Another reason why sociologists have embraced Tocqueville as one of their venerated precursors may be that the United States has become over the past decade the heartland of sociology, whether we European sociologists like it or not. The English language has become our lingua franca, as I am demonstrating here, right now. A Dutch sociologist, speaking to you from Amsterdam, in my imperfect English. And as the United States dominates the discourse in the social sciences it is to be expected that more attention is give to this French intellectual who took the boat to the US to study how the democratic system works on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. Until this very day, American intellectuals love to quote Tocqueville. Who seemed to understand them even better than they understood themselves at least two centuries ago, maybe even today. Tocqueville is not only an important name inside the social sciences and the humanities, he is also well-known outside of the university. And one of the reasons is that he wrote so well. He wrote so well that interested readers could and still can follow his arguments whether they are educated at a university or not. And he is especially admired by conservative thinkers. And that is understandable because he often writes about how the great cultural values and virtues that used to knit French society together have become contested under conditions of paternity. The fact that he was fascinated by those questions has a lot to do with his own social background and I have to say a few words about that. Most early sociologists are middle class men. When they have know relation with the university, they work as engineers or as freelance journalists. And sometimes they earn they're money by giving lectures, as was the case with Comte. And they often find it hard to make ends meet. Think of the poverty in the family of Karl Marx. But Tocqueville is another case, he was an aristocrat. This was a member of the highest layers of society, born in a family with prestige, and power, and wealth. So the sociological view of Tocqueville, his perspective, is very different from what we are used to in sociology. This is not a man who looks at people in power from the outside. This is an author who could analyze power from the inside, drawing on his own personal experiences. Many 19th century intellectuals such as Karl Marx, were admirers of the French revolution of 1789 when the privileges of the nobility were curbed in the name of freedom, equality and fraternity. But that type of enthusiasm is conspicuously missing in the work of Tocqueville. The Tocqueville family had lost many of its members during the French Revolution. At birthday parties, little Alexi witnessed the moments when his uncles and his aunts burst into tears remembering innocent relatives who had been decapitated. So, Tocqueville certainly recognized the liberating aspects of a revolutionary transition, but his background, his temperament, show a much more careful evaluation of what happens in such a brutal, and often bloody, event. And one of the great things about democracy is of course that one ruling elite may be replaced by another one without bloodshed, without killing or wounding people. This aristocratic perspective is also evident when Tocqueville writes about democracy. Most of us are used to cheering democracy but sometimes we may be taken aback when we read Tocqueville. In many contexts he recognizes of course the advantages of democracy but his approach is full of subtlety and nuance and sometimes he asks difficult and penetrating questions, such as this one. In a system of majority rule, who will protect the minorities. In the aristocratic societies, persecuted minorities might find shelter, a safe haven, under the protection of a powerful segment of the ruling class. But what happens to threatened minorities when the people who win the elections are always dominant, always unchallenged. Where will they find shelter when they need to be protected. Another observation is also typical of this aristocratic gaze is that cultural values that were in former centuries in the safe hands of the aristocratic elite may now come under heavy fire in modern math society. For example, people may ask why should we spend money on orchestras. Why should we spend money on ballet groups, when you can also use that same money to feed the hungry. Who will defend excellency in the arts, excellency in the sciences, when all the important decisions are made by the majority vote? And lets admit it. We, who live it what George Ritzer would call a McDonalized social world, we recognize sometimes in the observations of Tocqueville something rather prophetic. For a social thinker to be able to notice the darker aspects of the generally admired democratic system, it may be helpful to have internalized early on in life, the habit is the perceptual scheme of the old aristocratic class. No wonder, then, that conservative thinkers believe that Tocqueville is one of the most penetrating commentators of modernity.
