TOUGH TO SURVIVE

 

The last posting, “Within These Walls,” reviewed the first of three political subcultures Daniel Elazar[1] identifies as coexisting within the US.  That is the individualistic subculture.  Yet to be described is the moralistic, the topic of this posting, and the traditionalistic.  Whereas the individualistic takes a market-oriented view of politics, the moralistic subculture sees politics quite differently.  As with the individualistic, this posting, after reviewing the moralistic elements, will apply George Lakoff’s models of socialization[2] to those elements.

          The moralistic characteristics according to Elazar are:

1.    A political career is seen as a great calling.  It is the opportunity to do things for the betterment of the commonweal.

2.    The emphasis is the commonweal, i.e., the search for the good society.  There seems to be the claim that individual welfare, ambitions, and efforts only make sense through the individual’s work within institutions.  Strong institutions lend to the advancement of the good society.[3]

3.    The values of honesty, selflessness, and commitment are emphasized.  In addition, citizens are admonished that it is their duty to participate in the public politics of the community.  They reject the notion that politics is the opportunity for some to advance their self-interest and/or their careers.

4.    The community bias leads to localism.  The good society is a function of people getting involved and sharing in the responsibility of improving their local communities.

In line with these elements, the moralistic subculture does place on the citizenry certain moral expectations.

Initially, that moralistic view was mostly defined by Puritanical theology as the settlers of primarily New England first established a highly sectarian view of politics – so profound, that contemporary writer, Margaret Atwood, describes early colonial origin not as a democracy, but a repressive theocracy.[4]  This writer acknowledges repressive policies (of note the discriminatory policies against women) but takes issue with the extent of that comment.  A closer look seems to be prudent.

Contextually, here is an overall view of these early settlers’ environment,

 

Because the soil was rocky and the climate was often harsh, colonists in New England only farmed enough to feed their families. Some of these crops included corn, beans, and squash. The New England colonies, however, were full of forests, giving the colonists the important natural resource of trees. These trees [eventually] provided wood that colonists were able to use to build homes, buildings, and ships. Lumber became very important to the shipbuilding industry because they built ships for the colonies. Ships and lumber were also exported to England. Also, because the New England colonies were along the coast, many colonists fished. The fishing industry included whaling and cod, among other types of fish. Whale oil was an important resource that was used as fuel for lamps and could also be sold. Because the New England colonies focused on the shipbuilding and fishing industries, they imported agricultural products (farm products) from other colonies and England.[5]

 

All this economic activity took time and discipline to establish and as George Santayana[6] points out, they were well served by the discipline their Puritanical beliefs provided.  But as for their democratic character, here are the structural elements of their governance:

·      The colony was first established under a charter issued to the Massachusetts Bay Company and initially, only those stockholders, “freemen,” who made the trip over had voting rights.

·      First meeting in August 1630, the freemen selected a governor, John Winthrop, a deputy governor, and seven assistants with the power to enact colonial laws.  This body also served as judges and eventually the highest court of appeals.  Collectively, it was called the General Court.

·      From its beginning, the Court invited the public to attend their meetings and Winthrop secured that all the attending males be named freemen.  That meant they were allowed to vote on whether or not they consented to who was chosen as an assistant and who, in turn, selected the governor and deputies.  Winthrop also encouraged that the decisions the Court made have the full agreement of those being governed.

·      While they held the general belief in separation of church and state, there was not the belief in a separation between state and God and, therefore, restricted voting rights to members of the Congregational Church.  It should be remembered that Calvinists such as Puritans “reformed” themselves against Catholicism and Anglicanism in that these other religions were/are hierarchical with either the pope or the monarch at the head of those churches.

·      As this system of governance evolved, it could be described as somewhat restrictive in terms of membership but by the 1640s, there were definite provisions for a separation of power (a two-house legislature), and the allowance of non-church members to petition the government and participate in various governmental processes.  When compared with England, the colonists could boast a higher percentage of their population participating and being allowed to vote as a right.

·      And with this participation, the early settlers developed a healthy skepticism of governmental officials and the workings of their government.[7]

Again, in relation to the Atwood comment, while the colonial experience of New England would, by modern standards, be considered a theocracy, one is best served by viewing their early efforts as developmental steps toward what democracy would eventually come to be.

          What of Lakoff models of political socialization?  One can definitely see the strict father model in a strong mode of operation.  But taken in the context of the environment that these settlers had to contend with, one – at least this blogger – stands in awe of how democratic they pushed their governance to be.  As such, in line with the argument this blogger presented in the last posting, these New Englanders did not view governance and politics along familial terms, be it strict father or nurturant parent.

What one can ascribe to these settlers – and through the leadership of Winthrop – a definite sense of partnership emerged.  To the extent it did, the whole idea of analogizing their efforts as a family just does not fit.  And as a non-family set-up and given the paucity of manipulable spoils available, one can only assume the motivation these settlers had in their deliberations was to further the common good and to exemplify the attributes Elazar identifies in his moralistic subculture designation.

          Yes, there was the Roger Williams case in 1636, but that case serves as the outer limit of Massachusetts’ tolerance for divergent views at that time.  To remind the reader, he preached religious tolerance and criticized the confiscation of Native American land.  He was cast out of the Bay Colony and went on to establish Rhode Island.[8]  Not a proudful episode, but no polity lives up to its espoused values all the time and, in the case of the Puritans, one can see it as a time of experimentation as they were developing what democracy would come to mean.

          What begs the question, if one accepts this positive image of the Puritans, is:  what would have been an effective socialization approach to encourage the younger generation to carry on what the initial settlers began?  There is evidence that the second-generation members were already rebelling to some degree against the harsher tenor of their parents. 

As just mentioned, Roger Williams and then Anne Hutchinson demonstrated that not everyone was willing to go along with the strict tenets of belief Winthrop and the General Court promoted.  While Massachusetts and the other New England colonies were noted for their Puritanical beliefs, some degree of softening transpired as the years progressed.  Eventually, the influence of the Enlightenment and later transcendentalism would further secularize their governance.

For a well-rounded but concise account of the social life in Puritan New England, the reader is guided to the site, “Puritan Life,” provided by U.S. History.org.[9]  One thing one can say, as Santayana describes, the discipline of the Puritans did lead to a successful economy, high literacy, and longer lives.  That is, it provided for successful settlements in terms of their survival and advancement.

In the next posting, this blog will review the traditionalistic subculture of the South.

---

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

[2] George Lakoff, Moral Politics:  How Liberals and Conservatives Think (Chicago, IL:  The University of Chicago Press, 2002).  And to read this blog’s report on Lakoff’s models, see Robert Gutierrez, “To Be Strict or Nurturing,” Gravitas:  A Voice for Civics, a blog (December 24, 2021), accessed December 31, 2021, http://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2021_12_19_archive.html .

[3] Robert N. Bellah, Richard Madsen, William M. Sullivan, Ann Swidler, and Steven M. Tipton, The Good Society (New York, NY:  Alfred A. Knopf, 1991).

[4] Margaret Atwood (an interview), Amanpour and Company, PBS (December 8, 2021).

[5] “New England Colonies,” Colonial America (Article 4, 1630-1638), n.d., accessed December 29, 2021, https://ca01000317.schoolwires.net/cms/lib/CA01000317/Centricity/Domain/146/New%20England%20Colonies.pdf .

[6] George Santayana, “The Genteel Tradition in American Philosophy,” The Annals of America, vol. 13 (Chicago, IL:  Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc, 1968), 277-288.

[7] “Puritan Massachusetts:  Theocracy or Democracy?,” Bill of Rights in Action (Constitutional Rights Foundation), 29, 1 (Fall, 2013), accessed December 29, 2021, https://www.crf-usa.org/images/pdf/gates/puritans-of-mass.pdf

[8] “Rhode Island Banished from Massachusetts,” This Day in History/The History Channel (n.d.), accessed December 30, 2021, https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/rhode-island-founder-banished-from-massachusetts.

[9] “Puritan Life,” The New England Colonies/U.S. History.org (n.d.), accessed December 30, 2021, https://www.ushistory.org/us/3d.asp .