Brandon Abear
History 100
March 6, 2012
Democracy on Trial
Alexis de Tocqueville was not native to America, but his acute observations and analysis
of American democracy were accurate, which has resonated with American readers ever since
the publication of Democracy in America. It is an eye opening experience to see one’s self
through the eyes of another. De Tocqueville both praised and feared democracy. He found that
equality of condition drove much of the successes of democracy in America, such as moral
behavior, women’s education, and voluntary associations. He feared this equality because of
the effect of diminished cultivation of the arts and the possibility of eventual despotism.
Although de Tocqueville was concerned by this risk, he was an advocate for the spread of
democracy.
De Tocqueville immediately acknowledges that equality of condition is the foundation
for his work and “the central point to which all [his] observations returned” (p. 37). This
equality has influence over every aspect of American democratic life.
De Tocqueville analyzes the effect of equality of condition on moral behavior. He makes
two observations about moral behavior; it is “infinitely stricter” in America than any other place
and it is self-regulating. Morality is often considered intertwined with religion to the point of
inseparability. The strictness of American morality is the result of “equality and the institutions
that flow from it” (p. 145). Religion may establish a set of moral standards, but it is social
equality that strengthens morality. American women are brought up with the understanding
1
that they will eventually choose a spouse. Marriage is viewed as a contractual obligation. As a
contract, both participants enter knowingly and of their own free will. It is this aspect of choice
that drives the moral behavior of Americans. If a person chooses to enter into a marriage,
infidelity is then a choice as well. Therefore, American society is harsher on loose individuals.
Infidelity is not seen as a consequence of a forced relationship, but as a failure of the party to
hold to their vows. Morality is then strict and socially regulated. Unfaithfulness also requires
free time, something which democratic people lack. “…no one has the leisure or opportunity to
threaten the virtue of women…” (p. 148).
American women are, thanks to their protestant upbringing, better educated than their
Catholic counterparts. Education begins early for American women. They also enjoy more
independence, which leads to increased rationality, according to de Tocqueville. “The American
girl never stops exercising self-control… and her reason never really drops the reins…” (p. 141).
This better prepares women for the dangers of life. Rather than leave women in a state of
helplessness which requires constant defense, education and independence give women the
tools to defend themselves. Strength and independence are not just important for women, but
for society as a whole. “There has never been a free society without morality and… women
create morality. Therefore, anything that contributes to the condition of women, their habits
and opinions, seems to me to have great political significance” (p. 140). De Tocqueville believes
in democracy to yield educated women which, in turn, contributes to moral behavior. The
education of women in America raises their social status as well. De Tocqueville then states that
2
the most important factor in American prosperity is "the superior status of American women"
(p. 152).
“When men must work communally for the common good, they see that they are not as
independent of their fellow citizens as first thought, and for their mutual benefit they must
support each other” (p. 113). Although democracy leads to individualism, it is voluntary
associations which minimizes it. Individual liberty is an aspect of democracy that helps it
function. Each person is free to do and dream as he or she pleases. One would imagine such
individualized thoughts would lead to isolation. As people are drawn to voluntary associations,
it becomes clear that relationships will produce mutual benefits. Democratic participation
occurs not just at the national level, but at the local and state levels as well. If participation has
a direct effect on daily activities, individuals are more likely to come together to collaborate.
De Tocqueville notes that this structure of local democracy was established for just that reason.
As citizens are constantly reminded that they share the soil with others, they stay conscientious
of the duty and benefits of relationships. De Tocqueville sees just how strong voluntary
associations are because “…the benefits that result endure” (p. 113).
Along with de Tocqueville's praise of American democracy came his criticisms. His
criticisms were not particularly aimed at American culture as it was so much as it was aimed at
what it could become. Equality of condition, while regulating social behavior and morality and
improving the lives of women (and therefore society as a whole), is a double-edged sword.
In a state of equal condition, men and women are left to focus on individual interests. At
least in America, this interest is in personal wealth and material goods. This "unceasing effort
3
on the part of everyone to acquire it lead[s] men to prefer the practical above the beautiful" (p.
101). De Tocqueville argues that, because resources are focused on the acquisition of money,
less time is available for cultivating the arts. In this type of setting, the arts are not practical.
This appetite for fortune also tends to lead to impatience. Americans want items quickly. The
focus shifts then from quality to quantity. This diminishing of the arts not only applies to
industry but to fine arts as well.
As industry is the focus of Americans in obtaining wealth, de Tocqueville recognized a
possible outcome. If industry is driven by the bottom line alone, it is an almost natural
progression of industry to transform into aristocracy. De Tocqueville invokes economic
principles to back his premonition. "When a craftsman spends all his time on the fabrication of
a single object, he acquires a singular skill in his work. He becomes more skillful and less
industrious every day..." (p. 137). As division of labor becomes more absolute, workers become
dependents to the industry. At this point, they are defenseless against abuse. And it should be
noted that this progression occurs quite naturally. "... we seem to see the aristocracy emerging
very naturally from the very core of democracy" (p. 139). The fact that aristocracy is birthed
from democracy makes it an even more frightening prospect for de Tocqueville.
What is perhaps the most terrifying outcome from the equality of condition is the
tyranny of the majority. It is logical that the majority would have power in a democracy. But de
Tocqueville fears that, when this power is seen as unquestionable, there will remain no
balance. "The moral superiority of the majority is based in part on the idea that there is more
wisdom and talent in an assembly of men than in a single individual" (p. 70). If it is futile to
4
question the majority, as the majority's opinion benefits the greater good, then person or group
will dare stand in its way. "That is the language of slavery" (p. 73). De Tocqueville is quick to
point out that this aspect of the majority is not unlike a tyrant. Although a group, the majority
can quickly devolve into despotism, and the minority left seemingly without option.
De Tocqueville praises and condemns American democracy simultaneously (and almost
contradictorily at times). Equality of condition gives rise to voluntary associations, stricter moral
behavior, and better educated women. This lack of social differentiation can also lead to
diminished intellectual and artistic production as well as to social inequality via an industrial
aristocracy. Above all, de Tocqueville fears one of the major features of democracy; the
majority and the possibility of despotism. "And what I detest most in America is not the
extreme liberty that prevails there, but the few protections against tyranny" (p. 74). It is not
democracy that makes de Tocqueville hesitate so much as it is the lack of safety measures to
keep it balanced. De Tocqueville does advocate democracy even given this hesitancy. De
Tocqueville describes democracy for what it is - a tool. As such, it is not inherently good or evil.
" ... I grow increasingly strong in the belief that, to be honest and prosperous, democratic
nations have only to choose to be" (p. 170). Although a vocal critic, Alexis de Tocqueville was
indeed an advocate for democracy.
5