Political Freedom: Arendt and de Tocqueville Freedom in America emanates from the state of political freedom held by the citizens. Both Hannah Arendt and Alexis de Tocqueville provide criticism of the apparent shape freedom maintains in America as well as insight regarding how they perceive true political freedom. By using the observations and criticisms of de Tocqueville and the vision of Arendt, the position of modern America and its relation to the ideals of political freedom can be understood. It is necessary to understand de Tocqueville's observation of equality in order to make the distinction of democracy and how freedom relates to it. According to de Tocqueville, democracy requires an initial ingredient of civil equality. Civil equality is the absence of social divisions and barriers. The necessity of equality then leads to individuals and the deconstruction of community bonds. This occurs because the presence of community requires separate social classes and dependencies based on the class relations. De Tocqueville says, "…equality places men side by side, unconnected by any common tie…" (de Tocqueville 194). Individuals' needs and desires in society evolve into individualism and the further pursuit of one's self-interest. Political liberties and freedoms are thus sacrificed in attempts to satisfy the private appetite for personal gains. De Tocqueville maintains that, Selfishness blights the germ of all virtue; individualism, at first, only saps the virtue of public life; but, in the long run, it attacks and destroys all others, and is at length absorbed in downright selfishness. (De Tocqueville 193) Such selfish disassociation from society equates to tyra... ... middle of paper ... ...proach them regarding a certain issue. If the associations acquired a majority support in a given area then the issue would become policy or law and the representatives would the institute the law or policy as it was devised by the association. So it is understood that political freedom is a possibility in America. I have taken the understanding of de Tocqueville and Arendt and applied their principles and visions to formulate and understand where America is in the present and where America needs to head if political freedom is to become a reality. I understand that this vision, my own vision, is very rough and is vulnerable to much criticism, but it must be realized what potential exists in America. Arendt and Tocqueville have paved the road to political freedom; now it is up to the citizens to travel that road and obtain the freedom that founded our nation.
Tocqueville seems to like democracy in its ideal form. However, nothing can be perfect and thus America is not a perfect democracy. Tocqueville found numerous problems with democracy and the influence it had on the populace. These problems range from their distrust of dogmatic beliefs to the imperfect equality that is in place in America. He also found the effects of these problems to be quite problematic as well. For instance, individualism, an effect of equality, is very problematic to democracy. Tocqueville enjoys considering America as an experiment in democracy, but does not find it to be faultless.
Given that despots have every interest in keeping people isolated, the individualism resulting from equality makes despotism a great danger to equality. "Despotism... sees in the separation among men the surest guarantee of its continuance, and it usually makes every effort to keep them separate" (399). Exercising freedom through participation in public affairs is therefore extremely vital because it gives people a personal interest in thinking about others in society. Local self-governments are important because they draw people together, and it is therefore more likely that they will exercise their liberty. Tocqueville states that "as soon as a man begins to treat of public affairs in public, he begins to perceive that he is not so independent of his fellow men as he had first imagined, and that in order to obtain their support he must often lend them his cooperation" (400). When people act together they frequently form dependencies on one another, especially when they are working for the good of the entire community.
Democracy in America has been a guiding principle since the foundation of the country. Many over the years have commented on the structure and formation of democracy but more importantly the implementation and daily function within the democratic parameters that have been set. Alexis de Tocqueville was a French political thinker and historian born July 29, 1805. He is most famously known for his work Democracy in America. Democracy in America has been an evolving social and economic reform, and has continually changed since it’s founding.
Alexis de Tocqueville’s observation of the American prison system brought out several interesting facts about America and how it governs itself. He talks of the danger of greed for money, the importance of forming associations, and the power of influence in town government. Although many of his observations have since changed, many of them bring about legitimate points about American government and society.
For both Tocqueville in his “Democracy in America” and Locke in his “Second Treatise of Civil Government”, liberty holds a place of paramount importance in the pantheon of political values, specifically those in relation to democratic and republican systems (though Locke does not explicitly demand a republic as Tocqueville does) . From Tocqueville’s belief in the supremacy of liberty over equality , to Locke’s inclusion and conflation of liberty with property and life itself in his natural rights , liberty plays the crucial role of linchpin in both author’s political philosophy. Though this belief in the centrality of liberty is found in both Tocqueville and Locke, they each derivate liberty from fundamentally disparate sources, and thus hold
Political systems and their consequent removals during this time serve as a flashing indicator towards the power that exists in the mobilization of the people. The Declaration of Independence, Constitution of the United States, and the Rights of Man and Citizen, serve as reminders of the revolutionary philosophical and political attitudes belonging to the writers of these revolutionary documents. Even now, the same attitudes of equality and freedom can be seen. Whether it be through movements for racial equality on school campuses, justice for those killed unjustly, or the prevailing ideals of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” for all races and genders, the resounding calls for people to support and affirm their brethren continue to echo (US
In Democracy in America, Alexis De Tocqueville explains the dangers of democracy and explains the virtues that temper these dangers. In this paper, I will look at two issues Tocqueville discussed extensively in late 19th century American democracy and posit what Tocqueville may say about these issues today. The points I will discuss are materialism and religion. In a democracy, such as America, the individual’s opportunity to succeed makes him more likely to become attached to material and money. However, in Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, this danger is tempered by religion, which quenches the lust for material by reducing its importance in comparison to good mores. These two elements of American democracy are a small portion of the “Habits of the hearts” of Americans; they are two ideas that complement each other to make democracy appealing and possible anywhere and everywhere. Is this the case today? Is the American’s relationship to materialism and religion similar today to what it was when Tocqueville visited America?
In this excerpt from Democracy in America Alexis Tocqueville expresses his sentiments about the United States democratic government. Tocqueville believes the government's nature exists in the absolute supremacy of the majority, meaning that those citizens of the United States who are of legal age control legislation passed by the government. However, the power of the majority can exceed its limits. Tocqueville believed that the United States was a land of equality, liberty, and political wisdom. He considered it be a land where the government only served as the voice of the its citizens. He compares the government of the US to that of European systems. To him, European governments were still constricted by aristocratic privilege, the people had no hand in the formation of their government, let alone, there every day lives. He held up the American system as a successful model of what aristocratic European systems would inevitably become, systems of democracy and social equality. Although he held the American democratic system in high regards, he did have his concerns about the systems shortcomings. Tocqueville feared that the virtues he honored, such as creativity, freedom, civic participation, and taste, would be endangered by "the tyranny of the majority." In the United States the majority rules, but whose their to rule the majority. Tocqueville believed that the majority, with its unlimited power, would unavoidably turn into a tyranny. He felt that the moral beliefs of the majority would interfere with the quality of the elected legislators. The idea was that in a great number of men there was more intelligence, than in one individual, thus lacking quality in legislation. Another disadvantage of the majority was that the interests of the majority always were preferred to that of the minority. Therefore, giving the minority no chance to voice concerns.
Arendt, Hannah. “What Is Freedom?” Eight Exercises in Political Thought. New York: Penguin Group, 2012. 142-69. Print.
Ethical egoism is diametrically opposite to ethical altruism, which obliges a moral agent to assist the other first, even if he sacrifices his own interest. Further, researchers justify and rationalize the mental position of egoism versus altruism through an explanation that altruism is destructive for a society, suppressing and denying an individual value. Although the ‘modern’ age unsubtly supports swaggering egoistic behavior in the competitive arena such as international politics, commerce, and sport, in other ‘traditional’ areas of the prideful selfishness showing off, to considerable extent discourages visible disobedience from the prevalent moral codes. In some cases, the open pro-egoist position, as was, per example, the ‘contextual’ interpretation of selfishness by famous German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, can be described as a ‘grotesque anomaly’.
If a person had to choose between their life and someone else’s, they’d choose to be the ones to live. Selfishness is a terrible thing that can cause families to fight, it can cause wars, or the death of someone to spare one’s own life. Night by Elie Wiesel, shows many examples of selfishness. Sons leave their fathers to save their own lives, reluctantly feed their dying father and even kill just for a piece of bread. Humans are inherently selfish, it’s a personality trait that doesn’t care about relatives or lovers or anyone else.
The first value that is still relevant in today’s society is freedom. Freedom is the right to act, speak or think without any restraint. In America, freedoms were granted through the Bill of Rights, which guarantees certain rights that the government can never deprive the people of. The start of freedom practiced in America was when the Puritans broke away from the Roman Catholic Church to travel to America and practice religious freedom. The puritans believed there were more opportunities for freedom in America than in England. As stated in the Democracy in America, “ Nothing is more wonderful than the art of being free, but nothing is harder to learn how to use than freedom” (Tocqueville). The quote described by Tocqueville, describes how important freedom is to the people but it also takes time to practice how to use freedom in the everyday life. Just as the Puritans left for America, several people travel to America for the rights of freedom that
John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau all dealt with the issue of political freedom within a society. John Locke's “The Second Treatise of Government”, Mill's “On Liberty”, and Rousseau’s “Discourse On The Origins of Inequality” are influential and compelling literary works which while outlining the conceptual framework of each thinker’s ideal state present divergent visions of the very nature of man and his freedom. The three have somewhat different views regarding how much freedom man ought to have in political society because they have different views regarding man's basic potential for inherently good or evil behavior, as well as the ends or purpose of political societies.
Freedom is a human value that has inspired many poets, politicians, spiritual leaders, and philosophers for centuries. Poets have rhapsodized about freedom for centuries. Politicians present the utopian view that a perfect society would be one where we all live in freedom, and spiritual leaders teach that life is a spiritual journey leading the soul to unite with God, thus achieving ultimate freedom and happiness. In addition, we have the philosophers who perceive freedom as an inseparable part of our nature, and spend their lives questioning the concept of freedom and attempting to understand it (Transformative Dialogue, n.d.).
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, and Donald A. Cress. "On Democracy." Basic Political Writings. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub., 1987. 179-80. Print.