Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T16:58:41.975Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Social Science of Democracy?

A Discussion of Alexis de Tocqueville, the First Social Scientist

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 June 2011

Aurelian Craiutu
Aurelian Craiutu
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Indiana University, Bloomington
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Alexis de Tocqueville, the First Social Scientist. By Jon Elster. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009. 212p. $80.00 cloth, $22.99 paper.

Alexis de Tocqueville is surely one of the most widely cited, discussed, and celebrated political theorists in the world. Jon Elster's book, Alexis de Tocqueville: the First Social Scientist proceeds from a provocative premise: that Tocqueville's major works were lacking in “system” and were “hugely incoherent,” and that Tocqeuville himself “was not a major political thinker” (xi). Elster argues that instead Tocqueville ought to be viewed as a penetrating historical sociologist and an exemplary social scientist who might well be considered the first true social scientist. Elster's argument is important for at least two reasons: first, because it offers a striking and challenging reading of Tocqueville; and second, because it expands on Elster's own contributions in the philosophy of social science, and develops interesting understandings of “causal mechanisms,” methodological individualism, and social explanation more generally. As Elster writes in his Introduction, “the main task of this book is to argue for the relevance of Tocqueville for social science in the twenty-first century (p. 5).” The purpose of this Perspectives symposium is to assess Elster's argument in broad terms. What are the strengths and limits of Elster's reading of Tocqueville? How ought we to assess Elster's understanding of Tocqueville's deficiencies as a “political theorist?” What is the relevance of Tocqueville for contemporary social science? And, most importantly, what are the challenges and possible trajectories facing social science in the twenty-first century, and to what extent does Elster's essay point us in the right direction?—Jeffrey C. Isaac, Editor

Type
Review Symposium: The Social Science of Democracy?
Information
Perspectives on Politics , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , June 2011 , pp. 363 - 368
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aron, Raymond. 1998. Main Currents of Sociological Thought. 2 vols.New Brunswick, NJ: Transactions.Google Scholar
Birnbaum, Pierre. 1970. Sociologie de Tocqueville. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
Boudon, Raymond. 1982. The Unintended Consequences of Human Action. New York: St. Martin's.Google Scholar
Boudon, Raymond. 2006. “L'exigence de Tocqueville: La ‘science politique nouvelle.’” The Tocqueville Review/La Revue Tocqueville 27(2): 13–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craiutu, Aurelian. 2009. “What Kind of Social Scientist Was Tocqueville?” In Conversations with Tocqueville: The Global Democratic Revolution in the Twenty-First Century, eds. Craiutu, Aurelian and Gellar, Sheldon. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, Rowman & Littlefield, 55–81.Google Scholar
Craiutu, Aurelian, and Gellar, Sheldon, eds. 2009. Conversations with Tocqueville: The Global Democratic Revolution in the Twenty-First Century. Lanham, MD.: Lexington Books, Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Drescher, Seymour. 2006. “Tocqueville's Comparative Perspectives” In The Cambridge Companion to Tocqueville, ed. Welch, Cheryl. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 21–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elster, Jon. 2006. “Tocqueville on 1789.” In The Cambridge Companion to Tocqueville, ed. Welch, Cheryl. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 49–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furet, François. 1981. Interpreting the French Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Furet, François. 1985–86. “The Intellectual Origins of Tocqueville's Thought.” The Tocqueville Revue/La Revue Tocqueville 7: 117–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gannett, Robert. 2003. Tocqueville Unveiled: The Historian and His Sources for the Old Regime and the Revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gannett, Robert. 2006. “Tocqueville and the Politics of Suffrage.” The Tocqueville Review/La Revue Tocqueville (Special Bicentennial Issue: “Alexis de Tocqueville [1805–1859]) 27(2): 209–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldhammer, Arthur. 2004. “Translator's Note.” In Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America. New York: The Library of America, 873–77.Google Scholar
Guellec, Laurence. 2006. “Tocqueville and Political Rhetoric.” In The Cambridge Companion to Tocqueville, ed. Welch, Cheryl. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 167–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hadari, Saguiv. 1989. Theory in Practice: Tocqueville's New Science of Politics. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Jaume, Lucien. 2008. Tocqueville. Les sources aristocratiques de la liberté. Paris: Fayard.Google Scholar
Lerner, Ralph. 2010. “Northern Lights Over Tocqueville.” Review of Politics 72: 127–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manent, Pierre. 2006. “Tocqueville, Political Philosopher.” In The Cambridge Companion to Tocqueville, ed. Welch, Cheryl. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 108–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mélonio, Françoise. 1998. Tocqueville and the French. Trans. Raps, Beth G.. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.Google Scholar
Nolla, Eduardo. 2010. “Introduction.” Democracy in America. Vol. I. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, xlvii–cxlix.Google Scholar
Poggi, Gianfranco. 1972. Images of Society: Essays on the Sociological Theories of Tocqueville, Marx, and Durkheim. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Richter, Melvin. 1966. “Tocqueville's Contributions to the Theory of Revolution.” In Revolution, ed. Friedrich, Carl J.. New York: Atherton, 73–121.Google Scholar
Richter, Melvin. 1970. “The Uses of Theory: Tocqueville's Adaptation of Montesquieu.” In Essays in Theory and History, ed. Richter, Melvin. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 74–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schleifer, James T. 2006. “Tocqueville's Democracy in America Reconsidered.” In The Cambridge Companion to Tocqueville, ed. Welch, Cheryl. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 122–30.Google Scholar
Swedberg, Richard. 2009. Tocqueville's Political Economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tocqueville, Alexis de. 1962. Journey to America. Trans. Mayer, J. P.. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Tocqueville, Alexis de. 1967. Œuvres Complètes, XVIII: 1. Correspondance d'Alexis de Tocqueville et de Gustave de Beaumont. Ed. Jardin, André. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Tocqueville, Alexis de. 1977. Œuvres Complètes, XIII: 1. Correspondence avec Louis de Kergorlay. Ed. Lesourd, Jean-Alain. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Tocqueville, Alexis de. 1985. Selected Letters on Politics and Society. Ed. Boesche, Roger, trans. Boesche, Roger and Toupin, James. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Tocqueville, Alexis de. 1989. Œuvres Complètes, XVI: Mélanges. Ed. Mélonio, Françoise. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Tocqueville, Alexis de. 2010. Democracy in America. 4 vols. Ed. Nolla, Eduardo, trans. Schleifer, James T.. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
Welch, Cheryl. ed. 2006. The Cambridge Companion to Tocqueville. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wills, Gary. 2004. “Did Tocqueville ‘Get’ America?” New York Review of Books, April 29, 52–56.Google Scholar