托克維爾 美國的民主
美國的民主
亞曆克西斯·德·托克維爾
https://press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/805328.html
哈維·C·曼斯菲爾德和德爾巴·溫思羅普編輯、翻譯並附有引言
論美國人在公民生活中對結社的利用
我不想談論那些人們試圖借助政治結社來保護自己免受多數人的專製行為或王權侵犯的政治結社。我已經在其他地方討論過這個話題。很明顯，如果每個公民在個人變得越來越弱，從而越來越無法獨自維護自己的自由時，不學會與像他一樣的人團結起來捍衛自由的藝術，暴政必然會隨著平等而增長。
這裏隻涉及在公民生活中形成的結社，這些結社的目的絕不是政治性的。
美國現有的政治團體隻是眾多團體所構成的龐大圖景中的一個細節。
各個年齡、各種條件、各種思想的美國人不斷團結起來。他們不僅有所有人都參與的商業和工業團體，而且還有成千上萬種其他團體：宗教團體、道德團體、嚴肅團體、無用團體、非常普遍的團體和非常特殊的團體、大型團體和非常小型團體；美國人利用團體舉辦慶典、創辦神學院、建造旅館、建造教堂、分發書籍、派遣傳教士到對立麵；他們以這種方式創建醫院、監獄和學校。最後，如果要揭示真理或以偉大榜樣為支撐發展情感，他們就會聯合起來。在任何地方，隻要你看到法國政府和英國大領主領導著一項新事業，那麽你就會在美國看到一個團體。
在美國，我遇到了各種各樣的協會，我承認，這些協會我以前從未了解過，我常常欽佩美國人民用無限的技巧，設法將許多人的努力確定為一個共同的目標，並讓他們自由地朝著這個目標前進。
後來我去了英國，美國人從英國吸取了一些法律和許多習俗，我發現他們在那裏遠沒有像英國人那樣經常和熟練地運用協會。
英國人常常獨自完成偉大的事業，而美國人幾乎沒有什麽小事不團結起來。顯然，前者認為協會是一種強有力的行動手段；而後者似乎認為這是他們唯一的行動手段。
因此，世界上最民主的國家首先是當今人們最精通共同追求共同願望的藝術，並將這門新科學應用於大多數目標的國家。這是偶然的結果，還是事實上存在著聯合和平等之間的必然關係？
貴族社會中，在眾多無法獨自完成任何事的個人中間，總是包括一些非常強大和非常富有的公民；他們每個人都可以獨自完成偉大的事業。
在貴族社會中，人們不需要聯合起來行動，因為他們被緊密地聯係在一起。
其中每個富有和強大的公民都形成了一個永久的、強製性的協會的首領，這個協會由他所依賴的所有人組成，他讓他們合作執行他的計劃。
相反，在民主國家，所有公民都是獨立和軟弱的；他們幾乎無法獨自做任何事情，也沒有人能強迫他們這樣的人與他們合作。因此，如果他們不學會自由地互相幫助，他們就會變得無能為力。
如果生活在民主國家的人們既沒有權利也沒有興趣團結起來實現政治目標，那麽他們的獨立將麵臨巨大風險，但他們可以長期保持財富和文明；而如果他們沒有在日常生活中養成相互交往的習慣，文明本身就會處於危險之中。如果一個民族中某些人失去了單獨做大事的能力，而沒有獲得共同做大事的能力，那麽這個民族很快就會回到野蠻狀態。
不幸的是，民主國家的社會狀況使結社成為民主國家必不可少的，但這種社會狀況也使民主國家比其他所有國家都更難結社。
當貴族階層的幾個成員想相互交往時，他們很容易成功。由於他們每個人都給社會帶來了巨大的力量，成員人數可以很少，而當成員人數很少時，他們很容易相互認識、相互理解，並製定固定的規則。
民主國家沒有這種便利，因為民主國家總是需要
結社者人數要非常多，這樣協會才有一定的權力。
我知道，我的許多同代人對此並不感到尷尬。他們認為，隨著公民變得越來越軟弱和無能，有必要使政府更加熟練和積極，以便社會能夠執行個人不再能做的事情。他們認為，他們這樣說已經回答了所有問題。但我認為他們錯了。
政府可以取代一些最大的美國協會，在聯邦內部，幾個特定的??州已經嚐試過這樣做。但是，一個州的政治權力能滿足美國公民每天在協會的幫助下執行的無數小任務嗎？
很容易預見到，一個人獨自一人將越來越無法生產他生活中最常見和最必需的東西。因此，社會權力的任務將不斷增加，它的努力將使任務日益繁重。政府越是取代社團，個人就越是失去了相互交往的念頭，越是需要政府的幫助：這是永不停息的因果關係。政府最終會指導所有單個公民無法滿足的行業嗎？如果最終由於土地財產的極端分割，土地被無限分割，以至於隻有勞動者協會才能耕種，政府首腦是否必須離開國家政權來掌舵？
如果政府取代了所有社團，民主國家的道德和智慧將麵臨不亞於其商業和工業的危險。
隻有通過人們之間的互動，情感和思想才能更新，心靈才能擴大，人類的思想才能發展。
我已經表明，這種行動在民主國家幾乎不存在。因此，有必要在那裏人為地創造它。而這正是協會所能做到的。
當貴族階層的成員采納一種新思想或構想出一種新觀點時，他們會將其置於他們所處的大舞台上，以一種與自己相近的方式，通過將其展示給群眾，他們很容易將其引入周圍所有人的思想或心中。
在民主國家，隻有社會權力才能自然地采取這種行動，但很容易看出，這種行動總是不夠的，而且往往是危險的。
一個政府本身不足以維持和更新一個偉大民族的情感和思想的流通，就像它不足以開展所有的工業活動一樣。一旦它試圖離開政治領域，走上這條新道路，它就會不情願地實施一種無法忍受的暴政；因為政府隻知道如何製定明確的規則；它強加它所青睞的情感和思想，而且總是很難區分它的建議和命令。
如果它認為自己真的想讓一切動靜都無動於衷，情況會更糟。那時，它就會一動不動，任由自己沉睡。
因此，它必須不單獨行動。
在民主國家，協會必須取代因地位平等而消失的強大個人。
一旦美國的一些居民產生了一種他們想在世界上產生的情感或想法，他們就會互相尋找；當他??們找到對方時，他們就會團結起來。從那時起，他們不再是孤立的人，而是一種人們從遠處就能看到的力量，他們的行為可以作為榜樣；一種說話的力量，人們會傾聽。
我第一次聽到美國有十萬個人公開承諾不喝烈性酒，我覺得這件事有趣而不嚴肅，起初我不明白為什麽這些有節製的公民不滿足於在家庭中喝水。
最後我明白了，那十萬美國人被周圍酗酒的蔓延所嚇倒，想要為清醒提供庇護。他們的行為就像一位大領主，為了激起普通公民對奢侈的蔑視，他穿得非常樸素。可以相信，如果那十萬人生活在法國，他們每個人都會單獨向政府求助，請求政府監督全國的歌舞表演。
在我看來，沒有什麽比美國的知識和道德協會更值得我們關注的了。我們很容易將政治和工業視為
我們隻注意到了美國人的結社，而其他的結社卻被我們忽略了；即使我們發現了，我們也理解得很糟糕，因為我們幾乎從未見過類似的東西。然而，我們應該認識到，對於美國人民來說，它們和結社一樣必不可少，甚至可能更加必不可少。
在民主國家，結社科學是母科學；所有其他科學的進步都取決於結社科學的進步。
在統治人類社會的法律中，有一條似乎比其他所有法律都更精確、更清晰。為了使人們保持文明或變得文明，必須以與條件平等增加相同的比例發展和完善結社藝術。
托克維爾的《論美國的民主》是關於美國最優秀、最具影響力的書籍之一，160 年來僅被翻譯過兩次。早期的兩種譯本都沒有這種基於最近對文本的批判性法語版的全新譯本的流暢、準確和優雅。
網上有一小部分樣本，我們相信這將是這本關於美國和美國政治製度的經典著作的權威譯本。
左邊是“論美國人在公民生活中對協會的利用”一章。您還可以閱讀“為什麽美國人在幸福中表現出如此不安”一章和譯者的“翻譯注釋”。
托克維爾：
“我和美國人民生活了很多年，我無法形容我多麽欽佩他們的經驗和良好的判斷力。不要讓美國人談論歐洲；他通常會表現出極大的自負和相當愚蠢的驕傲。他會滿足於那些在所有國家都對無知者大有幫助的一般和模糊的想法。但問他關於他的國家，你會看到籠罩在他智力上的雲突然消散；他的語言變得清晰、幹淨和精確，就像他的思想一樣。”（第 291 頁）
Democracy in America
Alexis de Tocqueville
https://press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/805328.html
by Harvey C. Mansfield and Delba Winthrop Edited, translated and with an introduction
On the Use That the Americans Make of Association in Civil Life
I do not wish to speak of those political associations with the aid of which men seek to defend themselves against the despotic action of a majority or against the encroachments of royal power. I have already treated this subject elsewhere. It is clear that if each citizen, as he becomes individually weaker and consequently more incapable in isolation of preserving his freedom, does not learn the art of uniting with those like him to defend it, tyranny will necessarily grow with equality.
Here it is a question only of the associations that are formed in civil life and which have an object that is in no way political.
The political associations that exist in the United States form only a detail in the midst of the immense picture that the sum of associations presents there.
Americans of all ages, all conditions, all minds constantly unite. Not only do they have commercial and industrial associations in which all take part, but they also have a thousand other kinds: religious, moral, grave, futile, very general and very particular, immense and very small; Americans use associations to give fêtes, to found seminaries, to build inns, to raise churches, to distribute books, to send missionaries to the antipodes; in this manner they create hospitals, prisons, schools. Finally, if it is a question of bringing to light a truth or developing a sentiment with the support of a great example, they associate. Everywhere that, at the head of a new undertaking, you see the government in France and a great lord in England, count on it that you will perceive an association in the United States.
In America I encountered sorts of associations of which, I confess, I had no idea, and I often admired the infinite art with which the inhabitants of the United States managed to fix a common goal to the efforts of many men and to get them to advance to it freely.
I have since traveled through England, from which the Americans took some of their laws and many of their usages, and it appeared to me that there they were very far from making as constant and as skilled a use of association.
It often happens that the English execute very great things in isolation, whereas there is scarcely an undertaking so small that Americans do not unite for it. It is evident that the former consider association as a powerful means of action; but the latter seem to see in it the sole means they have of acting.
Thus the most democratic country on earth is found to be, above all, the one where men in our day have most perfected the art of pursuing the object of their common desires in common and have applied this new science to the most objects. Does this result from an accident or could it be that there in fact exists a necessary relation between associations and equality?
Aristocratic societies always include within them, in the midst of a multitude of individuals who can do nothing by themselves, a few very powerful and very wealthy citizens; each of these can execute great undertakings by himself.
In aristocratic societies men have no need to unite to act because they are kept very much together.
Each wealthy and powerful citizen in them forms as it were the head of a permanent and obligatory association that is composed of all those he holds in dependence to him, whom he makes cooperate in the execution of his designs.
In democratic peoples, on the contrary, all citizens are independent and weak; they can do almost nothing by themselves, and none of them can oblige those like themselves to lend them their cooperation. They therefore all fall into impotence if they do not learn to aid each other freely.
If men who live in democratic countries had neither the right nor the taste to unite in political goals, their independence would run great risks, but they could preserve their wealth and their enlightenment for a long time; whereas if they did not acquire the practice of associating with each other in ordinary life, civilization itself would be in peril. A people among whom particular persons lost the power of doing great things in isolation, without acquiring the ability to produce them in common, would soon return to barbarism.
Unhappily, the same social state that renders associations so necessary to democratic peoples renders them more difficult for them than for all others.
When several members of an aristocracy want to associate with each other they easily succeed in doing so. As each of them brings great force to society, the number of members can be very few, and, when the members are few in number, it is very easy for them to know each other, to understand each other, and to establish fixed rules.
The same facility is not found in democratic nations, where it is always necessary that those associating be very numerous in order that the association have some power.
I know that there are many of my contemporaries whom this does not embarrass. They judge that as citizens become weaker and more incapable, it is necessary to render the government more skillful and more active in order that society be able to execute what individuals can no longer do. They believe they have answered everything in saying that. But I think they are mistaken.
A government could take the place of some of the greatest American associations, and within the Union several particular states already have attempted it. But what political power would ever be in a state to suffice for the innumerable multitude of small undertakings that American citizens execute every day with the aid of an association?
It is easy to foresee that the time is approaching when a man by himself alone will be less and less in a state to produce the things that are the most common and the most necessary to his life. The task of the social power will therefore constantly increase, and its very efforts will make it vaster each day. The more it puts itself in place of associations, the more particular persons, losing the idea of associating with each other, will need it to come to their aid: these are causes and effects that generate each other without rest. Will the public administration in the end direct all the industries for which an isolated citizen cannot suffice? and if there finally comes a moment when, as a consequence of the extreme division of landed property, the land is partitioned infinitely, so that it can no longer be cultivated except by associations of laborers, will the head of the government have to leave the helm of state to come hold the plow?
The morality and intelligence of a democratic people would risk no fewer dangers than its business and its industry if the government came to take the place of associations everywhere.
Sentiments and ideas renew themselves, the heart is enlarged, and the human mind is developed only by the reciprocal action of men upon one another.
I have shown that this action is almost nonexistent in a democratic country. It is therefore necessary to create it artificially there. And this is what associations alone can do.
When the members of an aristocracy adopt a new idea or conceive a novel sentiment, they place it in a way next to themselves on the great stage they are on, and in thus exposing it to the view of the crowd, they easily introduce it into the minds or hearts of all those who surround them.
In democratic countries, only the social power is naturally in a state to act like this, but it is easy to see that its action is always insufficient and often dangerous.
A government can no more suffice on its own to maintain and renew the circulation of sentiments and ideas in a great people than to conduct all its industrial undertakings. As soon as it tries to leave the political sphere to project itself on this new track, it will exercise an insupportable tyranny even without wishing to; for a government knows only how to dictate precise rules; it imposes the sentiments and the ideas that it favors, and it is always hard to distinguish its counsels from its orders.
This will be still worse if it believes itself really interested in having nothing stir. It will then hold itself motionless and let itself be numbed by a voluntary somnolence.
It is therefore necessary that it not act alone.
In democratic peoples, associations must take the place of the powerful particular persons whom equality of conditions has made disappear.
As soon as several of the inhabitants of the United States have conceived a sentiment or an idea that they want to produce in the world, they seek each other out; and when they have found each other, they unite. From then on, they are no longer isolated men, but a power one sees from afar, whose actions serve as an example; a power that speaks, and to which one listens.
The first time I heard it said in the United States that a hundred thousand men publicly engaged not to make use of strong liquors, the thing appeared to me more amusing than serious, and at first I did not see well why such temperate citizens were not content to drink water within their families.
In the end I understood that those hundred thousand Americans, frightened by the progress that drunkenness was making around them, wanted to provide their patronage to sobriety. They had acted precisely like a great lord who would dress himself very plainly in order to inspire the scorn of luxury in simple citizens. It is to be believed that if those hundred thousand men had lived in France, each of them would have addressed himself individually to the government, begging it to oversee the cabarets all over the realm.
There is nothing, according to me, that deserves more to attract our regard than the intellectual and moral associations of America. We easily perceive the political and industrial associations of the Americans, but the others escape us; and if we discover them, we understand them badly because we have almost never seen anything analogous. One ought however to recognize that they are as necessary as the first to the American people, and perhaps more so.
In democratic countries the science of association is the mother science; the progress of all the others depends on the progress of that one.
Among the laws that rule human societies there is one that seems more precise and clearer than all the others. In order that men remain civilized or become so, the art of associating must be developed and perfected among them in the same ratio as equality of conditions increases.
One of the best written and most influential books about the United States, Tocqueville's Democracy in America has been translated only twice previously in 160 years. Neither of the earlier translations has the fluidity, accuracy, and elegance of this completely new translation, based on the recent critical French editions of the text.
Here online is a small sample of what we believe will be the definitive translation of this classic book on America and the American political system.
To the left is the chapter "On the Use That the Americans Make of Association in Civil Life." You may also read the chapter "Why the Americans Show Themselves So Restive in the Midst of Their Well-Being" and the translators' "Note on the Translation."
Tocqueville:
"I lived much with the people of the United States, and I cannot say how much I admired their experience and their good sense. Do not lead an American to speak of Europe; he will ordinarily show great presumption and a rather silly pride. He will be content with those general and indefinite ideas that in all countries are of such great help to the ignorant. But ask him about his country, and you will see the cloud that envelops his intellect suddenly dissipate; his language becomes clear, clean, and precise, like his thought." (page 291)
