I found this reading by Tocqueville to be very interesting, especially since I have never read his work before. He writes about how humans improve, or at least attempt to. However, the aristocratic system gives people different ranks, and therefore may make improvement more difficult and seem unrealistic for those at the bottom. Therefore, getting rid of this rank can lead to more change and ability to improve. Without rank, each individual will most likely have the confidence that they can achieve whatever they set their mind to. Despite all of this, I believe Tocqueville was also arguing that becoming perfect may not be possible. I found the last paragraph very interesting, where he describes that ships do not last forever, as there will inevitably be improvements. I enjoyed this reading and look forward to discussing and reading more of Tocqueville’s work.
Categories
3 replies on ““How Equality Suggests to the Americans the Indefinite Perfectibility of Man””
I also found Tocqueville’s comments on the concept of an aristocratic system to be very interesting and thought provoking. Without the concrete and defined nature of an aristocratic society, ordinary people have much greater access to social mobility and the ability to improve their economic situations. This type of mindset where there are no set boundaries amongst social classes is very progressive but can also have attached disadvantages. For instance, in a world where everyone is equal and has high ambitions, there will inevitably be a power struggle for the dominant positions in the society. While the establishment of an institution like an aristocracy inherently pools people into different and defined ranks, Tocqueville points out that there may still be advantages to having this type of system. People have a better understanding of their places in society when there is a set social order in place. And while it is not a very forward-thinking type of idea, it does allow for a solid foundation for a society to be constructed upon.
Thank you for your response. I certainly agree with a handful of your ideas and how ordinary people are more likely to achieve success and social mobility without an aristocratic system. However, if this were the case, there would not be much order and would lead to a power struggle. On the other hand, as you also mentioned, an aristocratic system provides more unity and social structure as each individual knows their role in society. However, this does not seem very fair to people at the lower end of the scale, as they may be stuck at the bottom while those at the top of the scale can feed off of their family’s success without working hard or truly deserving it. Do you think there are any ways to compromise between the two where ordinary people can have an equal chance at social mobility and achieve economic success while there still being an aristocratic type system? Additionally, are there any other possible situations that could provide a solid foundation for social structure?
While having an aristocratic type system and equal access to social mobility for everyone would be a “best of both worlds” type situation, I do not think that it would be realistically possible. The very nature of an aristocracy implies that an upper-class “high born” group of people exists. If some people are inherently born above others there is no way that they could have equal social mobility as someone born with poor socioeconomic conditions. As far as any other situations that could provide a solid foundation for social structure, I cannot say I have any, but both existing concepts have advantages. Do you think an aristocratic type society or an equal, capitalistic one is more sustainable for the long term?