Autor: Mansfield, Harvey C.

Buch: Tocqueville

Titel: Tocqueville

Stichwort: Tocqueville; Demokratie: Gleichheit d. Bedingungen, Selbst-Regierung (Ausgang: kein Naturzustand, sondern "sozialer" Stand); Aristokratie (feste Hierarchie) - Demokratie (700-jahre langer Trend); Erbgesetz

Kurzinhalt: Instead of the state of nature producing democracy, as in Hobbes and Locke, democracy produces something like the state of nature, individuals not necessarily in conflict but not strongly bonded with one another.

Textausschnitt: The image of democracy

18b What is democracy? Tocqueville defines it first as equality of conditions, as a way of life; only when he comes to the Puritans does he begin to describe it as a form of government. Democracy as a way of life is not so worthy of praise as when it means self-government. To its definition as equality of conditions we might object that there are manifest inequalities in democracy today- let alone in his time—to which he would respond that conditions were becoming more equal, that it is in the nature of democracy to become more democratic, as if equality were the only lasting goal even if it is always an unfinished goal. He has in mind the contrast between democracy and aristocracy, between individuals in motion, rising and falling, and a fixed hierarchy of class distinctions. To introduce democracy he presents it as a seven-hundred-year-old trend, dating from the opening of the ranks of the church’s clergy to all, not only to nobles—a hidden trend now coming to view “in broad daylight” in America, the country where Tocqueville came to seek “the image of democracy itself.” (Fs)

19a Yet, unlike liberal theorists, he does not set forth the logic of the image, even though he says he will explore its “theoretical consequences.” He turns to the actual practice of democracy in its “point of departure,” the coming of the Puritans to America. The Puritans called themselves pilgrims because they came to America on behalf of an idea rather than for money or adventure, and the idea, though primarily religious, was also a political theory of democracy in which the people are sovereign, ruling all society, regulating mores, and establishing public education. Democracy appears not only as equality but as self-government that presides over a democratic society or “social state.” The point of departure is a certain kind of society, democratic as opposed to aristocratic, not the state of nature of liberal theory, in which all are individuals and society does not yet exist. (Fs) (notabene)

19b Democracy is a certain social state that is not very sociable. An example in America was the change in inheritance law from primogeniture to equal inheritance or inheritance by choice. Primogeniture is designed to keep aristocratic landed estates intact and to nurture family pride in one’s forbears, while equal inheritance releases individual selfishness from family ties and induces thoughts of the future rather than the past. Equality penetrates all society, sometimes as a passion for competitive excellence elevating humble men to the level of the great—a “manly and legitimate passion,” Tocqueville calls it—sometimes as a depraved taste for envy, prompting the weak to drag the strong down to their level. Instead of the state of nature producing democracy, as in Hobbes and Locke, democracy produces something like the state of nature, individuals not necessarily in conflict but not strongly bonded with one another. (Fs)

20a How are democratic individuals to be strong, not weak? Tocqueville does not say they will necessarily be one or the other. His concept of the “social state” separate from politics sounds like sociology, a science just getting started in his time. But in contrast to sociologists and to other social scientists today, he does not believe that social characteristics determine politics, for to think so ignores the weight of politics on society that he illustrates with the law on inheritance. Does that law come from the social state or determine it? Tocqueville equivocates, for he says that the social state is both a product of fact or law and a first cause of most social behavior. The importance of political liberty appears to be at stake: What good is political liberty if politics is the consequence of a certain social state and cannot decide important questions? So, despite saying that the social state may be considered the first cause of its way of life, he proceeds to speak of the sovereignty of the people—implying the importance of who rules but leaving the impression that democracy is ruled by its social state as much as it rules itself. (Fs)

20b Tocqueville goes so far as to conclude: “The people reign over the American political world as does God over the universe.” The people are “the cause and the end of all things.” But if the American people are like God, they would seem to replace God as sovereign. Man, not God, is sovereign, which is a definite change in the Puritan idea that he called the “point of departure.” Puritan democracy was a theocracy, and Tocqueville would not be a liberal if he wanted that. Political liberty sets limits to democratic politics, preventing the state from the strict regulation of mores that we today call “Puritan,” because it wants democratic individuals to be free. Tocqueville is a champion of the principle of separating church from state. But he endorses the democratic politics that the Puritans brought to America because one is not free unless one rules. In this confusing proportion between man and God, he shows that liberty has both a debt to religion and a claim against it. (Fs)