CC BY
16CONTROVERSY OVER THE "TOCQUEVILLIAN DEMOCRACY": CONSIDERATIONS ON THE "THIRD" VOLUME OF DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA
SSargis Shirkhanyan Introduction
Alexis de Tocqueville is one of those thinkers whose theoretical legacy has been considered as certainly relevant to and truly pivotal for the development of a number of scientific disciplines. A prominent 19th century publicist Sainte-Beuve in one of his famous essays prophesied that Tocqueville would be an inexhaustible subject of reflection for the generations to come [1] and today we may affirm that the time has proved him right.
The Tocquevillian tradition undoubtedly represents first of all a pure scientific approach. A. Cobben argues that Tocqueville broke the "conspiracy theory based" approach and offered to analyze the social history facts [2]. From that perspective, Tocqueville is often considered as one of the founders of modern Sociology. On the other hand, the French author emphasized that "a new science of politics is needed for a new world" [3, p.7] and, in fact, he created the very foundation of that science, so he is certainly one of the founders of modern Political Science, as well. In this regard, the viewpoint of a British author A. Hess is noteworthy, who merged the above-mentioned two traditions and interpreted de Tocqueville in context of "Political Sociology" [4]. In our opinion, however, Tocquevillian ideas are not limited only by the frame of sociological and political research; they have much wider scope and may encompass the issues of anthropology, philosophy, psychology, history etc. Moreover, as it is underlined by "Tocqueville Studies" well-known representative S. Drescher, the theory of the French thinker is permeated also by the idea of "national character", which manifestly dominates in most of the researches re* PhD student, Department of Political Science of Russian-Armenian University; Attaché, Policy Planning Department of MFA of RA.
lated to the issues of modern society's development and evolution [5]. Hence, it would be reasonable to agree with the point of view of Indiana University professor Aurelian Craiutu, who states that Tocqueville's new science of politics "is fundamentally cross-disciplinary" [6].
Nevertheless, the prior "substance" that integrates all those disciplines is the concept of democracy and from that point of view de Tocqueville's calls upon creating a new science necessarily means creating "Democracy Science". Interestingly, the aspiration to underline the crucial role of democracy in modern world is not determined by author's "sympathy" towards the phenomenon of democracy; instead, it overtly reveals the Tocquevillian realism and the goals postulated by his research, which is clear in the following reference: "I have not even pretended to judge whether the social (democratic - S.S.) revolution... is advantageous or prejudicial to mankind. I have acknowledged this revolution as a fact..." [3, p.16]. In other words, Tocqueville tries to understand what the democracy is, not to provide a rationale for its dominance, but to mark its irresistible and irreversible essence with all its benefits and flaws. This is the reason why author's most famous book Democracy in America today still matters.
At the same time, despite the fact that the Tocquevillian scientific works have been studied during more than a century, there is still a controversy both over the meaning of the term "democracy" (in Tocqueville's perspective) and over the sequential logic of the volumes of Democracy in America, in particular, in context of some attempts of "uncovering" the "third volume" of the prominent book. Therefore, this paper attempts to highlight the mentioned spectrum of issues and to come up with some considerations in this regard.
The "Tocquevillian Democracy": one or many?
It has been noted by a number of authors that in different volumes of Democracy in America the term "democracy" has different and sometimes contradictory meanings. Harold J. Laski in his foreword to the Democracy in America mentions that Toc-queville understands democracy both as an aspiration to equalize all the sides of the social life and as a representative government; with the same word Tocqueville also expresses the concepts of suffrage and republic [7]. J. Schleifer notes that the democ-
racy for Tocqueville means the very "social revolution and the created social state (étatsocial), as a result» [8]. Moreover, as S. Drescher points out, the two volumes of Tocqueville's treatise, published, correspondingly, in 1835 and 1840, represent drastically different attitude towards democracy [9]: the first volume describes mostly positive characteristics of democracy, while the second one has much more critical content. Probably, that is the reason why the second volume "was received with as much enthusiasm as the first, though with possibly even less understanding" [10].
In this context, there are two interconnected questions to be raised: 1. what is the reason of different meanings of democracy in Tocquevillian theory; 2. whether the author of Democracy in America in two parts of the book talks about different democracies or it is about different points of understanding the same democracy? In our opinion, the answer for both of those questions should be derived from understanding the research objectives of Tocquevillian concept. The point is that the French author adopts an approach of complex analysis; he tries to go as far and as deep as it is possible, and, looking from that point of view (in regard to the first question), it is necessary to state that there is no contrariety in Tocquevillian "poly-semous" perception of democracy: different meanings are attached to "democracy" not for the purpose to put that conceptual variety into a context of contradiction, but to ensure the idea of complementarity of democracy's different layers. In other words, Tocqueville tries to study the democracy through avoiding its narrow vision and, accordingly, via revealing different aspects of the concept. Thus, different meaning of "democracy" in Tocqueville's legacy should be interpreted in the light of author's intention to present its broad vision, because democracy stands for being a "multifaceted phenomenon" [11].
Turning to the second question from that perspective, it would be reasonable to assume that the difference in the nature of two volumes of the prominent book is quite comprehensible, as well. De Tocqueville's research goals required corresponding methodology aimed to ensure an "objective" picture of democracy, revealing both the advantages and shortcomings of the phenomenon, the two sides of the same coin, the "initial code" of democracy. It is believed that this is the way necessary to look at the difference of the first and the second parts of the book: Tocqueville visited America and decided to write a book about democracy not for the sake of composing a panegyric on it, not for its "one-way" praising, but for unfold-
ing and conceptualizing all its constructive and destructive sides1. Therefore, the thing that the first volume of Democracy in America shows predominantly the constructive "shade" of democratic system and the second one considers the possible drawbacks of democracy is expected to be understood in the light of revealing and ascertaining some logical sequence in the French author's thoughts and not in context of seeking for contradictions.
Democracy in America: is there a third volume?
Even after the 1840, when the second part of Democracy in America was published, Tocqueville continued to show interest towards the issues of American political life and the political system, in particular. The idea was to stay tuned to democracy and, in that way, to verify the arguments and conclusions made earlier during the visit to America.
As evidenced by his letters, addressed to his American colleagues, Toc-queville, however, repeatedly expresses his "disappointment with the development of American political system" (especially, on issues of slavery, on the risks of civil war etc.). Remarkably, today this serves for some researchers as grounds to assume that there is an "invisible" continuation of Tocquevillian Democracy.., which can be observed in French author's correspondence. For instance, A. Craiutu argues that Tocqueville's letters written after 1840 implicitly reveal the specific "third volume" of the book, which has even more critical content than the second volume, and these letters provide the very taste of what the message of that volume might have been. In that context, Craiutu, anticipating the possible pessimistic nature of the "third volume", in a bit ironical way marks that the Americans "should be grateful to the vagaries of French political life (which absorbed his energies and occupied his attention in the last two decades of his life) that the author never came to write Volume Three of Democracy in America" [12].
However, did the political career (from 1840s) of de Tocqueville really present an obstacle for him to write on [American] democracy what he wanted to write? In other words, if we even assume that Tocqueville had the intention to create the "third volume", is it the time and the energy spent on career or practical political issues (in France) that made him to refrain from writing an additional part of his
1 And American democratic political system presented a good opportunity for that kind of research.
prominent book? In our opinion, the answer requires to point out some essential details of Tocqueville's political career.
The revolution of 1848 created a political conjuncture where the socialists had a crucial influence. De Tocqueville criticized them many times and, in fact, he was in a political opposition. At the same time, being an experienced functionary and a famous political thinker, he had some influence, as well, so the government wanted to take control over him. For that purpose, in June, 1849 Tocqueville was offered the position of the minister of foreign affairs. Obviously, the idea was to neutralize his critique and distract his attention from internal issues to foreign policy. On the other hand, for Tocqueville this was a possibility to use the power for tackling the challenges facing France, "including the internal issues" [13]. Therefore, Tocqueville accepted the offer, though in his letter (dated June 15, 1848) addressed to an American historian and a diplomat George Bancroft he underlines that he accepted the position against his predisposition and exclusively with the hope to contribute to the "restoration of the order" [14, p.13]. However, neither the government, nor the Tocqueville were able to use that "deal" for their purposes (Tocqueville could not use his post to intervene into the internal issues and the government was not able to "recruit" him), so in half a year Tocqueville resigned.
Nonetheless, the important thing is that some years later Tocqueville has already been out of "big politics": in his letter (from 4 August, 1852), addressed to a German-American philosopher and lawyer Francis Lieber, Tocqueville confesses that he leaves the active political life and dedicates himself to the research work [14, pp. 132-133]. This is exactly the point which becomes essential in context of the question raised earlier herein: Tocqueville died in 1859, so at the time of leaving the politics he still had 7 years to write the third volume of Democracy in America.. .indeed, if there was any intention. However, the reality is that in 1856 he published his second book The Old Regime and the Revolution, which complements the Democracy in America, but obviously does not appear to be a continuation of the book. Hence, it would be reasonable to presume that Tocqueville had enough time and energy to write the third volume of Democracy..., but, in fact, he did not intend to do it. It is believed that the reason of "absence" of the third volume is explained not by the assumptions that the author was exhausted by the political life, but by the fact that the book is considered to be a finished, conceptual work: it was written during over 10 years and
did not need to be "amended" in any manner. From this perspective, Tocqueville's disappointment with the American democracy's further development seems to be not something "unexpected" or something which provides a material for Tocquevillian observations' falsification (and, respectively, actualizes the need for Tocqueville's revision (i.e. writing the "third volume"), but proves the validity of author's notions on democracy's risks and defects, described by him primarily in the second ("critical") volume of Democracy in America.
Conclusion
More than 150 years passed since de Tocqueville's death, but his theory and, in particular, his masterpiece Democracy in America is still considered to be a subject matter for many sciences. It is obvious that the dispute over different aspects of Tocquevillian analysis will remain topical for modern socio-political realities. In this regard, it is also clear that the attempts to rethink Tocqueville's legacy will inevitably accommodate Tocqueville Studies' further development. However, it seems that the very trajectory of those researches should be changed: there is a need to shift from the "enhancement" model to a "deepening" one. In the context of issues touched upon in this paper, this means it is more reasonable to ensure an insightful understanding of Tocqueville's ideas rather than try to reinvent the wheel and ascribe something which has no reason to be "attached" to Tocqueville. As Russian author S. Isaev pointed out, the "critical judgments" over the Tocquevillian legacy today in most of cases appear to be a distortion of author's real ideas rather than a correct scientific reinterpretation [15].
Thus, as we tried to argue in this article, the "Tocquevillian democracy" has the same meaning in all the parts of Democracy in America, and even if there was a "third volume", the concept would have the same understanding: apparently, the French author had a conceptual vision over the basics of democracy, which explicitly acted as a cornerstone of his theory and permeated the very logic of the volumes of Democracy in America, as well as of the rest of his works.
October, 2016
References
1. Sainte-Beuve, Nouveaux Lundis (Paris, 1886) t. X, nouvelle Edition, p. 330.
2. Cobban A, Aspects of the French revolution. - London: Cape. 1968, p.40.
3. Tocqueviile A. de, Democracy in America, Volume 1, translated by Henry Reeve and edited by Francis Bowen. Cambridge, MA: Sever and Francis, 1863.
4. Hess A, Concepts of Social Stratification. Palgrave Macmillan, UK. 2001, pp. 50-57.
5. Drescher S., Dilemmas of democracy: Tocqueville and modernisation. - Pittsburgh: Univ. of Pittsburgh press, 1968. - XI, p.5.
6. Craiutu A., «Tocqueville's New Science of Politics Revisited» [May, 2014]. / «Liberty Matters» Online // http://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/tocqueville-s-new-science-of-politics
7. Токвиль А. де. Демократия в Америке/ Пер. с франц., предисл. Гарольда Дж. Ласки. -М.: Изд-во «Прогресс», 1992. С. 16-17.
8. Schleifer J, The Making of Tocqueville's Democracy in America. Foreword by George W. Pierson (2nd edition).Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2000, p. 328.
9. Drescher S., «Tocqueville's Two Démocraties», Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 25 (April -June 1964), University of Pennsylvania Press , Philadelphia, pp. 201-216.
10. Alexis de Tocqueville on democracy, revolution and society. Selected writings. Edited and with intro. by Stone J., Mennell S. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London. 1980, p.10.
11. Craiutu A., Tocqueville's Paradoxical Moderation. The Review of Politics, Vol. 67, No. 4 (Autumn, 2005). Cambridge University press, p. 602.
12. Craiutu A, Jennings J., The Third Democracy: Tocqueville's Views of America after 1840. American Political Science Review, Vol. 98, No. 3. Cambridge University Press. August, 2004, p. 404.
13. Воспоминания Алексиса Токвиля, изданные графом Токвилем / Пер. с франц. В. Неве-домского. -М.: Издание К.Т. Солдатенкова: Типо-литография В.Ф. Рихтер. 1893. С. 215227.
14. Tocqueville on America after 1840. Letters and other writings / Edited and translated by Craiutu A, Jennings J. Cambridge University Press. New York. 2009.
15. Исаев С.А. Трактат А. де Токвиля «О демократии в Америке» как источник по истории политической мысли Х1Х века : автореф. дис. ... канд. ист. наук. - Л., 1990.
