In his study of American society in the early 1800s, Alexis de Tocqueville devotes a few chapters to describing the American woman as he sees her. Obviously, from our more modern perspective, Tocqueville's assertion that women and men enjoyed a certain equality in America clashes with the reality of the conditions of the time, and Tocqueville cannot provide enough evidence to convince us otherwise. But more interesting is the parallel between the “small society of husbands and wives” and the “great political society” (574) that he describes. With this as a starting point, we can see that the requirement for a particular type of education for democracy to be feasible parallels Tocqueville's description of the education of the American woman. What is even more remarkable is that the situation of the American woman parallels the tyranny of the majority – or the slight despotism that Tocqueville describes as a formidable possibility for democracy. That said, Tocqueville is remarkably inconsistent in his opinions towards such despotism as it applies to women. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”?Get the original essay Tocqueville's argument that women enjoy some equality with men is hardly convincing, especially considering given the lack of supporting evidence. In America, he asserts, women and men enjoy the same respect but in different spheres, in order to better facilitate the functioning of society. Women are not praised, but “they are esteemed” (575). Women can “show themselves to be men of mind and heart” (574), and men respect their courage and independence. Americans have “raised woman with all her power to the level of man in the intellectual and moral world” (576). In other words, women are as intelligent and as good as men. However, these principles fail to challenge traditional structures of “conjugal power”. Tocqueville writes that “the natural head of the conjugal association is the man. The Americans therefore do not deny him the right to lead his companion; and they believe that in the small society of spouses, as in the large political society, the object of democracy is to regulate and legitimize the necessary powers, and not to destroy all power” (574). So, while women live under the “natural” guardianship of their husbands, it is difficult to accept the strongest argument. The example that Tocqueville gives of the esteem and respect of women in America is the fact that rape is punishable by death. In Europe, rapists are often subject to lighter sentences or not convicted at all, which he says is indicative of the lack of respect from Europeans. For women, however, punishing rape with death does not necessarily equate to respecting a woman's honor and independence; this could very well be respect for her as her husband's or father's property. respecting their chastity, and having confidence in their strength is in its way a kind of prison. This kind of esteem or respect can be a daily reminder of what a woman would lose if she made a misstep: “public opinion is inexorable towards her faults” (569). Comparing the plight of the American woman in her "small society" with Tocqueville's description of the "political society" of American democracy highlights an interesting parallel: the need for democratic education for democratic habits to be sustainable . For a democracy to succeed politically, its citizensmust be educated in a democratic manner. In Tocqueville's description of American society and American women, democratic education is no less necessary. In the first volume, Tocqueville makes the surprising and relevant observation that “the States where citizens enjoy their rights the longest are those where they know how to use them best. We can never say it enough: there is nothing more fertile in wonders than the art of being free; but there is nothing harder than learning to be free” (229). Freedom is sweeter when you have it longer, precisely because you know how to use it and don't run away with it. In the custom of marriage, Tocqueville makes a similar argument. In defending the free choice of marriage partners to European aristocratic readers accustomed to arranged marriages, Tocqueville notes that when European men and women marry for love, "one cannot be surprised that they make a bad use of their free will the first time they use it. , nor that they fall into such cruel errors when they want to follow the customs of democracy by getting married, without having received a democratic education. (570). Thus, democratically educated American women know how to appropriately exercise their free will and will choose their partners correctly. Tocqueville's observation that the longer people have been democratic, the more successful their democracy, raises the question of how democracy (politically or socially) could ever be possible in Europe, with its long monarchical tradition. Tocqueville does not provide a satisfactory answer, admitting instead that, while America constitutes an interesting example and case study, he himself is "very far from believing that we should follow the example that American democracy has set and imitate the means she used.” achieve this objective by his efforts” (302). Democracy must develop slowly. Even more troubling than this vague roadmap to democracy is the glaring inconsistency in Tocqueville's views toward women and political society. In political society, Tocqueville fears the possibility of tyranny, but in the "small society" of spouses, he accepts it without censorship. Tocqueville's greatest fear of a democratic state is the slight despotism he describes towards the end of his work. Despotism is particularly dangerous in a democracy to the extent that “what is arbitrary does not appear frightening” (197). Because magistrates and political figures are supposed to be elected by and accountable to ordinary people, their power is not as fearsome as it would be in a monarchical state. Thus, in America, "magistrates can display the names of drunkards in taverns and prevent residents from providing them with wine under penalty of a fine" (197), a serious intrusion into the private lives of individuals which, according to Tocqueville, would be unthinkable in France. Furthermore, he describes how, by reconciling "the need to be ruled and the desire to remain free," people would choose and create a single, all-powerful tutelary power, and then "consol themselves in being under tutelage by thinking that they themselves chose their own power.” schoolmasters” (664). But this supervision is no less powerful because it is supposed to be chosen by the people, and Tocqueville fears that its oppression will be all the more tolerated. The situation of the American woman is surprisingly analogous, even if Tocqueville praises rather than censures. Once women marry, their freedom is inevitably limited. We demand of the woman "an abnegation and a continual sacrifice of her pleasures to her business which is rare, 2002.