Tocqueville and the Bureaucratic Foundations of Democracy in America

IF 1.3 2区 社会学 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE Political Theory Pub Date : 2023-09-25 DOI:10.1177/00905917231199279
Douglas I. Thompson
{"title":"Tocqueville and the Bureaucratic Foundations of Democracy in America","authors":"Douglas I. Thompson","doi":"10.1177/00905917231199279","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"One of Tocqueville’s best-known empirical claims in Democracy in America is that there is no national-level public administration in the United States. He asserts definitively and repeatedly that “administrative centralization does not exist” there. However, in scattered passages throughout the text, Tocqueville points to multiple federal agencies that contemporary historians and APD scholars characterize as instances of a growing national administrative system, such as the Post Office Department and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. I reevaluate Tocqueville’s treatment of bureaucracy in America in light of this evidence. I contend that Tocqueville, perhaps in spite of himself, reveals even the most paradigmatic examples of active, democratic self-government in Democracy in America—townships and other voluntary associations—to be embedded in and causally supported by a network of interrelated, centralized public administrative institutions. Crucially, Tocqueville never resolves the tension between his acknowledgment of the causal power of these institutions and his claims that they do not exist. This new picture of the empirical and normative complexity of Tocqueville’s treatment of bureaucratic institutions offers a rich set of conceptual resources for contesting, among other claims, the political construction of nostalgia for a lost age of do-it-yourself White settler democracy in a time before bureaucracy in America.","PeriodicalId":47788,"journal":{"name":"Political Theory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Theory","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00905917231199279","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

One of Tocqueville’s best-known empirical claims in Democracy in America is that there is no national-level public administration in the United States. He asserts definitively and repeatedly that “administrative centralization does not exist” there. However, in scattered passages throughout the text, Tocqueville points to multiple federal agencies that contemporary historians and APD scholars characterize as instances of a growing national administrative system, such as the Post Office Department and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. I reevaluate Tocqueville’s treatment of bureaucracy in America in light of this evidence. I contend that Tocqueville, perhaps in spite of himself, reveals even the most paradigmatic examples of active, democratic self-government in Democracy in America—townships and other voluntary associations—to be embedded in and causally supported by a network of interrelated, centralized public administrative institutions. Crucially, Tocqueville never resolves the tension between his acknowledgment of the causal power of these institutions and his claims that they do not exist. This new picture of the empirical and normative complexity of Tocqueville’s treatment of bureaucratic institutions offers a rich set of conceptual resources for contesting, among other claims, the political construction of nostalgia for a lost age of do-it-yourself White settler democracy in a time before bureaucracy in America.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
托克维尔与美国民主的官僚基础
托克维尔在《美国的民主》一书中最著名的经验主义主张之一是,美国没有国家级的公共行政。他一再明确地断言,那里“不存在行政集中”。然而,在全书零散的段落中,托克维尔指出了多个联邦机构,这些机构被当代历史学家和APD学者描述为一个不断发展的国家行政系统的实例,比如邮政局和印第安事务局。根据这些证据,我重新评价了托克维尔对美国官僚制度的看法。我认为托克维尔,也许不自觉地,揭示了在《美国的民主》中积极的、民主的自治的最典型的例子——乡镇和其他自愿协会——被嵌入到一个相互关联的、集中的公共行政机构的网络中,并得到了它们的偶然支持。至关重要的是,托克维尔从未解决他承认这些制度的因果力量与声称它们不存在之间的紧张关系。托克维尔处理官僚制度的经验和规范的复杂性的新图景,提供了一套丰富的概念资源,用于争论在其他主张中,怀旧的政治建构,在美国官僚制度出现之前,白人定居者自己做民主的时代已经过去了。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Political Theory
Political Theory POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
7.10%
发文量
27
期刊介绍: Political Theory is an international journal of political thought open to contributions from a wide range of methodological, philosophical, and ideological perspectives. Essays in contemporary and historical political thought, normative and cultural theory, history of ideas, and assessments of current work are welcome. The journal encourages essays that address pressing political and ethical issues or events.
期刊最新文献
Machiavelli Against Sovereignty: Emergency Powers and the Decemvirate Carl Schmitt’s Political Theology: Legitimizing Authority after Secularization “A New Kind of Death”: Rape, Sex, and Pornography as Violence in Andrea Dworkin’s Thought Neurotic Situations: A Critical Dialogue between Freud and Fanon “Parties Are the Supreme Mentors of the Nation”: Appreciations for Parties and Partisanship in China, 1895–1920
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1