelmingly concerned with France. "America," Jaume says, "was merely a pretext for studying (...) modern society and the woes of France." For Tocqueville, in short, America was a mirror for France, a way for Tocqueville to write indirectly about his own society, to engage French thinkers and debates, and to come to terms with France's aristocratic legacy. By taking seriously the idea that Tocqueville's French context is essential for understanding Democracy in America, Jaume provides a powerful and surprising new interpretation of Tocqueville's book as well as a fresh intellectual and psychological portrait of the author. Situating Tocqueville in the context of the crisis of authority in postrevolutionary France, Jaume shows that Tocqueville was an ambivalent promoter of democracy, a man who tried to reconcile himself to the coming wave, but who was also nostalgic for the aristocratic world in which he was rooted--and who believed that it would be necessary to preserve aristocratic values in order to protect liberty under democracy. Indeed, Jaume argues that one of Tocqueville's most important and original ideas was to recognize that democracy posed the threat of a new and hidden form of despotism. (shrink)

Il arrive que la guerre froide soit pensée comme une victoire de Tocqueville sur Marx. Le dialogue imaginé dans ce livre montre que les idées de démocratie ou de mode de production capitaliste sont d’abord une alternative théorique pour penser la société contemporaine. La redéfinition possible de la démocratie sur le modèle de celle du communisme par Marx crée cependant un terrain où les positions théoriques et politiques peuvent s’affronter pour déterminer le cours de la révolution permanente de leur (...) temps. Tocqueville veut contrôler ce processus dans un sens libéral et Marx le révolutionner dans un sens communiste. D’un point de vue tocquevillien, la guerre froide est terminée parce que la démocratie est enfin séparée de la révolution. Elle est un ordre où règne la loi, et non un processus. La dialectique de la démocratie et du communisme, à la fois opposées et en continuité, montre cependant la fragilité théorique de cette thèse en faisant sentir la tendance de l’idée démocratique à s’idéologiser, que dénonçait aussi Tocqueville, et pose la question de sa capacité à maintenir sa puissance utopique. (shrink)

Alexis de Tocqueville’s political thought is often seen as inconsistent for offering two apparently dissimilar theories of revolution. The first is universal democratisation, understood as a social phenomenon and a grand revolutionary change; the second sees revolution as the logical continuation and radicalisation of the preceding regime. The following question arises: was Tocqueville inconsistent in his principal works? I argue that this was not the case and that the two processes are complementary elements in Tocqueville’s model, which (...) combines the ancient cyclical science of regime change with modern theories of revolutionary progress. What Tocqueville offers is a powerful political theory with considerable predictive power. Tocqueville, I consequently claim, should be viewed as a theorist of revolution rather than as a theorist of democracy per se. (shrink)

The background of the present study is Constant’s interpretation of modern freedom compared with the freedom-participation of the Ancients. In order to understand Tocqueville’s conception of political freedom one has first to explain what he meant by ‘égalité des conditions’ or ‘democracy’. What characterises the democratic era is the disappearance of distinctions of class and cast in and through a process of equalisation, which has long been at work and to which Tocqueville envisages no end. For Tocqueville, (...) a passion for equality animates modern Western societies. Hence his focus on mental mechanisms when he tries to answer the question that disturbs him: where might this passion lead us and more specifically what are the dangers to which freedom is exposed in democracy. The reason behind Tocqueville’s anxiety is his conviction that a subtle cooperation exists between individualism and administrative centralisation that leads to a new kind of despotism. This does not make him into a fatalist. He believes that it is possible to control this passion in such a manner that it becomes compatible with freedom. What we need is a resolve to safeguard freedom and a new political science that not only discovers the dangers that threaten freedom but at the same time exposes the means and remedies that democracy itself produces to control these tendencies. America is here the example.Political freedom existed there prior to the rise of equality, whereas in France freedom was first lost to absolutism, which in turn created a situation of equality that prepared the ground for despotism. Among the remedies that can safeguard freedom, the most important for Tocqueville is ‘l’esprit d’association’. In the closing part of the study, the discussion of the mediating role of this modern kind of ‘corps intermédiaires’ facilitates a comparison of Tocqueville’s conception of political freedom with that of Constant and Rousseau. (shrink)

In his defenses of empire, Alexis de Tocqueville emphasized the need to achieve grandeur for France, and his writings on Algeria have shaped our understanding of his political career. In pursuing empire abroad as a remedy for weak politics at home, scholars maintain that Tocqueville abandoned the participatory politics of Democracy in America. This essay argues, however, that the focus on Tocqueville’s international turn has obscured his interest in the greatness of domestic party politics. It demonstrates that (...) Tocqueville championed a version of grandeur tied to the latent energies of the lower classes and distinct from the Bonapartism and aristocratic nostalgia that characterized his thoughts on empire. This version of grandeur was a political reclamation of disagreement and debate that supported great party opposition to counter the malaise of bourgeois rule. The essay concludes by comparing Tocqueville’s attitude toward foreign others, whose freedoms had to be sacrificed to the cause of French nationalism, with his description of the lower classes within his own nation, whose inclusion in the franchise could foster great politics. This comparison enables us to draw modest lessons for interpreting political grandeur in the present day. (shrink)

The Arab Spring, with its calls for sweeping political change, marked the most profound popular uprising in the Middle East for generations. But if the nascent democracies born of these protests are to succeed in the absence of a strong democratic tradition, their success will depend in part on an understanding of how Middle Easterners view themselves, their allegiances to family and religion, and their relationship with the wider world in which they are increasingly integrated. Many of these same questions (...) were raised by Alexis de Tocqueville during his 1831 tour of America, itself then a rising democracy. Joshua Mitchell spent years teaching Tocqueville’s classic account, _Democracy in America, _in America and the Arab Gulf and, with _Tocqueville in Arabia_, he offers a profound personal take. One of the reasons for the book’s widespread popularity in the region is that its commentary on the challenges of democracy and the seemingly contradictory concepts of equality and individuality continue to speak to current debates. While Mitchell’s American students tended to value the individualism of commercial self-interest, his Middle Eastern students had grave doubts about individualism and a deep suspicion for capitalism, which they saw as risking the destruction of long-held loyalties and obligations. When asked about suffering, American students answered in psychological or sociological terms, while Middle Eastern students understood it in terms of religion. Mitchell describes modern democratic man as becoming what Tocqueville predicted: a “distinct kind of humanity” that would be increasingly isolated and alone. Whatever their differences, students in both worlds were grappling with a sense of disconnectedness that social media does little to remedy. We live in a time rife with mutual misunderstandings between America and the Middle East, and _Tocqueville in Arabia_ offers a guide to the present, troubled times, leavened by the author’s hopes about the future. (shrink)