BRIMSTONE VS. GENTILITY

This blog has made the argument that a federalist view, more than any other, was the dominant view of governance and politics.  What does that mean?  With this posting, the blog will sort out this claim.  What it does not mean, as the use of the term, dominant, indicates, is that it was not the only view among early Americans.

Hopefully, after reading this and subsequent postings, the reader can attain a rounded understanding of the early thinking of colonists and of the citizenry of the new American republic.  This writer relies on a number of scholars to stitch together a description of these foundational thoughts, developments, and policy decisions; among them is philosopher George Santayana, political scientist Daniel J. Elazar, and political theorist/philosopher Michael J. Sandel.

In 1911, George Santayana, famous for the quote, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it,” published an address, “The Genteel Tradition in American Philosophy.”[1] To begin, Santayana points out that since the earliest days of the nation, there has been a two-sided Christian view which has molded a lot of our social and political thought:  a fire-and-brimstone Calvinist view and a gentler message known as social transcendentalism.

The Calvinist view bolstered a concern for the ravages of sin and expressed itself as an “agonized conscience.” The gentler side promoted an imported, social philosophy.  Social transcendentalism, which developed more formally in Europe during the eighteenth century, augmented a more self-enhancing message.  A review of both allows one an insight into an early American tension that played out within most Americans and among them in local community settings.

Calvinism pushed Americans to be disciplined and promoted a moral standing to hard work which resulted in a discipline necessary to tame a frontier environment. The harsh conditions and its dangers were met by a people armed with a view of life and morality suited to meet the challenges. So successful was this mental and emotional framework that it became victimized by the success it allowed these settlers to achieve.

And while many of the Calvinist mentality has mellowed or diminished, Americans are still seen as a hard-working people.  As the demands of the frontier environment subsided, Americans, with a prosperous economy and material security, began to have available the finer things of life.

They found it difficult to maintain the stricter way of living, at least to the levels they endured earlier. Oh, there were attempts to refuel it with movements such as the Great Awakening in the 1730s – Calvinism did not disappear – but it lost its more stringent character by the late eighteenth century and early nineteenth century.[2]

An influential aspect of the Calvinist past was the development of congregations. From America’s earliest settlements, this form of social arrangement, the congregational model, characterized how Americans organized themselves.  And with this bias, the nation’s view of federalism was initially formed.

Key to this was organizing agreements among settlers through the utilization of covenants, sets of communal commitments by the settlers which established the basic social and political arrangements of the group. These instruments were formalized as written agreement(s) in the form of a charter or a constitution. To solidify this important promise to each other, the settlers called on God to witness the agreement.[3]  This aspect is developed further in future postings.

Due to diminishing harshness, transcendentalism became prominent. Leading this movement in the nineteenth century, Ralph Waldo Emerson helped define transcendentalism for Americans by activating a Kantian tradition called “systemic subjectivism.”  This was a more individualist turn, especially as compared with Calvinist thought.

Emerson strongly promoted a self-initiative bias which was highly valued in a mostly frontier nation. The quality was easily integrated into a romanticized version of Yankee lore and was instrumental in adopting Lockean ideas (which has been explained in previous postings).  But it should be remembered that Emerson’s influence does not make itself known until the mid-1800s and significantly after the Calvinist influence had been well-established.

Two characteristics were emphasized in this transcendental vision: emphasis on present needs and the importance of the will over the intellect – action over thinking.  And so, the major challenging view to a communal bias was introduced in a social and somewhat economic sense.

As opposed to the earlier Calvinist focus on evil, transcendental thought seemed to have a blind eye for it and rhapsodized an up-beat disposition and optimism. To Emerson, these dispositions translated themselves into confidence or trust in oneself, in one's ability.

Along with confidence came a positive self-definition and a faith in intuition: “the perspective of knowledge as they radiate from the self.”[4]  But this view of Emerson is getting a bit ahead of the story, but serves as backdrop for what will transpire around the years of the early republic.  After the foundational generation gave the nation its constitution (along with the Declaration of Independence), there began an increasing, over time, acceptance of individualism.

Summarily, an imbalance seemed to emerge and the challenging perspective became noteworthy; this less humble view stood in counter distinction to Calvinism.  Among the turmoil associated with an emerging nation, two competing social perspectives took root:  one, a lure for the marketplace, and two, a commonweal view, a much more communal orientation.  Each of these views would compete among the people and even within a person’s perceptions.

The marketplace view defines citizens according to their role in the bargaining processes of the market. In this view, each person seeks his or her own self-interest. On the other hand, in the commonweal view, citizens are having, among themselves, undivided interests. This tension took on different styles among the various regions of the nation and, according to Elazar, led to the evolution of three distinct political subcultures in America.[5]

Here, it is necessary to explain that this overall cultural diversity is presented in relative terms.  Each of the regions did and does exhibit the various listed cultural traits and beliefs to stronger or lesser degrees than what had been found in the other regions.  For example, the anti-communal traits exhibited in the mid-Atlantic colonies and then states are by degree stronger in that region.  But one can still detect an overall political culture characterizing the whole American nation.

In sharing a short description of each, to be provided in the next posting, of the three sub-cultures, the effort will begin with a review of the first of these which was introduced with the Pilgrims and Puritans in the New England colonies.  They were influential beyond their numbers in that their biased view of government and politics became the dominant view.  That view remained dominant till World War II.

In the next posting, this blog will compare the lists of beliefs that the subsequent subcultures developed in the different regions of the nation.  Specifically, it will compare the moralistic beliefs that are derived from the Calvinist tradition and the individualistic beliefs that are derived from the transcendental tradition.  There is another tradition, but that is limited to the southeast states of the old Confederacy.  What has resulted is an intriguing story – stay tuned.

---

[1] George Santayana, “The Genteel Tradition in American Philosophy,” in The Annals of America, vol. 13, (Chicago, IL: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1968/1911) eds. Charles Van Doren and Mortimer J. Adler, 277-288.

[2] Daniel N. Robinson, American Ideals:  Founding a “Republic of Virtue,” [a transcript book], (Chantilly, VA:  The Teaching Company/The Great Courses, 2004).

[3] Daniel J. Elazar, “Federal Models of (Civil) Authority,” Journal of Church and State, 33, (Spring, 1991):  231-254.

[4] George Santayana, “The Genteel Tradition in American Philosophy,” 281.

[5] Daniel J. Elazar, American Federalism: A View from the States, (New York, NY: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1966).

AN EARLY HERO: TOCQUEVILLE

“I’m no good at being noble, but it doesn’t take much to see that the problems of three little people don’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world.” – Casablanca (film, 1942)

With this posting, the favored construct this blog is dedicated to promoting is introduced.  Naturally, the blog has described and explained this construct in various ways.  But the writer feels it is time to again review its basic elements.  He has named this construct federation theory or federation pedagogy, and makes the claim that an earlier version of this construct served as the dominant political perspective of Americans over most of this nation’s history. 

This review will begin with an account of that earlier version, traditional federalism, and describes how it views good citizenship.  This posting will describe the political culture that was inspired by and, in turn, supported this political construct.  This will lead, in subsequent postings, into describing its role in the development of the nation’s constitutional mindset. 

It lost its dominance in the years following World War II.  This review will provide, in no order, answers to the three organizing questions that are applied to the two constructs already described:  what is the construct’s view of morality; what is the construct’s view of government and politics; and what is the construct’s view of its role in promoting the common good?

Traditional federalism is of course a version of federalism.  But federalism here is not portrayed as it is usually described:  a structural arrangement among governments that ban together and form a central government.  Instead, it is primarily described and explained as one of various ways of attaining civic humanism (a term to be defined in subsequent postings, but having to do with a collaborative citizenry).   In short, it is a view of governance that furthers a polity being federated among its members.

It is through a striving for a civic humanism that the construct aims at establishing, supporting, and maintaining social capital.  A sense of what civic humanism is can be derived from an account of early American life.  One, in reviewing the natural rights construct, senses a bias against history; in fact, many consider positivist study, its main methodology, to be ahistorical. 

Not so with federation theory; it embraces history.  Historically, then, trying to gauge what traditional federalism holds as moral can be sensed by seeing how Americans interacted in the 1830s.  Here, an extended citation is offered from a book written by the French political writer, Alexis de Tocqueville. 

The citation reads as follows:

It is not impossible to form an imaginary picture of the surpassing liberty which the Americans enjoy; some idea may likewise be formed of the extreme equality which subsists amongst them.  But the political activity which pervades the United States must be seen in order to be understood.  No sooner do you set foot upon the American soil than you are stunned by a kind of tumult; a confused clamour is heard on every side; and a thousand simultaneous voices demand the immediate satisfaction of their social wants.  Everything is in motion around you; here, the people of one quarter of a town are met to decide upon the building of a church; there, the election of a representative is going on; a little further, the delegates of a district are traveling in a hurry to the town in order to consult upon some local improvements; or in another place the labourers of a village quit their ploughs to deliberate upon the project of a road or a public school.  Meetings are called for the sole purpose of declaring their disapprobation of the line of conduct pursued by the Government, whilst in other assemblies the citizens salute the authorities of the day as the fathers of their country.  Societies are formed which regard drunkenness as the principal cause of the evils under which the State labours, and which solemnly bind themselves to give a constant example of temperance.

The great political agitation of the American legislative bodies, which is the only kind of excitement that attracts the attention of foreign countries, is a mere episode or a sort of continuation of that universal movement which originates in the lowest classes of the people and extends successively to all ranks of society.  It is impossible to spend more efforts in the pursuit of enjoyment.

The cares of political life engross a most prominent place in the occupation of a citizen in the United States, and almost the only pleasure of which an American has any idea is to take part in the Government, and to discuss the part he has taken.  This feeling pervades the most trifling habits of life; even the women frequently attend public meetings, and listen to political harangues as a recreation after their household labours.  Debating clubs are to a certain extent a substitute for theatrical entertainments.  An American cannot converse, but he can discuss; and when he attempts to talk he falls into a dissertation.  He speaks to you as if he was addressing a meeting; and if he should chance to warm in the course of the discussion, he will infallibly say “Gentlemen,” to the person with whom he is conversing.[1]

To this writer, this cited passage gives the best description he has ever read of a people politically engaged in the affairs of their communities.  It portrays a sense of citizenship civics teachers should value and strive to instill in their students. 

How accurate is this account?  Tocqueville was a respected professional political writer of his time.  He wrote several famous works.  His account does not exactly mirror the descriptions of Mark Twain, for example, in Huckleberry Finn,[2] but whether Tocqueville is accurate or not, the description above can serve as an ideal – maybe one this nation will never achieve, but one for which it can strive.

The political activity described in the above citation is what this writer has heard the educator, John Patrick, call “hard democracy.”  It surely would not generally describe American discourse today, whether one is referring to how Americans discuss local or national issues.  As such, the description can serve as an ideal.

Why hold this portrait of Americana as an ideal?  If one harkens to the notion of social capital – a concept offered by Robert Putnam[3] – the interactions described in the 1830s have some very worthwhile characteristics.

These include concern for the common good, willingness to participate in and even enjoy the political processes involved in collective endeavors, and be prideful, even perhaps a bit competitive, as each citizen fulfills his/her role in the democratic process.  In addition, though tacit, one can sense a tolerance for those who hold opposing views. 

If a person finds the above description appealing, then he/she will judge federation theory/pedagogy as an amenable construct to guide civics education.  The question then becomes:  how does the nation get there?  How can it adopt such a perspective?  A first step in answering that question is to gain a historical understanding of how this visionary image was functional in the development of this nation’s constitutional principles.

---

[1] Alexi de Tocqueville, “Political Structure of Democracy,” in Alexis de Tocqueville:  On Democracy, Revolution, and Society, ed. John Stone and Stephen Mennell (Chicago, IL:  Chicago University Press, 1980/1835), 78-101, 78-79.

[2] Mark Twain, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, (Westminster/London, GB:  Penguin Classics, 2003/1885).

[3] Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 2000.k