British philosopher John Stuart Mill and French historian Alexis de Tocqueville were significant figures who wrote on the history of individual freedom and democracy. Tocqueville’s work Democracy in America, examined the successes and failures of nineteenth-century America, with an overall goal of democratization in Europe. Twenty-five years later, Mill published his philosophical essay On Liberty, which “…is a work that laid the foundations of liberalism seen in today’s politics. In his work, Mill argues that an individual's freedom is the foundation of proper societies” (Itkin SWA5). These two philosophers present strong arguments for a democratic government and the right to individual liberty but from different viewpoints.
With Tocqueville and Mill’s different backgrounds and political views, it is not a stretch to believe they have many more differing views on issues; it is surprising to find that these two authors do have a number similarities too. One of these particular similarities is their thoughts of tyranny of the majority and social conformism.
Before delving into the similarities and differences of these two authors’ political philosophy, some background needs to be given. Alexis de Tocqueville was born into French aristocracy, during the time when nobility had greater access to institutions such as education and political power than those in the lower class (Maher, Class Notes 11/13). This upbringing influenced Tocqueville’s work, although he supported the republican movement which reduced the power of the aristocratic class. He writes as much in the Volume I author’s introduction of Democracy in America:
I appreciate that in a democracy so constituted society would not be all immobile; but the movements inside the body social could be orderly and progressive; one might find less glory there than in an aristocracy, but there would be less wretchedness; pleasures would be less extreme, but well-being more general; the heights of knowledge might not be scaled, but ignorance would be less common; feelings would be less passionate, and manners gentler; there would be more vices and fewer crimes. (Tocqueville 15)
Mill takes inspiration from Tocqueville’s writings and goes further in the exploration of democracy and the positive and negative effects it has on society. Although Mill was equally, if not more educated than Tocqueville, he came from a middle-class background. Born to James Mill, a well-known liberalist author who was not a noble, John Stuart Mill’s upbringing made him identify more with the common citizen than Tocqueville did (Mill ix-xi). He also grew up in the era of revolution, when democracy was coming into full swing all over the world; America broke from British control and France was in the Napoleonic stage of history. At the same time, Britain passed the first Reform Act, and industrialization was on the rise (Mill vii-viii). The old world order, in which birth determined position in society, was being dismantled and there was an uncertainty of what society would be like after.
While both authors praise the democratic middle class, it is Mill who takes on a more inclusive view. This is shown in Mill’s work On Liberty, where his writing leans more towards the tone in the Declaration of Independence than the reflective tone in Tocqueville’s Democracy in America:
…from this liberty of each individual, follows the liberty, within the same limits, of combination among individuals; freedom to unite, for any purpose not involving harm to others: the persons combining being supposed to be of full age, and not forced or deceived. No society in which these liberties are not, on the whole, respected, is free, whatever may be its form of government; and none is completely free in which they do not exist absolute and unqualified. The only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. (Mill, 19)
Despite their different perspectives, Tocqueville and Mill have shown through their works that in a general sense, they agreed on their understandings of the causes and nature of such social conformism as well as the threat they pose to freedom. On top of that both authors have a sense of the problems within society that were ignored or brought about by democracy, but still remained supportive of the ideals democracy represented. The way they went about addressing these concerns were different. Tocqueville used them to exemplify his critiques of American democracy, but Mill focused solely on these perceived problems:
Individuals, classes, nations, have been extremely unlike one another: they have struck out a great variety of paths, each leading to something valuable… Europe is, in my judgment, wholly indebted to this plurality of paths for its progressive and many-sided development. But it already begins to possess this benefit in a considerably less degree. It is decidedly advancing towards the Chinese ideal of making all people alike. M. de Tocqueville, in his last important work, remarks how much more the Frenchmen of the present day resemble one another, than did those even of the last generation. (Mill 82)
While these two philosophers do tend to be united on the general message of democracy, the tone Tocqueville and Mill have in their respective works deviate. For example, both authors speak to the individual and their freedom and equality and have diffing views on how it should be dealt with.
“In Democracy in America, Tocqueville provides an extensive analysis of the philosophy behind the central theme of his work, the shaky relationship between freedom and equality. However, Tocqueville does not leave politics out of his study on the unsteady relationship between equality and freedom; this, in turn, helps in understanding how Democracy in American can lead to tyranny. Individualism by Tocqueville’s definition is “ …a calm and considered feeling which disposes each citizen to isolate himself from the mass of his fellows and withdraw into the circle of family and friends; with this little society formed to his taste, he gladly leaves the greater society to look after itself” (Tocqueville 506). According to the author, in those times citizens tend to become independent and more inclined to limit themselves to smaller social circles. This, in turn, is dangerous to the society as a whole due to the individualism becoming egoism, thus “… .individualism at first only dams the spring of public virtues, but in the long run it attacks and destroys all the others too and finally merges in egoism. . . . Individualism is of democratic origin and threatens to grow as conditions get more equal” (Tocqueville 507)” (SWA4).
“Mill’s philosophical essay On Liberty is a work that laid the foundations of liberalism seen in today’s politics. In his work, Mill argues that an individual's freedom is the foundation of proper societies. Laid out in the essay were several principles, of which individual liberty is the predominant one. In Chapter 1 of his essay, he discusses liberty as an individual’s ability to live their life on their own terms, to think for themselves and then act on those thoughts. According to Mill, liberty is what society should be organized around. To contrast this, the philosopher uses "tyranny of the majority,” (Mill 9) which is not easily defeated by the checks and balances of a democratic system. From there, Mill moves the essay from the defense of freedom of thought to other individual liberties and examines where the proper limits to that liberty should be placed.
From the start, Mill is clear that his goal is to underline the relationship between society and the individual accurately. The principles Mill has laid out within On Liberty are summarized in Chapter Five “… first, that the individual is not accountable to society for his actions, in so far as these concern the interests of no person but himself…Secondly, that for such actions as are prejudicial to the interests of others, the individual is accountable… if society is of opinion that the one or the other is requisite for its protection” (Mill 106). The philosopher concludes his work by looking for a practical application to the above principles. Some of those applications involve day to day acts that are harmful socially. The philosopher is much warier on what he says here, arguing that there is no clear set of rules that can apply to those societal acts. Mill just reiterates the generalized argument was not limiting actions that impact individuals, even when they are harmful.” (SWA5).
Another topic in which both authors agree, is the issue of women’s rights. Both Tocqueville and Mill share a generally positive tone toward women, which Tocqueville includes within Democracy in America and Mill in The Subjection of Women. In his essay, Mill writes on the importance of women and female and empowerment, which the philosopher believed was a major social issue within a democracy. Tocqueville mirrors this belief in a Volume III Chapter 12 of Democracy in America titled “How the American Views the Equality of the Sexes,” where hehe ends with a hypothetical: “And now that I come near the end of this book in which I have recorded so many considerable achievements of the Americans, if anyone asks me what I think the chief cause of the extraordinary prosperity and growing power of this nation, I should answer that it is due to the superiority of their women” (Tocqueville 603).
However, when looking closer at Tocqueville and Mill’s works critically, it is easy to recognize the noticeable difference of opinion on the issue of women’s rights. Tocqueville glosses over the “inferiority” of women as a social norm, while Mill compares the treatment of women to that of slavery. Mill argues for more freedoms for women, more specifically a break from the mold women have as the ones running the household in a domestic role. “…the legal subordination of one sex to the other — is wrong in itself, and now one of the chief hindrances to human improvement; and that it ought to be replaced by a principle of perfect equality, admitting no power or privilege on the one side, nor disability on the other” (Mill 133). Comparatively, Tocqueville embraces the domestic role women have:
“I have never found America women regarding conjugal authority as a blessed usurpation of their rights or feeling that they degrade themselves by submitting to it. On the contrary, they seem to take pride in the free relinquishment of their will, and it is their boast to bear the yoke themselves rather than to escape from it. That at least, is the feeling expressed by the bear of them; the others keep quiet, and in the United States one never hears an adulterous wife noisily proclaiming the rights of women while stamping the most hallowed duties underfoot” (Tocqueville 602).
From these two quotes, it is clear that despite the positivity of both authors’ tones, they disagree on what role and rights women should have in society. Mill strongly argues for women’s freedoms while Tocqueville sees women happy in their roles and believes giving an inch of freedom would lead to “…men so easily submit to the despotic sway of women”(Tocqueville 602).
This example shows that the two philosophers greatly differ on the subject of women and other topics shown within Tocqueville’s Democracy in America and Mill’s essays On Liberty and The Subjection of Women. However, it is their similarities, not their differences that really stand out because liberalism was a revolutionary idea and they both rode the tides of said revolution. Those similarities included themes of individual freedom, an Americanized democracy, and the greater role of the middle class. And the greatest similarity of all for Tocqueville and Mill was concerns for the intrusion of the tyranny of the majority and growing social conformity within modern societies.
work cited
Itkin, Anne. SWA 4: Tocqueville. 2018. Drexel University. Unpublished Paper.
Itkin, Anne. SWA 5: Mill. 2018. Drexel University. Unpublished Paper.
(Maher, Class Notes 11/13)
Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty and The Subjection of Women. London: Penguin Classics, 2006. Print.
Tocqueville, Alexis de, et al. Democracy in America. Harper Perennial Modern Classics, 2006.