Alexis De Tocqueville Believed That Americans Did Not Accept That There Should Be One Religion to Which Everyone Must Belong. Tocqueville Also Observed That Americans Did Not Automatically Accept the Wisdom of Leaders. Why Did Alexis De Tocqueville Believe That Americans Neither Shared A Single Religion nor Automatically Accepted the Wisdom of Their Leaders?
Alexis de Tocqueville came up with many observations about the American people, especially on religion, equality, democracy, law, and citizenship, and politics. In other nations especially Europe, people feared mixing religion with democracy on grounds that democracy would poison religion. Tocqueville believed that democracy brought a sense of freedom among the citizens which also influenced their religion choices. Although there were only two dominant religions: The Roman Catholic and Protestants, Americans felt that they should be free to choose whatever religion they felt was fulfilling to their needs with the option of creating new ones. A single religion was a concept that would tie them all together to follow a given course without the option of having contrary ideas and according to their democracy that was ethically wrong. Tocqueville also observed that Americans in their nature, loved forming associations which do not discriminate against social class, and have a sole purpose of criticizing the government (De Tocqueville, 2015). The associations are formed by people naturally because they feel they can always do better than the elected government. The associations are established to build schools, hospitals, and distribute books in educational institutions. Therefore, based on this observation Americans preferred the wisdom emanating from their own associations to that of an individual holding powerful positions in government (De Tocqueville, 2015). Additionally, Americans believe in the tyranny of the majority as they practice democracy: even the most basic rights such as the right to speech was affected by majority opinion. Since everyone is entitled to their own opinion, the wisdom of their leader technically remains his own and does not necessarily reflect what the majority want. Therefore, based on that observation Americans would rarely agree with what their leader said unless it is what the majority related with.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
What is the doctrine of ‘Perfectibility of Man’. Why Does Tocqueville Believe All Americans Can Accept this Doctrine?
The doctrine of perfectibility of man was advanced by Rousseau who believed that the natural man was in their prime condition and with ability to take good care of themselves. The anthropological distinction of the natural man from other creatures in the universe is their ability for perfectibility and sense for freedom. Perfectibility in this case implies the ability of human beings to learn new concepts through observing fellow human beings and other components in their environment. Tocqueville in his book on democracy and equality, tries to discuss how Americans relate equality and the idea of the Perfectibility of man. Tocqueville’s belief that all Americans can accept that doctrine of perfectibility of man begins when he questions a sailor why the ships of his country are built to last for only a short period. The sailor replied that the art of navigation progresses daily and that it would be useless to have the finest vessel only lasting for a stipulated time (De Tocqueville, 2015). America is a democratic nation, thus making it a community whose people are grouped in different classes based on age, professions, birth, and social ranks. Given that the people are open to whatever career or opportunity that comes their way, they have subjected their belief in destiny. Additionally, democracy in itself gives freedom but democracy with an enlightened people like the Americans gives them the discovery that they are not confined to any limits to take up their present and transform it to a new state. Therefore, they all perceive the idea of adding more to what they have, as much as they do not all achieve that in the same manner.
Imagine A Line of People Waiting for The Box Office to Open at A Theatre. Regardless of How Rich or Famous or Politically Powerful A Person May Be, When They Arrive, They Are Expected to Go to The Back of The Line. How Would Alexis De Tocqueville Understand That This Is Consistent with American Ideal Values?
As Tocqueville argues in his book, Democracy in America, the country has equality of condition that was essential in defining the American society in all spheres be it politics or religion (De Tocqueville, 2015). Tocqueville believed that the society he saw in America was passionate for equality in the sense that everyone was striving to promote leveling of social classes. Tocqueville also believed that the equality of condition he witnessed in America was only subject to increase in the future. Additionally, according to Tocqueville, the Americans were a people who believed in associations: he asserts that “Americans of all ages, all stations of life and all types of disposition are forever forming associations. There are not only commercial and industrial associations in which all take part, but others of a thousand types- religious, moral, serious, futile, very general, and very limited, immensely large and minute.” Based on these discussions by Tocqueville, he would not be surprised to see a line of people in America waiting for the Box office opening outside a theatre regardless of their political power, social class, or wealth. Tocqueville was from an aristocratic setting where social class defined the way of life of the people, but termed what he saw in America as completely different. Therefore, based on that view, he would expect seeing Americans queuing for the Box office opening.
How Does Durkheim Define a ‘Social fact’? If an American Decides to Speak German, why is it Not a Social Fact?
Durkheim was a French sociologist who argued that sociology is simply a field that studies social facts while displaying empirical evidence of the same. According to Durkheim, a social fact can be defined as, any way of acting, regardless of fixed or otherwise, with ability to exert an external constraint on an individual, and is independent of its individual manifestations (Meena, 2019). Durkheim therefore named social facts such as language, religion, marriage, political affiliations, currency, and societal institutions as objects which define fitness of an involved individual in a certain group: diversion automatically makes them a misfit. Durkheim also gave two major ways of identification of a social fact: the extent of their spread within a particular group while existing independently of forms they might assume, and existence of some predetermined legal sanction or by the reaction to beliefs initially held as threatening. Language as a social fact is developed by people living in the same region who tend to communicate using a common dialect, idioms, and words such that after several years people speaking in the same way can be identified as being part of the specific region. An American speaking German does not make them become part of Germany, hence disqualifying it as a social fact. Additionally, speaking German does not create a coercive power enough to impact how the American lives, travels, eats, sleeps, worship, or any other element of their original culture. However, they only speak the language while maintaining other elements of their culture.
References
De Tocqueville, A. (2015). Democracy in America-Vol. I. and II. Read Books Ltd.
Meena, S. (2019). Durkheim and Sociological Method. Language in India, 19(8)
