Tocqueville's Paradox: That of the Individual and Society

Jason WongSocial Studies 10bNicolas Prevelakis

Relational Paradox: That of the Individual and Society

Alexis de Tocqueville enjoyed paradoxes. In his visit to the United States, Tocqueville

remarked that “No novelty in the United States struck me more vividly during my stay there

than the equality of conditions.”1 Tocqueville was awed by what he observed in his trip, and he

believed that the relatively young country represented a new modern society that would

replace an aging aristocratic one. To Tocqueville, it was the basic premise of equality and

egalitarianism that gave rise to a more improved society. Tocqueville continued his remarks on

the United States’ ‘equality of conditions’ in his introduction, where he wrote “It is easy to see

the immense influence of this basic fact on the whole course of society. It gives a particular

turn to public opinion and a particular twist to the new laws, new maxims to those who govern

and particular habits to the governed.”2 On the other hand, especially in volume two of his

great work Democracy in America, Tocqueville paradoxically wrote about the dangers of the

country’s egalitarianism. Notably, Tocqueville feared individualism, as well as the tyranny of

the majority. The perfect state, in Tocqueville’s mind, was a delicate balance of individual

freedoms and collective cohesion that seems impossible for any state to practically attain.

Although this paper is primarily concerned with Tocqueville’s vision of modern societies,

this paper also utilizes other notable thinkers and ideas in an attempt to critique Tocqueville’s

observations and theories. We begin with the idea that Tocqueville, who is interested in the

development of the democratic social state, seems to inaccurately emphasize religion’s ability

1 Tocqueville, Alexis de Democracy in America translated by George Lawrence edited by J.P. Mayer; published by Perennial Classics 2000, New York NY Page 92 Tocqueville, Alexis de Democracy in America translated by George Lawrence edited by J.P. Mayer; published by Perennial Classics 2000, New York NY Page 9


to preserve mores that are essential to the maintenance of freedom. History has shown that in

reality religion can be divisive, encourage self-segregation, and emphasize differences among

individuals rather than encourage unity among all peoples. The development of social mores

that stem from equality are also a great concern for Tocqueville, who believed that equality

begot individualism and encouraged self-centered individuals. But this paper argues that

Tocqueville is unnecessarily concerned about the ramifications of the self-centered individual

who, as Adam Smith and Friedrich A. von Hayek would argue, can still be both self-centered and

at the same time serve society’s needs. Smith and Hayek would argue that these two points are

not mutually exclusive, whereas Tocqueville seems to imply that they are. Furthermore, this

essay looks at a possible solution to the Tocqueville’s other problem of the “tyranny of the

majority” by utilizing associations as havens for dissent and debate. Finally, this essay goes

back to Tocqueville’s major point about the importance of equality in the modern society

attempts to piece together a coherent philosophy behind the concept of the individual in

modern society. Additionally, it is important to note that all references to American democracy

refer to republican democracy.

For Tocqueville, the origins of United States egalitarian society is founded upon a

complex interaction of the physical geography of North America, the history of the colonies,

and the religious beliefs of its people. Inevitably, these major influences on American society

assisted in its development into an egalitarian society by helping to determine the country’s

social state. The American social state allowed individual Americans a suitable participatory

role in local and national politics that was mutually beneficial to both individuals and the state.


Tocqueville supported this idea when he wrote that “The social state is commonly the result of

circumstances, sometimes of laws, but most often of a combination of the two.”3 Tocqueville

emphasized two factors, however, that are primarily responsible for the culture of democracy

that pervaded the country: the interaction between the religious and political ideals among all

members of United States society. In the religious/moral world, Tocqueville wrote, everything

was ordered, coordinated and organized while everything in the political world was chaotic,

disordered and confused. “Far from harming each other,” Tocqueville wrote, “these two

apparently opposed tendencies work in harmony and seem to lend mutual support.”4

Tocqueville explained this idea of mutual benefit by describing religion as the “guardian of

mores” and the companion of freedom in its struggle to maintain itself.

It is important to note, however, that during Tocqueville’s visit the entire country

(excluding Native American and African Americans), was almost entirely Christian. More

specifically, most of America at that time was Protestant. Since this is the case, Tocqueville’s

observation that religion and freedom mutually supported one another was in actually an

observation that Protestantism (rather than religion overall) and freedom are only mutually

beneficial to each other. He wrote that “For Americans the idea of Christianity and liberty are

so completely mingled that it is almost impossible to get them to conceive of the one without

the other.”5 But, if Tocqueville is correct to assume that religion and freedom are mutually

3 Tocqueville, Alexis de Democracy in America translated by George Lawrence edited by J.P. Mayer; published by Perennial Classics 2000, New York NY Page 504 Tocqueville, Alexis de Democracy in America translated by George Lawrence edited by J.P. Mayer; published by Perennial Classics 2000, New York NY Page 475 Tocqueville, Alexis de Democracy in America translated by George Lawrence edited by J.P. Mayer; published by Perennial Classics 2000, New York NY Page 293


beneficial to each other, then his conception of the development of democratic mores is almost

useless in a society that consists of different and/or several religions and belief systems—

assuming that everyone doesn’t or won’t convert to become Protestants. Tocqueville doesn’t

seem to disagree. On page 445 Tocqueville writes how Islamic beliefs and egalitarian mores are

inherently incompatible, and therefore, Islamic countries are less susceptible to democratizing:

Mohammed brought down from heaven and put into the Koran not religious doctrines only, but political maxims, criminal and civil laws, and scientific theories. The Gospels, on the other hand, deal only with the relations between man and God and between man and man. Beyond that, they teach nothing and do not oblige people to believe anything. That alone, among a thousand reasons, is enough to show that Islam will not be able to hold its power long in ages of enlightenment and democracy, while Christianity is destined to reign in such ages, as in all others.6

Tocqueville, an imperialist, would argue that other societies and cultures have to emulate

Protestantism if they didn’t convert outright, in order to remain competitive and/or not be

conquered by Christian democratic societies. If this is the case, that societies should first

convert into Protestantism in order to craft a workable democratic society, then Tocqueville

doesn’t explain the rise of other great democracies since his time in Japan, India, and South

Africa. Each has their own set of beliefs and religious values that are different from

Protestantism, and none of these countries adopted Protestantism or another form of

Christianity as a major religion. If Christianity were so important to the development of

democratic culture, then why did America’s founding fathers purposefully separate the roles of

church and state in society?

6 Tocqueville, Alexis de Democracy in America translated by George Lawrence edited by J.P. Mayer; published by Perennial Classics 2000, New York NY Page 445


History has shown that even if all of one society or country has similar beliefs, there are

times and cases from which religion is divisive, and encourages self-destructive social behavior.

For example, modern American society is currently extremely conflicted over abortion and gay

rights issues. Even within the Protestant religious umbrella, people are fragmented on their

stances on these two issues. Some have taken to militant action, such as the bombing of

abortion clinics, or the assassination of gay rights activists (i.e. Harvey Milk). Some churches,

such as the Episcopal Church, have adopted amended rules and/or split and formed other

organizations in order to recognize gay couples, or to allow women a place in religious

organizational leadership. These destructive social behaviors and divisions can sometimes be

primarily fueled by religious fervor. In these cases, religion can emphasize differences among

individuals rather than encourage unity, as extremely polarized issues remain unresolved as

long as opposing beliefs exist. These conditions can make it difficult for associations to develop

and/or foster.

For Toqueville, associations are the bonds that are created among individuals in order to

utilize their collective power to influence government and society. Associations are an

important aspect of American culture because associations help develop fellow-feeling and

solidarity. Tocqueville observed that forming and belonging to associations was one of the

more pronounced activities of American citizens. Tocqueville noted that “Americans of all ages,

all stations in life, and all types of disposition are forever forming associations.”7 He

emphasized associations because they provide a necessary service in fighting against the



problems of individualism. “If men are to remain civilized or to become civilized,” Tocqueville

wrote, “the art of association must develop and improve among them at the same speed as

equality of conditions spreads.”8 The ramifications of the equality of conditions are a

paramount concern for Tocqueville, who believed that equality encouraged individualism.

Tocqueville had the belief that because equality enables each person to serve their individual

self interests, then individuals were susceptible to harmful individualist tendencies that could

prove destructive. “Individualism” is an evolution from egoism, which Tocqueville claims is “a

passionate and exaggerated love of self which leads a man to think of all things in terms of

himself and to prefer himself to all.”9 Each citizen, then, is isolated from (or isolates himself

from) the rest of society into the society of his or her limited social circle of family and friends.

The individual “gladly leaves the greater society to look after itself”10 and recuses him or herself

from a responsibility to contribute back to society. Equality of conditions demolishes human

fellowship, and according to Tocqueville, is of democratic origin and threatens to grow as

conditions get more equal.”11

However, there is no reason that individual self-interest and the interests of society are

mutually exclusive. By all accounts, Tocqueville would prefer a kind of political man over the

family man (or woman) when in reality in a modern society they can be one and the same, or at

least share similar interests. While individualism and social isolation is a worry, it is not as

8 Tocqueville, Alexis de Democracy in America translated by George Lawrence edited by J.P. Mayer; published by Perennial Classics 2000, New York NY Page 5159 Tocqueville, Alexis de Democracy in America translated by George Lawrence edited by J.P. Mayer; published by Perennial Classics 2000, New York NY Page 50610 Tocqueville, Alexis de Democracy in America translated by George Lawrence edited by J.P. Mayer; published by Perennial Classics 2000, New York NY Page 50611 Tocqueville, Alexis de Democracy in America translated by George Lawrence edited by J.P. Mayer; published by Perennial Classics 2000, New York NY Page 507


pronounced as Tocqueville believes. Smith notes that "It is not from the benevolence of the

butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own

interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to

them of our own necessities but of their advantages." Therefore, individual self-interest and

collective social interests can be intertwined. The family man can still serve society by serving

his family’s interests. In Smith’s example, the family man would help provide bread, meat, or

beer for society. In addition, there is little reason for men and women to isolate themselves

from politics or their fellow-beings when most businesses and occupations require some form

of social interaction and in many cases men and women of all interests are affected by various

state legislation concerning suitable business practices, taxation, driver’s licenses, etc.

Tocqueville’s other great concern for the individual was the tyranny of the majority. A

big question for Tocqueville was to whom individuals can turn to when conflicts arise between

the individual and the rest of society. On page 252 of Democracy in America, Tocqueville

pondered:

When a man or a party suffers an injustice in the United States, to whom can he turn? To public opinion? That is what forms the majority. To the legislative body? It represents the majority and obeys it blindly. To the executive power? It is appointed by the majority and serves as its passive instrument. To the police? They are nothing but the majority under arms. A jury? The jury is the majority vested with the right to pronounce judgment; even the judges in certain states are elected by the majority. So, however iniquitous or unreasonable the measure which hurts you, you must submit.12

James Madison, an American politician who helped oversee the development of the United

States, had a similar concern. In his editorial, Federalist #10, Madison wrote that “Complaints



are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, […] that measures are

too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by

the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.”13 But Madison responded to this

question by stating that the only way to combat this tyranny was to encourage associations,

which he called factions, to increase so that they could combat one another when individual

associations become too powerful. Eventually, Madison assumed, if one faction was becoming

too powerful, then that would encourage many of the other smaller factions to work together

to negate the effects of the large faction. Madison concludes Federalist #10 by stating:

The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source.14

Thus, associations, which already constitute a major part of American culture, can serve to both

divide the interests of the majority, and also serve to unite smaller associations against the

overwhelming power of the majority.

Tocqueville believed that equality of conditions was an important component of any

modern society. He believed the egalitarian social state of America helped develop American

characteristics of industriousness and the desire to accumulate wealth. Tocqueville, however,

may have used observations which were too general in order to craft his theory on American

society. Tocqueville seems to have confused the effects of democracy and egalitarianism with

the effects of commercial society. Furthermore, Tocqueville’s analysis of religion in America is

13 Madison, James Federalist #10 http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm14 Madison, James Federalist #10 http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm


incomplete; his analysis doesn’t explain what might happen if America suddenly became less

religious, or more religious with different beliefs, and what effects these might have on society.

Tocqueville rightly concentrates on the power of the individual in modern society, but

Tocqueville fears both individualism, and paradoxically, the tyranny of the majority.

Tocqueville’s individualism is grounded on the idea that the goals and activities political man, as

opposed to those of the family man, are mutually exclusive.

In actuality I have tried to show that this isn’t the case, and there are many instances in

business and politics that directly affect the political and family man at the same time.

Tocqueville’s concern over the tyranny of the majority is a valid concern, and can be seen even

today in the majority’s denial of equal rights for gays and lesbians. Madison’s solution would

be to encourage the development of more factions and associations to limit any individual

association’s power. Tocqueville himself noted that associations were an enormous part of

American life. Ultimately, even though he expresses some reservations about, and an

incomplete understanding of commercial society, Tocqueville raises two penetrating concerns

of the modern era: the risk of the individual isolating him/herself from the rest of his/her

fellows, and the risk to the individual from the tyranny of society.

Documents

Tocqueville's Paradox: That of the Individual and Society