第50章

ThelegislatorsoftheUnitedStates，whohavemitigatedalmostallthepenaltiesofcriminallaw，stillmakerapeacapitaloffence，andnocrimeisvisitedwithmoreinexorableseveritybypublicopinion。Thismaybeaccountedfor;astheAmericanscanconceivenothingmorepreciousthanawoman’shonor，andnothingwhichoughtsomuchtoberespectedasherindependence，theyholdthatnopunishmentistoosevereforthemanwhodeprivesherofthemagainstherwill。InFrance，wherethesameoffenceisvisitedwithfarmilderpenalties，itisfrequentlydifficulttogetaverdictfromajuryagainsttheprisoner。Isthisaconsequenceofcontemptofdecencyorcontemptofwomen？Icannotbutbelievethatitisacontemptofoneandoftheother。

ThustheAmericansdonotthinkthatmanandwomanhaveeitherthedutyortherighttoperformthesameoffices，buttheyshowanequalregardforboththeirrespectiveparts;andthoughtheirlotisdifferent，theyconsiderbothofthemasbeingsofequalvalue。Theydonotgivetothecourageofwomanthesameformorthesamedirectionastothatofman;buttheyneverdoubthercourage:andiftheyholdthatmanandhispartneroughtnotalwaystoexercisetheirintellectandunderstandinginthesamemanner，theyatleastbelievetheunderstandingoftheonetobeassoundasthatoftheother，andherintellecttobeasclear。Thus，then，whilsttheyhaveallowedthesocialinferiorityofwomantosubsist，theyhavedonealltheycouldtoraisehermorallyandintellectuallytothelevelofman;andinthisrespecttheyappeartometohaveexcellentlyunderstoodthetrueprincipleofdemocraticimprovement。Asformyself，Idonothesitatetoavowthat，althoughthewomenoftheUnitedStatesareconfinedwithinthenarrowcircleofdomesticlife，andtheirsituationisinsomerespectsoneofextremedependence，Ihavenowhereseenwomanoccupyingaloftierposition;andifIwereasked，nowthatIamdrawingtothecloseofthiswork，inwhichIhavespokenofsomanyimportantthingsdonebytheAmericans，towhatthesingularprosperityandgrowingstrengthofthatpeopleoughtmainlytobeattributed，Ishouldreply—tothesuperiorityoftheirwomen。

ChapterXIII:ThatThePrincipleOfEqualityNaturallyDividesTheAmericansIntoANumberOfSmallPrivateCirclesItmayprobablybesupposedthatthefinalconsequenceandnecessaryeffectofdemocraticinstitutionsistoconfoundtogetherallthemembersofthecommunityinprivateaswellasinpubliclife，andtocompelthemalltoliveincommon;butthiswouldbetoascribeaverycoarseandoppressiveformtotheequalitywhichoriginatesindemocracy。Nostateofsocietyorlawscanrendermensomuchalike，butthateducation，fortune，andtasteswillinterposesomedifferencesbetweenthem;and，thoughdifferentmenmaysometimesfindittheirinteresttocombineforthesamepurposes，theywillnevermakeittheirpleasure。Theywillthereforealwaystendtoevadetheprovisionsoflegislation，whatevertheymaybe;anddepartinginsomeonerespectfromthecirclewithinwhichtheyweretobebounded，theywillsetup，closebythegreatpoliticalcommunity，smallprivatecircles，unitedtogetherbythesimilitudeoftheirconditions，habits，andmanners。

IntheUnitedStatesthecitizenshavenosortofpre—eminenceovereachother;theyoweeachothernomutualobedienceorrespect;theyallmeetfortheadministrationofjustice，forthegovernmentoftheState，andingeneraltotreatoftheaffairswhichconcerntheircommonwelfare;butIneverheardthatattemptshavebeenmadetobringthemalltofollowthesamediversions，ortoamusethemselvespromiscuouslyinthesameplacesofrecreation。TheAmericans，whominglesoreadilyintheirpoliticalassembliesandcourtsofjustice，arewontonthecontrarycarefullytoseparateintosmalldistinctcircles，inordertoindulgebythemselvesintheenjoymentsofprivatelife。Eachofthemiswillingtoacknowledgeallhisfellow—citizensashisequals，buthewillonlyreceiveaverylimitednumberofthemamongsthisfriendsorhisguests。Thisappearstometobeverynatural。Inproportionasthecircleofpublicsocietyisextended，itmaybeanticipatedthatthesphereofprivateintercoursewillbecontracted;farfromsupposingthatthemembersofmodernsocietywillultimatelyliveincommon，Iamafraidthattheymayendbyformingnothingbutsmallcoteries。

Amongstaristocraticnationsthedifferentclassesarelikevastchambers，outofwhichitisimpossibletoget，intowhichitisimpossibletoenter。Theseclasseshavenocommunicationwitheachother，butwithintheirpalemennecessarilyliveindailycontact;eventhoughtheywouldnotnaturallysuit，thegeneralconformityofasimilarconditionbringsthemnearertogether。Butwhenneitherlawnorcustomprofessestoestablishfrequentandhabitualrelationsbetweencertainmen，theirintercourseoriginatesintheaccidentalanalogyofopinionsandtastes;henceprivatesocietyisinfinitelyvaried。Indemocracies，wherethemembersofthecommunityneverdiffermuchfromeachother，andnaturallystandinsuchpropinquitythattheymayallatanytimebeconfoundedinonegeneralmass，numerousartificialandarbitrarydistinctionsspringup，bymeansofwhicheverymanhopestokeephimselfaloof，lestheshouldbecarriedawayinthecrowdagainsthiswill。Thiscanneverfailtobethecase;forhumaninstitutionsmaybechanged，butnotman:whatevermaybethegeneralendeavorofacommunitytorenderitsmembersequalandalike，thepersonalprideofindividualswillalwaysseektoriseabovetheline，andtoformsomewhereaninequalitytotheirownadvantage。

Inaristocraciesmenareseparatedfromeachotherbyloftystationarybarriers;indemocraciestheyaredividedbyanumberofsmallandalmostinvisiblethreads，whichareconstantlybrokenormovedfromplacetoplace。Thus，whatevermaybetheprogressofequality，indemocraticnationsagreatnumberofsmallprivatecommunitieswillalwaysbeformedwithinthegeneralpaleofpoliticalsociety;butnoneofthemwillbearanyresemblanceinitsmannerstothehighestclassinaristocracies。

ChapterXIV:SomeReflectionsOnAmericanMannersNothingseemsatfirstsightlessimportantthantheoutwardformofhumanactions，yetthereisnothinguponwhichmensetmorestore:theygrowusedtoeverythingexcepttolivinginasocietywhichhasnottheirownmanners。Theinfluenceofthesocialandpoliticalstateofacountryuponmannersisthereforedeservingofseriousexamination。Mannersare，generally，theproductoftheverybasisofthecharacterofapeople，buttheyarealsosometimestheresultofanarbitraryconventionbetweencertainmen;thustheyareatoncenaturalandacquired。Whencertainmenperceivethattheyaretheforemostpersonsinsociety，withoutcontestationandwithouteffort—whentheyareconstantlyengagedonlargeobjects，leavingthemoreminutedetailstoothers—andwhentheyliveintheenjoymentofwealthwhichtheydidnotamassandwhichtheydonotfeartolose，itmaybesupposedthattheyfeelakindofhaughtydisdainofthepettyinterestsandpracticalcaresoflife，andthattheirthoughtsassumeanaturalgreatness，whichtheirlanguageandtheirmannersdenote。Indemocraticcountriesmannersaregenerallydevoidofdignity，becauseprivatelifeisthereextremelypettyinitscharacter;andtheyarefrequentlylow，becausethemindhasfewopportunitiesofrisingabovetheengrossingcaresofdomesticinterests。Truedignityinmannersconsistsinalwaystakingone’sproperstation，neithertoohighnortoolow;andthisisasmuchwithinthereachofapeasantasofaprince。Indemocraciesallstationsappeardoubtful;henceitisthatthemannersofdemocracies，thoughoftenfullofarrogance，arecommonlywantingindignity，and，moreover，theyarenevereitherwelldisciplinedoraccomplished。

Themenwholiveindemocraciesaretoofluctuatingforacertainnumberofthemevertosucceedinlayingdownacodeofgoodbreeding，andinforcingpeopletofollowit。Everymanthereforebehavesafterhisownfashion，andthereisalwaysacertainincoherenceinthemannersofsuchtimes，becausetheyaremouldeduponthefeelingsandnotionsofeachindividual，ratherthanuponanidealmodelproposedforgeneralimitation。

This，however，ismuchmoreperceptibleatthetimewhenanaristocracyhasjustbeenoverthrownthanafterithaslongbeendestroyed。Newpoliticalinstitutionsandnewsocialelementsthenbringtothesameplacesofresort，andfrequentlycompeltoliveincommon，menwhoseeducationandhabitsarestillamazinglydissimilar，andthisrendersthemotleycompositionofsocietypeculiarlyvisible。Theexistenceofaformerstrictcodeofgoodbreedingisstillremembered，butwhatitcontainedorwhereitistobefoundisalreadyforgotten。Menhavelostthecommonlawofmanners，andtheyhavenotyetmadeuptheirmindstodowithoutit;buteveryoneendeavorstomaketohimselfsomesortofarbitraryandvariablerule，fromtheremnantofformerusages;sothatmannershaveneithertheregularityandthedignitywhichtheyoftendisplayamongstaristocraticnations，northesimplicityandfreedomwhichtheysometimesassumeindemocracies;theyareatonceconstrainedandwithoutconstraint。

This，however，isnotthenormalstateofthings。Whentheequalityofconditionsislongestablishedandcomplete，asallmenentertainnearlythesamenotionsanddonearlythesamethings，theydonotrequiretoagreeortocopyfromoneanotherinordertospeakoractinthesamemanner:theirmannersareconstantlycharacterizedbyanumberoflesserdiversities，butnotbyanygreatdifferences。Theyareneverperfectlyalike，becausetheydonotcopyfromthesamepattern;theyareneververyunlike，becausetheirsocialconditionisthesame。AtfirstsightatravellerwouldobservethatthemannersofalltheAmericansareexactlysimilar;itisonlyuponcloseexaminationthatthepeculiaritiesinwhichtheydiffermaybedetected。

TheEnglishmakegameofthemannersoftheAmericans;butitissingularthatmostofthewriterswhohavedrawntheseludicrousdelineationsbelongedthemselvestothemiddleclassesinEngland，towhomthesamedelineationsareexceedinglyapplicable:sothatthesepitilesscensorsforthemostpartfurnishanexampleoftheverythingtheyblameintheUnitedStates;theydonotperceivethattheyarederidingthemselves，tothegreatamusementofthearistocracyoftheirowncountry。

Nothingismoreprejudicialtodemocracythanitsoutwardformsofbehavior:manymenwouldwillinglyendureitsvices，whocannotsupportitsmanners。Icannot，however，admitthatthereisnothingcommendableinthemannersofademocraticpeople。

Amongstaristocraticnations，allwholivewithinreachofthefirstclassinsocietycommonlystraintobelikeit，whichgivesrisetoridiculousandinsipidimitations。Asademocraticpeopledoesnotpossessanymodelsofhighbreeding，atleastitescapesthedailynecessityofseeingwretchedcopiesofthem。

Indemocraciesmannersareneversorefinedasamongstaristocraticnations，butontheotherhandtheyareneversocoarse。Neitherthecoarseoathsofthepopulace，northeelegantandchoiceexpressionsofthenobilityaretobeheardthere:themannersofsuchapeopleareoftenvulgar，buttheyareneitherbrutalnormean。Ihavealreadyobservedthatindemocraci