1i do not wish to speak of those political associations with the aid of which men seek to defend themselves against the despotic action of a majority or against the encroachments of royal power. i have already treated this subject elsewhere. it is clear that if each citizen, as he becomes individually weaker and consequently more incapable in isolation of preserving his freedom, does not learn the art of uniting with those like him to defend it, tyranny will necessarily grow with equality.2 here it is a question only of the associations that are formed in civil life and which have an object that is in no way political.3 the political associations that exist in the united states form only a detail in the midst of the immense picture that the sum of associations presents there.4 americans of all ages, all conditions, all minds constantly unite. not only do they have commercial and industrial associations in which all take part, but they also have a thousand other kinds: religious, moral, grave, futile, very general and very particular, immense and very small; americans use associations to give fêtes, to found seminaries, to build inns, to raise churches, to distribute books, to send missionaries to the antipodes; in this manner they create hospitals, prisons, schools. finally, if it is a question of bringing to light a truth or developing a sentiment with the support of a great example, they associate. everywhere that, at the head of a new undertaking, you see the government in france and a great lord in england, count on it that you will perceive an association in the united states.5 in america i encountered sorts of associations of which, i confess, i had no idea, and i often admired the infinite art with which the inhabitants of the united states managed to fix a common goal to the efforts of many men and to get them to advance to it freely.6 i have since traveled through england, from which the americans took some of their laws and many of their usages, and it appeared to me that there they were very far from making as constant and as skilled a use of association.7 it often happens that the english execute very great things in isolation, whereas there is scarcely an undertaking so small that americans do not unite for it. it is evident that the former consider association as a powerful means of action; but the latter seem to see in it the sole means they have of acting.8 thus the most democratic country on earth is found to be, above all, the one where men in our day have most perfected the art of pursuing the object of their common desires in common and have applied this new science to the most objects. does this result from an accident or could it be that there in fact exists a necessary relation between associations and equality? 9 aristocratic societies always include within them, in the midst of a multitude of individuals who can do nothing by themselves, a few very powerful and very wealthy citizens; each of these can execute great undertakings by himself.10 in aristocratic societies men have no need to unite to act because they are kept very much together.11 each wealthy and powerful citizen in them forms as it were the head of a permanent and obligatory association that is composed of all those he holds in dependence to him, whom he makes cooperate in the execution of his designs.12 in democratic peoples, on the contrary, all citizens are independent and weak; they can do almost nothing by themselves, and none of them can oblige those like themselves to lend them their cooperation. they therefore all fall into impotence if they do not learn to aid each other freely.13 if men who live in democratic countries had neither the right nor the taste to unite in political goals, their independence would run great risks, but they could preserve their wealth and their enlightenment for a long time; whereas if they did not acquire the practice of associating with each other in ordinary life, civilization itself would be in peril. a people among whom particular persons lost the power of doing great things in isolation, without acquiring the ability to produce them in common, would soon return to barbarism.14 unhappily, the same social state that renders associations so necessary to democratic peoples renders them more difficult for them than for all the others. 15 when several members of an aristocracy want to associate with each other they easily succeed in doing so. as each of them brings great force to society, the number of members can be very few, and, when the members are few in number, it is very easy for them to know each other, to understand each other, and to establish fixed rules.16 the same facility is not found in democratic nations, where it is always necessary that those associating be very numerous in order that the association have some power.