Tocqueville's work focused on the democratic revolution in human affairs--political and social--that was driven by the spirit of equality and stood in opposition to the aristocratic societies of old. At its best, in the political sphere, it could give rise to a liberal regime. Tocqueville, however, was not wed to any particular form of government, but to the cause of liberty itself. Hence, he could see how both a constitutional monarchy and a republican government could serve that end or, conversely, how monarchic and democratic regimes could subvert it.

To understand Tocqueville's methodology, one must remember Montesquieu's admonition that "many things govern men." Taken together, those "things" form the spirit of the people, which is what Tocqueville strove to understand. He believed that there are three pillars to studying a society: the accidental (eg. geography); the legislative; and the mental habits, or moeurs of a people. Laws, Tocqueville believed, are more important than physical causes in creating civic culture, but the laws themselves arise from a people’s moeurs.

Tocqueville also makes clear that a people's dislike of despotism does not necessarily give rise to a democratic regime, or even to a love of liberty. Indeed, a central point in Ancien Regime is the continuity in France between pre-1789, 1789 and 1848. In this respect, Tocqueville's analysis raises questions about today’s theories of "modernization" and, in the case of China, should force us to ask what the continuities and discontinuities may be in Chinese civic culture and, in turn, question the easy application of modernization theory to China.

Tocqueville's analysis also leads us to question whether China’s current political era is significantly different from that of France and the United States in the 18th and 19th centuries. Were those societies more homogenous than today's China? Is there, in fact, one China? And, in China today, is the principle of equality--the principle Tocqueville believed defined modernity and the political orders of both the U.S. and revolutionary France--the implied, even if not always obtained, principle for defining justice and right rule? There are, of course, examples of equality-driven movements in China (peasant rebellions, the Communist Revolution), but is China still a culture where authority and hierarchy remain dominant, even if not as prevalent as they once were? Does the Chinese Communist Party's legitimacy still rest on the notion of equality, or does its style of rule reflect an older Chinese deference to authority and hierarchy?

These questions suggest that when trying to understand today's China we should not be focused on Tocqueville's answers, but on the kinds of questions he asked. In other words, what are the key components of current Chinese moeurs and what do today’s China watchers have to say about them?

II. Is China's experiment in village governance a School of Liberty? 

III. Windows into China's Civic Culture 

IV. Tocqueville's Ancien Regime: A Revolution Gone Bad 

V. What's Next