“Amongst the novel objects that attracted my attention during my stay in the United States, nothing struck me more forcibly than the general equality of conditions. (p.3)”
This is both the first sentence and, it appears for now, likely the central theme of the book. Living in a time of transition from a stratified social order to a democratic one, this would no doubt be a rather shocking phenomenon to Tocqueville. But it is hard for us to sympathize in the 21st century. For it is popular nowadays to perceive that the world and our democracies have become less equal. With the economic downturn after 2008, it became popular to speak of the 1% and to critique society as being run and owned by the big banks and corporations. A dense, lengthy, economic book, Capital in the 21st Century, about the growing share of capital in the hands of a few, became a surprise bestseller.
So it is hard for us to agree at first glance with his assessment that not only are things equal, but that there is a “permanent tendency” to equalize, as he makes the case for. I think people would nowadays be inclined to think that back in Tocqueville’s day things were more equal. That the early 1800s were the golden age of equality and we have since slid backwards. It only seemed permanent to Tocqueville because things were equalizing in his time. He mistook the trend currently occurring for a permanent trend. But is it fair to so easily dismiss his analysis?
It is interesting to take account of what causes the equalizing of society, in Tocqueville’s analysis. I found it interesting that he cited firearms. Who would have thought that the invention of firearms would create equality? I would think people would fear that with better weapons it would only allow the powerful to more easily control their subjects. But, in fact, it meant that a commoner possessed a virtually identical capacity to kill and instill fear as any ruler, or ruler’s soldier. The printing press allowed commoners access to reading materials that were previously only available to the few. And, the growing complexity of society meant that those who could think well were useful to those in power. In short, Tocqueville argues that the inevitable improvements in technology and the tendency for society to become more complex over time mean that those with power are constantly having their position eroded in favour of those who previously did not have power.
So I think the big question then becomes: is this still happening today? For there is no shortage of technological advances in our times and society is certainly not becoming less complex. In fact, people seem to feel that society today is so complex that we seek to purchase experiences and products that remind us of simpler times. So if the same factors are at play today that drove the equalizing of society throughout history, according to Tocqueville, shouldn’t society be continuing to equalize? Shouldn’t the creation of the automobile, the internet and the container ship be flattening not just the economy, as Thomas Friedman argues, but also the relations among people?
The fact that America has lost and will continue to lose hegemony in the world is surely a sign that the rulers and the ruled are becoming more equal. The fact that the people have been able to significantly delay and, perhaps ultimately, disrupt the construction of new oil pipelines in North America is surely a sign that corporations are becoming less powerful. In fact, the very existence of the term “social licence” implies that the people have more power today than they did even 10 years ago.
And, I think, even in the economic realm, you could make a good argument that people today are richer than they were even 30 years ago. Even though our incomes may not have risen as exponentially as in past eras, what we can purchase with that money is truly astonishing, from unprecedented medical care to all the world’s music and books at one’s fingertips online to a system of barristas who stand at the ready to serve us coffee at a moment’s notice nearly anywhere in the Western world. It is astonishing how wealthy we are when you put your mind to it.
But this brings us to another central theme, perhaps, of Tocqueville’s book, that of educating the newly powerful people of how to exercise their newfound power responsibly. Of course, having the French Revolution in recent history, I imagine Tocqueville had much more frightening scenarios in mind than anything we can imagine today, but, still,
Text below is draft thoughts intentionally published in case people are really interested in reading more on this topic, despite its unfinished nature.
There are those who see the internet as a means to free the people, but at least as many who see it as a means for the government to keep better tabs on its subjects.
If De Tocqueville came to America today, would he be astonished at how far equality has advanced, or would he be horrified that we have fallen so far back?
De Tocqueville describes the increasing equality as unstoppable. He uses the word “irresistible,” all the better to imply to his contemporaries that there literally is no point in resisting. The only sane thing to do at this point is to try to shape it. He says that “ The first duty… upon those who direct our affairs is to educate the democracy. (p.8)” Now, we could look at this cynically and say, aha! Here is a sneaky writer. He is trying to get people to give up on trying to preserve society as they think it should be by implying that it is futile. Instead of arguing that it is good and should be supported, he suggests it is happening and that we should focus our energies on simply dealing with it. It’s interesting to compare this with our more recent political battles over free trade or global warming. There are many who
If De Tocqueville is right that the tendency towards equality is permanent, then we must not be getting less equal, but more. We must perceive our own society incorrectly. If we are right in thinking the world is becoming less equal, then De Tocqueville is wrong. Are we prepared to so easily dismiss De Tocqueville’s analysis and conclusions?