Alexis de Tocqueville, part One

He was really very young, wasn't he?
Makes sense - he wrote most of his work before the age of 40, I think, and a good bunch of it before the age of 30.
That is simply amazing.

I just read two works in seminar where I mostly agreed with the author and came away with a good opinion of his character. If you are not a student or grad, chances are you have no idea how rare this is for an upperclassman. Junior and Senior year seminar are both largely devoted to reading works by crazy people. Modest sanity is by no means the norm; I'm telling you, this experience has been surreal.

There were a few highlights I wanted to share with the people who read this blog. There are not many of you, I know, but hey - -

The first work we read was "Democracy in America": it's a critique of American sociology and government, and it's aim is to give Europe a model to either aim for or avoid emulating, depending on the circumstances. Another fitting title for it would be "America and Democracy: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly - A Documentary for the European Politician-"

De Tocqueville's take on the relationship between Church and State is really rather intriguing. He claims that only underdevloped, crude or uncivilized religions contain doctrine concerning particular political practices, and that the people who adhere to such religious systems cannot function in democratic societies. As far as I can see, these religiously-implemented political practices he deliniates as to-be-avoided are not ethical standards; he explicitly expects religions to provide for that (faith is the basis for a provision of "mores"). Rather, these political practices are specific decrees regarding a people's relation to another. Two examples he names of primitive religions unfit for democratic society are Judaism and Muhammadism.

And I quote: "Mohammed had not only religious doctrines descend from Heaven and placed in the Koran, but political maxims, civil and criminal laws, and scientific theories. The Gospels, in contrast, speak only of the general relations of men to God and among themselves. Outside of that they teach nothing and oblige nothing to be believed. That alone, among a thousand other reasons, is enough to show that the first of these two religions cannot dominate for long in enlightened and democratic times, whereas the second is destined to reign in these centuries as in all the others."

How politically incorrect is that? Haha! I love it.

Now, while I'm still trying to sort out whether there should be an objection made to his lines of reasoning, I have to admit in my experience with this author that his theories are based entirely off of rather a common-sensical observation of history and the habits of man. If there were some problem it would not be answered easily. I happen to think there's a good chance that this is the reason why we shouldn't try to implement democracy into a country like Iraq. As Aristotle says - the art of politics, when practically applied, must take into account what form of government a people are fit to receive, and give them the best arrangement of that form possible. De Tocqueville's argument seems to square with this, and he ties religions with political dictates to an incapacity to form a democracy or a republic. I don't believe he provides any argument for this from cause; only a inductive formation of a concept from effects. Since this is hardly a first principle I think causes could be assigned, which means that there is some argument left unmade, and it might be made either for or against de Tocqueville's theory. hmmmmmm . . . . if only I had the time to think these things out properly.

I have more to say about Mr. de Toqueville, but it will have to wait until later. Somehow, I ended up with a lot of work to do today. Go figure.

Lots of love to everyone,
Em