that amongst the americans all honest callings are honorable
amongst a democratic people, where there is no hereditary wealth, every man works to earn a living, or has worked, or is born of parents who have worked. the notion of labor is therefore presented to the mind on every side as the necessary, natural, and honest condition of human existence. not only is labor not dishonorable amongst such a people, but it is held in honor: the prejudice is not against it, but in its favor. in the united states a wealthy man thinks that he owes it to public opinion to devote his leisure to some kind of industrial or commercial pursuit, or to public business. he would think himself in bad repute if he employed his life solely in living. it is for the purpose of escaping this obligation to work, that so many rich americans come to europe, where they find some scattered remains of aristocratic society, amongst which idleness is still held in honor.
equality of conditions not only ennobles the notion of labor in men's estimation, but it raises the notion of labor as a source of profit. in aristocracies it is not exactly labor that is despised, but labor with a view to profit. labor is honorific in itself, when it is undertaken at the sole bidding of ambition or of virtue. yet in aristocratic society it constantly happens that he who works for honor is not insensible to the attractions of profit. but these two desires only intermingle in the innermost depths of his soul: he carefully hides from every eye the point at which they join; he would fain conceal it from himself. in aristocratic countries there are few public officers who do not affect to serve their country without interested motives. their salary is an incident of which they think but little, and of which they always affect not to think at all. thus the notion of profit is kept distinct from that of labor; however they may be united in point of fact, they are not thought of together.
in democratic communities these two notions are, on the contrary, always palpably united. as the desire of well-being is universal—as fortunes are slender or fluctuating—as everyone wants either to increase his own resources, or to provide fresh ones for his progeny, men clearly see that it is profit which, if not wholly, at least partially, leads them to work. even those who are principally actuated by the love of fame are necessarily made familiar with the thought that they are not exclusively actuated by that motive; and they discover that the desire of getting a living is mingled in their minds with the desire of making life illustrious.
as soon as, on the one hand, labor is held by the whole community to be an honorable necessity of man's condition, and, on the other, as soon as labor is always ostensibly performed, wholly or in part, for the purpose of earning remuneration, the immense interval which separated different callings in aristocratic societies disappears. if all are not alike, all at least have one feature in common. no profession exists in which men do not work for money; and the remuneration which is common to them all gives them all an air of resemblance. this serves to explain the opinions which the americans entertain with respect to different callings. in america no one is degraded because he works, for everyone about him works also; nor is anyone humiliated by the notion of receiving pay, for the president of the united states also works for pay. he is paid for commanding, other men for obeying orders. in the united states professions are more or less laborious, more or less profitable; but they are never either high or low: every honest calling is honorable.
