When does Tocqueville decide to use a comparative perspective? Why? What does the comparative perspective allow Tocqueville to do that he otherwise could not? Are the comparisons effective? Why or why not?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Labels
- Assignments (3)
- Books (1)
- Capitalism (6)
- Course Info (15)
- Democracy (6)
- Development (1)
- Feedback (1)
- Fun (1)
- general (9)
- Globalization (2)
- Imperialism (6)
- Lectures (1)
- Nationalism (8)
- Office Hours (1)
- Papers (1)
- Peace (1)
- Readings (1)
- Sections (1)
- State (2)
- Syllabus (1)
- Thucydides (11)
- Tocqueville (8)
- Totalitarianism (6)
Blog Archive
4 comments:
Tocqueville has both effective and ineffective uses of the comparative perspective, but although they differ in efficacy, they are similar in motive: Tocqueville attempts to show how the conditions of France compared to the conditions of other European nations and then to explain why those differences led France -- but not Europe as a whole -- to revolution. In Book 2, Ch. 1, Tocqueville compares French and German peasants, and the comparison is effective because it illustrates how the Germans remained serfs while the French became landowners. (p. 111-112) Tocqueville has an ineffective comparison, however, in Book 2, Ch. 6, when he writes, "in France the central government has never imitated those governments in southern Europe, which seem to take over everything in order to do nothing." With this witty, yet unsubstantiated claim, Tocqueville's comparison falls flat, and what could have been a valid contrast becomes merely rhetoric.
First, Tocqueville uses comparative politics in order to better understand France. He states this on p 103 and concludes on the end of Chapter 4. Tocqueville poses the question of how the different peoples have similar institutions. By comparing and contrasting, Tocqueville is able to identify the independent variables that lead to a particular result, revolution in France particularly as stated by my fellow blogger. One particular effective example is in Book 2 chapter 10 in his discussion of the absence of political liberty and division of classes. Tocquevwille starts with the similarity between England and France (p 163). He notes the loss of liberty and local freedoms in the middle ages. He then proceeds to show how from this initial starting point, the two states begin to diverge on p 164. His primary difference is how the aristorcracy in England was taxed but also governed in contrast with France where they were exempt from taxes and did not govern. He identifies this difference in taxation as the point of divergence. Tocqueville then proceeds to demonstrate the effects. The English aristocracy and lower class necessarily had to work together, while the French aristocracy retreated into isolation leaving the poor to be especially burdened which leads to a division of classes and goes on. The comparative approach is effective because it identifies the key difference and proceeds to show the different consequences for either states. It is almost like an scientific experiment, in which something is kept constant and then something is changed except less clear cut. (Probably why political science is such a bastard science)
- Edward C. Robinson Jr.
pp. 102: "I have had occasion to study the political institutions of medieval France, England, and Germany, and as I progressed in my work, I was astonished at the sight of the incredible similarity to be found among their laws." Given that institutions often shape outcomes and interested in studying the true causes of the French Revolution, a comparative perspective allows Tocqueville to generalize--a contribution that allows us to think about the various conditions under which revolution can occur.
-- Rahul
Tocqueville does not only make comparisons between France and other countries, but between different moments in French history. It is interesting how he notes in II.5 that the same conditions can breed different responses depending on their context. In this chapter he is referring specifically to social and economic changes that take place in France from some 20 to 30 years before the revolution, and which present a great contrast with the lethargic state that characterized the first half of the century. These changes outpace governmental reform, which brings about criticism and discontent which can be voiced in the space created by the diminished oppression under Louise XVI. Despite being better conditions at the time of the revolution, the perception of those conditions was no longer a product of a comparison with the past, but one tainted by the current optimism and relative to an seemingly even more prosperous future.
-Sebastian
Post a Comment