Guest Essayist: Kevin Vance

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
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 510 – 511 (stop at chapter 13 heading) of this edition of Democracy in America.

De Tocqueville frequently draws attention to the ways in which American religion has conformed itself or been conformed to the habits of thinking and acting within the democratic social state. In general, one would expect American religion to support bourgeois virtues and to inoculate the people against fanaticism that would draw them too far away from the goods of this world. At the same time, a sharp-eyed observer of American religion could not help but be struck by the proliferation of small and zealous sects that constituted a contrast with the dominant religious ethos. In this chapter, De Tocqueville tries to make sense of these paradoxical phenomena.

In the preceding chapters, De Tocqueville considers the passion for material well-being, which he takes to be a general and even dominant passion among the American people. Despite the public advantages of this passion, De Tocqueville nevertheless expresses regret that it entirely absorbs Americans and distracts them from more noble or leisurely pursuits that are praiseworthy for a human being. In Chapter 12, De Tocqueville notes that the “taste for the infinite” is an instinct grounded in the “immovable foundation” of human nature. Though it is weakened, it has not been extinguished by the advent of the democratic social state. It is therefore quite understandable that as the general American population narrows its focus on material goods, some will rebel against that circumscription of human life. “There are moments of respite,” says De Tocqueville, “when their souls seem all at once to break the material bonds that restrain them and to escape impetuously toward heaven.”

If Americans are a religious people, and if religion is the first of our political institutions, why doesn’t mainstream American religion sufficiently quench this universal thirst for the infinite? In the preceding chapters, De Tocqueville shows how American religion had lowered its gaze to temporal goods. Moreover, American religion had even made peace with the dominant taste for material enjoyment. In Chapter 11, De Tocqueville points out that the industry fostered by this taste is “combined with a sort of religious morality.” While some goods are forbidden as the objects of desire, Americans’ hearts are “delivered without reserve” to those goods that are otherwise permitted by religion and morality. American religion functioned as an imprimatur as it simultaneously restrained the commercial and acquisitive spirit of the American people. It is little wonder, then, that Americans in search for the infinite might feel compelled to seek out what De Tocqueville regards as “bizarre sects” that often teach “follies.” American religion that merely fostered and channeled desires for temporal goods would have little appeal to those gazing beyond the goods of the body.

Some early American statesmen, such as John Adams, regarded the proliferation of zealous sects as a threat to republican self-government, and for that reason tolerated state alliances with moderate religion to help avert those dangers.

De Tocqueville’s treatment of this phenomenon does not evince a similar alarm. De Tocqueville is confident of the unrelenting power of the democratic social state to nudge Americans toward the practical concerns of this world. Moreover, majority opinion within America exercises a kind of tyranny over the American mind. Within the horizons of the democratic social state, it is almost inconceivable that any small enthusiastic sect would gain sufficient proponents to unsettle the habits of mind of the American people. This is due to the propensity of the greater number to focus their energies on obtaining and preserving the goods of this world. Moreover, some liberal thinkers and statesmen were worried that religious enthusiasms would deprive the people of the necessary critical judgment that they would need to act responsibly as democratic citizens. De Tocqueville, on the other hand, recognized that in America, the people generally excused religious matters from the critical personal evaluation to which they subjected political matters. In America, religion has remained entirely separate from the political order. The population has “accepted the principal dogmas of the Christian religion without examination,” which suggests that any irrationality or lack of critical judgment in the religious sphere need not affect an American’s judgment in the political sphere.

In Part I, Ch. 5 of this volume, De Tocqueville explains that religion—even absurd ones—can provide a useful limit for theoretical and political life. The absence of religion, he worried, would leave people confused and unable to act in a reasonable way and fearful to think through the great human questions. Such a people, lacking all limits on religious speculation, would be inclined to accept political servitude. In this chapter, De Tocqueville’s treatment of what he called “bizarre” sects again raises the question of how long a purely civil religion can prove useful to the democratic social state if it cannot satisfy the spiritual instinct of the people.

Kevin Vance is Director of the Center for Constitutional Liberty at Benedictine College. He received his PhD and MA in political science from the University of Notre Dame and his BA from Claremont McKenna College. His research focuses on law and religion, constitutional law, and American political thought. His scholarship has appeared in the Journal of Church and State, the Oxford Journal of Law and Religion, and the Journal of Law and Courts.

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.

Guest Essayist: Kevin Vance

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
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 504 – 506 (stop at chapter 10 heading) of this edition of Democracy in America.

De Tocqueville has already explained the danger of individualism in the democratic social state as well as the likelihood that these dangers are mitigated in America by the doctrine of self-interest well understood. Why does De Tocqueville now apply the doctrine of self-interest well understood to matters of religion? He has already emphasized the importance of religion in America, and the reader can easily begin to imagine the potential utility of religion in further protecting the people from individualism. De Tocqueville’s framing of this chapter suggests that his contemporaries often regarded religion as a support for duty, which they pitted against utility or interest, so it may have been important to show how religion and self-interest are harmonized. De Tocqueville also raises the possibility that a conventional understanding of self-interest sans religion would fail to sufficiently remind those tempted to timidity or motivated only by self-preservation that death is not the worst outcome.

In the first part of the chapter, De Tocqueville reconciles the doctrine of self-interest to religion, or, rather, he shows how Christianity has long reconciled itself to the doctrine as a means to bring the mass of people into its ranks. For the adherent, according to De Tocqueville, it would satisfy self-interest well understood to persevere in belief despite doubts, as “he will judge that it is wise to risk some of the goods of this world to preserve his rights to the immense inheritance that he has been promised in the other.”

In the second part of the chapter, De Tocqueville considers how Americans’ practice of religion is actually guided by the doctrine of self-interest as they calculate that the risks of eternal punishment outweigh the “hindrances” imposed by their religion. They are not ashamed to admit as much. Although the American believer might be more inclined than a believer in an aristocratic age to tie religion to a calculated risk analysis rather than practice religion out of “love of God,” that is not where the most striking difference is to be found between Americans and the aristocratic age’s pursuit of religion. What is especially unique about American religion and the doctrine of self-interest well understood is that American preachers often situate the “interest” in this world rather than the next. According to De Tocqueville, they “constantly come back to earth and only with great trouble can they take their eyes off it.” Instead of focusing on a pure love of God, or even an eternal reward that could satisfy self-interest well understood, American preachers emphasize the temporal benefits of religion to supporting freedom and public order.

De Tocqueville had earlier noted this propensity of American preachers to speak “so often of the goods of this world” as well as the “invincible” distaste of Americans for the supernatural in their philosophic method. While friendliness to religion was a notable attribute of the American people during De Tocqueville’s visits, the religious practice that De Tocqueville encountered had largely been tamed to emphasize worldly goods either as a direct cause of the democratic social state or as a defensive measure to maintain relevance in the democratic age. De Tocqueville’s treatment of religion in this chapter again emphasizes the malleability of American religion to the “intellectual empire” of the majority in a democracy.

Given that within this chapter De Tocqueville mentions the utility of religion in helping citizens acquire virtue by offering a horizon beyond death, De Tocqueville’s decision to highlight once again the adaptability and worldliness of American religion raises at least one interesting problem. If religion is continually pulled back down to earth in America, does it eventually lose its efficacy at pointing Americans beyond mere survival, which has many temporal benefits in De Tocqueville’s account? Does it therefore, in a strange twist, lose its appeal to those Americans most interested in its benefits in this life? The religious practices which most consistently go with the grain of the democratic social state seems to be the kind that would continually leave unchallenged the prejudice of Americans to shy away from the supernatural and look only toward the practical, thus depriving it of what might actually be most useful in mitigating the negative effects of individualism and buttressing a Tocquevillian understanding of freedom.

Kevin Vance is Director of the Center for Constitutional Liberty at Benedictine College. He received his PhD and MA in political science from the University of Notre Dame and his BA from Claremont McKenna College. His research focuses on law and religion, constitutional law, and American political thought. His scholarship has appeared in the Journal of Church and State, the Oxford Journal of Law and Religion, and the Journal of Law and Courts.

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.