<p>I still haven't finalized and it definitely lacks a lot of stuff but i just have a lot that's due tomorrow :/</p>
<p>Thanks for reading. Any suggestions/improvement would be greatly appreciated.</p>
<p>Essay is ''Of Individualism in Democratic Countries'' by Alexis De Tocqueville...approximately 1.5 pages in length.</p>
<pre><code> Democracy and individualism are two favorable qualities that will place any country on a pedestal. Democracy and individualism are both characteristics of the United States of America. Furthermore, we serve as a paragon for other countries because of these greap qualities- democracy and individualism. However, Tocqueville in his essay of ''Individualism in Democratic Countries'' downplays individualism and democracy and juxtaposes them to develop his argument that individualism in a democratic society- like the U.S.A- does not work as it does in a aristocratic society.
Tocqueville, in his opening paragraph, states that ''individualism disposes each member of the community to sever himself from the mass of his fellows.'' This saying is effective at setting the tone for the essay and portrarys the author's dislike of individualism. Tocqueville then compares something as uncharacteristic as selfishness to something of quality as individualism and firmly poses the latter as superior: ''selfishness blights the germ of all virtue while individualism only saps the witness of public life.'' By using onomatopoeia-saps- Tocqueville adds further emphasis to his point. Not only that but he uses an effective strategy of placing positive words, blights and virtue, with jealousy and gives jealousy a whole new positive mearning.
Tocqueville, for the majority of the essay, then compares individualism in aristocratic nations vs. individualism in democratic nations to bolster his argument and strengthen his point for writing this essay that aristocratic nations are better off in terms of individualism than are democratic nations in terms of individualism. ''In an imperialistic society, a man always knows his forefathers and respects them. He willingly imposes duties on himself towards the former and the latter.'' In contrast, in a democratic society ''Those who went before are soon forgotten; of those who will come after, no one has any idea.'' These two quotes signify the difference that exists in an aristocratic and a democratic society. Thus, men in an imperialistic society are portrayed as sympathetic, caring, and conservative. Conservative in a positive way that they still hold on to their customs and family background and have not assimilated to the current society. On the other hand, men in a democratic society are portrayed as corrupted and apathetic to their ancestors and the people around them. I agree with this statement because a lot of men in our country are engulfed in their own little world and have no time for their families; Men in middle eastern countries- which are for the most part aristocratic- care about each other and spend an abundant amount of time with their families. As a matter of fact, having spent most of my childhood back home in Pakistan, which is still recovering from its aristocratic roots, I can relate to what Tocqueville is trying to say here. I can remember clearly the respect and importance men gave to their parents and grandparents, and made the best effort to not forget their past and where they came from. Tocqueville presents another solid point that ''citizens in aristocratic communities occupy fixed positions, one above the other, and the result is that each of them always seen a man above himself whose patronage is necessary to him, and, below himself, another man whose co-operation he may claim. Men living in aristocratic ages are therefore almost always closely attached to something placed out of their own sphere.'' This again reiterates the fact that people in an aristocratic society are caring, unselfish, and have regards for others. Even though I at first thought that individualism fit well in a democratic society, I have now changed my mind because if you give this quote some thought, it actually makes sense that since people depend on each other in an aristocratic society- a land owner on a farmer, for example- there is likely not going to be separation and disunity among the people and that they are going to be in harmony with each other; It's like a mutualistic relationship: one benefits from the other and then that other benefits from the latter. On the other hand, in a democratic society, Tocqueville says that '' the interest of man is confined to those in close propinquity to himself. As each class approximates to other classes, and intermingles with them, its members become indifferent, and as strangers to one another.'' The effect of individualism in a democratic society obviously counters that in an aristocratic society because unlike in an aristocratic society where people actually interact with each other and are in good terms, in a democratic society, people do not like to interact with other classes outside their own and, for the most part, like to stay reserved.
Tocqueville, through such strategies as juxtaposition and onomatopoeia, gets across his point that the positive effects of individualism in an aristocratic society far exceed those in a democratic society.
</code></pre>