Читать книгу Classical Sociological Theory - Группа авторов - Страница 55

Alexis de Tocqueville is the most important sociological thinker in the liberal tradition. For contemporary sociologists and political scientists, Tocqueville looms large because he had a profound influence on the development of historical and comparative social sciences and on the analysis of the role of social institutions in the political life of a nation (Swedberg 2009).

Tocqueville was the son of an old aristocratic family, but he lived in an age of upheaval, in a world being transformed by the Industrial Revolution and shaken by democratic movements. Tocqueville was not an academic. He studied law and began his political career in 1830, serving as a parliamentary deputy. As parliamentarian and later as a government minister, Tocqueville earned a reputation as a principled liberal and a cautious reformer. He lent his voice to various causes, including the abolition of slavery, the promotion of free trade, and indirect rule that would have preserved local autonomy in an Algeria recently colonized by France.

Along with his life-long friend Gustave de Beaumont (1802–1866), Tocqueville was offered a government commission to tour the United States and draft a report on the state of prisons in the young republic. The journey radically expanded Tocqueville’s intellectual horizons. The two budding statesmen travelled across antebellum America and explored its political institutions, cultural values and social relations. Given their status and diplomatic credentials, they went where they liked and were able to meet many of the republic’s leading figures, including John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, and Daniel Webster. However, they also tried to get to know the common people of America. They attended religious revivals, political rallies, town meetings, and a Fourth of July parade. They travelled on stagecoaches and steamboats and slept in mansions and log cabins.

The most important result of this trip was Democracy in America, published in two volumes in 1835 and 1840. In the work, Tocqueville proclaimed that democracy was an irresistible force in modern times and that political and social equality – by which he meant the end of aristocratic privilege and democratic citizenship – were the great issues of the age. Tocqueville tried to convince skeptical conservatives that deliberate institutional reform could make productive democratic politics possible without descending into mob rule or warfare between the social classes.

Tocqueville saw much to admire in the institutions and practices of the American republic, but he was no apologist for its failings. Slavery, the dispossession of Native Americans, and widespread bigotry violated the libertarian principles of the republic. He feared that the economics and politics of slavery would eventually divide the republic between North and South. Tocqueville was worried that economic growth might dangerously increase material inequality among (white) Americans, threatening the egalitarianism that was the ideological foundation of their system of government. In time, Tocqueville feared, the gap between the haves-and-have-nots might tempt Americans to adopt administrative centralization, thereby trading their liberties for dependence on the state. The brilliance and originality of the book made Tocqueville famous. It became a sensation in France and remains a foundational work of political sociology today.

Tocqueville was fascinated by the tension that inevitably arises between the necessity for stable social order and the demand for democratic equality. Tocqueville argued that periods of sustained economic growth and social progress have a paradoxical tendency to increase political discontent by creating unrealistic hopes for further progress. This crisis of rising expectations can become acute for the population of a country when, after a sustained period of improving conditions, a sudden reversal is experienced that discredits a polity in spite of its objective achievements.

In understanding the structural and constitutional vulnerability that puts states at risk, Tocqueville thought that we should analyze “antecedent facts, the nature of institutions, turn of mind and the state of mores [that] are the materials from which chance composes those impromptu events that surprise and terrify us” (Tocqueville 1987: 62). In colorful terms, he was laying out the foundations of what we would now call a social-scientific approach to comparative and historical inquiry. Some of the clearest statements of Tocqueville’s social theory are contained in his masterpiece, Democracy in America, which is excerpted in this volume. Provocatively, Tocqueville’s analysis identified the strength of the American republic in what Europeans would regard as its apparent weaknesses: its limited scope of government, decentralization, egalitarianism, weak state capacity, and reliance on voluntary groups. For Tocqueville, the genius of the American system obtained in its combination of liberal freedoms of speech, press and assembly with a host of voluntary civic associations. If democracy worked, it worked in large part due to civic-mindedness and practicality born from local civil society.

Tocqueville thought that democracies face a fundamental dilemma. Self-interest is a basic feature of the sort of progressive, market-oriented society that is the foundation for democratic politics but the spirit of possessive individualism fosters egoism and selfish preferences that make management of common affairs difficult. Practically, the obligations among people are few and self-interest can crowd out public service. With its citizens disengaged and self-serving, public goods weaken and democratic government fails. Nevertheless, Tocqueville was convinced that democratic government could flourish, as it appeared it had in antebellum America. He proclaimed, “The Americans have combated the individualism to which equality gives birth with freedom, and they have defeated it” (Tocqueville 2000: 486). Instead of France’s extensive state bureaucracy, government led by public-minded citizens and propelled by civic associations provided most of the public goods Americans demanded. America’s limited government and federal system avoided the tyranny of the majority that can result from a strong, elected government favoring only its own supporters. Its decentralization and restricted scope meant that citizens had to rely on local initiatives that unleashed their self-interest in service of the public good. The American constitution established civil rights (for most white men, at least) and disestablished religion, permitting a flourishing of clubs and civic groups alongside lively, self-organizing religious denominations.

But how had Americans balanced the competing claims of egalitarianism and autonomy with the need for social order? Tocqueville proposed that civic associations, that is, voluntary organizations that promote a collective good, were the true foundation of the American polity. Associations made it possible for citizens to appeal to government, select favorable public officials, and see to it that the political parties addressed their needs. Moreover, civic life “educated” people for democracy. People who took part in voluntary associations were easier to mobilize politically, paid more attention to public affairs, and reached more informed opinions – all leading to the exercise of enlightened self-interest. Tocqueville drew general lessons from his study of the American case. He proposed that the greater the degree of social equality in a society, the more it must develop civic associations to avoid authoritarianism. He posited that in centralized states with extensive state capacities and a professional bureaucracy, government initiatives would dominate public affairs and crowd out civic groups. If such societies tried to democratize rapidly, they would likely fail as their citizens had so little experience in handling civic affairs and were unaccustomed to the moderation and limited aims required of plural government.

Tocqueville thought he saw this tendency in his native France. Another danger was that as inequality grew as a result of economic growth, citizens might come to depend on the government to level the playing field and provide them with benefits, thereby making them clients of state actors. However, where government avoided excessive centralization and permitted civic associations, citizens would take the lead in fostering new economic, social, and cultural developments. The result would be a vital, dynamic, and cooperative society. The implications are important: constitutionally limited government and strong civic associations may help to overcome the democratic dilemma facing all modernizing states. More generally, Tocqueville built upon the liberal tradition in political thought to provide an account of how civic associations could provide the basis for a robust social order without reliance on Leviathan (see Section 1-1).

Tocqueville’s American experiences convinced him that social theory must be based on a deep appreciation of a society’s mores, institutions, prevailing social relations, and everyday ways of life. His journey led him to think comparatively, assessing how history and environmental conditions shape the trajectory of societies. Tocqueville’s interrogation of the dangers of possessive individualism was taken up by many subsequent theorists, among them Emile Durkheim (see Section IV-19). Tocqueville has also become a touchstone for many thinkers concerned with explaining American society and politics. For some, he is an indispensable guide to understanding American “exceptionalism”, that is, why the United States has a less centralized government and a less generous welfare state than most other modern democracies. Conservatives point to the putative genius of American institutions and its political culture that favors individualism, voluntarism, and self-interest over collectivism and state control. For progressives, however, Tocqueville’s warnings about the dangers of social inequality for democracy and how racism compromised the American experiment serve as continuing reminder of the tensions at the heart of liberalism.

Subsequent theorists have built on Tocqueville’s insights to consider how social ties among people, the mutual expectations they generate, and the trust that grows among them can be thought of as social capital which enables collective action. The continuing influence of Tocqueville’s social theory is nowhere more evident than in the work of political scientist Robert Putnam and his collaborators. In his books on the effectiveness of local government and on the functions of social capital, Putnam has built on Tocqueville to explain what makes for social integration and effective democratic government. In Making Democracy Work (1993), Putnam showed that in regions of Italy with strong civic traditions and dense voluntary organizations, local governments are more responsive and efficient. In a provocative books like Bowling Alone (2000) and American Grace (2010), Putnam has argued that American democracy is imperiled by growing social isolation, disengagement from civic affairs, and the decay of mainline religious groups. Although many of Putnam’s arguments have been controversial, his work has energized the study of civic associations and social capital pioneered by Tocqueville.