American Landscapes

I found the thunderstorm in Thomas Cole's View from Mount Holyoke, Northampton, Massachusetts, after a Thunderstorn - The Oxbow, 1836 one of the more interesting paintings. I think it is interesting how the landscape is divided into two sections, a forest and field. Storms are said to represent, "the coming sectional crisis and tension over the encoaching technology that threaten the landscape" (Iconography of Hudson River School)). With the storm on the side of the forest, I think it can be argued that the forest side will soon look like the field side.

Source: Thomas Cole: View from Mount Holyoke, Northampton, Massachusetts, after a Thunderstorm--The Oxbow (08.228) | Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History | The Metropolitan Museum of Art

Robert Putnam isn't that great

The review I chose was from The Independent Review: A Journal of Political Economy. From this article, one of the first things I was able to conclude was that I am not a conservative. This review compares the opinions of conservatives and neoliberals on Bowling Alone. I fell more in line with the neoliberal reactions to Bowling Alone because I found Robert Putnam’s claims to be alarming and thought something ought to be done to reestablish citizens’ engagement in civic society, “Conservatives are unlikely to be persuaded by the data and arguments Putnam has marshaled in the book-length version of the essay, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community.”

            However, this review did create problems with Putnam for me. I originally thought Putnam had a sound argument, but this review pointed out that he had no counterargument, “The book, however, offers no systematic demonstration that the benefits of its utopian agenda would outweigh the costs of ‘using government’ to bring it into being,” To only talk about the benefits and ignore all of the costs makes Putnam lose the majority of his legitimacy. Also, if some of the costs were addressed, they would lead to consequences that would most likely decrease civic involvement:

He proposes an enormous extension of social control over the lives of private individuals, which, if undertaken, would bring about massive growth of the government bureaucracy and statutory law. From that growth would unavoidably arise increases of coercion, taxation, fraud, and abuses of state power…

With this, I think that if another is able to read Bowling Alone and reach these conclusions, I think it would be best for Putnam to go back and reevaluate his ideas and apply them to the costs and benefits argument.

Americans are lazy

In Robert Putnam’s Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital mentions how Americans are retreating within themselves due to the advances in technology, “There is reason to believe that deep-seated technological trends are radically ‘privatizing’ or ‘individualizing’ our use of leisure time and thus disrupting many opportunities for social-capital formation.” Robert Putnam gives the example of the television, but I think the cell phone is a better example. I think the increase in Americans who use texting to communicate is causing Americans to forget how to communicate with each other. Americans will most likely grow to fear face-to-face conversation because they are shielded by the distance texting gives. Also with the shear amount of Americans who use texting causes one to fall into the trend of social conformity. I mean who wants to look like the loser who still calls/emails people. As humans, we want social approval and if we see everyone else texting, we want to become apart of the “in crowd”. Even more, with the growing number of texters, I think there is an increase in the laziness of Americans to go out and find people to converse with. Why go to the person you wan to talk with when you can text them from the comforts of your home? Not that I hate cell phones or anything, but I think advances in technology sometimes go to far.

Understanding Alexis de Tocqueville

In 1831, Alexis de Tocqueville journeyed from France to America to learn more about America. This trip was inspired by de Tocqueville’s clashing with the new government of Louis Philippe (C-SPAN, 1997-1998). This trip opened de Tocqueville’s eyes to democracy because he saw the successes of a government without the rule of a monarch or aristocratic influence. In Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville’s purpose is to share his experiences in America with his fellow Frenchmen and help them realize France ought to become a democracy by illustrating the profound differences between the governmental styles.

            To de Tocqueville democracy is what a perfect, new toy is to a child. De Tocqueville’s first experience with democracy led him to view it as one of the best forms of government in the world. Therefore, he concluded America was a successful exemplar of democratic principles that other states could look to in the future. With this perception, de Tocqueville’s writing was meant to be used as an educative tool for the French to realize the oppressive nature of their government. Throughout Democracy in America de Tocqueville notes the importance of educated citizens in a democracy because it takes away a certain amount of vulnerability and lessens the chance that a democratic state would fall to the principles of a monarchy or aristocracy. Having a basic education also aids in the citizen’s ability to think for themselves and be capable of preserving their democracy, “Almost all Americans enjoy easy circumstances and can so easily acquire the basic elements of human knowledge.” (pg. 55).

            De Tocqueville favors democracy because educated citizens correlate with the foundational elements of a democracy. The Americans were able to form and maintain their democracy because it was developed out of their ideas:

No necessity forced them to leave their country; they gave up a desirable social position and assured means of livelihood; nor was their object in going to the New World to better their position or accumulate wealth; they tore themselves away from home comforts in obedience to a purely intellectual craving; in facing the inevitable sufferings of exile they hoped for the triumph of an idea. (De Tocqueville, pg. 36)

Therefore, de Tocqueville views democracy as more personal for its citizens than a monarchy or aristocracy because they have more invested in it. The democracy was founded on the citizens’ ideas and hopes for the future, not the ideas and hopes of a monarch or aristocratic class. If the democracy were to be founded by a monarch or aristocracy, the citizens’ ability to act out their ideas would not be possible.  

            With the citizen’s ideas about democracy, localism arises. De Tocqueville illustrates how citizens across the country have contributed to the democratic process by bringing forth their ideas at the various stages of a democracy:

County and township are not constituted everywhere in the same way, but one can say that the organization of township and county in the United States everywhere depends on the same idea, viz., that each man is the best judge of his own interest and the best able to satisfy his private needs (pg. 82).

            Associations can be related to localism because many associations that were founded in the 19^th century had to do with addressing and improving the needs of Americans, “An association unites the energies of divergent minds and vigorously directs them towards a clearly indicated goal.” (pg. 190). For example, the New England Women’s Club, worked towards literary, charitable, philanthropic, educational, reformatory, political, and religious goals (Croly, pg. 37).

Even more, while bringing Americans into the social and political realm, associations’ acted as balancers towards the democracy, “they established a first line of defense against the concentration of monolithic state power.” (Ryan, pg. 579). If associations and citizen involvement were not present in a democracy, the democracy would easily fall to aristocratic or monarchic principles. As well as keeping the government officials in check, associations kept the citizen in check, “Nowhere has the law left greater scope to arbitrary power than in democratic republics, because there they feel they have nothing to fear from it.” (pg. 206). Associations kept citizens from naïveté. Furthermore, the various wants and needs the associations’ expressed, as well as where they placed their political power gave politicians good reason to pay attention to them:

Although it would take another generation for local associations of labor, women, and civil rights advocates to congeal into well-oiled national organizations capable of effecting federal policy, the defining characteristics of powerful social movements were apparent by 1850 (Ryan, pg. 579).

All in all, associations kept political officials and citizens from amassing to much power. The New England Women’s Club promoted the separation of power amongst citizens because, “It was to be a voluntary associating of kindred spirits, drawn together with no ties of family, neighborhood, or church.” (Croly, pg. 37).

            De Tocqueville viewed equality as one of the most important aspects of a democracy. However, he viewed it as a double-edged sword. On one side, de Tocqueville viewed equality as a positive aspect. Democracy has fostered equality since its beginning and this has greatly contributed to America not falling to aristocratic or monarchic principles, “I said in the last chapter that a high degree of equality prevailed among the immigrants who first settled on the coast of New England.” (pg. 50). Equality amongst citizens has also led to the formation of associations because each equal citizen by himself/herself is not strong enough to influence the democracy. However, the weakness of each citizen is overall beneficial to the democracy because it limits the chances of a monarchy arising. De Tocqueville then views equality within a democracy as a dangerous aspect because it can easily lead to the destruction of the democracy. If all the citizens are equal, there is a strong chance that they will retreat within themselves to focus solely on themselves:

Individualism is a calm and considered feeling which disposes each citizen to isolate himself from the masses of his fellows and withdraw into the circle of his family and friends; with this little society formed to his taste, he gladly leaves the greater society to look after itself (pg. 506).

            Due to the various associations in America, like the New England Women’s Club, they helped de Tocqueville form his perception on America and served as a successful exemplar for why democracy is one of the better forms of government.

De Tocqueville and Religion

The other day after class, Karin and I were talking about how much de Tocqueville discusses religion and politics. De Tocqueville believed it would be best if religion and politics were kept separate in a democracy. We thought it was interesting that he believed this and still discussed this topic throughout the sections we read. Even though de Tocqueville states that he is religious, we began to wonder whether he talks about religion and politics as much as he does due to the popularity of religion at this time. Religion was a foundational element in many people’s lives, both in America and Europe. If he did not mention religion as much as he did, would people have taken his thoughts about democracy seriously?

Another de Tocqueville

De Tocqueville confuses me when he says, “Democratic freedom does not carry its undertakings through as perfectly as an intelligent despotism would; it often abandons them before it has reaped the profit, or embarks on perilous ones; but in the long run it produces more; each thing is less well done, but more things are done.” I understand that everything about America and democracy was infinitely better than his current political situation in France, but to have a governmental system that does not try its hardest on everything seems wrong. I think if a democracy is doing things just to get them done and not actually putting forth effort, it is not beneficial to the people. If government officials were to do this, I would think that they don’t actually care about making the government work for the society.