163
labour; 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 every one 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, labour is held by the whole community to be an honourable necessity of man's condition—and on the other, as soon as labour 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 every one about him works also; nor is any one 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 honourable.
