Democracy in America, by Alexis de Tocqueville (Introduction)
While in Italy, I read the book Democracy in America, by Alexis de Tocqueville, as translated by Harvey C. Manfield and Delba Winthrop. I have been procrastinating a bit on writing up a commentary, but I had the opportunity today, so I will take it.#
First, I will explain the structure of the book, and the translation. Then, I will comment briefly on Tocqueville's style. Then, I will comment on the translator's introductory essay. And finally, I will comment on the book.#
The physical book I have is divided into three parts--a one-hundred page introductory essay from the translators, and then volume one and two of Tocqueville's work. These volumes were originally published five years apart.
Each volume is divided into parts, two and four respectively, which are then divided into many chapters--some chapters are very small, only a page; while others are many tens of pages. Each chapter is then, often, divided into components--essays?--that deal with a particular aspect of the subject of the chapter. Another interesting thing about the chapters is that each is headed by a small "abstract" paragraph that outlines what it is about.
(Although I will not indicate where my quotes come from this way, as it will be obvious by context, the translators reference parts of the book by "(DA Volume Part.Chapter)", so "(DA I 2.10)" is Democracy in America, Volume I, Part 2, Chapter 10.)
And, Tocqueville has footnotes that are often longs and a few ten longer Notes that are referenced by the translators. The translators also add their own footnotes to explain things such as: the significance of certain names; how they translated a word; how Tocqueville quoted something; etc.
On quoting, Tocqueville seemed to paraphrase a great deal, as I can scarcely remember a single quote that was not noted to have some error in it by the translators. I thought this odd.
Tocqueville's writing, at a literary level, is uncanny. His descriptive muscle could bench press a Buick, and often times you will find yourself dazed and distracted by the poetry of his prose. Hopefully, this will show through in the sections I have chosen to excerpt.
Another thing I feel I should point out if it is not clear, the two volumes came out in 1830 and 1835, respectively. Obviously, things have changed.
Introduction by Harvey C. Mansfield and Delba Winthrop#
The translators define the purpose of the book and what they believe was the primary objective for Tocqueville in creating DA.
In one regard, the book is a description of America from every angle that is interesting--politically, geographically, economically, etc. But also, the book is a comparison between France and America--or more generically between the idea of democracy and the idea of aristocracy, the more general versions of what is displayed in America and France, respectively.
This struggle to define democracy and to defend it from aristocracy is, to say the least, very interesting and left me with many ideas floating in my head and many assumptions out the window.
Here is the translator's summarization of part of this:
By avoiding the contest over causality between politics and society--one cannot say which comes first--Tocqueville enables the social state to appear and serve as a whole. It is not the product of a part, and a part does not rule the whole, as Aristotle says. Tocqueville does describe the aristocratic social state, to be sure. But although an aristocracy may enjoy unquestioned legitimacy from its subjects, it rests ultimately on force, not consent, on a part, not the whole. Aristocracy is less of a society that democracy, and that is why it is less equitable (DA I 2.10, II 3.1). Its social state is curtailed and clouded over by lack of mutual understanding, despite the responsibility that nobles may feel for their dependents. Its social state, therefore, is less explicit than the democratic, based as it is on implication and unstated obligation. It is less a social state than the democratic social state. Since the social state is now revealed to be a quintessentially democratic concept, it is no surprise that it belongs to the political science of the altogether new democratic world. [pg. xliv-xlv]
Here, I shall note that throughout the text are many small points like this were I could point out that it is not true being read from a libertarian point of view, ie, a democracy is just as coercive as an aristocracy. But, in general, I will not do this.
Part of this, I think, comes from Tocqueville's influence. He does not think that democracy is perfect or that aristocracy is completely wrong either. What he does think is that democracy is the future whether we like it or not, so it is important to understand its costs and benefits. With these costs and benefits in mind, he can warn us when democracy leads to despotism and when we steer dangerous back to aristocracy.
So, because Tocqueville warns, I feel less compelled to warn when he does not.
The new mild despotism, as Tocqueville refers to it, will not be oppressive. It will care for citizens, ever attentive to the obvious needs of all and responsive to various pressures to satisfy unfulfilled desires. But be relieving individuals of the necessity of thinking and acting on their own, it gradually "rob[s] each of them of several of the principal attributes of humanity" and finally "reduces each nation to being nothing more than a herd of timid and industrious animals of which the government is the shepherd" (DA II 4.7). [pg. lxx]