Tocqueville argues like the others, that property specifically extreme materialism and individualism have major influence on the nature of political life. Tocqueville bases his argument on two key assumptions, the first that Americans have a philosophy from action as opposed to passivity and thought(Tocqueville, 2). Secondly, that Americans do not have a revolutionary spirit that charges them to the “shake existing belief” of society like Europeans(3). Instead, Americans stick with the status quo as they focus their time on the pursuit of property. These assumptions cause Tocqueville to argue that Americans are “no longer bound together by ideas, but by interests” as their friends are those who relate to them in terms of material goods and
Tocqueville’s concludes that extreme materialism allows a mild despotism to develop as a result of the mindless political participation of the public. Tocqueville identifies it as mild because keeps people in a “perpetual childhood” in which tye are never challenged to think critically (8). This is mild because it is pleasant for citizens as they can choose out a ready-made opinion and are never challenged mentally. This keeps people in a “perpetual childhood,” as they are never forced to think critically about politics but can instead just choose political options. To make matters worse, civic participation like voting simply becomes a way for citizens to “console themselves”(9). For it remains an expression of free-will by the people in which they feel like they influenced politics nut in reality, they were just choosing a selection from predetermined options. Tocqueville writes all of this as a warning to Americans of the dangers of allowing themselves to focus too much on material goods because all of this is fake and detrimental to American democracy and humanity. Ultimately, Tocqueville does believe that these issues can be avoided as long as citizens engage in civic association with one another to the extent that they then are forced to challenge the norm and think critically about the nature of political
As in no way can property positively affect a republican system of government given its unrealistic nature. However, the three also agree that property is a natural occurrence and thus it cannot be destroyed but its effects can contained. Finally, the biggest effect of property that all of the philosophers identify is the creation of individual wills or desires. These individual desires do not have to march what the common good of the society and thus it can negatively affect political life. Despite some agreement, the thinkers do diverge in terms of thoughts on human nature and the solution to the effects. In terms of human nature, Rousseau and Tocqueville both arrive in situations in which people’s opinions are easily molded by their desires or others. Subsequently, Rousseau concludes that the issue is so great that it is the government 's role to step in and compel people to to learn about the common good and accept it as their will. While Tocqueville argues that people are so weak-minded that they are basically cast into a perpetual childhood in which decisions are made for them. Either way both thinkers agree that humans are weak and that this is the biggest problem to plague political life. Madison agrees that people let their political decisions be controlled by desires and others but he does not take it to the
Alexis de Tocqueville's visit to the United States in the early part of the nineteenth century prompted his work Democracy in America, in which he expressed the ability to make democracy work. Throughout his travels Tocqueville noted that private interest and personal gain motivated the actions of most Americans, which in turn cultivated a strong sense of individualism. Tocqueville believed that this individualism would soon "sap the virtue of public life" (395) and create a despotism of selfishness. This growth of despotism would be created by citizens becoming too individualistic, and therefore not bothering to fulfill their civic duties or exercise their freedom. Tocqueville feared that the political order of America would soon become aimed at the satisfaction of individual needs, rather than the greater good of society. Alexis de Tocqueville viewed participation in public affairs, the growth of associations and newspapers, the principle of self-interest properly understood, and religion as the only means by which American democracy could combat the effects of individualism.
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.
In de Tocqueville’s book Democracy in America, he is quoted as saying, “…I know of no other country where love of money has such a grip on men’s hearts or where stronger scorn is expressed for the theory of permanent equality of property.” In my opinion, he is pointing out that man’s greed for money is what will possibly tear our society apart. This point has somewhat proven itself in the way that so many men, and now women, are willing to do almost anything to gain a dollar, even if it means using immoral and hurtful ways to do so.
Locke and Tocqueville were born nearly two hundred years apart from each other. This span of time corresponds to great changes in the European political spectrum, with Locke being born before the English Glorious Revolution (1688) and Tocqueville born after the French Revolution (1789). Much of what Tocqueville and his contemporaries would have written would have taken for granted the innovations to political thought which Locke and his contemporaries would have fostered. Thus, in areas such as the primacy of human self-interest, to the necessity of nominal societal participation in government, to the belief that “freedom cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith,” our authors share a common ground. It is from this common ground that Locke and Tocqueville most radically depart from one another, beginning with Locke’s conception of
In “Habits Of The Heart” Bellah et al write that “they attempt to follow Tocqueville and call it individualism”. This they say is the first language in which Americans tend to think about their lives, values independence and self-reliance above all else (Viii). Americans separate work, family and community, when in fact, these worlds must be combined. We are hiding in such "lifestyle enclaves," our isolated existence limits our ability to relate ourselves to a broader community. The virtue of community interaction lies in its ability to provide meaning to the frustrating mechanisms of politics and combat the "inevitable loneliness of the separate self" (Bellah et. al., 190).
Rousseau, however, believed, “the general will by definition is always right and always works to the community’s advantage. True freedom consists of obedience to laws that coincide with the general will.”(72) So in this aspect Rousseau almost goes to the far extreme dictatorship as the way to make a happy society which he shows in saying he, “..rejects entirely the Lockean principle that citizens possess rights independently of and against the state.”(72)
Machiavelli and Rousseau, both significant philosophers, had distinctive views on human nature and the relationship between the government and the governed. Their ideas were radical at the time and remain influential in government today. Their views on human nature and government had some common points and some ideas that differed.
It is human nature to see those who are different and group them into distinct categories. The distinction of Individualism versus Collectivism is one that is currently being studied extensively. On one side, individualism sees individuals as the fundamental unit of a society. Individuals are supposed to be unique, independent, and most importantly, willing to put their own interests above all others. On the other hand, collectivism views the basic building block of society as social groups, stressing the interpersonal bonds between people. Collectivist values dictate that group goals and values have higher precedence than an individual’s. Due to the seemingly polar opposite nature of these ideologies, it is inevitable that they will be compared to see which is more beneficial to the country and its people. Some might point to the success of the US, an extremely individualistic country, in support of individualistic values. They will point to the freedom of choice and diversity that individualism boasts of. Others stress the flaws of the US in response, and while both sides do have their truths, the costs that come with individualistic values are too great to be ignored. Highly individualistic attitudes have caused many large scale problems which have long been identified as difficult to resolve issues. These problems include, but are not limited to, promoting aggressive acts, creating an obsession with social power, and allowing a system of injustice to be born.
...ion with the general will. This may sound like a contradiction but, to Rousseau, the only way the body politic can function is by pursuing maximum cohesion of peoples while seeking maximum individuation. For Rousseau, like Marx, the solution to servitude is, in essence, the community itself.
In the recent weeks, I have noticed a trend in our cultural beliefs regarding groups outside of our own. As a nation, while the United States has a strongly individualistic nature from a personal perspective, there is also a strong collectivist belief regarding everyone outside of themselves and their groups. Rather than believing that each member of an external group is responsible for their decisions alone (myth of individualism), separating them from a collective (one bad apple), the consensus is generally geared opposite. For example, the belief that all immigrants want to steal American jobs, when one is not an immigrant, or that feminists are actually misandrists, when one is not a feminist. What I believe we have
Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau developed theories on human nature and how men govern themselves. With the passing of time, political views on the philosophy of government gradually changed. Despite their differences, Hobbes and Rousseau, both became two of the most influential political theorists in the world. Their ideas and philosophies spread all over the world influencing the creation of many new governments. These theorists all recognize that people develop a social contract within their society, but have differing views on what exactly the social contract is and how it is established. By way of the differing versions of the social contract Hobbes and Rousseau agreed that certain freedoms had been surrendered for a society’s protection and emphasizing the government’s definite responsibilities to its citizens.
This nullifies any freedoms or rights individuals are said to have because they are subject to the whims and fancy of the state. All three beliefs regarding the nature of man and the purpose of the state are bound to their respective views regarding freedom, because one position perpetuates and demands a conclusion regarding another. Bibliography:.. Works Cited Cress, Donald A. Jean-Jacques Rousseau “The Basic Political Writing”.
Rousseau presumes that in the beginning, humans were living in a peaceful state of nature and lived in equality, but as civilization progressed it began to change man as challenges became more elaborate, lives became more complicated, development of the possession of property began, and habitually more comparisons were made amongst us. The first law of nature also contributed to our sense of ownership. The first law of nature recognized by Rousseau is self-preservation; we care about ourselves then society and this law is used to defend or prove our own independence. As a result or this change of civility, we shifted to a state of nature that was far from grace, where we desired the suffering of others, only cared about ourselves, and developed the meaning of inequalities. People realized that their natural rights could no longer coexist with their freedom in the state of nature and also that they would perish if they did not leave the state of nature. Therefore, the state of nature no longer became desirable and society restored that motive; in this new societal environment we develop morals to handle conflicts and help preserve ourselves. Locke believes that while in our natural state we all have morals, though Rousseau challenges that belief by claiming that society generates a moral character within us. Rousseau insists that everyone can be free and live
This indicates that the community will only be peaceful when the people are in the state of nature. However, this questions why a government is created if the result will only cause the government to be corrupt. He also believes that there are interest groups that will try to influence the government into supporting what they believe in. Rousseau sees that the people will only be involved in the government is they choose to participate in the voting. He also says that when the people are together as a collective, they work and are viewed differently compared to when they are as individuals. Although Rousseau does understand both Hobbes and Locke’s theories, it makes the audience wonder why he didn’t fully support the theory of leaving people in the state of nature. By doing so, it would allow the people to continue having individual freedom without causing a state of
France consisted of three estates: the First Estate(the nobility), the Second Estate(the clergy), and finally the Third Estate(the commoners or everyone else). Before the French Revolution, the people of the First Estate suffered the most because of the burdens such as heavy taxes only put for the Third Estate. Many of them grew very tired of living in fear, hunger, and discrimination. These people thought and used the ideas of enlightenment such as the idea of equality, the right to rebel, and the natural rights by John Locke. John Locke and the people he influenced in the French Revolution believed that every man was the same and should be treated likewise. These people who were influenced by Locke despised this unfairness and used the idea of the right to rebel to overthrow the nobility and the government for taking away their “natural rights” (the rights to life, liberty, and property) which the government was actually supposed to protect for the people.