Alexis de Tocqueville: L’Ancien Régime et la Révolution. Paris: Éditions AOJB, n.d.
Alexis de Tocqueville: The Old Regime and the French Revolution. Arthur Goldhammer translation. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
In each of his major books, Tocqueville presents his reader with a mass of carefully observed detail and carefully researched information. One might easily be overwhelmed, lost in these forests of fact-trees. Complicating matters further, Tocqueville’s literary style conveys nuance of judgment, subtlety, even a certain reserve. Like his admired Montesquieu, he wants not only to make you read; he wants to make you think. Tocqueville understands the risks to which he exposes his reader, and always works to minimize them when he introduces his book to him. And so, at the beginning of Democracy in America, he carefully points out that the title is exact; this is a book about democracy, not about America. He takes America as the “sample democracy,” the best example of a civil society no longer ruled by persons who claim to be ‘born to rule’ the mass of men who lack such title. Democracy means civil-social equality; the regime that rules such a society may be republican, as in America, or despotic, as in France under Napoleon. But in either case the society is egalitarian, and America exemplifies democracy, in that sense of the term. Those who ignore Tocqueville’s guidance characteristically complain that there’s not enough in the Democracy about natural rights, that he never mentions the Declaration of Independence, and so on. But he isn’t writing about America, fundamentally, at all. As he tells you, if you read his introduction.
For the same reason, the Foreword to The Old Regime and the Revolution offers indispensable guidance to understanding a shorter but in some respects more complex book, a book written by a Frenchman about France, primarily if far from exclusively for the French. For such a task, discretion is de rigeur. Tocqueville must provide his fellow-citizens with exactly the right point of entry.
He tells them what his book is, in three ways. He identifies its genre; he states its purpose; and he formulates its problématique—both the problem it addresses and the solution it offers. An important part of the solution is to bring the reader to understand that there is no permanent solution to the problem of politics, and why that is a good thing.
What his book is, I. Respecting the genre of his book, Tocqueville says it isn’t a history of the French Revolution but a “study” of it. This recalls his call in the Democracy for “a new political science for a world altogether new,” a civil-socially democratized world. “Democracy” or civil-social equality causes things to happen, and is itself a cause; a study in political science begins with a search for the causes of political things.
The causes of the French Revolution are difficult to find. In 1789, he recalls, the French attempted to sever their past from their future. “Unbeknownst to themselves,” they failed, but they did succeed in obscuring the causes of the revolution by that attempted severance. As a “study” of the revolution, his book aims at removing this ignorance and replacing it with knowledge—a more sober ‘enlightenment,’ as it were, than the original one, which contributed so much to the ill-judged ambition of historical severance, in the effort to sweep away all that was old in the old regime and to make the world anew. The most radical of the revolutionaries eventually produced a new regime and a new civil Society. However, the sentiments, habits, and ides that constituted this new civil society were materials gleaned, unintentionally, from the debris of the old civil society of the old regime. In considering the laws, the customs, and the spirit “of the government and the nation” under the old regime, Tocqueville will show how its institutions actually worked, how the social classes related to one another, the conditions and feelings of “unseen” elements of the population, and the true basis of French opinions and customs. The primary sources for his inquiry are the cahiers de doléances, the ‘grievance books’ wherein the complaints of the French people were collected by government officials of the old regime. In undertaking this study, “Everywhere I found the roots of today’s society firmly implanted in this old soil.”
What his book is, II. The purpose of the book is to show why this “great Revolution” erupted in France, not elsewhere in Europe, where it was also “in gestation.” Further, why did the revolution “emerg[e] fully formed from the society that it was to destroy”? And how could the old monarchy have fallen so suddenly and completely?
What his book is, III. Tocqueville does not intend his study to be merely descriptive. The revolution had causes, including its purposes, but so does his book. He intends to identify a problem and to solve it. The book’s ‘problématique‘ consists of the contradiction between the revolutionaries’ original intent—to destroy privileges but also to “recognize and consecrate rights,” an intent animated both “the love of equality and that of liberty”—and its result—a nation whose “single wish” was “to become equal servants of the master of the world,” Napoleon, who offered them equality without liberty. That is, the French went from monarchy to republicanism back to monarchy, now a monarchy tricked out with false popular sovereignty expressed by fraudulent votes. The goal of Tocqueville’s consideration of this problem is “a portrait that would be not only strictly accurate but also perhaps educational”—indeed, civic-educational. He will call attention to the “manly virtue” seen in the republicans who revolutionized the old regime, “a true spirit of independence, a yearning for greatness” animated by French faith in themselves. A serious consequence of the revolution, however, was to weaken that spirit and that yearning. Under Napoleon, France became bigger, temporarily, but the French became smaller, and have stayed that way. Can the French make France great, again? Tocqueville would inspire them to try, even as Charles de Gaulle would do, a century later.
The principal impediment to the restoration of French greatness is “narrow individualism,” that tool of despotism which inclines men to stop being citizens, to devote themselves exclusively to enriching themselves and so to “divert attention from public affairs.” However unjust, the castes, the classes, the guilds, and the families of the old regime taught civic virtue by placing every French man and woman within civic associations that required them to think beyond themselves. Tocqueville does not imagine that the French of the old regime, of any regime anywhere, will not feel all the passions connected with self-interest. But only despotism “furnishes the secrecy and the shadow which allow cupidity to thrive and permits one to amass dishonest profit in defiance of dishonor.” “Without despotism these [debilitating passions] would be strong; with it they rule.”
The civic education Tocqueville offers his readers teaches that only political liberty can counteract narrow individualism, by what he calls in the Democracy the art of association, and also by a sense of, and pride in, the nation, patriotism. Political liberty educates and elevates what Plato’s Socrates identifies as the three parts of the human soul. Political liberty brings citizens to substitute higher passions for the love of material comfort; it thereby moderates the bodily desires. Political liberty supplies ambition with higher goals than those of mere ‘captains of industry’; it thereby directs thumos, the spirited part of the soul, toward the common good. And only political liberty “can create the light by which it is possible to see and judge the vices and virtues of mankind.” By this he means that you can see people clearly, see them for what they are, only if they are free to speak and to act in public hearing and in public view. Political liberty benefits logos, the reasoning part of the soul, allowing it to take its bearings in its inquiries into human nature and sharpening its dialectical powers in public debate.
By strengthening all three parts of the human soul, political liberty alone can form the great citizens who comprise a great people. Despotism can have good private citizens and even good Christians, inasmuch as Christians amass their treasure not in this world but in heaven. But “the common level” of minds and hearts will steadily diminish so long as civil-social equality and a regime of despotism remain conjoined. “I thought and said as much twenty years ago,” when he wrote Democracy in America.
Proponents of despotism, Bonapartists then and now, share one thing with himself, Tocqueville astringently suggests. “What man is there, by nature, with soul so base as to prefer depending on the caprices of another man, the same as himself, instead of obeying laws which he himself contributed to establishing, if his nation seems to have the virtues necessary for making good use of liberty?” And indeed even “the despots themselves do not deny that liberty is excellent; only they want it solely for themselves, insisting that all the other are unworthy of it.” The difference lies not “in the opinion one ought to have of liberty,” but “in the greater or lesser estimation one makes of men.” Thus “it is rigorously accurate to say that the taste one shows for absolute government is in exact proportion to the contempt one professes for his country.” Tocqueville asks for more time before “converting myself to this sentiment” about France.
The second and third sections of the study, Books II and III, address the purpose of the book as stated in the foreword: why the revolution occurred in France, not elsewhere (beginning in II.i, continued throughout); why it emerged fully formed from the old civil society (beginning in II.ii, also continued throughout; and why the monarchy collapsed so rapidly and completely (beginning in III.4, continuing to the end of the study). Linking the Foreword to those longer, main sections, Book I consists of five chapters which describe the key elements of the revolution, the causes of which he will identify and analyze in Books II and III.
Book I’s first chapter shows why a genre other than a history, why a study founded on the new political science, is necessary. He describes the contradictory judgments of the revolution observers ventured at its inception; even in their confusion, all agreed that it was “extraordinary.” But a topical approach, an attempt to gather facts and even judge a complex course of events during or immediately after it takes place, will not only miss important facts unavailable to contemporary observers, it will usually lack an adequate analytical framework for understanding the facts, even when a larger collection of them has been assembled by the researcher. More, without such an analytical framework, the distinguishing feature of a “study” not a history, the task of selecting the relevant facts will be fatally handicapped. Even a man of Edmund Burke’s genius, Tocqueville will argue, didn’t quite ‘get it right,’ because he could not.
In the second chapter Tocqueville links the genre of his book—a “study” aiming at determining the causes of the revolution—to the purposes of the revolution itself, the ends the revolutionaries pursued. Eliminated one of the causes of confusion about the revolution he had alluded to in the previous chapter, he denies that the fundamental purpose of the revolution was either to destroy religious authority or to weaken political authority. Although the revolutionaries were indeed in the grips of “irreligious passion,” this was “incidental.” The Enlightenment philosophes who gave the revolutionaries their ideas propounded “the natural equality of human beings”; this was the “substance” of the revolution. Its anti-religious passion therefore aimed at the inegalitarian institutions of the Church, its hierarchy, not at Christianity itself. Since then, Christianity has revived, precisely because democracy comports with it. As readers of the Democracy know, Tocqueville identifies Christianity as the first way in which the idea of human equality penetrated the opinions of the generality of men, beyond the coteries of philosophers. As for political authority, in the end the revolution didn’t issue in anarchy. On the contrary, it enhanced governmental centralization, “replac[ing] the aristocrats with functionaries,” with administrators drawn from the bourgeoisie.
In the third, central chapter of Book I, Tocqueville shows how this religiosity and this statism combined. That is, having established that the revolution was not irreligious but religious in its own way, and having remarked its statist character, he shows how the revolutionaries combined these two features into the new French civil society and regime. The French revolution was a political revolution that proceeded in the manner of a religious revolution. Like the newer, universalist religions—Christianity and Islam—although the revolution began in France it finally had “no territory of its own”; it provided men with “a common intellectual fatherland.” He compares it to the Protestant Reformation, which also proceeded by preaching and propaganda. Unlike the ancient religions, described a few decades earlier by Numa Denis Fustel de Coulanges, universalist religions “are rooted in human nature”—in man as such. Indeed, there had been “no great religious revolution before Christianity” because all religions were local, tied to places, lands and temples held sacred by their adherents. The French Revolution did in this world what Christianity did for ‘the other world’ or ‘the next world,’ making it a place every soul yearned to be, a place for “the regeneration of the human race.” The “new kind of religion” proposed by the revolutionaries demanded the worldly equivalents of heavenly bliss and the terrors of hellfire. It is in view of the universalist ambition of this creed that Tocqueville titles his book L’Ancien Régime et la Révolution, not L’Ancien Régime et la Revolution Française.
The book’s purpose, as stated in the Foreword, is to explain why the Revolution occurred in France, not elsewhere. Before the revolution, Tocqueville observes in I.iv., Europeans had the same ruling institutions, the institutions of feudalism, and they were now weak and listless, lacking vitality or spirit. Aristocracy suffered from “senile dementia”; political liberty had become “sterile.” A new “spirit of the times” prevailed, as feudalism lost its “grip on the hearts of the people.” Civil society remained vital, but not feudal institutions and laws. The modern state had drained these of their life, increasingly placing all its subjects into a condition not of feudal hierarchy but of equality before the law. The monarchic regime drew the aristocrats off the land and into Paris, the capital of the ever-centralizing French state, distracting them with frivolities while forging the administrative ligatures designed to rule the land and the people on it from that capital.
The fifth and final chapter of Book I describes the “essential achievement” of the revolution. Here, Tocqueville points to the problématique, especially the solution the revolution proffered to France, Europe, indeed the world. As both “a social and political revolution,” its initial anarchy masked increased state power, a continuation of the Old Regime’s statist centralism not a rupture with it. The revolution did entail changes in “ideas, sentiments, habits, and mores,” turning them even further against from aristocratic civil society and feudal political institutions. Democracy in France revealed itself suddenly and dramatically, not piece-by-piece, as in England. In explaining why this was so, Tocqueville turns to the substantive, analytical portions of his study, beginning in Book II.
This leaves his reader with the task of working through his analysis of the causes of the revolution that began in France. In a letter to his friend M. de Corcelle, Tocqueville wrote, “I think that the books which have most roused men to reflection and have had the most influence upon their opinions and their actions, are those in which the author does not tell them dogmatically what they are to think, but puts them into the way of finding the truth for themselves.” This is as true for citizens as it is for philosophers. “I am convinced that the excellence of political societies does not depend upon their laws, but upon what they are prepared to become by the sentiments, principles, and opinions, the moral and intellectual qualities given by nature and education.” Tocqueville cannot change the nature of the French, the nature of human beings, or the nature of the modern man, the democrat, the man who began to take shape with the advent of Christianity. But he can contribute to the civil education of the French citizen and the modern democrat. “Without pretending to teach” in the sense of dogmatic instruction, Tocqueville would “show to him in every page what are the sentiments, opinions, and morals which lead to prosperity and freedom, and what are the vices and errors infallibly opposed to those blessings.” This is indeed “the chief, and I may say the only, object I have in view.” [1] Throughout, it is indispensable for Tocqueville’s reader to keep in mind the guidance Tocqueville provides, at the outset.
Note
- Letter to M. de Corcelle, September 17, 1853, in Memoirs, Letters, and Remains of Alexis de Tocqueville. Two volumes. London: Macmillan and Company, 1861. Volume II, pp. 235-39. I am indebted to Robert Eden for drawing my attention to this letter.
Recent Comments