Book Project: Independent Thought and Democratic Citizenship
Many regard a willingness to think critically about authority as a desirable disposition for citizens. Yet while this quality may be salutary, it is not always or necessarily so. I analyze the works of Alexis de Tocqueville and John Stuart Mill in order to see how each author sought to balance critical questioning with authoritative community norms. Doing so illuminates how figures of authority and regnant social practices can be critiqued without eroding the foundations of social order. This theme has been prominent in Western political thought since Socrates was tried and executed for impiety, and it remains relevant today. In order to live up to their obligations as democratic citizens, young people must learn not just to defer to authority, but also to think critically about it. Indeed, the ways in which Tocqueville and Mill sought to balance critical questioning with commitment to authoritative moral principles has important implications for contemporary political thought, especially democratic theory. Though it is essential that a willingness to think critically temper our attachment to our convictions, democratic deliberation requires that we also be willing to defend those commitments before our fellow citizens. Recent works in contemporary political theory, such as Russell Muirhead’s The Promise of Party in a Polarized Age, Hélène Landemore’s Democratic Reason, and Stephen Macedo’s Liberal Virtues, affirm the necessity of these dispositions. Recognizing this fact prompts us to ask how to generate and sustain these dispositions. Tocqueville and Mill provide valuable resources for thinking through this question.
Peer-Reviewed Publications
"Mill on Deference and Democratic Character." Forthcoming in Political Research Quarterly.
Citizens of liberal democracies today increasingly exhibit a distrust of perceived elites, especially experts and those of advanced educational attainment more generally. John Stuart Mill’s work offers potential responses this phenomenon. Mill regards deference to superior wisdom as an essential part of a well-developed character while at the same time esteeming independent thought. Though his emphasis on the importance of character formation is well known, his concern for inculcating a salutary form of deference has been underexplored. I show how Mill’s approaches to this task include redesigning the political process in order to amplify the voice of the highly educated, promoting more widespread opportunities for learning, and consistently emphasizing the partiality of human understanding. I also compare Mill’s treatment of the place of deference in democratic politics to that of Alexis de Tocqueville’s, and consider how Tocqueville might critique Mill’s strategies for cultivating deference. In so doing, I demonstrate how these authors provide us with resources for navigating the tensions between popular sovereignty and expertise, and between independent thought and intellectual authority.
"Tocqueville on Intellectual Independence, Doubt, and Democratic Citizenship." The Review of Politics. Volume 82, Issue 1. Winter 2020. 49-72.
Some contend that politics functions best with deference to tradition and authoritative community norms, while others argue for independent thought and doubt of received of authority. Insight into this question can be found in the work of Alexis de Tocqueville. While Tocqueville is often taken to regard the doubt characteristic of intellectual independence solely as a pathology, I show that he also saw it as potentially providing a precursor to conversation, a stimulus to self-assured conviction, and a counter to distortionary abstractions. Nonetheless, Tocqueville also elaborates the destructive outcomes of too much doubt and intellectual independence. I identify the ways in which he seeks to discipline and educate the drive to independent thought so as to attain its benefits without falling victim to its pathologies. In doing so, I demonstrate how Tocqueville can be a guide to how to navigate the perennial tension between intellectual inquiry and authoritative community norms.
Many regard a willingness to think critically about authority as a desirable disposition for citizens. Yet while this quality may be salutary, it is not always or necessarily so. I analyze the works of Alexis de Tocqueville and John Stuart Mill in order to see how each author sought to balance critical questioning with authoritative community norms. Doing so illuminates how figures of authority and regnant social practices can be critiqued without eroding the foundations of social order. This theme has been prominent in Western political thought since Socrates was tried and executed for impiety, and it remains relevant today. In order to live up to their obligations as democratic citizens, young people must learn not just to defer to authority, but also to think critically about it. Indeed, the ways in which Tocqueville and Mill sought to balance critical questioning with commitment to authoritative moral principles has important implications for contemporary political thought, especially democratic theory. Though it is essential that a willingness to think critically temper our attachment to our convictions, democratic deliberation requires that we also be willing to defend those commitments before our fellow citizens. Recent works in contemporary political theory, such as Russell Muirhead’s The Promise of Party in a Polarized Age, Hélène Landemore’s Democratic Reason, and Stephen Macedo’s Liberal Virtues, affirm the necessity of these dispositions. Recognizing this fact prompts us to ask how to generate and sustain these dispositions. Tocqueville and Mill provide valuable resources for thinking through this question.
Peer-Reviewed Publications
"Mill on Deference and Democratic Character." Forthcoming in Political Research Quarterly.
Citizens of liberal democracies today increasingly exhibit a distrust of perceived elites, especially experts and those of advanced educational attainment more generally. John Stuart Mill’s work offers potential responses this phenomenon. Mill regards deference to superior wisdom as an essential part of a well-developed character while at the same time esteeming independent thought. Though his emphasis on the importance of character formation is well known, his concern for inculcating a salutary form of deference has been underexplored. I show how Mill’s approaches to this task include redesigning the political process in order to amplify the voice of the highly educated, promoting more widespread opportunities for learning, and consistently emphasizing the partiality of human understanding. I also compare Mill’s treatment of the place of deference in democratic politics to that of Alexis de Tocqueville’s, and consider how Tocqueville might critique Mill’s strategies for cultivating deference. In so doing, I demonstrate how these authors provide us with resources for navigating the tensions between popular sovereignty and expertise, and between independent thought and intellectual authority.
"Tocqueville on Intellectual Independence, Doubt, and Democratic Citizenship." The Review of Politics. Volume 82, Issue 1. Winter 2020. 49-72.
Some contend that politics functions best with deference to tradition and authoritative community norms, while others argue for independent thought and doubt of received of authority. Insight into this question can be found in the work of Alexis de Tocqueville. While Tocqueville is often taken to regard the doubt characteristic of intellectual independence solely as a pathology, I show that he also saw it as potentially providing a precursor to conversation, a stimulus to self-assured conviction, and a counter to distortionary abstractions. Nonetheless, Tocqueville also elaborates the destructive outcomes of too much doubt and intellectual independence. I identify the ways in which he seeks to discipline and educate the drive to independent thought so as to attain its benefits without falling victim to its pathologies. In doing so, I demonstrate how Tocqueville can be a guide to how to navigate the perennial tension between intellectual inquiry and authoritative community norms.
