Alexis De Tocqueville's The Old Regime
Like all academic fields, there is much room for debate in the discipline of history. This is attributed to the analysis and interpretation that is involved when drawing conclusions, and both of which are affected by an individual’s subjectivity. However, Prior to a certain point, there was little room for interpretation or disagreement in history, as it was simply considered a retelling of facts. However, there eventually came the realisation that ‘facts’ are always recounted from a perspective, and that humans are more complex than simply a sequence of events. Thus, the writing of history evolved, and the whole understanding of how history related to modern times was altered, resulting in the works like Alexis de Tocqueville’s The Old Regime
…show more content…
and the Revolution, in which the understanding of 1856 France was related to the France of the revolution for the first time.
As an excerpt from Alexis de Tocqueville’s The Old Regime and the Revolution, published in 1856, the document is a primary example of early historiography. Tocqueville’s reputation as an accomplished and recognised French historian allows for immense credibility in his work, despite the knowledge that Tocqueville's study of the French Revolution remained unfinished. Half of Tocqueville’s perspective in the document is also sociology, not history, with him simply commentating on the current situation in which he himself lives, granting even further credibility to his observations. However, unlike other historians, Tocqueville was not only a historian but was also an active participant in politics, as Mitchell noted he prescribed to “the tradition of men in politics who wrote about the past to locate themselves in the present.” This then presents Tocqueville’s work in a particular light, being recognised as both produced with the knowledge of the current political climate in mind, and as being skewed with a political agenda in mind. Drolet notes that The Old Regime and the Revolution read as an accumulation of Tocqueville’s experience from his previous historical works, and was notably modelled after other great works of historiography, claiming it to be “the work of a mature historian.”
The document was published in 1856, the is a result Tocqueville’s growing pessimism about the continuity of liberty in France, which he believed was in decline because of the increase of administrative centralisation, which Drolet attributes to the “long series of revolutions that had exhausted the nation.” Born in 1805 to the aristocracy, Tocqueville lived through the immediate effects of the Napoleonic wars and the revolutions, being acutely aware of the changes to his society that were a result of that. Tocqueville also noted that previous attempts at historical writing were either analytical or narrative, and came to the realisation that to accurately represent both situations of the old regime and his current climate, a combination of the two needed to be written, resulting in a holistic analytical view of the old regime. The immediate circumstances in which the document was created are almost non-existent, as it was through Tocqueville’s decades of observations and growing dissatisfaction with the decline of liberty that resulted in arduous amounts of research, eventually culminating in The Old Regime and the Revolution.
Tocqueville’s main argument throughout the document is that the way people wish to remember the French Revolution does not coincide with the reality of France, both before and after the revolution. Tocqueville argues that by disillusioning themselves into believing they are a different society from before the revolution, the people set themselves up to repeat the same mistakes that lead to the revolution in the first place. From this, Tocqueville offers a cautionary tone in which he expresses his dissatisfaction with the phase of the revolution which he describes as the French attempting to “regain a portion of what they had thrown off.” Tocqueville then goes on to directly address the previous conditions of France at the outbreak of revolution to prove that it was not so different from his current situation in France, noting how an even more absolute and powerful government was able to seize power. In this sense, Tocqueville signifies that the revolution was a failure. Tocqueville also argues that the aspects of French society that did change ultimately served to worsen the nation, naming a combination of the old despotism and the newfound ambitions of common people as giving rise to a society in which citizens feel isolated from each other in their attempts to gain wealth and climb the social ladder. Tocqueville views this post-revolution era as having abandoned their previous ideals of liberty and freedom, concepts he believes to be the only solution to the degradation of French society.
As an early example of historiography, a clear significance of this document is the recognition of the relationship between the past and the present. When Tocqueville wrote The Old Regime and the Revolution, it was because he was still feeling the effects of the revolution and thusly responding to them, a sentiment understood better today. By analysing his current society in terms of the way it used to be, Tocqueville could gain a deeper understanding of how the society worked as a whole. Tocqueville describes in the document a period of France that is deeply forgetful of their past and attempts to revitalise forgotten truths about the old regime and liberty. As an era so well known to be a time of change, Tocqueville reminds us of the complexities that are involved in ideological shifts, and that sometimes regressions occur like the ones he describes in the document. This complexity of historical analysis is displayed again in Tocqueville’s overall argument, as he describes how harmful despotism is to French society when accompanied by ambition and greed of the people, citing liberty to be the only saviour. This seems contradictory in nature, as elements of liberalism include the freedom of social mobility and gains of wealth. Another duality Tocqueville depicts is the one between appearance and reality, where he describes the revolution as a “kind of paradox…” as it appeared “anarchic”, which simply hid the “’… vast centralising power’” that came about as a result.
The document also reads as highly nationalistic, a result of the unifying effort put forward during the revolution, and a matter Tocqueville does not comment on. Holding ideas heavily influenced by the Enlightenment and Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, Tocqueville heavily emphasises the plight of the individual in a society that is losing its liberalism in his eyes. Because of this nationalistic view, Tocqueville, according to Bossenga, overstates the degree to which centralisation was prevalent in his French society, which, if it was as common as he states, Bossenga argues, would negate many reasons the revolution occurred in the first place. Tocqueville is clearly emotionally invested in the content he writes about and presents arguments on the ways things should be, not on how he believes they are, a characteristic not widely approved of in the discipline of history. Ironically, Tocqueville’s nationalistic perception of France is a result of the French Revolution he condemns as a failure, showing a clear disconnect in the recognition of his own subjectivity and its influence on his perceptions of his society. He is aware, however, of how his social status as an aristocrat may influence how others read his work, which resulted in his emphasis on the desire to foster the individual, irrelevant of class.
However, Tocqueville’s commentary on the relationship between past and present did not simply stay at that but also extended to the future.
The overall tone of the document is one of despair, rage, and caution, as Tocqueville notices the decline of liberalism, attributes it to increased centralised power, and actively warns his readers what the future might hold if society continued in the way he perceived it would. Palmer notes that Tocqueville became impatient with what was considered the history of his time, as he believed people to be only repeating events, not connecting them to current times and relating to them, whilst also expressing his desire to produce something new, an act that could not be done by simply recounting the past. Because of Tocqueville’s desire to analyse history further than stating events, his work is almost invaluable to historians today, as it is one of the earlier pieces of historiography which holds the author's subjectivity inside it, which in itself is an element of history that can be analysed further. Not only does Tocqueville describe the effects of the French Revolution on French society, he does so from a French perspective, and with emotions and opinions. Tocqueville’s predictions are also an element of his work that adds to its value, as it describes what he wishes society to be like, as seen in the last few paragraphs of the document, and what he believes to be its
failings.
The importance of this document lies in its connections between past and present, the information the author’s subjectivity gives us, and the analysis of society rather than just events. Tocqueville’s work is a stepping stone from past versions of history, into modernity, as the document has a clear argument and agenda, as well as a sophisticated analysis of the past and present era.
and the Revolution, in which the understanding of 1856 France was related to the France of the revolution for the first time.
As an excerpt from Alexis de Tocqueville’s The Old Regime and the Revolution, published in 1856, the document is a primary example of early historiography. Tocqueville’s reputation as an accomplished and recognised French historian allows for immense credibility in his work, despite the knowledge that Tocqueville's study of the French Revolution remained unfinished. Half of Tocqueville’s perspective in the document is also sociology, not history, with him simply commentating on the current situation in which he himself lives, granting even further credibility to his observations. However, unlike other historians, Tocqueville was not only a historian but was also an active participant in politics, as Mitchell noted he prescribed to “the tradition of men in politics who wrote about the past to locate themselves in the present.” This then presents Tocqueville’s work in a particular light, being recognised as both produced with the knowledge of the current political climate in mind, and as being skewed with a political agenda in mind. Drolet notes that The Old Regime and the Revolution read as an accumulation of Tocqueville’s experience from his previous historical works, and was notably modelled after other great works of historiography, claiming it to be “the work of a mature historian.”
The document was published in 1856, the is a result Tocqueville’s growing pessimism about the continuity of liberty in France, which he believed was in decline because of the increase of administrative centralisation, which Drolet attributes to the “long series of revolutions that had exhausted the nation.” Born in 1805 to the aristocracy, Tocqueville lived through the immediate effects of the Napoleonic wars and the revolutions, being acutely aware of the changes to his society that were a result of that. Tocqueville also noted that previous attempts at historical writing were either analytical or narrative, and came to the realisation that to accurately represent both situations of the old regime and his current climate, a combination of the two needed to be written, resulting in a holistic analytical view of the old regime. The immediate circumstances in which the document was created are almost non-existent, as it was through Tocqueville’s decades of observations and growing dissatisfaction with the decline of liberty that resulted in arduous amounts of research, eventually culminating in The Old Regime and the Revolution.
Tocqueville’s main argument throughout the document is that the way people wish to remember the French Revolution does not coincide with the reality of France, both before and after the revolution. Tocqueville argues that by disillusioning themselves into believing they are a different society from before the revolution, the people set themselves up to repeat the same mistakes that lead to the revolution in the first place. From this, Tocqueville offers a cautionary tone in which he expresses his dissatisfaction with the phase of the revolution which he describes as the French attempting to “regain a portion of what they had thrown off.” Tocqueville then goes on to directly address the previous conditions of France at the outbreak of revolution to prove that it was not so different from his current situation in France, noting how an even more absolute and powerful government was able to seize power. In this sense, Tocqueville signifies that the revolution was a failure. Tocqueville also argues that the aspects of French society that did change ultimately served to worsen the nation, naming a combination of the old despotism and the newfound ambitions of common people as giving rise to a society in which citizens feel isolated from each other in their attempts to gain wealth and climb the social ladder. Tocqueville views this post-revolution era as having abandoned their previous ideals of liberty and freedom, concepts he believes to be the only solution to the degradation of French society.
As an early example of historiography, a clear significance of this document is the recognition of the relationship between the past and the present. When Tocqueville wrote The Old Regime and the Revolution, it was because he was still feeling the effects of the revolution and thusly responding to them, a sentiment understood better today. By analysing his current society in terms of the way it used to be, Tocqueville could gain a deeper understanding of how the society worked as a whole. Tocqueville describes in the document a period of France that is deeply forgetful of their past and attempts to revitalise forgotten truths about the old regime and liberty. As an era so well known to be a time of change, Tocqueville reminds us of the complexities that are involved in ideological shifts, and that sometimes regressions occur like the ones he describes in the document. This complexity of historical analysis is displayed again in Tocqueville’s overall argument, as he describes how harmful despotism is to French society when accompanied by ambition and greed of the people, citing liberty to be the only saviour. This seems contradictory in nature, as elements of liberalism include the freedom of social mobility and gains of wealth. Another duality Tocqueville depicts is the one between appearance and reality, where he describes the revolution as a “kind of paradox…” as it appeared “anarchic”, which simply hid the “’… vast centralising power’” that came about as a result.
The document also reads as highly nationalistic, a result of the unifying effort put forward during the revolution, and a matter Tocqueville does not comment on. Holding ideas heavily influenced by the Enlightenment and Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, Tocqueville heavily emphasises the plight of the individual in a society that is losing its liberalism in his eyes. Because of this nationalistic view, Tocqueville, according to Bossenga, overstates the degree to which centralisation was prevalent in his French society, which, if it was as common as he states, Bossenga argues, would negate many reasons the revolution occurred in the first place. Tocqueville is clearly emotionally invested in the content he writes about and presents arguments on the ways things should be, not on how he believes they are, a characteristic not widely approved of in the discipline of history. Ironically, Tocqueville’s nationalistic perception of France is a result of the French Revolution he condemns as a failure, showing a clear disconnect in the recognition of his own subjectivity and its influence on his perceptions of his society. He is aware, however, of how his social status as an aristocrat may influence how others read his work, which resulted in his emphasis on the desire to foster the individual, irrelevant of class.
However, Tocqueville’s commentary on the relationship between past and present did not simply stay at that but also extended to the future.
The overall tone of the document is one of despair, rage, and caution, as Tocqueville notices the decline of liberalism, attributes it to increased centralised power, and actively warns his readers what the future might hold if society continued in the way he perceived it would. Palmer notes that Tocqueville became impatient with what was considered the history of his time, as he believed people to be only repeating events, not connecting them to current times and relating to them, whilst also expressing his desire to produce something new, an act that could not be done by simply recounting the past. Because of Tocqueville’s desire to analyse history further than stating events, his work is almost invaluable to historians today, as it is one of the earlier pieces of historiography which holds the author's subjectivity inside it, which in itself is an element of history that can be analysed further. Not only does Tocqueville describe the effects of the French Revolution on French society, he does so from a French perspective, and with emotions and opinions. Tocqueville’s predictions are also an element of his work that adds to its value, as it describes what he wishes society to be like, as seen in the last few paragraphs of the document, and what he believes to be its
failings.
The importance of this document lies in its connections between past and present, the information the author’s subjectivity gives us, and the analysis of society rather than just events. Tocqueville’s work is a stepping stone from past versions of history, into modernity, as the document has a clear argument and agenda, as well as a sophisticated analysis of the past and present era.