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
The United States of America was founded on the basis of a "classless society of equals," committed to eliminating the past injustices imposed on them by Great Britain. A hundred years later, Alexis de Tocqueville, a prominent sociologist of France, claimed that the nation was the most democratic in the world, a model for the rest of mankind, distinguished by the "equality of condition" ("Tocqueville in..." n. pag.). Today, however, there does exist perceptible classes in this country, and, because of differences in material wealth, Americans have unequal opportunities in politics, education, health care, justice, security, and overall happiness. The distinct class structure of current-day America is the greatest cause of inequality in the United States today.
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.
One of these faults that Tocqueville discusses is the influence that democracy has on America. Democracy gives everyone the chance to have their say in their government. Americans believe that democracy is a great thing. However, Tocqueville discussed the influences that this worship of democracy has created. For instance, Tocqueville states how Americans did not consider philosophy to be important and have no philosophical school of their own. Yet, even without much attention paid to philosophy, Americans all think similarly. This similar philosophy is using the same method of depending on their own understanding and opinion to make decisions. Tocqueville believed that this method is used by Americans because of an aversion they have to accepting things solely because authorities say to and instead they the need to think for themselves. Instead of accepting what the authorities say, Americans believe that nothing is impossible to understand and everything can be explained through using a person’s own judgment about things. This reliance on a person’s judgment also leads to Americans having a distrust of all things supernatural. Tocqueville’s observations here seem to be quite critical and appear to look at American’s reverence for their j...
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.
Bessette, Joseph M., John J. Pitney, and First Jr. American Government And Politics, Deliberation, Democracy, And Citizenship No Seperate Policy Chapters Editions. Boston: Wadsworth Pub Co, 2010. 429. Print.
Blinded by the self-destructive American dream of “Marie-Antoinette music-rooms and Restoration salons” and “toilet sets of pure dull gold” most murder their morals and harm others in the process (Fitzgerald 5.91). Whether rich or poor two things can be assured: the poor want to be rich and the rich do not want to be poor. The result is a “rotten crowd” that has not true value, for it demoralizes itself to prosper economically, not realizing that the crisp dollar bills will be worthless in its grave (Fitzgerald 8.154).
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.
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).
The social pact comes down to this; “Each one of us puts into the community his person and all his powers under the supreme direction of the general will; and as a body, we incorporate every member as an indivisible part of the whole (Rousseau: 61)”. The general will can itself direct the forces of the state with the intention of the whole’s primary goal - which is the common good. The general will does not allow private opinions to prevail. The union of the people, in its passive role is known as the State and is referred to as the Sovereign in its active state. Associates of the body politic are communally known as the people, and individually referred to as citizens or subjects. The primary problem to which the social contract holds the solution is based on the total alienation of each associate to the entire community. Rousseau proposes that every individual give himself absolutely and apply the same conditions for each and every one to result in an agreement where it is in no ones interest to make the conditions burdensome for others. The critiques of this contract are so specifically determined by ones actions, that the slightest amendment must make the agreement invalid; it is crucial to obtain a unanimous recognition and admittance by the whole. If the social pact is desecrated, every man regains his inborn rights to recover his natural freedom, and loses the civil freedom in which he bargained for. Stop. The existence of natural freedom is the argument in which I intend to pursue against Rousseau. This thought shall be revisited in a short while. Rousseau implies upon freedom the definition of the sovereign; it is a reason; a collaboration with others; a civil expression of the general will.
The first area that I will cover is the most abstract of Rousseau’s arguments and the most ambiguous in practice, that being the general will. The general will of the people refers to the sum of the differences of all opinions regarding the common interest. Accordingly, “...the general will is always right and always tends to the public advantage.”(31) By defining the general will to be the calculating of the social good, the standard of what is right, it becomes tautologically true that the general will is always right. With this limited notion of the general will, the next step is to introduce sovereignty.
One major issue with the nation is their emphasis on the importance of having a timocracy society where power is measured and gained through wealth. A common ideology shared among Americans is “You don’t share things in common; you have your own things” (Burgess 236). Through this statement, Burgess remarks about how American citizens no longer have the will to familiarize themselves with
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.
In “Ill Fares the Land,” Tony Judt argues that “the pursuit of material self-interest” has become the main ingredient in “our sense of collective purpose.” He argues that this materialism is responsible for the “growing disparities of rich and poor,” but Judt’s demonization of individualism continues as he attributes the woes of contemporary life to “materialistic and selfish quality.” Judt is correct in his argument that materialism and by proxy, individualism have undermined the fabric of the community. Although the community’s diminishing bonds are to blame; government inaction is also a contributory factor. Together, the downfall of the community, through the growing disparity of economic classes and runaway individualism, and government dysfunction and gridlock are the main contributing factors that prevent the reconciliation of economic inequality.
... for example, people who have radical beliefs, will be denied these beliefs and forced to supportthe viewpoint of the general will. Locke believed established, settled and known law should determine right and wrong which in and of itself should constrain people, and naturally result in obedience to the law . "The power of punishing he wholly gives up" (Locke 17) which means that the State now has ultimate control over the individual rights of everyone in society. Another limitation on the people is that for Locke (??)the only people that actually counted were land owning men, and not woman or landless peasants, so this would leave a significant portion of the populace without a say in the government. Both Rousseau and Locke formulated new and innovative ideas for government that would change the way people thought of how sovereignty should be addressed forever.
Rousseau suggests that the first convention must be unanimous, and the minority has no obligation to submit to the choice of the majority, “as the law of majority rule is itself established by convention and presupposes unanimity at least once” (Rousseau, 172). For Locke and Hobbes, one’s self-preservation (and the protection of his property, which is quite synonymous to self-preservation to Locke) is the first principle , and if it is threatened, one has the rights to leave the “body politic” or rebel. Moreover, one also has the right to decide whether he wants to stay under the government when he grows to a certain age . Such arguments give the minority a passive freedom: their voice may not be powerful to change the society, but they can at least leave the society that is against them. Furthermore, Rousseau disapproves factions within a state, especially big ones, as their wills, namely the majority’s wills, potentially nullify the general will . His continual emphasis that the general will should represent the entire people indicates his concern for the