I am quite interested it the points
of view, given by Alexis de Tocqueville. Considering how Alexis, is in the position
to advocate stratification in the form of an aristocracy, I may see what he was
meaning. From what I can tell about the aristocracy before the French revolution,
much like the rest of Europe, was that aristocrats viewed the majority lower
populous as somewhat like their own extended family. Perhaps in that they were
of the mind of “I benefit, when my country is strong”. When you pair this with
his notion that such titles should be given due to individual merit, I can see
him viewing his ideal as the best are working for the whole. I can agree that
this is can or would be a great thing.
The
problem, I do see in the real world application of this, is the unfortunate
result when one of those two needed components, is corrupted. In the first
component, the “one for all” is that there are many historical examples of
leaders instead having the “All for one” ideology. (I realize the 3 Musketeers reference) Corrupted leaderships who’s
main focus is self-preservation or self-glory, could leave the populous destitute.
In addition, a desire for one in power to keep power, by only advancing ones
own family, is quite desirable, because it will keep one at such a status. Assuming
that the case is for an ideal honorable person doing such things, eventually
that person will pass on, leaving those who were only pawns, in charge.
In regards
to the other point of advancement through merit only, yes, merits should always
outweigh inheritances that are passed on. Someone should always be rewarded for
their effort. However, not as often as corrupt inherited power, there needs to
be a distinction to what an individual accomplished, as compared to what a
large group did, and if that great success
realy be given to the “leader”. Great examples of this are the most notable generals
of history. Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, and the rising star during
Tocqueville’s time Napoleon Bonaparte. All are famous examples, the great campaigns
these men participated in, resulted in mainly all the credit going to those themselves,
while few if not none of the many thousands of soldiers remain unknown, and unrecorded.
It is as if only recalling General Washington, and forgetting Baron von Steuben,
General Lafayette, Benedict Arnold, or "I have not yet begun to
fight" John Paul Jones.
It's hard to believe that the aristocrats were sincere when they said they saw all of their people as extended family. That wouldn't quite explain why the peasants were treated how they were treated. I do agree that meritocracy is important and that one should get rewarded for their hard work rather than through inheritance, but if this were to happen, who would decide who gets rewarded? The idea of meritocracy during that day and age seems a little vague to me.
ReplyDelete