5:Tocqueville’sReligiousDread:
PoliticalGrandeurandtheDemocraticEmpireofUtility
JasonFrank,Government,CornellUniversity
[email protected]
Draft:Pleasedonotcirculateorcitewithoutauthor’spermission.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
WhenIconceiveademocraticsocietyofthiskind,Ifancymyselfinoneof
thoselow,close,andgloomyabodeswherethelightwhichbreaksinfrom
withoutsoonfaintsandfadesaway.Asuddenheavinessoverpowersme,
andIgropethroughthesurroundingdarknesstofindanopeningthatwill
restoremetotheairandthelightofday.
—AlexisdeTocqueville
Theworld,itistrue,appearstometomarchlessandlesstowardthe
greatnessIhadimagined.
—AlexisdeTocqueville
AlexisdeTocquevillehadaverybroadunderstandingof“poetry,”whichhe
describedas“thesearchforanddepictionoftheideal.”1Poetry,onhisview,was
antitheticaltothemere“representationofreality,”becauseittranscendsthe
empiricallygivenandaimstodepictanelevatedandenhancedspiritualsignificance.
Indemocraticagestraditionalpoeticdevotiontotranscendentalidealsundergoesa
radicalchange.Inthesecontexts,withtheirpervasive“loveofphysicalpleasure,
self-improvement,[and]competition,”individualsbecomeenthralledbythe
practicalandprofaneneedsofdailylife.Theimaginationis“notsnuffedout,”
Tocquevillewrites,but“itdevotesitselfalmostentirelytotheideaofwhatisuseful
andtotheportrayalofreality.”2Ratherthanlooktotheheavensortotheancient
past,“thetraditionalspringsofpoetry,”democracydrawstheimaginationto“man
himself,”butmanstrippedofpersonalqualitiesandcharacteristics.Democracies
1
focustheimaginationonimpersonalmassesofpeopleworkingtoimprovetheir
materialwellbeing—“drainingmarshes,divertingrivers,peoplingopenspaces,and
tamingnature.”Such“magnificentimages”ofsocialimprovement—which,
Tocquevilleobserves,“everfloatbeforetheminds”ofnineteenth-centuryAmerican
democrats—havedistinctiveadvantages.3Throughthem,democraciesmaycome
to“haveaclearerperceptionofthemselves”becauseinsuchimages“forthefirst
timeinbroaddaylightthefeaturesofhumankindarerevealed.”“Ihavenoneedto
traverseheavenandearth,”Tocquevilleproclaimed,“touncoverawondrousobject
fullofcontrast,ofinfinitegreatnessandsmallness,ofintensegloomandastounding
light,capableatthesametimeofexcitingpiety,admiration,scornandterror.Ineed
onlycontemplatemyself.”Theaestheticorientationofdemocracy,Tocqueville
argues,leadsthepopularimaginationtoseekoutimmanentsourcesofsublime
experience.Eventhoughpreoccupiedwithutilityandmaterialreality,democratic
poetrydoesnotleadtoaknowingtransparency,buttoongoingencounterswith
innerobscurity,“buriedinimpenetrabledarkness,”thatpropeldemocraticpeoples
onwardtowardtheever-recedinghorizonofself-knowledge.4
Tocqueville’sreflectionsonthedemocraticsourcesofpoetryarepartofhis
largersearchforimmanentandworldysourcesofsublimeexperience,andofhis
extendedargumentconcerningtheimportanceoftheelevatingaesthetic
experiencestheyengenderforhelpingoffsetwhatheperceivedtobethemost
dangeroustendenciesofdemocraticpolitics.5Anotherimportantpartofthat
searchandextendedargumentcanbefoundinhisfrequentinvocationof
“grandeur”andhisdiagnosisofitsdisappearanceinthepervasivematerialismand
2
utilitarianismofthedemocraticage.“Inthemodernera,”Tocquevillewroteina
lettertoPierre-PaulRoyer-Collard,“itseemsasthoughtheimaginationofgrandeur
isdyingout.”6Withoutasenseofelevatedgrandeur,Tocquevilleargued,political
lifewouldbeoverwhelmedbysocialinterest,individualswouldbedrawnintothe
increasinglynarrowpurviewoftheirmaterialneeds,andthepeople,“properlysocalled,”wouldbecomeamerepopulation.Tocqueville’sembraceofpolitical
grandeur,heroicagency,and“truepoliticalpassions”distinguishedhimfrommany
otherprominentFrenchliberalsofthenineteenthcentury—perhapsmostobviously
fromFrançoisGuizotandtheDoctrinaires.Thisembraceilluminatessomeofthe
mostdistinctiveaspectsofhispoliticalthought,sheddinglightonwhatRoger
BoeschecallsTocqueville’s“strange”andeven“anti-bourgeois”liberalism.7As
FrenchliberalismemergedinresponsetoboththeJacobinTerrorandNapoleonic
dictatorship,itsoughtinvariouswaystodesublimateanddisenchantthepolitical
realm,tofreeitfromitslogicofsacrificeanditssenseofthesacredandsublime.8
Despitethemanydifferencesbetweenthem,suchprominentfiguresasBenjamin
ConstantandGermainedeStaël,FrançoisGuizotandJean-BaptisteSay,allagreed
thatpost-RevolutionaryFranceshouldatlastdisenthrallitselfofthegrandiosityof
Romeandturnitsattentiontothemoreprosaicaspectsofgoodgovernance,public
policy,andsoundadministration.Tocqueville,bycontrast,arguedthatanelevated
aestheticsensibilitywasasessentialfordemocraticpoliticsasithadbeenforthe
absolutemonarchyhedisdained(whilealsobeingterrifiedbytheradical
democraticsublimeunleashedbytheRevolution).Thischapterfocuseson
Tocqueville’seffortstowrestlewiththeseissues.
3
Tocqueville’saffirmationofpoliticalgrandeurisconceptuallylinkedtohis
understandingofpoliticalfreedomandofthethreatsposedtofreedominthe
democraticage.Tocqueville’stheoryofpoliticalfreedom,widelyacknowledgedto
beatthecenterofhispoliticalthought,isentangled,inotherwords,withhislessfrequentlyexaminedpoliticalaesthetics.9ItisamistaketoreduceTocqueville’s
commitmenttopoliticalgrandeurtoamerearistocraticpreferenceorpersonal
whim.10Itdidnotmerelyspringfromhis“tasteforthearistocraticwayoflife.”11
Thegrandeuroffreeaction,properlyunderstood,playsastructuralrolein
Tocqueville’spoliticalthought,andmaybringintoorderandcoherencesome
troublingaspectsofhispoliticaltheorythathavebeentooquicklydismissedby
someadmiringliberalreadersasunfortunateinconsistenciesoranachronistic
commitmentstothevaluesofalostaristocraticage.Tocqueville’scommitmentto
politicalgrandeurisnotasad“remnantofhisalmostdeadaristocraticsensibilities,”
butacentralaspectofhispoliticalthinking,which,farfrombeingmerelyanilliberal
embarrassment,mayhelpconfirmthedepthofhismuch-celebratedpolitical
analysisofdemocracy.12ThesetroublingaspectsofTocqueville’spoliticalthought
bringhisworkintoproductiveconversationwithsomecontemporarycriticsof
democraticliberalism—onboththeFrankfurtSchoolleft,forexample,andthe
Straussianright—whoworryaboutliberalism’slow-sightedpolitics:itsfocuson
interests,negativeliberties,instrumentalrationality,security,andthepreservation
of“merelife.”AswesawwithBurkeinChapterTwo,Tocquevillefearedthe
politicalconsequencesofaworldwithoutenchantment,andhopedtorestore
4
somethingofthemysteriumtremendumtopoliticallife.13Grandeurwasoneofhis
keyidiomsforinvokingthatrestoration.
Thischapterproceedsinthreeparts.InthefirstIoutlineTocqueville’s
understandingofthethreatdemocracyposestofreedominthemodernage.Iwill
emphasize,inparticular,the“religiousdread”(terreurreligieuse)Tocqueville
experiencedwhenconfrontedwithdemocracy’sirresistiblesubsumptionof
meaningfulactionintotheundirectedtendenciesofoceanicmassaggregates.As
withmanyothernineteenth-centurypoliticalandsocialtheorists,Tocqueville’s
preoccupationwiththedeclineoftheheroicactorissymptomaticofalarger
concernwiththefateofhumanagencyinthemodernage.Oneofthecentralironies
animatingTocqueville’ssocialandpoliticalthoughtwasthattheveryagethat
promisedtofinallyempowerthepeopleasmakersoftheirownhistory,andtobring
thevicissitudesofsociallifeunderdemocraticcontrol,ultimatelyengendered
pervasiveanxietyabouttheweakness,isolation,andpoliticalincapacityofhuman
beings.ForTocqueville,thePrometheanhubrisoftheAgeofDemocraticRevolution
ultimatelycollapsedintoapervasivesenseofdeadeningennuiandparalyzing
enervation.14
InthesecondsectionIelaborateonthistherelationshipbetween
Tocqueville’sanxietiesconcerningagencyandwhatSusanBuck-Morss,following
WalterBenjamin,describesasthe“anaesthetics”ofpoliticalmodernity.15
Tocquevillewasdisgustedbywhathedescribedasthe“apoplectictorper”and
“grievousnumbness”ofhisage.Hearguedthattheliberaldemocraticpoliticsof
interestandutility,withtheirall-consuming“passionformaterialwell-being,”
5
threatenedtodrainthepoliticalrealmofitsvitalityandsignificance,thereby
creatingtheconditionsforunprecedentedformsofcentralizedstatedespotism.
ThesearefamiliarthemesinthepoliticaltheoryscholarshiponTocqueville.
However,ratherthanfocusprimarilyonTocqueville’sconcernswithindividualism
andtheemergenceofthetutelarystateinthesecondvolumeofDemocracyin
America,IwillturntoTocqueville’scorrespondenceduringtheJulyMonarchyand
hiswritingonFrenchcolonialism.ThesetextsemphasizeTocqueville’s
commitmenttocombattingthe“grievousnumbness”ofpoliticalmodernitythrough
abracingrestorationofpoliticalvitalityandgrandeur.Thissectionexamines
Tocqueville’seffortstosustainaheroicvisionofthepoliticalsublimeinthefaceof
whatheperceivedtobethedecadenceandlevelingmediocrityofdemocratic
liberalism.Manycommentatorshavefocusedontheelevatingroleofreligionin
Tocqueville’swork,butalongsidehisinsistenceonthemoralelevationthatcomes
withacommitmenttothesacredisaconsistentinsistenceonthepolitical
importanceoftheelevatinggrandeurofpublicacts.16Indeed,Tocqueville’s
tendencytoinvokegrandeurratherthanglory,arguablysuggestsnotonlyhis
ambivalenceinthefaceofthemoreexclusivelymartialassociationsofthelatter,but
perhapsalsoawarinessofglory’stheologicalandliturgicalentanglements.17These
aspectsofTocqueville’sworkareinobvioustensionwithhisliberal
constitutionalism,andtheybringhispoliticalthoughtwithintheorbitofsomeofthe
radicalandreactionarycriticsofnineteenthcenturydemocraticliberalismwith
whomheisotherwiserightlyopposed.18PierreManenthasarguedthat
Tocqueville’spoliticalphilosophyisstructuredbythetensionbetweenjustice(rule
6
oflaw,separationofpowers,constitutionalism)andgrandeur(heroicagency,
distinction,glory).19Thesecondsectionexaminessomeofthetexturesofthis
animatingtension.
InthefinalsectionIturntoTocqueville’sRecollectionsontherevolutionof
1848.AtthecenterofthisdiscussionisanevaluationofSheldonWolin’sclaimthat,
inhiswritingon1848,Tocquevilledeniedthepeople’scollectiveactsofany
grandeur,and,therefore,ofanysenseofheroicagency.20Theclaim,simplyput,is
thattherearenocollectiveheroesinTocqueville’spoliticaltheory.Thehardening
ofTocqueville’spoliticalconservatismaftertheJuneDays—whichheinfamously
describedasa“slave’swar”—iswidelyrecognized.21However,unlikeWolin,who
arguesthatintheRecollectionsTocqueville’spoliticalideologytrumpshisown
theoreticalconsistency,IwillarguethatTocqueville’s“denialofthedeed”toa
mobilizedcollectiveactoriswhollyconsistentwhenreadalongsidehisaesthetic
concernsregardingliberaldemocracy’sempireofutility.Tocquevilledeniesthe
collectiveactorof1848—therevolutionarypeople—anysenseofsublimegrandeur
becauseheunderstandstherevolutiontobethecollectiveexpressionofthevery
passionformaterialwellbeingthatheinvokedgrandeurtocombatinthefirstplace
(inthis,hisanalysisoftheJuneinsurrection,inparticular,hassurprisingparallels
withthatofMarx).Thepeoplearedeniedthesublimityoftheirheroicactsforthe
samereasontheyaredeniedagency;theyactoutofall-consumingneedand
materialinterest,andtherefore,inTocqueville’sstrongsense,couldbesaidtonot
actatall.
7
Thechapterendswithaconclusion—unfinishedinthisdraft—whichtraces
continuitiesbetween,first,Tocqueville’sanalysisofdemocraticliberalism’sempire
ofutilityandHannahArendt’saccountof“theriseofthesocial,”and,second,
betweenhisrespondingaffirmationofpoliticalgrandeurandArendt’seffortsto
aestheticizeactioninordertorestoredignitytothepublicrealmoverwhelmedby
instrumentalrationalityanchoredtoincessantdemandsofthelaboringbody.
TocquevilleandArendtofferparallelaestheticarguments,Iwanttoultimately
claim,abouttheneedforimmanentsourcesofsublimeexperiencetosalvagethe
dignityofthepoliticalandtorestorethelost“splendourofthepublicrealm.”22
I.
Tocqueville’spoliticaltheoryisaddressedtowhatheoncedescribedas“the
greatdemocraticrevolution”ofhistime.23Hesharedawidespreadbeliefthatan
entirelynewformofdemocraticpoliticsemergedinthenineteenthcentury,and
that,therefore,“anewpoliticalscienceisneededforatotallynewworld.”24While
Tocquevillesharedthecentury’spervasivesenseofpoliticalnovelty,herejectedthe
revolutionaryself-understandingofthatnovelty.TheFrenchpeoplemayhave
undertakenan“unprecedentedeffort”in1789“todivorcethemselvesfromtheir
pastandtoputanabyssbetweenwhattheywereandwhattheyweretobecome,”
buttheyprofoundlymisrecognizedthenatureofthechangethatwasenactedover
thoseyears.25AsFrançoisFurethasemphasized,Tocquevilledeniedthe
revolutionariesthevalidityoftheirmostcherishedbelief:thefaithintheirown
collectivecapacitytomaketheworldanew.“Noconsciousnessismoreideological,”
Furetasserts,“thanthatoftherevolutionaries,”andforhimitwasTocquevillewho
8
mostclearlyrecognizedthatthehistoryoftheRevolutionmustbreakfirstand
foremostwith“theconsciousexperienceoftheactorsoftheRevolution.”26
Byrejectingtherevolutionaries’inflatedunderstandingoftheirownagency
Tocquevillepuncturedthehegemonic“discourseoftheradicalbreak”withits
relatedideathat“democraticpoliticshadcometodecidethefateofindividualsand
peoples.”27TocquevillesoughttodisenchanthiscontemporariesofwhatFuret
calledthe“revolutionarycatechism,”whichPierreRosanvallonhasmorerecently
describedas“theradicalprojectofaself-institutedsociety,”the“guidinglightofa
certainradicalism”thatreverberatesacrossthenineteenthcenturyandviews
“politicsaspureaction,theunmediatedexpressionofadirectlyperceptiblewill.”28
Itwasthespectacleofthis“radicalprojectofaself-institutedsociety”that
engenderedtheimmanentsenseofthedemocraticsublimediscussedinthe
previouschapter.FuretandRosanvallonarerightthatTocquevilletookadimview
ofthe“whollynew”ideathat“manwasnotonlyconsciousofthehistoryhewas
making,butalsoknewthathewassavedorcondemnedinandbythathistory.”29
TocquevillerecoiledattheJacobin’sefforttomakepoliticalaction“totally
encompasstheworldofvalueandbecomethemeaningoflife,”buttheJacobin
attempttoabsorbthesacredintotheimmanentrealmofhumanactionwasnotas
whollyantitheticaltoTocqueville’spoliticalthoughtassomeofhisadmirersclaim.
ToproperlyunderstandTocqueville’srejectionoftheworld-makingcapacitiesof
thepopularwillwemustalsoattendtohiscentralpreoccupationwiththe
disappearanceofpoliticalagencyinthedemocraticage.InMetahistoryHayden
WhitearguedthatTocqueville’shistoricalwritingwasstructuredbythetropeof
9
irony,andsurelyoneofthemostcentralironiesofhispoliticalthoughtwasthatthe
veryerathatpromisedtoatlastbringhumanagencyandautonomytoanequal
mankind,freeingmanfromthebondagetotraditionandsubmissiontothesacred,
actuallythreatenedindividualswiththeeradicationofmeaningfulagencyand
unprecedentedformsofdomination.30InalatelettertoArthurdeGobineau,whose
verydifferentviewsonthesemattersoftenprovokedTocquevilletosuccinctand
clarifyingformulations,Tocquevillewroteoftheenervatedexhaustionthatfollowed
inthewakeoftheRevolutionsof1789,1830,and1848:“Afterhavingfelt…capable
oftransformingourselves,wenowfeelincapableofreformingourselves;after
havingexcessivepride,wehavefallenintoexcessiveself-pity;wethoughtwecould
doeverything,andnowwethinkwecandonothing;weliketothinkthatstruggle
andeffortarehenceforthuselessandthatourbloodmusclesandnerveswillalways
bestrongerthanourwillpowerandcourage.This,”heconcluded,“isreallythe
greatsicknessofourage.”31
Tocqueville’sconcernwiththe“acceleratingsensationofhuman
powerlessness”isexpressedinmyriadwaysacrosshiswork,fromthenotestaken
duringhistriptoAmericain1831tohisextensivecorrespondencewithGobineauin
theyearsbeforehisdeath,andinallofhisgreatworksofsocialandpoliticaltheory
writteninbetween.32Tocqueville’sfearthatdemocracyandtheemergingequality
ofsocialconditionsthreatened“tobanishmenfromthehistoryofthehumanrace”
framestheintroductiontothefirstvolumeofDemocracyinAmerica,andisthe
themeTocquevillereturnstointheconclusionofthesecond.33“Thewholebookin
frontofthereader,”hefamouslywrites,“hasbeenwrittenunderthepressureofa
10
kindofreligiousdreadexerciseduponthesouloftheauthorbythesightofthis
irresistiblerevolutionwhichhasprogressedoversomanycenturies,surmounting
allobstacles,andwhichisstilladvancingtodayamidtheruinsithascaused.”34
Tocqueville’ssenseof“religiousdread”isengenderedfromthehistoricalspectacle
ofevacuatedagency,ofeveryonebeing“drivenwillynillyalongthesameroad,
everyonejoiningthecommoncause,somedespitethemselvesothersunwittingly,
allofthemlikeblindinstrumentsinthehandsofGod.”35ForTocqueville,itwasthe
spectacleofdemocracy’s“irresistible”movementtowardequality—indicatedby
suchhistoricallydisparateeventsastheCrusades,theinventionoffirearmsandthe
printingpress,theReformationandthediscoveryofAmerica—thatprovokedhis
senseofreligiousdread,hissenseofanoverpoweringforceinhistoryakinto
Providencebutwithoutplanandproceedingwithouttheconsciousintentor
deliberationofactorshumanordivine.Asthe“mostsustainedlongstandingand
permanentdevelopmenteverfoundinhistory,”Tocqueville’sresponseto
democracy’semergenceturnsonthefactthatevenasdemocracy“highlightsthe
naturalgrandeurofman,”itoverwhelmsentirelythegrandeurofmen.36
ReligiousdreadisapoliticalaffectthatresonatesbroadlyinTocqueville’s
work.37Ifthedemocraticsublimewasengenderedbythespectacleofthepeople
takinghistorycollectivelyintotheirownhands,andespeciallythroughthe
manifestationofwillinpopularassembly,Tocquevilleinvokedreligiousdreadto
describetheexperienceofmassivehistoricalchangeunfoldinginexorablywithouta
deliberateagent,plan,orintention.WhatfillsTocquevillewithreligiousdreadis
nottheradicalruptureproclaimedbytheRevolution—heisnotovercomebywhat
11
FrankAnkersmitdescribesasthesublimespectacleofaneventthat“irrevocably
breaksthecontinuityofidentity”—butbythedisappearanceofhumanagencyand
“theevent”fromhistoryalltogether,bythesublimationofthequalitativeactintoa
massaggregateofquantitativeeffects.38Tocqueville’sreligiousdreadislinkedto
theoceanicfeelingassociatedwiththesublime,andinhislettershelikenedthe
politicalexperienceofhiscenturyasbeinglostona“stormyseawithoutashore.”39
Incontrastwiththerevolutionarymythofaself-creatingsovereignpeople,
Tocquevillearguedthatdemocracywas,inWolin’swords,“threateningtosquelch
whatisrare,uniqueanddifferent…andcreatingaworldof‘silentemptyspaces.”40
“Theunbrokenaspect”and“uniformity”ofthesescenesofinexorabledemocratic
advance,Tocquevilleobserved,“surpriseandoverwhelmtheimagination.”41
ForTocqueville,democracydidnotthreatencontemporarypoliticswiththe
specterofpermanentrevolution,assomanyofhisfellowaristocratsfeared,but
ratherwithdeadeningstasis.Herejectedtheclassicalcritiqueofdemocratic
polities,withitsemphasisontumultuouschangeandpoliticalinconsistency,a
regimelurchingviolentlybetweenpoliticalextremesandneverabletoestablishthe
proceduralregularitiesnecessaryforestablishingtheruleoflaw.Tocqueville’sfear,
tothecontrary,wasthatdemocracies“willendupbeingtoounalterablyfixedinthe
sameinstitutions,thesameprejudices,thesamecustoms…thatthemindofman
maystopmovingforwardandgrindtoahalt,thatmanwillwearhimselfoutin
lonelyfutiletriviality,andthathumanitywillceasetoprogressdespiteitsceaseless
motion.”42
12
Tocqueville’sunderstandingofthesimultaneityof“ceaselessmotion”and
paralyzinginactionreflectshisconcernwiththedisappearanceoftheheroin
democraticcontexts,aconcernheshareswithmanyothernineteenth-century
politicalthinkers,fromCarlyleandEmersontoBurckhardtandNietzsche.As
RichardBoydhasargued,Tocquevillehadamuchmoreambivalentrelationshipto
theNapoleonicmythoftheherothandidotherprominentnineteenth-century
Frenchliberals,andwasdrawntothe“idealsofgrandeur,heroism,power,
conquest,andnationalgreatnessrepresentedbytheFirstEmpire.”43Perhaps
Tocqueville’smostelaboratereflectiononthedangersofevacuatedheroicagencyis
thechapterfromDemocracyonthe“CharacteristicPeculiartoHistoriansin
DemocraticAges.”Tocquevillemakesadistinctiontherebetweenthewritingof
historyinaristocraticages,whichemphasizestheagencyofheroicindividuals,
“individualizedinfluences,”and“specialactions,”andthewritingofhistoryin
democraticageswhichemphasizestheimpersonal“interconnectionofevents”and
“generalcauses.”“Whenthehistoriansofaristocratictimescasttheirgazeuponthe
worldstage,”Tocquevillewrites,“theyobserve,inthefirstinstance,averysmall
numberofprincipalplayerswhocontrolthewholedrama.”Indemocraticages,by
contrast,nosingleindividualappearspowerfulenoughtoexertalasting“influence
overthemassofcitizens,”societyseemspropelledbythefreeandspontaneous
agreementofallitsmembers.”44Inthesedemocraticcontexts,thehistorianis
inspiredto“seekoutthegeneralreasonwhichmayhavestrucksomanymindsand
simultaneouslydirectedthemalongthesamepath.”Tocquevillesoughtoutsuch
“generalreasons”inDemocracyandTheOldRegime,whilealsobeingattentivetoits
13
principledanger:thatitshistorytooquicklymovesbeyondparticularchangesto
present“aworldinmotionwithoutanysignofanengine,”theideathat“movement
isinvoluntaryandthatsocietiesareactingunconsciouslyinobediencetosome
superiordominatingforce.”45
Tocquevillebelievedthe“doctrineoffatality”afflictingthehistoriansofhis
timecapitulatestooquicklytothegeneraltendencyoftheagetothinkonlyof
aggregates,impersonalforces,andtotherebyamplifytheexperienceofindividual
andpoliticalweaknessandinefficacy.Suchhistoriesareatoncediagnosesand
symptomsofthischange.Tocquevillewouldrejectthroughouthislife—most
notablyinhisextendedcorrespondencewithGobineau—historiesbasedonallencompassingdeterminationsofrace,language,soil,orclimate.Hisconcernswere
focusedontheconsequencesofsuchdoctrines—their“effectualtruth,”as
MachiavelliwouldwriteinThePrince—morethantheirveracity.Ahistorical
writingthatwould“raisemen’sspirits”ratherthan“completetheircollapse”must
drawattentiontotherealitiesofstructuralconstraintsandsocialdepthpatternsso
astorevealthespacesofagencytheymakepossibleratherthansubmittingto
fatalismornostalgicallylongingforthereturnofanunbridledaristocraticheroism.
Agentsindemocraticperiodsare“infinitelymorediverse,moreconcealed,more
complex,lesspowerful,andthuslesseasytounravelortrace.”46Tocquevilledoes
nottreatthisproblemasmerelyoneofhistoricaldescription,butasahistorical
changeinthenatureofhumanagencyitself.Whilehearguesthereisalwaysa
balancebetween“generalcauses”and“specialinfluences”inhistory,inthe
democraticera“generalfactsexplainmore…andindividualinfluencesexplain
14
less.”47Tocqueville’sfocusiscontinuallyonthe“hiddensprings”ofbehaviorand
theirfar-reachingindirectandlargelyunrecognizedconsequences…taken
probabilisticallyinvastaggregatesandovertime.
Tocqueville’s“politicallyinspiredblendingoftheoryandhistory,”asWolin
describesit,aimedtoidentifyandamplifythespacesofhumanagencystillavailable
indemocraticages,especially“thestrengthandindependenceofmenwhenunited
insocialgroups.”48Tocqueville’sreflectionsontheseissuesbuiltuponotherwriters
of“thenewhistory”—forexample,FrançoisGuizot,AugustinThierry,andJules
Michelet—whowereallconcernedwithwritinghistorythatlookedbeyondthe
“historyofkingsandcourts,warsandgallantry.”“Itwasthetaskofthehistorianof
thenineteenthcentury,”DouglasJohnsonwrites,“whenthepeoplehadcometo
prominenceandhademergedonthestageofhistory,towriteaboutthepeople.”
“Theambitionofthenewhistorians,”hecontinues,“wastowriteahistoryofFrance
whichwouldgiveitsrightfulplacetotheordinarypeopleofFrance.”49Itwouldbe,
inLindaOrr’swords,a“headlesshistory.”50TheRevolutionhadpowerfullyposed
thequestionofhistoricalchangeandcollectiveagencytothenineteenth-century
historianswhowroteinitswake.
Tocqueville’sclaimthatheroicagencycouldnolongerexplainhistorical
changewascoupledwithapervasivesenseofindividualandcollectiveparalysis
thathealsosharedwithmanyhistoriansandpoliticalandsocialtheoristsofthe
nineteenthcentury,whoworriedhumanbeingswerebecomingmereplaythingsto
whatHonorédeBalzaccalled“someunknownandMachiavellianpower.”51Even
Michelet,whoserevolutionaryandromanticidentificationwiththeexpressive
15
agencyofthenation—“LaFranceestunepersonne”—differedsodramaticallyfrom
Tocqueville’s,worriedabouttheenslaving“machinic”tendenciesofhistime.52
“Practicallyeverymajorsocialandpoliticaltheoryofthenineteenthcentury,”Wolin
writes,“fromanarchismtoorganizationalism,fromliberalismtosocialism,was
tingedbythedesperateknowledgethatWesternsocietieswerebeingpushed,
shaped,andcompelledinwaysthatbothfascinatedandappalled.”53Thissenseof
beingcaptivetoyourowncreations,theFrankensteinlogic,hasbeensuccinctly
capturedbyEyalChowersasthe“entrapmentimagination”thatshapessomuch
nineteenth-andtwentieth-centurysocialandpoliticalthought.54Tocquevillewas
oneofthemostacuteanalystsofthisimagination,and,asIwillargueinthenext
section,hisexplanationsofitscausesanddangerouseffectsoftenparallelthoseof
moreradicalcriticsofliberaldemocracytowhoseworkhisisotherwiseso
frequentlyandrightlyopposed.
II.
Tocquevillearguedthatdemocracyelevatestheroleofindividualinterestin
publiclifeassocialequalitydestroysapoliticsorganizedaroundafixedhierarchyof
goods.“Ourcentury,”asConstanthadwritten,“valueseverythingaccordingtoits
utility.”55Tocquevilleagreedandtheywerenotaloneinassociatingmodernpolitics
withanempireofutilitydirectedbytheoverwhelmingquestforhappinessand
materialwell-being.Thishadbeenanimportantfeatureofthestadialhistoriesof
theScottishandFrenchEnlightenment,the“virtue”and“commerce”rubric
investigatedbyJ.G.A.Pocock,andthe“doux-commercethesis”exploredbyAlbertO.
Hirschman.56Tocquevillewasalsonotaloneinattendingtoitsdangers.Romantic
16
criticsofEnlightenmentmaterialismandsensationalismoftenrejectedutilityasthe
supremecriteriaofevaluation,anddiminishedutilityfromtheperspectiveof
aestheticformsofevaluationsthattranscenditslogic(whetherphilosophically
articulatedinFriedrichSchiller’sconceptionof“play,”forexample,ormore
popularlyconveyedintheliteraryhatredofthebourgeoisie).57However,evenso
unromanticafigureasAdamSmithopenlyworriedabout“thedisadvantagesofthe
commercialspirit:Themindsofmenarecontractedandrenderedincapableof
elevation.Educationisdespised,oratleastneglectedandtheheroicspiritisalmost
utterlyextinguished.”“Toremedythesedefects,”Smithcontinued,“wouldbean
objectworthyofseriousattention.”58Tocquevillefrequentlyreturnedtothis
worthyobjectinhiswork.Hiscritiqueofpoliticalmodernity,asmanyofhis
Straussianadmirershaveemphasized,wascenteredonhisidentificationofthe
dangersattendingapoliticsorganizedaroundsecurity,happiness,andthe
preservationofmerelife.“Thecravingforwellbeing,”hewroteintheOldRegime,
necessarily“leadsthewaytoservitude,”anddestroyshigheraspirationsand
ambitions.59Tocqueville’sfearofthepoliticalconsequencesofliberaldemocracy’s
cravingforcomfortatonceechoedclassicalrepublicancritiquesofthecorruptionof
virtue,andanticipatedlaterradicalaestheticcritiquesofbourgeoismediocrity,
decadence,andovercivilization.Tocquevilleisatransitionalandmediatingfigure
betweenthesetwopoliticaldiscourses,theonepointingbacktothecivicidealism
andvirtùofRenaissanceFlorence,theothertowardtheregenerating
aestheticizationofactionandwillassociatedwithNietzscheandSorel.60
17
AsthediscussionofinterestandthepoliticsofhappinessinDemocracy
makesclear,however,Tocquevillealsoemphasizedtheunrecognizedadvantagesof
aninterest-orientedpoliticswhenviewedfromthebroaderperspectiveofits
aggregateconsequencesandunintendedeffects.Therearelossestobesure,but
Tocqueville,atleastinthisearlywork,alsoarguesthatthesearemitigatedby
unseenadvantagesaccruedovertime—ifnot“heroicvirtues”then“peacefulhabits,”
ifnot“brilliantsociety”thena“prosperousone,”ifnot“strengthandglory”then
“well-being,”andsoon.61Whenthemoredangeroustendenciesofpolitics
organizedaroundinterestaremitigated,astheywereintheUnitedStatesonhis
account,bysuchoffsettingfactorsasreligion,theexperienceofpoliticalfreedom,
federalism,theartofassociation,andthedoctrineofself-interestrightly
understood,thebenefitsforTocquevillecamemoreclearlyintoview.Interestorientedpoliticswhensomodifiedandenlighteneddo“notmakeamanvirtuous,”
hewrites,“butitdoesshapeahostoflaw-abiding,sober,moderate,carefulandselfcontrolledcitizens.Ifitdoesnotleadthewilldirectlytovirtueitmovesitcloser
throughtheimperceptibleinfluenceofhabit.”62Ofcourse,eventhisadmiringgloss
fromthefirstvolumeofDemocracyanticipatesthedarkerpassagesinthesecond
volumewhereakindlydisposedandbenevolentpowerworksnotbytyrannizing
overitssubjectedpopulationbutbyinhibiting,draining,andsnuffingoutaction,
reducingpeopletoa“flockoftimidhardworkinganimals.”63
Wolinarguesthatthe“questionofhowtocometotermswithbanality
naggedat[Tocqueville]fromhisearliestpoliticalawakeningtotheendofhislife.It
arosebecauseofhisconvictionthatforpoliticstobeauthenticithadtobeheroic,
18
largerthanordinarylife.”64The“lifetimetask”Tocquevillesethimself,Wolinclaims,
wasto“redeempoliticsfromthetrivialityandbasenessofaninterest-oriented
age.”65Tocquevilleworriedthat“whatismosttobefearedisthatinthemidstofthe
smallincessantoccupationsofprivatelife,ambitionwillloseitssparkandits
greatness;thathumanpassionwillbeappeasedanddebasedatthesametime.”66
Thepoliticsthatemergesaroundsuch“appeased”and“debased”passionswouldbe
similarlydegraded.InTocqueville’sdiscussionofthedeclineof“greatparties,”for
example,hearguesthatwhilegreatpartiesbroughtinstabilitytosociety,theyalso
animateditwith“realpoliticalpassions”andasenseofmoralpurpose.Hepredicted
theinterest-basedpartiesthatwouldemergeintheirwakewouldbepreoccupied
with“triflingissues,”with“incomprehensibleorchildish”disputes,andtherebyrob
politicallifeofitsstatureandsignificance.67Similarly,inhischapterfrom
Democracyon“WhyGreatRevolutionsWillBecomeRare,”Tocquevillewritesthat
“individualswillallowthemselvestobesoovertakenbyacravenloveofimmediate
pleasuresthatconcernfortheirownfutureandthatoftheirdescendantsmay
vanish,andthattheywillprefertofollowtamelythecourseoftheirowndestiny
ratherthanmakeasuddenandenergeticefforttosetthingsrightwhentheneed
arises.”68Atstakeinbothexamplesisthedisappearanceofthose“realpolitical
passions”whichTocquevilleconsistentlyassociateswith“religiouspassions,”
opposingbothtothenarrowbutseductive“passionforwellbeing.”Inan1847
lettertoLouisdeKergolay,Tocquevillemakesthisdistinctionclear.“Asageneral
thesis,”hewrites,“religiouspassionsandpoliticalpassionsarecompatibleand
mutuallyreinforcing.Inbothcaseswhattheyshareisconcernforgeneralandto
19
somedegreeimmaterialinterests.”Onbothsidesapoetic“idealofhumansociety”
isinview.Bothoffera“picturewhichraisesoursoulsabovethecontemplationof
minorprivateinterestsandcarriesthemaway.”Heconcludesbysayingthat
“politicalpassionandthepassionforwellbeingcannotexistinthesamesoul.”69
Tocqueville’scriticalengagementwithliberaldemocracy’slowlyempireof
utilityismoreradical—andperhapsalsomorephilosophicallyrich—thanitisoften
takentobe.Thereductionofactionandjudgmenttointerestnotonlyestablishes
theconditionsforhisanalysisofthetutelarydespotismdescribedinthesecond
volumeofDemocracy,butisalsothebasisforabroadcritiqueofinstrumental
reasonandtheleechingoutofmeaningandsignificancefrompubliclife.Thisaspect
ofTocqueville’sargumentbecomesmostclearinhiswritingsontheJulyMonarchy
andinhiscorrespondencefrom1840swhileheservedintheChamberofDeputies
asarepresentativefromValognes.Intheseletters,interestchangesfrombeingan
exampleofaggregatedagency,thedangersofwhichcouldbemitigatedbystrategies
likethosementionedabove,tosomethingmorereminiscentofHannahArendt’s
socialblobenvelopingpoliticallifeanddrainingitofsignificanceandoverwhelming
thepossibilitiesforpoliticalaction(apointIwillreturntointheconclusion).70“The
universalcalmingdownandlevelingoffthatfollowedtheJulyRevolution[of1830]”
Tocquevillewouldwrite,lefthimthinkinghewas“destinedtolivehislifeinan
enervatedtranquilsociety.”71KingLouisPhillipehadattemptedtodrownthe
“revolutionarypassions”thatreturnedin1830,heproclaimed,with“theloveof
materialpleasures.”72Tocqueville’slettersfromthisperiodreturntimeandagainto
the“apoplectictorper”and“grievousnumbness”ofsocialandpoliticallife.Inan
20
1838lettertoBeaumont,Tocquevillewrites,“mymindiscompletelycrammedwith
aheroismthatishardlyofourtime,andIfallveryflatwhenIcomeoutofthese
dreamsandfindmyselffacetofacewithreality.”73Tocqueville’sexpressionsof
disgustwiththe“illnessofbourgeoismediocrity”andthe“universalpettinessthat
reignsoverourhistory”anticipatesmoreradicalnineteenth-century“criticsof
malaise,declineanddecadence,”andRichardBoydisprobablyrighttodescribehim
asa“progenitorofnineteenth-centuryradicalanxietiesaboutbourgeoismalaise.”74
However,unlikeBaudelaire,say,orBalzac,Tocqueville’sanalysisisalwaysfocused
onthepoliticalcausesandconsequencesofthis“apoplectictorper,”andonseeking
outpoliticalsolutionstothecrisisithascreated.
Tocquevilleworriedthata“fatalindifference”topubliclifearoseespecially
fromwhathecalledthe“politicalatheism”ofhiscontemporaries,their“tendencyto
treatwithindifferencealltheideasthatcanstirsociety,”drainingpubliclifeof“real
politicalpassions”thatcouldengendersignificantpublicacts.“Whatwemostneed
inourdayarepassions,“Tocquevilledeclared,“trueandsolidpassionsthatbindup
andleadlife.”“Wenolongerknowhowtowant,orlove,orhate.”“Weflutterheavily
aroundamultitudeofsmallobjects,noneofwhicheitherattractsus,orstrongly
repelsus,orholdsus.”75IfinhisAmericanwritings,Tocqueville’santidotetothe
dangersofthepoliticsofutilityhadbeenthosefamiliarfactorsmentionedabove–
the“socialfunctionofreligion”andAmerica’slongstandinghabituationintothe
difficult“artsoffreedom”–wheretheseresourcescouldnotbereliedupon—
namely,France—heturnedinsteadtotheimportantroleofextraordinaryand
heroicpoliticalactiontooffsetthesedangersandreturnasenseofgrandeurtoa
21
degradedpubliclife.Tocquevilleinvokedtheimportanceofgreatness,heroism,
glory,andpoliticalgrandeuratmanypointsinhiswritings,but,asJenniferPittsand
othershavestressed,Tocqueville’spreoccupationwithpoliticalgrandeuris
particularlynotableinhiswritingsonFrenchcolonialism,andinhiscelebrationof
imperialconquestandasawayofrousingthepublicfromtheir“grievous
numbness”andrestoringaregenerativevitalityintopubliclife.
Inawell-knownlettersenttoJohnStuartMillin1841Tocquevilleoffereda
clear—andtoMill,deeplytroubling—articulationoftheconnectionbetweenthe
debasementofmoderndemocraticpoliticsandtheimportanceofgloriousactionin
combattingit.“Thegreatestmaladythatthreatensapeopleorganizedasweare,”
Tocquevillewrites,“isthegradualsofteningofthemores,theabasementofthe
mind,andthemediocrityoftaste;thatiswherethegreatdangersofthefuturelie.”76
Tocquevillethenaffirmsthepossibilityofwar—thecontextisaconflictoverSyria
betweenEngland’sallyTurkeyandFrance’sallyEgypt—asawayofmitigatingthese
dangersandaffirmingthenation’swilltosacrificeforahighercause.77“Onecannot
letthisnationtakeupeasilythehabitofsacrificingwhatitbelievestobeits
grandeurtoitsrepose,greatmatterstopettyones;itisnothealthytoallowsucha
nationtobelievethatitsplaceintheworldissmaller,thatisitfallenfromthelevel
onwhichitsancestorshadputit,butthatitmustconsoleitselfbybuildingrailroads
andbymakingthewell-beingofeachprivateindividualprosperamidstpeace,
underwhateverconditionsthepeaceisobtained.”78
Tocqueville’sconfessedlovefor“greatevents”andhiswearinesswithwhat
heoncecalled“ourlittledemocraticandbourgeoispotofsoup,”areoftenexpressed
22
inthecontextofimperialconquestanditsabilitytoprevent“internalpoliticaland
moraldecay.”79Inmakingthesearguments,Tocquevillewasbreakingnotonlywith
Mill—Millnotedthe“simplepuerility”ofTocqueville’sappealtograndeurinhis
respondingletter,effectivelyendingtheirfriendship—butquiteexplicitlywiththe
worksofotherprominentFrenchliberals,whohadotherwiseprofoundlyinfluenced
him.Montesquieu’sSpiritoftheLawsandConsiderationsontheCausesofthe
GreatnessoftheRomansandTheirDecline,andConstant’sSpiritofConquestand
Usurpation,alsoemphasized,forexample,themoderndisappearanceoftheheroic
loveofglory,andthereplacementofhonorableambitionwiththelureofprofit.
Theyturnedthefadingstatusofpoliticalgrandeurintoadefiningconditionof
politicalmodernity.Constant,forexample,wrotethat“thesoleaimofmodern
nationsisrepose,andwithreposecomfortand,asasourceofcomfort,industry.”80
NeitherMontesquieunorConstant,however,valorizedaheroicrestorationof
grandeurasaviableresponse.Indeed,writinginthecontextoftheFirstEmpire
andtheemergenceoftheNapoleonicmyth,Constant,alongwithGermainedeStaël,
diagnosedsuchcallsforheroicrestorationaslittlemorethanamaskforareturnto
thebrutalityanddominationcharacteristicofanearlier,less-civilizedage.81Inthe
SpiritofConquestandUsurpationConstantwrites,
Ihavesometimeswonderedwhatthesemenwhowishtorepeatthedeedsof
Cambyses,Alexander,orAttilawouldreplyifhispeopleweretosaytohim:
Naturehasgivenyouaquickeye,boundlessenergy…andaninexhaustible
thirstforconfrontingandsurmountingdanger…Butwhyshouldwepaythe
priceforthem?Arewehereonlytobuild,withourdyingbodies,yourroad
tofame?Youhaveageniusforfighting:whatgoodisittous?…Likethe
leopard,youbelongtoanotherclimate,anotherland,anotherspeciesfrom
ours.Learntobecivilized,ifyouwishtoreigninacivilizedage.Learn
peace,ifyouwishtoruleoverpeacefulpeople…Manfromanotherworld,
stopdespoilingthisone.82
23
Constantwasacutelyawareofhowappealstograndeurcouldbecomefalse
rationalizationsforpersonalambitionandthebrutalexerciseofpowerand
exploitationincolonialcontexts.Tocqueville,bycontrast,arguedthatthatobstacles
anddangersofthecolonialenterprisewereoccasionsfortheheroicwillandthe
assertionofnationalgreatness.HisestimationofNapoleonwasmuchmore
ambivalentthanConstant’s,asalreadysuggested,sinceTocquevilleobjectednot
primarilytoNapoleon’sextraordinaryheroismandvalor,assuch,buttothefact
thatinNapoleon’scaseitwasputtotheserviceofhisownpersonalaggrandizement
ratherthanrepresentingthegrandeurofthenationasawhole.“Allthatseemsto
distinguishTocquevillefromtheNapoleonicvisionoftheFirstEmpire,”Boyd
writes,“ishisconvictionthatinorderforthisglorytobemeaningfulastherapeutic
forFrenchcivillife,imperialgrandeurneedstobecometheauthentic
representationofthewillofthewholeFrenchnation.”83Imperialconquestcould,
forTocqueville,unifytheheroicactwiththegeneralnationalpurposeintheway
requiredtoengenderthepoliticalgrandeurhethoughtsocrucialforrespondingto
the“apoplectictorper”ofhistime.
Inthis,asinsomuchelse,TocquevillebelievedFrancehadsomethingto
learnfromEngland.ExpressinghisdeepadmirationforthecolonizationofIndia,
Tocquevilledescribeditasa“flashofbrilliancethatreflectsbackontheentire
nation.”Headmiredthe“senseofgreatnessandpowerwhichitgivesawhole
people,”andconcluded“financialandcommercialconsiderationsarenottheonly
thingsbywhichanationshouldjudgethevalueofaconquest.”84Tocqueville
invokedsimilarnon-economiccriteriaforimperialconquestwhenmakinghis
24
argumentonbehalfoftheFrenchcolonizationofAlgeria.Toabandonourcolony,
Tocquevilleasserts,“wouldbeaclearindicationofourdecadence.”85“Anypeople
thateasilygivesupwhatithastakenandchoosestoretirepeacefullytoitsoriginal
bordersproclaimsthatitsageofgreatnessisover.Itvisiblyenterstheperiodofits
decline.”86PittshasshownthatTocqueville’sembraceoftherejuvenatingpowerof
colonialconquestisnotamereinconsistencyinhiswork,oranexampleofhis
unfortunateracialprejudices,butanintegralpartofhispoliticalthinking.
“Tocqueville,”shewrites,“believedthatFranceneededagrandundertakingto
convincethepeoplethattheircollectivepoliticalprojectwasworthwhile,something
toraiseFrenchpoliticsaboveitsusualpettiness,anantidotetostagnation.”87
“Tocqueville’sdefenseofempireisinseparablefromhiscriticaldiagnosisoflanguor,
impotence,boredom,privatization,andcommercializationundertheJuly
Monarchy.”88
WhilethislineofargumentisespeciallypronouncedinhiswritingonFrench
colonialism,itdoeshaveprecedentinhisearlierwork,forexampletheclaimin
Democracythat“waralmostalwaysenlargesthemindofapeopleandraisestheir
character.”89CoreyRobinhasnotedthiscontinuityofpreoccupationin
Tocqueville’swork,andplaceditwithinalargerdistinctive“conservative”tradition
ofpoliticalthoughtbuiltaroundtheideathat“iftheselfistothriveandflourishit
mustbearousedbyanexperiencemorevitalandbracingthanpleasureor
enjoyment.”90Iagreewiththeimportanceofthisdistinctivetradition,butdisagree
withRobin’seffortstoideologicallyconfineittoconservatism.Itisamore
widespreadandideologicallypromiscuousargumentinthenineteenth(and
25
twentieth)century.Manyoftheradicalrepublicansofthe1840salsobelieved,in
thewordsofJulesBarni,thatone“enslavedbypleasureandostentation”wouldalso
be“enslavedbyhisCaesar,”andmanyattributedsuchregenerativepoliticalvitality
totherevolutionaryactsofthepeoplethemselves,especiallyasmanifestthrough
themythosofinsurrectionandthe“poeticsofthebarricades”whichreachedits
apotheosisin1848.91Rosanvallonhastracedthepersistenceofthisidea.
“Throughoutthenineteenthcentury,”hewrites,“manyradicalssawinsurrection—
formlesspower’slivingshadow—asthemanifestationofpuredemocracy,”capable
ofconverting“’thepeople’fromaformalabstractionintoaregenerative,concrete,
palpablereality:alivingcreativepower.From1830onawholepoeticsofthe
barricadeamplifiedthispoliticalandmoralexaltationofinsurrection.”92
WhileTocquevillewashappytoseeFranceridoftheJulyMonarchyin
Februaryof1848,andhadabriefhopethat“wearegoingtobeginanewpolitical
lifeagain,”hequicklycametoseenothinggrandorsublimeinit.Hequicklycameto
view1848asagrotesqueextensionofthedebasedinterest-orientedpoliticsofthe
JulyMonarchy,a“slave’swar”nowthreateningtheprivilegeofpropertyitself.Ina
speechdeliveredaspeechbeforetheChamberofDeputieslessthanamonthbefore
theFebruaryrevolution,Tocquevillearguedthatthe“egoismandselfinterestand
corruption”whichhadoriginatedintheJulyMonarchy’sbourgeoisleadershiphad
nowthoroughlyinfectedtheworkers.Hewarnedhiscolleaguesthattheworkers
werenowdriventoachievetheirownsocialinterest,andthatpursuingthisinterest
couldonly“leadtorevolution.”Andsoitdid.
26
“Thegreatandrealcauseoftherevolution[of1848],”hewouldwriteina
letterfromAprilofthatyear,“wasthedetestablespiritwhichanimatedthe
governmentduringitslongreign;aspiritoftrickery,ofbaseness,andofbribery,
whichhasenervatedanddegradedthemiddleclasses,destroyedtheirpublicsprit,
anfilledthemwithaselfishnesssoblindastoinducethemtoseparatetheir
interestsentirelyfromthoseofthelowerclassfromwhencetheysprang.”93Asan
expressionofthis“detestablespirit”therevolutionaryactsof1848couldneverbe
sublime,andtheircollectiveactorcouldneverbecapableofheroism.Itwasanidea
thatechoedinmanyconservativecriticsoftherevolution,andwellasbysome
radicals(mostnotablyMarxinTheEighteenthBrumaire).Inhisdepictionofthe
FebruaryrevolutioninSentimentalEducation,GustaveFlaubertfollowsTocqueville
inemphasizingthestagedridiculousnessofthewholetawdryaffair.“Pushedalong
inspiteofthemselves,”Flaubertwrites,thepeople“enteredaroomwhereared
velvetcanopywasstretchedacrosstheceiling.Onthethronebeneath,theresata
proletarianwithablackbeard,hisshirthalfopened,grinninglikeastupidape.
Othersclamberedupontotheplatformtositinhisplace.”“There’sthesovereign
peopleforyou!”Hussonetdeclares.“Whatamyth!”“Idon’tcarewhatyouthink,”
repliesFrédéric.“Ithinkthepeoplearesublime.”94
III.
“IdonotthinkinFrancethereisamanwhoislessrevolutionarythanI,”
Tocquevilleoncewrote,“noronewhohasmoreprofoundhatredforwhatiscalled
therevolutionaryspirit.”95AurelianCraiutuarguesthisisperhaps“thebest
expressionofTocqueville’spoliticalcredo,”andtheclearestsignofhisexemplary
27
praiseofpoliticalmoderation.96Thiscredo,however,obscuresfromview
Tocqueville’soccasionalpraiseoftheelevatinggrandeurofrevolutionaryevents,
withtheirinterminglingofthereligiousandpoliticalpassions.Inthemidstofhis
despairoverthe“apoplectictoper”oftheJulyMonarchy,forexample,Tocqueville
confessedtoBeaumontthathe“wouldhavepreferredarevolutionaryconditiona
thousandtimesmorethanourpresentmisery.”Heworriedthatwe“willwenever
againseeafreshbreezeoftruepoliticalpassions…ofviolentpassions,hardthough
sometimescruel,yetgrand,disinterested,fruitful,thosepassionswhicharethesoul
oftheonlypartiesthatIunderstandandtowhichIwouldgladlygivemytime,my
fortune,andmylife.”97Tocquevilleconsidered1789toinitiallybeanexpressionof
such“truepoliticalpassions,”andthereforea“spectacleofincomparablebeauty.”
“Itwillneverleavethememoryofmen.Allforeignnationssawit,allapplaudit,all
weremovedbyit.”98DespiteTocqueville’scritiqueofthe“revolutionarycatechism,”
heremainedintermittentlyenthralledbytherevolutionarypromiseofpoliticaland
moralregeneration.“Anationthatasksnomoreofitsgovernmentthanthe
maintenanceoforder,”hewouldwrite,“isalreadyaslaveatthebottomofitsheart.
Itisaslavetoitswell-being,readyforthemanwhowillputitinchains.”Boesche
mayberightthat,morethaninhisaffirmationofthegrandeurofcolonialconquest,
Tocquevilleis“nowheremoreantitheticaltonineteenth-centuryliberalismthanin
hisoccasionalcelebrationofpopularturmoil.”99
TocquevilleindicatedthisambivalenceinhisRecollections:“whenIcameto
searchcarefullyintothedepthsofmyownheart,Idiscovered,withsomesurprise,a
certainsenseofrelief,asortofgladnessmingledwithallthegriefandfeartowhich
28
theRevolution[of1848]hadgivenrise.Isufferedfromthisterribleeventformy
country,butclearlynotformyself,Iseemedtobreathmorefreelythanbeforethe
catastrophe.”100Tocqueville,intheend,didnotconsider1848avitalizingreturnof
“greatpoliticalpassions,”butamonstrousextensionofthelow-sightedpoliticsof
socialneedandmaterialwell-beingthathedetested.“Anewandterriblethinghas
comeintotheworld,”hewouldwriteinhisnotes,“animmensenewsortof
revolutionwhosetoughestagentsaretheleastliterateandthemostvulgar
classes.”101WhathorrifiedTocquevillemostabout1848was“theomnipotenceit
hadgiventotheso-calledpeople,thatistheclasseswhoworkwiththeirhands,over
allotherclasses.”102Tocquevillecontrastedthis“so-calledpeople”tothe“people
properlyso-called.”IftheformerwerethedangerousclassesofParis,thelatter
wereanabstractioninwhichTocquevilleplacedagreatdealofhope:“Theylack
enlightenment,buttheyhaveinstinctsIfindworthyofadmiration;oneencounters
inthem,toadegreethatastonishesmeandwhichwouldbyitsnaturesurprise
foreigners,thesentimentsoforder,trueloveofcountry,andaverygreatsensein
thingsaboutwhichtheycanjudgebythemselves.”103Tocquevillehadlongadmitted
to“hatethedisorderlyactionofthemasses,theirviolentandmuddledintervention
inaffairs,theenviouspassionsofthelowerclasses,theirirreligioustendencies,”but
thiscounterrevolutionarysentimenthardenedinthewakeof1848withitseventual
emphasison“thesocialquestion.”104Tocquevillehadcometomorekeenly
appreciateandfearthat“whatarecallednecessaryinstitutionsareonlyinstitutions
towhichoneisaccustomed,andthatinmattersofsocialconstitutionthefieldof
possibilitiesismuchwiderthanpeoplelivingwithineachsocietyimagine.”105
29
Tocqueville’sRecollections,whichhewrotetwoyearsaftertheeventsof
1848,andwhichwasnotpublisheduntil1893,doesnotelaborateatgreatlengthon
thecausesoftherevolution—itisnotthetreasuretroveofcausalmechanismsand
explanatoryhypothesisthatJonElsteradmiresinDemocracyinAmericaandtheOld
Regime—butitdoesindicatethecomplexlylayeredconceptionofsocialand
politicalcausalitythatmanyreadersadmireinTocqueville’swork,aconceptionthat
leavesagreatdealofroomforcontingencyandchance.Tocquevilleconsistently
rejected“thoseabsolutesystemsthatmakealltheeventsofhistorydependonthe
greatfirstcauseslinkedtogetherbythechainoffate.”106Forthemostpart,
however,theRecollections,likeBurke’sReflections,arefocusedonTocqueville’s
responses—political,moral,andaesthetic—tothespectacleofthe1848events
themselves.Likeotherprominentcommentatorson1848—Marx,forexample,and
Flaubert—Tocquevillecontinuallyevaluatedtherevolutionaryeventsasifthey
weretheatricalscenes.“Thewholeday,”hewroteoftheinitialFebruaryrevolt,“I
hadthefeelingthatwehadstagedaplayabouttheFrenchRevolution,ratherthan
thatwewerecontinuingit.”107Itwasa“tragedy”playedpoorlybya“provincial
troupe.”Tocquevilleisfocused—andespeciallyinthechaptersdevotedto
understandingtheinsurrectionsofFebruary,May,andJune—onrevealingboththe
vulnerabilityofthebasicinstitutionsofFrenchsociety—“property,family,and
civilization”—whilealsoemphasizingthegrotesqueryofthecollectivechallengeto
thoseinstitutions.
IfoneofthecentralconcernsanimatingTocqueville’sworkwasthe
disappearanceofagencyinthedemocraticage,theRecollectionsseemsintenton
30
framingthe1848revolutionasacontinuationof,ratherthanexceptionto,that
broadertendency.Inordertoframeeventsinthisway,Tocquevillesystematically
deniesagencytoitscentralactors,andespeciallytoanythingthatmightbe
construedasacollectiveactor.IntheRecollectionsTocquevillesetsouttofurther
demystifytherevolutionarymythosofthepopularwill.Wolinhasemphasizedthis
aspectofTocqueville’sanalysis,arguingthatintheRecollections“collectiveaction
wouldbedeniedthedeed.”108AccordingtoWolin,Tocqueville“refusestoallowthat
therevolutionarieswere,inanysense,heroicactors,eventhoughtheymightbesaid
notonlytohavefulfilledtherelevantcriteriabuttohavegonefurther:theiractions
werecontestingthelimitsofthepoliticalandattemptingtoextenditsboundaries,
certainlyanobjectivenotdevoidofgrandeur.”109
ExamplesofTocqueville’srefusalofpopularagencycanbefoundthroughout
thetext.Therevolutionaries“didnotoverthrowthegovernment,”hewrites,but
rather“letitcollapse”;revolutionaryleadersarenotleadersproperlyunderstood,
becausetheymerely“setupsailsinthewind,”andsoon.110Tocqueville’semphasis
onagencydeniedismostexplicit,however,inhisdescriptionandanalysisofthe
revolutionarycrowdsofFebruary,MayandJune.Intheseaccounts,Tocqueville
employslongstandingtropesthatfigurethepeopleasaformofnatural
phenomenon,assurgingfloodsandrivers,volcanoesandearthquakes.111These
“tumults,”asTocquevillewritesoftheuprisingsofMay,“engenderthemselves,”but
thepeopleareinsuchinstances“nolongermastersofthemselves.”112Tocqueville
alsoreturnstotheparallelbetweenthesublimityoftheunboundedseaandthe
spectacleofdemocratichistoryinhisRecollectionswhenhewrites“greatmassesof
31
menmoveforreasonsalmostasunknowntomortalmenasthereasonsthat
regulatethemovementsofthesea.Inbothcasesthereasonsareinasensehidden
andlostinthesheerimmensityofthephenomenon.”113Invokingthemysteriously
ineffablespringsofcollectivepoliticalactionduringtheFrenchRevolution,
TocquevillewouldwriteinalettertoLouisdeKergolay:“Icansensethepresence
ofthisunknownobject,butdespiteallmyeffortsIcannotlifttheveilthatcoversit.
Icanpalpateitasthroughaforeignbodythatpreventsmefromgraspingitoreven
seeingit.”114
WhileTocquevillearguedthatcollectiveactionwasinitiatedandsustained
byanelementthatescapedexplanationorrepresentation,thisdidnotnecessarily
lenditdignityorgrandeur.“Idespiseandfearthecrowd,”Tocquevillewrote
bluntlyin1841,andhisdepictionsofthemobilizedcrowdsof1848,andofthe
individualsthatcomprisedthem,whileoftenstunningindetail,arefilledwithdread
anddisgust.115Occasionally,however,Tocqueville’scriticaldepictionssuggest
alternativeinterpretationstothosehehimselfprovides.Considerhisdepictionof
theappearanceofthebarricadesinFebruary.AshemakeshiswaytotheHôtelde
Ville,Tocquevillespotsagroupassiduouslyfallingtreestobegintheconstructionof
thefirstbarricades.“Itlookedexactlylikesomeindustrialundertaking,”
Tocquevillewrites,“whichisjustwhatitwasformostofthosetakingpart;an
instinctfordisorderhadgiventhemthetasteforit;andexperienceofpast
revolutionshadtaughtthemthetheory.NothingthatIsawlaterthatdayimpressed
mesomuchasthatsolitudeinwhichonecould,sotospeak,seeallthemostevil
32
passionsofhumanityatwork,andnoneofthegoodones.Iwouldratherhave
encounteredafuriousmobthere.”116
ThereisnothinginTocqueville’sactualdescriptionofthisscenethatseems
towarrantthatsurprisinginterpretation.Ratherthanwitnessaspontaneous
solidarityandinclinationtoassociation,practicesTocquevillegreatlyadmiresin
othercontexts,heidentifiesisolatedindividualsmotivatedbythe“mostevil
passionsofhumanity.”ThispassagerecallsafamousonefromDemocracyin
America,whereTocquevilleadmirestheself-createdauthorityofpeopleactingin
commonthrough“improvisedassembly”:“Shouldanobstacleappearonthepublic
highwayandtrafficbehalted,”Tocquevilleobserves,“neighborsatonceforma
grouptoconsiderthematter;fromthisimprovisedassemblyanexecutiveauthority
appearstoremedythecommoninconveniencebeforeanyonehasthoughtofthe
possibilityofsomeotherauthorityalreadyinexistencebeforetheonetheyhavejust
formed…Thereisnothingthehumanwilldespairsofobtainingthroughthefreeuse
ofthecombinedpowerofindividuals.”117Inthe1848barricadescenetheobstacle
isbeingcreatedtodefendtheassociation,intheAmericaninstanceitisbeing
removedtoachieveacommongoal.Inbothcasesweseeacollectivity
spontaneouslytakingshapearoundmattersofcommonconcernthatbroadly
definesTocqueville’sconceptionofthepolitical.
Tocquevilleemphasizesthattheradical“clubsandassemblies”of1848were
“constantlymanufacturingprinciplesthatcouldlaterjustifyactsofviolence,”
especiallyintheirrecurrentappealtotheprincipleofpopularconstituentpower.
“Itwasmaintainedthatthepeople,alwayssuperiortotheirrepresentatives,never
33
completelyhandovertheirwilltotheirrepresentatives,atrueprinciplefromwhich
theyderivedtheutterlyfalseconclusionthattheParisianworkerswerethepeople
ofFrance.”118Tocqueville’scritiqueofthe“so-calledpeopleofFrance”—theradical
workersofParis–claimingtospeakandactonbehalfofthepeople“properlysocalled”—andhisrhetoricaleffortstosustainthisdistinction—reachesitsgreatest
intensityinhisdiscussionoftheworkerrebellionofJune.Tocquevillepresentsthe
Juneuprisingasa“slave’swar”fueledbythedesperateneedsoftheworkingclass
poorofParis,butasinterpretedorframedbythetheoretical“systemizers”so
dangerouslyproliferatinginthemiddleofthenineteenthcentury.Therevolution
itselfwasnotasimpleexpressionofneed,Tocquevilleargued,butneedasframed
throughdangerousideas.In“theinsurrectionofJunetherewassomethingother
thanbadpropensities;therewerefalseideas,”hewrites.“Manyofthesemenwere
ledbyasortoferroneousnotionofright.Theysincerelybelievedsocietyitselfwas
foundedoninjustice.”119Themostpotentofthese“erroneousnotionsofright,”
Tocquevilleargued,wasthedistinctlymodernideathatthesocialconditionofthe
workingclasscouldbeimprovedandalleviatedthroughpoliticalaction.Inhis
uncompletedhistoryofmodernmoralityonwhichhehadcollaboratedwith
Gobineaupriorto1848,Tocquevilleproposedtheyfocustheirattentiononan
entirely“newkindofsocialandpoliticalmorality”that“compelledgovernmentsto
redresscertaininequalities,tomollifyhardships,tooffersupporttothelucklessand
helpless.”120Itwasthecommitmenttopoliticalsolutionstosocialandeconomic
problemsthatTocquevillefoundmostdistinctiveaboutmodern“socialandpolitical
morality,”andthattheworkeruprisingofJunethenmostclearlyexpressed.
34
Itwasthiscollectiveexpressionofsocialneedthatdeprivedtheeventsof
1848,forTocqueville,ofany“grandeur,”becausegrandeurconceptuallyentailedan
elevateddisinterestednessonthepartoftheactor.TheworkeruprisingsofJune,
forexample,didnothaveapoliticalaim,Tocquevilleargued,butrathersoughtto
“altertheorganizationofsociety”throughpolitics.Inaletterwrittenduringthe
Juneevents,Tocquevilledeclared,“itisnotapoliticalformthatisatissuehere,itis
property,family,andcivilization,everythinginawordthatattachesustolife.”121
TocquevilledescribedtheJunedaysas“thestrangestinsurrection,”butalsothe
“greatestinFrenchhistory.”Heconcedesthatitsactorsdisplayed“wonderful
powersofcoordination,”butthiscoordinationwasonhisaccountproducedbythe
event’sresonantarticulationofdeeplyfeltclassresentmentsandmaterialneeds.“It
wasnot,strictlyspeaking,apoliticalstruggle,inthesensewhichuntilthenwehad
giventothatword,butacombatofclassagainstclass…Webeholdinitnothingmore
thanblindandrude,butpowerful,effortonthepartofworkmentoescapefromthe
necessitiesoftheircondition,whichhadbeendepictedtothemasoneofunlawful
oppression,andtoopenupbymainforcearoadtowardsthatimaginarycomfort
withwhichtheyhadbeendeluded.”122
ThemostcondensedsymboloftheuprisingforTocquevilleisthe“hideous
andfrightful”faceoftheoldwomanheencountersinthestreet,whodeliberately
blockshiswayandthenattackshimwhenhe“curtly”ordersheraside.This
incidentwas,hewrites,an“importantsymptom”of“thegeneralstateofmind”
guidingtheinsurrection.LiketheotherwomancombatantsTocquevilleemphasizes
inhisaccountofJune,whotakethesamepleasureincombatastheywouldin
35
“winningalottery,”thereisnothingnobleorcourageousinthewoman’s
confrontationwithTocqueville,orinherrefusaltoplayherexpectedroleinthe
choreographyofhierarchicalsocialrelations.Sheisagain,forTocqueville,merely
thebrutalmanifestationofneed.123
Tocqueville’sreductionoftheaspirationsofcollectiveactorstoexpressions
ofsocialinterestisnotlimitedtohiswritingson1848.Inan1843articleonthe
abolitionofslaveryinEnglandTocquevilleofferedanotherexampleofthis
associationofgrandeurwithdisinterestedness,andhisuseofthatassociationto
rejecttheheroismofcollectiveactors.Tocquevilledeclaredthatabolitionoffered
anunprecedentedandextraordinaryspectacletohiscontemporariesthatcompared
withtheastonishingdeedsoftheirrevolutionaryforefathers.Themodern
emancipationofslaves,hesuggested,wasaspectacleofunprecedentedgrandeur
andshouldbeappreciatedassuchbyhiscontemporaries.Tocquevilleurgedhis
readerstodisenthrallthemselvesoftheirwearydistractionsandtrivialconcerns
andrecognizetheelevatingsignificanceofthisextraordinaryeventunfoldingin
theirtime.AnimportantpartofwhatmadeEuropeanabolitionsoextraordinary
wasitsuddenness,thatitdid“nothappengradually,slowly,overthecourseoflong
successivetransformations,”butratherthatithadtheabruptnessofanunforeseen
event:thatinan“instantalmostamillionmentogetherwentfromextreme
servitudetototalfreedom.”124Theotherelementthatlentabolitionsuch
extraordinarygrandeurforTocquevillewasthatitwasnotundertaken“bythe
desperateeffortoftheslave,butbytheenlightenedwillofthemaster.”125What
endowedthenineteenthcenturyabolitionofslaverywithgrandeurforTocqueville
36
isthatitdidnotcomefromtheinterestedactionofenslavedAfricansfightingfor
theirfreedom,mostobviouslyinHaiti,butfromthedisinterestedactsofheroic
whitebenefactors.
Tocqueville’sefforttobothrestoreasenseofgrandeurtoapublicrealmthat
hadbeendegradedbytheempireofutility,andyetdenythatgrandeurtocollective
agentsactingoutofmaterialinterestsorneedisechoedintheworkofHannah
Arendt.Iwillconcludethischapterwithsomeverypreliminarythoughtsonthat
connection.
Conclusion
InTheHumanCondition,ArendtinvokedthepetitbonheuroftheFrenchas
anexampleofthe“modernenchantmentwith‘smallthings.’”“Sincethedecayof
theironcegreatandgloriouspublicrealm,”Arendtwrites,“theFrenchhavebecome
mastersintheartofbeinghappyamong‘smallthings,’withinthespaceoftheirown
fourwalls,betweenchestandbed,tableandchair,dogandcatandflowerpot.”This
“enlargementoftheprivate,”shewrites,“theenchantment,asitwere,ofawhole
people,doesnotmakeitpublic,doesnotconstituteapublicrealm,but,onthe
contrary,meansonlythatthepublicrealmhasalmostreceded,sothatgreatnesshas
givenwaytocharmeverywhere;forwhilethepublicrealmmaybegreatitcannot
becharmingpreciselybecauseitisunabletoharbortheirrelevant.”
WecanhearTocquevilleanechoesinArendt’sridiculeofthe“small
enchantments”ofprivatelifethathavefilledthevoidof“aoncegreatandglorious
publicrealm,”aswellasinherdistinctionbetweenpublic“greatness”andprivate
“charm.”LikeTocqueville,Arendtwasconcernedwiththedisappearanceof
37
grandeurfrompubliclife,andwithrestoring“theesteemanddignityofpolitics.”
PegBirminghammaybeexaggeratingslightlywhenshewritesthat“HannahArendt
isaloneamongcontemporarypoliticalthinkersintakingupthemodernproblemof
glory,”butsheisrighttoemphasizeArendt’scontinuouspreoccupationwiththe
lossandrecoveryofpoliticalgrandeurinthecontextofdemocraticpolitics.
Arendt’swritingontheaestheticorientationtowardpublicthings,andthe“loveof
theworld,”isacontemporaryextensionofTocqueville’scritiqueoftheempireof
utilitythatdoesnotseeksolutionsintherealmofpoliticaltheology.Like
Tocqueville,Arendtsoughtimmanentsourcesofsublimetranscendence,more
consistentlythanTocquevilleshesoughtgrandeursolelyinthefragile,
interdependent,andpluralrealmofhumanactionitself.Mostimportantlyfor
Arendt,grandeurcouldnotlongerbeassociatedwiththeheroicsovereigntyof
statesmanandleaders,butwithpluralitiesofequalsengagedinactioninconcert.
WhileArendtacknowledgedTocqueville’s“greatinfluence”onherina1959
letter,andinOnRevolutionshedescribeshimas“thekeenestandmostthoughtful
observer”ofrevolution,thefullextentofthatinfluencehasyettobefullyexcavated
inthescholarship.HannaPitkindescribesTocquevilleasan“absentauthority”
standingbehindArendt’sconceptofthe“riseofthesocial”asitisdevelopedinboth
TheHumanConditionandOnRevolution.ForPitkin,Arendtadaptedandextended
Tocqueville’sanalysisofsocialentropyinthesecondvolumeofDemocracyin
America,whereamultitudeofdisconnectedindividualsaredrawnintothemyopia
oftheirprivateandmaterialneeds,driftinginthe“trivial,lonely,andfutile”scopeof
theirprivatelives,andvacatingthepublicrealmtotheadministrativedespotismof
38
an“immensetutelarypower.”WhenArendtdescribesthesocialasexpressingthe
“mutualdependenceforthesakeoflifeandnothingelse”andworriesaboutthe
politicalconsequencesof“activitiesconnectedwithsheersurvival”overwhelming
thepublicrealm,thereseemtobeconnectionswithTocqueville’sdisdainforthe
empireofutilityinhisowntime.Thisapparentconnectionisdemonstrated,infact,
bythelecturesthatArendtpresentedonTocquevilleattheUniversityofCalifornia,
Berkeleyin1955,whichemphasizetheappearanceof“society”inhisworkasthe
initiatorofahistoricalprocessthatdisplacestheactor.“Society,”Arendtwrites,
“whenitfirstenteredthepublicrealm,assumedthedisguiseofanorganizationof
propertyownerswho,insteadofclaimingaccesstothepublicrealmbecauseoftheir
wealth,demandedprotectionfromitfortheaccumulationofmorewealth.”
Liberalism,onherreading,thusfurthered“thedegradationofpoliticsintoameans
forsomethingelse,”focusedonroutinizedformsof“uniformbehavior”that
“excludesspontaneousactionoroutstandingachievement.”Thiscontrastleadsto
oneofthemoreinfamousargumentofTheHumanCondition,constantlyappealedto
bycriticsofArendt’saestheticism:
Unlikehumanbehavior—whichfortheGreeks,likeallcivilizedpeople,
judgedaccordingto“moralstandards,”takingintoaccountmotivesand
intentions,ontheonehand,andaimsandconsequencesontheother—action
canonlybejudgedbythecriterionofgreatnessbecauseitisinitsnatureto
breakthroughthecommonlyacceptedandreachintotheextraordinary,
wherewhateveristrueincommonandeverydaylifenolongerapplies
becauseeverythingthatexistsisuniqueandsuigeneris.(205)
InOnRevolutionthiscontrastbetweenbehaviorandactionbecomesoneof
theconceptualdiscontinuitiesseparatingtheAmericanfromtheFrenchRevolution.
Inbothevents,Arendtwrites,therewasthe“ever-repeatedinsistencethatnothing
39
comparableingrandeurandsignificancehadeverhappenedinthewholerecorded
historyofhumankind,”butintheAmericancasethatgrandeurwasassociatedwith
actionandmutualcompact,whileintheFrenchitcametobeassociatedwiththe
sublimityof“History.”Thisdistinctionalsoseemstocorrespondcloselywiththe
oneelaboratedaboveinTocqueville’swork:betweenthe“religiousdread”of
historicaldeterminationandthefadinggrandeurofdisinterestedheroicaction.
ArendtdescribedtheFrenchrevolutionarycrowdsof1789asa“multitude,
appearingforthefirsttimeinbroaddaylight…themultitudeofthepoorand
downtrodden,whoeverycenturybeforehadhiddenindarknessandshame.”This
dangerousmultitudefloodingthepublicrealmbroughttheconcernsof“life’s
necessities”intoarealmoffreedom,overwhelmingitwithdemands“drivenbydaily
needs.”Justasrevolutionaryleadershadinitiatedactionsto“asserttheirgrandeur
andvindicatetheirhonor,”thecrushingsocialdemandsofthepoorsubmergedtheir
initiallypoliticalgoalswithsocialobjectives.Asrevolutionaryleaderslostcontrol
ofthecollectivedemandsofthecrowdstheythemselveshadincited,Arendtclaims,
itseemedtothemthatrevolutionaryactorswerenolongercapableofinitiatingor
takingcontrolofevents,butweremerelysuperficialexpressionsoflargerhistorical
forces.InFrance,shewrites,thisconfrontationwiththeforcesofHistory
“transformeditselfalmostimmediatelyintoafeelingofaweandwonderatthe
powerofhistoryitself.”InArendt’sanalysis,asinTocqueville’s,theRevolution’s
grandeurofactionwasreplacedbytheterriblespectacleofmassesbeing“driven
willynillyalongthesameroad,everyonejoiningthecommoncause,somedespite
40
themselvesothersunwittingly,allofthemlikeblindinstrumentsinthehandsof
God.”
Tocqueville’sinfluenceonArendt’saccountof“theriseofthesocial”has
beenpersuasivelyarguedbyPitkinandothers,butperhapsevenmorestriking(or
atleastsuggestive)ishispossibleinfluenceonherpositiveresponsetothis
condition.LikeTocqueville,Arendtsoughtsourcesofwonderandinspiration—
even“miracles”—inthesecularrealmofhumanactionitself,andmuchmorethan
himshedistrustedpoliticaltheologyandrenewedeffortstoretranscendetalizethe
politicalrealmbyappealtowhatshereferredtoas“theAbsolute.”Arendtrejected
thedangerouspost-Revolutionarysearchforthe“transcendentalsanctionforthe
politicalrealm,”yetaffirmedtheimportanceofanelevatedgrandeurtopolitics,asa
wayofsustaining“theesteemanddignityofpolitics”onthebasisofhumanactionin
concert.ThisisprobablymostclearinherfamousdiscussionoftheGreeklonging
for“earthlyimmortality,”withoutwhich,shewrites,“nopoliticsstrictlyspeaking,
nocommonworld,andnopublicrealmispossible,”butitisalsoanimportantpart
ofherRomandiscussionoftheauthorizingremembranceofthe“actofFounding.”
“Throughmanyagesbeforeus,”Arendtwrites,“butnownotanymore—men
enteredthepublicrealmbecausetheywantedsomethingoftheirownorsomething
theyhadincommonwithotherstobemorepermanentthantheirearthlylives.”
Arendt’spreoccupationwiththeloveoffameandimmortalitymaynotbe
motivatedbyGermannostalgiafortheGreekpolis,butbyheraresponsetoa
problemsimilartoTocqueville’scritiqueofliberalism’sempireofutility.Arendt
wasdisgustedbytheneo-imperialrhetoricofgloryassociatedwiththeBonapartist
41
mythand,likeConstantandMontesquieu,rejectedeffortstocloakthespectacleof
moderncommercialimperialisminthe“oldgrandeurofRomeandAlexanderthe
Great,”butherowneffortstofindimmanentsourcesforasenseofsublime
transcendencewithinthenon-sovereignconditionsofhumanactioninconcert
pointinthedirectionofnewwaysofthinkingtheimportanceofthegrandeurof
politicsthatnotonlymovebeyondTocqueville’simperialliberalism,butalso
potentiallybeyondtheegalitarianlimitationsofherownpoliticalvision.
Notes
1.AlexisdeTocqueville,DemocracyinAmericaandTwoEssaysonAmerica,trans.
GeraldE.Bevan(NewYork:PenguinBooks,2003),559.
2.Ibid.,560.
3.Ibid.,563.
4.Ibid.,565.
5.Tocqueville’sargumentsconcerningthepoliticalimportanceofasenseofthe
sublimehavesomesurprisingaffinitieswithcontemporarypsychologicalresearch.
PaulPiffandDacherKeltner,forexample,havedetailedhowasenseofawe—which
theydescribeas“thatoften-positivefeelingofbeinginthepresenceofsomething
vastthattranscendsourunderstandingoftheworld”—helpsindividualsovercome
thenarrowpurviewoftheirowninterests,bindsthemtoothers,andfacilitates
collaborativeactionwithothers.SeePaulPiffandDacherKeltner,“Whydowe
experienceawe?”NewYorkTimesMay22,2015
6.CitedinDanaJalbertStauffer,“TocquevilleontheModernMoralSituation:
DemocracyandtheDeclineofDevotion,”AmericanPoliticalScienceReview108:4
(November2014),772-782,776.
7.SeeRogerBoesche,TheStrangeLiberalismofAlexisdeTocqueville(Ithaca:Cornell
UniversityPress,1987).AlanKahanpursuesasimilarthemeinAristocratic
Liberalism:TheSocialandPoliticalThoughtofJacobBurkhardt,JohnStuartMill,and
AlexisdeTocqueville(OxfordUniversityPress,1992).
8.AndrewJainchill,ReimaginingPoliticsaftertheTerror:TheRepublicanOriginsof
FrenchLiberalism(Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress,2008).
9.ButseeMathewW.Maguire,TheConversionofImagination:FromPascalthrough
RousseautoTocqueville(Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress,2006).
10.Thisisso,eventhoughTocquevillehimselfoccasionallysuggeststhecontrary,as
whenhewritestohisbrotherEdouardthathis“devouringimpatience,”and“need
forlivelyandrecurringsensations,”isafamilytraithehasinheritedfromtheir
father.AlexisdeTocqueville,SelectedLettersonPoliticsandSocietyRogerBoesche,
ed.(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1985),147.
42
11.FrançoisMélonio,“TocquevilleandtheFrench,”inCherylBWelch,ed.
CambridgeCompaniontoTocqueville(NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,2006),
337-358,339.
12.RogerBoesche,Tocqueville’sRoadMap:Methodology,Liberalism,Revolution,and
Despotism(LexingtonBooks,2007),111.
13.SheldonWolinwritesthatagainstcontemporarypoliticaldemythologizerslike
MarxandBentham,Tocquevillewasamongthosepoliticaltheoristsseekinga
“remythologizingoftheworld.”SheldonWolin,TocquevilleBetweenTwoWorlds:
TheMakingofaPoliticalandTheoreticalLife(Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,
2003),134.Foratheoreticallyrichandhistoricallycontextualaccountofthese
broaderRomanticeffortsat“remythologization”seeMichaelLöwyandRobert
Sayre,RomanticismAgainsttheTideofModernity(Durham,NC:DukeUniversity
Press,2002).
14.OnthepoliticaltheoryofthesePrometheanaspirations,seeBernardYack,The
LongingforTotalRevolution:PhilosophicSourcesofSocialDiscontentfromRousseau
toMarxandNietzsche(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1992).
15.SusanBuck-Morss,“AestheticsandAnaesthetics:WalterBenjamin’sArtwork
EssayReconsidered,”October62(Autumn1992),3-41.
16.See,forexample,CatherineZuckert,“NotbyPreaching:TocquevilleontheRole
ofReligioninAmericanDemocracy,”ReviewofPolitics43:2(April1981),259-280.
ThisemphasisonreligionhasbeenthefocusofmanyStraussianinterpretationsof
Tocqueville,whichemphasizetheimportanceofpoliticaltheologyincontrastwith
whattheyconstrueasthemoralimpoverishmentofmodernliberalism.
17.SeeRobertMorrisey,TheEconomyofGlory:FromAncienRegimeFrancetothe
FallofNapoleon(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,2014).
18.GyörgyLukácsdiscussedthisideologicallypromiscuoustraditionunderthe
usefulcategoryof“AnticapitalistRomanticism.”
19.PierreManent,TocquevilleandtheNatureofDemocracy(Rowmanand
Littlefield,1996).
20.“Thefunctionofgrandeur,”Wolinwrites,“istoaffirmthepossibilityofenduring
meaning.”Wolin,TocquevilleBetweenTwoWorlds,446.
21.AlexisdeTocqueville,Recollections:TheFrenchRevolutionof1848,trans.George
Lawrence(NewBrunswick,NJ:TransactionPublishers,1995).
22.Arendt,OnRevolution,40.
23.AlexisdeTocquevilletoJohnStuartMill,June1835inRogerBoesche,ed.,
SelectedLettersonPoliticsandSociety,102.
24.Tocqueville,DemocracyinAmerica,16.
25.AlexisdeTocqueville,TheOldRegimeandtheRevolution(Chicago:Universityof
ChicagoPress,2001),84.
26.FrançoisFuret,InterpretingtheFrenchRevolution(Cambridge:Cambridge
UniversityPress,1981),142.
27.Ibid.,27.
28.PierreRosanvallon,DemocraticLegitimacy:Impartiality,Reflexivity,Proximity
(Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,2011),125.
29.Furet,InterpretingtheFrenchRevolution,52.
43
30.HaydenWhite,Metahistory:TheHistoricalImaginationinNineteenth-Century
Europe(Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,1975),191-229.
31.AlexisdeTocquevilletoArthurdeGobineau,December20,1853inJohnLukacs,
ed.,Tocqueville:TheEuropeanRevolutionandCorrespondencewithGobineau(New
York:Doubleday,1959),231-32.
32.Boesche,Tocqueville’sRoadMap,
33.Tocqueville,DemocracyinAmerica,
34.Ibid.,15.
35.Ibid.,14.
36.Ibid.,14.
37.Tocquevilleinvokesthissenseof“religiousdread”in“TwoWeeksinthe
Wilderness,”anoriginallyunpublishednarrativerecountingatripheandGustave
deBeaumonttooktotheGreatLakesregionduringtheirstayintheUnitedStates.
Therethephraseisusedtodescribehisexperienceofthe“profoundsilence”and
“perfectstillness”ofthemostremoteAmericanwild.Inthisenvironment,
Tocquevillewrites,“thesoulfeelspiercedwithasortofreligiousdread,”asall
change,therhythmsoflifeanddeath,seemtomergetogetherinaterriblestasis.In
bothDemocracyand“TwoWeeksintheWilderness”“religiousdread”isinvokedto
describeTocqueville’saffectiveresponsetoaworldinwhichagencyandthe
possibilitiesofdeliberateactionseemtohavedisappeared:intheone,theagencyof
secularhistory,intheother,thatofsacrednature.Tocquevilleassociatesthis
overwhelmingsensationwiththeterriblehandofProvidenceinhistoryinthefirst
instance,whereasin“TwoWeeksintheWilderness”Tocqueville’sreligiousdreadis
experiencedasthesensedabsenceofgodinnature.“TheCreatorappearstohave
turnedhisfaceawayforamoment,”Tocquevillewrites,“andtheforcesofnaturelie
inastateofparalysis.”Thereisanunderlyingcontinuityhere:whetherappliedto
thespectacleofhistoryortheuntouchedwildsofnature,Tocquevilleassociatesthe
experienceofreligiousdreadwiththeabsenceofanactorandawithdrawalof
meaning,withaterriblestasisorentropy.Tocqueville,“TwoWeeksinthe
Wilderness,”875-927,907.
38.FrankAnkersmit,“TocquevilleandtheSublimityofDemocracy,”Tocqueville
Review14(1993),173-201.
39.Tocqueville,SelectedLettersonPoliticsandSociety,215.
40.Wolin,TocquevilleBetweenTwoWorlds,136.
41.CitedinAndreJardin,Tocqueville:ABiography(NewYork:Farrar,Strauss,and
Giroux,1989),452.
42.Tocqueville,DemocracyinAmerica,750.
43.RichardBoyd,“TocquevilleandtheNapoleonicLegend,”inEwaAtanassowand
RichardBoyd,ed.,TocquevilleandtheFrontiersofDemocracy(Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversityPress,2013),264-287,265.OnthepoweroftheNapoleonic
mythseeSudhirHazareesingh,TheSaint-Napoleon:CelebrationsofSovereigntyin
Nineteenth-CenturyFrance(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,2004).
44.Tocqueville,DemocracyinAmerica,573.
45.Ibid.,575.
46.Ibid.,573.
44
47.Ibid.,574.
48.Wolin,TocquevilleBetweenTwoWorlds,100;Tocqueville,DemocracyinAmerica,
576.
49.DouglasJohnson
50.LindaOrr,HeadlessHistory:Nineteenth-CenturyFrenchHistoriographyofthe
Revolution(Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress,1990).
51.CitedinBoesche,Tocqueville’sRoadMap,
52.JulesMichelet,ThePeople(Urbana,IL:UniversityofIllinois,1973),95.
53.Wolin,TocquevilleBetweenTwoWorlds,15.
54.EyalChowers,TheModernSelfintheLabyrinth:PoliticsandtheEntrapment
Imagination(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,2004).
55.BenjaminConstant,“TheSpiritofConquestandUsurpation,”inPolitical
Writings,trans.anded.byBiancamariaFontana(Cambridge,Eng.:Cambridge
UniversityPress,1988),p.51.
56.J.G.A.Pocock,Virtue,Commerce,andHistory:EssaysonPoliticalThought
PrimarilyintheEighteenthCentury(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1985);
AlbertO.Hirschman,ThePassionsandtheInterests:PoliticalArgumentsfor
CapitalismbeforeitsTriumph(Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1997).
57.SeeTimBlanning,TheRomanticRevolution:AHistory(NewYork:Modern
Library,2012).
58.QuotedinHirschman,ThePassionsandtheInterests,106.
59.Tocqueville,TheOldRegimeandtheRevolution,178.
60.OnTocqueville’sadaptationofthe“tropesandthemesofclassical
republicanism,”seeJainchill,ReimaginingPoliticsaftertheTerror,304-305;Melvin
Richter,“TheUsesofTheory:Tocqueville’sAdaptationofMontesquieu,”inEssaysin
TheoryandHistory:AnApproachtotheSocialSciences,ed.Richter(Cambridge,
Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1970);AlanKahan,AristocraticLiberalism,Ch.4.
61.Tocqueville,DemocracyinAmerica,612.
62.Ibid.,612.
63.Ibid.,806.
64.Wolin,TocquevilleBetweenTwoWorlds,120.
65.Ibid.,120.
66.Tocqueville,DemocracyinAmerica,604.
67.Ibid.,207.
68.Ibid.,750.
69.Tocqueville,SelectedLettersonPoliticsandSociety,322
70.SeeHannaFenichelPitkin,AttackoftheBlob:HannahArendt’sConceptofthe
Social(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1998).
71.Tocqueville,Recollections,11.
72.Ibid.,64-65.
73.Tocqueville,SelectedLettersonPoliticsandSociety,125.
74.Boyd,“TocquevilleandtheNapoleonicLegend,”279.
75.Tocqueville,SelectedLettersonPoliticsandSociety,153.
76.Ibid.,150.
77.Ibid.,151.
45
78.Ibid.,151.216
79.Ibid.,143.
80.Constant,“TheSpiritofConquestandUsurpation,”54.
81.“Itwasmilitaryglorywhichintoxicatedthenationwhilethenetsofdespotism
werespreadoutbysomemenwhosemeannessandcorruptioncannotbe
sufficientlyemphasized.”MadamedeStaël(Anne-LouiseGermaine),Considerations
onthePrincipalEventsoftheFrenchRevolution,AurelianCraiutu,ed.(Indianapolis:
LibertyFund,2007),490.
82.Constant,“TheSpiritofConquestandUsurpation,”82.
83.Boyd,“TocquevilleandtheNapoleonicLegend,”276.
84.CitedinJardin,Tocqueville,341.
85.AlexisdeTocqueville,“EssayonAlgeria”(October1841)inWritingsonEmpire
andSlavery,JenniferPitts,ed.(Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,2001),
59-116,59.
86.Ibid.,59.
87.JenniferPitts,“DemocracyandDomination:Empire,Slavery,andDemocratic
CorruptioninTocqueville’sPoliticalThought,”inAtanassowandBoyd,eds.,
TocquevilleandtheFrontiersofDemocracy,243-263,250.
88.Boyd,“TocquevilleandtheNapoleonicLegend,”279.
89.Tocqueville,DemocracyinAmerica,738.
90.CoreyRobin,“EasytobeHard,”inTheReactionaryMind:FromEdmundBurketo
SarahPalin(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,2011),217-245,227.
91.CitedinHazareesingh,SaintNapoleon,182.Onradicalegalitarianaesthetic
critiquesofutilityinnineteenth-centuryFrance,seeespeciallyJacquesRancière,
ProletarianNights:TheWorker’sDreaminNineteenth-CenturyFrance(NewYork:
Verso,2012).
92.PierreRosanvallon,DemocraticLegitimacy:Impartiality,Reflexivity,Proximity
(Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,2011),126.
93.“TocquevilletoNassauWilliamSenior(April10,1848),”inSelectedLetterson
PoliticsandSociety,205-208,207.
94.GustaveFlaubert,SentimentalEducation(NewYork:Penguin,2004).
95.“TocquevilletoEugèneStoffels(October5,1836),”inSelectedLettersonPolitics
andSociety,112-115,113.
96.AurelianCriaatu,LiberalismUnderSiege:ThePoliticalThoughtoftheFrench
Doctrinaires(LexingtonBooks,2003),92.
97.“TocquevilletoCorcelleOctober19,1839,”citedinWolin,BetweenTwoWorlds,
121.
98.CitedinBoesche,Tocqueville’sRoadmap,101.
99.Boesche,Tocqueville’sRoadmap,48.
100.Tocqueville,Recollections,6.
101.Tocqueville,TheEuropeanRevolutionandCorrespondencewithGobineau,161.
102.Tocqueville,Recollections,70.
103.“TocquevilletoNassauWilliamSenior,April10,1848,”inSelectedLetterson
PoliticsandSociety,205-208,208.
104.CitedinJardin,Tocqueville,305.
46
105.Tocqueville,Recollections,76.
106.Tocqueville,Recollections,62.
107.Ibid.,53.
108.Wolin,TocquevilleBetweenTwoWorlds,444.
109.Ibid.,445.
110.Ibid.,443.
111.SeeDanEdelstein,TheTerrorofNaturalRight:Republicanism,theCultof
Nature,andtheFrenchRevolution(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,2009).
112.Tocqueville,Recollections,119.
113.Tocqueville,Recollections,189.
114.“TocquevilletoLouisdeKergolay,May16,1858,”inSelectedLettersonPolitics
andSociety,371-374,373.
115.Tocqueville,“MyInstinct,MyOpinion,”citedinCraiutu,“Tocqueville’s
ParadoxicalModeration,”ReviewofPolitics67:4(Fall2005),599-630,604.
116.Tocqueville,Recollections,38.
117.Tocqueville,DemocracyinAmerica,189.
118.Tocqueville,Recollections,114.
119.Ibid.,136.
120.“TocquevilletoGobineau,September5,1843,”inTheEuropeanRevolutionand
CorrespondencewithGobineau,190-195,193.
121.“TocquevilletoPaulClamorgan,June24,1848,”inSelectedLettersonPolitics
andSociety,212-214,213.
122.Tocqueville,Recollections,136.
123.NeilHertzhasaquitedifferentreadingofthisscene.
124.Tocqueville,“TheEmancipationofSlaves(1843),”inPitts,ed.Writingson
EmpireandSlavery,199-226,199.
125.Ibid.,199.
47