Summary: Democracy in America (page 5)

American democracy is also founded on productivism and the division of labour, as conceptualised by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations.

Certainly, the division of labour increases efficiency. By performing a single task repeatedly, each worker eventually acquires a dexterity that enhances his productivity. However, Tocqueville observes that while the worker perfects his craft, man himself deteriorates ¹.

In an explicit allusion to Adam Smith, he asks: What can be expected of a man who has spent twenty years of his life making pinheads? ².

The worker becomes obstinate, weak, and dependent, his focus narrowed to a single task. Meanwhile, the master acquires an ever-broadening perspective: His mind expands in direct proportion to the narrowing of the worker's. One increasingly resembles the administrator of a vast empire, while the other degenerates into a brute ³.

Thus, the productivism born at the heart of democracy paradoxically appears to be giving rise to a new form of aristocracy:

The master and the worker have nothing in common here, and they grow further apart each day. One seems born to obey, the other to command. What is this if not aristocracy? ⁴.

Or again: It seems that aristocracy is emerging naturally from the very bosom of democracy ⁵.

We have seen that the equality inherent in democracy, along with the tyranny of the majority, leads to the uniformity of individuals. We have also observed that democracy is characterised by profound change.

From these two phenomena emerges a paradox: in American democracy, everything changes, yet this change produces no real difference, as everyone remains alike. Conversely, in an aristocracy, nothing changes, yet individuals differ greatly: Nothing stirs there, yet everything differs ⁶.

Thus: The appearance of American society is restless, as men and things are in constant flux; yet it remains monotonous, as all change is uniform ⁷.

Tocqueville defines honour as a set of specific rules peculiar to a people (in contrast to morality, which follows universal laws): Honour is nothing other than a particular rule, founded on a particular state, by which a people or a class distinguishes between blame and praise ⁸.

Indeed, whenever men form a distinct society, a code of honour immediately arises among them—a set of opinions unique to their group regarding what deserves praise or blame ⁹.

The values upheld by honour are those upon which a society has been founded. In a monarchy, for instance, loyalty may be paramount, as such a regime cannot endure without the allegiance of lords and knights.

American democracy, by contrast, was shaped by commerce and industry. In such societies, honour readily accommodates the pursuit of wealth and is even rooted in that very sentiment—one that aristocratic societies condemn: The American deems noble and estimable that ambition which our medieval forefathers called servile greed ¹⁰.

Given that everything is in constant flux in democracies, are they faced with an unceasing risk of revolutions? Not necessarily. Revolutions typically arise to eradicate inequality, yet democracies are defined by a profound equality of conditions. There are few very wealthy or very destitute individuals, but a large middle class, naturally conservative and inclined towards moderate reform: People in democracies do not instinctively seek revolutions; rather, they fear them ¹¹.

The reason is straightforward: revolutions threaten property, and most inhabitants of democracies are property owners. Likewise, revolutions typically devastate trade and industry. Given how widespread these are in democracies, social stability becomes a universal aspiration:

Indeed, I know of nothing more antithetical to revolutionary mores than commercial habits. Commerce is, by nature, the enemy of all violent passions ¹².

¹ II, p.222
² ibid.
³ II, p.223
⁴ ibid.
⁵ II, p.224
⁶ II, p.314
⁷ II, p.318
⁸ II, p.323
⁹ II, p.325
¹⁰ II, p.347
¹¹ II, p.349