I have thought deeply and often about the Tocqueville Effect. There are a significant number of issues I see with how that author lays it out. And to be very clear, I think the Tocqueville Effect in some of the contexts they talk about is bullshit and, to be extremely clear, I believe the effect as a whole is bullshit.
In almost every place I see the Tocqueville Effect spoken about, it is done so with the underlining position that we as individuals should be "happy" and should, essentially, value everything we have more because in the past others did not have it. If I was a black person in America today, I should be happy because I'm not a black person in America in the 1960s, putting it one way. I think that example says a lot.
The base issue to me here is that the Tocqueville Effect does not take into account a few realities of the human experience. Statistically, life is getting better in measurable ways every year. That is very much so a fact. The best example to me is our collective physical health. And yet, many around the world are still unhappy. We are not satisfied in certain ways and we then voice our frustration in our newspapers and online and in the streets. This is especially true in developed nations, those who "have" the most.
Let's start with literacy. A good example. Many more people today can read a sentence today than in the past. However, the issue is not being able to read a sentence anymore, if it ever was just that. The issue is being able to understand it on multiple levels. Literacy is more than just a number is what I am saying. It is an all encompassing concept around taking in information, digesting it so that you understand it, and then addressing reality with that understanding accordingly. Tocqueville does not take into account a nuance like that. As an American, I think I can say without much pushback that in this country, literacy in a very real way is on the decline. Concerningly so. Media literacy most of all but also basic literacy to standards that we seem to have had once in the past. Here is a good Substack post about how that is happening from an actual study, n=85: https://www.adorableandharmless.com/p/college-english-majors-cant-readhttps://www.adorableandharmless.com/p/college-english-majors-cant-read
The most angering thing I read in that author's words was, "Human trafficking? Slavery? Racism? These are all ills that have virtually vanished." I cannot begin to explain to a person that racism has not vanished. I cannot begin to explain to a person that slavery is now different compared to 1850. I cannot begin to explain to a person that human trafficking is still very real for millions of people and we should still be upset about that. The author here lives in a world of numbers and not reality. Racism has vanished? Oh. I am very curious. How are we measuring racism? If I had to guess, the author here is white. Slavery has vanished? I would tell the author to ask a Pakistani or Indian or Bangladeshi laborer in Dubai how they define slavery. Better yet, I would tell the author to go live as they live for a month.
Everything I am saying comes down to the fact that language is fluid and therefore our reality as a society is fluid. Life itself is fluid. The Tocqueville Effect measures concepts with loose definitions at a very singular moment in time. Literacy rates are as high as they've ever been. And yet my college sophomore son cannot discuss my favorite author Charles Dickens with me.
You have certainly thought about this much longer than I have! It does sound like your challenges are to normative implications ("individuals should...") rather than the effect itself. The effect itself seems observable in many cases, so I guess I haven't reached the same conclusion as you about it being bs.
Put better I guess. The effect claims to make a statement on reality with numbers. Reality is what we as individuals perceive and think. Collective reality is that at scale. If everyone or most people are saying they are unhappy, then we are unhappy.
I understand this effect as an observation about a common pattern (gaining ground by some measure of social equity -> louder outcry for next tranche of social equity), rather than as a value judgement on why that's a common pattern. It's possible that I don't fully understand, as I haven't actually read De Tocqueville's work.
I think you're saying the pattern is not valid because the measure isn't valid? I guess that's true in some respects, yet I'm not ready to throw out the idea that there are some valid measures of social conditions.
I also more broadly think humans exhibit a tendency toward dissatisfaction, and that drives a lot of our success as a species. We've always got some idea for what would make our situations better, and can dwell on it both productively or not!
Totally agree with all that! As far as I can understand things myself. Admittedly, I also have not read De Tocqueville's work.
I don’t think the pattern is not valid per se. The pattern is there. But then I abstract, taking a specific example of the pattern for a measurement. Meaning, what is the single word or phrase I am trying to measure numerically. For something like literacy, I just don’t believe that is really possible. Literacy is not a number. Inherently so. We can try to pin it down in certain ways with numbers but those ways are always in some manner inadequate. With that conclusion, is the pattern even there then? I am not sure. If we are using numbers where numbers fail us, how can I then state a pattern as true using numbers? That is a hard sentence to crack!
Definitely agree on people defaulting to unhappiness. Happiness is a very complex topic to address and I suppose it relates to what I try to argue in the above paragraph and prior comments. I think my initial comment was weighted more in the form of an emotional response because the cited tweets were framed in a poor manner from a communication standpoint. My interpretation of that person’s words were, “Look at these numbers! You should be happier!” Well, damn! If I had known my happiness came down to a number then I’ve been doing this all wrong! It did greatly upset me, to be clear. How can I say to anyone experiencing racism, “Hey, racism is gone,” using numbers? In a real way, that is disrespectful.
There is a lot of nuance here for each specific thing being measured. But also, that nuance doesn’t matter in a way too, right? If I am unhappy, then that is all that matters.
I have thought deeply and often about the Tocqueville Effect. There are a significant number of issues I see with how that author lays it out. And to be very clear, I think the Tocqueville Effect in some of the contexts they talk about is bullshit and, to be extremely clear, I believe the effect as a whole is bullshit.
In almost every place I see the Tocqueville Effect spoken about, it is done so with the underlining position that we as individuals should be "happy" and should, essentially, value everything we have more because in the past others did not have it. If I was a black person in America today, I should be happy because I'm not a black person in America in the 1960s, putting it one way. I think that example says a lot.
The base issue to me here is that the Tocqueville Effect does not take into account a few realities of the human experience. Statistically, life is getting better in measurable ways every year. That is very much so a fact. The best example to me is our collective physical health. And yet, many around the world are still unhappy. We are not satisfied in certain ways and we then voice our frustration in our newspapers and online and in the streets. This is especially true in developed nations, those who "have" the most.
Let's start with literacy. A good example. Many more people today can read a sentence today than in the past. However, the issue is not being able to read a sentence anymore, if it ever was just that. The issue is being able to understand it on multiple levels. Literacy is more than just a number is what I am saying. It is an all encompassing concept around taking in information, digesting it so that you understand it, and then addressing reality with that understanding accordingly. Tocqueville does not take into account a nuance like that. As an American, I think I can say without much pushback that in this country, literacy in a very real way is on the decline. Concerningly so. Media literacy most of all but also basic literacy to standards that we seem to have had once in the past. Here is a good Substack post about how that is happening from an actual study, n=85: https://www.adorableandharmless.com/p/college-english-majors-cant-readhttps://www.adorableandharmless.com/p/college-english-majors-cant-read
The most angering thing I read in that author's words was, "Human trafficking? Slavery? Racism? These are all ills that have virtually vanished." I cannot begin to explain to a person that racism has not vanished. I cannot begin to explain to a person that slavery is now different compared to 1850. I cannot begin to explain to a person that human trafficking is still very real for millions of people and we should still be upset about that. The author here lives in a world of numbers and not reality. Racism has vanished? Oh. I am very curious. How are we measuring racism? If I had to guess, the author here is white. Slavery has vanished? I would tell the author to ask a Pakistani or Indian or Bangladeshi laborer in Dubai how they define slavery. Better yet, I would tell the author to go live as they live for a month.
Everything I am saying comes down to the fact that language is fluid and therefore our reality as a society is fluid. Life itself is fluid. The Tocqueville Effect measures concepts with loose definitions at a very singular moment in time. Literacy rates are as high as they've ever been. And yet my college sophomore son cannot discuss my favorite author Charles Dickens with me.
You have certainly thought about this much longer than I have! It does sound like your challenges are to normative implications ("individuals should...") rather than the effect itself. The effect itself seems observable in many cases, so I guess I haven't reached the same conclusion as you about it being bs.
At a base level, isn't all of this about what individuals should do? I mean, the effect itself is not some grand implication that I should be happy.
Put better I guess. The effect claims to make a statement on reality with numbers. Reality is what we as individuals perceive and think. Collective reality is that at scale. If everyone or most people are saying they are unhappy, then we are unhappy.
I think that's right!
I understand this effect as an observation about a common pattern (gaining ground by some measure of social equity -> louder outcry for next tranche of social equity), rather than as a value judgement on why that's a common pattern. It's possible that I don't fully understand, as I haven't actually read De Tocqueville's work.
I think you're saying the pattern is not valid because the measure isn't valid? I guess that's true in some respects, yet I'm not ready to throw out the idea that there are some valid measures of social conditions.
I also more broadly think humans exhibit a tendency toward dissatisfaction, and that drives a lot of our success as a species. We've always got some idea for what would make our situations better, and can dwell on it both productively or not!
Totally agree with all that! As far as I can understand things myself. Admittedly, I also have not read De Tocqueville's work.
I don’t think the pattern is not valid per se. The pattern is there. But then I abstract, taking a specific example of the pattern for a measurement. Meaning, what is the single word or phrase I am trying to measure numerically. For something like literacy, I just don’t believe that is really possible. Literacy is not a number. Inherently so. We can try to pin it down in certain ways with numbers but those ways are always in some manner inadequate. With that conclusion, is the pattern even there then? I am not sure. If we are using numbers where numbers fail us, how can I then state a pattern as true using numbers? That is a hard sentence to crack!
Definitely agree on people defaulting to unhappiness. Happiness is a very complex topic to address and I suppose it relates to what I try to argue in the above paragraph and prior comments. I think my initial comment was weighted more in the form of an emotional response because the cited tweets were framed in a poor manner from a communication standpoint. My interpretation of that person’s words were, “Look at these numbers! You should be happier!” Well, damn! If I had known my happiness came down to a number then I’ve been doing this all wrong! It did greatly upset me, to be clear. How can I say to anyone experiencing racism, “Hey, racism is gone,” using numbers? In a real way, that is disrespectful.
There is a lot of nuance here for each specific thing being measured. But also, that nuance doesn’t matter in a way too, right? If I am unhappy, then that is all that matters.