Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Democracy in America
>
Week 1: DIA Introduction through Vol 1 Part 1 Ch. 3
According to the text, in AdT's time, economic mobility was greater in America than in France. And social mobility very much greater--in France you could have very limited means and still be upper class by virtue of ancestry and upbringing.
We should probably stick to the text here. There are, without a doubt, contemporary questions that emerge from Toqueville's text, and it's fine to discuss those, including the notion of an "American Dream" and how it has succeeded or failed over time. This is certainly within the purview of Democracy in America, but let's try to keep contemporary issues in the context of the book so that our discussion does not degrade into a debate on modern U.S. politics. There are lots of places on the internet to have discussions like that. Not here, please.
Patrice wrote: "as T says, God made us unequal. so there is no real solution. .."Patrice, can you point out where T says God made us unequal? I must have missed that.
Thank, Patrice. I found it:The gifts of intellect proceed directly from God, and man cannot prevent their unequal distribution. But in consequence of the state of things which we have here represented it happens that, although the capacities of men are widely different, as the Creator has doubtless intended they should be, they are submitted to the same method of treatment.
But then he goes on to say:
America, then, exhibits in her social state a most extraordinary phenomenon. Men are there seen on a greater equality in point of fortune and intellect, or, in other words, more equal in their strength, than in any other country of the world, or in any age of which history has preserved the remembrance.
I find that confusing. I'm wondering how men can be "on a greater equality in fortune and intellect" when he has just asserted that God ostensibly distributes intellect unequally.
What's he saying? Is he suggesting that although God has endowed men with varying degrees of intellect, in America their intellect is more equal than that of men in other countries?
I'm baffled. To me it sounds like something out of Animal Farm.
This kind of thinking always come from the privileged ones. "God made us unequal" so this is how it should be. Who say that? Educated people about uneducated ones, rich people about the poor, white people about non-white ones, men about women. This is purely status quo maintenance.
He's not contradicting himself. God still distributes unequally, but in America everyone has about the same intellect and fortune. They may be poorer in fortune and intellect, but they are also more equal in fortune and intellect. Perhaps he says this because there are no privileged. I don't know. Regardless, the statement on its face is ridiculous. Virginia land holders, anyone? New England merchants? It's the kind of statement that makes me wonder how much T is willing to distort and cherry pick to prove his thesis?
On the other hand, he is talking about social state, and I'm still not sure what he means by that.
Tamara wrote: "To me it sounds like something out of Animal Farm..."Maybe the Bevan translation makes T’s view on the situation in America clearer: "… although the intelligence of men is different, as the Creator has willed it, there is at its disposal an equal means of development."
In other words, people are not born equal, but in America the opportunities (schools, leisure) are so equal that people’s development is more even than anywhere else. That makes sense.
And T. seems to think of the distribution of educational opportunities as a zero sum game. What people born with fewer capabilities win, must be the loss of those more talented. Or, if you invest in basic schooling, you may have to cut back on universities. That may be true if the sum is indeed zero.
However there is something else, though I did not find it said unequivocally. It seems to me that T. suggests that in, say France, the unequal distribution of educational opportunities was somehow related to talent. Or, the aristocrats got more education, but they were also - on average - more talented. That’s why he is so sure to find a mixture of excellent and blunted minds in aristocracies, vs. average minds in democracies.
Today, most people rather think that aristocracies squander the talents of the non privileged without winning much elsewhere. And some are so egalitarian that they feel talent is a privilege that needs no support - but neglect of talent may prove T. right after all.
AdT says men in America are more equal in intellect than they are elsewhere, not that they are perfectly equal. I think he means that their natural inequalities are not exacerbated by such great differences in opportunity as existed elsewhere.
Wendel wrote: "In other words, people are not born equal, but in America the opportunities (schools, leisure) are so equal that people’s development is more even than anywhere else. That makes sense. .."Yes, but that's not true and wasn't even true in T's time, was it? I can't imagine people struggling to eke out a living as having the same opportunities in education or leisure as those born into affluence.
Well, it's all relative, T. may have a point. Especially with regard to New England. We would need to cheque data on literacy etc.
Patrice wrote: "i cant remember much about animal farm, could you expand on that?it is confusing but what came to my mind was mortimer adlers Paedia proposal. in France, still, a test is given in fifth grade. th..."
Sorry, I should have been more specific.
In Orwell's Animal Farm, the animals rebel and take control of Farmer Jones' farm. All goes well for a while, but then Napoleon, the pig, with the support of his pigly cohorts, becomes power hungry, adopts human mannerisms and clothing, and starts oppressing the other animals. To justify the oppression, they come up with the brilliant pronouncement: "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."
Roger wrote: "I think he means that their natural inequalities are not exacerbated by such great differences in opportunity as existed elsewhere."Rather than not increasing intellectual inequalities, I understood Tocqueville's argument to be that equality in a democracy acts to funnel the greater majority through the middle. A common education raises most to some average intelligence, while other conditions prevent those who might be capable of more from achieving it.
Tocqueville suggests the combination of time, or lack of it, and taste, or lack of it have an equalizing effect on intellectual development.
In America, most of the rich started out poor. Almost all men of leisure were occupied in youth. Hence in the time of life when a person might have a taste for study, he has no time for it, and when he has acquired time to devote to it, he no longer has the taste.From this he concludes there is no aristocratic-like class with that has the time to study by they time they have finally developed the taste for it.
Hence there is no class in America in which the penchant for intellectual pleasures is passed on along with hereditary wealth and leisure, and which holds works of the intelligence in high esteem.And he further concludes this state of work with a practical education cancels out the highs and the lows forcing a higher percentage of the majority through to some average standard.
Thus the will to devote oneself to such works is lacking, and so is the ability. A certain middling level of human understanding has been established in America. Minds of every sort have approached this standard, some by raising themselves up, others by lowering themselves.
David wrote: "Tocqueville suggests the combination of time, or lack of it, and taste, or lack of it have an equalizing effect on intellectual development.."This is the crux of the argument, as I see it. Wealth is associated with leisure, and leisure with education and scholarship. (The English word "scholar" derives from the Greek schole, which means leisure.) Tocqueville has just shown how the U.S. has almost completely destroyed the law of inheritance in favor of the "law of partition," with the result that great wealth is held by fewer, but more wealth is shared by many. Which means fewer rich people have the leisure for great intellectual achievement, but a "middling level" of knowledge is more widely available to the average wage-earning citizen.
(The historical accuracy of this seems questionable to me, btw, and his conclusion is a generalization with some obvious exceptions.)
Thomas wrote: "David wrote: "Tocqueville suggests the combination of time, or lack of it, and taste, or lack of it have an equalizing effect on intellectual development.."This is the crux of the argument, as I ..."
He possibly new well how leisure, wealth, and education were connected in France, and then he generalized that it worked everywhere. De Tocqueville came to America and found quite a different situation with everything, but concluded that in the question of the education rules are the same.
David wrote: "Vol 1: Chapter 1More than just a simple travelogue, what effect might the description of America, its land, size, rivers, endless wilderness, and both the mysterious past inhabitants as well as th..."
I'm ALWAYS late to the party, but this time a sad but good excuse- the death of my father. Put that aside. My question is: Do these comments encompass Chaps 1 AND 2? As your next post discusses Chap 3. I'm only a few pages into Chap 2 and some of your comments seems to fit; like language being a unifying tie.
David wrote: "Vol 1: Chapter 1More than just a simple travelogue, what effect might the description of America, its land, size, rivers, endless wilderness, and both the mysterious past inhabitants as well as th..."
I was taken a little aback at the description of topography as a starting point in Chap 1. Exotic? Certainly there are beautiful and varied landscapes in other countries although not the vastness of North America. So I would say "no". I would say the vastness of the country that was currently occupied might make it harder to develop the democracy with a society where "equality of conditions" exist. I was surprised he thought that was present in the U.S. or where "all men could form an equal attachment & respect for the laws of which they are the common authors." Wouldn't that be easier in a smaller country? Isn't that why people are more interested in local & state laws & ordinances since it impacts them more fully in their daily lives?
Mark wrote: "Is anyone, besides myself, reading this book for the first time? Me! First time reader. I find that I have to go back & re-read paragraphs frequently and let the thoughts simmer.
David wrote: "Patrice wrote: "the word democracy bothers me. . ."It is always good to come to terms with the author. There are some variations in the term, democracy, that we should be aware of as a starting p..."
Thank you David.
Chris wrote: " Me! First time reader. I find that I have to go back & re-read paragraphs frequently and let the thoughts simmer."Me, too. First time reader and also wondering a lot about all the ideas and concepts. Some of them are truly fascinating: as a Brazilian, I was wondering how the fact that the Portuguese crown divided the country among a few "governors" and therefore initiated a local "aristocracy" with the fact that it took a while to Brazil to turn into a republic, even when compared with other countries in Latin America... Thoughts about democracy, hum...
I am reallly enjoying my English-only edition with Nolla's notes and Schleifer's translation (although I wish I also had the French original version as well) but with reading through Nolla's introduction and going back and forth from all the footnotes, I'm having a hard time keeping up with the group's schedule and I regret that I'm only able to skim through the discussions. So I'm sorry if my questions or comments overlap with any previous discussions. At first I thought Toqueville was oversimplifying the geography of America by dividing it into the North/South dichotomy but I see in the later chapter that he's sort of excluding the Western frontier from the 'general' picture of DIA and I'm wondering if this disregard for the diversity may become a problem in the later chapters of the book or later in American history.
I am also confused by exactly what definition T. has in mind when he's using 'democracy' or 'liberty' or 'equality of conditions'. These terms are recurring yet in some places it seems to differ ever so slightly (or maybe I'm just confused. However, I don't necessarily agree with what he mentioned in the introduction, "man finds it almost as difficult to be inconsistent in his words as he normally finds it to be consistent in his actions." I find that even great men or great authors may be inconsistent in their words, but I don't know if it's done unconsciously by the author or if it's due to the translator's interpretation)
In the introduction, he says that "It is not the use of power or the habit of obedience that depraves men; it is th use of a power that they consider as illegitimate and obedience to a power that they regard as usurped and oppressive."In chapter 2, T. gives examples of all these strict and somewhat tyrannical laws but then goes on to say that "these bizarre and tyrannical laws were not at all imposed; that they were voted by the free participation of all those concerned; and that the mores were still more austere and puritanical than the laws."
I got the impression that T. seems to put more importance on the 'souls' or 'mores' of the people than on their actual political state or social condition. It doesn't matter as much that you have to follow some law or power as long as you have a positive opinion of it and consent to it. So it's not just how things are but rather, how you look at it that matters. This sounds a bit like some mild self-help book but I wonder if it has a dark undertone as if it might precede how we might follow any bizarre act or power if we agree to look at it in a more positive light.
Borum wrote: "I don't necessarily agree with what he mentioned in the introduction, "man finds it almost as difficult to be inconsistent. . ."Hi Borum. Great hearing from you again. Maybe the Goldhammer translation will help here?
In action it is sometimes necessary to brush the rules of logic aside, but in reasoned argument this is never the case. It is almost as difficult to be inconsistent in language as it is to be consistent in action.
David wrote: "Borum wrote: "I don't necessarily agree with what he mentioned in the introduction, "man finds it almost as difficult to be inconsistent. . ."Hi Borum. Great hearing from you again. Maybe the Gol..."
Thank you. I was even thinking of looking up the French original text. However, I sometimes wonder if his 'democracy' has a broader meaning. Sometimes he seem to look at it as a equality of social/political condition and sometimes as a tendency of the people or social mobility : "... the colony increasingly presented the novel spectacle of a thoroughly homogeneous society. Democracy, such as antiquity had not dared dream it, burst forth fully grown and fully armed rome the midst of the old feudal society."
Wendel wrote: "Kyle wrote @167: "Is AT implying that without religion, freedom would disintegrate over time?..."Probably T assumes that a moral life without religion is impossible. And if democracy is less able..."
I've had that question boiling inside me when I was reading the chapter on spirit of religion and spirit of liberty going hand in hand. What if, the spirit of religion is not partial or united to one religion as in the New England colony, but opposed like back in Europe? Wouldn't that be a dividing or oppressive factor in society? Would that imply that the spirit of religion is only helpful in promoting liberty in the case of one unifying national religion?
Patrice wrote: "hi borum. i had the same question about how he uses the word democracy. maybe i have read too much Plato so it has a negative tinge to it. but not to him. then the founders had read a lot of plato ..."I'm getting the vibe that although T. probably read Plato and has a lot in common with him, Plato was leaning more into the 'sovereignty of the people' definition whereas T. seems to go more closely towards the equality in social condition but sometimes he seems to go broader than that and I wonder if something is lost in translation?
Hi Borum--If you have a kindle, or a kindle app, the French version is free:
https://www.amazon.com/D%C3%A9mocrati...
https://www.amazon.com/D%C3%A9mocrati...
https://www.amazon.com/D%C3%A9mocrati...
https://www.amazon.com/D%C3%A9mocrati...
De T's French is pretty straightforward, I think, though my French is only so-so. To really absorb his arguments, I would have to go back and read it in English. I see the leaves and miss the forest.
If you don't have kindle capability, I will quote the original if you tell me what you would like to see.
Patrice wrote: "hi borum. i had the same question about how he uses the word democracy. maybe i have read too much Plato so it has a negative tinge to it. but not to him. then the founders had read a lot of plato ..."I think Tocqueville will take much of book answer this question and describe the form of Democracy including the peculiar, sometimes singular institutions that America has worked out for itself to accommodate what he calls the dogma of the sovereignty of the people. I have not run across the term, but the U.S. is often considered an example of a form of democratic republic.
Bryan wrote: "Hi Borum--If you have a kindle, or a kindle app, the French version is free:
https://www.amazon.com/D%C3%A9mocrati......"
Oh, thank you! My French is mediocre but I want to check on the original text when I get confused.
I should probably re-read this section before commenting, but my sense of these opening chapters is not so much what T may have overlooked, or misread, but that he is trying to present to his countrymen a glimpse of the practical application of a political system that must have once seemed unworkable. That some of these abstract ideas and labels he's tossing around seems understandable--I don't think we always have a good idea of what they mean even now. That may be why so many people of opposite political stripes feel they can quote from the book to buttress their arguments.Anyway, I feel as though I need to give T a little more time to develop his arguments. In this section, there's really just a familiarization with the situation on the ground. The geography, the North/South divide, the makeup of the New England communities. That he locates NE as the crucial area for democracy is something that, it seems to me, he's not even really tried to defend yet.
About your last statement, reading the book first time, I explain it to myself that de Tocqueville assumed founding myth of the U.S. (pilgrims and so on) and since NE townships as cradle of American democracy fits in his own worldview he stuck to it. I haven't tested my explanation this time so I may be wrong.
The more I learn about the French Revolution -- and given Tocqueville's comments about childhood -- the more I am concerned that Tocqueville needs to be read, at least to a certain extent, against the experiences and perceptions he has imbibed of the turmoil that occurred in France in the days parallel to the period of the U.S. revolution to the times at which he is writing. I don't know that his generalizations would always be factually supported by sociological/political/demographic studies as we understand them today.
Alexey wrote: "...I explain it to myself that de Tocqueville assumed founding myth of the U.S. (pilgrims and so on) and since NE townships as cradle of American democracy fits in his own worldview he stuck to it...."Given the roles of men like Washington, Jefferson, Madison,... in the creation of the U.S., I found myself wondering if Tocqueville is one of the writers who helped create/reinforce the New England/pilgrims stories among the founding myths of American democracy? (Was such the view of school texts of the 1810's?)
I actually was surprised (did I miss this in history class?) to read about the laws enacted by the Puritans. I knew they were a rigid society but don't remember that even "sins" of a lighter nature had a penalty of death. It was somewhat a relief to read that they were rarely enforced.
Lily wrote: "the more I am concerned that Tocqueville needs to be read, at least to a certain extent, against the experiences and perceptions he has imbibed of the turmoil that occurred in France in the days parallel to the period of the U.S. revolution to the times at which he is writing. ..."This was something that I thought as well, along with, "I don't know that his generalizations would always be factually supported by sociological/political/demographic studies as we understand them today."
Chris wrote: "I actually was surprised (did I miss this in history class?) to read about the laws enacted by the Puritans. I knew they were a rigid society but don't remember that even "sins" of a lighter nature..."So was I. It sounded like Salem wasn't the exceptional case reading this.
Adelle wrote: "At 30 Lily wrote: "Not sure how relevant to this discussion, Adelle, but stream of consciousness reminds me of another aphorism: "There is no man less free than one who is slave to his possessions...."I was also struck by this observation by T and how it remains SO true today!
Hard to keep up with the conversations, had to start skimming. I did find myself somewhat confused about T's thinking about the lack of aristocracy in America, until I realized he was speaking of his experience in Europe or France to be precise....with large landowners who had tenants and derived their wealth from either crops or livestock. Additionally handing down their estates to the next in line in the family or by adding to their social status through marriages. And then he ends chapter two by stating:"the surface of American society is, if I may use the expression, covered with a layer of democracy from beneath which the old aristocratic colors sometimes peep." BINGO!
On another note, I wondered what T thought about people's desire to own land. He doesn't seem to discuss it with all his talk of land & landowners. Just in the south with slaveholders. I always thought it was a powerful motivator for many of those who immigrated to America, the chance to have their own land & earn their living on it and raise their families. Shoot, its how we continued to move westward
A quote that leaped out at me. I think presidential speechwriters have mined it."The civilization of New England has been like a beacon lit upon a hill, which, after it has diffused its warmth around, tinges the distant horizon with its glow." Chap 2.
The City upon a Hill comes from the Sermon on the Mount: "Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid." (Mt 5:14)
@233Chris wrote: "Adelle wrote: "At 30 Lily wrote: "Not sure how relevant to this discussion, Adelle, but stream of consciousness reminds me of another aphorism: "There is no man less free than one who is slave to his possessions...."I was also struck by this observation by T and how it remains SO true today!..."
Chris -- are you referring to the aphorism you copy, or the one Adelle originally cited? (@26) I don't believe either of us specifically quoted Tocqueville?
It seems to me that Tocqueville does generalize that enlightened self interest has the ability to facilitate humans being willing to learn to live together -- with considerable freedom, and perhaps with all striving(?) towards "equality." I'm not quite so sure what he implies about any needs for reasonably equitable starting positions.
@215Borum wrote: "However, I don't necessarily agree with what he mentioned in the introduction, "man finds it almost as difficult to be inconsistent in his words as he normally finds it to be consistent in his actions."..."Borum --- I hope you found the original French for this passage! I remember when I read it, I re-read it several times and moved away wondering if Tocqueville wasn't being ironic or tongue in cheek.
Incidentally, and I'll put this in a spoiler, since it quotes a commentator's comments, not those of one of us, Tocqueville is not necessarily viewed as consistent in his use of "democracy," even by himself! : (view spoiler)
@126 Adelle wrote: "And :-) I look forward to reading about whom T spoke with! ..."Finally, back to this, at least partially, Adelle. Names mentioned by Allen Guelzo in the Great Courses lecture from "America's Founding Fathers" as Tocqueville having an opportunity to interview include John Quincey Adams, Andrew Jackson (current president), Albert Gallatin, John Marshall, Henry Clay, and Charles Carroll (oldest living participant in the Constitutional Convention). He and Beaumont also met Sam Houston, who spoke of Davy Crockett and also favorably of the intellect of native Indians and of many blacks. John C. Spencer, upstate New York, became a life-long correspondent. I believe they also met the then current governor of New York, as well as numerous prison officials and leaders of societies for the care of orphans, juvenile delinquents, the deaf, .... They wanted to meet James Madison, but did not.
(Updated, 3/26, 4/4.)
Borum wrote: "At first I thought Toqueville was oversimplifying the geography of America by dividing it into the North/South dichotomy but I see in the later chapter that he's sort of excluding the Western frontier from the 'general' picture of DIA and I'm wondering if this disregard for the diversity may become a problem in the later chapters of the book or later in American history. ."I wonder if that's because because at the time he was writing, most of the West wasn't part of America per se? There were only 24 states in 1835 and most of "the West" was a big undifferentiated blob. Also in 1835 the slavery question -- which was essentially a North/South issue -- was already a critical issue with respect to the West, in the sense that when adding new territories/states, it had to be decided whether they would or would not allow slavery. The Missouri Compromise, which explicitly divided the US into North and South with respect to slavery, was passed in 1820 and remained in place until the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854.
So it makes sense that someone analyzing the US at this point in time would do so in North/South terms.
Lily, sorry I had not replied to you. Have been off the grid for the last 4 days. I was thinking when I read Adelle's comment about possessions that I had read a comment by T about how Americans seemed to have become enamored of their material goods. Haven't had a chance to go back & find where I thought I had read that. But maybe not...This is a dense reading for me, so I could very well be not remembering things clearly!!
Chris wrote: "...I was thinking when I read Adelle's comment about possessions that I had read a comment by T about how Americans seemed to have become enamored of their material goods..."T may well make that point! I, too, remember something similar. But I wasn't quoting him @30 when responding to Adelle's comment about passions @26. That was part of what became puzzling/amusing to me about our series of exchanges!?!
Thx for responding, Chris!
Chris wrote: " was thinking when I read Adelle's comment about possessions that I had read a comment by T about how Americans seemed to have become enamored of their material goods. Haven't had a chance to go back & find where I thought I had read that. But maybe not...."There's at least one reference from Chap. 3;
I do not mean that there is any lack of wealthy individuals in the United States; I know of no country, indeed, where the love of money has taken stronger hold on the affections of men, and where a profounder contempt is expressed for the permanant equality of property.
Thomas wrote: There's at least one reference from Chap. 3; I do not mean that there is any lack of wealthy individuals in the United States; I know of no country, indeed, where the love of money has taken stronger hold on the affections of men, and where a profounder contempt is expressed for the permanant equality of property
Thanks Thomas! I knew I had read something about where he thought Americans became passionate about gaining material goods or money.
Plat. Rep. 2.372e. . .it is not merely the origin of a city, it seems, that we are considering but the origin of a luxurious city. . .But if it is your pleasure that we contemplate also a fevered state. . .
Thomas wrote: "...."Thomas, Adelle wrote @26 of "passion", of which there are at least ten references in the first three chapters of DIA. Although T is flexible enough in his thinking that I was sure I'd heard him balance his words about the place of emotions with ones about the significance of material ones, at the time, I totally fabricated the aphorism about possessions in response to Adelle. Thank you for confirming that it was not out of line with the thread nor concepts in the text -- as I by now recognize are reinforced elsewhere.
My main reason for pursuing this rather fun exchange is to highlight how ambiguous, thoughtful, and nuanced, and even shifting is following the creation of what T has given us here -- even as we converse with each other.
Classics and the Western Canon
Books mentioned in this topic
Identity: The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment (other topics)The Chicago Companion to Tocqueville's Democracy in America (other topics)
Animal Farm (other topics)
Animal Farm (other topics)
Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Francis Fukuyama (other topics)Jonathan Haidt (other topics)
James T. Schleifer (other topics)
Jared Diamond (other topics)
Jared Diamond (other topics)
Not to get too political, I hope, but every study I have seen indicates that intergenerational socioeconomic mobility rates in the USA are among the worst in the developed world and have fallen significantly since since around 1980, when we see a big jump in inequality. Although there is plenty of "wiggling" between adjacent brackets (e.g., from upper middle class to wealthy and vice versa), children at an overwhelming rate end up in the same socioeconomic station as their parents.
At the same time, Americans have exceptionally high rates of belief that merit rather than circumstance determines station. It's a bit of a paradox.