Tocqueville's Township vs. Aristotle's City-State: A Comparative Analysis of Civic Participation and Political Community

The township is a key point of Tocqueville's analysis in Democracy in America; Tocqueville's description of what works about the township has some striking resemblances to Aristotle's Ancient Greek city-state. For instance, both have a natural origin, both are small-scale associations of people, and both emphasize civic participation. Though they are strikingly similar in some places, they diverge heavily in others. For instance, they diverge in the idea of reaching the natural end of human nature (telos) vs. self-interest, and also in their definition of citizenship. Even within their similarities, they differ somewhat in the precise structure. Therefore, the question this essay aims to answer is: "To what extent does the township that Tocqueville praises resemble the city-state described in Aristotle's Politics?"

Both the township and the city-state are natural associations of people, though they differ in the way that they are natural. Aristotle claims that "a human being is by nature a political animal"1, and that the city-state comes before the household2. The city-state is natural because a human being could not reach their full potential unless they lived in a city-state, and it could not flourish without being a part of it3. Tocqueville says that the township is "the sole association that is so much in nature that everywhere men are gathered"4, "forms by itself"5, and "appears to issue directly from the hand of God"6. For Tocqueville, the township is not something that develops towards its natural goal in a teleological sense, but rather something that is already natural to human association from the start. It is given to man in a divine sense as an endowment from God; Tocqueville says it comes before even kingdoms and republics7. Therefore, both the city-state and the township are natural associations. But whereas one is a divine endowment that spontaneously forms wherever people are gathered, the other arises from even smaller associations and develops to its natural end in the form of the city-state to help its citizens flourish and achieve excellence.

The idea of citizenship, and who gets to be a citizen, is central to both the township and the city-state. In the city-state, not all people can be citizens; slaves, for example, are excluded from being citizens8 9. The township, however, is a democratic entity where rich and poor alike can be citizens10. The city-state is defined by its citizens' civic participation to achieve the end of their human nature11 12, but the township citizen is defined more by what has been dubbed by scholars like Jessica Kimpell as "enlightened self-interest."13. This enlightened self-interest is a way for township citizens to realize they are part of a greater community through the exercise of their civic rights, preventing individualism from fully taking over14. The other goal is to realize freedom15 16. This is achieved by having citizens participate in local self-governance, immersing them in their community while still maintaining their individuality, by educating them and helping them realize that their private interests are actually aligned with the common good17. For Aristotle, civic participation in the city-state is the end of human nature and is necessary for a free citizen to achieve their true nature and flourish; anyone not participating is either superhuman or subhuman18. For Tocqueville, civic participation is a means to an end: discouraging atomistic individualism and encouraging freedom, rather than being the direct achievement of human nature itself19. It promotes the freedom of the citizens more so than it promotes a teleological goal.

The specific form of civic participation is similar in both the township and the city-state. Tocqueville says that the township follows the principle of the sovereignty of the people, wherein "each individual forms an equal portion of the sovereign and participates equally in the government of the state."20 The individual in the township obeys society because "union with those like him appears useful to him and because he knows that this union cannot exist without a regulating power."21 Thus, Tocqueville argues that the individual becomes both subject and master, with duties to the collective, yet remains free and responsible for his actions and ultimately accountable only to God22. This claim has a striking resemblance to the Aristotelian notion of freedom within a city-state, wherein one is free by ruling and being ruled in turn23. The individual in the township is thus free in a similar sense to the individual in the city-state. Both participate in ruling, and both are ruled in turn while maintaining their individual freedom; no citizen is above or beneath the other.

The size of the city-state and the township is a key similarity, though Tocqueville and Aristotle offer different reasons for why each small size works. Tocqueville says that because of the small scale of the township, direct action can be taken by the citizens instead of relying on representative assemblies24. Its inhabitants have relatively similar interests due to the township being only 2000 to 3000 people in size, and thus "one is always sure of finding within it the elements of a good administration"25. Aristotle's reasoning for the city-state remaining within a relatively small (but not too small) size is that city-states with too few people are not self-sufficient, and those that are too large have a difficult time enforcing the constitution26. This is because "each citizen must know what sorts of people the other citizens are"27 for elections and lawsuits to operate smoothly. Thus, in the township, the focus of the small scale of the township is to prevent citizens' interests from diverging too much and maintaining direct participation over elected representation, rather than the Aristotelian purpose of making the city-state function at all.

In conclusion, though the city-state and the township have their similarities, both are ultimately different political associations with different goals. The township resembles the city-state insofar as it is a relatively small association of people who rule and are ruled in turn. Beyond this, the township and the city-state are quite different. The smallness of the township helps to keep citizen interests aligned and allows for direct participation in political affairs, while the city-state is relatively small because it could not function properly if it were too large or if it were too small. The purpose of the city-state is teleological, to promote flourishing and help its citizens live the good life, but the purpose of the township is to promote the freedom of its citizens. The township arises naturally and spontaneously wherever men exist, as a divine endowment. The Aristotelian city-state exists as the natural culmination of human association, as man is by nature a political animal; it arises from the family and village associations. The township is much more egalitarian in who gets to become a citizen than the city-state, with both rich and poor being considered citizens, whereas in the city-state, not everyone could become a citizen.

Bibliography

Aristotle. Politics. Translated with introduction and notes by C. D. C. Reeve. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1998.

Kimpell, Jessica L. "Republican Civic Virtue, Enlightened Self-Interest and Tocqueville." European Journal of Political Theory 14, no. 3 (2015): 345–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474885114546139.

Ossewaarde, Marinus R.R. "Tocqueville on Citizen Participation." In Tocquevillian Ideas: Contemporary European Perspectives, edited by Z. Rau and M. Tracz-Tryniecki, 59–78. New York: University Press of America, 2014.

Rapp, Christof. "Whose State? Whose Nature? How Aristotle's City-State Is 'Natural.'" In State and Nature, edited by Peter Adamson and Christof Rapp, 81–118. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110730944-005.

Tocqueville, Alexis de. Democracy in America. Translated and edited by Harvey C. Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.

Endnotes

  1. Aristotle, Politics, trans. C. D. C. Reeve (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1998), 76. ↩
  2. Christof Rapp, "Whose State? Whose Nature? How Aristotle's City-State Is 'Natural,'" in State and Nature, ed. Peter Adamson and Christof Rapp (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2021), 86. ↩
  3. Rapp, "Whose State? Whose Nature?," 86–7. ↩
  4. Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, trans. and ed. Harvey C. Mansfield and Delba Winthrop (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 121–22. ↩
  5. Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 122. ↩
  6. Tocqueville, 122. ↩
  7. Tocqueville, 122. ↩
  8. Aristotle, Politics, 74. ↩
  9. Marinus R.R. Ossewaarde, "Tocqueville on Citizen Participation," in Tocquevillian Ideas: Contemporary European Perspectives, ed. Z. Rau and M. Tracz-Tryniecki (New York: University Press of America, 2014), 61. ↩
  10. Ossewaarde, "Tocqueville on Citizen Participation," 69. ↩
  11. Aristotle, Politics, 3–4. ↩
  12. Rapp, "Whose State? Whose Nature?," 114–15. ↩
  13. Jessica L. Kimpell, "Republican Civic Virtue, Enlightened Self-Interest and Tocqueville," European Journal of Political Theory 14, no. 3 (2015): 345. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474885114546139 ↩
  14. Kimpell, "Republican Civic Virtue," 355. ↩
  15. Kimpell, "Republican Civic Virtue," 353. ↩
  16. Ossewaarde, "Tocqueville on Citizen Participation," 76. ↩
  17. Kimpell, "Republican Civic Virtue," 356. ↩
  18. Aristotle, Politics, 4–5. ↩
  19. Kimpell, "Republican Civic Virtue," 353–54. ↩
  20. Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 125. ↩
  21. Tocqueville, 125. ↩
  22. Tocqueville, 125. ↩
  23. Aristotle, 176. ↩
  24. Tocqueville, 123. ↩
  25. Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 123. ↩
  26. Aristotle, Politics, 199. ↩
  27. Aristotle, 199. ↩

Thanks for reading, if you enjoyed this post, you might like this post

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Summary of Machiavelli's Political Philosophy (How to Get Power and Keep It)

Brief Summary and Intro to The Prince Following the return of the Medici noble family to Florence in 1512, Niccolo Machiavelli fell from power, was imprisoned, tortured and then exiled, and subsequently wrote a book attempting to gain favor with the family (and hopefully a job). This famous book, The Prince , describes exactly how a prince (or nobleman) should gain power and the steps needed to keep it. Machiavelli describes, among other things, that it is better for a prince to be feared than to be loved, that a prince must possess virtù , a character trait which combines the "cunning of the fox" and the "boldness of a lion", must be morally flexible and willing to do evil, and must at all times try to resist the powerful force of luck that Machiavelli calls fortuna . Virt ù , Fortuna, and Cesare Borgia In The Prince , Machiavelli's key point is that a prince should at all times possess virtù , which approximately translates to "virtue" in English, th...
Read more

Rousseau's political philosophy briefly explained

Rousseau's Political Philosophy: Challenging Conventional Wisdom on Freedom and Society Jean-Jacques Rousseau's political philosophy stands as one of the most provocative and influential frameworks in Western political thought. Unlike many of his Enlightenment contemporaries who celebrated reason, science, and civilization's progress, Rousseau's political philosophy took a dramatically different approach. This exploration examines how Rousseau's political philosophy challenged the conventional wisdom of his time and continues to provoke debate about human nature, freedom, and the foundations of legitimate government. The Historical Context of Rousseau's Political Philosophy Rousseau's political philosophy emerged during the Enlightenment but took a decidedly counter-cultural stance: Rousseau's political philosophy directly challenged the prevailing Enlightenment optimism about civilization and progress. While thinkers like Voltaire celebrated the adv...
Read more

Plato's Political Philosophy Briefly Explained (Why We Should All Be Ruled By Philosopher-Kings)

Introduction to The Republic More than two thousand years ago, a certain philosopher you may have heard of, a man from the Greek city-state of Athens called Plato, came up with some ideas on what he thought should be the ideal state , that is, the best possible form of government mankind should try and aspire to. Plato's political philosophy has subsequently inspired pretty much all of political philosophy today.  To give you some examples of some very famous people you may have heard of, who have been inspired (or offended) by Plato's political philosophy:  Aristotle, Cicero, Plotinus, Augustine of Hippo, Al-Farabi, Thomas More, Marsilio Ficino, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Leo Strauss, and Karl Popper. Thus, in order to understand political philosophy, we must first understand the core of Plato's political philosophy. Most importantly, we will try and show Plato's answer to the central question he proposes in his magnum opus of a book in po...
Read more