.
II.
1)De Tocqueville argues that too much equality is a threat to liberty because in equal societies the individual has no real power. In order for "the people" to get anything done they need to ban together in large groups- which can prove to be difficult because the equal people in the democratic nations have no real ties to each other. He also argues that in an "equal" society, the need to think for ones self isn't as necessary, or just one of a few general opinions will be fed into a person's head. I can see where De Tocqueville is coming from here as I see the great majority or our nation voting for people like George Bush and Arnold.
What I understand from what De Tocqueville is saying, is that in democracy you are born with no power unlike in an aristocracy. In an aristocracy you have the means and people and the name to back you up if you want to change something. But it seems that you only have this power if you are one of the more powerful people in the aristocracy. But in democracy, you will never have this, you will only be able to work enough and network enough in order to satisfy your own wants. .
.
4) In reading Dubois, his idea's were definitely different from any of the other theorists that we have read in this class. Mainly because it comes from the black perspective and seems to be focusing on the inequality in society rather than the equality. He focuses on an individual being plainly a "problem" in society, and existing as a fractured human being. The individual Dubois speaks of definitely has not been made selfish by individualism, most likely because in the American society that he describes, the black man is far from being equal. He does not experience liberty as he isn't ever to be more than just a servant.
Dubois's American society isn't one of equality as de Tocqueville seemed only to describe. Even after the addition of the 15th amendment, it didn't erase the individual's discrimination against others in society.