In the second volume of his book, Tocqueville directs his attention at the sociological implications of the process of equalization. Here his arguments are more about the ideals and the feelings in a democratic society. Tocqueville has, for example, this very interesting idea that in a democracy, people believe in progress. They trust that history will calmly evolve in a way that will lead to more wealth, more happiness, less violence. And the reason is that, in democratic societies, every individual can in principle reach the highest positions in society, regardless of the social class in which she or he was born. The example of Adam Smith is not true anymore, the son of the guy who has to carry other people's luggage, now can become a professor is he is talented and if he works hard. This is an ideological position that we still can recognize in the United States today. It's called the American Creed, or the American Dream. When many people believe that this is true for individuals, they begin to think that this also might be true for the collectivity, that the American people as a whole can climb the ropes that lead to a brighter future. Equality suggests the idea of indefinite perfectability. This is a very interesting thought, because it is one of the first examples of a branch of sociological studies that later became known as the sociology of knowledge. Tocqueville here constructs a relationship between the structure of society, in this case a relatively flat system of social stratification, and the ideas that people strongly believe in, for example, their ideas about the future of society. In the 20th century, the sociology of knowledge was heavily influenced by the Marxist approach, where the economic infrastructure determines or conditions the world of ideas. But Tocqueville, who was Marx's contemporary, started from a different point of departure to develop a theory about a relation between social structure and intellectual constructions. Although the Americans believe in progress, they are, according to Tocqueville, not very enthusiastic about revolutionary change, although their country was created in a revolutionary struggle for independence. Tocqueville is convinced that revolutions will become rare in the United States. That is a bit unexpected, he admits, because this is a country where everything seems to be permanently in a state of rapid change. But Tocqueville has an interesting argument here. Revolutions take place when people suffer from social inequality. But when everybody has some small possessions that they protect carefully, and when there is not much to take from the others, then there is no revolutionary impulse. On the contrary, the large majority of the population, the middle-class people, are afraid of revolutions, because they threaten their property. There is a very perceptive observation here. Tocqueville says that people who own some property, but not very much, stick to that little that they have with more fanaticism than the people who are extremely rich and who may even get bored with their huge fortune. So the members of the middle class just don't see what they could possibly win in a revolution, and they have a very sharp eye for what they might lose. But here Tocqueville makes a very important reservation. This is what he literally says. If ever America undergoes great revolutions, they will be brought about by the presence of the black race on the soil of the United States. That is to say, they will owe their origin, not to equality, but to the inequality of condition. Tocqueville was not just angry about the racism that he witnessed. He also was very afraid of the terrible consequences it might have in the future. When I read those pages on the unlikelihood of revolutions, I'm constantly reminded of the sufferings of the Tocqueville family during the French Revolution. Tocqueville doesn't stress it in his book, but it is not too far fetched to think that the fact that revolutions become less likely in a democracy was an element that had for this author a special significance. Democracy reduces the chance of innocent people being killed on a massive scale, and that is one of its advantages.
