Tocqueville's Theory of Democracy and Veblen's Theory of the Leisure Class - Term Paper Example

Tocqueville Theory of Democracy in America and Veblen’s Theory of the Leisure Introduction The world comprises of countries enjoying different status of democracies where some are weak democracies, others lack democracy while other countries enjoy full democracy. On the other hand, people in these countries are also segregated into social classes where some enjoy quality of life and have time to enjoy leisure while others live from hand to mouth and have little or no leisure in life. These observations were made by two theorists; Alexis-de-Tocqueville who wrote about Democracy in America and Thorstein Veblen who came up with the theory of the leisure class. In America where which is a strong democracy in the world, citizens have the ability to enjoy leisure in contrast to developing countries where in addition to rampant poverty among the majority; their democracies are feeble and wanting. This leads to the assumption that democracy can be correlated with the kind of life citizens enjoying and that the conditions that allow democracy to flourish are similar to those that allow citizens to enjoy leisure. The two are desirable elements of an individual’s life and therefore they must be closely related. Nevertheless, democracy and leisure have some dangers to the society as is the case of leisure and therefore countries must strike balance to avert the consequences of those dangers. Despite the desire of all persons to achieve democracy and leisure, both can have devastating impacts to the society and therefore understanding those dangers can enhance co-existence in the society. This paper will therefore make a comparative study of the theory of Democracy in America by Tocqueville and the Theory of the Leisure class as postulated by Veblen. Comparison between the Tocqueville and Veblen Theories In 1835, Tocqueville published first volume of his works; Democracy in America and the second volume followed five years later in 1840. In the first volume, Tocqueville mostly concentrated on the structure and institutions of the government in America that enhance maintenance of freedom in America. The second part was mostly focused on individuals in the society and impacts of democratic thoughts and mores that are widely spread in the society (Leroy 195). When looked as a whole, Tocqueville works points to various problems of democracy to the society and proposes strategies for dealing with them. On the other part, Veblen came up with the theory of leisure class which was first published in 1889. In his works, Veblen asserted that leisure class can only flourish in barbarian cultures (Veblen 1). He writes ‘’ the institution of a leisure class is found in its best development at the higher stages of the barbarian culture such as in feudal Europe or feudal Japan’’ (Veblen 1). This demonstrates that for a leisure class to thrive in any society, the society must have some barbaric cultures. Veblen noted that in societies having leisure class, there are clear distinctions between social classes and these differences are maintained by the type of employment. The upper social classes who are able to enjoy leisure are exempted from industrial employment but have their jobs are reserved in the society and attract a certain degree of honour (Veblen 1). In both theories, they bring out the themes of individualism, materialism, lack of freedom and high power that have been left to the legislative authorities in the country. According to Tocqueville, democracy gives rise to individualism. He writes that ‘’individualism is of democratic origin, and threatens to grow as conditions get more equal’’ (Tocqueville 574). Tocqueville observed that as democracy ages in countries such as America, every person is usually fighting to have his own opinions overriding those of others in the society and therefore everyone is usually self seeking. He contrasts individualism to egoism which was mostly exaggerated passion love for oneself and individuals prefer themselves to everything else in the world. However, he observes that individualisms is usually a calm and mature feeling which drives one to withdraw from community to serve his own interests and draws others to follow him forming a small circle around him (Tocqueville 574). According to Tocqueville (Tocqueville 574), individualism initially weakens the virtues of public life but it progressively destroys all other social virtues eventually turning into egotism. He explained that egotism is an old vice; as old as the world, belonging to no particular social class but destroying the social fabric. On the other hand Veblen, observes that emergence of leisure class is strongly related to emergence of ownership. Those seeking to join the leisure class must own more property than others in the society and their ideas dominate those of the poor in the society. He asserts that recognition and differentiation between individual interests from those of the groups within which the person comes at a later point (Veblen 20). Veblen writes that the initial stage of joining a leisure class begins with ownership which can be accomplished by barbaric seizure and transformation (Veblen 20). He attributes slavery to the desire for some people to join the leisure class. Driven by individualist desires, slavery flourished where the rich were not concerned of the interests and rights of others but those of themselves. Moreover, individualism is demonstrated in the conspicuous leisure of some individuals. Veblen observes that since the poor live from hand to mouth, they cannot abstain from labor and they take pride in working. However, this is not case with persons in the leisure class. He writes that the characteristic attribute of leisure is class is abstinence from any useful employment (Veblen 28). He further notes that conspicuous exemption from work becomes a convectional indicator of superiority, achievement and reputation (Veblen 27). This is an indicator of individualism where people in this group do not want to get engaged in tedious activities. Veblen (28) that the occupations for people in the leisure class are those in government, sports and war. He explains that these employments are usually predatory in nature rather than being productive. Additionally Veblen and Tocqueville describe that materialism is danger of both democracy and leisure class. According to Tocqueville, in democratic state people may come to feel that equality has to be achieved in all aspects of life including the wealth owned by citizens (Tocqueville 613). Tocqueville observed that in seeking for democracy, humans strive to achieve gratification which could include physical gratification. This could drive them to becoming materialists. Tocqueville describes materialism as a dangerous vice among the humankind and more feared in democratic societies since it can easily combines with the other vices present in the society and interpreted together (Tocqueville 613). He writes that democracy fosters an urge for physical gratification and if this urge rises to high level, men could start believing that everything matters including material wealth. This could draw them back to impatience hunger to achieve physical gratification. This could bring about revolution in democratic states as they enjoy large democratic space (Tocqueville 614). Moreover, in democratic states could come from philosophical inclinations fostered in those states of disdaining from thoughts of eternity (Craiutu and Jeremy 304). According to Craiutu and Jeremy, materialism will make people become so much engrossed in pursuit for personal wealth that they will even forget their political freedom. They further write that people could willing forfeit their freedom in order to enjoy benevolent despotism that can offer an orderly society in addition to ensuring material wealth. The idea of materialism is echoed by Veblen when discussing his theory of leisure class. Veblen observes that for one to fit in the leisure class they must be wealth. He writes that development of the leisure class has gone hand in hand with increase in wealth and the simplicity of life (Veblen 218). Additionally, leisure class stratification emerged due to increase in the people worshipping wealth and is those included in the group are the wealthiest and having great reputation in the society. This demonstrates that like democracy, materialism is a dangerous vice in the society. Veblen observes that people in the leisure class are bent to material objects some that he describes as having conspicuous waste (Veblen 86). These items include materials owned by people for decoration and adornment but do not serve purpose. He gives an example of gold that is considered as a status symbol in the society and pursed by persons in the leisure class. Veblen asserts despite the beauty attributed to such item, they have no other utility (Veblen 87). Additionally, this beauty has been monopolized by the society and made an object of repute to the holder. However, in the society stratifying people in social classes, the utility of such precious objects is to a less extent due to their intrinsic beauty but are largely bought due to the honor attributed to the possessor. Consequently, Veblen came up with an argument that such objects do not follow the normal demand rules; that reduction in prices leads to increase in consumption (Dugger 496). For them, increase in price leads to increase in demand. This is demonstration of materialism in the society as it people start worshipping material wealth. The consequence of worshiping wealth is that it erodes the social norms and one can go any extent to gain material wealth. Both Veblen and Tocqueville in discussing the two theories, observe that their pursuit could lead to abuse or abandoning of freedom. Tocqueville argued that in a democratic society, the opinion of the majority is seen as the right one (Tocqueville 3). In light of this, there is usually a tendency to abandon the freedom of thought in democratic society. Any person who goes against the view of the majority is viewed as a claim of superiority which is a contradiction of the principle of equality advocated in a democratic society. On the other hand, in pursuit for leisure, persons can abuse their freedom or those of others in the society. In search for self gratification, an individual can go to any length that will ensure that they enjoy the status of being in the leisure class. Veblen asserted that stratification of people into social classes gives some people privileges over others in the society. He writes that individuals in the leisure class enjoy ‘’freedom from scruple, sympathy, honesty and regard for life’’ (Veblen 149). This means that highly successful people in the society can get away with anything and can trump on the rights of the others in the society. Despite the similarities between the two on the issues that they address, there are some differences. One of the major differences is that while democracy is being enjoyed by all members in a country, leisure class is only among a particular group in the country. Another difference is that while Tocqueville argues that seeking equality in the society could be damaging to such society, Veblen was in a way advocating for equality. Tocqueville writes that the side effects of equality are that it increases chances of individualism and materialism. He wrote that equality of conditions makes people to view labor as a source of profit (Tocqueville 620). In pursuit for equality in democratic states, all people are required to work. Tocqueville writes that this swells the number of workforce and makes some prefer a specific type of labor as opposed to the other (Tocqueville 622). This is in contrast to what is advocated by Veblen, who argues that leisure class is a preserve of barbaric societies and should be abolished by exercising equality. According to Veblen, everyone should work and advocates for equality among all sexes (Veblen 94). Conclusion As countries strive to achieve democracy and humans seek to become members of the leisure class, they must be aware of the dangers associated with the two and develop strategies that will help address them. Like democracy, leisure class posses the risk of brewing the vice of materialism in the society. Democracy leads to materialism as persons seek for physical gratification. On the other hand, people in the leisure class are usually materialistic since it is the material wealth that puts them in that class. The other vice that could result in a democratic state similar to societies having leisure class is individualism. Tocqueville asserted that individualism is a product of democracy and increases as people strive to achieve equality. Veblen also observes that people in the leisure class have individualist traits where they do not like to participate in work. The other similarity between democracy theory and the theory of leisure is that both can lead to abandonment or abuse of freedom. The two are dissimilar in that democracy happens in whole country while leisure class is usually part of the society in such a country. Moreover, both differ in terms of whether societies should strive to achieve equality with Tocqueville being opposed to equality while Veblen advocates for equality in the society. Work cited Craiutu, Aurelian, and Jeremy Jennings. "The Third Democracy: Tocquevilles Views of America After 1840." The American Political Science Review 98.3 (2004): 391-404. ABI/INFORM Complete. Web. 11 Apr. 2012. Dugger, William M. "An Introduction to Thorstein Veblens Economic Theory." Science & Society 71.4 (2007): 496-8. ABI/INFORM Complete. Web. 11 Apr. 2012. Leroy, Marc. "Tocqueville Pioneer of Fiscal Sociology." Archives Européennes de Sociologie 51.2 (2010): 195-239. ABI/INFORM Complete. Web. 11 Apr. 2012. Tocquevill de Alexis. ‘’Democracy in America.’’ The Pennsylvania State University (2002). Web. 11 Apr. 2012. Veblen, Thorstein. ‘’The theory of the leisure class.’’ The Pennsylvania State University (2003). Web. 11 Apr. 2012. Read More