It is often mentioned that democracies do not, or are very unlikely to, make war against other democracies. This “democratic peace” theory has become a commonplace not only in international political thought but also in the mindsets of American presidents and diplomats. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, for example, have referred to this international ethical cycle: promoting democracy would make world peace. The idea of democratic peace was advocated by Kant. Kant thought that a majority of the people would never vote to go to war under the republican (democratic) governments because they were cautious of war.
However, the road to democracy may involve war. Democratic peace increasingly seems to be linked to war. It is obvious that democracies are peaceful towards each other but in general they are as war-prone as any other regime type. The theory of democratic peace, therefore, remains fragmentary as long as it fails to account for the practice of war on the part of democracies. At the dark side of democratic peace, “democratic war” occurs. According to Harald Müller, “democratic war” means the resort to the use of force by democracies in order to promote democracy for peace.
In the history of international political thought, some thinkers acknowledge that democracies tend to be war-prone. Alexis de Tocqueville, for example, pointed out that democracy in America was likely to go to war. It is true that America foreign policy contains this Tocqueville's legacy. Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has justified wars and military interventions to export democracy to non-democratic states. Moreover, in order to prevent transnational terrorism, American foreign policy supports. “war against terrorism” under the just war tradition. For American foreign policy, “war against terrorism” is a just war. Promoting democracy is strongly related to combating against terrorism. Moral justification of war is one of the most important things for American foreign policy after the Cold War.
There was same logic behind the justification of the United States' invasion of Iraq in 2003. Moreover, the United States' invasion of Iraq was justified in part as a preventive war for making democratic peace. American “democratic wars” are developed by the universalistic (Kantian-Wilsonian) principles of democratic peace. However, attempts to make democratic peace by using external force would have failed eventually. Without regard to humanitarian purpose or not, it is obvious that democracy in America is more war-prone rather than the reverse.

抄録全体を表示

  The subject of this paper is to prove that the racial inequality which Alexis de Tocqueville points out in the first volume of De la démocratie en amérique is not only a problem of the America but also the problem of democracy. While the previous researches have focused excessively on the positive aspects of American democracy in Tocqueville, they had not focused sufficiently on the negative aspects of that. One of these aspects is “the racial inequality”.

  It is certain that Tocqueville says that the issues of the racial inequality in the United States ‘were tangential to my subject: they are American but not democracy’. However, it is possible to insist that the racial inequality is an important ‘democratic’ issue of the US. Tocqueville himself does not simply describe the inequality in the undemocratic relation between whites and black slaves. He also observes carefully “the prejudice” in the North that there exists democracy and institutional equality between whites and ‘free blacks’. Although almost all States had already abolished the slavery in the North, the prejudice existed and even intensified in the North. This suggests that the racial inequality in the United States is paradoxical for democracy, since the “democracy” for Tocqueville means principally ‘the equality of conditions’. And it is more important that he explains, in a note, such a relation between whites and ‘free blacks’ as a typical example of “the tyranny of majority” that is the ‘democratic’ despotism.

  Lastly, this paper examines briefly the religion in the early 19th century US which has often provided the ground for the justification of the slavery. During the period the American anti-slavery movement developed as a part of the religious reform, but even the white abolitionists were assailed by the Northerners including ‘the gentlemen of property and standing’. These mobs represented the majority of the people in the North that approved the abolition but still clung fiercely to the prejudice and refused such a crusade against the inequality. This case goes against Tocqueville's expectation, for the religion could not moderate the tyranny of majority.

  Thus two paradoxes will be discussed in this paper ; paradox of De la démocratie en amérique itself as well as that of the American democracy. The analysis in this paper indicates that certain features of the racial inequality are democratic and it may be even intensified in democratic societies.

抄録全体を表示

　近几年来，在中国不少农村出现了人情负担特别重，一些家庭几乎每个月都要吃几次各种名目的酒席现象。其中有不少家庭每年在吃酒席随份子上花费一两万元，约占家庭年收入三分之一。有的经济条件相对宽裕，交际圈比较广的家庭甚至高达四五万元之多。另外，一些红白喜事上的出现了不少仪式的异化现象，比如在婚礼上出现各种‘恶搞’新郎新娘及其家人亲属，在葬礼的出殡日出现‘敲竹杠’——不给钱就不抬丧等。笔者于2012年到2016年对位于湖北省东南部某市的几个自然村通过数次实地调查，切身体会到在转型期的中国农村社会，以上所述的人情和仪式现象发生了巨大的变化。这些变化可以说是农村社会在转型的一种表征，因此，通过关注农村社会的人情与仪式可以认识中国农村社会的人际往来的基本框架，增进对转型期农村社会的进一步理解。

抄録全体を表示

  One of the thinkers whom Hayek praised very highly is Tocqueville. Hayek regarded Tocqueville as one of the best liberal thinkers of the 19th century who developed most successfully the political philosophy of the Scottish thinkers such as Mandeville, Hume and Smith. And the title of Hayek's The Road to Serfdom (1944) was named after what Tocqueville had called the “new servitude”. Evidently Hayek's argument on tyranny or despotism in the book had many similarities with that of Tocqueville in Democracy in America.
  However, there were, in fact, several big differences between them. Tocqueville defined individualism in a negative way: individualism “disposes each citizen to isolate himself from mass of his fellows and withdraw into the circle of family and friends”. But Hayek defined it in a positive way: the essential features of individualism were, for Hayek, “the respect for the individual man qua man”. While Tocqueville considered political freedom most important as a bulwark against the majority's tyranny or a new democratic despotism, Hayek considered economic freedom most important. Tocqueville endeavored to make the best use of democracy to make people good public citizens. But Hayek had skepticism and disappointment with democracy, which seemed to make Hayek resemble Plato rather than Tocqueville. These differences between them seem to pose a significant problem for state-society relationship in the contemporary world.

抄録全体を表示

  This paper clarifies the relationship between democracy and education in John Dewey’s work by examining the transformation of his concept of democracy.

  First, this paper focuses on the discussions in Dewey’s Democracy and Education (1916) and reveals his characterization of their relationship as “education for sustainable democracy.” I will show that Dewey takes the democratization of society as self-evident, and positions schooling as a means to maintain and sustain it. I will also show that Dewey tried to overcome the social divisions of the time by proposing an integration between civic and vocational education.

  Secondly, I will focus on the transformation of Dewey’s theory of democracy in the 1930s and show that it was transformed into an “education against the crisis of democracy.” In other words, I argue that Dewey’s democracy turned into a “socialist democracy” to fight the Great Depression, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, it became more and more a “militant democracy” fighting against totalitarianism. This paper clarifies the transformation of Dewey’s concept of democracy and education and discusses its possibilities and limitations.

抄録全体を表示

  It is often argued that democracies do not go to war with each other. This democratic peace thesis might be true. At the dark side of democratic peace, however, democracies often go to war with other regimes. It means that democracies are peaceful towards each other, but in general they are as war-prone as any other regime type. It is true that the theory of democratic peace remains fragmentary as long as it fails to account for the practice of war on the part of democracies.
  In the history of political thought about the relationship between democracy and war, Athenian imperialism by Pericles in the funeral oration shows moral justifications of war. Moreover, Tocqueville points out that democracy in America is war-prone. In fact, the United States often goes to war for creating democracies. In this sense, the democratic peace thesis is a democratic war thesis. The purpose of this paper is to deal with the involvement of democracies in war in terms of international political thought.

抄録全体を表示