Wealth and rank are obviously related, although not the same. One thing Fischer discusses is that in the 17th Century, rank was seen more in terms of "orders" and "degrees" than wealth. The more materialist concept, equating wealth and rank, began in the 18th Century. Perhaps a more important concept he does not discuss directly is what a society means by equality. He describes at length (later) what the four different cultures meant by liberty. But implied in the text is that there are at least two different concept of equality -- equality of wealth and equality of manners. These things often correlate, but not always.
They correlated fairly well in three of the four societies, but with one striking anomaly.
In Virginia, distribution of wealth was very unequal. A narrow oligarchy owned most of the land and nearly all of the slaves. While there was a middle class of land holding yeoman farmers, they were not numerous. Far more common were landless tenants and migrant laborers. Indeed, in a land with abundant natural resources and a distinct shortage of labor, Virginia nonetheless managed to have a significant number of paupers. And, of course, there were slaves who by definition never owned anything, even themselves. Not surprisingly, rituals of deference were eleborate. Fisher remarks that rituals of deference were more elaborate in the 16th and 17th centuries than at any time before or since.
The Quakers, by contrast, were fierce egalitarians, both in wealth and in manners. They set out to make a deliberate policy of encouraging owner-cultivated family farms of roughly the same size, and of discouraging great landholders, landless tenants, and slaves. About three-fourths of all Virginians came over as indentured servants. While they might serve out their term of indenturement, their chances of advancement were slim to none. Quakers, by contrast, had about half the members of their colony come over as servants, but once their term was complete, they could take their places in general society. Quakers were also shockingly egalitarian in manners. They rejected bowing, curtsying, raising of hats, and all the other elaborate rituals the time, and instead greeted everyone with a handshake. They also dropped the elaborate titles of the day, such as "my lord," "your grace," "your excellency," "master," "mistress," "sir" or "ma'am." Everyone was simply addressed as "Friend." Quaker's famous use of "thou" and "thee" was also originally part of their radical egalitarianism -- they addressed social superiors in the familiar.
The Puritans were somewhere in between. Their goal was to keep something like the society of an East Anglia village, maintaining the social distinctions that would exist within such a society, but excluding both the top and bottom of society that would not be part of their village. This manifested itself in both wealth and manners. Like the Quakers, Puritans set out to create mostly a middle class of family farmers, and to avoid great landlords or landless tenants. The did not, however, divide land equally, but reserved a larger share for more prominent members of society. (The ratio was about 3:1). The Puritans deliberately excluded an aristocracy from their society, so there were no "lords" or "graces," but the leading members of the community were addressed as "your excellency" or "your honor." Gentlefolk were "master" and "mistress." The yeomanry were "goodman" and "goodwife." Only the poor and landless had no titles.
The anomaly was in the back country. Contrary to popular belief, frontier conditions did not make for equality of wealth. Despite abundant land, it was concentrated in relatively few hands, with large numbers of landless tenants. Fischer says the back country had the least equal of all four cultures, but his statistics do not bear this out. Rather, the least equal counties look comparable to the most equal counties in Virginia; while the most equal counties in the back country have wealth distributions similar to Boston, the least equal part of New England. The reason people do not think of Appalachia or the back country in general in those terms is that manners there were very equal, scandalously so to outsiders. People of all ranks addressed one another by their first names. Rank made very little difference in terms of manners, dress or rules of conduct.
They correlated fairly well in three of the four societies, but with one striking anomaly.
In Virginia, distribution of wealth was very unequal. A narrow oligarchy owned most of the land and nearly all of the slaves. While there was a middle class of land holding yeoman farmers, they were not numerous. Far more common were landless tenants and migrant laborers. Indeed, in a land with abundant natural resources and a distinct shortage of labor, Virginia nonetheless managed to have a significant number of paupers. And, of course, there were slaves who by definition never owned anything, even themselves. Not surprisingly, rituals of deference were eleborate. Fisher remarks that rituals of deference were more elaborate in the 16th and 17th centuries than at any time before or since.
The Quakers, by contrast, were fierce egalitarians, both in wealth and in manners. They set out to make a deliberate policy of encouraging owner-cultivated family farms of roughly the same size, and of discouraging great landholders, landless tenants, and slaves. About three-fourths of all Virginians came over as indentured servants. While they might serve out their term of indenturement, their chances of advancement were slim to none. Quakers, by contrast, had about half the members of their colony come over as servants, but once their term was complete, they could take their places in general society. Quakers were also shockingly egalitarian in manners. They rejected bowing, curtsying, raising of hats, and all the other elaborate rituals the time, and instead greeted everyone with a handshake. They also dropped the elaborate titles of the day, such as "my lord," "your grace," "your excellency," "master," "mistress," "sir" or "ma'am." Everyone was simply addressed as "Friend." Quaker's famous use of "thou" and "thee" was also originally part of their radical egalitarianism -- they addressed social superiors in the familiar.
The Puritans were somewhere in between. Their goal was to keep something like the society of an East Anglia village, maintaining the social distinctions that would exist within such a society, but excluding both the top and bottom of society that would not be part of their village. This manifested itself in both wealth and manners. Like the Quakers, Puritans set out to create mostly a middle class of family farmers, and to avoid great landlords or landless tenants. The did not, however, divide land equally, but reserved a larger share for more prominent members of society. (The ratio was about 3:1). The Puritans deliberately excluded an aristocracy from their society, so there were no "lords" or "graces," but the leading members of the community were addressed as "your excellency" or "your honor." Gentlefolk were "master" and "mistress." The yeomanry were "goodman" and "goodwife." Only the poor and landless had no titles.
The anomaly was in the back country. Contrary to popular belief, frontier conditions did not make for equality of wealth. Despite abundant land, it was concentrated in relatively few hands, with large numbers of landless tenants. Fischer says the back country had the least equal of all four cultures, but his statistics do not bear this out. Rather, the least equal counties look comparable to the most equal counties in Virginia; while the most equal counties in the back country have wealth distributions similar to Boston, the least equal part of New England. The reason people do not think of Appalachia or the back country in general in those terms is that manners there were very equal, scandalously so to outsiders. People of all ranks addressed one another by their first names. Rank made very little difference in terms of manners, dress or rules of conduct.
Fischer suggests that people's concepts of deference, like their attitudes toward witchcraft changed with the times. The later migrations, the Quakers and back countrymen, were less rank-obsessed, as rank and rules of deference were beginning to decline. Color me unconvinced. The egalitarian manners of the Quakers and back countrymen scandalized their contemporaries and were seen as radical departures from accepted norms.
The truly striking thing is not just that there are (at least) two different concepts of equality, but that the back country attitude appears to have won out. Americans today are willing to tolerate substantial inequality in wealth. What we are not willing to tolerate is any sort of inequality in manners or any demand to show deference to our "betters."
Next up (perhaps over several posts) order, local government, and concepts of freedom.
No comments:
Post a Comment