Thursday, January 24, 2013
Initial Thoughts on Gordon Wood
I have done some pre-reading of Gordon Wood and wanted to throw some thoughts out and see what sticks. I first thumbed through the index and found most of the entries that had the most attention throughout the book were not surprising. Names like Jefferson, Washington, and Addams I was expecting to see the most attention to. However, the term society shows up a great amount as well and I guess that surprised me a bit more. I then looked at the Table of Contents and it seemed that the organization of the material seemed to address the history chronologically. I then looked at the introduction and I began to see why the term society came up so much in the index. For me it seemed that Wood was arguing that while the Revolution was not a social revolution in the same context of the French or Communist Revolution in China, it was still very much a social revolution in that the social environment in the colonies was turned on its head. I think that argument is compelling because most of what I have thought about the American Revolution was in terms of political change. I am looking forward to the actual reading. Let me know what you guys think.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
When I was doing my pre-reading I too was surprised by how much focus was placed on society in the index. I also found it interesting that while there was some focus on labor ans slavery there is not a great deal on it over all. Which is not surprising because Wood states that while it is important to understand the parts it is equally as important to understand the whole.
ReplyDeleteI think if you look at the structure of the book, as evidenced in the table of contents, that you will find this observation strengthened.
ReplyDeleteMy focus was on radicalism, and he expounded on the radical changes in society, economics, and politics in Post-Revolutionary War America brought on by the American Revolution. On major radical change was the equality of men (except for changes in slavery and positions of women) in that the common man had a chance to hold office and the opportunity to work for profit and gain weatlh. The economy based on the exchange of goods created the Middle Class, a radical societal change that impacted the world. Also another radical change was how the Post-Revolutionary War ideals of democracy allowed opportunity for the common man to participate in the process of government, a Jeffersonial ideal that was in contrast with the Federalist ideals led by Alexander Hamilton. Now the author states the the American Revolution was radical in spite of its lack of motivation to end slavery immediately. The author stated that the American Revolution would serve later as the impetus to Black slaves and women receiving their equalities and freedoms at a later date.
ReplyDeleteRadicalism stood out to me too. Wood is persuasive in showing how "interest" became the unifying characteristic of US society. Certainly from our perspective in the 21st century it appears that there is some validity to his claim. I think it is interesting - and perhaps a useful tool - that Wood occassionally reminds the reader that we fail to recognize the radical nature of this change because it is so normal for us. His take on the revolution certainly makes it appear more radical than the "we beat the British and became independent" storyline that I learned - and taught - at the undergraduate level. Sounds radical to me.
ReplyDeleteAs I usually get my reading recommendations from Matt Damon movies, I couldn't help but notice that Damon doesn't just go on a diatribe about Gordon Wood in "Good Will Hunting", but Howard Zinn as well. I find this interesting, as Zinn's work seems to fly in direct opposition to Wood's argument. Especially in reference to the shift in social order between generations, Zinn claims that Wood's argument is essentially wrong since a revolution by elites is inherently not radical. Wood's argument that empirical shifts in social relations between the 17th and 18th centuries is proof in and of itself of a radical revolution seems to be a different argument from Zinn altogether, who appears to be making more of a philosophical argument about the nature of revolution. Or am I WAY off here?
ReplyDelete