In aristocratic centuries historians are drawn to the lives of a few great actors, and they assume that “one must always go back to the particular action of an individual to explain the movements of the crowd” (469). In democracies the role of the individual will be more “difficult to unravel,” which will lead historians to “to speak to us of the nature of races, the physical constitution of the country, or the spirit of the civilization. That shortens his work and, at less cost, satisfies the reader better” (470). As in his analysis of democratic literature, Tocqueville insists that democratic history will see generalities prevail over details.

Tocqueville does admit that generalities explain more in democratic centuries, but he insists that individuals should not fall out of view. He is concerned that this leads to an increasing tendency to emphasize the inevitability of events and a denial of individual agency: “It is not enough for them to show how the facts have come about; they also take pleasure in making one see that it could not have happened otherwise” (472). Tocqueville argues that this trend is dangerous, as it leads individuals to doubt their own capacity except in large groups.