Why Tocqueville is relevant

I believe that reading and discussing "How an Aristocracy May Be Created by Industry" remains relevant to today's world because it is important to recognize that the circumstances of some portion of the modern work force is a byproduct of industry in a democratic country, not solely corrupt politicians or businessmen. Historically, the world has perhaps not changed as much as we would like to believe. When Tocqueville published "Democracy in America", well into the Industrial Revolution worldwide, the "work world" so to speak was very different than it is today; yet his average low socioeconomic worker is a man who makes heads for pins, ours is the cashier at McDonald's. Today's common worker still "loses the general faculty of applying his mind to the way he is working" because of his occupation and "becomes weaker, more limited and more dependent" on his job and employer (125).
In a capitalist democratic society such as we are, it appears that creating a world with some form of aristocracy is impossible. As Tocqueville says "the workman is dependent on masters in  general, but not on a particular master" (127). Therefore, we, in order to remain a functioning society, require some form of aristocracy. It is not greedy businessmen or politicians that force a part of our society into poverty, it is a consequence of industry in a democratic society.

Relevant Then, But Not So Much Now

          Alex de Tocqueville was a brilliant man, and the issues with democracy at the time that he mentioned were valid, but those statements aren't as valid as they used to be. The aristocracy and unfairness of those times created a rift between the classes, and the wealthier people tended to also have more power. This lead to an imbalance at the time, but this imbalance was limited mostly to industry. It was also, "not at all like those that have preceded it." (Tocqueville, 127) Even back then, the supposed "aristocracy," wasn't even the same kind of aristocracy that the others before it was. The difference was that it was contained in industry, preventing much unfairness in areas like the voting system.
          Is it possible, even in the unfairness, that this wasn't a total aristocracy? Today, much of the unfairness in the voting system is gone. Everyone has an equal voice, and equal opportunity. Tocqueville's relevance has faded over time as the equality of the classes has increases. Our democracy is a perfect model of what happens over time as the government develops and equalizes the classes. There are still problems, but every form of government has issues.

Why does Tocqueville say that the worker has been assigned to a certain position in society instead of a certain job?

  Tocqueville believes that workers of large industry have been assigned a statues of lower class instead of being classified to a specific job description because large industry’s creates inequality and limits man’s progression. Inequality is shown through the workman and the owner of the industry by the jobs they perform. The workman is performing a task that is repeated over and over again, which becomes a robotic and mindless job. The workman becomes stuck in one job that does not challenge his mind thus making him a simple minded man with not much power and has lower statues in life.  

  Then there is the master or owner of the industry who has many job descriptions and tasks that his mind is being challenged for it. The owner becomes more powerful and greater by the day than the lower workman. What Tocqueville is saying is that the workman and the owner don’t have the same opportunity as each other because of their class, and higher rank in life.

Why does democracy tend toward inequality?

Why does democracy tend toward inequality? Or, as it appears to me, why does Tocqueville believe that a democracy leads towards aristocracy, a form of inequality? In our selection Tocqueville writes that “…just while the mass of the nation is turning toward democracy, that particular class which is engaged in industry becomes more aristocratic” (127). The most important part of that statement is industry. Tocqueville is not saying that democracy, as a form of government and societal mindset, directly influences all members and factions of society to turn back to an aristocratic lifestyle. Instead, he is saying that in industry, democracy leads to an aristocracy “not at all like those that have preceded it” (127).

Now the true question, how does industry create or lead to an aristocracy? The workmen of Tocqueville’s time are mainly factory workers of the industrial revolution, men and women who sewed on buttons or putting heads on pins. These jobs were, and are, repetitive above all else. Menial jobs, done for hours every day, required no special training, no drive, ingenuity, creativity, or head for business. These men and women “no longer belong to himself but to his chosen calling” (125). The population was not an even mixture of masters and workers, but a whirling pool of men and women to exhausted and poor to do anything but work day in and day out. “In vain are all the efforts of law and morality to break down the barriers surrounding such a man and open up a thousand different roads to fortune…” (125). The creation of an aristocracy is, then, inevitable for their must be someone to organize those confined to their stations.

(If I am totally wrong, please let me know. If I didn't answer any of the prompts, let me know that too)

Tocqueville's argument is interesting to me, but it is not as sound as he thinks it is.  In his essay, he explains that the industrial work environment creates aristocracy, and how the almost unbridled proliferation of industry through democracy causes democracy to, in actuality, lead back to the very thing it is designed to eliminate: aristocracy.  This makes sense.  However, his argument takes something of a wrong turn when he claims that there is no connection between the poor and the rich.  It is very true that, in the society he describes, there is practically no connection between the worker and the master.  Each could go his separate way and no harm would be done to either.  The worker can find another job; the master can find another worker.  This is actually the downfall of Tocqueville's entire line of reasoning.  Democracy does not necessarily grant equal opportunity, it only guarantees equal rights.  It would not matter what society ones lives in, there will always be rich and there will always be poor.  It is almost as simple as natural selection.  Some are born into money, some are not.  Some make loads of money, some do not.  No matter where one was to go on the third rock from the sun, this is a true statement, and no amount of democracy is going to change that.  Democracy grants both the poor man and the rich man equal political rights.  If the democracy functions correctly, no amount of money is going to change their ability to vote, bear arms, etc. (I use American rights because they are rather important to this essay).  Therefore, the rich master and the poor worker both have the same rights and, because they are not bound to each other in some sort of "industrial slavery," there is no true aristocracy.  The worker only answers to his master because his master pays him, no more, no less, as even Tocqueville himself will attest to.
Now, one could argue that simply because the worker answers to the master and has almost no way of becoming a master himself, that it is an aristocracy.  But it is almost impossible for an industry to be truly productive or even functional without an overseer.  Furthermore, this worker is likely producing a good that his comrades, additional workers in other industries or even he himself needs to survive and thrive.  While his work is benefiting the master, it is also directly benefiting the worker himself and his fellow men, his brother workers.
In conclusion, the worker and the master do not have equal opportunity.  This fact is virtually inescapable.  Tocqueville's concern with it is valid, but it is not an issue that is easily fixed.  But his true issue seems to be with democracy.  Truly, the master and the worker have equal political rights, and he himself said that neither is bound to the other, so democracy is not the culprit, and industry does not create an undeniable aristocracy.  It is really a matter of natural selection.

Why Does Ivan Deny the Beating is Evil?

In After The Ball, by Leo Tolstoy, the main character, Ivan, falls in love with a beautiful woman and meets her father, a Colonel.  Hours later, he witnesses the savage beating of a Tartar, under the direction of the Colonel.  Even though Ivan felt ill watching the beating, he couldn't recognize if it was evil or not, at least not right away.  What are the reasons why?
     He liked the Colonel and thought he was a good man.  That made him look for reasons to explain away his actions as acceptable.  “Obviously he knows something that I don’t,” he told himself.  “If I knew what he knows, I would understand what I saw and it wouldn't torment me.”  (187)
     Because of the environment he was in and the people around him, Ivan was more inclined to convince himself that what he was seeing was not evil.  The soldiers, the Colonel, and the people watching all seemed to agree that this was necessary, or at least felt they couldn't stop the beating, that it had to happen.  “If it was done with such certainty and it was recognized by everyone as being inevitable, then it follows that they must have known something I didn't,” he thought (187).
     Probably if he had decided it was evil, he would have immediately realized that the Colonel and his daughter were people he didn't want in his life. And though over time, he let go of her, it was hard for him to accept right away.

After the Ball

Ivan Vasilevich, in After the Ball by Leo Tolstoy, links Varenka B. to her father because of the subtle similarities between the two characters throughout the story. In his first description of Varenka, Ivan calls her “tall, slim, graceful, and regal,” with a “tender, invariably merry smile”, still beautiful at age fifty (177). This description of Varenka is reflected a few pages later in the introduction of her father the colonel, a “tall, imposing figure,” with “the same tender, merry smile,” as his daughter (181). A visible connection is expected, being father and daughter, but that smile continues to be a subtle theme throughout the short story, for after Ivan witnesses the gauntlet he is reminded of the act by Varenka’s smile. It is so disconcerting, and the act so repulsive, to him that this constant remainder drives him away from pursing any contact with Varenka.

There are other similarities between the two, neither of Varenka nor her father speak much (the communication is basically through smiles) and both reluctantly reveal signs of poverty. During the colonel’s dance with his daughter, Ivan notices his unfashionable homemade boots with square toes, and earlier he made a casual remark about Varenka’s “cheap, white fan” (180). It is these similarities that cause Ivan to be unable to pursue his previous relationship with that family after witnessing the cruelty of the gauntlet.