One of the defining principles of democratic society is the idea that “majority rules.” Despite the fundamental nature of this principle, it has been challenged by some of the greatest thinkers in history. Henry David Thoreau, Emmeline Pankhurst and Karl Marx are among these great thinkers who have commented on the role of the majority in different political and social situations. In works such as, “Civil Disobedience,” “Why We Are Militant,” and the “Communist Manifesto,” they point out some of the inherent flaws with the “majority rules” maxim.
In 1849, transcendentalist philosopher and writer, Henry David Thoreau, wrote a treatise originally entitled “Resistance to Civil Government.” This piece is however, now more commonly known as “Civil Disobedience.” Thoreau was staunchly opposed to the two major issues that were prominent in his lifetime: slavery and the Mexican-American War. These issues shaped his political views and led him to write “Civil Disobedience” (SparkNotes Editors).
As an abolitionist, Thoreau was clearly aware of the unfair treatment of African Americans (SparkNotes Editors). African Americans, as now, were a part of the majority that is expected to follow the laws of the country. At this time, African Americans were not being represented, and therefore, the majority was not truly being represented.
However, Thoreau’s stance on majority is two-fold. The second part of Thoreau’s issue with the democratic principle of “majority rules” is more fundamental. He questions the morality of the “majority rules” setup:
But a government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there not be a government in which majorities do not virtually de...
... middle of paper ...
...ould be a revolution of the majority for the sake of the majority. This would upset the whole system based on class struggle, for there would be only one class (Marx and Engels 9). So in this case, the majority plays a revolutionary role that leads to societal stability and equality.
Thoreau, Pankhurst, de Gouge, Marx and Engels all had valid points to make about the concept of “majority rule” based on their own experiences in their own environments. According to Thoreau, the majority, even when fully represented, can be misguided. In the worlds of Pankhurst and deGouges, and historically speaking in general, the portions of majority have gone egregiously underrepresented. Finally with Marx and Engels, the majority plays a more positive role, as the immense revolutionary class of the proletariat that brings societal stability and equality with their success.
In the book, “How Democratic Is the American Constitution”, Robert A. Dahl takes us deeper into the complexities of demonstration of American majority rule government were surrounded. An intriguing part of this book is the examination with different popular governments as far and wide as possible. His tables and graphs in the book are helpful for the situation. The book also given an idea of majority rules system in the Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland.
to provide for reform? Why is it not. minority?” It is these questions that support his purpose for change, he provides the audience with questions to elicit a calculated response that correlates with his beliefs. When Thoreau employs rhetorical questions, he applies several one after another.
Although Anthem’s society seems extremely surreal, aspects of its collectivist society closely mirror today’s society. By its use of majority rule, America’s democracy models a collectivist society. Take elections for an example. Although, Americans vote individually, the decision ultimately is based on the country as a whole. The use of majority rule relates to
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.
King, B. G., Cornwall, M., &Dahlin, E. C. (2005). Winning woman suffrage one step at a time: Social movements and the logic of the legislative process. Social Forces, 83(3), 1211-1234.
Once a man has the reason, the method, and the courage to act against the injustices, the reform will happen spontaneously. This reform happens spontaneously at an appropriate time, and it cannot be forced or suppressed. Both the reformers and authorities have to realize that the reform begins with individuals and cannot be controlled by the general. The individual should not blindly follow others but reform on his own behalf. Thoreau explicitly mentioned this idea in his essay, claiming that the individual is powerless while compromising the majority. He wrote: “A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority; it is not even a minority then; but it is irresistible when it clogs by its whole weight.” (Thoreau 845). The first two phrases state that the individual should not conform. If the minority compromises, follows the majority’s command, and accepts the majority’s value, that minority is cultivated by the majority and becomes a part of the majority. That is why Thoreau called compromised minority is not even a “minority”. The first two phrases are for the reformers, telling the reformers not to give up to the majority; the last phrase is for the authorities, warning them of the irresistible nature of the reform. The last phrase describes what is going to happen once the individual starts to reform. Despite the fact that the majority can cultivate the minority, the minority can also resist the majority once it put in all the effort. Similarly, Dr. King sent his letter to tell the moderates that the reform will eventually take place. Dr. King wrote this in his letter:
William Smith, Democracy, Deliberation and Disobedience (Paper presented at the UK Association for Legal and Social Philosophy Annual Conference, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, April 2003).
Although Thoreau and King both correspondingly address these topics of morality and justice throughout their essays, their essays are in no way similar in writing styles, tones, and/or goals. King speaks to his readers about the injustice that is being served to African Americans specifically. He uses an emotional appeal as he pleads his readers to take action to end segregation. This emotional appeal combined with his optimism for freedom sets him and his writing different from that of Thoreau’s. Thoreau’s essay on the other hand, is largely critical of the unfair American Government. Unlike King, Thoreau worriedly speaks to his readers in a distressed, aggravated tone as he reprimands them for following unjust laws. Thoreau’s essay is also different from King’s because he presents more than one goal. Not only does he describe the government’s unfair laws, but he also teaches his readers how and why to revolt, and tells them to bring an end to the ongoing M...
To begin with, Thoreau expresses that civil disobedience should be more implemented when the just resistance of the minority is seen legally unjust to the structure conformed by the majority. Supporting his position, Thoreau utilizes the role of the national tax in his time; its use which demoralizes the foreign relationship
It has been seen throughout history where radical reform movements start off with the support of only a minority of people, but then grow to gain the support of the majority. For example, the women’s suffrage movement had never been popular until after World War I when the 19th amendment was put into place. The movement started off with only a few women
Henry David Thoreau was a poet, social philosopher, and educator in the early to mid- 1800s (Hampton). He graduated from Harvard University in 1837 and, upon his return to his hometown of Concord, Massachusetts, befriended Ralph Waldo Emerson, also a philosopher and poet (Hampton, “Ralph Waldo Emerson”). Emerson was also the leader of the Transcendentalist movement which was based on the idea that people should lead by example -- social reform begins with the individual, not the government -- and that the movement should be peaceful (Woodlief, Ruehl). Thoreau agreed with this approach until the United States invaded Mexico in May, 1846 (Brown, Witherell). Opposed to slavery, Thoreau saw the invasion of Mexico as an attempt by the government to extend slavery westward. In his essay “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience,” published in 1849 with the original title, “Resistance to Civil Government,” Thoreau protests against the government and states that is a man’s duty to rise up against the government when the government commits a wrong (Thoreau). In his writings, Thoreau uses the three rhetorical approaches of Pathos, Ethos, and Logos in his attempts to persuade his readers to his point of view (Heinrichs).
The majority and the minority bring forth change in policy in a democratic society. Majority rule means that, if there were an over whelming amount of support on a issue their voices would be heard by the government. Our government is run on a majority rule. People in our society elect officials and put their faiths in them to make their choices.
Across Europe, the revolutionaries of 1848 came from a variety of different social backgrounds and they all held different political beliefs. They could be liberals, republicans, nationalists or socialists and therefore they all wanted different things out of the Revolutions. Each group was also internally divided, with a radical faction and a more moderate one. Initially they all joined forces to overthrow the existing regimes with which they were discontent. However once power was in their hands, they found that ‘Revolutionary Consensus’ was virtually impossible. Their initial victory was “followed by ensuing struggle to implement change”5. The people had taken to the streets not knowing what they would do if they did manage to take power. Now that they had, because of their different individual aims, they found it hard to compromise. This eventually led to a growing split between moderates and radicals, as well as between social classes, particularly in France. The moderates did not want a government based on universal male...
is very true. It is often said that democracy is just a tyranny of the majority. This can seem true
In "Civil Disobedience," Thoreau criticizes the American government for its democratic nature, namely, the idea of majority ruling. Like earlier transcendentalists, such as Ralph Waldo Emerson, Thoreau believes in the importance of the individual. In a society where there are many individuals with conflicting perceptions and beliefs, Emerson chooses passivity and isolation to avoid conflict with others. However, unlike Emerson, Thoreau rejects passivity and challenges his readers to stand up against the government that focuses on majorities over individuals. Thoreau argues that when power is in the hands of the people, the majority rules, "not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest" (Thoreau 64). Thoreau portrays this very fundamental element of democracy, w...