From the genesis of the human race, to the present human beings have been trying to find a sense of unity (disalienation) amongst their counterparts, but power struggles and social stratification have made this a never ending attempt. Karl Marx and Alexis Tocqueville have given the reader an insight into ‘alienation’ through the course of their historic analyses. Emancipation, though described as the “act of liberation from social, political and legal systems” (Merriam-Webster) has become subjective in nature, as society is controlled by power struggles, class divisions, followed by a contrasting want to create an egalitarian environment. This position paper seeks to answer the overbearing question, “Is the human race really free from alienation in the form of labor, family, power relations and most importantly the right to free freely?” through a comparative framework developed on the exemplary works of Marx and Tocqueville. Commencing with ‘Democracy in America’, Tocqueville uses this platform to show the differences in democracy and aristocracy or alienation and disalienation. He uses America as the epitome of a democratic society, while Europe and particularly England form the basis of aristocracy. He implicitly defines alienation through his analysis on the division of lords and serfs in England, “Men in an aristocratic society are irrevocably marshalled according to their profession, social standing, property and birth, they feel a deep sense of sympathy towards
The term alienation refers to the isolation of one’s self from a belonging society. When a person is alienated they no longer feel as if they belong or have the same views as the group or society they live in. How does one become alienated from something that they once belonged to? This is a question many have discussed throughout history. In Voltaire’s book Candide, Marx’s book The Communist Manifesto, Hoffer’s The True Believer, and Memmi’s The Colonizer and the Colonized, all these authors address man’s alienation in modern society and come up with solutions for man’s alienation within each book.
The classic work Democracy In America by Alexis de Tocqueville has been the reason for scholarly pursuit as well as strife within that same community. Through a brief examination of this text, several of Tocqueville’s arguments helped to define many of the constructs that made America what it was as well as those that have led to what it has become today. Of the many themes and ideas presented by Tocqueville, his thoughts on individualism struck the loudest chord with me.
Tocqueville further argues that unlike “aristocracy (that) links everybody, from peasant to king, in one long chain. Democracy breaks the chain and frees each link…men have gained or kept enough wealth and enough understanding to look after their own needs. Such folk owe no man anything and hardly expect anything from anybody” (Tocqueville, 2006, p. 508). The chain that exists in aristocracy no longer exists in democracy for individuals earn their own keep and does not need to rely on others. Thus, with democracy, individuals in capitalist society are independent and equal in social and economic
I chose these chapters to read and analyze because they dissect the mind of Tocqueville as he internally weighed the pros and cons of a democracy versus an aristocracy. He displays the positive aspects of a democracy, as well as the negative counterparts, along with what he approves of and what changes he could possibly make to better the American system of government. Coming from an aristocratic background, Tocqueville challenges himself to open his mind to the idea of a legislation ruled by the people. Initially he believes it to be inevitable, and eventually he embraces democracy in America. Tocqueville points out that a democracy is more for humanity than an aristocracy because a democratic government incorporates the interests of the poor
Democracy in America, by Alexis de Tocqueville includes Tocqueville’s observations on what American society and culture was like during the 1830’s. Throughout his analysis of America, he draws many outlandish and interesting conclusions regarding what life was like during this time period. For example, in Chapter 18, Tocqueville remarks that citizens in democratic societies are independent, which makes them weak and subsequently uninfluential in society. He goes on to say that in order to combat this, associations must be established to combat individualism and to circulate new thoughts and ideas. All in all, Tocqueville’s claim is certainly valid, but only up to a certain point because there were a select few of individuals that were able to make an influence on society without the help from any associations.
Tocqueville saw a problem facing democratic societies, which is mass society. The danger that the majority will become tyrannical creates mass society with the worry that when people are together the view of the majority come to be the dominating principal. Those in the minority will be helpless with no voice and will be pressured to conform into what the majority wants. Conforming to the majority opinion negates the principal of equality. Therefore, an aristocracy can never become a majority while it retains its exclusive privileges, and it cannot yield its privileges without ceasing to be an aristocracy. In a powerful passage, Tocqueville states how this form of tyranny can be worse than the past
Tocqueville, in Democracy in America, dwells on the strengths and weaknesses of American democracy. When discussing race relations, he recognizes that the presence of the black race in America and the occupation of blacks in slavery could threaten the continuation of the United States as a Union and a republic. As a Union, the United States could be torn apart by the disparities between the North and the South and tensions between blacks and whites. As a republic, although the United States is more grounded, the aftermath of slavery could erode republican institutions if mores and laws are dangerously altered. Although Tocqueville leaves suggestions of action for the United States, he
Tocqueville’s Democracy in America arose out of the desire to understand the underlying reasons behind the difference between French and American democracies. While both societies have had moved towards democracy, New England, which Tocqueville defines as America, seems to be much more successful in organising a stable democratic society. As such, Democracy in America was written with the motive of mapping out how American society was
And this belief is what motivated his deep interest in America, his visit persuaded him that America had achieved in a peaceful and natural way almost complete equality of conditions. He said if we understand America, we could not only understand what democracy means, but in a way even take a look into the world’s future. He wrote, “ I confess, that in America I saw more than America; I sought the image of democracy itself, with its inclinations, its character, its prejudices, and its passions, in order to learn what we have to fear or hope from its progress.” (Democracy in America Volume I) He thought he saw the outlines of a new kind of society, which would slowly become that kind of society for the rest of the world. He saw at first hand democratized society. America became somewhat apprehensive of what they thought. America achieved its independence and many of the French supported America. Many Frenchmen learned their lesson when they came here and then they went back and began. Tocqueville saw the industrial revolution the enlightenment, and the
Marx’s theory of alienation is concerned primarily with social interaction and production; he believes that we are able to overcome our alienation through human emancipation.
Alexis de Tocqueville was born on July 29, 1805, in Paris, France. He was a historian, political scientist, and a politician, but he is best known as the author of Democracy in America. He began his political career as an apprentice magistrate, a role he was easily able to enter into due to his father’s role in French government. In the role of apprentice magistrate, Tocqueville witnessed the constitutional upheaval between the conservatives and liberals in France. With the inevitable decline of the aristocratic privilege on the horizon, he began to study the English political development. For Tocqueville, the July Revolution of 1830 and the resulting kingship of Louis Philippe of Orleans helped
Tremendous economic and technological growth marked by the industrial revolution that was beginning to take shape at in the 19th century. With this change also brought a process of greater specialization in the workforce, also known as the division of labor. Both Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim, under this context of burgeoning market economy, sought to understand modern society and the underlying relations that lead to their formation and progress. In this essay, I will argue that while both Marx and Durkheim acknowledge the role of economic growth as a main driver of human society in their theories, they differ on the type of social relations that developed in tandem, relations that formed the basis of the division of labor. Marx (1978, p. 212) views the division of labor as a result of the capitalism driven by profit, while Durkheim (1984, p. 1) sees it as a necessary condition for social progress. Next, I will also explore differences both writers posit as the consequences for this process, relating to both Marx’s theory of labor alienation and Durkheim’s idea of organic solidarity.
The concept of alienation plays a significant role in Marx's early political writing, especially in the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1848, but it is rarely mentioned in his later works. This implies that while Marx found alienation useful in investigating certain basic aspects of the development of capitalist society, it is less useful in putting forward the predictions of the collapse of capitalism. The aim of this essay is to explain alienation, and show how it fits into the pattern of Marx's thought. It will be concluded that alienation is a useful tool in explaining the affect of capitalism on human existence. In Marx's thought, however, the usefulness of alienation it is limited to explanation. It does not help in
Humanity is a part of everyday life, but what if your humanity was lost? All throughout the human existence, there has been humanity. In the time period of humanity, humanity was put to the test. Mass genocides, cruel leaders, world wars, and many more have shown humanity at its lowest. It shows how humanity is completely destroyed in times of injustice and war. Surviving Hitler, by Andrea Warren and The Diary of Anne Frank by Goodrich and Hackett show how the Nazi party dehumanized all Europeans that opposed the Nazi party and how they destroyed their humanity in the process.
This essay argues that the propositions put forth by Karl Marx in his political essay “Estranged Labour” presents a nuanced and logically sounder theory behind his concept of human nature than Hobbes does in his essay “The natural condition of Mankind”. Marx’s perception was that man’s labour is intrinsically a part of his human nature, and the alienation of this labour drastically negates what it means to be man. Whereas Thomas Hobbes presents that man’s natural state is one of conflict, and that this conflict can only be overcome through rules set forth by the sovereign, only then can men live in peace with each other.