Although critical of democracy, Tocqueville did recognize that democracy was the form of political arrangement which would most likely be dominant in the future. While democracy could lead to an overall well being, it could also lead to a type of servitude.
Examine and evaluate two of the principal means – the notion of self-interest properly understood and the need for associations – which Tocqueville believed are necessary to mitigate against the dangers of equality and democratic society.
Tocqueville’s Idea of Democracy
The criticism of American democracy by Tocqueville can be expressed as “the tyranny of the majority” (Roark, p. 19). This idea has been known to all readers and students of Political Science. While democracy, as initially understood as the “rule of the mob,” has been balanced by Tocqueville to be an ideal form of government, through his explorations on how to best solve the concerns of democracy, particularly the “tyranny of the majority” (p. 20). Simply, Tocqueville took it for himself to solve how it could be possible to let the majority of the constituents to rule while everyone else enjoys their freedom.
In general, Tocqueville stated that democracy is the more ideal political system (Goldhammer, p. 1). He believed that democracy is overturning aristocracy, little by little. He considered it as a power which brings forth human equality towards realization (p. 1). While Tocqueville seemed to convey that democracy is a defining point in the “sociopolitical evolution,” it does not necessary entailed that democracy involved all the developments in cultures and contexts (Roark, p. 20). He made it plain that that no single recipe of democracy can support the overall cultural and historical feelings of the citizens (Goldhammer, p. 2). Hence, he emphasized that even when the whole of the western civilization saw changes and development through democratic norms and transitions, some settings and changes will always be different. For Tocqueville, there is no “correct” form of democracy. He more or less took it as the more certain notion that a type of democratic governance is inherent or bound to happen (p. 2).
For democracy to be sturdy and viable, Tocqueville introduced the concepts of “self interest” and the “need for association” (p. 2). Self interest is a very American concept. Tocqueville rightfully dissected the concept to give justice to how individuals and groups should engage with their own motives as against the greater good – for the love of democracy. Tocqueville once depicted “self-interest” as contextualized in the right manner. He believed that each of us has a narrow sense of self-interest (Streich, p. 23). People always want things for themselves. However, Tocqueville differentiated his notions of “self-interest” as “properly understood” to be a unique and an ideal concept. Tocqueville meant it to be able and willing to appreciate the good for others or other people’s interests. This is what he termed as “common welfare” (p. 24). He considered this as a standard for an upright individual. This is basically being good for others which have its inherent goodness in itself (p. 24).
Tocqueville’s conception of self interest as properly understood equates not to self sacrifice but as a small dose of “self denial” (p. 24). By itself, self interest or being conscious of the self interests of others does not make an individual good or virtuous. However, the philosopher believed that the practice disciplines many people through various virtues like moderation, regularity, temperance, foresight, and self-direction. He believed that if practiced continuously, men become to imbibe it as good habits. The principle of interest as properly understood serves as a by standard in setting out which group fails or become more engrossed with their hunger or desires as compared those who were tempered.
Another point which Tocqueville stressed is the word enlightenment (p. 4). This means that there is a need to educate people how to temper their desires and give way to the more common desires, which are inherently good for all. Tocqueville considered the American people to be more moderate as they know what aspects must be given out and which parts are to be preserved individually.
Likewise, the idea of voluntary association was a mouthpiece in Tocqueville’s defense of the viability and effectiveness of democracy as a form of government. His fears for sustaining democracy were based on his evaluation of the western world’s absolute monarchy (p. 3). He was convinced that absolutism happens when the government stopped to be a servant of society and instead formed society for its agenda. Hence, ancient intermediary agencies such as the nobility, feudal system, guilds, parliaments, estates, and religious association were dismantled and citizens were reduced to individuals (p. 3). Tocqueville was convinced that democracy in itself provided no means of defeating the challenges of such state aggrandizement (p. 4). Hence, by suspending political legitimacy to personal differences, democracy is threatened. In other words, Tocqueville was short to say that an individual has no real power over the state. However, when he forms an association with others, he becomes more powerful and influential in tackling the central state. Hence, the need for association is vital in preserving the good functions of democracy since Tocqueville believed that “only in association do individuals obtain a political influence which is comparable to the old notions of absolute monarchy (such as nobility) (p. 4).
As Tocqueville stated in his introductory reprise called Democracy in America, “Citizens joined together in free association might replace the individual power of nobles, and the state would be protected against tyranny and license” (p. 4). To say the least, Tocqueville’s important emphasis on associations and the need for associations was not whimsical. He was not just concern with the mere theoretical underpinnings of what constitute real democracy. More than this, he was adamant and circumspect of the use of the associations in maintaining public order or political order (p. 4).
Indeed, Tocqueville’s strong position on associations emphasizes the need for collective action. Most likely, an association that asserts itself is more likely to succeed compared to an individual who does it alone. Tocqueville further argued that association helps to stabilize through different ways. First, associations allow the “citizens of the minority to ascertain their numerical strength and thereby weaken the moral ascendancy of the majority” (Roark, p. 37). Hence, it balances the excess interests and agenda of the majority to rule over and it also promotes balanced views and opinions. Associations also provide healthy competition of ideas and classify those with the largest popular appeal. The inherent good which an association promotes and protects is for the public good (p. 37).
(2) A critical evaluation of the material. Your critique of the text should be based on whether or not you believe the author has presented and defended a viable position.
The thoughts and remarks and sentiments (to include) of Tocqueville should be taken in a more historical fashion since he was born into the times when the ageing absolute monarchies were dying and there was a new fascination with modern democracy. He was very idealistic with the latter while democracy then posed various challenges and problems. Hence, it is best and very wise to take Tocqueville’s ideas as a prelude to what other great concepts of democracy shall be revealed in the more mature stage of the realizations of the rule of the majority.
It is but instinctive that Tocqueville shall focus on the major defenses for democracy – the ideas of self interest and the need for association. This is because these concepts present the flaws of the old system of governance. It is easier and better to prove the flaws of the old political system when the purportedly new system such as modern democracy is strengthened through the like of the criticisms of the old. Hence, Tcoqueville rightly pinpointed two major flaws called self interest and the need for voluntary associations.
This is because in an aristocratic, ethical surrounding, the elite group of royalties did not exercise temperance or moderation. Hence, it was perfect for Tocqueville to pitch in the idea of moderating one’s individual selfishness and greed to think of the common good. It also placed a satire for the monarchs who took everything under their care as their own (Streich, p. 51). Under a monarchy, only a few good men rule. Thus, the political ideas and the opinions of the rest of the masses were neglected. They were only expected to mind their basic needs. With Tocqueville’s suggestions, there was a fresh impetus for people, even when they did not belong to the upper class, to form their own, voluntary groups and to express their own political ideas and sentiments.
Tocqueville laid forth a good avenue for an association or groups to evolve for various social, economic and political purposes (as against the sole purpose of the state under aristocracy). This was also indicative of the end of the mercantilism and feudalist types of economic system and the ushering of a more market oriented economy. As the new market economy welcomed fresh ideas, opinions and interests of the whole populace, the popular voices of the people were encouraged. Hence, they were encouraged to form their own groups as artisans, writers, professionals, etc. This was evident in the modern day American society (p. 55).
In a market oriented American society, democracy could flourish if people, even when they freely associate with one another and express and pursue their own interests, start to acknowledge and practice commercialism as a way of life and of thinking. They perceived everything with a fresh eye and they welcomed groups for its business advantages. For one, business provides individuals with a sound reason to be honest and to mind the interests of others. This is because even when they are free traders, they needed to be mindful of their business partners.
Hence, a more enlightened view of one’s self interest and his need to associate was a good impetus to further validate the good of democracy as a political system hand in hand with commercialism (p. 53). Inherently, in a commercial economy, if an individual cares for others or what others think of them, they are pushed to develop ethical practices which are both conducive to the economy and to the political order in the society.
The idea of a properly directed self-interest was very popular during the time of Tocqueville's discourses that he thought he should emphasize it to effect more meaningful reactions and feedbacks. Hence, the philosopher pushed it further by staging this concept as a notion worthy of defending and sustaining democracy. He depicted it as the “mechanism by which the problem of democracy could be solved” (p. 54).
While it is good to point how the philosopher was able to bring out the goodness in the notions of “self interest” and the “need for association,” it is not clear whether his ideas actually bring forth a stronger view that democracy is very good and very applicable for new societies. Actually, Tocqueville also revealed how democracy could face various, serious dilemmas. His reasoning did not actually answer the problem of how society or a political system of a state could avoid the “tyranny of the majority” from hindering the freedom of individuals and groups which are so drawn by the liberty espoused by democracy itself (p. 54).
Tocqueville was certainly interested in how the American democratic system was able to realize or fulfill the promises of democracy with little effort. He came up with the idea that unlike their aristocratic European neighbors, the new state came from a status of relative equality (Roark, p. 32). Secondly, Tocqueville also related it to the vast availability of natural resources in the new America, which reflected so much of this equality.
In various means, the attraction of physical mobility indicated one of the most obvious checks against gross inequality. As mentioned earlier, the conditions which were ideal to Tocqueville were taken as citations for improvements. Hence, he was impressed by the relative equality where he could compare with the problems in European societies. Tocqueville took the equality of conditions as the “creative factor” from which specific cases and conditions were generalized (p. 34). His notion of the need to associate could be well taken for his profundity for federalism (p. 34). Tocqueville was highly inspired by this political system as well.
Tocqueville had the foresight of calculating the would-be problems of American democracy and he did pre-empt it with his notions of self interest and voluntary associations. He subscribed to the avoidance of the rule of the few as compared to the rule of the mob (p. 34). With this regard, Tocqueville emphasized the vital functions of the American judiciary in avoiding conflict of interests among groups. While he was very optimistic that the America's democratic paths would lead to a resounding success, he himself was not very sure if the American society will overcome the inherent challenges posed by the democratic conditions.
For one, there was a great love for money which Tocqueville projected to damage the individual’s civic responsibilities (Streich, p. 85). Love of money, as he believed, would dissuade people from pursuing their political interests and participation. Likewise, he feared that individualism could prevent citizens from finding the common welfare of the people (p. 86). Hence, he suggested a proper balance between the interest of self and the interest of others.
For Tocqueville, there should be a delicate balance of one’s self love and love for his fellows. He is bound to pursue his own interests yet an individual should also be mindful of the common welfare of his co citizens. This, for me, is a very ideal and tricky situation to make democracy sturdy. This may seems idealistic and very naïve, considering that the developing American nation was very individualistic as well. They escaped the western lands in order to make it on their own in America. Hence, there was a simple dilemma of conceiving the ideal formula for a successful democratic development when in fact there was an adamant indication of how such notion of self interests were not realistic.
But then, Tocqueville also defended that the problem of democracy is a continuing challenge (p. 86). He made a powerful presentation of a democratic model according to the concept of cooperative individuals using enlightened self-interest to pursue both private and public interests (p. 88). Generally, it is a noble undertaking when we foresee that ideal men might or noble men might course through the path of selflessness and pursue directly what is very good to all.
However, such is not the case in the real world. Both democracy and freedom cannot be fulfilled under the equal notions of minding one’s own interest while pursuing the interests of the others. Hence, I am not inspired by the ideas of Tocqueville on self interest and the need for association. Personally, I feel that one is just forced to sugar coat or to hide his own interests to make it appear that he is more of the good of the others more than he pursues the good of himself.
Another thing, Tocqueville left the expression of “self-interest properly understood” not very clear. It is good to note that he valued associations. It was a clear thing throughout his discourse. He knew that the associations of men were important and vital to political developments. Yet, when it comes to what properly constitute an enlightened self interest, it remains vague. While he mentioned the word “self sacrifice,” this is also obscure. What is the real value of a small personal sacrifice and how does it contribute in bringing about change or political development? This is very conceptual and vague.
If we test the universality of Tocqueville’s notions and how it contributes to real and stronger democracy, we cannot use his notions in the more global contexts of political activities and processes. For instance, it is very different now. How do we define the need to associate in today’s age of social media and advanced technology? If we take a closer analysis, many oppressive societies were toppled with the use of technology and with social media yet we did not speak of the need for association. It was a lifestyle or a trendy thing to do yet it led to a productive result. The lack of association still leads to the strengthening of democracy even in the midst of a cultural challenge (speaking of an Arab Revolution). Hence, it negates the contention of Tocqueville that his notion of the need for association is a pillar in democratic strengthening in modern democratic states.
This means to say that, even as we develop more mature democratic states, the notions of self interests and the need for associations have become irrelevant and vague. This degrades the value of Tocqueville’s ideas as a concrete contribution to democratic transitions. It implies that there is no higher universality in his notions and these really cannot impress students of political change to grasp his classic ideas. Meanwhile, there was a sense of historic value in his thoughts as contextualized during the early days of modernization and democratization in the United States. We still should highlight this contribution yet we should always contextualize the thoughts of the thinkers.
Works Cited:
Goldhammer, Arthur. Tocqueville, Associations and the Law of 1834. Paper for SFHS Panel. March 2007. Web. 10 December 2014 < http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~agoldham/articles/TocqAssoc.pdf>.
Roark, Eric. Tocqueville's Fix: Solving the Riddle of Democracy with Enlightened Self Interest. Studies in Social and Political Thought. N.d., p. 19-36. Web. 10 December 2014 <https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=10-2.pdf&site=412>.
Streich, Professor George. Justice Beyond “Just Us” Dilemmas of Time, Place and Difference in American Politics. New York: Ashgate Publishing Ltd. 2013.
