In Democracy in America
The value of democracy is a sense of community that is to work in coherence for the betterment of society. The functioning of democracy changes from scales of various moral implications which are pertained from generation to generation. The economic system created by democracy is reliant on a manner of sympathy which has to be taken in consideration with self interest. Self interest is a concept that has evolved in its sentiment over the years, as Adam Smith defined self interest in a manner of sympathy which is not translated in the definition of the word in our current system. Tocqueville leans towards describing self interest as a misinterpretation in the current society, it being the sole driving force of capitalistic claims. Tocqueville describes this as “Enlightened Self Interest” which means self interest rightly understood. Individualism is linked with selfishness, although it actually is completely independent of it in my opinion. It allows you to break from the aspect of wants and needs and enables you to just be. The concept of “ego” is very inclined towards self interest, your self interest manipulates the feeling of personal ego. Depending upon various actions you work towards different scenarios where your morality will act in different ways. Does the democratic reflect the concept democracy? I personally feel the concept of democracy isn’t just a physical but a mental ideology, we have to feel democratic in-order for our actions to reflect a sense of equality.
Individualism is a concept that enables the benefit of the member of society in higher regard to the to the society benefiting as a whole. This runs on the same ideologies as democracy but is very different in terms of implementation. It also allows the person to get rid of a sense of judgment and live based on their individual concerns in the world. As a concept it sounds enticing but adding a layer of self interest tends to transform it into a form of ego. It is difficult for democrats to believe that Tocqueville mentions that individualism is a democratic excess, and that its emergence, which is coincident with the progress of democracy, could be the cause of the abolition of humanity. Democratisation dissolves the ties or duties which link human beings to one another—those that constitute the family, religion, and political community. Each of them is to some extent inegalitarian or undemocratic. Autonomy which is required by radical individualism is impossible for human beings, Tocqueville believes that this sense of extremity leads to Atomism. Atomism is the result of the destruction of all that binds human beings to one another and all that distinguishes them from one another. Personally, I feel radical individualism isn’t something that would work in a system that has already been placed, this sense of independence needs a side of moral humanity where our self interest is aligned with those of others. This is definitely a utopian sense of community and is highly unlikely in our world, even though the world is shifting from leaning towards a democratic system to it being a neoliberal one.
Tocqueville fears that democratic individualism would produce what he called, in his first volume, “tyranny of the majority,” and, in the second, “soft despotism.” This does not refer to a majority imposing its will on a minority, but, rather, to the propensity of democratic peoples to develop highly abstract political ideas and erect bureaucratic structures that rob them of the need to act or think for themselves except on the most trivial matters. Democracy could thus pose a danger to both intellectual and political freedom. Tocqueville notes that this new despotism is perhaps more insidious than the traditional despotism, because it threatens to enslave the souls of men rather than simply their bodies.
A liberal is someone that believes in the concept of liberalism which is an ideological and political philosophy. They often have an array of viewpoints, but their core belief centers on equality and freedom. These may range from gender equality to freedom of speech. The concept of liberalism has been in existence for several centuries now and has always supported point of views which are in favor of equality. Alexis de Tocqueville was a proud member of the French aristocracy. Liberalism tends to be marinated in optimism to such an extent that it sometimes shades into naivety. Tocqueville believed that liberal optimism needs to be served with a side-order of pessimism. Far from being automatic, progress depends on wise government and sensible policy. Liberalism and democracy are two sides of the same coin, they work in coherence. Although liberalism leans towards individuality and diminishes the workings of a democracy in a way. Free institutions, the right to media and speech are foundations of a democratic system, working towards this minimal sense of individualism under the democratic system allows you to express your thoughts and help the society in a manner of communal gain for the people of the city. This means that we can use our limited sense of individualism to work towards helping various people in our communities hence being an aspect of self interest done the right way.
If one were to take a step back and observe the progression of American culture from its beginnings to modern day, a consistent trend of materialism, or more particularly individualism, would be evident. Certainly, there has always been a compulsion for Americans to become secluded into one’s own, focusing on their own interests, whether it be their careers, family, or wealth. Indeed, this phenomenon is not absent from American culture today. There is perhaps no other thinker that has elaborated more on this topic than social and political thinker Alexis de Tocqueville.
Tocqueville remains rather abstract in describing this phenomenon, the doctrine of self-interest well understood has very practical applications. His observations describe his understanding of American “social theory” extensively, isolating the qualities that establish America as “a society possessing no roots, no memories, no prejudices, no routine, no common ideas, no national character, yet with a happiness a hundred times greater than ours [France’s] … How are they welded into one people? By a community of interests.” It isn’t unreal to relate this to America’s current culture, for it continues to embody a diversity of race, ethnicity, language, and opinion. The divergence from this social theory, however, is revealed as soft despotism overtakes communities. What Tocqueville failed to speculate was the potential influence that negative externalities can have within a modern democracy, most notably mass media and social media, each having the ability to penetrate the individual’s inner circle and warp their perception of his or her surroundings. These externalities typically enforce hollow stereotypes and heuristics that emphasise economic, political, and social differences for ratings, social agency, or even electoral backing. “The principle of self‐interest rightly understood is not a lofty one, but it is clear and sure. It does not aim at mighty objects, but it attains without excessive exertion all those at which it aims. As it lies within the reach of all capacities, everyone can without difficulty learn and retain it. By its admirable conformity to human weaknesses it easily obtains great dominion; nor is that dominion precarious, since the principle checks one personal interest by another, and uses, to direct the passions, the very same instrument that excites them.”
Tocqueville is describing the sense of self interest in a manner of enlightenment, he believes that it is a measure of gazing upon human intellect and what level is self interest understood by the person. Hence, higher intellect leads to a better understanding of self interest in a more communal way which shows the aspect of humanity. Human’s as a civilisation have always used a tool of self interest to aggravate the ego, Tocqueville wants to utilise it to diminish or get rid if the ego. This is definitely a thought that doesn’t come across often in our heads, we want look at self interest as a medium of helping our community; this is definitely not understood in the 21st century. I personally do believe that even Adam Smith leaned towards self interest as being defined by the aspect of helping others rather than a sense of neoliberalism that’s occurring due to individuality.
