Alexis de Tocqueville: Democracy and Christianity

Linear thinking is both standard Western thinking and also "Half Thinking" since only half of our brain is linear and the other half holistic. For the anchor question the answer is "there is no anchor" since it's like asking for the anchor block on a pyramid in Egypt or the anchor to technology.

Ergo, not only do I disagree with Tocqueville's assertion that there is an anchor point, but also his Eurocentric view of Catholicism.

If we want to draw points along the line of mankind's move toward democracy, we can, indeed, look at religions and rich aristocrats because they were the only people who 1) knew how to read and 2) had the time to play chess, read books and contemplate the mysteries of the Universe. Everyone else was dying of bubonic plague and working in the fields.

John Locke, a Protestant hehe, was one of the greatest minds to influence modern democracy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke

No doubt Locke and Montesquieu played outsized roles in the minds of the framers of the constitution.

I do not think Christianity directly created democracy, and I think Tocqueville is on the wrong track claiming catholicism is more amenable to democratic traditions than protestantism.

But I think he had a legitimate insight that Christianity - Protestantism in particular, IMO - was fertile ground for the germination of democratic traditions. Largely because Protestant Christianity preached spiritual equality, it eschewed heirarchy and traditional authority, and it embraced individualism and mercantile capitalism in a way that Eastern Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Confucianism, et al. did not.
 
No doubt Locke and Montesquieu played outsized roles in the minds of the framers of the constitution.

I do not think Christianity directly created democracy, and I think Tocqueville is on the wrong track claiming catholicism is more amenable to democratic traditions than protestantism.

But I think he had a legitimate insight that Christianity - Protestantism in particular, IMO - was fertile ground for the germination of democratic traditions. Largely because Protestant Christianity preached spiritual equality, it eschewed heirarchy and traditional authority, and it embraced individualism and mercantile capitalism in a way that Eastern Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Confucianism, et al. did not.

Agree vis a vis religion and Tocqueville. If anything, Catholicism, like Tocqueville himself, was highly hierarchical with the Church looking to the Pope and Tocqueville being an Aristocrat kneeling to a King.

The US shocked the world by tossing out their King. It took another hundred+ years for both Canada and Australia to gain their independence but it was given to them and they still kneel to their monarch.

Agreed about how democracy and Christianity are compatible and can rise together independently but jointly. That capitalism/"free enterprise" aspect compare to other religions is interesting and I'd have to consider it more. Offhand, I cannot see why democracy and Buddhism, for example, can't be compatible.
 
Agree vis a vis religion and Tocqueville. If anything, Catholicism, like Tocqueville himself, was highly hierarchical with the Church looking to the Pope and Tocqueville being an Aristocrat kneeling to a King.

The US shocked the world by tossing out their King. It took another hundred+ years for both Canada and Australia to gain their independence but it was given to them and they still kneel to their monarch.

Agreed about how democracy and Christianity are compatible and can rise together independently but jointly. That capitalism/"free enterprise" aspect compare to other religions is interesting and I'd have to consider it more. Offhand, I cannot see why democracy and Buddhism, for example, can't be compatible.

I am speculating that the only things that held Buddhism back from being a laboratory for democratic traditions is that Buddhism was basically an East Asian religion after it went extinct virtually in India. East Asia was highly infused with the Confucian tradition of heirarchy and deference to authority. There was no way Buddhism was going to dislodge the Chinese affinity for Confucian traditions.
 
I am speculating that the only things that held Buddhism back from being a laboratory for democratic traditions is that Buddhism was basically an East Asian religion after it went extinct virtually in India. East Asia was highly infused with the Confucian tradition of heirarchy and deference to authority. There was no way Buddhism was going to dislodge the Chinese affinity for Confucian traditions.

What about "Confucian traditions" do you find antithetical to democracy? I know they don't have a tradition of democracy but don't see why Confucianism was the problem.

As the link notes, what they don't recognize is a separation of church and state. Not really necessary as long as they aren't oppressive assholes about it.

https://asiasociety.org/education/confucianism
Confucianism is often characterized as a system of social and ethical philosophy rather than a religion. In fact, Confucianism built on an ancient religious foundation to establish the social values, institutions, and transcendent ideals of traditional Chinese society. It was what sociologist Robert Bellah called a "civil religion," (1) the sense of religious identity and common moral understanding at the foundation of a society's central institutions. It is also what a Chinese sociologist called a "diffused religion"; (3) its institutions were not a separate church, but those of society, family, school, and state; its priests were not separate liturgical specialists, but parents, teachers, and officials. Confucianism was part of the Chinese social fabric and way of life; to Confucians, everyday life was the arena of religion.
 
What about "Confucian traditions" do you find antithetical to democracy? I know they don't have a tradition of democracy but don't see why Confucianism was the problem.

As the link notes, what they don't recognize is a separation of church and state. Not really necessary as long as they aren't oppressive assholes about it.

https://asiasociety.org/education/confucianism

It seems to me that Confucianism promoted heirarchy, deference to authority, and collectivism as opposed to individualism. That does not seem like fertile ground for liberal democratic traditions to take root.
 
It seems to me that Confucianism promoted heirarchy, deference to authority, and collectivism as opposed to individualism. That does not seem like fertile ground for liberal democratic traditions to take root.

Hmmm...I'm not as familiar with Confucianism as Buddhism, but it seems to me they were like Jesus preached: “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

In their case, not God but to "transcendent ideals", covering both mortal and beyond mortal concerns.

I still don't see that as being incompatible with Democracy as many Asian nations are proving: the ROK and Japan are democratic but not "Christian nations".

https://www.state.gov/reports/2018-report-on-international-religious-freedom/republic-of-korea/
The U.S. government estimates the total population at 51.4 million (July 2018 estimate). According to the 2016 census conducted by the Korea Statistical Information Service, of the 44 percent of the population espousing a religion, 45 percent are Protestant, 35 percent Buddhist, 18 percent Roman Catholic, and 2 percent “other.”

https://www.statista.com/statistics/237609/religions-in-japan/
The majority of Japanese adhere to Shintoism, a traditional Japanese religion focusing on rituals and worship at shrines. In 2017, around 70 percent of the total population of Japan participated in Shinto practices. Closely behind is Buddhism, with more than 69 percent of the population adhering to its practices. Most Japanese thus practice both religions.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm...I'm not as familiar with Confucianism as Buddhism, but it seems to me they were like Jesus preached: “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

In their case, not God but to "transcendent ideals", covering both mortal and beyond mortal concerns.

I still don't see that as being incompatible with Democracy as many Asian nations are proving: the ROK and Japan are democratic but not "Christian nations".

https://www.state.gov/reports/2018-report-on-international-religious-freedom/republic-of-korea/


https://www.statista.com/statistics/237609/religions-in-japan/

In East Asia, liberal democratic traditions were imported from the West in the 20th century. In one case - Japan - it was literally forced on them by US occupation.

I do not necessarily think modern Shinto, Hinduism, or Confucianism are openly hostile to western- style democracy. It just seems to me they did not provide a social context for liberal democracy to originally germinate and mature in the first place.
 
In East Asia, liberal democratic traditions were imported from the West in the 20th century. In one case - Japan - it was literally forced on them by US occupation.

I do not necessarily think modern Shinto, Hinduism, or Confucianism are openly hostile to western- style democracy. It just seems to me they did not provide a social context for liberal democracy to originally germinate and mature in the first place.

I'm thinking the two are separate; the religion and democracy. Ergo, monotheism can lead to democracy but it's not a requirement for democracy.

As a fascist nation with Tojo in charge, Japan was actually more "democratic" than simply following the king. At least Tojo listened to and worked with his generals.

Another consideration is a culture where individual rights are preserved even if all the leaders are appointed by bloodline or Imperial choice. As Caligula proved, while such a system can start out nice, it may not finish very nice. :)
 
I'm thinking the two are separate; the religion and democracy. Ergo, monotheism can lead to democracy but it's not a requirement for democracy.

As a fascist nation with Tojo in charge, Japan was actually more "democratic" than simply following the king. At least Tojo listened to and worked with his generals.

Another consideration is a culture where individual rights are preserved even if all the leaders are appointed by bloodline or Imperial choice. As Caligula proved, while such a system can start out nice, it may not finish very nice. :)

Thanks for your intelligent contributions.

According to Tocqueville, democracy begins first and foremost with a shared sense of equality. In western Europe, that began in a certain sense with the Christian concept of spiritual equality, expanded during the Protestant reformation and mercantile capitalism, and found roots in North America with the New England townships and the egalitarianism of the Pennsylvania Quaker colonies.

That was a unique history of the West. Islam seemed to be primed for theocracy; the Subcontinent had the caste system; and a type of Eastern feudalism seemed to grip Confucian China and the Shogunate of Japan.

I think it is possible the only reason western liberal democracy even penetrated East Asia is because the western political system was ultimately seen as a stunning success which should be emulated.
 
Thanks for your intelligent contributions.

According to Tocqueville, democracy begins first and foremost with a shared sense of equality. In western Europe, that began in a certain sense with the Christian concept of spiritual equality, expanded during the Protestant reformation and mercantile capitalism, and found roots in North America with the New England townships and the egalitarianism of the Pennsylvania Quaker colonies.

That was a unique history of the West. Islam seemed to be primed for theocracy, the Subcontinent had the caste system, and a type of Eastern feudalism seemed to grip Confucian China and the Shogunate of Japan.

I think it is possible western liberal democracy even penetrated East Asia is because the western political system was seen as a stunning success which should be emulated.

Thanks. Likewise.

Agreed with Tocqueville on equality as a necessary requirement both by law and socially. Agreed too that Christianity's promise of equality before God led them to think about equality before the Monarch....notice how both concepts mirror each other?** As the wise man said, "There are many paths to the mountain top." With democracy being the governmental mountaintop.

All those Protestants also brought the ideas of philosophers too. Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were Deists, at best, yet they are among the top leaders in history for pushing democracy forward. As for other areas of the world, I wouldn't rule out that some may be taking different path to democracy.

One problem for the US in Iraq was they tried to install an American Democracy. Is there any doubt that wouldn't even work in fucking France? England? They would chafe at the "bullying". That said, Fareed Zakaria had loosely defined reasons where "democracy" could flourish but he understood that not all democracies look alike. Even our own states aren't all alike and we share a Constitution.






**A King on a throne with his subjects kneeling before him singing praise vs. a God on a throne with angels kneeling before him singing hosannas? I strongly doubt the ability of mere mortals to understand even a fraction of an entity so powerful that it's the ultimate power; all knowing and all present.
At best, we can study the markers left behind, namely the Universe itself through scientific investigation.

Did you ever read "A Canticle for Leibowitz"? I once wrote a 5 page (handwritten) sequel for a HS Senior English Composition class.
 
Thanks. Likewise.

Agreed with Tocqueville on equality as a necessary requirement both by law and socially. Agreed too that Christianity's promise of equality before God led them to think about equality before the Monarch....notice how both concepts mirror each other?** As the wise man said, "There are many paths to the mountain top." With democracy being the governmental mountaintop.

All those Protestants also brought the ideas of philosophers too. Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were Deists, at best, yet they are among the top leaders in history for pushing democracy forward. As for other areas of the world, I wouldn't rule out that some may be taking different path to democracy.

One problem for the US in Iraq was they tried to install an American Democracy. Is there any doubt that wouldn't even work in fucking France? England? They would chafe at the "bullying". That said, Fareed Zakaria had loosely defined reasons where "democracy" could flourish but he understood that not all democracies look alike. Even our own states aren't all alike and we share a Constitution.






**A King on a throne with his subjects kneeling before him singing praise vs. a God on a throne with angels kneeling before him singing hosannas? I strongly doubt the ability of mere mortals to understand even a fraction of an entity so powerful that it's the ultimate power; all knowing and all present.
At best, we can study the markers left behind, namely the Universe itself through scientific investigation.

Did you ever read "A Canticle for Leibowitz"? I once wrote a 5 page (handwritten) sequel for a HS Senior English Composition class.

Nice work. I like how you tied in equality before God to equality before the monarch. I think that was essentially Tocqueville's theory on democracy and Christianity, but you summed it up in a more pithy explanation than I ever did.
I have not read the Canticle and barely even know about it, so the moral of the story is you learn something new every day!
 
Nice work. I like how you tied in equality before God to equality before the monarch. I think that was essentially Tocqueville's theory on democracy and Christianity, but you summed it up in a more pithy explanation than I ever did.
I have not read the Canticle and barely even know about it, so the moral of the story is you learn something new every day!

Thanks but Alan Watts once commented with a similar observation. His idea, my words.*

Canticle for Leibowitz os a post-nuclear apocalyptic SF book. It ties "religion" and science akin to what you and I discussed before: only the rich and the religious had time for science. Everyone else was too busy trying to stay alive.


*want to quickly assess someone's intelligence, given they have a US HS education? Ask them to read a fairly simple idea of a few paragraphs and then ask them to put it in their own words. If they can do it, it's an encouraging sign. More than a few on JPP can't do it.
 
What Tocqueville thought of education and culture in USA

Education in America focuses on science, commerce, and industry, with an emphasis on producing practical results.

No place in the civilized world is less interested in philosophy than America .

Americans depend on religion rather than philosophy to give them unshakable principles.

There is little taste in America for the kinds of general ideas that philosophers espouse, although Americans love facile generalizations.

In the area of science, America seeks practical outcomes rather than scientific principles.

There is a danger that America will lose sight of scientific
principles and find itself unable to change.




Source credit: Professor William R. Cook, State University of New York
 
Education in America focuses on science, commerce, and industry, with an emphasis on producing practical results.

No place in the civilized world is less interested in philosophy than America .

Americans depend on religion rather than philosophy to give them unshakable principles.

There is little taste in America for the kinds of general ideas that philosophers espouse, although Americans love facile generalizations.

In the area of science, America seeks practical outcomes rather than scientific principles.

There is a danger that America will lose sight of scientific
principles and find itself unable to change.


Source credit: Professor William R. Cook, State University of New York
With all respect to Professor Cook, I disagree with some of his points or implications.

That said, he's completely correct about "an emphasis on producing practical results" and "In the area of science, America seeks practical outcomes rather than scientific principles."

Yes, I'd rather more R&D be done for pure research instead of only enough to make a buck, but results count: as limited as For-Profit Science may be, the US continues to lead the world in scientific research...even if it's solely motivated by profit. Unfortunately, China is catching up by funding R&D...and not just for profit.

https://www.natureindex.com/news-blog/top-ten-countries-research-science-twenty-nineteen
China, with a remarkable rise in high-quality research output in 2018, is gaining on the dominant United States. In the top 10, Australia has jostled Spain out of 10th spot.

View the 2019 Annual Tables Countries/Territories top 50.

1. United States of America

The United States is the most prolific publisher of high-quality science in the world, but China is closing the gap with astonishing rapidity.

Output from the US was down in 2018 compared with 2017, but it continues to be bolstered by its top-performing institutes: Harvard University, Stanford University, MIT and the National Institutes of Health.

The life sciences accounts for almost 50% of the nation’s output in the natural sciences, followed by chemistry, physical sciences, and Earth and environmental sciences, respectively.

In 2018, its biggest collaborative partners were China, the United Kingdom and Germany, while smaller countries, Australia and Switzerland, also made it into its top 10 collaborators list.

In the 2019 Nature Index Biomedical Sciences supplement, the US dominated the Top 200 Institutions table, counting seven of the top 10 institutions, and 15 of the top 20.

2. China

China’s rise in the research rankings is a well-told story, but that doesn’t make it any less remarkable. Its increase in FC in 2018 has been meteoric, and it’s got the whole world’s attention.

While chemistry accounts for around 50% of China’s output in the Nature Index, the physical sciences are also a major strength. Its top five performing institutes are the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Peking University, Nanjing University, Tsinghua University, and the University of Science and Technology of China.

In early 2018, the US National Science Foundation released a report showing that, as far back as 2016, China overtook the US as the top producer of science and engineering articles tracked by Scopus. But in terms of high-quality natural sciences research output tracked by the Nature Index, the US still reigns supreme.
 
With all respect to Professor Cook, I disagree with some of his points or implications.

That said, he's completely correct about "an emphasis on producing practical results" and "In the area of science, America seeks practical outcomes rather than scientific principles."

Yes, I'd rather more R&D be done for pure research instead of only enough to make a buck, but results count: as limited as For-Profit Science may be, the US continues to lead the world in scientific research...even if it's solely motivated by profit. Unfortunately, China is catching up by funding R&D...and not just for profit.

https://www.natureindex.com/news-blog/top-ten-countries-research-science-twenty-nineteen

Nice work.

Tocqueville was writing in 1831, and things have obviously changed a lot.

I think the Cold War got USA to take core scientific research a lot more seriously. We were always pretty good at engineering and applied applications of science.

I think Tocqueville was precient that there is a certain undercurrent of hostility to science and higher education in USA which is unusual in the civilized world

There is no question that Tocqueville was correct that no other nation is less interested in philosophy. On balance, the French, Germans, and Russians have always had more of an affinity for introspection and philosophical-thinking.
 
Alexis de Tocqueville: Democracy and Christianity
Tocqueville believed that, in its essence and despite its corruption in Europe, Christianity was compatible with, and supportive of, democracy, because Christ operated from the premise of the equality of conditions among humans.


I'm curious as to why you, of all people, would post something like this, given the fact that you don't believe in equality of conditions among humans
 
I'm curious as to why you, of all people, would post something like this, given the fact that you don't believe in equality of conditions among humans
Tocqueville is writing in 19th century lexicon.

What he meant in 21st century jargon is: equality of opportunity.
 
Back
Top