1

5:Tocqueville’sReligiousDread:PoliticalGrandeurandtheDemocraticEmpireofUtilityJasonFrank,Government,CornellUniversityJf273@cornell.eduDraft:Pleasedonotcirculateorcitewithoutauthor’spermission._________________________________________________________________________________________________ WhenIconceiveademocraticsocietyofthiskind,Ifancymyselfinoneof thoselow,close,andgloomyabodeswherethelightwhichbreaksinfrom withoutsoonfaintsandfadesaway.Asuddenheavinessoverpowersme, andIgropethroughthesurroundingdarknesstofindanopeningthatwill restoremetotheairandthelightofday. —AlexisdeTocqueville

Theworld,itistrue,appearstometomarchlessandlesstowardthegreatnessIhadimagined. —AlexisdeTocqueville

AlexisdeTocquevillehadaverybroadunderstandingof“poetry,”whichhe

describedas“thesearchforanddepictionoftheideal.”1Poetry,onhisview,was

antitheticaltothemere“representationofreality,”becauseittranscendsthe

empiricallygivenandaimstodepictanelevatedandenhancedspiritualsignificance.

Indemocraticagestraditionalpoeticdevotiontotranscendentalidealsundergoesa

radicalchange.Inthesecontexts,withtheirpervasive“loveofphysicalpleasure,

self-improvement,[and]competition,”individualsbecomeenthralledbythe

practicalandprofaneneedsofdailylife.Theimaginationis“notsnuffedout,”

Tocquevillewrites,but“itdevotesitselfalmostentirelytotheideaofwhatisuseful

andtotheportrayalofreality.”2Ratherthanlooktotheheavensortotheancient

past,“thetraditionalspringsofpoetry,”democracydrawstheimaginationto“man

himself,”butmanstrippedofpersonalqualitiesandcharacteristics.Democracies

2

focustheimaginationonimpersonalmassesofpeopleworkingtoimprovetheir

materialwellbeing—“drainingmarshes,divertingrivers,peoplingopenspaces,and

tamingnature.”Such“magnificentimages”ofsocialimprovement—which,

Tocquevilleobserves,“everfloatbeforetheminds”ofnineteenth-centuryAmerican

democrats—havedistinctiveadvantages.3Throughthem,democraciesmaycome

to“haveaclearerperceptionofthemselves”becauseinsuchimages“forthefirst

timeinbroaddaylightthefeaturesofhumankindarerevealed.”“Ihavenoneedto

traverseheavenandearth,”Tocquevilleproclaimed,“touncoverawondrousobject

fullofcontrast,ofinfinitegreatnessandsmallness,ofintensegloomandastounding

light,capableatthesametimeofexcitingpiety,admiration,scornandterror.Ineed

onlycontemplatemyself.”Theaestheticorientationofdemocracy,Tocqueville

argues,leadsthepopularimaginationtoseekoutimmanentsourcesofsublime

experience.Eventhoughpreoccupiedwithutilityandmaterialreality,democratic

poetrydoesnotleadtoaknowingtransparency,buttoongoingencounterswith

innerobscurity,“buriedinimpenetrabledarkness,”thatpropeldemocraticpeoples

onwardtowardtheever-recedinghorizonofself-knowledge.4

Tocqueville’sreflectionsonthedemocraticsourcesofpoetryarepartofhis

largersearchforimmanentandworldysourcesofsublimeexperience,andofhis

extendedargumentconcerningtheimportanceoftheelevatingaesthetic

experiencestheyengenderforhelpingoffsetwhatheperceivedtobethemost

dangeroustendenciesofdemocraticpolitics.5Anotherimportantpartofthat

searchandextendedargumentcanbefoundinhisfrequentinvocationof

“grandeur”andhisdiagnosisofitsdisappearanceinthepervasivematerialismand

3

utilitarianismofthedemocraticage.“Inthemodernera,”Tocquevillewroteina

lettertoPierre-PaulRoyer-Collard,“itseemsasthoughtheimaginationofgrandeur

isdyingout.”6Withoutasenseofelevatedgrandeur,Tocquevilleargued,political

lifewouldbeoverwhelmedbysocialinterest,individualswouldbedrawnintothe

increasinglynarrowpurviewoftheirmaterialneeds,andthepeople,“properlyso-

called,”wouldbecomeamerepopulation.Tocqueville’sembraceofpolitical

grandeur,heroicagency,and“truepoliticalpassions”distinguishedhimfrommany

otherprominentFrenchliberalsofthenineteenthcentury—perhapsmostobviously

fromFrançoisGuizotandtheDoctrinaires.Thisembraceilluminatessomeofthe

mostdistinctiveaspectsofhispoliticalthought,sheddinglightonwhatRoger

BoeschecallsTocqueville’s“strange”andeven“anti-bourgeois”liberalism.7As

FrenchliberalismemergedinresponsetoboththeJacobinTerrorandNapoleonic

dictatorship,itsoughtinvariouswaystodesublimateanddisenchantthepolitical

realm,tofreeitfromitslogicofsacrificeanditssenseofthesacredandsublime.8

Despitethemanydifferencesbetweenthem,suchprominentfiguresasBenjamin

ConstantandGermainedeStaël,FrançoisGuizotandJean-BaptisteSay,allagreed

thatpost-RevolutionaryFranceshouldatlastdisenthrallitselfofthegrandiosityof

Romeandturnitsattentiontothemoreprosaicaspectsofgoodgovernance,public

policy,andsoundadministration.Tocqueville,bycontrast,arguedthatanelevated

aestheticsensibilitywasasessentialfordemocraticpoliticsasithadbeenforthe

absolutemonarchyhedisdained(whilealsobeingterrifiedbytheradical

democraticsublimeunleashedbytheRevolution).Thischapterfocuseson

Tocqueville’seffortstowrestlewiththeseissues.

4

Tocqueville’saffirmationofpoliticalgrandeurisconceptuallylinkedtohis

understandingofpoliticalfreedomandofthethreatsposedtofreedominthe

democraticage.Tocqueville’stheoryofpoliticalfreedom,widelyacknowledgedto

beatthecenterofhispoliticalthought,isentangled,inotherwords,withhisless-

frequentlyexaminedpoliticalaesthetics.9ItisamistaketoreduceTocqueville’s

commitmenttopoliticalgrandeurtoamerearistocraticpreferenceorpersonal

whim.10Itdidnotmerelyspringfromhis“tasteforthearistocraticwayoflife.”11

Thegrandeuroffreeaction,properlyunderstood,playsastructuralrolein

Tocqueville’spoliticalthought,andmaybringintoorderandcoherencesome

troublingaspectsofhispoliticaltheorythathavebeentooquicklydismissedby

someadmiringliberalreadersasunfortunateinconsistenciesoranachronistic

commitmentstothevaluesofalostaristocraticage.Tocqueville’scommitmentto

politicalgrandeurisnotasad“remnantofhisalmostdeadaristocraticsensibilities,”

butacentralaspectofhispoliticalthinking,which,farfrombeingmerelyanilliberal

embarrassment,mayhelpconfirmthedepthofhismuch-celebratedpolitical

analysisofdemocracy.12ThesetroublingaspectsofTocqueville’spoliticalthought

bringhisworkintoproductiveconversationwithsomecontemporarycriticsof

democraticliberalism—onboththeFrankfurtSchoolleft,forexample,andthe

Straussianright—whoworryaboutliberalism’slow-sightedpolitics:itsfocuson

interests,negativeliberties,instrumentalrationality,security,andthepreservation

of“merelife.”AswesawwithBurkeinChapterTwo,Tocquevillefearedthe

politicalconsequencesofaworldwithoutenchantment,andhopedtorestore

5

somethingofthemysteriumtremendumtopoliticallife.13Grandeurwasoneofhis

keyidiomsforinvokingthatrestoration.

Thischapterproceedsinthreeparts.InthefirstIoutlineTocqueville’s

understandingofthethreatdemocracyposestofreedominthemodernage.Iwill

emphasize,inparticular,the“religiousdread”(terreurreligieuse)Tocqueville

experiencedwhenconfrontedwithdemocracy’sirresistiblesubsumptionof

meaningfulactionintotheundirectedtendenciesofoceanicmassaggregates.As

withmanyothernineteenth-centurypoliticalandsocialtheorists,Tocqueville’s

preoccupationwiththedeclineoftheheroicactorissymptomaticofalarger

concernwiththefateofhumanagencyinthemodernage.Oneofthecentralironies

animatingTocqueville’ssocialandpoliticalthoughtwasthattheveryagethat

promisedtofinallyempowerthepeopleasmakersoftheirownhistory,andtobring

thevicissitudesofsociallifeunderdemocraticcontrol,ultimatelyengendered

pervasiveanxietyabouttheweakness,isolation,andpoliticalincapacityofhuman

beings.ForTocqueville,thePrometheanhubrisoftheAgeofDemocraticRevolution

ultimatelycollapsedintoapervasivesenseofdeadeningennuiandparalyzing

enervation.14

InthesecondsectionIelaborateonthistherelationshipbetween

Tocqueville’sanxietiesconcerningagencyandwhatSusanBuck-Morss,following

WalterBenjamin,describesasthe“anaesthetics”ofpoliticalmodernity.15

Tocquevillewasdisgustedbywhathedescribedasthe“apoplectictorper”and

“grievousnumbness”ofhisage.Hearguedthattheliberaldemocraticpoliticsof

interestandutility,withtheirall-consuming“passionformaterialwell-being,”

6

threatenedtodrainthepoliticalrealmofitsvitalityandsignificance,thereby

creatingtheconditionsforunprecedentedformsofcentralizedstatedespotism.

ThesearefamiliarthemesinthepoliticaltheoryscholarshiponTocqueville.

However,ratherthanfocusprimarilyonTocqueville’sconcernswithindividualism

andtheemergenceofthetutelarystateinthesecondvolumeofDemocracyin

America,IwillturntoTocqueville’scorrespondenceduringtheJulyMonarchyand

hiswritingonFrenchcolonialism.ThesetextsemphasizeTocqueville’s

commitmenttocombattingthe“grievousnumbness”ofpoliticalmodernitythrough

abracingrestorationofpoliticalvitalityandgrandeur.Thissectionexamines

Tocqueville’seffortstosustainaheroicvisionofthepoliticalsublimeinthefaceof

whatheperceivedtobethedecadenceandlevelingmediocrityofdemocratic

liberalism.Manycommentatorshavefocusedontheelevatingroleofreligionin

Tocqueville’swork,butalongsidehisinsistenceonthemoralelevationthatcomes

withacommitmenttothesacredisaconsistentinsistenceonthepolitical

importanceoftheelevatinggrandeurofpublicacts.16Indeed,Tocqueville’s

tendencytoinvokegrandeurratherthanglory,arguablysuggestsnotonlyhis

ambivalenceinthefaceofthemoreexclusivelymartialassociationsofthelatter,but

perhapsalsoawarinessofglory’stheologicalandliturgicalentanglements.17These

aspectsofTocqueville’sworkareinobvioustensionwithhisliberal

constitutionalism,andtheybringhispoliticalthoughtwithintheorbitofsomeofthe

radicalandreactionarycriticsofnineteenthcenturydemocraticliberalismwith

whomheisotherwiserightlyopposed.18PierreManenthasarguedthat

Tocqueville’spoliticalphilosophyisstructuredbythetensionbetweenjustice(rule

7

oflaw,separationofpowers,constitutionalism)andgrandeur(heroicagency,

distinction,glory).19Thesecondsectionexaminessomeofthetexturesofthis

animatingtension.

InthefinalsectionIturntoTocqueville’sRecollectionsontherevolutionof

1848.AtthecenterofthisdiscussionisanevaluationofSheldonWolin’sclaimthat,

inhiswritingon1848,Tocquevilledeniedthepeople’scollectiveactsofany

grandeur,and,therefore,ofanysenseofheroicagency.20Theclaim,simplyput,is

thattherearenocollectiveheroesinTocqueville’spoliticaltheory.Thehardening

ofTocqueville’spoliticalconservatismaftertheJuneDays—whichheinfamously

describedasa“slave’swar”—iswidelyrecognized.21However,unlikeWolin,who

arguesthatintheRecollectionsTocqueville’spoliticalideologytrumpshisown

theoreticalconsistency,IwillarguethatTocqueville’s“denialofthedeed”toa

mobilizedcollectiveactoriswhollyconsistentwhenreadalongsidehisaesthetic

concernsregardingliberaldemocracy’sempireofutility.Tocquevilledeniesthe

collectiveactorof1848—therevolutionarypeople—anysenseofsublimegrandeur

becauseheunderstandstherevolutiontobethecollectiveexpressionofthevery

passionformaterialwellbeingthatheinvokedgrandeurtocombatinthefirstplace

(inthis,hisanalysisoftheJuneinsurrection,inparticular,hassurprisingparallels

withthatofMarx).Thepeoplearedeniedthesublimityoftheirheroicactsforthe

samereasontheyaredeniedagency;theyactoutofall-consumingneedand

materialinterest,andtherefore,inTocqueville’sstrongsense,couldbesaidtonot

actatall.

8

Thechapterendswithaconclusion—unfinishedinthisdraft—whichtraces

continuitiesbetween,first,Tocqueville’sanalysisofdemocraticliberalism’sempire

ofutilityandHannahArendt’saccountof“theriseofthesocial,”and,second,

betweenhisrespondingaffirmationofpoliticalgrandeurandArendt’seffortsto

aestheticizeactioninordertorestoredignitytothepublicrealmoverwhelmedby

instrumentalrationalityanchoredtoincessantdemandsofthelaboringbody.

TocquevilleandArendtofferparallelaestheticarguments,Iwanttoultimately

claim,abouttheneedforimmanentsourcesofsublimeexperiencetosalvagethe

dignityofthepoliticalandtorestorethelost“splendourofthepublicrealm.”22

I.

Tocqueville’spoliticaltheoryisaddressedtowhatheoncedescribedas“the

greatdemocraticrevolution”ofhistime.23Hesharedawidespreadbeliefthatan

entirelynewformofdemocraticpoliticsemergedinthenineteenthcentury,and

that,therefore,“anewpoliticalscienceisneededforatotallynewworld.”24While

Tocquevillesharedthecentury’spervasivesenseofpoliticalnovelty,herejectedthe

revolutionaryself-understandingofthatnovelty.TheFrenchpeoplemayhave

undertakenan“unprecedentedeffort”in1789“todivorcethemselvesfromtheir

pastandtoputanabyssbetweenwhattheywereandwhattheyweretobecome,”

buttheyprofoundlymisrecognizedthenatureofthechangethatwasenactedover

thoseyears.25AsFrançoisFurethasemphasized,Tocquevilledeniedthe

revolutionariesthevalidityoftheirmostcherishedbelief:thefaithintheirown

collectivecapacitytomaketheworldanew.“Noconsciousnessismoreideological,”

Furetasserts,“thanthatoftherevolutionaries,”andforhimitwasTocquevillewho

9

mostclearlyrecognizedthatthehistoryoftheRevolutionmustbreakfirstand

foremostwith“theconsciousexperienceoftheactorsoftheRevolution.”26

Byrejectingtherevolutionaries’inflatedunderstandingoftheirownagency

Tocquevillepuncturedthehegemonic“discourseoftheradicalbreak”withits

relatedideathat“democraticpoliticshadcometodecidethefateofindividualsand

peoples.”27TocquevillesoughttodisenchanthiscontemporariesofwhatFuret

calledthe“revolutionarycatechism,”whichPierreRosanvallonhasmorerecently

describedas“theradicalprojectofaself-institutedsociety,”the“guidinglightofa

certainradicalism”thatreverberatesacrossthenineteenthcenturyandviews

“politicsaspureaction,theunmediatedexpressionofadirectlyperceptiblewill.”28

Itwasthespectacleofthis“radicalprojectofaself-institutedsociety”that

engenderedtheimmanentsenseofthedemocraticsublimediscussedinthe

previouschapter.FuretandRosanvallonarerightthatTocquevilletookadimview

ofthe“whollynew”ideathat“manwasnotonlyconsciousofthehistoryhewas

making,butalsoknewthathewassavedorcondemnedinandbythathistory.”29

TocquevillerecoiledattheJacobin’sefforttomakepoliticalaction“totally

encompasstheworldofvalueandbecomethemeaningoflife,”buttheJacobin

attempttoabsorbthesacredintotheimmanentrealmofhumanactionwasnotas

whollyantitheticaltoTocqueville’spoliticalthoughtassomeofhisadmirersclaim.

ToproperlyunderstandTocqueville’srejectionoftheworld-makingcapacitiesof

thepopularwillwemustalsoattendtohiscentralpreoccupationwiththe

disappearanceofpoliticalagencyinthedemocraticage.InMetahistoryHayden

WhitearguedthatTocqueville’shistoricalwritingwasstructuredbythetropeof

10

irony,andsurelyoneofthemostcentralironiesofhispoliticalthoughtwasthatthe

veryerathatpromisedtoatlastbringhumanagencyandautonomytoanequal

mankind,freeingmanfromthebondagetotraditionandsubmissiontothesacred,

actuallythreatenedindividualswiththeeradicationofmeaningfulagencyand

unprecedentedformsofdomination.30InalatelettertoArthurdeGobineau,whose

verydifferentviewsonthesemattersoftenprovokedTocquevilletosuccinctand

clarifyingformulations,Tocquevillewroteoftheenervatedexhaustionthatfollowed

inthewakeoftheRevolutionsof1789,1830,and1848:“Afterhavingfelt…capable

oftransformingourselves,wenowfeelincapableofreformingourselves;after

havingexcessivepride,wehavefallenintoexcessiveself-pity;wethoughtwecould

doeverything,andnowwethinkwecandonothing;weliketothinkthatstruggle

andeffortarehenceforthuselessandthatourbloodmusclesandnerveswillalways

bestrongerthanourwillpowerandcourage.This,”heconcluded,“isreallythe

greatsicknessofourage.”31

Tocqueville’sconcernwiththe“acceleratingsensationofhuman

powerlessness”isexpressedinmyriadwaysacrosshiswork,fromthenotestaken

duringhistriptoAmericain1831tohisextensivecorrespondencewithGobineauin

theyearsbeforehisdeath,andinallofhisgreatworksofsocialandpoliticaltheory

writteninbetween.32Tocqueville’sfearthatdemocracyandtheemergingequality

ofsocialconditionsthreatened“tobanishmenfromthehistoryofthehumanrace”

framestheintroductiontothefirstvolumeofDemocracyinAmerica,andisthe

themeTocquevillereturnstointheconclusionofthesecond.33“Thewholebookin

frontofthereader,”hefamouslywrites,“hasbeenwrittenunderthepressureofa

11

kindofreligiousdreadexerciseduponthesouloftheauthorbythesightofthis

irresistiblerevolutionwhichhasprogressedoversomanycenturies,surmounting

allobstacles,andwhichisstilladvancingtodayamidtheruinsithascaused.”34

Tocqueville’ssenseof“religiousdread”isengenderedfromthehistoricalspectacle

ofevacuatedagency,ofeveryonebeing“drivenwillynillyalongthesameroad,

everyonejoiningthecommoncause,somedespitethemselvesothersunwittingly,

allofthemlikeblindinstrumentsinthehandsofGod.”35ForTocqueville,itwasthe

spectacleofdemocracy’s“irresistible”movementtowardequality—indicatedby

suchhistoricallydisparateeventsastheCrusades,theinventionoffirearmsandthe

printingpress,theReformationandthediscoveryofAmerica—thatprovokedhis

senseofreligiousdread,hissenseofanoverpoweringforceinhistoryakinto

Providencebutwithoutplanandproceedingwithouttheconsciousintentor

deliberationofactorshumanordivine.Asthe“mostsustainedlongstandingand

permanentdevelopmenteverfoundinhistory,”Tocqueville’sresponseto

democracy’semergenceturnsonthefactthatevenasdemocracy“highlightsthe

naturalgrandeurofman,”itoverwhelmsentirelythegrandeurofmen.36

ReligiousdreadisapoliticalaffectthatresonatesbroadlyinTocqueville’s

work.37Ifthedemocraticsublimewasengenderedbythespectacleofthepeople

takinghistorycollectivelyintotheirownhands,andespeciallythroughthe

manifestationofwillinpopularassembly,Tocquevilleinvokedreligiousdreadto

describetheexperienceofmassivehistoricalchangeunfoldinginexorablywithouta

deliberateagent,plan,orintention.WhatfillsTocquevillewithreligiousdreadis

nottheradicalruptureproclaimedbytheRevolution—heisnotovercomebywhat

12

FrankAnkersmitdescribesasthesublimespectacleofaneventthat“irrevocably

breaksthecontinuityofidentity”—butbythedisappearanceofhumanagencyand

“theevent”fromhistoryalltogether,bythesublimationofthequalitativeactintoa

massaggregateofquantitativeeffects.38Tocqueville’sreligiousdreadislinkedto

theoceanicfeelingassociatedwiththesublime,andinhislettershelikenedthe

politicalexperienceofhiscenturyasbeinglostona“stormyseawithoutashore.”39

Incontrastwiththerevolutionarymythofaself-creatingsovereignpeople,

Tocquevillearguedthatdemocracywas,inWolin’swords,“threateningtosquelch

whatisrare,uniqueanddifferent…andcreatingaworldof‘silentemptyspaces.”40

“Theunbrokenaspect”and“uniformity”ofthesescenesofinexorabledemocratic

advance,Tocquevilleobserved,“surpriseandoverwhelmtheimagination.”41

ForTocqueville,democracydidnotthreatencontemporarypoliticswiththe

specterofpermanentrevolution,assomanyofhisfellowaristocratsfeared,but

ratherwithdeadeningstasis.Herejectedtheclassicalcritiqueofdemocratic

polities,withitsemphasisontumultuouschangeandpoliticalinconsistency,a

regimelurchingviolentlybetweenpoliticalextremesandneverabletoestablishthe

proceduralregularitiesnecessaryforestablishingtheruleoflaw.Tocqueville’sfear,

tothecontrary,wasthatdemocracies“willendupbeingtoounalterablyfixedinthe

sameinstitutions,thesameprejudices,thesamecustoms…thatthemindofman

maystopmovingforwardandgrindtoahalt,thatmanwillwearhimselfoutin

lonelyfutiletriviality,andthathumanitywillceasetoprogressdespiteitsceaseless

motion.”42

13

Tocqueville’sunderstandingofthesimultaneityof“ceaselessmotion”and

paralyzinginactionreflectshisconcernwiththedisappearanceoftheheroin

democraticcontexts,aconcernheshareswithmanyothernineteenth-century

politicalthinkers,fromCarlyleandEmersontoBurckhardtandNietzsche.As

RichardBoydhasargued,Tocquevillehadamuchmoreambivalentrelationshipto

theNapoleonicmythoftheherothandidotherprominentnineteenth-century

Frenchliberals,andwasdrawntothe“idealsofgrandeur,heroism,power,

conquest,andnationalgreatnessrepresentedbytheFirstEmpire.”43Perhaps

Tocqueville’smostelaboratereflectiononthedangersofevacuatedheroicagencyis

thechapterfromDemocracyonthe“CharacteristicPeculiartoHistoriansin

DemocraticAges.”Tocquevillemakesadistinctiontherebetweenthewritingof

historyinaristocraticages,whichemphasizestheagencyofheroicindividuals,

“individualizedinfluences,”and“specialactions,”andthewritingofhistoryin

democraticageswhichemphasizestheimpersonal“interconnectionofevents”and

“generalcauses.”“Whenthehistoriansofaristocratictimescasttheirgazeuponthe

worldstage,”Tocquevillewrites,“theyobserve,inthefirstinstance,averysmall

numberofprincipalplayerswhocontrolthewholedrama.”Indemocraticages,by

contrast,nosingleindividualappearspowerfulenoughtoexertalasting“influence

overthemassofcitizens,”societyseemspropelledbythefreeandspontaneous

agreementofallitsmembers.”44Inthesedemocraticcontexts,thehistorianis

inspiredto“seekoutthegeneralreasonwhichmayhavestrucksomanymindsand

simultaneouslydirectedthemalongthesamepath.”Tocquevillesoughtoutsuch

“generalreasons”inDemocracyandTheOldRegime,whilealsobeingattentivetoits

14

principledanger:thatitshistorytooquicklymovesbeyondparticularchangesto

present“aworldinmotionwithoutanysignofanengine,”theideathat“movement

isinvoluntaryandthatsocietiesareactingunconsciouslyinobediencetosome

superiordominatingforce.”45

Tocquevillebelievedthe“doctrineoffatality”afflictingthehistoriansofhis

timecapitulatestooquicklytothegeneraltendencyoftheagetothinkonlyof

aggregates,impersonalforces,andtotherebyamplifytheexperienceofindividual

andpoliticalweaknessandinefficacy.Suchhistoriesareatoncediagnosesand

symptomsofthischange.Tocquevillewouldrejectthroughouthislife—most

notablyinhisextendedcorrespondencewithGobineau—historiesbasedonall-

encompassingdeterminationsofrace,language,soil,orclimate.Hisconcernswere

focusedontheconsequencesofsuchdoctrines—their“effectualtruth,”as

MachiavelliwouldwriteinThePrince—morethantheirveracity.Ahistorical

writingthatwould“raisemen’sspirits”ratherthan“completetheircollapse”must

drawattentiontotherealitiesofstructuralconstraintsandsocialdepthpatternsso

astorevealthespacesofagencytheymakepossibleratherthansubmittingto

fatalismornostalgicallylongingforthereturnofanunbridledaristocraticheroism.

Agentsindemocraticperiodsare“infinitelymorediverse,moreconcealed,more

complex,lesspowerful,andthuslesseasytounravelortrace.”46Tocquevilledoes

nottreatthisproblemasmerelyoneofhistoricaldescription,butasahistorical

changeinthenatureofhumanagencyitself.Whilehearguesthereisalwaysa

balancebetween“generalcauses”and“specialinfluences”inhistory,inthe

democraticera“generalfactsexplainmore…andindividualinfluencesexplain

15

less.”47Tocqueville’sfocusiscontinuallyonthe“hiddensprings”ofbehaviorand

theirfar-reachingindirectandlargelyunrecognizedconsequences…taken

probabilisticallyinvastaggregatesandovertime.

Tocqueville’s“politicallyinspiredblendingoftheoryandhistory,”asWolin

describesit,aimedtoidentifyandamplifythespacesofhumanagencystillavailable

indemocraticages,especially“thestrengthandindependenceofmenwhenunited

insocialgroups.”48Tocqueville’sreflectionsontheseissuesbuiltuponotherwriters

of“thenewhistory”—forexample,FrançoisGuizot,AugustinThierry,andJules

Michelet—whowereallconcernedwithwritinghistorythatlookedbeyondthe

“historyofkingsandcourts,warsandgallantry.”“Itwasthetaskofthehistorianof

thenineteenthcentury,”DouglasJohnsonwrites,“whenthepeoplehadcometo

prominenceandhademergedonthestageofhistory,towriteaboutthepeople.”

“Theambitionofthenewhistorians,”hecontinues,“wastowriteahistoryofFrance

whichwouldgiveitsrightfulplacetotheordinarypeopleofFrance.”49Itwouldbe,

inLindaOrr’swords,a“headlesshistory.”50TheRevolutionhadpowerfullyposed

thequestionofhistoricalchangeandcollectiveagencytothenineteenth-century

historianswhowroteinitswake.

Tocqueville’sclaimthatheroicagencycouldnolongerexplainhistorical

changewascoupledwithapervasivesenseofindividualandcollectiveparalysis

thathealsosharedwithmanyhistoriansandpoliticalandsocialtheoristsofthe

nineteenthcentury,whoworriedhumanbeingswerebecomingmereplaythingsto

whatHonorédeBalzaccalled“someunknownandMachiavellianpower.”51Even

Michelet,whoserevolutionaryandromanticidentificationwiththeexpressive

16

agencyofthenation—“LaFranceestunepersonne”—differedsodramaticallyfrom

Tocqueville’s,worriedabouttheenslaving“machinic”tendenciesofhistime.52

“Practicallyeverymajorsocialandpoliticaltheoryofthenineteenthcentury,”Wolin

writes,“fromanarchismtoorganizationalism,fromliberalismtosocialism,was

tingedbythedesperateknowledgethatWesternsocietieswerebeingpushed,

shaped,andcompelledinwaysthatbothfascinatedandappalled.”53Thissenseof

beingcaptivetoyourowncreations,theFrankensteinlogic,hasbeensuccinctly

capturedbyEyalChowersasthe“entrapmentimagination”thatshapessomuch

nineteenth-andtwentieth-centurysocialandpoliticalthought.54Tocquevillewas

oneofthemostacuteanalystsofthisimagination,and,asIwillargueinthenext

section,hisexplanationsofitscausesanddangerouseffectsoftenparallelthoseof

moreradicalcriticsofliberaldemocracytowhoseworkhisisotherwiseso

frequentlyandrightlyopposed.

II.

Tocquevillearguedthatdemocracyelevatestheroleofindividualinterestin

publiclifeassocialequalitydestroysapoliticsorganizedaroundafixedhierarchyof

goods.“Ourcentury,”asConstanthadwritten,“valueseverythingaccordingtoits

utility.”55Tocquevilleagreedandtheywerenotaloneinassociatingmodernpolitics

withanempireofutilitydirectedbytheoverwhelmingquestforhappinessand

materialwell-being.Thishadbeenanimportantfeatureofthestadialhistoriesof

theScottishandFrenchEnlightenment,the“virtue”and“commerce”rubric

investigatedbyJ.G.A.Pocock,andthe“doux-commercethesis”exploredbyAlbertO.

Hirschman.56Tocquevillewasalsonotaloneinattendingtoitsdangers.Romantic

17

criticsofEnlightenmentmaterialismandsensationalismoftenrejectedutilityasthe

supremecriteriaofevaluation,anddiminishedutilityfromtheperspectiveof

aestheticformsofevaluationsthattranscenditslogic(whetherphilosophically

articulatedinFriedrichSchiller’sconceptionof“play,”forexample,ormore

popularlyconveyedintheliteraryhatredofthebourgeoisie).57However,evenso

unromanticafigureasAdamSmithopenlyworriedabout“thedisadvantagesofthe

commercialspirit:Themindsofmenarecontractedandrenderedincapableof

elevation.Educationisdespised,oratleastneglectedandtheheroicspiritisalmost

utterlyextinguished.”“Toremedythesedefects,”Smithcontinued,“wouldbean

objectworthyofseriousattention.”58Tocquevillefrequentlyreturnedtothis

worthyobjectinhiswork.Hiscritiqueofpoliticalmodernity,asmanyofhis

Straussianadmirershaveemphasized,wascenteredonhisidentificationofthe

dangersattendingapoliticsorganizedaroundsecurity,happiness,andthe

preservationofmerelife.“Thecravingforwellbeing,”hewroteintheOldRegime,

necessarily“leadsthewaytoservitude,”anddestroyshigheraspirationsand

ambitions.59Tocqueville’sfearofthepoliticalconsequencesofliberaldemocracy’s

cravingforcomfortatonceechoedclassicalrepublicancritiquesofthecorruptionof

virtue,andanticipatedlaterradicalaestheticcritiquesofbourgeoismediocrity,

decadence,andovercivilization.Tocquevilleisatransitionalandmediatingfigure

betweenthesetwopoliticaldiscourses,theonepointingbacktothecivicidealism

andvirtùofRenaissanceFlorence,theothertowardtheregenerating

aestheticizationofactionandwillassociatedwithNietzscheandSorel.60

18

AsthediscussionofinterestandthepoliticsofhappinessinDemocracy

makesclear,however,Tocquevillealsoemphasizedtheunrecognizedadvantagesof

aninterest-orientedpoliticswhenviewedfromthebroaderperspectiveofits

aggregateconsequencesandunintendedeffects.Therearelossestobesure,but

Tocqueville,atleastinthisearlywork,alsoarguesthatthesearemitigatedby

unseenadvantagesaccruedovertime—ifnot“heroicvirtues”then“peacefulhabits,”

ifnot“brilliantsociety”thena“prosperousone,”ifnot“strengthandglory”then

“well-being,”andsoon.61Whenthemoredangeroustendenciesofpolitics

organizedaroundinterestaremitigated,astheywereintheUnitedStatesonhis

account,bysuchoffsettingfactorsasreligion,theexperienceofpoliticalfreedom,

federalism,theartofassociation,andthedoctrineofself-interestrightly

understood,thebenefitsforTocquevillecamemoreclearlyintoview.Interest-

orientedpoliticswhensomodifiedandenlighteneddo“notmakeamanvirtuous,”

hewrites,“butitdoesshapeahostoflaw-abiding,sober,moderate,carefulandself-

controlledcitizens.Ifitdoesnotleadthewilldirectlytovirtueitmovesitcloser

throughtheimperceptibleinfluenceofhabit.”62Ofcourse,eventhisadmiringgloss

fromthefirstvolumeofDemocracyanticipatesthedarkerpassagesinthesecond

volumewhereakindlydisposedandbenevolentpowerworksnotbytyrannizing

overitssubjectedpopulationbutbyinhibiting,draining,andsnuffingoutaction,

reducingpeopletoa“flockoftimidhardworkinganimals.”63

Wolinarguesthatthe“questionofhowtocometotermswithbanality

naggedat[Tocqueville]fromhisearliestpoliticalawakeningtotheendofhislife.It

arosebecauseofhisconvictionthatforpoliticstobeauthenticithadtobeheroic,

19

largerthanordinarylife.”64The“lifetimetask”Tocquevillesethimself,Wolinclaims,

wasto“redeempoliticsfromthetrivialityandbasenessofaninterest-oriented

age.”65Tocquevilleworriedthat“whatismosttobefearedisthatinthemidstofthe

smallincessantoccupationsofprivatelife,ambitionwillloseitssparkandits

greatness;thathumanpassionwillbeappeasedanddebasedatthesametime.”66

Thepoliticsthatemergesaroundsuch“appeased”and“debased”passionswouldbe

similarlydegraded.InTocqueville’sdiscussionofthedeclineof“greatparties,”for

example,hearguesthatwhilegreatpartiesbroughtinstabilitytosociety,theyalso

animateditwith“realpoliticalpassions”andasenseofmoralpurpose.Hepredicted

theinterest-basedpartiesthatwouldemergeintheirwakewouldbepreoccupied

with“triflingissues,”with“incomprehensibleorchildish”disputes,andtherebyrob

politicallifeofitsstatureandsignificance.67Similarly,inhischapterfrom

Democracyon“WhyGreatRevolutionsWillBecomeRare,”Tocquevillewritesthat

“individualswillallowthemselvestobesoovertakenbyacravenloveofimmediate

pleasuresthatconcernfortheirownfutureandthatoftheirdescendantsmay

vanish,andthattheywillprefertofollowtamelythecourseoftheirowndestiny

ratherthanmakeasuddenandenergeticefforttosetthingsrightwhentheneed

arises.”68Atstakeinbothexamplesisthedisappearanceofthose“realpolitical

passions”whichTocquevilleconsistentlyassociateswith“religiouspassions,”

opposingbothtothenarrowbutseductive“passionforwellbeing.”Inan1847

lettertoLouisdeKergolay,Tocquevillemakesthisdistinctionclear.“Asageneral

thesis,”hewrites,“religiouspassionsandpoliticalpassionsarecompatibleand

mutuallyreinforcing.Inbothcaseswhattheyshareisconcernforgeneralandto

20

somedegreeimmaterialinterests.”Onbothsidesapoetic“idealofhumansociety”

isinview.Bothoffera“picturewhichraisesoursoulsabovethecontemplationof

minorprivateinterestsandcarriesthemaway.”Heconcludesbysayingthat

“politicalpassionandthepassionforwellbeingcannotexistinthesamesoul.”69

Tocqueville’scriticalengagementwithliberaldemocracy’slowlyempireof

utilityismoreradical—andperhapsalsomorephilosophicallyrich—thanitisoften

takentobe.Thereductionofactionandjudgmenttointerestnotonlyestablishes

theconditionsforhisanalysisofthetutelarydespotismdescribedinthesecond

volumeofDemocracy,butisalsothebasisforabroadcritiqueofinstrumental

reasonandtheleechingoutofmeaningandsignificancefrompubliclife.Thisaspect

ofTocqueville’sargumentbecomesmostclearinhiswritingsontheJulyMonarchy

andinhiscorrespondencefrom1840swhileheservedintheChamberofDeputies

asarepresentativefromValognes.Intheseletters,interestchangesfrombeingan

exampleofaggregatedagency,thedangersofwhichcouldbemitigatedbystrategies

likethosementionedabove,tosomethingmorereminiscentofHannahArendt’s

socialblobenvelopingpoliticallifeanddrainingitofsignificanceandoverwhelming

thepossibilitiesforpoliticalaction(apointIwillreturntointheconclusion).70“The

universalcalmingdownandlevelingoffthatfollowedtheJulyRevolution[of1830]”

Tocquevillewouldwrite,lefthimthinkinghewas“destinedtolivehislifeinan

enervatedtranquilsociety.”71KingLouisPhillipehadattemptedtodrownthe

“revolutionarypassions”thatreturnedin1830,heproclaimed,with“theloveof

materialpleasures.”72Tocqueville’slettersfromthisperiodreturntimeandagainto

the“apoplectictorper”and“grievousnumbness”ofsocialandpoliticallife.Inan

21

1838lettertoBeaumont,Tocquevillewrites,“mymindiscompletelycrammedwith

aheroismthatishardlyofourtime,andIfallveryflatwhenIcomeoutofthese

dreamsandfindmyselffacetofacewithreality.”73Tocqueville’sexpressionsof

disgustwiththe“illnessofbourgeoismediocrity”andthe“universalpettinessthat

reignsoverourhistory”anticipatesmoreradicalnineteenth-century“criticsof

malaise,declineanddecadence,”andRichardBoydisprobablyrighttodescribehim

asa“progenitorofnineteenth-centuryradicalanxietiesaboutbourgeoismalaise.”74

However,unlikeBaudelaire,say,orBalzac,Tocqueville’sanalysisisalwaysfocused

onthepoliticalcausesandconsequencesofthis“apoplectictorper,”andonseeking

outpoliticalsolutionstothecrisisithascreated.

Tocquevilleworriedthata“fatalindifference”topubliclifearoseespecially

fromwhathecalledthe“politicalatheism”ofhiscontemporaries,their“tendencyto

treatwithindifferencealltheideasthatcanstirsociety,”drainingpubliclifeof“real

politicalpassions”thatcouldengendersignificantpublicacts.“Whatwemostneed

inourdayarepassions,“Tocquevilledeclared,“trueandsolidpassionsthatbindup

andleadlife.”“Wenolongerknowhowtowant,orlove,orhate.”“Weflutterheavily

aroundamultitudeofsmallobjects,noneofwhicheitherattractsus,orstrongly

repelsus,orholdsus.”75IfinhisAmericanwritings,Tocqueville’santidotetothe

dangersofthepoliticsofutilityhadbeenthosefamiliarfactorsmentionedabove–

the“socialfunctionofreligion”andAmerica’slongstandinghabituationintothe

difficult“artsoffreedom”–wheretheseresourcescouldnotbereliedupon—

namely,France—heturnedinsteadtotheimportantroleofextraordinaryand

heroicpoliticalactiontooffsetthesedangersandreturnasenseofgrandeurtoa

22

degradedpubliclife.Tocquevilleinvokedtheimportanceofgreatness,heroism,

glory,andpoliticalgrandeuratmanypointsinhiswritings,but,asJenniferPittsand

othershavestressed,Tocqueville’spreoccupationwithpoliticalgrandeuris

particularlynotableinhiswritingsonFrenchcolonialism,andinhiscelebrationof

imperialconquestandasawayofrousingthepublicfromtheir“grievous

numbness”andrestoringaregenerativevitalityintopubliclife.

Inawell-knownlettersenttoJohnStuartMillin1841Tocquevilleoffereda

clear—andtoMill,deeplytroubling—articulationoftheconnectionbetweenthe

debasementofmoderndemocraticpoliticsandtheimportanceofgloriousactionin

combattingit.“Thegreatestmaladythatthreatensapeopleorganizedasweare,”

Tocquevillewrites,“isthegradualsofteningofthemores,theabasementofthe

mind,andthemediocrityoftaste;thatiswherethegreatdangersofthefuturelie.”76

Tocquevillethenaffirmsthepossibilityofwar—thecontextisaconflictoverSyria

betweenEngland’sallyTurkeyandFrance’sallyEgypt—asawayofmitigatingthese

dangersandaffirmingthenation’swilltosacrificeforahighercause.77“Onecannot

letthisnationtakeupeasilythehabitofsacrificingwhatitbelievestobeits

grandeurtoitsrepose,greatmatterstopettyones;itisnothealthytoallowsucha

nationtobelievethatitsplaceintheworldissmaller,thatisitfallenfromthelevel

onwhichitsancestorshadputit,butthatitmustconsoleitselfbybuildingrailroads

andbymakingthewell-beingofeachprivateindividualprosperamidstpeace,

underwhateverconditionsthepeaceisobtained.”78

Tocqueville’sconfessedlovefor“greatevents”andhiswearinesswithwhat

heoncecalled“ourlittledemocraticandbourgeoispotofsoup,”areoftenexpressed

23

inthecontextofimperialconquestanditsabilitytoprevent“internalpoliticaland

moraldecay.”79Inmakingthesearguments,Tocquevillewasbreakingnotonlywith

Mill—Millnotedthe“simplepuerility”ofTocqueville’sappealtograndeurinhis

respondingletter,effectivelyendingtheirfriendship—butquiteexplicitlywiththe

worksofotherprominentFrenchliberals,whohadotherwiseprofoundlyinfluenced

him.Montesquieu’sSpiritoftheLawsandConsiderationsontheCausesofthe

GreatnessoftheRomansandTheirDecline,andConstant’sSpiritofConquestand

Usurpation,alsoemphasized,forexample,themoderndisappearanceoftheheroic

loveofglory,andthereplacementofhonorableambitionwiththelureofprofit.

Theyturnedthefadingstatusofpoliticalgrandeurintoadefiningconditionof

politicalmodernity.Constant,forexample,wrotethat“thesoleaimofmodern

nationsisrepose,andwithreposecomfortand,asasourceofcomfort,industry.”80

NeitherMontesquieunorConstant,however,valorizedaheroicrestorationof

grandeurasaviableresponse.Indeed,writinginthecontextoftheFirstEmpire

andtheemergenceoftheNapoleonicmyth,Constant,alongwithGermainedeStaël,

diagnosedsuchcallsforheroicrestorationaslittlemorethanamaskforareturnto

thebrutalityanddominationcharacteristicofanearlier,less-civilizedage.81Inthe

SpiritofConquestandUsurpationConstantwrites,

IhavesometimeswonderedwhatthesemenwhowishtorepeatthedeedsofCambyses,Alexander,orAttilawouldreplyifhispeopleweretosaytohim:Naturehasgivenyouaquickeye,boundlessenergy…andaninexhaustiblethirstforconfrontingandsurmountingdanger…Butwhyshouldwepaythepriceforthem?Arewehereonlytobuild,withourdyingbodies,yourroadtofame?Youhaveageniusforfighting:whatgoodisittous?…Liketheleopard,youbelongtoanotherclimate,anotherland,anotherspeciesfromours.Learntobecivilized,ifyouwishtoreigninacivilizedage.Learnpeace,ifyouwishtoruleoverpeacefulpeople…Manfromanotherworld,stopdespoilingthisone.82

24

Constantwasacutelyawareofhowappealstograndeurcouldbecomefalse

rationalizationsforpersonalambitionandthebrutalexerciseofpowerand

exploitationincolonialcontexts.Tocqueville,bycontrast,arguedthatthatobstacles

anddangersofthecolonialenterprisewereoccasionsfortheheroicwillandthe

assertionofnationalgreatness.HisestimationofNapoleonwasmuchmore

ambivalentthanConstant’s,asalreadysuggested,sinceTocquevilleobjectednot

primarilytoNapoleon’sextraordinaryheroismandvalor,assuch,buttothefact

thatinNapoleon’scaseitwasputtotheserviceofhisownpersonalaggrandizement

ratherthanrepresentingthegrandeurofthenationasawhole.“Allthatseemsto

distinguishTocquevillefromtheNapoleonicvisionoftheFirstEmpire,”Boyd

writes,“ishisconvictionthatinorderforthisglorytobemeaningfulastherapeutic

forFrenchcivillife,imperialgrandeurneedstobecometheauthentic

representationofthewillofthewholeFrenchnation.”83Imperialconquestcould,

forTocqueville,unifytheheroicactwiththegeneralnationalpurposeintheway

requiredtoengenderthepoliticalgrandeurhethoughtsocrucialforrespondingto

the“apoplectictorper”ofhistime.

Inthis,asinsomuchelse,TocquevillebelievedFrancehadsomethingto

learnfromEngland.ExpressinghisdeepadmirationforthecolonizationofIndia,

Tocquevilledescribeditasa“flashofbrilliancethatreflectsbackontheentire

nation.”Headmiredthe“senseofgreatnessandpowerwhichitgivesawhole

people,”andconcluded“financialandcommercialconsiderationsarenottheonly

thingsbywhichanationshouldjudgethevalueofaconquest.”84Tocqueville

invokedsimilarnon-economiccriteriaforimperialconquestwhenmakinghis

25

argumentonbehalfoftheFrenchcolonizationofAlgeria.Toabandonourcolony,

Tocquevilleasserts,“wouldbeaclearindicationofourdecadence.”85“Anypeople

thateasilygivesupwhatithastakenandchoosestoretirepeacefullytoitsoriginal

bordersproclaimsthatitsageofgreatnessisover.Itvisiblyenterstheperiodofits

decline.”86PittshasshownthatTocqueville’sembraceoftherejuvenatingpowerof

colonialconquestisnotamereinconsistencyinhiswork,oranexampleofhis

unfortunateracialprejudices,butanintegralpartofhispoliticalthinking.

“Tocqueville,”shewrites,“believedthatFranceneededagrandundertakingto

convincethepeoplethattheircollectivepoliticalprojectwasworthwhile,something

toraiseFrenchpoliticsaboveitsusualpettiness,anantidotetostagnation.”87

“Tocqueville’sdefenseofempireisinseparablefromhiscriticaldiagnosisoflanguor,

impotence,boredom,privatization,andcommercializationundertheJuly

Monarchy.”88

WhilethislineofargumentisespeciallypronouncedinhiswritingonFrench

colonialism,itdoeshaveprecedentinhisearlierwork,forexampletheclaimin

Democracythat“waralmostalwaysenlargesthemindofapeopleandraisestheir

character.”89CoreyRobinhasnotedthiscontinuityofpreoccupationin

Tocqueville’swork,andplaceditwithinalargerdistinctive“conservative”tradition

ofpoliticalthoughtbuiltaroundtheideathat“iftheselfistothriveandflourishit

mustbearousedbyanexperiencemorevitalandbracingthanpleasureor

enjoyment.”90Iagreewiththeimportanceofthisdistinctivetradition,butdisagree

withRobin’seffortstoideologicallyconfineittoconservatism.Itisamore

widespreadandideologicallypromiscuousargumentinthenineteenth(and

26

twentieth)century.Manyoftheradicalrepublicansofthe1840salsobelieved,in

thewordsofJulesBarni,thatone“enslavedbypleasureandostentation”wouldalso

be“enslavedbyhisCaesar,”andmanyattributedsuchregenerativepoliticalvitality

totherevolutionaryactsofthepeoplethemselves,especiallyasmanifestthrough

themythosofinsurrectionandthe“poeticsofthebarricades”whichreachedits

apotheosisin1848.91Rosanvallonhastracedthepersistenceofthisidea.

“Throughoutthenineteenthcentury,”hewrites,“manyradicalssawinsurrection—

formlesspower’slivingshadow—asthemanifestationofpuredemocracy,”capable

ofconverting“’thepeople’fromaformalabstractionintoaregenerative,concrete,

palpablereality:alivingcreativepower.From1830onawholepoeticsofthe

barricadeamplifiedthispoliticalandmoralexaltationofinsurrection.”92

WhileTocquevillewashappytoseeFranceridoftheJulyMonarchyin

Februaryof1848,andhadabriefhopethat“wearegoingtobeginanewpolitical

lifeagain,”hequicklycametoseenothinggrandorsublimeinit.Hequicklycameto

view1848asagrotesqueextensionofthedebasedinterest-orientedpoliticsofthe

JulyMonarchy,a“slave’swar”nowthreateningtheprivilegeofpropertyitself.Ina

speechdeliveredaspeechbeforetheChamberofDeputieslessthanamonthbefore

theFebruaryrevolution,Tocquevillearguedthatthe“egoismandselfinterestand

corruption”whichhadoriginatedintheJulyMonarchy’sbourgeoisleadershiphad

nowthoroughlyinfectedtheworkers.Hewarnedhiscolleaguesthattheworkers

werenowdriventoachievetheirownsocialinterest,andthatpursuingthisinterest

couldonly“leadtorevolution.”Andsoitdid.

27

“Thegreatandrealcauseoftherevolution[of1848],”hewouldwriteina

letterfromAprilofthatyear,“wasthedetestablespiritwhichanimatedthe

governmentduringitslongreign;aspiritoftrickery,ofbaseness,andofbribery,

whichhasenervatedanddegradedthemiddleclasses,destroyedtheirpublicsprit,

anfilledthemwithaselfishnesssoblindastoinducethemtoseparatetheir

interestsentirelyfromthoseofthelowerclassfromwhencetheysprang.”93Asan

expressionofthis“detestablespirit”therevolutionaryactsof1848couldneverbe

sublime,andtheircollectiveactorcouldneverbecapableofheroism.Itwasanidea

thatechoedinmanyconservativecriticsoftherevolution,andwellasbysome

radicals(mostnotablyMarxinTheEighteenthBrumaire).Inhisdepictionofthe

FebruaryrevolutioninSentimentalEducation,GustaveFlaubertfollowsTocqueville

inemphasizingthestagedridiculousnessofthewholetawdryaffair.“Pushedalong

inspiteofthemselves,”Flaubertwrites,thepeople“enteredaroomwhereared

velvetcanopywasstretchedacrosstheceiling.Onthethronebeneath,theresata

proletarianwithablackbeard,hisshirthalfopened,grinninglikeastupidape.

Othersclamberedupontotheplatformtositinhisplace.”“There’sthesovereign

peopleforyou!”Hussonetdeclares.“Whatamyth!”“Idon’tcarewhatyouthink,”

repliesFrédéric.“Ithinkthepeoplearesublime.”94

III.

“IdonotthinkinFrancethereisamanwhoislessrevolutionarythanI,”

Tocquevilleoncewrote,“noronewhohasmoreprofoundhatredforwhatiscalled

therevolutionaryspirit.”95AurelianCraiutuarguesthisisperhaps“thebest

expressionofTocqueville’spoliticalcredo,”andtheclearestsignofhisexemplary

28

praiseofpoliticalmoderation.96Thiscredo,however,obscuresfromview

Tocqueville’soccasionalpraiseoftheelevatinggrandeurofrevolutionaryevents,

withtheirinterminglingofthereligiousandpoliticalpassions.Inthemidstofhis

despairoverthe“apoplectictoper”oftheJulyMonarchy,forexample,Tocqueville

confessedtoBeaumontthathe“wouldhavepreferredarevolutionaryconditiona

thousandtimesmorethanourpresentmisery.”Heworriedthatwe“willwenever

againseeafreshbreezeoftruepoliticalpassions…ofviolentpassions,hardthough

sometimescruel,yetgrand,disinterested,fruitful,thosepassionswhicharethesoul

oftheonlypartiesthatIunderstandandtowhichIwouldgladlygivemytime,my

fortune,andmylife.”97Tocquevilleconsidered1789toinitiallybeanexpressionof

such“truepoliticalpassions,”andthereforea“spectacleofincomparablebeauty.”

“Itwillneverleavethememoryofmen.Allforeignnationssawit,allapplaudit,all

weremovedbyit.”98DespiteTocqueville’scritiqueofthe“revolutionarycatechism,”

heremainedintermittentlyenthralledbytherevolutionarypromiseofpoliticaland

moralregeneration.“Anationthatasksnomoreofitsgovernmentthanthe

maintenanceoforder,”hewouldwrite,“isalreadyaslaveatthebottomofitsheart.

Itisaslavetoitswell-being,readyforthemanwhowillputitinchains.”Boesche

mayberightthat,morethaninhisaffirmationofthegrandeurofcolonialconquest,

Tocquevilleis“nowheremoreantitheticaltonineteenth-centuryliberalismthanin

hisoccasionalcelebrationofpopularturmoil.”99

TocquevilleindicatedthisambivalenceinhisRecollections:“whenIcameto

searchcarefullyintothedepthsofmyownheart,Idiscovered,withsomesurprise,a

certainsenseofrelief,asortofgladnessmingledwithallthegriefandfeartowhich

29

theRevolution[of1848]hadgivenrise.Isufferedfromthisterribleeventformy

country,butclearlynotformyself,Iseemedtobreathmorefreelythanbeforethe

catastrophe.”100Tocqueville,intheend,didnotconsider1848avitalizingreturnof

“greatpoliticalpassions,”butamonstrousextensionofthelow-sightedpoliticsof

socialneedandmaterialwell-beingthathedetested.“Anewandterriblethinghas

comeintotheworld,”hewouldwriteinhisnotes,“animmensenewsortof

revolutionwhosetoughestagentsaretheleastliterateandthemostvulgar

classes.”101WhathorrifiedTocquevillemostabout1848was“theomnipotenceit

hadgiventotheso-calledpeople,thatistheclasseswhoworkwiththeirhands,over

allotherclasses.”102Tocquevillecontrastedthis“so-calledpeople”tothe“people

properlyso-called.”IftheformerwerethedangerousclassesofParis,thelatter

wereanabstractioninwhichTocquevilleplacedagreatdealofhope:“Theylack

enlightenment,buttheyhaveinstinctsIfindworthyofadmiration;oneencounters

inthem,toadegreethatastonishesmeandwhichwouldbyitsnaturesurprise

foreigners,thesentimentsoforder,trueloveofcountry,andaverygreatsensein

thingsaboutwhichtheycanjudgebythemselves.”103Tocquevillehadlongadmitted

to“hatethedisorderlyactionofthemasses,theirviolentandmuddledintervention

inaffairs,theenviouspassionsofthelowerclasses,theirirreligioustendencies,”but

thiscounterrevolutionarysentimenthardenedinthewakeof1848withitseventual

emphasison“thesocialquestion.”104Tocquevillehadcometomorekeenly

appreciateandfearthat“whatarecallednecessaryinstitutionsareonlyinstitutions

towhichoneisaccustomed,andthatinmattersofsocialconstitutionthefieldof

possibilitiesismuchwiderthanpeoplelivingwithineachsocietyimagine.”105

30

Tocqueville’sRecollections,whichhewrotetwoyearsaftertheeventsof

1848,andwhichwasnotpublisheduntil1893,doesnotelaborateatgreatlengthon

thecausesoftherevolution—itisnotthetreasuretroveofcausalmechanismsand

explanatoryhypothesisthatJonElsteradmiresinDemocracyinAmericaandtheOld

Regime—butitdoesindicatethecomplexlylayeredconceptionofsocialand

politicalcausalitythatmanyreadersadmireinTocqueville’swork,aconceptionthat

leavesagreatdealofroomforcontingencyandchance.Tocquevilleconsistently

rejected“thoseabsolutesystemsthatmakealltheeventsofhistorydependonthe

greatfirstcauseslinkedtogetherbythechainoffate.”106Forthemostpart,

however,theRecollections,likeBurke’sReflections,arefocusedonTocqueville’s

responses—political,moral,andaesthetic—tothespectacleofthe1848events

themselves.Likeotherprominentcommentatorson1848—Marx,forexample,and

Flaubert—Tocquevillecontinuallyevaluatedtherevolutionaryeventsasifthey

weretheatricalscenes.“Thewholeday,”hewroteoftheinitialFebruaryrevolt,“I

hadthefeelingthatwehadstagedaplayabouttheFrenchRevolution,ratherthan

thatwewerecontinuingit.”107Itwasa“tragedy”playedpoorlybya“provincial

troupe.”Tocquevilleisfocused—andespeciallyinthechaptersdevotedto

understandingtheinsurrectionsofFebruary,May,andJune—onrevealingboththe

vulnerabilityofthebasicinstitutionsofFrenchsociety—“property,family,and

civilization”—whilealsoemphasizingthegrotesqueryofthecollectivechallengeto

thoseinstitutions.

IfoneofthecentralconcernsanimatingTocqueville’sworkwasthe

disappearanceofagencyinthedemocraticage,theRecollectionsseemsintenton

31

framingthe1848revolutionasacontinuationof,ratherthanexceptionto,that

broadertendency.Inordertoframeeventsinthisway,Tocquevillesystematically

deniesagencytoitscentralactors,andespeciallytoanythingthatmightbe

construedasacollectiveactor.IntheRecollectionsTocquevillesetsouttofurther

demystifytherevolutionarymythosofthepopularwill.Wolinhasemphasizedthis

aspectofTocqueville’sanalysis,arguingthatintheRecollections“collectiveaction

wouldbedeniedthedeed.”108AccordingtoWolin,Tocqueville“refusestoallowthat

therevolutionarieswere,inanysense,heroicactors,eventhoughtheymightbesaid

notonlytohavefulfilledtherelevantcriteriabuttohavegonefurther:theiractions

werecontestingthelimitsofthepoliticalandattemptingtoextenditsboundaries,

certainlyanobjectivenotdevoidofgrandeur.”109

ExamplesofTocqueville’srefusalofpopularagencycanbefoundthroughout

thetext.Therevolutionaries“didnotoverthrowthegovernment,”hewrites,but

rather“letitcollapse”;revolutionaryleadersarenotleadersproperlyunderstood,

becausetheymerely“setupsailsinthewind,”andsoon.110Tocqueville’semphasis

onagencydeniedismostexplicit,however,inhisdescriptionandanalysisofthe

revolutionarycrowdsofFebruary,MayandJune.Intheseaccounts,Tocqueville

employslongstandingtropesthatfigurethepeopleasaformofnatural

phenomenon,assurgingfloodsandrivers,volcanoesandearthquakes.111These

“tumults,”asTocquevillewritesoftheuprisingsofMay,“engenderthemselves,”but

thepeopleareinsuchinstances“nolongermastersofthemselves.”112Tocqueville

alsoreturnstotheparallelbetweenthesublimityoftheunboundedseaandthe

spectacleofdemocratichistoryinhisRecollectionswhenhewrites“greatmassesof

32

menmoveforreasonsalmostasunknowntomortalmenasthereasonsthat

regulatethemovementsofthesea.Inbothcasesthereasonsareinasensehidden

andlostinthesheerimmensityofthephenomenon.”113Invokingthemysteriously

ineffablespringsofcollectivepoliticalactionduringtheFrenchRevolution,

TocquevillewouldwriteinalettertoLouisdeKergolay:“Icansensethepresence

ofthisunknownobject,butdespiteallmyeffortsIcannotlifttheveilthatcoversit.

Icanpalpateitasthroughaforeignbodythatpreventsmefromgraspingitoreven

seeingit.”114

WhileTocquevillearguedthatcollectiveactionwasinitiatedandsustained

byanelementthatescapedexplanationorrepresentation,thisdidnotnecessarily

lenditdignityorgrandeur.“Idespiseandfearthecrowd,”Tocquevillewrote

bluntlyin1841,andhisdepictionsofthemobilizedcrowdsof1848,andofthe

individualsthatcomprisedthem,whileoftenstunningindetail,arefilledwithdread

anddisgust.115Occasionally,however,Tocqueville’scriticaldepictionssuggest

alternativeinterpretationstothosehehimselfprovides.Considerhisdepictionof

theappearanceofthebarricadesinFebruary.AshemakeshiswaytotheHôtelde

Ville,Tocquevillespotsagroupassiduouslyfallingtreestobegintheconstructionof

thefirstbarricades.“Itlookedexactlylikesomeindustrialundertaking,”

Tocquevillewrites,“whichisjustwhatitwasformostofthosetakingpart;an

instinctfordisorderhadgiventhemthetasteforit;andexperienceofpast

revolutionshadtaughtthemthetheory.NothingthatIsawlaterthatdayimpressed

mesomuchasthatsolitudeinwhichonecould,sotospeak,seeallthemostevil

33

passionsofhumanityatwork,andnoneofthegoodones.Iwouldratherhave

encounteredafuriousmobthere.”116

ThereisnothinginTocqueville’sactualdescriptionofthisscenethatseems

towarrantthatsurprisinginterpretation.Ratherthanwitnessaspontaneous

solidarityandinclinationtoassociation,practicesTocquevillegreatlyadmiresin

othercontexts,heidentifiesisolatedindividualsmotivatedbythe“mostevil

passionsofhumanity.”ThispassagerecallsafamousonefromDemocracyin

America,whereTocquevilleadmirestheself-createdauthorityofpeopleactingin

commonthrough“improvisedassembly”:“Shouldanobstacleappearonthepublic

highwayandtrafficbehalted,”Tocquevilleobserves,“neighborsatonceforma

grouptoconsiderthematter;fromthisimprovisedassemblyanexecutiveauthority

appearstoremedythecommoninconveniencebeforeanyonehasthoughtofthe

possibilityofsomeotherauthorityalreadyinexistencebeforetheonetheyhavejust

formed…Thereisnothingthehumanwilldespairsofobtainingthroughthefreeuse

ofthecombinedpowerofindividuals.”117Inthe1848barricadescenetheobstacle

isbeingcreatedtodefendtheassociation,intheAmericaninstanceitisbeing

removedtoachieveacommongoal.Inbothcasesweseeacollectivity

spontaneouslytakingshapearoundmattersofcommonconcernthatbroadly

definesTocqueville’sconceptionofthepolitical.

Tocquevilleemphasizesthattheradical“clubsandassemblies”of1848were

“constantlymanufacturingprinciplesthatcouldlaterjustifyactsofviolence,”

especiallyintheirrecurrentappealtotheprincipleofpopularconstituentpower.

“Itwasmaintainedthatthepeople,alwayssuperiortotheirrepresentatives,never

34

completelyhandovertheirwilltotheirrepresentatives,atrueprinciplefromwhich

theyderivedtheutterlyfalseconclusionthattheParisianworkerswerethepeople

ofFrance.”118Tocqueville’scritiqueofthe“so-calledpeopleofFrance”—theradical

workersofParis–claimingtospeakandactonbehalfofthepeople“properlyso-

called”—andhisrhetoricaleffortstosustainthisdistinction—reachesitsgreatest

intensityinhisdiscussionoftheworkerrebellionofJune.Tocquevillepresentsthe

Juneuprisingasa“slave’swar”fueledbythedesperateneedsoftheworkingclass

poorofParis,butasinterpretedorframedbythetheoretical“systemizers”so

dangerouslyproliferatinginthemiddleofthenineteenthcentury.Therevolution

itselfwasnotasimpleexpressionofneed,Tocquevilleargued,butneedasframed

throughdangerousideas.In“theinsurrectionofJunetherewassomethingother

thanbadpropensities;therewerefalseideas,”hewrites.“Manyofthesemenwere

ledbyasortoferroneousnotionofright.Theysincerelybelievedsocietyitselfwas

foundedoninjustice.”119Themostpotentofthese“erroneousnotionsofright,”

Tocquevilleargued,wasthedistinctlymodernideathatthesocialconditionofthe

workingclasscouldbeimprovedandalleviatedthroughpoliticalaction.Inhis

uncompletedhistoryofmodernmoralityonwhichhehadcollaboratedwith

Gobineaupriorto1848,Tocquevilleproposedtheyfocustheirattentiononan

entirely“newkindofsocialandpoliticalmorality”that“compelledgovernmentsto

redresscertaininequalities,tomollifyhardships,tooffersupporttothelucklessand

helpless.”120Itwasthecommitmenttopoliticalsolutionstosocialandeconomic

problemsthatTocquevillefoundmostdistinctiveaboutmodern“socialandpolitical

morality,”andthattheworkeruprisingofJunethenmostclearlyexpressed.

35

Itwasthiscollectiveexpressionofsocialneedthatdeprivedtheeventsof

1848,forTocqueville,ofany“grandeur,”becausegrandeurconceptuallyentailedan

elevateddisinterestednessonthepartoftheactor.TheworkeruprisingsofJune,

forexample,didnothaveapoliticalaim,Tocquevilleargued,butrathersoughtto

“altertheorganizationofsociety”throughpolitics.Inaletterwrittenduringthe

Juneevents,Tocquevilledeclared,“itisnotapoliticalformthatisatissuehere,itis

property,family,andcivilization,everythinginawordthatattachesustolife.”121

TocquevilledescribedtheJunedaysas“thestrangestinsurrection,”butalsothe

“greatestinFrenchhistory.”Heconcedesthatitsactorsdisplayed“wonderful

powersofcoordination,”butthiscoordinationwasonhisaccountproducedbythe

event’sresonantarticulationofdeeplyfeltclassresentmentsandmaterialneeds.“It

wasnot,strictlyspeaking,apoliticalstruggle,inthesensewhichuntilthenwehad

giventothatword,butacombatofclassagainstclass…Webeholdinitnothingmore

thanblindandrude,butpowerful,effortonthepartofworkmentoescapefromthe

necessitiesoftheircondition,whichhadbeendepictedtothemasoneofunlawful

oppression,andtoopenupbymainforcearoadtowardsthatimaginarycomfort

withwhichtheyhadbeendeluded.”122

ThemostcondensedsymboloftheuprisingforTocquevilleisthe“hideous

andfrightful”faceoftheoldwomanheencountersinthestreet,whodeliberately

blockshiswayandthenattackshimwhenhe“curtly”ordersheraside.This

incidentwas,hewrites,an“importantsymptom”of“thegeneralstateofmind”

guidingtheinsurrection.LiketheotherwomancombatantsTocquevilleemphasizes

inhisaccountofJune,whotakethesamepleasureincombatastheywouldin

36

“winningalottery,”thereisnothingnobleorcourageousinthewoman’s

confrontationwithTocqueville,orinherrefusaltoplayherexpectedroleinthe

choreographyofhierarchicalsocialrelations.Sheisagain,forTocqueville,merely

thebrutalmanifestationofneed.123

Tocqueville’sreductionoftheaspirationsofcollectiveactorstoexpressions

ofsocialinterestisnotlimitedtohiswritingson1848.Inan1843articleonthe

abolitionofslaveryinEnglandTocquevilleofferedanotherexampleofthis

associationofgrandeurwithdisinterestedness,andhisuseofthatassociationto

rejecttheheroismofcollectiveactors.Tocquevilledeclaredthatabolitionoffered

anunprecedentedandextraordinaryspectacletohiscontemporariesthatcompared

withtheastonishingdeedsoftheirrevolutionaryforefathers.Themodern

emancipationofslaves,hesuggested,wasaspectacleofunprecedentedgrandeur

andshouldbeappreciatedassuchbyhiscontemporaries.Tocquevilleurgedhis

readerstodisenthrallthemselvesoftheirwearydistractionsandtrivialconcerns

andrecognizetheelevatingsignificanceofthisextraordinaryeventunfoldingin

theirtime.AnimportantpartofwhatmadeEuropeanabolitionsoextraordinary

wasitsuddenness,thatitdid“nothappengradually,slowly,overthecourseoflong

successivetransformations,”butratherthatithadtheabruptnessofanunforeseen

event:thatinan“instantalmostamillionmentogetherwentfromextreme

servitudetototalfreedom.”124Theotherelementthatlentabolitionsuch

extraordinarygrandeurforTocquevillewasthatitwasnotundertaken“bythe

desperateeffortoftheslave,butbytheenlightenedwillofthemaster.”125What

endowedthenineteenthcenturyabolitionofslaverywithgrandeurforTocqueville

37

isthatitdidnotcomefromtheinterestedactionofenslavedAfricansfightingfor

theirfreedom,mostobviouslyinHaiti,butfromthedisinterestedactsofheroic

whitebenefactors.

Tocqueville’sefforttobothrestoreasenseofgrandeurtoapublicrealmthat

hadbeendegradedbytheempireofutility,andyetdenythatgrandeurtocollective

agentsactingoutofmaterialinterestsorneedisechoedintheworkofHannah

Arendt.Iwillconcludethischapterwithsomeverypreliminarythoughtsonthat

connection.

Conclusion

InTheHumanCondition,ArendtinvokedthepetitbonheuroftheFrenchas

anexampleofthe“modernenchantmentwith‘smallthings.’”“Sincethedecayof

theironcegreatandgloriouspublicrealm,”Arendtwrites,“theFrenchhavebecome

mastersintheartofbeinghappyamong‘smallthings,’withinthespaceoftheirown

fourwalls,betweenchestandbed,tableandchair,dogandcatandflowerpot.”This

“enlargementoftheprivate,”shewrites,“theenchantment,asitwere,ofawhole

people,doesnotmakeitpublic,doesnotconstituteapublicrealm,but,onthe

contrary,meansonlythatthepublicrealmhasalmostreceded,sothatgreatnesshas

givenwaytocharmeverywhere;forwhilethepublicrealmmaybegreatitcannot

becharmingpreciselybecauseitisunabletoharbortheirrelevant.”

WecanhearTocquevilleanechoesinArendt’sridiculeofthe“small

enchantments”ofprivatelifethathavefilledthevoidof“aoncegreatandglorious

publicrealm,”aswellasinherdistinctionbetweenpublic“greatness”andprivate

“charm.”LikeTocqueville,Arendtwasconcernedwiththedisappearanceof

38

grandeurfrompubliclife,andwithrestoring“theesteemanddignityofpolitics.”

PegBirminghammaybeexaggeratingslightlywhenshewritesthat“HannahArendt

isaloneamongcontemporarypoliticalthinkersintakingupthemodernproblemof

glory,”butsheisrighttoemphasizeArendt’scontinuouspreoccupationwiththe

lossandrecoveryofpoliticalgrandeurinthecontextofdemocraticpolitics.

Arendt’swritingontheaestheticorientationtowardpublicthings,andthe“loveof

theworld,”isacontemporaryextensionofTocqueville’scritiqueoftheempireof

utilitythatdoesnotseeksolutionsintherealmofpoliticaltheology.Like

Tocqueville,Arendtsoughtimmanentsourcesofsublimetranscendence,more

consistentlythanTocquevilleshesoughtgrandeursolelyinthefragile,

interdependent,andpluralrealmofhumanactionitself.Mostimportantlyfor

Arendt,grandeurcouldnotlongerbeassociatedwiththeheroicsovereigntyof

statesmanandleaders,butwithpluralitiesofequalsengagedinactioninconcert.

WhileArendtacknowledgedTocqueville’s“greatinfluence”onherina1959

letter,andinOnRevolutionshedescribeshimas“thekeenestandmostthoughtful

observer”ofrevolution,thefullextentofthatinfluencehasyettobefullyexcavated

inthescholarship.HannaPitkindescribesTocquevilleasan“absentauthority”

standingbehindArendt’sconceptofthe“riseofthesocial”asitisdevelopedinboth

TheHumanConditionandOnRevolution.ForPitkin,Arendtadaptedandextended

Tocqueville’sanalysisofsocialentropyinthesecondvolumeofDemocracyin

America,whereamultitudeofdisconnectedindividualsaredrawnintothemyopia

oftheirprivateandmaterialneeds,driftinginthe“trivial,lonely,andfutile”scopeof

theirprivatelives,andvacatingthepublicrealmtotheadministrativedespotismof

39

an“immensetutelarypower.”WhenArendtdescribesthesocialasexpressingthe

“mutualdependenceforthesakeoflifeandnothingelse”andworriesaboutthe

politicalconsequencesof“activitiesconnectedwithsheersurvival”overwhelming

thepublicrealm,thereseemtobeconnectionswithTocqueville’sdisdainforthe

empireofutilityinhisowntime.Thisapparentconnectionisdemonstrated,infact,

bythelecturesthatArendtpresentedonTocquevilleattheUniversityofCalifornia,

Berkeleyin1955,whichemphasizetheappearanceof“society”inhisworkasthe

initiatorofahistoricalprocessthatdisplacestheactor.“Society,”Arendtwrites,

“whenitfirstenteredthepublicrealm,assumedthedisguiseofanorganizationof

propertyownerswho,insteadofclaimingaccesstothepublicrealmbecauseoftheir

wealth,demandedprotectionfromitfortheaccumulationofmorewealth.”

Liberalism,onherreading,thusfurthered“thedegradationofpoliticsintoameans

forsomethingelse,”focusedonroutinizedformsof“uniformbehavior”that

“excludesspontaneousactionoroutstandingachievement.”Thiscontrastleadsto

oneofthemoreinfamousargumentofTheHumanCondition,constantlyappealedto

bycriticsofArendt’saestheticism:

Unlikehumanbehavior—whichfortheGreeks,likeallcivilizedpeople, judgedaccordingto“moralstandards,”takingintoaccountmotivesand intentions,ontheonehand,andaimsandconsequencesontheother—action canonlybejudgedbythecriterionofgreatnessbecauseitisinitsnatureto breakthroughthecommonlyacceptedandreachintotheextraordinary, wherewhateveristrueincommonandeverydaylifenolongerapplies becauseeverythingthatexistsisuniqueandsuigeneris.(205)

InOnRevolutionthiscontrastbetweenbehaviorandactionbecomesoneof

theconceptualdiscontinuitiesseparatingtheAmericanfromtheFrenchRevolution.

Inbothevents,Arendtwrites,therewasthe“ever-repeatedinsistencethatnothing

40

comparableingrandeurandsignificancehadeverhappenedinthewholerecorded

historyofhumankind,”butintheAmericancasethatgrandeurwasassociatedwith

actionandmutualcompact,whileintheFrenchitcametobeassociatedwiththe

sublimityof“History.”Thisdistinctionalsoseemstocorrespondcloselywiththe

oneelaboratedaboveinTocqueville’swork:betweenthe“religiousdread”of

historicaldeterminationandthefadinggrandeurofdisinterestedheroicaction.

ArendtdescribedtheFrenchrevolutionarycrowdsof1789asa“multitude,

appearingforthefirsttimeinbroaddaylight…themultitudeofthepoorand

downtrodden,whoeverycenturybeforehadhiddenindarknessandshame.”This

dangerousmultitudefloodingthepublicrealmbroughttheconcernsof“life’s

necessities”intoarealmoffreedom,overwhelmingitwithdemands“drivenbydaily

needs.”Justasrevolutionaryleadershadinitiatedactionsto“asserttheirgrandeur

andvindicatetheirhonor,”thecrushingsocialdemandsofthepoorsubmergedtheir

initiallypoliticalgoalswithsocialobjectives.Asrevolutionaryleaderslostcontrol

ofthecollectivedemandsofthecrowdstheythemselveshadincited,Arendtclaims,

itseemedtothemthatrevolutionaryactorswerenolongercapableofinitiatingor

takingcontrolofevents,butweremerelysuperficialexpressionsoflargerhistorical

forces.InFrance,shewrites,thisconfrontationwiththeforcesofHistory

“transformeditselfalmostimmediatelyintoafeelingofaweandwonderatthe

powerofhistoryitself.”InArendt’sanalysis,asinTocqueville’s,theRevolution’s

grandeurofactionwasreplacedbytheterriblespectacleofmassesbeing“driven

willynillyalongthesameroad,everyonejoiningthecommoncause,somedespite

41

themselvesothersunwittingly,allofthemlikeblindinstrumentsinthehandsof

God.”

Tocqueville’sinfluenceonArendt’saccountof“theriseofthesocial”has

beenpersuasivelyarguedbyPitkinandothers,butperhapsevenmorestriking(or

atleastsuggestive)ishispossibleinfluenceonherpositiveresponsetothis

condition.LikeTocqueville,Arendtsoughtsourcesofwonderandinspiration—

even“miracles”—inthesecularrealmofhumanactionitself,andmuchmorethan

himshedistrustedpoliticaltheologyandrenewedeffortstoretranscendetalizethe

politicalrealmbyappealtowhatshereferredtoas“theAbsolute.”Arendtrejected

thedangerouspost-Revolutionarysearchforthe“transcendentalsanctionforthe

politicalrealm,”yetaffirmedtheimportanceofanelevatedgrandeurtopolitics,asa

wayofsustaining“theesteemanddignityofpolitics”onthebasisofhumanactionin

concert.ThisisprobablymostclearinherfamousdiscussionoftheGreeklonging

for“earthlyimmortality,”withoutwhich,shewrites,“nopoliticsstrictlyspeaking,

nocommonworld,andnopublicrealmispossible,”butitisalsoanimportantpart

ofherRomandiscussionoftheauthorizingremembranceofthe“actofFounding.”

“Throughmanyagesbeforeus,”Arendtwrites,“butnownotanymore—men

enteredthepublicrealmbecausetheywantedsomethingoftheirownorsomething

theyhadincommonwithotherstobemorepermanentthantheirearthlylives.”

Arendt’spreoccupationwiththeloveoffameandimmortalitymaynotbe

motivatedbyGermannostalgiafortheGreekpolis,butbyheraresponsetoa

problemsimilartoTocqueville’scritiqueofliberalism’sempireofutility.Arendt

wasdisgustedbytheneo-imperialrhetoricofgloryassociatedwiththeBonapartist

42

mythand,likeConstantandMontesquieu,rejectedeffortstocloakthespectacleof

moderncommercialimperialisminthe“oldgrandeurofRomeandAlexanderthe

Great,”butherowneffortstofindimmanentsourcesforasenseofsublime

transcendencewithinthenon-sovereignconditionsofhumanactioninconcert

pointinthedirectionofnewwaysofthinkingtheimportanceofthegrandeurof

politicsthatnotonlymovebeyondTocqueville’simperialliberalism,butalso

potentiallybeyondtheegalitarianlimitationsofherownpoliticalvision.

Notes

1.AlexisdeTocqueville,DemocracyinAmericaandTwoEssaysonAmerica,trans.GeraldE.Bevan(NewYork:PenguinBooks,2003),559.2.Ibid.,560.3.Ibid.,563.4.Ibid.,565.5.Tocqueville’sargumentsconcerningthepoliticalimportanceofasenseofthesublimehavesomesurprisingaffinitieswithcontemporarypsychologicalresearch.PaulPiffandDacherKeltner,forexample,havedetailedhowasenseofawe—whichtheydescribeas“thatoften-positivefeelingofbeinginthepresenceofsomethingvastthattranscendsourunderstandingoftheworld”—helpsindividualsovercomethenarrowpurviewoftheirowninterests,bindsthemtoothers,andfacilitatescollaborativeactionwithothers.SeePaulPiffandDacherKeltner,“Whydoweexperienceawe?”NewYorkTimesMay22,20156.CitedinDanaJalbertStauffer,“TocquevilleontheModernMoralSituation:DemocracyandtheDeclineofDevotion,”AmericanPoliticalScienceReview108:4(November2014),772-782,776.7.SeeRogerBoesche,TheStrangeLiberalismofAlexisdeTocqueville(Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress,1987).AlanKahanpursuesasimilarthemeinAristocraticLiberalism:TheSocialandPoliticalThoughtofJacobBurkhardt,JohnStuartMill,andAlexisdeTocqueville(OxfordUniversityPress,1992).8.AndrewJainchill,ReimaginingPoliticsaftertheTerror:TheRepublicanOriginsofFrenchLiberalism(Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress,2008).9.ButseeMathewW.Maguire,TheConversionofImagination:FromPascalthroughRousseautoTocqueville(Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress,2006).10.Thisisso,eventhoughTocquevillehimselfoccasionallysuggeststhecontrary,aswhenhewritestohisbrotherEdouardthathis“devouringimpatience,”and“needforlivelyandrecurringsensations,”isafamilytraithehasinheritedfromtheirfather.AlexisdeTocqueville,SelectedLettersonPoliticsandSocietyRogerBoesche,ed.(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1985),147.

43

11.FrançoisMélonio,“TocquevilleandtheFrench,”inCherylBWelch,ed.CambridgeCompaniontoTocqueville(NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,2006),337-358,339.12.RogerBoesche,Tocqueville’sRoadMap:Methodology,Liberalism,Revolution,andDespotism(LexingtonBooks,2007),111.13.SheldonWolinwritesthatagainstcontemporarypoliticaldemythologizerslikeMarxandBentham,Tocquevillewasamongthosepoliticaltheoristsseekinga“remythologizingoftheworld.”SheldonWolin,TocquevilleBetweenTwoWorlds:TheMakingofaPoliticalandTheoreticalLife(Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,2003),134.ForatheoreticallyrichandhistoricallycontextualaccountofthesebroaderRomanticeffortsat“remythologization”seeMichaelLöwyandRobertSayre,RomanticismAgainsttheTideofModernity(Durham,NC:DukeUniversityPress,2002).14.OnthepoliticaltheoryofthesePrometheanaspirations,seeBernardYack,TheLongingforTotalRevolution:PhilosophicSourcesofSocialDiscontentfromRousseautoMarxandNietzsche(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1992).15.SusanBuck-Morss,“AestheticsandAnaesthetics:WalterBenjamin’sArtworkEssayReconsidered,”October62(Autumn1992),3-41.16.See,forexample,CatherineZuckert,“NotbyPreaching:TocquevilleontheRoleofReligioninAmericanDemocracy,”ReviewofPolitics43:2(April1981),259-280.ThisemphasisonreligionhasbeenthefocusofmanyStraussianinterpretationsofTocqueville,whichemphasizetheimportanceofpoliticaltheologyincontrastwithwhattheyconstrueasthemoralimpoverishmentofmodernliberalism.17.SeeRobertMorrisey,TheEconomyofGlory:FromAncienRegimeFrancetotheFallofNapoleon(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,2014).18.GyörgyLukácsdiscussedthisideologicallypromiscuoustraditionundertheusefulcategoryof“AnticapitalistRomanticism.”19.PierreManent,TocquevilleandtheNatureofDemocracy(RowmanandLittlefield,1996).20.“Thefunctionofgrandeur,”Wolinwrites,“istoaffirmthepossibilityofenduringmeaning.”Wolin,TocquevilleBetweenTwoWorlds,446.21.AlexisdeTocqueville,Recollections:TheFrenchRevolutionof1848,trans.GeorgeLawrence(NewBrunswick,NJ:TransactionPublishers,1995).22.Arendt,OnRevolution,40.23.AlexisdeTocquevilletoJohnStuartMill,June1835inRogerBoesche,ed.,SelectedLettersonPoliticsandSociety,102.24.Tocqueville,DemocracyinAmerica,16.25.AlexisdeTocqueville,TheOldRegimeandtheRevolution(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,2001),84.26.FrançoisFuret,InterpretingtheFrenchRevolution(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1981),142.27.Ibid.,27.28.PierreRosanvallon,DemocraticLegitimacy:Impartiality,Reflexivity,Proximity(Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,2011),125.29.Furet,InterpretingtheFrenchRevolution,52.

44

30.HaydenWhite,Metahistory:TheHistoricalImaginationinNineteenth-CenturyEurope(Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,1975),191-229.31.AlexisdeTocquevilletoArthurdeGobineau,December20,1853inJohnLukacs,ed.,Tocqueville:TheEuropeanRevolutionandCorrespondencewithGobineau(NewYork:Doubleday,1959),231-32.32.Boesche,Tocqueville’sRoadMap,33.Tocqueville,DemocracyinAmerica,34.Ibid.,15.35.Ibid.,14.36.Ibid.,14.37.Tocquevilleinvokesthissenseof“religiousdread”in“TwoWeeksintheWilderness,”anoriginallyunpublishednarrativerecountingatripheandGustavedeBeaumonttooktotheGreatLakesregionduringtheirstayintheUnitedStates.Therethephraseisusedtodescribehisexperienceofthe“profoundsilence”and“perfectstillness”ofthemostremoteAmericanwild.Inthisenvironment,Tocquevillewrites,“thesoulfeelspiercedwithasortofreligiousdread,”asallchange,therhythmsoflifeanddeath,seemtomergetogetherinaterriblestasis.InbothDemocracyand“TwoWeeksintheWilderness”“religiousdread”isinvokedtodescribeTocqueville’saffectiveresponsetoaworldinwhichagencyandthepossibilitiesofdeliberateactionseemtohavedisappeared:intheone,theagencyofsecularhistory,intheother,thatofsacrednature.TocquevilleassociatesthisoverwhelmingsensationwiththeterriblehandofProvidenceinhistoryinthefirstinstance,whereasin“TwoWeeksintheWilderness”Tocqueville’sreligiousdreadisexperiencedasthesensedabsenceofgodinnature.“TheCreatorappearstohaveturnedhisfaceawayforamoment,”Tocquevillewrites,“andtheforcesofnaturelieinastateofparalysis.”Thereisanunderlyingcontinuityhere:whetherappliedtothespectacleofhistoryortheuntouchedwildsofnature,Tocquevilleassociatestheexperienceofreligiousdreadwiththeabsenceofanactorandawithdrawalofmeaning,withaterriblestasisorentropy.Tocqueville,“TwoWeeksintheWilderness,”875-927,907.38.FrankAnkersmit,“TocquevilleandtheSublimityofDemocracy,”TocquevilleReview14(1993),173-201.39.Tocqueville,SelectedLettersonPoliticsandSociety,215.40.Wolin,TocquevilleBetweenTwoWorlds,136.41.CitedinAndreJardin,Tocqueville:ABiography(NewYork:Farrar,Strauss,andGiroux,1989),452.42.Tocqueville,DemocracyinAmerica,750.43.RichardBoyd,“TocquevilleandtheNapoleonicLegend,”inEwaAtanassowandRichardBoyd,ed.,TocquevilleandtheFrontiersofDemocracy(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2013),264-287,265.OnthepoweroftheNapoleonicmythseeSudhirHazareesingh,TheSaint-Napoleon:CelebrationsofSovereigntyinNineteenth-CenturyFrance(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,2004).44.Tocqueville,DemocracyinAmerica,573.45.Ibid.,575.46.Ibid.,573.

45

47.Ibid.,574.48.Wolin,TocquevilleBetweenTwoWorlds,100;Tocqueville,DemocracyinAmerica,576.49.DouglasJohnson50.LindaOrr,HeadlessHistory:Nineteenth-CenturyFrenchHistoriographyoftheRevolution(Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress,1990).51.CitedinBoesche,Tocqueville’sRoadMap,52.JulesMichelet,ThePeople(Urbana,IL:UniversityofIllinois,1973),95.53.Wolin,TocquevilleBetweenTwoWorlds,15.54.EyalChowers,TheModernSelfintheLabyrinth:PoliticsandtheEntrapmentImagination(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,2004).55.BenjaminConstant,“TheSpiritofConquestandUsurpation,”inPoliticalWritings,trans.anded.byBiancamariaFontana(Cambridge,Eng.:CambridgeUniversityPress,1988),p.51.56.J.G.A.Pocock,Virtue,Commerce,andHistory:EssaysonPoliticalThoughtPrimarilyintheEighteenthCentury(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1985);AlbertO.Hirschman,ThePassionsandtheInterests:PoliticalArgumentsforCapitalismbeforeitsTriumph(Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1997).57.SeeTimBlanning,TheRomanticRevolution:AHistory(NewYork:ModernLibrary,2012).58.QuotedinHirschman,ThePassionsandtheInterests,106.59.Tocqueville,TheOldRegimeandtheRevolution,178.60.OnTocqueville’sadaptationofthe“tropesandthemesofclassicalrepublicanism,”seeJainchill,ReimaginingPoliticsaftertheTerror,304-305;MelvinRichter,“TheUsesofTheory:Tocqueville’sAdaptationofMontesquieu,”inEssaysinTheoryandHistory:AnApproachtotheSocialSciences,ed.Richter(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1970);AlanKahan,AristocraticLiberalism,Ch.4.61.Tocqueville,DemocracyinAmerica,612.62.Ibid.,612.63.Ibid.,806.64.Wolin,TocquevilleBetweenTwoWorlds,120.65.Ibid.,120.66.Tocqueville,DemocracyinAmerica,604.67.Ibid.,207.68.Ibid.,750.69.Tocqueville,SelectedLettersonPoliticsandSociety,32270.SeeHannaFenichelPitkin,AttackoftheBlob:HannahArendt’sConceptoftheSocial(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1998).71.Tocqueville,Recollections,11.72.Ibid.,64-65.73.Tocqueville,SelectedLettersonPoliticsandSociety,125.74.Boyd,“TocquevilleandtheNapoleonicLegend,”279.75.Tocqueville,SelectedLettersonPoliticsandSociety,153.76.Ibid.,150.77.Ibid.,151.

46

78.Ibid.,151.21679.Ibid.,143.80.Constant,“TheSpiritofConquestandUsurpation,”54.81.“Itwasmilitaryglorywhichintoxicatedthenationwhilethenetsofdespotismwerespreadoutbysomemenwhosemeannessandcorruptioncannotbesufficientlyemphasized.”MadamedeStaël(Anne-LouiseGermaine),ConsiderationsonthePrincipalEventsoftheFrenchRevolution,AurelianCraiutu,ed.(Indianapolis:LibertyFund,2007),490.82.Constant,“TheSpiritofConquestandUsurpation,”82.83.Boyd,“TocquevilleandtheNapoleonicLegend,”276.84.CitedinJardin,Tocqueville,341.85.AlexisdeTocqueville,“EssayonAlgeria”(October1841)inWritingsonEmpireandSlavery,JenniferPitts,ed.(Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,2001),59-116,59.86.Ibid.,59.87.JenniferPitts,“DemocracyandDomination:Empire,Slavery,andDemocraticCorruptioninTocqueville’sPoliticalThought,”inAtanassowandBoyd,eds.,TocquevilleandtheFrontiersofDemocracy,243-263,250.88.Boyd,“TocquevilleandtheNapoleonicLegend,”279.89.Tocqueville,DemocracyinAmerica,738.90.CoreyRobin,“EasytobeHard,”inTheReactionaryMind:FromEdmundBurketoSarahPalin(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,2011),217-245,227.91.CitedinHazareesingh,SaintNapoleon,182.Onradicalegalitarianaestheticcritiquesofutilityinnineteenth-centuryFrance,seeespeciallyJacquesRancière,ProletarianNights:TheWorker’sDreaminNineteenth-CenturyFrance(NewYork:Verso,2012).92.PierreRosanvallon,DemocraticLegitimacy:Impartiality,Reflexivity,Proximity(Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,2011),126.93.“TocquevilletoNassauWilliamSenior(April10,1848),”inSelectedLettersonPoliticsandSociety,205-208,207.94.GustaveFlaubert,SentimentalEducation(NewYork:Penguin,2004).95.“TocquevilletoEugèneStoffels(October5,1836),”inSelectedLettersonPoliticsandSociety,112-115,113.96.AurelianCriaatu,LiberalismUnderSiege:ThePoliticalThoughtoftheFrenchDoctrinaires(LexingtonBooks,2003),92.97.“TocquevilletoCorcelleOctober19,1839,”citedinWolin,BetweenTwoWorlds,121.98.CitedinBoesche,Tocqueville’sRoadmap,101.99.Boesche,Tocqueville’sRoadmap,48.100.Tocqueville,Recollections,6.101.Tocqueville,TheEuropeanRevolutionandCorrespondencewithGobineau,161.102.Tocqueville,Recollections,70.103.“TocquevilletoNassauWilliamSenior,April10,1848,”inSelectedLettersonPoliticsandSociety,205-208,208.104.CitedinJardin,Tocqueville,305.

47

105.Tocqueville,Recollections,76.106.Tocqueville,Recollections,62.107.Ibid.,53.108.Wolin,TocquevilleBetweenTwoWorlds,444.109.Ibid.,445.110.Ibid.,443.111.SeeDanEdelstein,TheTerrorofNaturalRight:Republicanism,theCultofNature,andtheFrenchRevolution(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,2009).112.Tocqueville,Recollections,119.113.Tocqueville,Recollections,189.114.“TocquevilletoLouisdeKergolay,May16,1858,”inSelectedLettersonPoliticsandSociety,371-374,373.115.Tocqueville,“MyInstinct,MyOpinion,”citedinCraiutu,“Tocqueville’sParadoxicalModeration,”ReviewofPolitics67:4(Fall2005),599-630,604.116.Tocqueville,Recollections,38.117.Tocqueville,DemocracyinAmerica,189.118.Tocqueville,Recollections,114.119.Ibid.,136.120.“TocquevilletoGobineau,September5,1843,”inTheEuropeanRevolutionandCorrespondencewithGobineau,190-195,193.121.“TocquevilletoPaulClamorgan,June24,1848,”inSelectedLettersonPoliticsandSociety,212-214,213.122.Tocqueville,Recollections,136.123.NeilHertzhasaquitedifferentreadingofthisscene.124.Tocqueville,“TheEmancipationofSlaves(1843),”inPitts,ed.WritingsonEmpireandSlavery,199-226,199.125.Ibid.,199.