De Tocqueville When Concept Takes on Many

De Tocqueville

When concept takes on many different meanings it probably means nothing. One of the things that it is becoming apparent is that the terms "public sphere" and "civil sphere" appear to take on different meanings when described by different writers. Nonetheless, these terms and the nuances in what they represent depending on the writer can move beyond false universals and thinking that is entrenched in rigid definitions (Edwards 2004).

Alexis de Tocqueville may have been the one of those who popularized the notion of a "civil society" especially as a result of his visits to the United States in the 1830s and his writings on democracy. He viewed America's rich associational life (public sphere) as crucial in its development of the new democracy. The original notion of a civil society represented a type of culture that was associated with certain ideals and realizing such ideals would involve the actions of many different institutions as opposed to the voluntary associations that de Tocqueville commented on (Edwards, 2004). The more current notions of the civil society have evolved as a public sphere where the citizens debate with one-another about the great issues of the day and collaborate on an evolving awareness of a common or "public interest" (Edwards, 2004). De Tocqueville famously made the prediction that the United States and Russia would rise to be the dominant forces in world politics due to their vast resources under the domination of a quasi-European state (Malia, 2000). However, one of these countries evolved a sophisticated public sphere relatively early in its development, whereas the other country took years to do so.

When reading de Tocqueville one can readily understand that he views several conditions of an authoritarian state that threaten the public sphere such as an authoritarian past (such as in Russia's past), a weakening of public associations, and disruption of free communication (by controlling the press and discouraging criticism). Although America also had somewhat of an authoritarian past based on British rule, this rule did not directly exert influence on the colonies as the rule in Russia did to its people. De Tocqueville's identification of the prevalence of strong executive control in an authoritarian state and powerful security forces lead to weakened associational life and to the ineffectiveness of the public sphere in exerting influence is very pertinent. This condition was not present to nearly the same degree in America, even at the height of British rule. Likewise the presence of an authoritarian state typically nullifies the development of a free press which is crucial for the stimulation of debate, social criticism, and exposure to knowledge and different opinions by the public sector. The coexistence of a free press and an authoritarian state would be highly unlikely if not impossible. Because of the nature of an authoritarian state and its need to exert control, influence, and exploitation of the public a free press is counterproductive to these goals. Thus, authoritarian states typically control the information and types of debate that the press distributes to citizens. It is important to understand the relationships to appreciate both how these factors are related and to avoid the pitfalls of censorship.

De Tocqueville appears to be analyzing the functioning of various political associations, which are strongly discouraged under authoritarian state in his writings. De Tocqueville viewed civil society as a realm of civilian affairs and of private business and entrepreneurs that were all governed by the type of civil code (de Tocqueville, 1835). The congregations that occur in the public sphere occur for a mutual purpose and allow the citizens to overlook or transcend selfish motives and result in a more active consciousness and public sphere that functions independently of the state (de Tocqueville, 1835). In the authoritarian state these types of meetings are discouraged or absolutely outlawed. An authoritarian state attempts to control and equalize the citizens. The readings on democracy by de Tocqueville suggest that he views a society fully of equal members as a disadvantage to the development of a public sphere because this type of equality discourages the desire of the members of society to change things. Inequality in a society appears to encourage public debate and discussion and criticism of the status quo. An authoritarian state attempts to set up a two class system where the state governs over the larger populace which is essentially considered to be equal. Thus, the authoritarian state is a threat to the public sphere and to criticisms of this particular arrangement. There have been some criticisms of de Tocqueville's views on inequality in society as a type of endorsement for slavery (e.g., see Edwards, Foley, & Diani, 2001); Malia, 2000); however, this reader does not view these observations in that particular light. Obviously slavery discourages the public sphere and a civil society, but the move to radical equality may also have negative effects.