Essay 61: Characteristics Peculiar To Historians In Democratic Ages (Vol. 2 Pt. 1 Ch. 20)

Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 469 (start at Chp. 20 heading – 472 (stop at Chp. 21 heading) of this edition of Democracy in America.

Vol. II Part 1 Chapter 20: On Some Tendencies Particular to Historians in Democratic Centuries
The second volume of Democracy in America is divided into four parts, the first of which is devoted to the “Influence of Democracy on Intellectual Movement in the United States.” De Tocqueville is here interested in understanding the ways democracy shapes and forms the minds, and so the mental activities, of democratic peoples.

In chapter 20 he takes up the topics of historians, who are often intellectuals, and the writing of history (or historiography), an important exercise of the intellect, which influences how people perceive themselves and their times. There is no single or definitive account of the past; nor is the best method of historiography a settled matter. The way historians approach the facts of the past is itself affected by factors beyond the individual historian, including the social state and period in which they write. One of the most intellectually influential activities of the human mind is itself subject to influences outside the intellect. Thus, in this chapter De Tocqueville discusses the kinds of causes in history and the different practices in writing history, while he likewise provides guidance to historians about intellectual errors of grave social and psychological consequence. The chapter is therefore both descriptive and evaluative of the tendencies of historians in aristocratic and in democratic ages.

Aristocratic historians tend to focus on small or particular causes at the expense of great or general ones. They attribute tremendous importance to individuals, or to “a very few principal actors,” who steer the course of history. They are enamored of great deeds and individual actions, around which their narratives turn. This gives them, De Tocqueville writes, “an exaggerated idea of the influence that a man can exert and naturally disposes them to believe that one must always go back to the particular action of an individual to explain the movements of the crowd.” Aristocratic historiography, therefore, says little about the lives and opinions of the many. Focusing almost exclusively on leaders, warriors, and other grand actors, it ignores the rest of society and other social facts; consequently, the broader “sequence of events eludes” these historians.

De Tocqueville argues by contrast that democratic historians neglect, or even deny, the influence of individuals as they focus instead on things like “the nature of races, the physical constitution of the country, or the spirit of the civilization.” By obscuring particular persons and facts, democratic historians draw sweeping conclusions and “make a system” or “a methodical order” out of general causes. Democratic historiography is therefore more self-conscious about method and system-building; it tends to become less beautiful and more abstract. De Tocqueville’s real concern, however, is, “When any trace of the action of individuals on nations is lost, it often happens that one sees the world moving without discovering its motor.” This tempts people to believe there are large, inevitable, and irresistible forces at work in history, against which the human will is powerless.

While the tendencies of both types are prone to exaggerations and pitfalls, the assumption of democratic historians that all are subject “either to an inflexible providence or to a sort of blind fatality” is, for De Tocqueville, a dangerous view; an idea that “does not save human freedom.” For, the “doctrine of fatality” adopted by democratic historians does not remain confined to schools of history, or to the world of historians, but eventually “penetrates the entire mass of citizens” and shapes “the public mind.” The fatalism of historians leads individuals to doubt free will itself. In opposition to this doctrine, De Tocqueville writes, “it is a question of elevating souls and not completing their prostration.” People are ennobled by a sense of the soul’s capacity for judgment and action, and historiography ought to reflect—or better yet, encourage—this fact, so that citizens cultivate an appreciation for freedom, which is both a prerequisite for, and an effect of, self-government.

Readers will wonder whether De Tocqueville is himself more of an aristocratic or democratic historian. Near the chapter’s midpoint he writes, “I think that there is no period in which it is not necessary to attribute one part of the events of this world to very general facts and another to very particular influences. These two causes are always met with; only their relationship differs.” While Democracy in America makes so much of the general (or “mother”) cause of “equality of conditions,” De Tocqueville’s comparative approach helps him avoid succumbing to the spirit of either age, or to the tendencies toward excess of either historiographical approach. The very fact that he speaks of “tendencies” indicates that the minds of historians (as with all individuals) are always free in important respects. Strong doubt to the contrary results from a corrupting that demands spirited resistance.

The chapter here under discussion is valuable for thinking about history and historiography, but also for evaluating De Tocqueville’s own project, as well as the writings of others in our democratic age—to measure and assess the ways different works may contribute either to the elevation or the prostration of souls.

Trevor Shelley is Assistant Teaching Professor and Associate Director of Graduate Studies at the School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership, at Arizona State University. He is author of Liberalism and Globalization: Montesquieu, Tocqueville, and Manent (Notre Dame, 2020), co-editor of Citizenship and Civic Leadership in America (Lexington, 2022) and of Renewing America’s Civic Compact (Lexington, 2023), and author of various book chapters and articles on political theory.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

PRINT ARTICLE