Today, Gerald Izenberg of the History Department presented a paper that will eventually become a chapter in his new book. The working title is "Individuality vs. Individualism in the European Tradition." As the title hints, Izenberg's overarching argument is that the canonical thinkers in Europe during and after the French Revolution saw individuality and individualism as not merely different, but conflicting notions.
Izenberg argues that most of these thinkers were, ironically, committed to both sets of values despite their incompatibility. Izenberg's paper is a textual/historical analysis as opposed to the normative argumentation more usually presented at the workshop. I found the discussion a welcome change of pace.
Izenberg argues that most of these thinkers were, ironically, committed to both sets of values despite their incompatibility. Izenberg's paper is a textual/historical analysis as opposed to the normative argumentation more usually presented at the workshop. I found the discussion a welcome change of pace.
In another happy deviation from the workshop norm, our discussant was someone from outside the Wash U community. This generally happens at least a few times a semester. Today's discussant, Matt Mancini, is the chair of the Department of American Studies at Saint Louis University and a distinguished Tocqueville scholar.
Mancini opened his remarks with this clever quip about America's notoriously boring former president, Calvin Coolidge: "A farmer shows up half an hour late to a Coolidge speech. Hoping to be brought up to speed, he asks his neighbor, 'What's Coolidge been talking about?' But, the neighbor neighbor just shakes his head and replies, 'I don't know. He won't say."
Mancini believes that much of the scholarship about Alexis de Tocqueville is similarly long-winded, opaque and painful. Happily, Mancini exempts Izenberg's paper from this description.
Izenberg's paper poses the question "What did Tocqueville understand by freedom?" and suggests that the answer has much to do with Tocqueville's position "uneasily poised between two worlds" of aristocracy and democracy. Though the grateful beneficiary of an elite French upbringing, Tocqueville was nevertheless a "true son of the Revolution." Izenberg suggests that this internal tension is visible in Tocqueville's scholarship and especially in his attempt to reconcile the "two worlds of individuality and individualism." Much like with his thinking on aristocracy and democracy, Tocqueville seeks to reconcile the conflicting theories by amalgamating the best aspects of both.
It wasn't long into Mancini's comments that those in the room not intimately acquainted with Tocqueville's scholarship (myself unfortunately included) realized what a disadvantage we were at in the ensuing discussion. Nevertheless, Mancini's comments were a real pleasure to listen to.
His most salient concern with Izenberg's paper was that it too often conflates key Tocquevillian terminology (always a risk in first drafts of textual studies). Moreover, Mancini took issue with the degree to which Izenberg connected Tocqueville's writing on America to his work on individualism. Mancini pointed out that the two chapters referencing individualism only mention America in a single sentence.
Following Mancini's comments, the general discussion ranged too widely to be effectively summarized here. One of the more heated exchanges, however, concerned whether or not it was Tocqueville's intention to produce positive or normative science.
All in all, it was another solid workshop. The year is off to a strong start. If you'd like to continue the discussion, please use the comments below.
-Greg Allen
Izenberg's paper poses the question "What did Tocqueville understand by freedom?" and suggests that the answer has much to do with Tocqueville's position "uneasily poised between two worlds" of aristocracy and democracy. Though the grateful beneficiary of an elite French upbringing, Tocqueville was nevertheless a "true son of the Revolution." Izenberg suggests that this internal tension is visible in Tocqueville's scholarship and especially in his attempt to reconcile the "two worlds of individuality and individualism." Much like with his thinking on aristocracy and democracy, Tocqueville seeks to reconcile the conflicting theories by amalgamating the best aspects of both.
It wasn't long into Mancini's comments that those in the room not intimately acquainted with Tocqueville's scholarship (myself unfortunately included) realized what a disadvantage we were at in the ensuing discussion. Nevertheless, Mancini's comments were a real pleasure to listen to.
His most salient concern with Izenberg's paper was that it too often conflates key Tocquevillian terminology (always a risk in first drafts of textual studies). Moreover, Mancini took issue with the degree to which Izenberg connected Tocqueville's writing on America to his work on individualism. Mancini pointed out that the two chapters referencing individualism only mention America in a single sentence.
Following Mancini's comments, the general discussion ranged too widely to be effectively summarized here. One of the more heated exchanges, however, concerned whether or not it was Tocqueville's intention to produce positive or normative science.
All in all, it was another solid workshop. The year is off to a strong start. If you'd like to continue the discussion, please use the comments below.
-Greg Allen
