Tocqueville on the Individualist Roots of Progressivism

[Chris]

The problem is not Progressivism but Individualism.

Tocqueville on the Individualist Roots of Progressivism

...The dominant narrative about the rise of Progressivism ...is that Progressivism was a virus that was incubated in a foreign (particularly German) laboratory and was transported to America by intellectual elites, often educated at German universities and influenced by thinkers such as Kant and Hegel (such intellectuals include the likes of Herbert Croly, Woodrow Wilson, and John Dewey). These Progressives despised the classical liberal philosophy of the Founding, and sought either an explicit rejection of the Constitution or an effective change by re-defining it as a “living” document.

...what this argument overlooks is that the greatest analysis of American democracy–Democracy in America, published in two volumes in 1835 and 1840, a full half-century before the flowering of Progressivism–already perceived the seeds of Progressivism’s major tenets already embedded in the basic features and attributes of liberal democracy as established at the Founding. Of particular note, while the major figures of Progressivism would directly attack classical liberalism, Tocqueville discerned that Progressivism arose not in spite of the classical liberal tradition, but because of its main emphasis upon, and cultivation of, individualism.

Individualism is a distinctive phenomenon arising in liberal democracy, notes Tocqueville. The idea of the individual is at least as old as Christianity, but individualism is a new experience of self that arises with the passing of the experience of embeddedness in a familial, social, religious, generational, and cultural setting that is largely fixed and unchanging–the basic features of an aristocratic society. The rise of liberal democracy, by contrast, is premised upon a view of the individual deriving from the social contract tradition, which conceives of human beings in their natural state as defined, above all, by the total absence of such constitutive bonds, inherited roles and given identities (a philosophy that Bertrand de Jouvenel said was developed by “childless men who forgot their childhood”). Instead, as Tocqueville describes, in a democracy, “the chain” that once bound a peasant all the way to a king is “shattered,” throwing each individual in their freedom and equality finally “into the solitude of their own own hearts.”...

[Ethereal]

An entire essay on "individualism" that doesn't contain a single quote or passage from Locke, Smith, or Burke.

As usual, we find you arguing against your imaginary version of classical liberalism instead of the one articulated by its progenitors.

[Chris]

An entire essay on "individualism" that doesn't contain a single quote or passage from Locke, Smith, or Burke.

As usual, we find you arguing against your imaginary version of classical liberalism instead of the one articulated by its progenitors.

Then defend it if you can.

[Chris]

I don't think Locke should be joined with Smith and Burke. Locke's vision was based on the fiction that primitive man was individual and formed society in a social contract. Fiction because man has always been social and political.

Smith was not promoting individualism and social contract when he wrote "Every individual endeavours to employ his capital so that its produce may be of the greatest value. He generally neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. He intends only his own security, only his own gain. And he is in this led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than he really intends to promote it." His is a theory of man in society.

Nor was Burke when he wrote "It is not solitary, unconnected, individual, selfish liberty, as if every man was to regulate the whole of his conduct by his own will. The liberty I mean is social freedom. It is that state of things in which liberty is secured by the equality of restraint. A constitution of things in which the liberty of no one man, and no body of men, and no number of men, can find means to trespass on the liberty of any person, or any description of persons, in the society. This kind of liberty is, indeed, but another name for justice; ascertained by wise laws, and secured by well-constructed institutions."

Per Is Justice the Primary Feature of the State? Adam Smith's Critique of Social Contract Theory: "...Smith did not regard justice, what supposedly motivates agents to enter into a social contract with the sovereign, as the core of the polity. He rather explicitly criticized social contract theory à la John Locke. Smith argued that the state is not only based on the protection of rights, but is also founded on the principle of authority, which stems from the admiration of high-rank agents who have desirable traits."

Per BURKE AND THE BREAKING OF THE SOCIAL CONTRACT: "In his Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790), Burke criticised Rousseau's notion of a social contract between the sovereign and the peoples. According to Burke, society is built on a contract, but not only between those who are alive, but also those who are no longer and those who are to come. And it is precisely this social arrangement, which is also intergenerational and, to a large extent, civilizational, that is on the brink of destruction."

[CaveDog]

I don't think Locke ever denied that human beings are social animals in a pure state of nature. Certainly, he recognized that the bonds of family were probably a precursor to political society, particularly monarchical systems dominated by a father figure "king". What amounted to government previously to that would have involved family units with a dominant patriarch. I don't think that devalues the idea of a social contract as a separate entity at the level of political society. That would have evolved with population growth as family units were forced to interact.

Progressive ideas were indeed floating around at least as far back as the 17th century. Progressive ideas about schooling were being debated in Massachusetts that far back. I don't think that necessarily implies that they were a product of American individualism. The ink was barely dry on the Constitution when Jeremy Bentham was promoting utilitarianism in England before Tocqueville ever toured America. Bentham's ideas are very much consistent with modern progressivism. I think that progressivism itself was more a consequence of the enlightenment as the influence of the Church waned and a more scientific, humanist perspective began to emerge. That progressed not just in America, but the entire western world.

I think many people miss the significance of what happened with progressivism during the early 20th century. It gelled as a movement, but not organically. America had already been a laboratory for progressive thought but as a movement it gained momentum because America's ruling class adopted it. It became fashionable among the elite to become a "wealthy philanthropist". Academics who had only discussed progressive ideas then found themselves flush with capital to actually implement them. That marks the point where progressivism actually gained political clout and began to seriously impact our political system. It's also why I tend to regard progressivism mainly as a tool of the elite. You don't invest that level of capitol and not influence the outcome.

[Chris]

I don't think Locke ever denied that human beings are social animals in a pure state of nature. Certainly, he recognized that the bonds of family were probably a precursor to political society, particularly monarchical systems dominated by a father figure "king". What amounted to government previously to that would have involved family units with a dominant patriarch. I don't think that devalues the idea of a social contract as a separate entity at the level of political society. That would have evolved with population growth as family units were forced to interact.

Progressive ideas were indeed floating around at least as far back as the 17th century. Progressive ideas about schooling were being debated in Massachusetts that far back. I don't think that necessarily implies that they were a product of American individualism. The ink was barely dry on the Constitution when Jeremy Bentham was promoting utilitarianism in England before Tocqueville ever toured America. Bentham's ideas are very much consistent with modern progressivism. I think that progressivism itself was more a consequence of the enlightenment as the influence of the Church waned and a more scientific, humanist perspective began to emerge. That progressed not just in America, but the entire western world.

I think many people miss the significance of what happened with progressivism during the early 20th century. It gelled as a movement, but not organically. America had already been a laboratory for progressive thought but as a movement it gained momentum because America's ruling class adopted it. It became fashionable among the elite to become a "wealthy philanthropist". Academics who had only discussed progressive ideas then found themselves flush with capital to actually implement them. That marks the point where progressivism actually gained political clout and began to seriously impact our political system. It's also why I tend to regard progressivism mainly as a tool of the elite. You don't invest that level of capitol and not influence the outcome.

Hobbes and Locke both being their social contract theories with individual man alone in an initial state of nature. The difference is Hobbes assumes all were at war with each other and Locke assumes they were at peace. Keep in mind that for both that initial state was pre-civilizational man. Family for both, I would think, would come later as a civilizing influence.

Note Rousseau conceived man's initial state the same but contrary to both Hobbes and Locke saw civilization in the form of society as corrupting influence.

[LWW]

The one thing we can be sure of is that when one primitive man figured out how to roll a log downhill, effectively inventing the wheel, within one day another primitive man was working on how to make his
log roll even faster.

[CaveDog]

Hobbes and Locke both being their social contract theories with individual man alone in an initial state of nature. The difference is Hobbes assumes all were at war with each other and Locke assumes they were at peace. Keep in mind that for both that initial state was pre-civilizational man. Family for both, I would think, would come later as a civilizing influence.

Note Rousseau conceived man's initial state the same but contrary to both Hobbes and Locke saw civilization in the form of society as corrupting influence.

I haven't read Hobbes at length but do understand his view of the "war of all against all", but Hobbes was basically defending the authority of monarchy and took the view that people would have willingly subjected themselves to the rule of a strongman in order to gain safety. Locke spends a whole chapter on paternal power in his second treatise and states that a child would be under the authority of their parents until reaching maturity. Prior to the advent of political society as population grew, the family would have been government under the authority of the patriarch, so I don't think he presumes individuals existing in a state of nature without social ties. He emphasizes that formal government would have evolved out of a need for common laws and impartial judges where every adult individual would have full individual authority under natural law to make their own laws and enforce them otherwise. That obviously would be the authority they delegate to government. In order for larger "political" societies beyond the natural society of family to function, the rule of law would have been necessary under a social contract. Rousseau did touch on similar themes but while he did see the "origins of inequality" rooted in the corruption of society, as I recall he did acknowledge the necessity of a social contract as well.

Regardless, I'm not sure that the progressive impulse would be rooted purely in the advent of individualism. It may have found greater expression as commoners participated more in their own government, but it's more rooted in the power vacuum left by the waning authority of the Church after the renaissance. Martin Luther could be blamed for that as much a Hobbes, Locke or Rousseau. The Catholic Church provided the moral paideia for western society. As science and reason displaced Church authority, that void would have needed filling. Progressivism appears more to me as an attempt to fill that void with intellectual theory. Again, I think that modern progressivism began with Jeremy Bentham and utilitarianism. Bentham rejected natural law theory and utilitarianism focused on the outcome of actions. Progressivism is very outcome focused. That which creates the most pleasure or pain for the most people are the only determinate of good or bad. Those themes still echo with modern progressivism.

[Chris]

I haven't read Hobbes at length but do understand his view of the "war of all against all", but Hobbes was basically defending the authority of monarchy and took the view that people would have willingly subjected themselves to the rule of a strongman in order to gain safety. Locke spends a whole chapter on paternal power in his second treatise and states that a child would be under the authority of their parents until reaching maturity. Prior to the advent of political society as population grew, the family would have been government under the authority of the patriarch, so I don't think he presumes individuals existing in a state of nature without social ties. He emphasizes that formal government would have evolved out of a need for common laws and impartial judges where every adult individual would have full individual authority under natural law to make their own laws and enforce them otherwise. That obviously would be the authority they delegate to government. In order for larger "political" societies beyond the natural society of family to function, the rule of law would have been necessary under a social contract. Rousseau did touch on similar themes but while he did see the "origins of inequality" rooted in the corruption of society, as I recall he did acknowledge the necessity of a social contract as well.

Regardless, I'm not sure that the progressive impulse would be rooted purely in the advent of individualism. It may have found greater expression as commoners participated more in their own government, but it's more rooted in the power vacuum left by the waning authority of the Church after the renaissance. Martin Luther could be blamed for that as much a Hobbes, Locke or Rousseau. The Catholic Church provided the moral paideia for western society. As science and reason displaced Church authority, that void would have needed filling. Progressivism appears more to me as an attempt to fill that void with intellectual theory. Again, I think that modern progressivism began with Jeremy Bentham and utilitarianism. Bentham rejected natural law theory and utilitarianism focused on the outcome of actions. Progressivism is very outcome focused. That which creates the most pleasure or pain for the most people are the only determinate of good or bad. Those themes still echo with modern progressivism.

Both begin their social contract theories with the presumption of individuals free from the civilizing effects of society and both end up with individuals freely giving rights to be governed. Granted, I'd prefer Locke's vision over Hobbes's and theirs over Rousseau's. But man is by nature a social/political animal and the individual undefined by place and time and society and culture did not emerge until Christianity, later refined and secularized by these thinkers.

I would pin the rise of progressivism/socialism/communism on the philosophical father of the French Revolution. Marx, too, was an individualist.

I think they all offered different ways to free man from society. If we look where we're at today, I'd say they've largely succeeded. Even the family is threatened with the extended family nearly a thing of the past, parents chased out of school board meetings, marriage being redefined, and the grooming going on in education.

[Ethereal]

Then defend it if you can.

Produce a critique of something Locke or Smith actually said or wrote, otherwise what is there for me to defend?

Of course, you will have a difficult time seeing as how they were both traditionalists who drew upon the ancient customary laws of Celts, Angles, and Saxons.