Résumé:Ce texte propose un résumé analytique des interventions de la table ronde organisée en juin 2022 dans les locaux de l'université Columbia à Paris, autour du livre d'Olivier Zunz, Tocqueville, l'homme qui comprit la démocratie (paru en avril 2022). Il reprend les principales remarques des quatre intervenants de la table ronde – Françoise Mélonio et Arthur Goldhammer, tous deux spécialistes de Tocqueville, et Laurence Cossu-Beaumont et Thomas Dodman, historiens de la période contemporaine – ainsi que les réponses de l'auteur à ces remarques. Le compte rendu développe quatre grands thèmes abordés lors de la rencontre : la difficulté de mêler les destins intellectuel et politique de Tocqueville dans le cadre de la biographie ; l'importance du voyage aux États-Unis au début des années 1830 dans son parcours ; la signification théorique et les modalités pratiques du choix de Tocqueville en faveur de la démocratie à l'issue de ce voyage ; et enfin la question des angles morts et des contradictions de l'auteur de De la démocratie en Amérique, tels qu'ils apparaissent dans l'ouvrage d'O. Zunz.Abstract:This text offers an analytical summary of the roundtable organized in June 2022 at Columbia University in Paris, around Olivier Zunz's book, The Man Who Understood Democracy. The Life of Alexis de Tocqueville (published in 2022, Princeton University Press). It includes the main remarks of the four panelists – Françoise Mélonio and Arthur Goldhammer, both Tocqueville scholars, and Laurence Cossu-Beaumont and Thomas Dodman, historians of the contemporary period – as well as the author's responses to these remarks. The account elaborates on the four main themes discussed during the roundtable: the difficulty of capturing both Tocqueville's intellectual and political destinies within the framework of the biography; the importance of the trip to the United States in the early 1830s in his career; the theoretical significance and practical modalities of Tocqueville's choice in favor of democracy after this trip; and finally, the question of Tocqueville's blind spots and contradictions as they appear in O. Zunz's book.
摘要：本文提供了2022年6月在巴黎哥伦比亚大学举办的圆桌会议上发言的分析摘要，该圆桌会议围绕奥利维尔·祖恩斯（Olivier Zunz）的《托克维尔，理解民主的人》（Tocqueville，L'homme qui comprit la démocratie，2022年4月出版）一书。它包括圆桌会议四位发言者的主要评论——托克维尔的两位专家弗朗索瓦·梅洛尼奥和阿瑟·戈德哈默，以及当代历史学家劳伦斯·科苏·博蒙特和托马斯·多德曼——以及作者对这些评论的回应。该报告阐述了会议期间讨论的四个主要主题：在传记框架内混合托克维尔的知识和政治命运的困难；19世纪30年代初美国之旅在其旅程中的重要性；这次访问结束时选择托克维尔支持民主的理论意义和实际方式；最后，作者在《美国民主》一书中提出的盲点和矛盾问题，如O。zunz.abstract：本文提供了2022年6月在巴黎哥伦比亚大学举行的圆桌会议的分析摘要，围绕奥利维尔·祖兹的书《理解民主的人》。亚历克西斯·德·托克维尔的一生（普林斯顿大学出版社，2022年出版）。其中包括四位小组成员的主要评论——托克维尔学者弗朗索瓦·梅洛尼奥和阿瑟·戈德哈默，以及当代历史学家劳伦斯·科苏·博蒙特和托马斯·多德曼——以及作者对这些评论的回应。该账户阐述了圆桌会议期间讨论的四个主要主题：在传记框架内捕捉托克维尔的知识和政治命运的困难；19世纪30年代初美国之旅对其职业生涯的重要性；这次旅行后托克维尔选择支持民主的理论意义和实际模式；最后，托克维尔的盲点和矛盾问题出现在O.Zunz的书中。
{"title":"Comprendre \"L'homme qui comprit la démocratie\": Table ronde autour de l'ouvrage d'Olivier Zunz","authors":"Alexia Blin","doi":"10.3138/ttr.43.2.231","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/ttr.43.2.231","url":null,"abstract":"Résumé:Ce texte propose un résumé analytique des interventions de la table ronde organisée en juin 2022 dans les locaux de l'université Columbia à Paris, autour du livre d'Olivier Zunz, Tocqueville, l'homme qui comprit la démocratie (paru en avril 2022). Il reprend les principales remarques des quatre intervenants de la table ronde – Françoise Mélonio et Arthur Goldhammer, tous deux spécialistes de Tocqueville, et Laurence Cossu-Beaumont et Thomas Dodman, historiens de la période contemporaine – ainsi que les réponses de l'auteur à ces remarques. Le compte rendu développe quatre grands thèmes abordés lors de la rencontre : la difficulté de mêler les destins intellectuel et politique de Tocqueville dans le cadre de la biographie ; l'importance du voyage aux États-Unis au début des années 1830 dans son parcours ; la signification théorique et les modalités pratiques du choix de Tocqueville en faveur de la démocratie à l'issue de ce voyage ; et enfin la question des angles morts et des contradictions de l'auteur de De la démocratie en Amérique, tels qu'ils apparaissent dans l'ouvrage d'O. Zunz.Abstract:This text offers an analytical summary of the roundtable organized in June 2022 at Columbia University in Paris, around Olivier Zunz's book, The Man Who Understood Democracy. The Life of Alexis de Tocqueville (published in 2022, Princeton University Press). It includes the main remarks of the four panelists – Françoise Mélonio and Arthur Goldhammer, both Tocqueville scholars, and Laurence Cossu-Beaumont and Thomas Dodman, historians of the contemporary period – as well as the author's responses to these remarks. The account elaborates on the four main themes discussed during the roundtable: the difficulty of capturing both Tocqueville's intellectual and political destinies within the framework of the biography; the importance of the trip to the United States in the early 1830s in his career; the theoretical significance and practical modalities of Tocqueville's choice in favor of democracy after this trip; and finally, the question of Tocqueville's blind spots and contradictions as they appear in O. Zunz's book.","PeriodicalId":41972,"journal":{"name":"Tocqueville Review","volume":"43 1","pages":"231 - 240"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42225004","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract:Tocqueville envisioned any number of ways in which democracy might succumb to tyranny and sought to imagine social processes and institutions that might mitigate this threat. Among these was participation in local government, which he saw as a way of teaching humility and moderating political passions with the potential to undermine democracy. But the importance of local government has diminished as the scale of democratic polities has increased and as changes in the media landscape have given rise to a "democracy of the spectacle" in which identification with the executive who incarnates the central government has supplanted engagement with local issues. What do these changes imply for Tocqueville's view of democratic stability?
{"title":"The Democracy of the Spectacle","authors":"Arthur Goldhammer","doi":"10.3138/ttr.43.2.207","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/ttr.43.2.207","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:Tocqueville envisioned any number of ways in which democracy might succumb to tyranny and sought to imagine social processes and institutions that might mitigate this threat. Among these was participation in local government, which he saw as a way of teaching humility and moderating political passions with the potential to undermine democracy. But the importance of local government has diminished as the scale of democratic polities has increased and as changes in the media landscape have given rise to a \"democracy of the spectacle\" in which identification with the executive who incarnates the central government has supplanted engagement with local issues. What do these changes imply for Tocqueville's view of democratic stability?","PeriodicalId":41972,"journal":{"name":"Tocqueville Review","volume":"43 1","pages":"207 - 229"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48103614","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Résumé:Comment concevoir la justice au sein de cette entité politique sui generis qu'est l'Union européenne ? John Rawls traite de cette question dans une longue lettre rédigée en 1998. La conception égalitaire qu'il présente dans sa Théorie de la justice ne peut à ses yeux s'appliquer qu'au sein d'un peuple, et l'Union européenne n'en est pas un au sens où il l'entend. Au niveau européen, les obligations de justice distributive se réduisent donc aux obligations entre peuples que Rawls énonce dans The Law of Peoples : un devoir d'aide à certains États membres au cas où ils seraient trop peu développés pour pouvoir se doter d'institutions internes justes et le respect des termes équitables de formes de coopération mutuellement bénéfiques auquel chaque État membre est libre d'adhérer.Mais la notion de « peuple » est-elle suffisamment robuste pour fonder cette conception duale de la justice ? N'est-il pas plus plausible de conditionner la pertinence d'une conception égalitaire de la justice, comme le fait Thomas Nagel, non à l'existence d'un peuple au sens de Rawls, mais à celle d'une communauté politique de citoyens à la fois auteurs et sujets de règles coercitives—une condition que l'Union européenne satisfait de plus en plus ? Et n'est-il pas plus plausible encore d'admettre que la justice sociale égalitaire aujourd'hui ne peut se penser qu'à l'échelle globale, l'Union européenne constituant alors un effort régional pour construire les institutions que la justice requiert à l'échelle globale ? Dans l'une ou l'autre de ces perspectives, la poursuite de l'intégration politique européenne se justifie.En outre, dès le moment où l'on admet l'irréversibilité du marché unique, n'est-ce pas même dans la perspective duale de Rawls qu'il faut souhaiter la poursuite de cette intégration ? En son absence, en effet, l'Union européenne s'enfoncera dans le piège décrit dès 1939 par Friedrich Hayek : une fédération cumulant les obstacles économiques à la poursuite de la justice au niveau national et les obstacles politiques à sa poursuite au niveau de l'Union. La sévère mise en garde de Rawls contre la transformation de l'Union européenne en un État fédéral ressemblant aux États-Unis ne doit donc pas nous empêcher d'œuvrer au service d'une utopie réaliste libérale-égalitaire très différente de la sienne. Au contraire.
摘要:如何在欧盟这个独特的政治实体中构想正义?约翰·罗尔斯在1998年写的一封长信中谈到了这个问题。在他看来，他在正义理论中提出的平等主义概念只能适用于一个民族，而欧盟不是他所理解的那种民族。欧洲一级的人权义务的分配正义所以归结于人们之间的义务在The Law of皮珀说罗尔斯指出:有责任协助一些成员国,以防他们太不发达,才能建立公平公正和尊重方面的内部机构的互利合作的形式,每个会员国都可以自由加入。但是，“人民”的概念是否足够强大，足以成为这种双重正义概念的基础呢?难道不是最合理的包装设计的适切性公平正义、托马斯·内格尔那样,不存在Rawls)的含义,但人民的作者既是公民的政治和社会议题的强制性规则—一个条件越来越多,欧洲联盟满意吗?承认今天的平等主义社会正义只能在全球范围内考虑，而欧盟是建立全球范围内正义所需要的机构的区域努力，难道不是更合理的吗?在这两种情况下，追求欧洲政治一体化都是合理的。此外，既然我们已经认识到单一市场的不可逆转性，难道就连罗尔斯的双重观点也不应该被视为进一步一体化的理由吗?事实上，如果没有它，欧盟将陷入弗里德里希•哈耶克(Friedrich Hayek)早在1939年就描述过的陷阱:一个联邦，在国家层面追求正义的经济障碍和在欧盟层面追求正义的政治障碍交织在一起。因此，罗尔斯强烈警告不要将欧盟转变为一个类似于美国的联邦国家，但这不应阻止我们为一个与他截然不同的自由平等主义现实主义乌托邦而努力。相反。
{"title":"Qu'est-ce qu'une Europe juste ? Dialogue avec John Rawls","authors":"Philippe van Parijs","doi":"10.3138/ttr.43.1.89","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/ttr.43.1.89","url":null,"abstract":"Résumé:Comment concevoir la justice au sein de cette entité politique sui generis qu'est l'Union européenne ? John Rawls traite de cette question dans une longue lettre rédigée en 1998. La conception égalitaire qu'il présente dans sa Théorie de la justice ne peut à ses yeux s'appliquer qu'au sein d'un peuple, et l'Union européenne n'en est pas un au sens où il l'entend. Au niveau européen, les obligations de justice distributive se réduisent donc aux obligations entre peuples que Rawls énonce dans The Law of Peoples : un devoir d'aide à certains États membres au cas où ils seraient trop peu développés pour pouvoir se doter d'institutions internes justes et le respect des termes équitables de formes de coopération mutuellement bénéfiques auquel chaque État membre est libre d'adhérer.Mais la notion de « peuple » est-elle suffisamment robuste pour fonder cette conception duale de la justice ? N'est-il pas plus plausible de conditionner la pertinence d'une conception égalitaire de la justice, comme le fait Thomas Nagel, non à l'existence d'un peuple au sens de Rawls, mais à celle d'une communauté politique de citoyens à la fois auteurs et sujets de règles coercitives—une condition que l'Union européenne satisfait de plus en plus ? Et n'est-il pas plus plausible encore d'admettre que la justice sociale égalitaire aujourd'hui ne peut se penser qu'à l'échelle globale, l'Union européenne constituant alors un effort régional pour construire les institutions que la justice requiert à l'échelle globale ? Dans l'une ou l'autre de ces perspectives, la poursuite de l'intégration politique européenne se justifie.En outre, dès le moment où l'on admet l'irréversibilité du marché unique, n'est-ce pas même dans la perspective duale de Rawls qu'il faut souhaiter la poursuite de cette intégration ? En son absence, en effet, l'Union européenne s'enfoncera dans le piège décrit dès 1939 par Friedrich Hayek : une fédération cumulant les obstacles économiques à la poursuite de la justice au niveau national et les obstacles politiques à sa poursuite au niveau de l'Union. La sévère mise en garde de Rawls contre la transformation de l'Union européenne en un État fédéral ressemblant aux États-Unis ne doit donc pas nous empêcher d'œuvrer au service d'une utopie réaliste libérale-égalitaire très différente de la sienne. Au contraire.","PeriodicalId":41972,"journal":{"name":"Tocqueville Review","volume":"43 1","pages":"124 - 89"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45281122","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract:This article engages two established modes of analyzing Tocqueville's theory in Democracy in America—the institutionalism of Volume 1 and the "art of association" of Volume 2—to argue for the importance of a Platonic theme in Tocqueville, that of education for leadership. After establishing why Tocqueville argues that democracy struggles to cultivate quality leadership, the article turns to examining one proposed solution: education in the classical humanities. Tocqueville's argument for this pedagogy is overtly aristocratic, in contrast to many contemporary arguments for liberal education. Following this logic carefully permits us to understand another aspect of Tocqueville's characteristic effort to incorporate aristocratic elements into democratic society and challenges us to reconsider our own role as educators.
{"title":"Can the Great Books Serve the Common Good? Tocqueville on Aristocratic Education in a Democratic Age","authors":"Luke Foster","doi":"10.3138/ttr.43.1.181","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/ttr.43.1.181","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:This article engages two established modes of analyzing Tocqueville's theory in Democracy in America—the institutionalism of Volume 1 and the \"art of association\" of Volume 2—to argue for the importance of a Platonic theme in Tocqueville, that of education for leadership. After establishing why Tocqueville argues that democracy struggles to cultivate quality leadership, the article turns to examining one proposed solution: education in the classical humanities. Tocqueville's argument for this pedagogy is overtly aristocratic, in contrast to many contemporary arguments for liberal education. Following this logic carefully permits us to understand another aspect of Tocqueville's characteristic effort to incorporate aristocratic elements into democratic society and challenges us to reconsider our own role as educators.","PeriodicalId":41972,"journal":{"name":"Tocqueville Review","volume":"43 1","pages":"181 - 201"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41893296","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract:A few days after the death of John Rawls in 2002, Michael Sandel published this tribute to the author of A Theory of Justice. In particular, he reminds us that Rawls revived political theory by showing that it was possible to argue rationally about justice, rights, and political obligation. According to Rawls's liberal egalitarianism rights cannot be based on utilitarian principles. This break point inspired a new generation to take up classic questions of morality and politics.
{"title":"Remembering Rawls*","authors":"Michael J. Sandel","doi":"10.3138/ttr.43.1.17","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/ttr.43.1.17","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:A few days after the death of John Rawls in 2002, Michael Sandel published this tribute to the author of A Theory of Justice. In particular, he reminds us that Rawls revived political theory by showing that it was possible to argue rationally about justice, rights, and political obligation. According to Rawls's liberal egalitarianism rights cannot be based on utilitarian principles. This break point inspired a new generation to take up classic questions of morality and politics.","PeriodicalId":41972,"journal":{"name":"Tocqueville Review","volume":"43 1","pages":"17 - 20"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48290144","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstarct:John Rawls proposed A Theory of Justice (1971) aiming at building consensus in democratic societies. In the middle of the Cold War, the Vietnam War, and the Civil Rights movement, while Americans were strongly divided, Rawls' political liberalism offered a method to build political agreement between people with different and conflicting values and interests, to preserve peace and other benefits of stable social cooperation. Fifty years on, while authors like Katrina Forrester (2019 a, b) suggest moving on from the ideal of political consensus, other voices such as Catherine Audard (2019) remind us of the relevance of public reason in a world full of divisions. This paper builds a dialogue between these two influential authors to assess the legacy and relevance of Rawls' political philosophy today.
摘要:约翰·罗尔斯(John Rawls)提出的《正义论》(A Theory of Justice, 1971)旨在建立民主社会的共识。在冷战、越南战争和民权运动的中期，当美国人处于强烈的分裂状态时，罗尔斯的政治自由主义提供了一种方法，在具有不同和冲突的价值观和利益的人们之间建立政治协议，以维护和平和稳定的社会合作的其他利益。五十年过去了，虽然像卡特里娜·弗雷斯特(2019年a, b)这样的作者建议从政治共识的理想中继续前进，但其他声音，如凯瑟琳·奥达德(2019年)提醒我们，在一个充满分歧的世界里，公共理性具有重要意义。本文建立了这两位有影响力的作家之间的对话，以评估罗尔斯政治哲学的遗产和当今的相关性。
{"title":"Justice Between Individuals: John Rawls and the Demands of Political Liberalism","authors":"Thomas Ferretti","doi":"10.3138/ttr.43.1.147","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/ttr.43.1.147","url":null,"abstract":"Abstarct:John Rawls proposed A Theory of Justice (1971) aiming at building consensus in democratic societies. In the middle of the Cold War, the Vietnam War, and the Civil Rights movement, while Americans were strongly divided, Rawls' political liberalism offered a method to build political agreement between people with different and conflicting values and interests, to preserve peace and other benefits of stable social cooperation. Fifty years on, while authors like Katrina Forrester (2019 a, b) suggest moving on from the ideal of political consensus, other voices such as Catherine Audard (2019) remind us of the relevance of public reason in a world full of divisions. This paper builds a dialogue between these two influential authors to assess the legacy and relevance of Rawls' political philosophy today.","PeriodicalId":41972,"journal":{"name":"Tocqueville Review","volume":"43 1","pages":"147 - 178"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44149810","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract:The notion of a clear distinction between Rawls's liberalism and social democracy rests on a caricatured conception of the liberal tradition and Rawls's place in it. From Rousseau, John Adams, and Madison through Tocqueville to Dewey, notable political theorists have sought to balance the two principles at the core of Rawls's A Theory of Justice. In this essay I sketch the ways in which American thinkers and activists escaped the cages in which commentators have tried to confine them, not only the false binary between liberalism and democratic socialism but also that between secularism and religious belief. As Rawls himself tried to make clear in his later writing, his ideal of justice drew from earlier theorists who understood the constitutive role of social interaction and inherited traditions, and he envisioned a society with room for people animated by comprehensive philosophical and religious ideas not shared by everyone else. Rawls's political liberalism, historicist as well as pluralist, was attuned as much to the threat inequality poses to freedom as to the endangered status of freedom in mass society. Rawls's ideas, especially as articulated in his book Justice as Fairness, remain a vital resource for social democrats who prize social and economic equality as well as individual liberty.
{"title":"John Rawls and \"Our Tradition\" of Democracy","authors":"James T. Kloppenberg","doi":"10.3138/ttr.43.1.21","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/ttr.43.1.21","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:The notion of a clear distinction between Rawls's liberalism and social democracy rests on a caricatured conception of the liberal tradition and Rawls's place in it. From Rousseau, John Adams, and Madison through Tocqueville to Dewey, notable political theorists have sought to balance the two principles at the core of Rawls's A Theory of Justice. In this essay I sketch the ways in which American thinkers and activists escaped the cages in which commentators have tried to confine them, not only the false binary between liberalism and democratic socialism but also that between secularism and religious belief. As Rawls himself tried to make clear in his later writing, his ideal of justice drew from earlier theorists who understood the constitutive role of social interaction and inherited traditions, and he envisioned a society with room for people animated by comprehensive philosophical and religious ideas not shared by everyone else. Rawls's political liberalism, historicist as well as pluralist, was attuned as much to the threat inequality poses to freedom as to the endangered status of freedom in mass society. Rawls's ideas, especially as articulated in his book Justice as Fairness, remain a vital resource for social democrats who prize social and economic equality as well as individual liberty.","PeriodicalId":41972,"journal":{"name":"Tocqueville Review","volume":"43 1","pages":"21 - 50"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47363009","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract:Review of the book The Cambridge Companion to Democracy in America by Richard Boyd (editor). Richard Boyd has assembled a team of seventeen specialists with a heavy bent towards political science. The volume comprises sixteen chapters divided into four parts: a first one that deals with sources and contexts to Tocqueville's masterwork; another that examines the book's reception and applications around the world; a third part that analyses discrete themes and formal aspects of the work itself; and a final section that brings Democracy in America to bear on contemporary challenges.
{"title":"The Cambridge Companion to Democracy in America","authors":"T. Dodman","doi":"10.1017/9781316995761","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316995761","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:Review of the book The Cambridge Companion to Democracy in America by Richard Boyd (editor). Richard Boyd has assembled a team of seventeen specialists with a heavy bent towards political science. The volume comprises sixteen chapters divided into four parts: a first one that deals with sources and contexts to Tocqueville's masterwork; another that examines the book's reception and applications around the world; a third part that analyses discrete themes and formal aspects of the work itself; and a final section that brings Democracy in America to bear on contemporary challenges.","PeriodicalId":41972,"journal":{"name":"Tocqueville Review","volume":"43 1","pages":"241 - 246"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46176996","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract:This essay explores the significance of Napoleon for contemporary history and public affairs by reflecting on the career of Melvin Richter (1921–2020) and his forthcoming Tocqueville and the Two Napoleons. Richter maintains that Tocqueville’s ever-deepening analysis of the Napoleonic model, a new and sinister form of the administrative state, achieved dystopian dimensions in his thought and serves as an important thread by which we can re-assess Tocqueville’s entire oeuvre and political career. The article argues that Tocqueville’s historical method, which takes center stage in Richter’s reconstruction of the way in which Tocqueville submits Napoleon to the discipline of history, continues to inspire, even as contemporary concerns shift away from the dangers of the administrative state. It also speculates that the mythical Napoleon who transcended time, a figure inevitably neglected in “Tocquevillian” histories but made compelling by a generation of romantic writers, is newly relevant in a world of mysterious affective attachments to populist leaders and the waves of expressive violence in which such attachments are enmeshed.
{"title":"Reflections on Melvin Richter’s Tocqueville and the Two Napoleons","authors":"Cheryl B. Welch","doi":"10.3138/ttr.42.2.29","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/ttr.42.2.29","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:This essay explores the significance of Napoleon for contemporary history and public affairs by reflecting on the career of Melvin Richter (1921–2020) and his forthcoming Tocqueville and the Two Napoleons. Richter maintains that Tocqueville’s ever-deepening analysis of the Napoleonic model, a new and sinister form of the administrative state, achieved dystopian dimensions in his thought and serves as an important thread by which we can re-assess Tocqueville’s entire oeuvre and political career. The article argues that Tocqueville’s historical method, which takes center stage in Richter’s reconstruction of the way in which Tocqueville submits Napoleon to the discipline of history, continues to inspire, even as contemporary concerns shift away from the dangers of the administrative state. It also speculates that the mythical Napoleon who transcended time, a figure inevitably neglected in “Tocquevillian” histories but made compelling by a generation of romantic writers, is newly relevant in a world of mysterious affective attachments to populist leaders and the waves of expressive violence in which such attachments are enmeshed.","PeriodicalId":41972,"journal":{"name":"Tocqueville Review","volume":"42 1","pages":"29 - 42"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46640702","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract:In Democracy in America, Tocqueville posited a contrast between the way history is written in “aristocratic” and “democratic” ages. In the former, historians tend to assign great weight to the actions of individuals; in the latter, they privilege great impersonal forces that act upon the mass. The essay examines Tocqueville’s views of Napoleon Bonaparte in light of these reflections. It concludes that despite his occasional vulnerability to the lure of Napoleonic grandeur, and despite his own desire, as an aristocrat writing in a democratic age, to effect a synthesis of the two modes of historical writing, in the end he fundamentally viewed Napoleon’s actions as determined by the forces of democratic equality and revolution.
{"title":"Tocqueville, Napoleon, and History-Writing in a Democratic Age","authors":"D. A. Bell","doi":"10.3138/ttr.42.2.43","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/ttr.42.2.43","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:In Democracy in America, Tocqueville posited a contrast between the way history is written in “aristocratic” and “democratic” ages. In the former, historians tend to assign great weight to the actions of individuals; in the latter, they privilege great impersonal forces that act upon the mass. The essay examines Tocqueville’s views of Napoleon Bonaparte in light of these reflections. It concludes that despite his occasional vulnerability to the lure of Napoleonic grandeur, and despite his own desire, as an aristocrat writing in a democratic age, to effect a synthesis of the two modes of historical writing, in the end he fundamentally viewed Napoleon’s actions as determined by the forces of democratic equality and revolution.","PeriodicalId":41972,"journal":{"name":"Tocqueville Review","volume":"42 1","pages":"43 - 55"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44183498","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：