The Overlay of Liberalism
Alexis de Tocqueville succinctly encapsulates all the components of his new democracy within himself. In one phrase, he asserts his utmost respect for religion, a respect unparalleled in the history of liberalism. This respect encompasses a commitment to morality, order, and a deep love for law and justice.
In contrast, Montesquieu and John Locke, prominent figures in the realm of liberalism, establish a strong connection between religion and morality within their ideologies. While they certainly hold reverence for order, law, and justice, they also regard morality as the cornerstone of their liberal principles. However, they do not place religion in a central role, and it remains somewhat uneasy as a partner within their liberal frameworks.
Tocqueville, on the other hand, perceives morality from a more secular standpoint. He believes that one of the significant errors of eighteenth-century liberals was their misunderstanding of the intricate relationship between religion and freedom. Tocqueville argues that religious zeal can be detrimental when the goal is to promote and uphold freedom.
In contrast, he posits that nineteenth-century French liberalism was characterized by the conviction that people could not truly safeguard and promote freedom without the presence of religion. Tocqueville longed for a different type of freedom, one intertwined with institutionalized religion in the public sphere, particularly emphasizing the role of the church as the guardian of religious truths within this sphere.
Tocqueville, a Roman Catholic, underscores the significance of institutionalized religion in shaping individuals’ morality. He emphasizes the role of the church in guiding individuals as they seek to align their free will with God’s will. This perspective differs from that of Benjamin Constant, a Protestant, who places a stronger emphasis on individual enjoyment within liberalism and keeps religion separate from it.
Henri de Boulainvilliers
By the eighteenth century in France, republicanism had emerged as a prominent political ideology. According to Keith Michael Baker, this rise in republican sentiment was fueled by opposition to the increasingly administrative state and was simultaneously influenced by the individualism of modern commercial society. Additionally, the eighteenth century saw a significant resurgence of aristocratic liberalism.
However, it’s important to note that republicanism was not the only, nor necessarily the most significant, political tradition during this period. Criticism of the monarchy’s absolute authority by the nobility had been prevalent since the sixteenth century. During this time, the concept of a mixed constitution was employed to argue for the nobility’s rights to participate in political power.
While the aristocratic claims to freedom had diminished under the rule of Louis XIV, eighteenth-century aristocratic liberalism was not a unified or coherent ideology. Although there was a general consensus that the nobility played a crucial role in preserving freedom, various factions within the nobility held differing positions in the pre-revolutionary political debates.
Henri de Boulainvilliers, for instance, highlighted feudal liberties, primarily as property rights. He emphasized the idea that land-owning aristocrats possessed absolute ownership rights over both the land and the people living on it, effectively treating them as serfs. Boulainvilliers argued that these feudal property rights could be traced back to the Frankish invasion of Gaul, with Charlemagne later formalizing feudalism by creating territories modeled after the Lombard system, which he admired during his expeditions.
In essence, Boulainvilliers refuted the notion that feudal rights were usurped during the reign of Hugh Capet, asserting that they had a deeper historical foundation.
Liberal Catholicism
In contrast to Liberal Catholicism, which was founded by Félicité de La Mennais in 1830 but has lost its authority and power to mobilize a democratic society, the apparatus must distribute individual rights to everyone. Regardless, Tocqueville owes a debt to Montesquieu and Jean-Jacques Rousseau for their sociological approach to political philosophy, which served as his departure from conventional philosophy.
On the other hand, Liberal Catholicism sacrifices the claim of political freedom in favor of the church’s sovereignty. Therefore, Tocqueville did not believe that the church could effectively govern a democracy. The fundamental tenet of the new liberalism is that people can only seek freedom within the state and society, not from the state and society.
Based on his ideas about a new democracy, some suspected Alexis de Tocqueville of being a conservative Catholic in disguise. Consequently, he was unwilling to sacrifice the church’s claim as a sovereign entity within the state. In contrast to the Enlightenment philosophers, he did not believe that reason alone could govern or liberate individuals. More profoundly, he argued that reason, when divorced from faith and tradition, becomes a destructive force.
According to his perspective, the rule of reason undermines knowledge that is based on traditional authority. Tocqueville viewed freedom as the triumph of reason over superstition and preconceived notions. In alignment with his thinking, he believed that religion, not the scientific procedure, was the path to knowledge.
The Dialectic Tradition of Tocqueville
Tocqueville always considered himself part of the Enlightenment, sharing the same concerns with democracy and liberalism. However, his project deviated significantly from the Enlightenment’s ideals. He did not believe that reason alone could liberate or effectively govern individuals.
The Enlightenment was founded on the premise that natural reason would judge opinions more effectively than those who relied on ancient books, making it a universally valid premise. As a result, it left all beliefs and theories to individual personal judgment. Tocqueville, on the other hand, argued that reason, when divorced from tradition and faith, could be destructive. He viewed the Enlightenment as more of a political program than a new philosophy.
Furthermore, he criticized the prime movers of the Enlightenment for their dissatisfaction and skepticism rather than a genuine search for truth. Tocqueville accused the Enlightenment of falsely opposing authority to reason, asserting that philosophers refused to be guided by a higher authority and instead replaced it with countless authorities that conferred prestige. He also argued that authority was not merely a result of conquest but rather an acknowledgment of higher insight and judgment, thus not an abuse of reason.
In general, Tocqueville emphasized the importance of recognizing living truth and not merely determining causal relationships. He did not believe that reason was powerless in acting according to its own light or that individuals were unintelligent in the context of the new democracy. He considered intellect a valuable gift that should be used to make assumptions about nature and events, creating a synthesis capable of bridging differences in interests and ideas. Tocqueville believed that everyday life experiences and general knowledge represented knowledge, even though they often manifested as prejudice and tradition rather than personal reason.
The Utilitarian Monarchy
Tocqueville’s new liberalism incorporates a deep understanding of individualism, which he considers integral to the moral community. He argues that the moral community is a social construct created by humans, although it is shaped by God.
Tocqueville’s concept of individualism differs from the utilitarian individualism proposed by Jeremy Bentham, John Locke, and Thomas Hobbes. Unlike other liberal thinkers who prioritize the victory of individuality, Tocqueville’s highest goal is the development of an individual’s capacity to make proper choices for the sake of their own soul.
In Tocqueville’s view, individualism is inherently religious, emphasizing the development of one’s soul to achieve eternal happiness and virtue. He believes that utilitarian individualism fosters mere egoism.
Tocqueville also criticizes republican government for its imbalance, as it promises more but provides less freedom than a constitutional monarchy. He believes that a hereditary monarchy offers more advantages than a republic. Constitutional monarchies, in his view, are more successful in restraining the passions of the majority. In such systems, citizens have the power to compel the king to share authority with the aristocracy, which, according to Tocqueville, serves several purposes. It upholds local independence, resists the concentration of authority, and, like Montesquieu, Tocqueville believes that good governance relies on intermediary authorities within local government.
The Democratic Civilization
It was evident to everyone that a significant democratic revolution was underway. However, there were two opinions regarding its consequences and nature. To some, it appeared as a new accident, while to others, it seemed unbearable. This is because it represents the most enduring, ancient, and consistent trend in history.
Almost immediately, the political power of the clergy was established and began to exert itself. The clergy opened its ranks to people of all classes, including the poor, the rich, criminals, and masters. Equality permeated the government through the church, and individuals who were once destined for eternal slavery found themselves in positions of service. Priests, among the nobles, even occasionally wielded more influence than the king.
Throughout history, slavery has been advocated by wicked and servile individuals, while those who are independent and warm-hearted have fought relentlessly to preserve humanity’s freedom. However, individuals of high character and benevolence must now be sought out.
On the other hand, certain individuals, speaking in the name of freedom, can feel its majesty and holiness. They loudly assert the human rights that have consistently been denied to people. Tocqueville’s fundamental premise is that peaceful and moral individuals genuinely love their country and are willing to make significant sacrifices for its well-being. However, they may sometimes confuse the harmful and beneficial aspects of civilization.
The Individual Education
Alexis de Tocqueville was an advocate of universal political equality and the new democracy. He believed that every individual had the potential to make a positive impact on the world. However, he did not believe that the equitable distribution of material goods, civic rights, or politics contributed to the development of citizens. According to him, the redistribution of material possessions exacerbated existing divisions and was incapable of forming moral bonds. In this regard, Tocqueville rejected the concept of legal charity because it acted as a barrier to the development of a public spirit. He considered it a delusion that society’s conditions could alleviate poverty without eroding civic commitment.
Tocqueville also argued that the government should not be involved in education. He believed that the family played the most critical role in the education and upbringing of children. He claimed that state-run education produced a generation of citizens who were subject to the state’s authority. In his view, education should promote the autonomy and growth of individual judgment.
Bibliography
