Aristocratic Liberalism: The Social and Political Thought of Jacob Burckhardt, John Stuart Mill, and Alexis de Tocqueville

by Alan S. Kahan

Although the term "liberalism" is widely used to describe a variety of social and political ideas, it has been an especially difficult concept for historians to define. Kahan makes significant progress toward a general definition, and illustrates a strategic type of liberalism by linking three great nineteenth-century thinkers in a single intellectual and ideological tradition, for which he has coined the term "aristocratic liberalism." Ignoring the national boundaries that often confine intellectual history, Kahan finds similarities in the thought of Burckhardt, Mill, and Tocqueville. Though none of these thinkers came from aristocratic backgrounds, Kahan shows how they shared a distaste for the masses and middle classes, a fear and contempt of mediocrity, a suspicion of the centralized state, an opposition to the commercial spirit, and a pessimism of varying degree about the possibility of implementing their goals in the near future. Kahan concludes his study by correcting prevalent misconceptions about nineteenth-century liberalism and by discussing a typology of liberalism that will undoubtedly spark much scholarly debate.

Genres: Politics, Philosophy

240 pages, Hardcover

First published June 18, 1992

Reviews

[Tomislav · Rating 2 out of 5]

An overview of similarities in ideas of Burckhardt, Mill and Tocqueville. The book documents their interpretations of French revolution and modernity, their dislike of the middle class and commercial culture, opposition to centralized state and some other themes. It is a quite short book, based on the author’s dissertation. It makes some good points about the three thinkers, but it is less successful in presenting aristocratic liberalism as a coherent ideology or a meaningful tradition within liberalism. Based only on this book you could conclude that aristocratic liberalism doesn’t amount to much more than intellectual snobbism and humanistic moralizing of the three authors. That seems to be their main point of distinction from other, less noble liberals because they mostly agree on matters of state and economics. Kahan is especially focused on their dislike of middle-class values, which are presented as mindless greed, and basically confines aristocratic liberalism to the middle of 19th century. Other right-wing liberals who leaned towards antidemocratic, anti-egalitarian and anti-utilitarian ideas don’t fit into this faction because they didn’t seem to be antibourgeois enough. The book tries to present a very narrowly defined type of liberalism and it doesn’t do it in a very clear and convincing way.

[Jackson Cyril · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not sure I'd place Mill here. Mill in his later years drastically changed his views and I'm not sure if Kahan appreciates that here.