ALEXIS DE TOCQUEVILLE
Robert C. Frederiksen
Florida State University
Tallahassee, FL 32308
The theories of Alexis de Tocqueville have had a profound effect on the concepts of democracy, penology and crime and punishment. Tocqueville’s historical background deeply influenced his theories. His early experiences and travels to America were instrumental to the forming of his theories. Equality of conditions is a central theme throughout all of his theories. He argued equality is essential to democracy and it is the lack of quality that leads to crime. Critics of Tocqueville cite this reliance on equality as his major weakness. Despite these criticisms, Tocqueville’s theories remain popular 150 years after his death.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND:
Alexis de Tocqueville was born in
Paris on July 29, 1805. He was born
into a noble family from Normandy, France shortly after the French
Revolution. Most of his family had been
executed during the “Reign of Terror” (Siedentop, 1994: 1). His parents were spared from the guillotine,
but imprisoned for several months awaiting execution. This had a profound effect on both Tocqueville and his
parents. His father Herve, hair had
turned white at the age of twenty-four, while his mother deeply psychologically
scared, became something of an invalid (Mayer, 1960: 2). The French Revolution
made a great impression on Tocqueville.
As a child he was preoccupied by the idea of imprisonment or exile. Tocqueville wrote of his youth, “I remember
thinking of the chances of prison…I had succeeded in imagining for myself an
almost agreeable idea of that fearful place”
(Siedentop, 1994: 2).
At the age of sixteen, Tocqueville
entered the Royal College of Metz for his first formal schooling (Siedentop,
1994: 3). Here he began to distance
himself from his aristocratic background.
Tocqueville developed the idea of the “true” aristocracy, one in which
the French nobility fought alongside the people for equality (Siedentop, 1994:
4). While at Metz, Tocqueville was
instructed by the wise French priest Abbe Lesueur. Lesueur and Tocqueville became extremely close. Lesueur served as a kind of surrogate mother
for Tocqueville. He encouraged
Tocqueville’s education while nurturing his strong religious faith (Mayer,
1960: 3).
In 1820 Tocqueville left Lesueur to
live with his father in Paris. His
father an elected official often left young Tocqueville by himself. To occupy his time, Tocqueville began to
read eighteenth century philosophies from his father’s library. Readings works from authors such as
Descartes affected his faith. It caused
him to question his religious faith, from which he never fully recovered
(Siedentop, 1994: 5).
Shortly after moving to Paris,
Tocqueville decided to study law. The
“Great Debate” in French politics was occurring in Paris at this time. The Villele government had introduced a
series of bills designed to restore the “old regime,” the aristocracy
(Siedentop, 1994: 6). This struggle
played an important part in Tocqueville’s life. Tocqueville identified with the liberal movement opposed to
restoring the aristocracy. He joined
the Society for Christian Morality, a liberal social group that espoused moral
equality and civil liberty (Siedentop, 1994: 6). Tocqueville became an advocate for the “good cause” of
liberalism. He continued to work on his
legal career, but was making little progress.
In 1830, revolution
once again threatened France. Charles X
dismissed the legislature in an attempt to re-establish the aristocracy in
France (Siedentop, 1994: 8). The
thought of civil war haunted Tocqueville as it did during his childhood. He became convinced that re-establishing the
aristocracy was not the answer to France’s political problems (Siedentop, 1994:
9). During this time Tocqueville
contemplated going to America. If he
could observe and understand American democracy perhaps he could apply it to
France. Prison reform was one of the
reforms discussed as a result of the 1830 Revolution. The United States had just instituted a new prison system in
Philadelphia and New York. Tocqueville
and his colleague Gustave de Beaumont received permission to travel to the
United States to inspect the new prison system (Siedentop, 1994: 10).
Tocqueville and Beaumont reached New
York City in May 1831 (Mayer, 1960: 9).
They were both impressed with the lack of social classes as compared to
feudal Europe. This new social equality
had not previously been seen in Europe.
They immediately noticed the frantic commercial activity of the United
States. Everyone seemed to be part of
the “market-place” mentality (Siedentop, 1994: 10). Tocqueville described what he called “a absence of government” in
the United States (Siedentop, 1994: 10).
In contrast to France, Americans seemed to manage their own affairs with
little government control. He became
convinced America was the model of reform for France. Tocqueville and Beaumont continued to travel the United
States. In New England they found the
model for the autonomous township (Siedentop, 1994: 11). The township was a self-governing local
community based on self-reliance and mutual cooperation. In the south, Tocqueville noted slavery was
the closest thing to aristocracy in the United States (Siedentop, 1994:
12). Completing their studies,
Tocqueville and Beaumont departed the United States in 1832 (Mayer, 1960: 10).
In 1835, Tocqueville published his
famous work Democracy in America. It
was immediately hailed as a great success in both France and the United States
(Commager, 1993: 9). Tocqueville’s book
became the preeminent study of democracy in the New World. No one who has written about the United
States was more perceptive than Alexis de Tocqueville (Commager, 1993:
ix). Democracy in America aroused
great interest in the citizens of the United States (Hereth, 1986: 9). To Americans, Tocqueville’s work provided a
unique understanding of themselves.
Tocqueville, like most Americans of the 1830s, perceived the United
States as the paradigm of the new democratic age (Hereth, 1986: 9). Tocqueville’s work made Americans realize
how unique and special their situation was.
Nowhere else in the world had a government based on democracy, equality
and freedom flourished. As a result, Democracy
in America made Americans appreciate they lived in a truly unique country.
Tocqueville’s
background and experiences played an important role in his ideas on democracy
and his theories on crime and punishment.
From his noble roots and fear of civil war to his liberal ideology,
Tocqueville was a definite product of his environment. The political and social unrest of France
during early 1800’s had a profound impact on him. Finally, his travels to America and experiences here also helped
to shape his ideas and theories.
TOCQUEVILLE’S
SOCIAL THEORY OF DEMOCRACY
Alexis de
Tocqueville’s theory of Democracy is based on three “generative
principles.” The first of these
“generative principles” is equality of conditions. For Democracy to exist there must be equality. In his famous work Democracy in America,
Tocqueville (1840: 35) states “rights must be given to each citizen or to no
one.” It is this equality of conditions
that serve as the seeds of Democracy.
When Tocqueville arrived in America
he was immediately struck by the equality of conditions among its
inhabitants. For the most part,
Americans of the 1830s enjoyed an atmosphere of social equality. (The noted exception, of course being the
slaves) This social equality did not
exist in aristocratic Europe. The
aristocracy, although declining, still had considerable power in Europe. In the aristocracy social and political
power was based on name and birth.
Nobility, political influence, and wealth could be passed on from one
generation to the next. Social classes
were fixed. Rarely did one move up in
social class. This lack of social
equality prevented democracy from taking hold in Europe. In the United States there was no aristocracy
or rigid social classes, in its place was equality. According to Tocqueville, this equality of conditions served as a
“generative principle” for Democracy (Manenet, 1996: 1).
Another “generative principle” for
democracy was sovereignty of the people.
Sovereignty of the people is tied to equality of conditions. For the people to be sovereign they must be
equal. Tocqueville states, “from the
beginning, the principle of sovereignty of the people had been a generative
principle of the majority of English colonies of America” (Manenet, 1996: 3).
Sovereignty of the people means rule by the people. Unlike Europeans, Americas had no loyalties to the aristocracy or
monarchy. Not being subject to the
aristocracy or monarchy allowed Americans to rule themselves. “The Anglo-Americans are the first
nation…to establish and maintain the sovereignty of the people,” wrote
Tocqueville (1980: 52).
This, however, was not the case
prior to the American Revolution. Prior
to the Revolution, the American colonies exercised sovereignty of the people at
the local level. The New England Townships characterized this. Tocqueville recognized that local
communities, particularly New England townships, were the basis of sovereignty
of the people. “In the township, as well
as everywhere else, the people are the only source of power” (Tocqueville, 1980: 73). Tocqueville (1980: 87) goes on to say, “Town
meetings are to liberty what primary schools are to science; they bring it
within the people’s reach, they teach men how to use and how to enjoy it.” For Tocqueville the township was the source
of sovereignty of the people.
Sovereignty of the people is
inherent to democracy. Like equality of
conditions, without sovereignty of the people democracy cannot exist. Tocqueville observed, “that the principle of
sovereignty of the people governs the whole political system of the
Anglo-Americans…In nations which recognize the sovereignty of the people, every
individual possess an equal share of power” (Manenet, 1999: 5). Thus, sovereignty of the people is
fundamental to democracy.
Just as sovereignty of the people is
a “generative principle,” so is public opinion. Public opinion is what drives democracy. It puts ideas into action. The force of public opinion changes ideas
into everyday reality. Tocqueville
calls this the “dogma of the sovereignty of the people” (Manenet, 1999: 5). This “dogma” fuels democracy. It gives purpose and direction to government
and politics. According to Tocqueville
(1980: 112), “the dogma of the sovereignty of the people…directs the majority
of human actions.” Without public
opinion, democracy has no direction.
Without direction, democracy cannot function. This sense of direction and purpose makes public opinion a
“generative principle” of democracy.
While public opinion is vital to
democracy, it can also be detrimental at the same time. Tocqueville suggested this when he spoke of
the “tyranny of the majority” (Commager, 1993: 18). The tyranny of the majority
suggests that in a democracy, the majority will inevitably seek to tyrannize
the minority. In other words, the
majority of public opinion will persecute the minority. Tocqueville warns of the tyranny of the
majority when he says, “the power of the majority in America is not only preponderant,
but irresistible” (Commager, 1993: 19).
He continues, “the power of the majority surpasses all the powers with
which we are acquainted in Europe” (Commager, 1993: 22). The tyranny of the majority creates
something of a paradox. One the one hand,
the power of the majority is needed to sustain democracy, while on the other;
the tyranny of the majority can destroy democracy. Only through a careful system of checks and balances can
democracy avoid this pitfall, even then the tyranny of the majority may be
unavoidable.
Despite the prospects of the tyranny
of the majority, Tocqueville felt democracy was the way of the future. He believed that democracy was the destiny
for modern nation states and that monarchies and aristocracies would soon
disappear. Democracy represented the
negation of the aristocracy (Drescher, 1968: 29). Tocqueville used the term
“providential” when describing the spread of democracy (Zetterbaum, 1967: 23). Tocqueville wanted to convey a sense of
predetermined historical and divine triumph.
In order for democracy to triumph the “generative principles” of
equality of conditions, sovereignty of the people, and public opinion needed to
exist.
TOCQUEVILLE’S THEORY OF CRIME AND PUNISHMENT
Tocqueville
based his theory of crime and punishment on the social conditions of his time
and his travels to America. The social
conditions of the 1830s played a significant role in the founding of
Tocqueville’s theory of crime and punishment.
The turbulence of the French Revolution and the violence of the “Reign
of Terror” helped to shape Tocqueville’s theories. In addition, his travels to America and his study of the American
penitentiary system helped to form his theories of punishment.
Deviance,
according to Tocqueville, was the result of social conditions. Those with less opportunity were more apt to
commit crimes. He believed poverty and
inequality contributed to deviance. In
his famous book, On the Penitentiary System in the United States and its
Application in France, which he co-authored with Gustave de Beaumont,
Tocqueville (1964: 172) states, “It is well known that most individuals on whom
the criminal law inflicts punishment have been unfortunate before they become
guilty.” The idea that poverty and
inequality contribute to deviance can be traced back to Tocqueville’s
experiences during the French revolution in which thousands of French peasants
were incarcerated for being poor or executed for their political views.
Speaking of the Revolution, Tocqueville (1964: 147) stated, “Misfortune is
particularly dangerous for those whom it befalls,” stated.
This view
of deviance deeply influenced Tocqueville’s ideas on punishment of criminal
offenders. Tocqueville believed in the
rehabilitation of criminal offenders, not in the harsh punishment of them. He believed rehabilitating offenders into
productive citizens was in the best interest of society. The object of the prison system “is to
reform” offenders wrote Tocqueville (1980: 46). He was opposed to “mass storage” of criminals without some type
of rehabilitation. When examining the
prisons of the American South Tocqueville was shocked, “In locking up the
criminals nobody thinks of rendering them better, but only taming their malice;
they are put in chains like ferocious beasts; and instead of being corrected,
they are rendered brutal” (Jacoby, 1994: 379).
In addition, Tocqueville was
strictly opposed to the death penalty.
He felt the death penalty and other forms of corporal punishment were
barbaric. Speaking of the death penalty
and corporal punishment, Tocqueville (1964: 185) states, “Must we not ardently
wish that the last traces of such barbarism should disappear from all the
United States?” Tocqueville’s distaste
for the death penalty and other forms of “degrading punishment” may be due to
the execution of his relatives during the “Reign of Terror.” “Punishment which degrade the guilty, are
incompatible with a penitentiary system, the object of which is to reform
them,” writes Tocqueville (1964: 189).
This focus on rehabilitation led
Tocqueville to advocate the New England Penitentiary system. The word “penitentiary” comes from the word
penitence. Originally developed by the
Quakers of Pennsylvania the penitentiary was a place where criminals would
reflect and repent for their crimes (sins).
After reflecting on their crimes and repenting for their sins, the
former offenders would be reintegrated back into society.
The penitentiary relied on solitary
confinement. Tocqueville (1980: 103)
wrote, “Thrown into solitude he reflects, in view of his crime, he learns to
hate it.” In the penitentiary system,
prisoners were separated from one another and communication was forbidden. Allowing prisoners to communicate would lead
to further corruption. “In the
association of the wicked, it is not the less guilty who act upon the more
criminal, but the more depraved who influence those who are less so.” (Beaumont and Tocqueville, 1964: 167) The principle of the penitentiary system was
that prisoners were held in solitary confinement not only to prevent harmful
contact between them, but also to induce them to reflect on their crimes.
Tocqueville observed when the
penitentiary system was applied in the extreme, the effects of absolute
solitary confinement could be devastating.
Tocqueville (1964: 139) described what happen at the state of New York’s
Auburn prison, “the unfortunates, on whom this experiment was made, fell into a
state of depression, so manifest, that their keepers were struck with it.” Based on the results of the Auburn prison
Tocqueville opposed absolute solitude.
“This absolute solitude, if nothing interrupts it, is beyond the
strength of man; it destroys the criminal without intermission and without
pity; it does not reform, it kills” (Jacoby, 1994: 374). Instead, Tocqueville suggest a system of
partial solitude, by leaving the prisoners in their cells at night and forcing
them to work during the day. This
partial solitude would allow offenders to reflect on their crimes while at the
same time rehabilitate them through honest work.
This idea of rehabilitation
characterizes Tocqueville’s theory of crime and punishment. Throughout his
writings on the American penitentiary system he focused on the reform of the
deviant. While Tocqueville sought to
control deviance through rehabilitation, he knew deviance being a product of
social conditions could not be controlled without improving social equality and
improving opportunity.
CRITIQUE OF
TOCQUEVILLE’S SOCIAL THEORY
Since the time of it’s publishing in
1840, Tocqueville’s Democracy in America has been analyzed and
critiqued. One of the major criticisms
of Tocqueville is that he neglected to take economic factors into
consideration. Pope (1986: 74) asserts
Tocqueville failed to concern himself with economic factors. Some critics feel Tocqueville’s focus on
equality and his neglect of economic considerations may have been his “greatest
blind spot” (Pope, 1986: 78). The
discussion of economic factors leads to a comparison between Marx and
Tocqueville.
In comparing Marx’s social theory to
Tocqueville’s one sees important differences.
Marx’s theory focused on economic structure and reflected the importance
of the means of production. For Marx,
social conflict arose from the exploitation of the working class (proletariat)
by the capitalist Bourgeoisie. By
controlling the means of production the capitalist ruling class “enslaved” the
working class (Pope, 1986: 80).
Democracy was and illusion capitalism used to control the proletariat.
Unlike Marx, Tocqueville did not see
Democracy as an illusion, but as an inevitable social condition. For Tocqueville (1993: 62) Democracy was
humanity’s “evolutionary destiny.”
Tocqueville based his social theory on equality of conditions. Social conflict, as well as democracy, depended
upon equality of conditions. Without
equality democracy could not exist, leading to social conflict. For Tocqueville, economic power was an
important source of American freedom.
Economic power was seen as liberating, not exploitive. Tocqueville (1993: 71) writes, “Mobility is
extensive and wealth circulates rapidly, the rich most of whom were poor…” This idea of economic mobility distinguishes
Marx from Tocqueville.
Another major criticism of
Tocqueville is he overestimated the egalitarianism of Jacksonian America (Pope,
1986: 84). Tocqueville portrays America
of the 1830s as an egalitarian society of opportunity and equality. Tocqueville (1993: 77) described the United
States as “opportunity is widespread and the poor can, with luck and hard work,
move up; wealth and poverty constitute possibly temporary situations, not
permanent inequality.”
Critics respond to Tocqueville’s
claims that “far from being an era of egalitarianism, Jacksonian America was an
age of inequality” (Pope, 1986: 100).
Clearly America was less egalitarian than Tocqueville described. Many Americans were poor. Economic mobility was not as common as
Tocqueville had described. He
overestimated the middle class while under estimating the opulence of the
wealthy (Pope, 1986: 87).
Another major criticism of
Tocqueville’s description of America was it did not take into account the
inequality suffered by the slaves, Native Americans, and women. How could a society claim to be egalitarian
when a major portion of its population lived as slaves? How could a society claim to be egalitarian
when it forcefully relocated its original inhabitants? How could a society claim to be egalitarian
when half of its population could not vote on the basis of gender? These were tough questions. To be fair, Tocqueville (1993: 84) did
criticize the practice of slavery in America calling it “the closest thing to
aristocracy in America.”
There is little doubt that
Tocqueville overestimated the equality of conditions in Jacksonian America, but
in many ways compared to the aristocratic societies of Europe, America was
indeed egalitarian (Pope, 1986: 87).
The Constitution held that all men had been created equal. There were no legal barriers to upward
mobility. All Americans were equal
before the law. Many Americans were
middle class people of modest fortune.
Thus, compared to the restrictive aristocratic societies, Jacksonian
America was egalitarian.
Despite its criticisms Tocqueville’s
theory remains popular. While it may
have “romanticized” Jacksonian America Tocqueville’s theory is still the
preeminent view of democracy.
Tocqueville’s theory is still the most positive and popular discussion
of democracy.
LEGACY OF ALEXIS DE TOCQUEVILLE
Tocqueville’s theories regarding democracy and crime remain popular today. Even 160 years after it was published Tocqueville’s book Democracy in America remains admired. It is still required reading in many political science undergraduate programs. Tocqueville’s ideas on crime and politics are in some ways more accepted today than when he was alive. He is considered somewhat of an “icon” of modern democracy. Scholars, journalists, politicians, judges, and even presidents have quoted Tocqueville.
Tocqueville has remained popular not only for his ideas of democracy, but also for his ideas on crime and punishment In his article, Convict Labor Policies, Henry Calvin Mohler (1925: 558) wrote “Tocqueville, the eminent French scholar and reformer, who studied American prison systems, stated that the presence of the contractors in the prison would, sooner or later, lead to the total ruin of the discipline.” Tocqueville’s ideas of punishment are also referred to in Lord Windlesham’s book Politics, Punishment and Populism. In his book Lord Windlesham (1998: 3) examines the political debate of crime and punishment in America. Windlesham notes in his preface that "like others before me [Tocqueville], I came from outside to study the penal system and ended with some wider impressions of the workings of government in America."
Tocqueville’s ideas on social control are reflected in Gary T. Marx’s (1991: 39) article "The New Surveillance." In this article, Marx explores new surveillance techniques and other control measures employed by social control agencies. Marx states, “the spread of undercover means of gathering information seemed to represent one more example of the extension of state power feared by Alexis de Tocqueville and later social theorists.” Marx begins his article with a quote from Tocqueville, “Everywhere the State acquires more and more direct control over the humblest members of the community and a more exclusive power of governing each of them in his smallest concerns. This gradual weakening of the individual in relation to society at large may be traced to a thousand things” In their article, “Volunteerism and Arrest in the Transition to Adulthood,” Cristopher Uggen and Jennifer Janikula (1999: 342) examine Tocqueville’s ideas on volunteerism and juvenile delinquency. Their article begins with the following quote. “Tocqueville posited that ‘by dint of working for one's fellow citizens, the habit and taste for serving them is at length acquired.’ Informal social control theories similarly suggest that voluntary service gradually draws persons to virtue.”
Numerous books have been written
on Tocqueville and his theories. In his
book entitled Tocquevillian Democracy, Michael Barone (1995: 124)
critiques the American justice system.
Barone argues that, “The Tocquevillian America of the 1990s has opted
clearly, on both crime and welfare, for more discipline and less therapy. These
were not the decisions of Washington elites or academic experts, who almost
uniformly favor therapy; they were forced by the people on their national
leaders, or were the product of local officials and citizens acting in
disregard of elite opinion. Since the 1960s, liberal elites used the federal
government, and the leverage of federal dollars, to impose therapy-type
approaches on social work and crime-fighting across the country, with success
far greater than the amount of federal spending would suggest.”
In his article, “Judicial
statesmanship, the jurisprudence of individualism, and Tocqueville's common law
spirit,” Paul Carrese (1998: 472) examines the Tocquevellian theory of justice
and present day judicial practices. In
his article he states, “Tocqueville's account of judging unites two concerns
separated in recent debates over constitutional interpretation, use of
discretion to serve the rule of law and respect for tradition. In Planned
Parenthood v. Casey the majority upholding Roe is properly concerned with rule
of law, while Justice Scalia properly criticizes departures from text and
tradition.”
Clearly Tocqueville’s theories
remain popular today. One reason he
remains popular is because he appeals to all sides of the political and social
spectrum. One does not have to be a
liberal or conservative to appreciate Tocqueville’s theories. Politicians often quote Tocqueville because
it is “vogue” to do so. More importantly,
Tocqueville’s theories of crime and punishment remain popular because they are
based on timeless principles of equality, liberty and justice. While these principles may be somewhat vague
and idealistic, they remain ingrained in the American perception of crime and
justice. As a result, Tocqueville will
probably remain popular for another 160 years.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barone, M. (1995). Tocquevillian
Democracy. New York: Free Press.
Beaumont, G., & Tocqueville, A.
(1964). On the Penitentiary System in the United States and its Application
in France. Chicago: Vail-Ballou Press. (Original work published 1833).
Carrese, P. (1998) Judicial
statesmanship, the jurisprudence of individualism, and Tocqueville's common law
spirit. The Review of Politics, 60, 465-95. University of Notre Dame Press
Commager, H. (1993). Commager on
Tocqueville. Columbia: University of Missouri Press.
Drescher, S. (1968). Dilemmas of
Democracy, Tocqueville and Modernization. Pittsburgh: University of
Pittsburgh Press.
Hereth, M. (1986). Alexis de
Tocqueville, Threats to Freedom in Democracy. Durham: Duke University
Press.
Jacoby, J. (1994). Classics of
Criminology (2nd ed.). Prospect Heights: Waveland Press.
Manent, P. (1996). Tocqueville
and the Nature of Democracy. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield.
Marx, G. (1991). The New Surveillance. National Forum
7, 32-37. Baton Rouge, Honor Society of Phi Kappa Phi
Mayer, J. (1960). Alexis de
Tocqueville, A Biographical Study in Political Science. New York: Harper and
Brothers.
Mohler, H. (1925). Convict Labor
Policies. Journal of the American Institute of
Criminal Law and Criminology, 15, 558. Chicago : The Institute
Pope, W. (1986). Alexis de
Tocqueville; His Social and Political Theory. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Siedentop, L. (1994). Tocqueville.
New York: Oxford University Press.
The Alexis de Tocqueville
Institute. Retrieved September 14, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.adti.net
Tocqueville, A. (1980). On
Democracy, Revolution and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
(Original work published 1849).
Tocqueville, A. (1993). Defense
of Human Liberty. New York: Garland Publishing. (Original work published
1805-1859).
Uggen, C. & Janikula, J. (1999) Volunteerism and
Arrest in the Transition to Adulthood. Social Forces, 78, 331-62.
Chapel Hill, N. C., University of North Carolina.
Windlesham, L. (1998). Politics,
Punishment, and Populism. Oxford:
Oxford
University Press.
Zetterbaum, M. (1967). Tocqueville
and the Problem of Democracy. Stanford: Stanford University Press.