Abstract
For philosophers of history, historical analyses are worthwhile not solely for what they reveal about the past, but for the light they shed on the present and their implications for the future. In their attempts to discern laws that governed prior epochs, philosophers of history raise many questions. Not typically regarded as a philosopher of history, per se, Alexis de Tocqueville poses many of the same questions asked by thinkers who are; exploring and synthesizing Tocqueville’s answers is one aim of this chapter. A second goal of the chapter is to assess the meaning and relevance of Tocqueville’s philosophy of history for Russia, in particular, and post-communist Central and Eastern Europe, more generally.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Harvey Mitchell notes that Tocqueville resisted calling himself a philosopher and had a “professed disdain for philosophy.” But, Mitchell avers, while “it is impossible to ignore… it is also possible to exaggerate” these “declarations of alienation from philosophy” (1996: 8).
- 2.
Sheldon Wolin writes that “it is difficult to claim… that Tocqueville employed a clear conception of class analysis; his main concern was with classes as political actors” (2009: 635 n 35). And other authors note that in his accounting of revolutions, Tocqueville offers an analysis strongly at odds with Karl Marx’s (which is more clearly and obviously focused on class).
- 3.
Tocqueville’s pairing of the term “philosophic” with the description of men with few desires or needs is curious. It stands in contrast with Rousseau’s description of natural man, who has few needs: “it is not possible to conceive why someone who had neither desires nor fears would take the trouble to reason” (1997: 142).
- 4.
Tocqueville’s emphasis.
- 5.
Of revolutions, for instance, he insists: “every revolution leaves its mark and raises the level. God wills it! His work must be allowed to proceed” (Tocqueville 2016: 229).
- 6.
For an example of social science research that explains and makes use of these concepts, see, for instance James Mahoney, J. (2001) Path-Dependent Explanations of Regime Change: Central America in Comparative Perspective. Studies in Comparative International Development 36 (1): 111–141.
- 7.
Another critical juncture Tocqueville identifies is when French monarchs divided classes from one another, which he says led to almost all other problems for the monarchy (2008: 138). Elsewhere, Tocqueville writes that if there had been a Frederick II for France, monarchy would not have strengthened itself the way it did (2008: 164). Speaking of the Revolution of 1848, he notes that “half an hour” could have altered the destiny of France, but that once certain actions had been taken, the stage was set (2016: 42).
- 8.
“The theory of continuous and indefinite improvement of man took root” (Tocqueville 2008: 175).
- 9.
Mass democracy is certainly a new phenomenon. But, as James Kloppenberg notes, Tocqueville looked to the advent of democracy “always with a mixture of optimism and pessimism” (2006: 520).
- 10.
Stefan Hedlund (2005) employs the logic of path dependency to survey Russia’s historical development. His analysis extends to periods well-before Peter I ascended to the throne.
- 11.
Tsar Nicholas II introduced the Duma in 1906 as a concession to revolutionary demands made a year prior. Like the 1917 Revolution, the 1905 revolution emerged after a period of reform. Specifically, the earlier revolution followed the emancipation of the serfs in 1861, which increased the freedoms enjoyed by the peasants, without significantly decreasing the hardships they faced. For more on the Revolutions of 1905 and 1917, see Pipes, R. (1995) A Concise History of the Russian Revolution. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
- 12.
Adversaries who refused to follow Gorbachev’s lead and resisted reform also fell from power, as revolutions spread from one part of the communist sphere to another, reinforcing and playing off one another.
- 13.
We may draw from recent social science research to support Tocqueville’s claims that both historical legacies and agency bear on the structure and functioning of societies. Marc Morjé Howard (2002) convincingly argues that the weakness of civil society across post-communist Central and Eastern Europe is attributable to the communist experience. But, as Timothy Frye (1997) notes, the communist legacy cannot explain every facet of post-communist society. While there may be a temptation to attribute the strong presidencies that exist in, for example, Russia and Belarus to the shared communist experience, this explanation founders when we consider that a strong presidency is not a feature that all or most post-communist countries share; a country’s having a strong or weak presidency is a result of decisions made by political actors in that country. Peter Leeson and William Trumbull compare Russia with other former Soviet states and with the post-communist world more broadly to show that “Russia could have done much better” at transitioning to democracy and capitalism. Though it started out with a similar set of circumstances as other transitioning countries, Russia is decisively in the middle or worse when compared with these countries in terms of various economic indicators, perceived levels of corruption, press freedom, and political freedom (2006: 247).
- 14.
A will for liberty can develop over the course of a generation. In “about 1750,” Frenchmen were not “demanding in the matter of political liberty,” interested in “reforms more than rights.” By 1770, “the position was no longer the same; the image of political liberty had imprinted itself on Frenchmen’s minds” (Tocqueville 2008: 164–5).
- 15.
What Tocqueville says about peoples, James Buchanan echoes when discussing persons, that is, individuals: “the thirst and desire for freedom, and responsibility, is perhaps not nearly so universal as so many post-Enlightenment philosophers have assumed.” “Many persons are, indeed, afraid to be free” (Buchanan 2005: 23–24).
- 16.
For more on Tocqueville and Russia or Central and Eastern Europe, see Craiutu (2014); Rutland, P. Democracy in Russia: A Tocquevillean Perspective. In: A. Craiutu and S. Gellar (eds) Conversations with Tocqueville: The Global Democratic Revolution the Twenty-First Century. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, pp. 199–223; Thurston, G. J. (1976) Alexis De Tocqueville in Russia. Journal of the History of Ideas, 37 (2): 289–306.
References
Acton, E. (1995) Russia: the Tsarist and Soviet Legacy. New York, NY: Longman.
Buchanan J. M. (2005) Afraid To Be Free: Dependency as Desideratum. In: W. F. Shughart and R. D Tollison (eds) Policy Challenges and Political Responses. Springer, Boston, MA, pp. 19–31.
Chaadayev, P. (1976) Philosophical Letters. In: J. Edie, J. Scanlan, and M-B Zeldin (eds) The Beginnings of Russian Philosophy: The Slavophiles; The Westernizers, vol. 1 of Russian Philosophy. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press, pp. 106–154.
Condorcet, Marquis de (1969) Outline of an Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Mind (excerpts). In W. W. Wagar (ed.) The Idea of Progress Since the Renaissance. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp. 75–86.
Craiutu, A. (2014) Tocqueville and Eastern Europe. In: Christine Dunn Henderson (ed.) Tocqueville’s Voyages: The Evolution of His Ideas and Their Journey beyond His Time. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund, pp. 390–424.
Frye, T. (1997) A Politics of Institutional Choice: Post-Communist Presidencies. Comparative Political Studies, 3(5): 523–552.
Hedlund, S. (2005) Russian Path Dependence: a People with a Troubled History. London, UK: Routledge.
Howard, M. (2002) The Weakness of Postcommunist Civil Society. Journal of Democracy 13(1): 157–169.
Kahan, A. S. (2010) Alexis de Tocqueville. New York, NY: Continuum.
Kloppenberg, J. T. (2006) The Canvas And The Color: Tocqueville’s “Philosophical History” And Why It Matters Now. Modern Intellectual History 3(3): 495–521.
Leeson, P. T. and Trumbull, W. N. (2006) Comparing Apples: Normalcy, Russia, and the Remaining Post-Socialist World. Post-Soviet Affairs 22(3): 225–248.
Machiavelli, N. (2016) The Prince. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Mahoney, J. (2001) Path-Dependent Explanations of Regime Change: Central America in Comparative Perspective. Studies in Comparative International Development 36(1): 111–141.
Mitchell, H. (1996) Individual Choice and the Structures of History: Alexis De Tocqueville as Historian Reappraised. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Pipes, R. (1995) A Concise History of the Russian Revolution. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
Rousseau, J.-J. (1997) “The Discourses” and Other Early Political Writings. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Rutland, P. (2009) Democracy in Russia: A Tocquevillean Perspective. In A. Craiutu and S. Gellar (eds) Conversations with Tocqueville: The Global Democratic Revolution the Twenty-First Century. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, pp. 199–223.
Thurston, G. J. (1976) Alexis De Tocqueville in Russia. Journal of the History of Ideas 37(2): 289–306.
Tocqueville, A. (2008) The Ancien Régime and the French Revolution. New York, NY: Penguin.
Tocqueville, A. (2003) Democracy in America: and Two Essays on America. New York, NY: Penguin.
Tocqueville, A. (1996) Fortnight in the Wilderness. In: G. W. Pierson (ed) Tocqueville in America. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 229–289.
Tocqueville, A (2016) Recollections: the French Revolution of 1848 and Its Aftermath. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press.
Wolin, S. S. (2009) Tocqueville between Two Worlds: The Making of a Political and Theoretical Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Slaboch, M. (2020). Tocqueville’s Philosophy of History: Its Meaning and Implications for Russia and Central and Eastern Europe. In: Boettke, P., Martin, A. (eds) Exploring the Social and Political Economy of Alexis de Tocqueville. Mercatus Studies in Political and Social Economy. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34937-0_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34937-0_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-34936-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-34937-0
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)