Tocqueville's diagnosis of our future was then a gloomy one. Two issues in particular came to preoccupy him. The first was our tendency to place the claims of equality before the demands of liberty. From this flowed a preference for uniformity and the growth of the centralised state. The second was individualism. By this he meant the sentiment that disposed "each citizen to isolate himself from the mass of those like him" and thus "to abandon society at large to itself". "I see," Tocqueville wrote at his most prophetic, "an innumerable crowd of like and equal men[...]each of them, withdrawn and apart, is like a stranger to the destiny of all the others".

From the perspective of our own atomised and much governed society these concerns seem unnervingly familiar. We might therefore pause to consider the dimensions of American society that Alexis de Tocqueville believed might protect us from this sorry fate. In part the Americans had the good fortune of inhabiting a vast and empty continent that was not surrounded by enemies. They thus were able to dispense with government. But the tyranny of the majority was kept in check by more than just good fortune. Firstly, the American constitution was built upon a deep respect for the rule of law. Next, Tocqueville witnessed the vitality and diversity of religious life in America. What he perceived were the beneficial consequences of religion as a social force, irrespective of its doctrinal elements. Religion acted to elevate the aspirations of the believer. Most importantly, he saw that America combated individualism through the art of association. "Americans of all ages, all conditions, and all persuasions," Tocqueville wrote, "constantly unite." Association, he admitted, did not call forth heroic virtues but it did serve to form "a multitude of citizens who are orderly, temperate, moderate, farsighted, masters of themselves". As a consequence self-interest was enlightened, producing "little sacrifices each day".

Are there lessons for us here? Or has ours become such a profoundly secular society that the spirit of religion no longer has any purchase upon us?  Has the long march to create the welfare state destroyed the customs and practices of associational life in the United Kingdom? If so, is a society characterised by civic engagement and mutual obligation simply beyond recall? The hope of David Cameron, articulated through the idea of the Big Society, is that, if the central state ceases to fulfil a particular function, it will be taken up by local communities, charities and other sections of society. The fear is that this function, however useful it might be, will simply cease to be performed and that the most vulnerable members of our society will suffer as a consequence. This might well prove to be true. To succeed, the Big Society will require a fundamental cultural shift and this will be achieved, if at all, neither easily nor quickly. Tocqueville himself would not have underestimated the difficulties involved but of one thing he was sure: only liberty could bring citizens out of their isolation and only liberty could cure them of their selfish desire for material gain and comfort. "Whoever seeks for anything from liberty but itself," Tocqueville observed, "is made for slavery."