Political Freedom in Tocqueville. A Reassessment in the Light of his Writings on Empire and Colonialism

This dissertation seeks to understand the idiosyncratic character of Alexis de Tocqueville’s notion of freedom, in the light shed by a peculiar part of his oeuvre, namely his writings on empire and colonialism. There have been a lot of contentions on the nature and character of Tocqueville’s political thought, especially his theory of freedom. Some depict him as a liberal thinker of "strange kind," or with "aristocratic" penchant, thus drawing a distance between him and traditional modern liberalism. Some others focus on his theory of democracy, while assuming his allegiance to the modern notion of universal human rights. However, the unearthing of the part of his writings on empire and colonialism has contributed to clear some of the myths. The fact that Tocqueville was an ardent supporter of French imperialism and colonialism bungles the mind with regard to the general impression that he is a sober and honest modern liberal thinker. This dissertation argues that many interpretations of Tocqueville have been incorrect in putting him in the tradition of modern liberalism, together with thinkers such as John Locke and John Stuart Mill. His theory of freedom is not based upon the notion of natural individual rights or individual liberties, but rather revolves around the political community that is possible in the age of democracy and the political authority therein, which is the core of people’s (political) freedom. In this regard, Claude Lefort’s work is tremendously helpful in understanding Tocqueville’s thinking. As with Lefort, Tocqueville’s theorizing of the transition from aristocratic to democratic society is basically the transition of the "form" of society. With the aristocratic society—based upon the inequality of conditions—no longer tenable, the society actually stands on a fundamentally different footing, with all people seeing each other as equals. This transition of the "forms" of society could also be properly grasped in terms of political authority, as used by Max Weber. Tocqueville is essentially concerned with this question: now that the aristocratic bodies, with their usual guarantee of local self-government, cannot exist anymore, what would happen to general political freedom? With the feudal hierarchical society being cast away, it is inevitable and indispensible that "the people" who claim the final authority. However, it remains unclear what the abstract "people" mean and who can represent them. In this respect, Tocqueville genuinely realizes that in democracy, freedom faces as much, or even more, danger as in the past. Furthermore, this dissertation explores the relation between religion and freedom in Tocqueville. Unlike many modern liberal thinkers, Tocqueville believes religion is critical in maintaining freedom in the age of democracy, when individuals’ mind is easily absorbed by political indifference and coarse materialism. It is with this particular concern of political freedom, this dissertation argues, that Tocqueville’s support of empire and colonialism could finally be understood. For Tocqueville, freedom is fundamentally constituted by political authority, with the condition that no political power being extreme and arbitrary. It is not surprising that, at the dawn of the "Age of Imperialism," Tocqueville felt compelled to back France’s empire building in order to avoid the scenario of the international community being dominated by other imperialist powers and France being squeezed to the dependence status.status: publishe