The nineteenth-century French writer examines the development of democratic government in the United States and the state of political and social life.

The Old Regime and the Revolution is Alexis de Tocqueville's great meditation on the origins and meanings of the French Revolution. One of the most profound and influential studies of this pivotal event, it remains a relevant and stimulating discussion of the problem of preserving individual and political freedom in the modern world. Alan Kahan's translation provides a faithful, readable rendering of Tocqueville's last masterpiece, and includes notes and variants which reveal Tocqueville's sources and include excerpts (...) from his drafts and revisions. The introduction by France's most eminent scholars of Tocqueville and the French Revolution, Françoise Mélonio and the late François Furet, provides a brilliant analysis of the work. (shrink)

Alexis de Tocqueville, 1805 geboren, war ein um dreizehn Jahre älterer Zeitgenosse von Karl Marx. Beide beherrschte vom ersten Erwachen ihrer geistigen Regsamkeit an das Bewußtsein, in einer Zeit unerhörter Umwäl zungen aller Prinzipien und aller Bedingungen zu leben, die bis dahin für die Ordnung und den Geist des täglichen Lebens in der menschlichen Ge sellschaft maßgebend gewesen waren. Was die geistige Leidenschaft beider - so ver~chiedenartiger, so entgegengesetzter Menschen - von vornherein fesselte, war die Frage nach der (...) Bedeutung, nach dem Wo-Hinaus dieser Entwicklung und ihr Verlangen, die entscheidenden Momente dieser Ver änderung bestimmen zu können. In der Unmittelbarkeit und Eindringlich keit der Beobachtung, in der Kraft und Schärfe der Analyse und was die grundsätzliche Bedeutung des Aspektes anbetrifft, unter dem sie die Er eignisse ihrer Zeit begriffen, konnte wohl einer dem anderen die Waage halten. Ja, in einer Hinsicht mindestens mochte Tocqueville sogar Marx übertreffen: in dem aufrichtigen Bemühen um vollständige Vorurteils losigkeit und in dem ernsten Bewußtsein der Verantwortung als Mitleben der seiner Zeit. Beide, Marx wie Tocqueville, konstatieren übereinstimmend - wenn auch aus sehr verschiedener Perspektive - zwei entscheidende Merkmale ihrer Zeit: einmal die Tendenz zu einer vollständigen Aufhebung aller gesell schaftlichen Unterscheidung, den Zug zu einer fortschreitenden Gleichheit der Vielen. Und ferner: den zwangsläufigen Charakter dieser Entwick lung, die ihre Antriebe aus der gesamten Vergangenheit und Geistesart des Abendlandes erhält. (shrink)

Über die Demokratie in Nordamerika.--Über dei Demokratie in Amerika,--Rede zur Aufnahme in die Französische Akademie.--Über Politik und Wissenschaft.--Aus den "Erinnerungen".--Aus dem Briefwechsel.--Aus "Das ancien Régime und die Revolution."--Aus den Fragmenten zur Fortsetzung von "L'ancien régime et la révolution."--Allgemeine Bemerkungen über die Florentinische Republik, besonders über den Unterschied zwischen der sogennanten Florentiner Demokratie und unserer heutigen Demokratie.--Aphorismen.

This book provides the first complete, literal English translation of Alexis de Tocqueville’s and Gustave de Beaumont’s first edition of On the Penitentiary System in the United States and Its Application to France. The work contains a critical comparison of two competing American penitentiary disciplines known as the Auburn and Philadelphia systems, an evaluation of whether American penitentiaries can successfully work in France, a detailed description of Houses of Refuge as the first juvenile detention centers, and an argument (...) against penal colonization. The work provides valuable insights into understanding Tocqueville as a statesman, as well as a comparative look at civic engagement in early American and French penal reform movements. The Translator’s Introduction provides historical context for understanding Tocqueville’s work in French penal reform and the major themes of the report. The book thus fills a void in Tocquevillian studies and extrapolates the roots of American and French criminal justice systems in the nineteenth century. (shrink)

This article discusses Tocqueville’s and Mill’s views of the cultural progress of indigenous colonial societies in the context of the current debate about the Enlightenment. The analysis of their philosophical outlooks tends to support Jonathan Israel’s interpretation of the Enlightenment, yet with one important difference: while Israel emphasizes the Radical Enlightenment as the chief instigator of the movement towards modern democracy, Tocqueville’s and Mill’s views emphasize the preponderance of the Moderate Enlightenment, which, while sharing the radical advocacy for (...) rationalism, broad education, religious toleration, the critique of despotism, and other enlightened ideals, nonetheless shunned support of full democracy or universal suffrage. Tocqueville’s and Mill’s Eurocentric views regarding the possible ameliorative influence of colonialism emphasize how the ideals of the Moderate Enlightenment had an overriding effect on the emergence of nineteenth-century liberalism. While this conclusion broadly accepts Israel’s outline of the intellectual history of the Enlightenment, it gives greater weight than he does to the Moderate Enlightenment. (shrink)

Alexis de Tocqueville mantuvo una muy abundante correspondencia a lo largo de su vida. Familiares y relevantes contemporáneos, no sólo franceses, figuran entre sus destinatarios. Sus cartas ofrecen una parte esencial de su pensamiento, expuesto con la libertad propia del género epistolar, y representan una componente de primera importancia dentro de su obra literaria. Las Cartas Americanas, escritas entre abril de 1831 y febrero de 1832 con ocasión de su viaje al Nuevo Mundo, son un buen ejemplo. Además, (...) por servir de referencia inmediata a su gran obra, La democracia en América, cobran un valor excepcional. Cabe pensar que este apartado de la correspondencia tocquevillana, acotado en el tiempo a la perfección, está bien estudiado al día de hoy. Sin embargo una carta, dirigida a su hermano Edouard 3 el 20 de junio de 1831 desde Nueva York e inédita hasta este momento, evidencia que no es así. A ello nos referimos en este trabajo. (shrink)

The purpose of this paper is fundamentally didactic, in that it approaches in a descriptive way some of the basic notions of the philosophical-political thought of Alexis de Tocqueville including democracy and social equity and the dialectical concept of freedom. This paper focuses mainly on some chapters of the Tocqueville’s masterpiece ‘Democracy in America’ and ends with an epilogue where interpretative ideas are proposed in order to provide an updated framework for his thought.

In 1835, Alexis de Tocqueville famously called for 'a new political science' that could address the problems and possibilities of a 'world itself quite new.' For Tocqueville, the democratic world needed not just a new political science, but also new arts of statesmanship and leadership. In this volume, editors Brian Danoff and L. Joseph Hebert, Jr. have brought together a diverse set of essays which reveal that Tocqueville's understanding of democratic statesmanship remains highly relevant today.

Alexis de Tocqueville was one of the greatest political thinkers of all time. Born a French aristocrat, he lost nearly his entire family in the Reign of Terror, and he spent most of his adult life struggling for liberty under the unsuccessful regimes of nineteenth-century France. At age twenty-five he travelled to America and encountered democracy for the first time. This firsthand experience contributed to his incisive writing on liberty and democracy. The ancien re;gime launched the scholarly study (...) of the French Revolution, and Democracy in America remains the best book ever written by a European about the United States. This is a brilliant account of his life. (shrink)

In this chapter I argue that Alexis de Tocqueville describes the virtue of citizenship in a way that is relevant to contemporary virtue ethics. He explains how a group can possess a virtue that is distinct from the virtue of individual members of the group. (this is an unofficial draft).

The article attempts to apply Alexis de Tocqueville`s views in the area of selected second- and third-generation human rights, i. e. the rights that over the course of the first half of the 19 th century were not - with some exceptions - anchored in positive law. It takes form of sort of intellectual exercise in which, based on Tocqueville`s work, his potential stance towards chosen human rights is reconstructed. The paper briefly presents modern standards referring to (...) second- and third-generation human rights, and confronts these with legal provisions provided by the French constitutions during and prior to Tocqueville`s life. The following parts of the paper show general Tocqueville`s stance towards the concept of human rights and attempt to answer the question issued in the title of the article. (shrink)

Tocqueville, como todos los grandes clásicos, es inagotable. A man for all seasons, como lo prueba su reciente éxito en China y Japón, dos países y dos sistemas políticos tan alejados de la historia europea y del modelo democrático que él describió que le hubiera parecido sorprendente que le utilizaran como referencia. Ser un clásico inagotable con solo dos obras de obligada lectura es un logro del que pocos pueden vanagloriarse. Quizá Hobbes, quizá John Locke, dos de los autores (...) que menciona Lucien Jaume en el primer artículo de este monográfico que presentamos en la revista Araucaria. (shrink)

Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859) was born into an aristocratic family with strong political connections. He served as a representative in the French Chamber of Deputies starting in 1839 and was briefly Minister of Foreign of Affairs in 1849. As an author, he attained instant fame after publishing the first part of Democracy in America in 1835 (the second part appeared in 1840). In 1838, he was elected to the Academy of Moral and Political Sciences and, in 1841, to (...) the even more prestigious French Academy whose forty members were, in principle, the greatest living writers in the French language, known as 'the immortals.' In spite of these achievements, his was an anguished life. He was tormented by the depressing fluctuations of his country between revolution and Bonapartism, and by his own political ineffectiveness. Yet, it was not a failed life. Although he was unable to modify the course of history, he succeeded in articulating a new set of terms for the comprehension of political regimes and how they change. His cultivation of paradoxical theses (for example, that revolutions often occur when improving social conditions create rising expectations), his perception of how cultural values affect government and vice versa, and finally, his capacity to dramatize why the understanding of social institutions is an important part of our search for meaning in life, all this made him a profound historical and sociological thinker. The existential problem at the heart of Tocqueville's identity was that he was a democratically inclined aristocrat. (shrink)

In this article we are concerned with an analysis of the modern crisis of democracy. This aim should be pursued through the related works of Alexis de Tocqueville and Max Weber. The study begins with the claim that both authors, not only are concerned with the analysis of the rising mass democracy, but furthermore they outline the main tendencies of this new form of society. On the one hand, there is a proclivity of the contemporary systems to enter (...) into what could be denominated «individualist despotism». On the other hand, the underpinning of the plebiscitary democracy runs through an increasing «bureaucratization», which remains on the intensive process of instrumental rationality. (shrink)

Alexis de Tocqueville is recognized as one of the most important nineteenth-century historians. In this perceptive study, Harvey Mitchell examines afresh Tocqueville's works, including the Souvenirs of 1848 and his voluminous correspondence, to shed new light on his philosophy of history. Tocqueville's concern with historical forces and individual choice emerge as central to his work. Professor Mitchell reveals in Tocqueville a unity of thought and a deep involvement with the philosophical questions raised by historical continuity (...) and change. (shrink)

Na wstępie autor twierdzi, że w wyniku Wielkiej Rewolucji nastąpił podział francuskiej myśli politycznej XIX w. na dwa przeciwstawne sobie nurty: konserwatyzm i doktryny socjalistyczne. Przeciwstawienie takie utrudnia usytuowanie myśli Alexies de Tocquevllle na siatce ówczesnych sporów teoretycznych. Celem tej pracy jest ukazanie, w jaki sposób de Tocqueville, żywiąc niechęć do francuskiej ideologii socjalistycznej, nie mieści się również na przeciwległym biegunie stanowisk politycznych, tj. nie jest myślicielem konserwatywnym. Konfrontacja jego liberalnego i pluralistycznego modelu społeczeństwa z koncepcjami socjalistycznymi z jednej, (...) a myślą konserwatywną z drugiej strony, pozwala wykazać, jak te dwa zazwyczaj sobie przeciwstawne światopoglądy zbliżają się do siebie w sposobie rozumienia funkcji państwa. Obie ideologie żywią wspólną wiarę w siłę instytucji centralnych, a ich ideałem jest państwo o rozszerzonych kompetencjach. Socjaliści domagali się rządu represjonującego życie społeczne, aby szybciej i skutecznej wprowadzić słuszne zasady sprawiedliwości. Podobnie i zdaniem konserwatystów porządek społeczny cechować się musi hierarchią i realizacją zasady zwierzchnictwa. Tocqueville natomiast uważa, że społeczeństwo nie opiera się na porządku zesłanym przez Boga, ani też na schemacie wywiedzionym z praw natury czy kosmosu. Nie uznaje zatem hierarchicznej struktury społecznej, ani tezy o nadrzędności interesu politycznego względem celów prywatnych. Przeprowadzone w artykule porównania pozwalają konflikty ideologiczne lat 1815 - 1848 widzieć również jako spory toczone pomiędzy zasadą centralizacji a społecznym pluralizmem, wolnością a absolutyzmem politycznym. (shrink)

Alexis de Tocqueville is known for his strange liberalism. One of the reasons therefore has to be found in his lesser known strange religious belief. The three main elements that determined his belief were his aristocratic and profoundly religious education, the dramatic loss of his faith after reading eighteenth century French philosophers and his conviction that the stability of the American democracy was mainly due to religious mores. These elements explain why Tocqueville appeared in his publications as (...) an obvious believer, hardly bothered by any dubiety, while internally he was a restless doubter, sometimes a panicky infidel and occasionally some sort of believer anyway. The focus of this article is a meticulous dissection of Tocqueville’s personal belief by contrasting it with approaches of religion that look familiar at first sight. Although Tocqueville had the highest esteem for Pascal, his wager was not really tempting to him. James’ will to believe seemed far more attractive, yet Tocqueville’s thinking was too empirical to fit with it. Kant furnished strong arguments to overcome this obstacle, and in that respect he offered a solid philosophical ground to consider Tocqueville’s outlook on religion as an authentic religious belief. But what Tocqueville has never found was a religious ground to Christianity. As a matter of fact, Christianity was Tocqueville’s philosophical belief, rather than his religious belief. (shrink)

This book moves beyond traditional readings of Alexis de Tocqueville and his relevance to contemporary democracy by emphasizing the relationship of his life and work to modern feminist thought. Within the resurgence of political interest in Tocqueville during the past two decades, especially in the United States, there has been significant scholarly attention to the place of gender, race, and colonialism in his work. This is the first edited volume to gather together a range of this creative (...) scholarship. It reveals a tidal shift in the reception history of Tocqueville as a result of his serious engagement by feminist, gender, postcolonial, and critical race theorists. The volume highlights the expressly normative nature of Tocqueville’s project, thus providing an overdue counterweight to the conventional understanding of Tocquevillean America as an actual place in time and history. By reading Tocqueville alongside the writings of early women’s rights activists, ethnologists, critical race theorists, contemporary feminists, neoconservatives, and his French contemporaries, among others, this book produces a variety of Tocquevilles that unsettles the hegemonic view of his work. Seen as a philosophical source and a political authority for modern democracies since the publication of the twin volumes of _Democracy in America _, Tocqueville emerges from this collection as a vital interlocutor for democratic theorists confronting the power relations generated by intersections of gender, sexual, racial, class, ethnic, national, and colonial identities. In addition to the editors, the contributors are Jocelyn Boryczka, Richard Boyd, Christine Carey, Barbara Cruikshank, Laura Janara, Matthew Holbreich, Kathleen S. Sullivan, Alvin B. Tillery Jr., Lisa Pace Vetter, Dana Villa, Cheryl B. Welch, and Delba Winthrop. (shrink)