Aristocratic and Democratic Tensions: Lessons From Alexis de Tocqueville and Downton Abbey Jon D. Schaff Northern State University [email protected] Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Western Political Science Association, April 12-15, 2017, Vancouver, British Columbia Schaff, Jon In 1831 Alexis de Tocqueville, a French government official, traveled to the United States ostensibly to investigate the American penal system. Tocqueville’s nine-month trip fed the young Frenchman’s appetite for knowledge about democracy. Tocqueville’s family had lived through the French Revolution and as minor aristocrats had suffered at its hands. Tocqueville viewed the coming of democracy with a “sort of religious terror” at what he took to be an “irresistible revolution” (DIA, 6). In Democracy in America he states his goal as, “To instruct democracy, if possible to reanimate its belief, to purify its mores, to regulate its movements, to substitute little by little the science of affairs for its inexperience, and knowledge of its true interests for its blind instincts” (DIA, 7). Themes that run through the two volumes of Democracy in America include the need to tame the excesses of democracy and reintroducing into democracy some of the virtues of the aristocratic regime. Democracy, with its excessive love of both equality and novelty, too hastily rejects the best of aristocracy. In the “Author’s Introduction” to Democracy in America he writes, “Thus we have abandoned what goods our former state could present without acquiring what useful things the current state could offer; we have destroyed an aristocratic society, and having stopped complacently amid the debris of the former edifice, we seem to want to settle there forever” (DIA, 10). A typical methodology of Tocqueville, particularly in the second volume of Democracy in America, is to compare aristocratic times with democratic times. He assess the characteristics of each, praising democracy when it clearly is an advance on aristocratic times (as with treatment of women, for example), and cautioning democrats when he sees aristocratic virtues discarded too readily (the love of beauty and craftsmanship, for example). In sum, Tocqueville’s thought 1 often tells a story of the movement from aristocratic to democratic regimes and the gains and losses that come from that movement. The theme of the strain caused by the replacement of aristocracy with democracy is one theme that runs through the British drama Downton Abbey (shown in the United States on PBS). Taking place from 1912 to 1925, the show follows the travails of a particular aristocratic family, the Crawleys, whose patriarch, Robert Crawley, is the Earl of Grantham. Downton Abbey (usually referred to on the show simply as Downton) is the name of their palatial estate. While the central action of the series focuses on the personal lives of both the Crawley family and their household servants, just below the surface is a constant reminder that the English regime is changing. Estates such as Downton are becoming increasingly difficult to maintain and social change is undermining the status (both social and political) of the aristocracy. These tensions regularly percolate to the surface as some family members attempt to preserve the old ways while others are more willing to bow to the prevailing winds, sometimes actively encouraging revolutionary ideas. Downton Abbey tells a tale over six seasons of an aristocratic household grappling with the unrest caused by a shift from aristocratic times to democratic times. Many of the themes that arise in Tocqueville’s thought are illustrated in the drama of Downton Abbey. Changes to family, especially the status of women, the conflict between permanence and progress, local control versus centralization, and even the individual’s search for meaning and purpose are addressed within both Tocqueville and Downton Abbey. The aim of this paper is to show how Downton Abbey illustrates many of Tocqueville’s ideas in narrative form. In doing so we will see that as in Tocqueville, Downton Abbey gives a mixed assessment of the decline of the aristocracy and its replacement with democracy. While it is fair to say that 2 the show ultimately sides with democratic mores, it is far from an unmitigated endorsement of the democratic mentality. The paper begins with a consideration of relevant ideas within the thought of Alexis de Tocqueville, drawing mostly from Democracy in America but also using key insights from his later work, The Old Regime and the Revolution. The paper focuses on Tocqueville’s basic definition of equality and how equality is the essential component of the democratic regime. Along with equality, Tocqueville emphasizes democracy’s love of progress and change. One necessary outcome of democratic equality, according Tocqueville, is individualism. Tocqueville thinks individualism is a pathology of democracy, but Americans in particular have devised cures for the ills of individualism. Equality also reshapes the family, in particular the treatment of women. Another concern of Tocqueville’s is the desire to centralize all government, which he believes may lead to a degrading kind of democratic despotism. After this overview of relevant aspects of Tocqueville’s thought, the paper illustrates how those themes are articulated in Downton Abbey. Tocqueville on Aristocracy and Democracy “I confess that in America I saw more than America; I sought there the image of democracy itself, of its penchants, its character, its prejudices, its passions; I wanted to become acquainted with it if only to know at least what we ought to hope or fear from it” (DIA 13). So writes Alexis de Tocqueville in the Introduction to Democracy in America. Tocqueville spent his adult life thinking about the ramifications of the coming democratic age. In doing so, he often contrasted democracy with aristocracy, illustrating via comparison and contrast. The defining characteristic of democracy is a love for equality. He calls the love of equality democracy’s “principle passion” (DIA 480). Equality is not simply material equality or 3 equality before the law, although these are surely components of equality. When Tocqueville speaks of “equality of conditions” what he means is “the right to indulge in the same pleasures, to enter the same professions, to meet in the same places; in a word, to live in the same manner and pursue wealth by the same means” (DIA 479). For example, in contemporary America the wealthy will often wear blue jeans when at leisure, watch the same movies and sporting events as the “common man,” and, most importantly, the wealthy still typically go to work each day. One need only look at the dress and habits of the richest American, Bill Gates, to see that while possessing more money he is not of a different class than his fellow Americans. Few places are truly restricted and even in those the restrictions are based on ability to pay, not on who ones parentage.1 Tocqueville goes so far as to say that democrats will endure slavery before submitting to inequality. Democratic people want equality and freedom, but “if they cannot get it, they still want it in slavery. They will tolerate poverty, enslavement, barbarism, but they will not tolerate aristocracy” (DIA 492). One idea that equality “suggests…to the human mind” is that of human perfectibility or improvement (DIA 426). This faith in progress has a nearly religious like quality, indeed it is notable that Tocqueville’s discussion of “indefinite perfectibility” comes at the end of a long discussion of religion. In aristocratic times, says Tocqueville, it is not as though improvement or progress is rejected. Still, “They do not judge it to be indefinite; they conceive of improvement, not change; they imagine the condition of coming societies as better, but not different; and all the while admitting that humanity has made great progress and can make still more, they confine it in advance within certain impassible limits” (DIA 427). Everything has its place, and there is no 1 One might think of Jane Austen’s novel Pride and Prejudice as a contrast. Mr. Gardiner has much more money than his brother-in-law, Mr. Bennet, but because Mr. Gardiner is a lawyer and works for a living there are areas of society that he may not enter while his penurious in-laws, who are gentry and thus socially superior, may. 4 reason to upset that. This is a particular theme of Tocqueville’s: aristocracy sets up certain limits on human actions and ideas, while democracy does not. Democracy, in contrast, “as classes get closer to each other, as men are mixed tumultuously, and their usages, customs and laws vary, as new facts come up, as new truths are brought to light…the image of an ideal and always fugitive perfection is presented to the human mind.” As the old order breaks down, the mind starts to conceive of new ideas, and with the natural limits of aristocracy falling away, the notion of progress without end comes to mind. Democratic man is always testing limits, attempting to create something new. Some of his creations lead to his prosperity, while others may cost him dearly. There is a turmoil in democratic times where the same person may rise and fall multiple times in his life. “Thus, always seeking, falling, righting himself, often disappointed, never discouraged, he tends ceaselessly toward the immense greatness that he glimpses confusedly at the end of the long course that humanity must still traverse” (DIA 427). Tocqueville demonstrates this point by recounting a discussion he has with an American sailor. Tocqueville enquires why American’s do not build their ships to last. The sailor responds that the science of navigation and shipbuilding is progressing so fast that any ship built today will be obsolete tomorrow. This is another contrast with aristocratic times, namely aristocrats are more likely to have a sense of timelessness and a greater appreciation for craftsmanship and beauty. Democratic peoples are more likely simply to ask if a thing works or serves a function. In this example, the art of shipbuilding is subsumed into the science of navigation. Novelty and usefulness are indispensable to democratic peoples. We also see that democratic times are likely to be more riotous, characterized by unease as fortunes are regularly made and lost. “Aristocratic nations,” 5 concludes Tocqueville, “are naturally brought to contract the limits of human perfectibility too much, and democratic nations sometimes extend them beyond measure” (DIA 428). “People who live in aristocratic times,” says Tocqueville, “are therefore naturally brought to take the superior reason of one man or one class as a guide for their opinions, while they are little disposed to recognize the infallibility of the mass.” But in democratic times “more and more it is opinion that rules.” Opinion has “an infinitely greater power among these peoples than any other.” This is the rule of fashion. Not trusting in one’s own opinion, as equality dictates that no one’s opinion is better than any other, the desire to conform to the opinion of most is the result of “an almost unlimited trust in the judgment of the public.” If a greater number of people believe something, that something must be correct (DIA 409). This is the origin of Tocqueville’s famous “tyranny of the majority.” Unmoored from the surety provided by the thick society of aristocratic times, where each person knows who he is and what he is supposed to do based on his social status, and without the authority of nobles or church, each person is left to his own devices to find truth. However, an individual cannot possibly figure out every (or even most) questions for herself, so she gives herself over to opinion. Opinion that rules without limit is what Tocqueville calls tyranny (ADT 241). It is not government crushing freedom of expression that worries Tocqueville. Tyranny of the majority is “invisible and almost intangible” (DIA 243). It is precisely the lack of ease in democracy, since each is deprived of sure answers to life’s deepest questions, which increases the power of the majority. The worst thing in a democracy is for one to be unpopular or unfashionable, be it in clothes or opinions (DIA 247). This leads to the notion of individualism. Tocqueville is at pains to differentiate individualism, an essential term in Tocqueville’s thought, from selfishness or egotism. He does not mean “rugged individualism” in which the individual is empowered and is in control of his 6 life, although these may be aspects of individualism. More precisely, “Individualism is a reflective and peaceable sentiment that disposes each citizen to isolate himself from the mass of those like him and to withdraw to one side with his family and his friends, so that after having thus created a little society for his own use, he willingly abandons society at large to itself” (DIA 482). A person, feeling lost or inefficacious in mass society, withdraws into a private sphere, developing no public virtues. Tocqueville stresses that while selfishness is in every kind of regime, individualism is unique to democracy. Tocqueville argues, “In aristocratic peoples, families remain in the same state for centuries, and often in the same place. That renders all generations so to speak contemporaries.” Aristocrats feel a duty to both posterity and ancestors. “Classes being very distinct and immobile within an aristocratic people, each of them becomes for whoever makes up a part of it a sort of little native country, more visible and dearer than the big one.” Citizens of an aristocracy are “placed at a fixed post” such that “each of them always perceives higher than himself a man whose protection is necessary to him, and below he finds another whom he can call upon for cooperation” (DIA 483). Each person in an aristocracy exists within a chain of being which defines his relation with his fellows. Again, in this sense each person knows who she is and what she’s supposed to do, as defined by social convention. Her social status, while limiting her, also gives her life meaning and purpose. These sorts of ties do not exist in democracies. “In democratic centuries…when the duties of each individual toward the species are much clearer, devotion toward one man becomes rarer.” It is easier to love humanity, but not particular humans. People, “no longer attached to one another by any ties of caste, class, guild, or family, are all too inclined to be preoccupied with their own private interests, too given to looking out for themselves alone and withdrawing 7 into a narrow individualism where all public virtues are smothered” (OR 87). In these times “new families constantly issue from nothing, others constantly fall into it, and those who stay change face; the fabric of time is torn at every moment and the trace of generations is effaced. You easily forget those who have preceded you, and you have no idea of those who will follow you.” Democratic dynamism makes it hard to maintain connection, even with family. The ease of travel and the willingness to relocate for economic reasons increase the cutting of ties with family, place, and the past. Here we see another manifestation of unease or restlessness in democracy. The unsettled nature of democracy makes it more susceptible to this pathology of individualism that, as we will see, leads to democratic despotism. Tocqueville gives various American remedies to the problem of individualism. Here we will only consider two, namely “free institutions” and association. Regarding the former, Tocqueville argues that the despot “readily pardons the governed for not loving him, provided that they do not love each other.” Thus, democracy encourages the very vices that make despotism thrive. “Despotism raises barriers between them and separates them. Equality disposes them not to think of those like themselves, and for them despotism makes a sort of public virtue of indifference” (DIA 485). Tocqueville thinks that participation in local politics encourages people to overcome some of the ills of individualism. This works best in local politics where people are more likely to see the effect of their actions. “Only with difficulty does one draw a man out of himself to interest him in the destiny of the whole state, because he understands poorly the influence that the destiny of the state can exert on his lot. But should it be necessary to pass a road though his property, he will see at first glance that he has come across a relation between this small public affair and his greatest private affairs.” Tocqueville admires local government, especially New England town meetings, as they provide a “long 8 succession of little services” that engage a public. People are drawn outside of themselves because they can readily see how their actions affect their town. “Thus by charging the citizens with the administration of small affairs, much more than by leaving the government of great ones to them, one interests them in the public good” (DIA 487). Democracy must resist the temptation to centralization. Says Tocqueville, “Only freedom can bring citizens out of the isolation in which they very independence of their circumstances has led them to live, can daily force them to mingle, to join together through the need to communicate with one another, persuade each other, and satisfy each other in their conduct of their common affairs” (OR 88). The other cure for individualism we will discuss is free associations. He notes that Americans form associations at an impressive rate. For nearly any purpose in America, one will find an association. He says, “Everywhere that, at the head of a new undertaking, you see the government in France and a great lord in England, count on it that you will perceive an association in the United States” (DIA 489). This is another distinction with aristocratic times. “Aristocratic societies always include within them, in the midst of a multitude of individuals who can do nothing by themselves, a few very powerful and very wealthy citizens; each of these can execute great undertakings by himself.” But in democracy, citizens are “independent and weak.” Association allows the completion of great tasks. If democracy should lose the art of association, it “would soon return to barbarism” (DIA 490). Associations are superior to government, in Tocqueville’s view, as no government could replicate the many small tasks done by American associations. Nor would one want to imbue the government with such power. A government “knows only how to dictate precise rules; it imposes the sentiments and the ideas that it favors, and it is always hard to distinguish its counsels from its orders.” Tocqueville 9