Monday, October 04, 2004
- MAJOR ISSUES IN AMERICAN HISTORY
Lecturer: E.F van de Bilt
Gordon Wood: The Radicalism of the American Revolution. How a Revolution Transformed Society into a Democratic One Unlike Any Other That Had Ever Existed. New York: Knopf, 1992, 447 pages.
(See dozens of links here.)
(Reviewed by Agustin – Part I)
First I will review the book itself and then I will just "throw" some issues at this hungry public. In reviewing a book, I find it useful to concentrate on the one, two, three, four major issues raised by the author. In other words, I rarely follow a chapter-by-chapter approach. This is especially valid in this case, because the main ideas are scattered in different parts of The Radicalism.
After reading a couple of chapters, I admit I was having a hard time making sense of the book. It was only at about page 150 that I said to myself: "Gotcha!" And that's how I began to draw a couple of sketches in order to get a more systematic view of the argument.
Sketch 1: The Dynamic Forces
Right in the middle of the eighteenth century, says Wood, a contradiction was taking place between what he calls a de facto republican society and a hierarchical culture. This de facto republican society was the product of two "dynamic forces": (a) the availability of cheap land; (b) the demographic explosion.
Already, Wood is making a major statement: the American Revolution is an ongoing process, not a sudden crisis. This means that the people -the ordinary men and women who buy and sell land and who are constantly on the move- find themselves in the driver's seat.
Had the Revolution been a sudden crisis, leaders -not the people- would have been considered the key actors. Thus we can identify here, at this early stage of the book, one of the points to be discussed later: the people v. leaders.
Also, note the importance of the so-called "dynamic forces" (essentially, economic factors). It means that other possible explanations of the American Revolution --based, for example, on constitutional or even on religious factors-- will take the back seat.
- Abundance of Cheap Land. The 1763 Peace Treaty with France meant that an additional half-billion acres (especially in the Ohio valley) were made available to the colonists.
- Demographic Explosion. Driven by organic growth (larger families supported) and by immigration. Total population: 1750, 1 million; 1770, 2 million; 1790, 4 million. In North Carolina, the population increased by a factor of 6 between 1750 and 1775.
Sketch 1: A Hierarchical Culture.
"We will never appreciate the radicalism of the 18th century idea that all men are created equal unless we see it within this age-old difference" (Wood says that people were thought to be physically different!)
Aristocrats considered themselves the custodians of morals, the only fit to lead in war, arts, government. In Virginia, 1 in 25 adult white males was acknowledged as a gentleman. The rest was widely described as "the mob", "the herd", "the unthinking mob", "the ignorant vulgar", etc.
The bottom line, says Gordon Wood, is that all people were created unequal. Here are some examples:
. Juries: "Seats on the Virginia Grand Juries were perpetuated within families almost as frequently as seats on the county courts" (p. 84). In 1759, 11 justices of the peace resigned because of the appointement of one member of "the vulgar."
. Women. Women lacked an idependent existence, at least in law (p.49.) "Most husbands in their wills refused to give their wives outright ownership of their landed estates; at best the wife got a life-use of the estate." (p.49).
. Children. Treated like the property of their parents.
. Slaves. "The most severe patriarchal authority" (p. 51.)
. Law. Harsher punishments, in murder cases, for: (a) a servant who kills his master; (b) a wife who kills her husband.
The word "hierarchy" (and its variations) gets 54 mentions, or 2.8 times/chapter on average. "Dependence" (and its variations) gets 61 mentions, or 3.2 times/chapter. Finally, "paternalism" (and its variations) shows up as much as 70 times (3.7 times/chapter on average.) On the other hand, other issues usually analyzed by historians of the American Revolution -such as, for example, the Bill of Rights- are barely mentioned.
This is particularly revealing. It means that constitutional and war-related issues are relegated to a very minor role. Thus, says Wood: "The problems of American politics were at bottom neither imperial nor constitutional but social" (p.122.)
Sketch 1: The Clash.
Here’s what I call Gordon Wood’s astonishing insight: trade and consumption created a new culture. What does he mean by that? Because of the frenzy of buying, selling and consuming, social relations change. With the growth of commercial exchanges, people begin to see each other as equal counterparts in commercial transactions -- not as superior v. inferiors.
This is best understood with a couple of examples. The most telling example the case of Horace Mann and his family, in Southeastern Massachusetts. Mann works on the farm. One day, his wife sees a market opportunity: Why not manufacture ladies' hats? Pretty soon, Ms. Mann finds herself producing 6000 hats/year -- and making more money than her husband.
Examples such as this show that the growth of internal trade was putting considerable pressure on the paternalistic culture of the colonies. Gordon Wood warns the reader about the difficulty –in today's democratic societies- of really grasping the importance of what was then going on.
That is why I decided to break one of the golden rules of a book review, and to illustrate the author's idea with a couple of examples from outside the book. I think they adequatly illustrate Wood's theory in a more current context. The first example comes from India. A month ago I was watching a CNN Special on "Outsourcing in India", with journalist Thomas Friedman.
Friedman went to India to interview people from the other side of the outsourcing controversy. He met two sisters who worked at a call center in Bangalore. He had dinner with the women and their family. The father admitted that his daughters were making more money than he was. Now, that’s a cultural shock -- especially in India. Says Friedman:
"These are young college grads, most of these kids, who aren't engineers. They could never get jobs, not for $200 to $300 a month, which is the starting pay in a call center without this opportunity. And what this has given them is really a chance to grab the first rung of the ladder. A lot of them on the side are studying for MBAs or other college degrees. Some of them are now supporting their family. Many of them, their starting salary is more than their parents' retiring salary."
The second example comes from China. An editorial of the Financial Times (September 20, 2004) warned China about the need to modernize its political system: "…the openness to the outside world that comes with economic growth makes the secrecy and intrigue of Communist party politics an uncomfortable anachronism."
This is exactly the kind of conflict between a hierarchical culture and an expanding economy that Gordon Wood envisages in his analysis of revolutionary America. Examples from China are particularly interesting because many commentators compare today's economic boom in China with the American Wild West of the late eighteenth century and the early nineteenth century.
Thus James Glassman, a scholar with the American Enterprise Institute, describes Chinas as "a free-wheeling business atmosphere, much as I imagine America was in the days of the wild west."
A recent issue of Fortune magazine, devoted to China, has a section on the city of Chionqing, describing it as "The New Wild West." The new generation of Chinese children are seen as "little emperors" accustomed to buy and sell over the Internet, and to follow their own tastes in consumption matters. This is bound to have some serious consequences later on, as they will likely rebel against any patriarchal authority (see here Fortune's Photo Essay.)
The third and last example comes from the economics of slums. An economist from Peru, Hernando de Soto, has studied the similarities between the history of property rights in the American Revolution and the current situation in slums worldwide.
Let's imagine for a minute that the University of Amsterdam is a slum and that this room is my physical possession, but not my legal property. Now, I am an entrepreneur, and I need capital. Because I lack a formal title to my piece of land, I cannot use it as a collateral for a loan.
In other words, I do not have access to formal, impersonal credit markets. I have to rely on personal relations: an uncle, a friend, or some kind of tribal leader. In that case, the cost of capital will be very high (bank credit is much cheaper because banks have access to large pools of savings.)
This is exactly what Gordon Wood has in mind when he describes American credit markets in the second half of the eighteenth century: "Without banks, without many impersonal sources of credit … most economic exchanges in the colonies had to be personal, between people who knew each other." (p. 67)
End of Sketch 1
People who are free of dependent connections and influence are called patriots. They want to bring American culture more into line with society. On the other hand, people whose rank came artificially from above are called courtiers. They yearn for a more stringent hierarchical and patriarchal society. The two views are mutually incompatible.
In the end, patriots won. The British system, based on a strictly hierarchical culture where offices were almost hereditary and social authority was incontestable, could not prevail in America. But why? Gordon Wood states two different types of reasons. First, geography played an important role. Britain was an island, with only so much free land available.
America, on the other hand, was a continent, with a limitless supply of free land. This provided a perfect situation for people to move, to buy and to sell, to produce and to consume -- exactly the kind of environment that creates a republican culture.
Culture was important too: America was a loosely hierarchical society. Says Wood: "Most colonial aristocrats were never able to dominate their localities to the extent that English aristocrats did" (p. 115)
(More material coming soon.)
Lecturer: E.F van de Bilt
Gordon Wood: The Radicalism of the American Revolution. How a Revolution Transformed Society into a Democratic One Unlike Any Other That Had Ever Existed. New York: Knopf, 1992, 447 pages.
(See dozens of links here.)
(Reviewed by Agustin – Part I)
First I will review the book itself and then I will just "throw" some issues at this hungry public. In reviewing a book, I find it useful to concentrate on the one, two, three, four major issues raised by the author. In other words, I rarely follow a chapter-by-chapter approach. This is especially valid in this case, because the main ideas are scattered in different parts of The Radicalism.
After reading a couple of chapters, I admit I was having a hard time making sense of the book. It was only at about page 150 that I said to myself: "Gotcha!" And that's how I began to draw a couple of sketches in order to get a more systematic view of the argument.
Sketch 1: The Dynamic Forces
Right in the middle of the eighteenth century, says Wood, a contradiction was taking place between what he calls a de facto republican society and a hierarchical culture. This de facto republican society was the product of two "dynamic forces": (a) the availability of cheap land; (b) the demographic explosion.
Already, Wood is making a major statement: the American Revolution is an ongoing process, not a sudden crisis. This means that the people -the ordinary men and women who buy and sell land and who are constantly on the move- find themselves in the driver's seat.
Had the Revolution been a sudden crisis, leaders -not the people- would have been considered the key actors. Thus we can identify here, at this early stage of the book, one of the points to be discussed later: the people v. leaders.
Also, note the importance of the so-called "dynamic forces" (essentially, economic factors). It means that other possible explanations of the American Revolution --based, for example, on constitutional or even on religious factors-- will take the back seat.
- Abundance of Cheap Land. The 1763 Peace Treaty with France meant that an additional half-billion acres (especially in the Ohio valley) were made available to the colonists.
- Demographic Explosion. Driven by organic growth (larger families supported) and by immigration. Total population: 1750, 1 million; 1770, 2 million; 1790, 4 million. In North Carolina, the population increased by a factor of 6 between 1750 and 1775.
Sketch 1: A Hierarchical Culture.
"We will never appreciate the radicalism of the 18th century idea that all men are created equal unless we see it within this age-old difference" (Wood says that people were thought to be physically different!)
Aristocrats considered themselves the custodians of morals, the only fit to lead in war, arts, government. In Virginia, 1 in 25 adult white males was acknowledged as a gentleman. The rest was widely described as "the mob", "the herd", "the unthinking mob", "the ignorant vulgar", etc.
The bottom line, says Gordon Wood, is that all people were created unequal. Here are some examples:
. Juries: "Seats on the Virginia Grand Juries were perpetuated within families almost as frequently as seats on the county courts" (p. 84). In 1759, 11 justices of the peace resigned because of the appointement of one member of "the vulgar."
. Women. Women lacked an idependent existence, at least in law (p.49.) "Most husbands in their wills refused to give their wives outright ownership of their landed estates; at best the wife got a life-use of the estate." (p.49).
. Children. Treated like the property of their parents.
. Slaves. "The most severe patriarchal authority" (p. 51.)
. Law. Harsher punishments, in murder cases, for: (a) a servant who kills his master; (b) a wife who kills her husband.
The word "hierarchy" (and its variations) gets 54 mentions, or 2.8 times/chapter on average. "Dependence" (and its variations) gets 61 mentions, or 3.2 times/chapter. Finally, "paternalism" (and its variations) shows up as much as 70 times (3.7 times/chapter on average.) On the other hand, other issues usually analyzed by historians of the American Revolution -such as, for example, the Bill of Rights- are barely mentioned.
This is particularly revealing. It means that constitutional and war-related issues are relegated to a very minor role. Thus, says Wood: "The problems of American politics were at bottom neither imperial nor constitutional but social" (p.122.)
Sketch 1: The Clash.
Here’s what I call Gordon Wood’s astonishing insight: trade and consumption created a new culture. What does he mean by that? Because of the frenzy of buying, selling and consuming, social relations change. With the growth of commercial exchanges, people begin to see each other as equal counterparts in commercial transactions -- not as superior v. inferiors.
This is best understood with a couple of examples. The most telling example the case of Horace Mann and his family, in Southeastern Massachusetts. Mann works on the farm. One day, his wife sees a market opportunity: Why not manufacture ladies' hats? Pretty soon, Ms. Mann finds herself producing 6000 hats/year -- and making more money than her husband.
Examples such as this show that the growth of internal trade was putting considerable pressure on the paternalistic culture of the colonies. Gordon Wood warns the reader about the difficulty –in today's democratic societies- of really grasping the importance of what was then going on.
That is why I decided to break one of the golden rules of a book review, and to illustrate the author's idea with a couple of examples from outside the book. I think they adequatly illustrate Wood's theory in a more current context. The first example comes from India. A month ago I was watching a CNN Special on "Outsourcing in India", with journalist Thomas Friedman.
Friedman went to India to interview people from the other side of the outsourcing controversy. He met two sisters who worked at a call center in Bangalore. He had dinner with the women and their family. The father admitted that his daughters were making more money than he was. Now, that’s a cultural shock -- especially in India. Says Friedman:
"These are young college grads, most of these kids, who aren't engineers. They could never get jobs, not for $200 to $300 a month, which is the starting pay in a call center without this opportunity. And what this has given them is really a chance to grab the first rung of the ladder. A lot of them on the side are studying for MBAs or other college degrees. Some of them are now supporting their family. Many of them, their starting salary is more than their parents' retiring salary."
The second example comes from China. An editorial of the Financial Times (September 20, 2004) warned China about the need to modernize its political system: "…the openness to the outside world that comes with economic growth makes the secrecy and intrigue of Communist party politics an uncomfortable anachronism."
This is exactly the kind of conflict between a hierarchical culture and an expanding economy that Gordon Wood envisages in his analysis of revolutionary America. Examples from China are particularly interesting because many commentators compare today's economic boom in China with the American Wild West of the late eighteenth century and the early nineteenth century.
Thus James Glassman, a scholar with the American Enterprise Institute, describes Chinas as "a free-wheeling business atmosphere, much as I imagine America was in the days of the wild west."
A recent issue of Fortune magazine, devoted to China, has a section on the city of Chionqing, describing it as "The New Wild West." The new generation of Chinese children are seen as "little emperors" accustomed to buy and sell over the Internet, and to follow their own tastes in consumption matters. This is bound to have some serious consequences later on, as they will likely rebel against any patriarchal authority (see here Fortune's Photo Essay.)
The third and last example comes from the economics of slums. An economist from Peru, Hernando de Soto, has studied the similarities between the history of property rights in the American Revolution and the current situation in slums worldwide.
Let's imagine for a minute that the University of Amsterdam is a slum and that this room is my physical possession, but not my legal property. Now, I am an entrepreneur, and I need capital. Because I lack a formal title to my piece of land, I cannot use it as a collateral for a loan.
In other words, I do not have access to formal, impersonal credit markets. I have to rely on personal relations: an uncle, a friend, or some kind of tribal leader. In that case, the cost of capital will be very high (bank credit is much cheaper because banks have access to large pools of savings.)
This is exactly what Gordon Wood has in mind when he describes American credit markets in the second half of the eighteenth century: "Without banks, without many impersonal sources of credit … most economic exchanges in the colonies had to be personal, between people who knew each other." (p. 67)
End of Sketch 1
People who are free of dependent connections and influence are called patriots. They want to bring American culture more into line with society. On the other hand, people whose rank came artificially from above are called courtiers. They yearn for a more stringent hierarchical and patriarchal society. The two views are mutually incompatible.
In the end, patriots won. The British system, based on a strictly hierarchical culture where offices were almost hereditary and social authority was incontestable, could not prevail in America. But why? Gordon Wood states two different types of reasons. First, geography played an important role. Britain was an island, with only so much free land available.
America, on the other hand, was a continent, with a limitless supply of free land. This provided a perfect situation for people to move, to buy and to sell, to produce and to consume -- exactly the kind of environment that creates a republican culture.
Culture was important too: America was a loosely hierarchical society. Says Wood: "Most colonial aristocrats were never able to dominate their localities to the extent that English aristocrats did" (p. 115)
(More material coming soon.)
# posted by Agustin @ 4:59 PM 
