depersonalization, flattening of tastes, leveling delle coscienze, volgarità diffusa: così Tocqueville vede la democrazia, esito di una "tirannia della maggioranza" , ovvero di una massa anonima in balia degli stessi gusti e della moda, alla ricerca solo dell'apparenza mondana e del benessere materiale a tutti i costi. Va subito precisato che per Tocqueville in politica il principio formale di maggioranza va rispettato . Si tratta però di un principio formale, non materiale: ciò che va respinto è invece i l potere tirannico della maggioranza , perché esso annulla le libertà dell'individuo. Il "nuovo tiranno", cioè la maggioranza, minaccia la sfera spirituale, perché fa get this message across to the "different", who does not conform to his power: "If you do not want to feed my own thoughts and my own tastes, you can do: Do \u200b\u200bnot be put to death, or you will lose your rights as a citizen. But these rights will be useless because if you aspire to be elected by your fellow citizens, they will reject you, and you will escape as an impure and be extravagant. You are different from the majority: it does not recognize you, your life was saved, but is worse of death. "
In light of these pages from Democracy in America, discuss Tocqueville's reflections on the following guiding questions:
1) believe that the description of Tocqueville's "an innumerable multitude equals of men, intent only to obtain small and vulgar pleasures with which to satisfy their desires "is still relevant today? what aspects you think are little or not at all shared?
2) Tocqueville seems to despise the" neutral "or the" masses " anonymous. What has the foundation, do you think this review so drastic?
3) on your personal experience you've ever felt this "tyranny"? did you ever feel overwhelmed by the will of the majority of your peers (classmates, friends, acquaintances) who does things where you do not recognize?
"The form of oppression by which democratic peoples are threatened not rassomiglierà to those that preceded it in the world , our contemporaries non ne potranno trovare l'immagine nei loro ricordi. Invano anch'io cerco un'espressione che riproduca e contenga esattamente l'idea che me ne sono fatto, poiché le antiche parole dispotismo e tirannide non le convengono affatto. La cosa è nuova, bisogna tentare di definirla, poiché non è possibile indicarla con un nome.
Se cerco di immaginarmi il nuovo aspetto che il dispotismo potrà avere nel mondo, vedo una folla innumerevole di uomini eguali , intenti solo a procurarsi piaceri piccoli e volgari, con i quali soddisfare i loro desideri . Ognuno di essi, tenendosi da parte, è quasi estraneo al destino di tutti gli altri : i suoi figli for him and his friends formed the whole human species as the rest of his countrymen, he is close to, but does not see them, touch them but not feel them at all, he lives in himself and for himself, and if the remains still a family, we can say that has no homeland.
Over and above them rises an immense power and protect , who only undertakes to insure their property and watch over their fate. It is absolute , detailed, regular, provident and mild. resemble paternal authority if, as it was intended to prepare men for manhood, while tries to fix irrevocably in childhood , love that people have fun, they do not think that a good time. She enjoys work with their welfare, but he wants to be the only agent and controller; ensure their safety and to ensure their needs, facilitates their pleasures, is their main business, directs their industry, regulates their successions, divide their inheritance, it could not remove them entirely the trouble of thinking and the pain of living? So every day it makes
less necessary and more rare use of free will , restricts the action of the will in the smallest space and takes away little by little even the use of every citizen of himself. Equality has prepared men for these things, willing to endure them and often consider it as a benefit.
So, after taking from time to time in his powerful hands every individual and it is formed in its own way, the king extends his arm the whole society, it covers the surface with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which even the most original and vigorous spirits do not know how to shine and rise above the mass, it does not break the will, but softens, bends the head and, rarely forced to act, but continually strives to prevent action is taken, not destroy, but prevents you from creating, not tyrannize directly, but it hinders, compresses, wear out, extinguished, then reducing the nation to being nothing more than a herd of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.
I have always believed that this species of servitude settled and quiet, which I have described, could be combined with images is better than some of the outward forms of freedom and that it is impossible for it to be established even in the shadow of popular sovereignty .
Our contemporaries are constantly fatigued by two contrary passions: they feel the need to be guided and wish to remain free, not being able to prevail over one another, strive to reconcile them: imagine a unique power, protect, and powerful, but elected by the public, combined with the centralization of popular sovereignty. This gives them a kind of relief console themselves that they are under protection of thinking they have chosen their own guardians. Each individual bears to feel connected, because it thinks it is not a man or a class, but the entire nation to hold the rope that binds him.
In this system the city comes a time dependence to elect the master and soon after you fall. "
A. de Tocqueville, Democracy in America , edited by G. Candeloro, Rizzoli, Milano 1996, pp. 732 -33.
In light of these pages from Democracy in America, discuss Tocqueville's reflections on the following guiding questions:
1) believe that the description of Tocqueville's "an innumerable multitude equals of men, intent only to obtain small and vulgar pleasures with which to satisfy their desires "is still relevant today? what aspects you think are little or not at all shared?
2) Tocqueville seems to despise the" neutral "or the" masses " anonymous. What has the foundation, do you think this review so drastic?
3) on your personal experience you've ever felt this "tyranny"? did you ever feel overwhelmed by the will of the majority of your peers (classmates, friends, acquaintances) who does things where you do not recognize?
"The form of oppression by which democratic peoples are threatened not rassomiglierà to those that preceded it in the world , our contemporaries non ne potranno trovare l'immagine nei loro ricordi. Invano anch'io cerco un'espressione che riproduca e contenga esattamente l'idea che me ne sono fatto, poiché le antiche parole dispotismo e tirannide non le convengono affatto. La cosa è nuova, bisogna tentare di definirla, poiché non è possibile indicarla con un nome.
Se cerco di immaginarmi il nuovo aspetto che il dispotismo potrà avere nel mondo, vedo una folla innumerevole di uomini eguali , intenti solo a procurarsi piaceri piccoli e volgari, con i quali soddisfare i loro desideri . Ognuno di essi, tenendosi da parte, è quasi estraneo al destino di tutti gli altri : i suoi figli for him and his friends formed the whole human species as the rest of his countrymen, he is close to, but does not see them, touch them but not feel them at all, he lives in himself and for himself, and if the remains still a family, we can say that has no homeland.
Over and above them rises an immense power and protect , who only undertakes to insure their property and watch over their fate. It is absolute , detailed, regular, provident and mild. resemble paternal authority if, as it was intended to prepare men for manhood, while tries to fix irrevocably in childhood , love that people have fun, they do not think that a good time. She enjoys work with their welfare, but he wants to be the only agent and controller; ensure their safety and to ensure their needs, facilitates their pleasures, is their main business, directs their industry, regulates their successions, divide their inheritance, it could not remove them entirely the trouble of thinking and the pain of living? So every day it makes
less necessary and more rare use of free will , restricts the action of the will in the smallest space and takes away little by little even the use of every citizen of himself. Equality has prepared men for these things, willing to endure them and often consider it as a benefit.
So, after taking from time to time in his powerful hands every individual and it is formed in its own way, the king extends his arm the whole society, it covers the surface with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which even the most original and vigorous spirits do not know how to shine and rise above the mass, it does not break the will, but softens, bends the head and, rarely forced to act, but continually strives to prevent action is taken, not destroy, but prevents you from creating, not tyrannize directly, but it hinders, compresses, wear out, extinguished, then reducing the nation to being nothing more than a herd of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.
I have always believed that this species of servitude settled and quiet, which I have described, could be combined with images is better than some of the outward forms of freedom and that it is impossible for it to be established even in the shadow of popular sovereignty .
Our contemporaries are constantly fatigued by two contrary passions: they feel the need to be guided and wish to remain free, not being able to prevail over one another, strive to reconcile them: imagine a unique power, protect, and powerful, but elected by the public, combined with the centralization of popular sovereignty. This gives them a kind of relief console themselves that they are under protection of thinking they have chosen their own guardians. Each individual bears to feel connected, because it thinks it is not a man or a class, but the entire nation to hold the rope that binds him.
In this system the city comes a time dependence to elect the master and soon after you fall. "
A. de Tocqueville, Democracy in America , edited by G. Candeloro, Rizzoli, Milano 1996, pp. 732 -33.
0 comments:
Post a Comment