of the use which the americans make of public associations in civil life
i do not propose to speak of those political associations—by the aid of which men endeavor to defend themselves against the despotic influence of a majority—or against the aggressions of regal power. that subject i have already treated. if each citizen did not learn, in proportion as he individually becomes more feeble, and consequently more incapable of preserving his freedom single-handed, to combine with his fellow-citizens for the purpose of defending it, it is clear that tyranny would unavoidably increase together with equality.
those associations only which are formed in civil life, without reference to political objects, are here adverted to. the political associations which exist in the united states are only a single feature in the midst of the immense assemblage of associations in that country. americans of all ages, all conditions, and all dispositions, constantly form associations. they have not only commercial and manufacturing companies, in which all take part, but associations of a thousand other kinds—religious, moral, serious, futile, extensive, or restricted, enormous or diminutive. the americans make associations to give entertainments, to found establishments for education, to build inns, to construct churches, to diffuse books, to send missionaries to the antipodes; and in this manner they found hospitals, prisons, and schools. if it be proposed to advance some truth, or to foster some feeling by the encouragement of a great example, they form a society. wherever, at the head of some new undertaking, you see the government in france, or a man of rank in england, in the united states you will be sure to find an association. i met with several kinds of associations in america, of which i confess i had no previous notion; and i have often admired the extreme skill with which the inhabitants of the united states succeed in proposing a common object to the exertions of a great many men, and in getting them voluntarily to pursue it. i have since travelled over england, whence the americans have taken some of their laws and many of their customs; and it seemed to me that the principle of association was by no means so constantly or so adroitly used in that country. the english often perform great things singly; whereas the americans form associations for the smallest undertakings. it is evident that the former people consider association as a powerful means of action, but the latter seem to regard it as the only means they have of acting.
thus the most democratic country on the face of the earth is that in which men have in our time carried to the highest perfection the art of pursuing in common the object of their common desires, and have applied this new science to the greatest number of purposes. is this the result of accident? or is there in reality any necessary connection between the principle of association and that of equality? aristocratic communities always contain, amongst a multitude of persons who by themselves are powerless, a small number of powerful and wealthy citizens, each of whom can achieve great undertakings single-handed. in aristocratic societies men do not need to combine in order to act, because they are strongly held together. every wealthy and powerful citizen constitutes the head of a permanent and compulsory association, composed of all those who are dependent upon him, or whom he makes subservient to the execution of his designs. amongst democratic nations, on the contrary, all the citizens are independent and feeble; they can do hardly anything by themselves, and none of them can oblige his fellow-men to lend him their assistance. they all, therefore, fall into a state of incapacity, if they do not learn voluntarily to help each other. if men living in democratic countries had no right and no inclination to associate for political purposes, their independence would be in great jeopardy; but they might long preserve their wealth and their cultivation: whereas if they never acquired the habit of forming associations in ordinary life, civilization itself would be endangered. a people amongst which individuals should lose the power of achieving great things single-handed, without acquiring the means of producing them by united exertions, would soon relapse into barbarism.
unhappily, the same social condition which renders associations so necessary to democratic nations, renders their formation more difficult amongst those nations than amongst all others. when several members of an aristocracy agree to combine, they easily succeed in doing so; as each of them brings great strength to the partnership, the number of its members may be very limited; and when the members of an association are limited in number, they may easily become mutually acquainted, understand each other, and establish fixed regulations. the same opportunities do not occur amongst democratic nations, where the associated members must always be very numerous for their association to have any power.
i am aware that many of my countrymen are not in the least embarrassed by this difficulty. they contend that the more enfeebled and incompetent the citizens become, the more able and active the government ought to be rendered, in order that society at large may execute what individuals can no longer accomplish. they believe this answers the whole difficulty, but i think they are mistaken. a government might perform the part of some of the largest american companies; and several states, members of the union, have already attempted it; but what political power could ever carry on the vast multitude of lesser undertakings which the american citizens perform every day, with the assistance of the principle of association? it is easy to foresee that the time is drawing near when man will be less and less able to produce, of himself alone, the commonest necessaries of life. the task of the governing power will therefore perpetually increase, and its very efforts will extend it every day. the more it stands in the place of associations, the more will individuals, losing the notion of combining together, require its assistance: these are causes and effects which unceasingly engender each other. will the administration of the country ultimately assume the management of all the manufacturers, which no single citizen is able to carry on? and if a time at length arrives, when, in consequence of the extreme subdivision of landed property, the soil is split into an infinite number of parcels, so that it can only be cultivated by companies of husbandmen, will it be necessary that the head of the government should leave the helm of state to follow the plough? the morals and the intelligence of a democratic people would be as much endangered as its business and manufactures, if the government ever wholly usurped the place of private companies.
feelings and opinions are recruited, the heart is enlarged, and the human mind is developed by no other means than by the reciprocal influence of men upon each other. i have shown that these influences are almost null in democratic countries; they must therefore be artificially created, and this can only be accomplished by associations.
when the members of an aristocratic community adopt a new opinion, or conceive a new sentiment, they give it a station, as it were, beside themselves, upon the lofty platform where they stand; and opinions or sentiments so conspicuous to the eyes of the multitude are easily introduced into the minds or hearts of all around. in democratic countries the governing power alone is naturally in a condition to act in this manner; but it is easy to see that its action is always inadequate, and often dangerous. a government can no more be competent to keep alive and to renew the circulation of opinions and feelings amongst a great people, than to manage all the speculations of productive industry. no sooner does a government attempt to go beyond its political sphere and to enter upon this new track, than it exercises, even unintentionally, an insupportable tyranny; for a government can only dictate strict rules, the opinions which it favors are rigidly enforced, and it is never easy to discriminate between its advice and its commands. worse still will be the case if the government really believes itself interested in preventing all circulation of ideas; it will then stand motionless, and oppressed by the heaviness of voluntary torpor. governments therefore should not be the only active powers: associations ought, in democratic nations, to stand in lieu of those powerful private individuals whom the equality of conditions has swept away.
as soon as several of the inhabitants of the united states have taken up an opinion or a feeling which they wish to promote in the world, they look out for mutual assistance; and as soon as they have found each other out, they combine. from that moment they are no longer isolated men, but a power seen from afar, whose actions serve for an example, and whose language is listened to. the first time i heard in the united states that 100,000 men had bound themselves publicly to abstain from spirituous liquors, it appeared to me more like a joke than a serious engagement; and i did not at once perceive why these temperate citizens could not content themselves with drinking water by their own firesides. i at last understood that 300,000 americans, alarmed by the progress of drunkenness around them, had made up their minds to patronize temperance. they acted just in the same way as a man of high rank who should dress very plainly, in order to inspire the humbler orders with a contempt of luxury. it is probable that if these 100,000 men had lived in france, each of them would singly have memorialized the government to watch the public-houses all over the kingdom.
nothing, in my opinion, is more deserving of our attention than the intellectual and moral associations of america. the political and industrial associations of that country strike us forcibly; but the others elude our observation, or if we discover them, we understand them imperfectly, because we have hardly ever seen anything of the kind. it must, however, be acknowledged that they are as necessary to the american people as the former, and perhaps more so. in democratic countries the science of association is the mother of science; the progress of all the rest depends upon the progress it has made. amongst the laws which rule human societies there is one which seems to be more precise and clear than all others. if men are to remain civilized, or to become so, the art of associating together must grow and improve in the same ratio in which the equality of conditions is increased.
