and assembly with a host of voluntary civic associations. If democracy worked, it worked in large part due to civic-mindedness and practicality born from local civil society.
Tocqueville thought that democracies face a fundamental dilemma. Self-interest is a basic feature of the sort of progressive, market-oriented society that is the foundation for democratic politics but the spirit of possessive individualism fosters egoism and selfish preferences that make management of common affairs difficult. Practically, the obligations among people are few and self-interest can crowd out public service. With its citizens disengaged and self-serving, public goods weaken and democratic government fails. Nevertheless, Tocqueville was convinced that democratic government could flourish, as it appeared it had in antebellum America. He proclaimed, “The Americans have combated the individualism to which equality gives birth with freedom, and they have defeated it” (Tocqueville 2000: 486). Instead of France’s extensive state bureaucracy, government led by public-minded citizens and propelled by civic associations provided most of the public goods Americans demanded. America’s limited government and federal system avoided the tyranny of the majority that can result from a strong, elected government favoring only its own supporters. Its decentralization and restricted scope meant that citizens had to rely on local initiatives that unleashed their self-interest in service of the public good. The American constitution established civil rights (for most white men, at least) and disestablished religion, permitting a flourishing of clubs and civic groups alongside lively, self-organizing religious denominations.
But how had Americans balanced the competing claims of egalitarianism and autonomy with the need for social order? Tocqueville proposed that civic associations, that is, voluntary organizations that promote a collective good, were the true foundation of the American polity. Associations made it possible for citizens to appeal to government, select favorable public officials, and see to it that the political parties addressed their needs. Moreover, civic life “educated” people for democracy. People who took part in voluntary associations were easier to mobilize politically, paid more attention to public affairs, and reached more informed opinions – all leading to the exercise of enlightened self-interest. Tocqueville drew general lessons from his study of the American case. He proposed that the greater the degree of social equality in a society, the more it must develop civic associations to avoid authoritarianism. He posited that in centralized states with extensive state capacities and a professional bureaucracy, government initiatives would dominate public affairs and crowd out civic groups. If such societies tried to democratize rapidly, they would likely fail as their citizens had so little experience in handling civic affairs and were unaccustomed to the moderation and limited aims required of plural government.
Tocqueville thought he saw this tendency in his native France. Another danger was that as inequality grew as a result of economic growth, citizens might come to depend on the government to level the playing field and provide them with benefits, thereby making them clients of state actors. However, where government avoided excessive centralization and permitted civic associations, citizens would take the lead in fostering new economic, social, and cultural developments. The result would be a vital, dynamic, and cooperative society. The implications are important: constitutionally limited government and strong civic associations may help to overcome the democratic dilemma facing all modernizing states. More generally, Tocqueville built upon the liberal tradition in political thought to provide an account of how civic associations could provide the basis for a robust social order without reliance on Leviathan (see Section 1-1).
Tocqueville’s American experiences convinced him that social theory must be based on a deep appreciation of a society’s mores, institutions, prevailing social relations, and everyday ways of life. His journey led him to think comparatively, assessing how history and environmental conditions shape the trajectory of societies. Tocqueville’s interrogation of the dangers of possessive individualism was taken up by many subsequent theorists, among them Emile Durkheim (see Section IV-19). Tocqueville has also become a touchstone for many thinkers concerned with explaining American society and politics. For some, he is an indispensable guide to understanding American “exceptionalism”, that is, why the United States has a less centralized government and a less generous welfare state than most other modern democracies. Conservatives point to the putative genius of American institutions and its political culture that favors individualism, voluntarism, and self-interest over collectivism and state control. For progressives, however, Tocqueville’s warnings about the dangers of social inequality for democracy and how racism compromised the American experiment serve as continuing reminder of the tensions at the heart of liberalism.
Subsequent theorists have built on Tocqueville’s insights to consider how social ties among people, the mutual expectations they generate, and the trust that grows among them can be thought of as social capital which enables collective action. The continuing influence of Tocqueville’s social theory is nowhere more evident than in the work of political scientist Robert Putnam and his collaborators. In his books on the effectiveness of local government and on the functions of social capital, Putnam has built on Tocqueville to explain what makes for social integration and effective democratic government. In Making Democracy Work (1993), Putnam showed that in regions of Italy with strong civic traditions and dense voluntary organizations, local governments are more responsive and efficient. In a provocative books like Bowling Alone (2000) and American Grace (2010), Putnam has argued that American democracy is imperiled by growing social isolation, disengagement from civic affairs, and the decay of mainline religious groups. Although many of Putnam’s arguments have been controversial, his work has energized the study of civic associations and social capital pioneered by Tocqueville.
Harriet Martineau
Harriet Martineau was born in Norwich England in 1802 into a well-respected bourgeois family, the sixth of eight children. The family was active in the Unitarian Church and her first writings were anonymous entries into the Unitarian periodical Monthly Repository, focusing on religious activity which she later expanded into a book in 1820. Martineau reported being miserable as a child and painted an unflattering portrait of her mother, describing her as a domestic “tyrant” with little interest in her children’s care and education. She attended a Unitarian girl’s school but was largely self-taught at home through reading and study (as women were barred from university attendance). She struggled with health issues through much of her life, losing her senses of smell and taste early and being nearly deaf much of her life. She never married, though she had a long relationship with Erasmus Darwin (Charles’s older brother). She was ill and largely housebound in the period from 1839 to 1844, where she wrote or started many of her most famous works. After recovering, she designed her house at Ambleside called “The Knoll” where she would spend the rest of her life. She died in 1876 of bronchitis.
Martineau was a prolific author and credited the failure of her family’s business with motivating her to support herself with her writing – no small achievement for a woman of her era. Her first works were short periodical pieces on religion and devotion, which built her reputation for clear and concise writing. Because of family connections to liberal circles, she was then commissioned to write an expository work on Adam Smith called Illustrations of Political Economy (1832). The work was wildly successful at popularizing Smith’s theory and the book sold well, which led to a set of books on similar topics covering liberal social and economic thinkers like J.S. Mill, Jeremy Bentham, David Ricardo and Thomas Malthus. In 1834 she took a two-year trip to the United States which formed the basis of Society in America (1837) and How to Observe: Morals and Manners (1838), the former making substantive and theoretical points while the latter was focused on methodology. Society is largely a critique of America’s failure to live up to its own democratic principles. Where Tocqueville had paid little attention to women, Martineau emphasized the failure of the US to provide them with all rights of citizenship - including voting. Even more strikingly, Martineau called attention to the contradictions tolerating slavery posed to the allegedly free society of the US - and which would soon shape the Civil War. Particularly with regard to the rights of women and for slavery but also espouses a general theoretical vision that
