Democracy in America III

In his section about the "administrative instability in the US" de Tocqueville talks about how newspapers are the only records which people can learn about the past from.  He even says "I have no doubt that in fifty years' times it will be harder to collect authentic documents about the details of social life in modern America than about French medieval administration..." (pg. 207).  In this case I think he's referring less to the possibility of better technology and more to the fact that society seems to have the tendency to care less and less about history and the past events of their country and care more and more about the future and looking ahead rather than behind.  He states "Nobody bothers about what was done before his time" (pg. 208).  I agree, but also disagree with de Tocqueville here.  For once I feel like something he's saying is actually somewhat wrong.  I feel like we've, as a society, become more and more aware of the past and what we can learn from it, especially the past of the United States.  The fact that we're reading de Tocqueville's book in 2011 and examining which parts of it are still relevant today is an example of the way we strive to be aware and conscious of the past while learning from the mistakes of other human beings.  I think that's really important to think about and constantly be doing today when it's so easy to dream for the future.  Not that dreaming is bad, but our present is also the future place of someone else's dream.
This section of de Tocqueville's also made me think about how everything is recorded when it comes to the government today.  Like do we have every congressional session on file somewhere?  It'd be interesting to see just how much work goes into the simple task of recording the present for those in the future.  De Tocqueville would certainly be surprised if he could see the technology we have today and how easy it actually would be to find information both about "social life in modern America" and "French medieval administration."

Democracy in America II

"Therefore they have not received their powers; on the contrary, it would seem that they have surrendered a portion of their powers for the benefit of the state; that is an important distinction which the reader should always bear in mind." -Alexis de Tocqueville in Democracy in America (pg. 67)

This quote reminded me of the story I posted last semester about the man in the LAX airport who refused to submit to a security inspection because it violated his rights.  This brought up the issue of giving up certain rights in order to be able to experience freedom from fear (in this instance of traveling nationally).  De Tocqueville brings up the fact that in order for society as a whole to have certain freedoms/privileges, Americans have to first give up an individual freedom.  In turn, they benefit from what the whole society gets when all individuals surrender something.  It's interesting to think about this in terms of morals like De Tocqueville talks about- what do people value more: their individual rights or the rights they, along with the rest of the nation, obtain because of the personal sacrifice of every individual?

Democracy in American I

"The surface of American society is covered with a layer of democratic paint, but from time to time one can see the old aristocratic colors breaking through." -Alexis de Tocqueville in Democracy in America, pg. 49

I love this quote by Tocqueville.  He uses such a good metaphor for this, I guess you could say flaw, of American society.  The example he uses to illustrate this point is with committing a crime and paying bail instead of going to jail.  He argues that the rich can afford the price of bail and in turn, don't have to experience their punishment of prison, but the poor man can't pay the bail, goes to jail, and becomes even poorer because he's not able to work.  De Tocqueville says he sees many other instances of this visible aristocracy in American life- I wonder what his other ideas were.  This particular example reminds me of celebrities and pro athletes that get speeding tickets or commit other crimes and because of their ridiculous wealth, don't have to suffer the consequences of their actions.  For example, Brett Favre's sexting incident cost him $50,000.  This is hardly a slap on the wrist for him, since he makes around $12,000,000 a year.  This provides a modern example of how the "aristocratic colors break through" even today, which also speaks to the continued relevance of de Tocqueville's great work.

Cullen's 3rd Chapter

"In his masterful two-volume study Democracy in America, Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville invented the word "individualism" to describe a new sort of secular striving he observed in the United States and used the term "self-interest rightly understood"- a Franklinesque construction that emphasized the practical value of moral precepts like reciprocity and (temporary) self-denial- as the credo of American life."  Jim Cullen in The American Dream (pg. 69)

This is the sentence that I picked out of Cullen's chapter that I thought was complicated, yet works for the reader.  It's a lengthy sentence that is packed with different ideas and multiple terms necessary in getting his point across while defining those terms and connecting them to people/ideas that he talked about in the text preceding this sentence. Like Hatch and McLoughlin, Cullen emphasizes the way individual, common people obtained agency and started calling the shots instead of clergy and scholars (around the time of the 2nd Great Awakening), but Cullen involves different examples from American history like Franklin and Jackson.  I also liked that he involved the institution of slavery and how that impacted the South's idea of a self-made man and individualism. 
Also, Deane- I went home over the weekend for a family thing and inevitably got stuck in this lovely blizzard.  So if I'm not in class tomorrow, I'm either trying to brave my way back to Northfield or am still stuck in Minneapolis. Just thought you should know. :) 

Pietism & the American Character

"Not only did the Awakening seriously undermine the established church system throughout the colonies but it also undermined the conception of a learned clergy and of rule by the predestined elect." -McLoughlin in "Pietism & the American Character" (pg. 168)

Finally, a connection! In this quote, McLoughlin reiterates exactly what Nathan Hatch was saying in his piece.  The different religious movements changed the understanding of where authority lies.  It shifted from those with clerical status and education to the every day, average person.  I like that McLoughlin mentions the idea of the "Christian Commonwealth" or the Christian "political party."  This shows how much power and influence the Christian community, whether they were "Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Baptists, Separatists, or Methodists."  They would put leaders in office that were part of this Commonwealth and in this way were able to infuse their moral values with the law.  I think they blurred the lines between Church and State here.  They used their new found authority and used it to their advantage in the legislative side of things.  I liked that McLoughlin filled in some of the blanks of Hatch's piece and  points out how exactly the Christians of the 2nd Great Awakening used the power they got once they undermined the clergy and scholars.

The Democratization of Christianity

"The rise of evangelical Christianity in the early republic is, in some measure, a story of the success of common people in shaping the culture after their own priorities rather than the priorities outlined by gentlemen, such as the founding fathers." ~Nathan Hatch in "The Democratization of Christianity, pg. 96

This is the crucial idea of Hatch's argument and I think it's a little bit startling for us to hear "rather than the priorities outlined by gentlemen, such as the founding fathers."  Usually we think of the founding fathers as always right and people we are reverent towards.  It's important to note that these Christian movements were doing the exact opposite, and that is how we have the kind of democratic society we have today.  Life isn't always about following the rules, but thinking for yourself and I enjoyed reading about how a group of plain, ordinary people, like myself, did exactly that in the face of people who were so against it.
In class I would have liked to talk about the "normalizing religion" piece of Opal's sentence and what that idea really is and how this "early republic" would have looked differently, had things gone differently in this time period.

Rapture Culture

"Readers occasionally express anxiety about the influence of secular culture and sometimes roundly condemn it, but rarely does this concern inhibit the buying, renting, or consuming of popular culture in its broadest possible sense.  So-called secular culture mixes readily- at least in practice- with Christian culture, and Left Behind is a significant part of this mix for many...The cultural influences are tangled, and evangelicals rarely separate themselves from popular culture even as they occasionally complain about its immoral content." -Amy Frykholm in "Rapture Culture"

I find this statement by Amy resoundingly true.  I remember when the Left Behind  series started to be ridiculously popular, and my parents along with the rest of our church and other family friends started reading them, discussing them, and passing them along to other people.  The series adapted for children started showing up in the classrooms of the private Christian school I went to through 9th grade (which, for the record, prohibited any of us from reading Harry Potter).  The books were a huge deal and it's interesting to me how much they've disappeared from "Christian conversation" and the circles that my family is still involved in.  Every one was talking about them nonstop for a while, but just like any other trend, their presence and significance has dissipated, in my opinion.  Frykholm's Intro and first chapter were really interesting to me, someone who grew up in a very Christian family and community, due to attending a private Christian school. What she says in the above quote is so true in my family and nearly every other family I know decently well from church or school.  The lines have blurred significantly between the "Christian" subculture that Amy talks about and popular, secular culture.  When she talks about the Left Behind series being one of the first literary works to expose the bluriness of these lines, it made me think of William P. Young's The Shack.  It's also stirred up controversy in Protestant circles and part of the reason for that, I think, is how it's been recognized by secular culture.  It's been all over the shelves in Barnes and Noble and multiple of "non-Christian" places.  I feel like part of the reason these two cultures are coming together is not because popular culture is getting any "better" morally, but because many Christians have started to do what the example of Sarah in the first chapter of Amy's book has done.  What Christians today constitute as a "godly life" is far different from what my grandpa, as a Methodist minister, would have advised.  Maybe this is more the beginning of what Whitman wanted to see in the future when he wrote Democratic Vistas- a basis of religiosity in America, not one big religious group or way of living, but a culture infused with religion and the individual agency of having your own beliefs and deciding for yourself what constitutes a godly life.  This mix of components from a religious culture and from popular culture is really interesting and something that I think will continue to shift and build into something that hasn't been seen in America today.  

"A Women's Awakening"

"By 1838, more than 40% of the converts could be identified as the offspring of this firmly entrenched first generation.  In some cases the lineage of conversion had passed unbroken through each stage of the revival cycle...Oneida County was littered with pamphlets, sermons, and ecclesiastical resolutions testifying to this same religious imperative, devising practical ways to guide a second generation toward salvation and full allegiance to the church of their parents." -Mary P. Ryan

In Mary Ryan's piece, "A Women's Awakening: Evangelical Religion and the Families of Uitca, NY, 1800-1840," she demonstrates the serious importance to the parents of Oneida County after the first revival of the Second Great Awakening of having God-fearing children who follow in their footsteps.  According to Ryan, they worked hard, using multiple methods, to bring their children up in such a way that would nurture their spiritual lives and cause them to convert as they [the parents] had earlier in life.  This makes me think of today and the way my parents brought me up, and their hopes for my future, especially in a spiritual aspect.  It makes me wonder how many parents strive with as much effort as the Oneida parents did to bring their kids to make the decision to follow in their parents "religious footsteps."  It would also be interesting to see where parents do this the most.  Would it be in the rural areas like the people in Ryan's focus?  Or mostly suburbs?  In what ways do Americans go about guiding their children in the "correct" spiritual path?  I think in a lot of senses, we still use pamphlets and sermons to reach kids in Sunday School and other organizations like Awana.  Ryan's comments on religion and conversion through multiple generations, one after another, were intriguing, especially because they remind me of personal experiences from growing up.    

Democracy

When I think of democracy, many of the other “great American ideals” come to mind, such as freedom and the pursuit of happiness.  These concepts and ideas are deeply rooted in American culture and Americans themselves or as Whitman refers to them- “the peaceablest and most good-natured race in the world.”  He dreamed of a future of “a couple of hundred best men and women, of ordinary worldly status, have by luck been drawn together, with nothing extra of genius or wealth, but virtuous, chaste, industrious, cheerful, resolute, friendly and devout.”  We tend to emphasize the pros to democracy without facing the flaws. 

One of the biggest issues with democracy is the looming possibility of “tyranny of the majority.”  In a democracy, everyone is supposed to have an equal voice, but obviously this has not always been the case in America.  During the practice of slavery, the majority had the upper hand while slaves had no voice whatsoever.  Earlier in time, Thomas Jefferson felt that slavery was wrong and lived with his guilt, and simply decided to allow future Americans to take care of the issue.  In this situation, democracy did not serve this country well.  Jefferson expected a lot from the future as Whitman often does in “Democratic Vistas” when he says that the word “democracy” has an unwritten history because “that history has yet to be enacted.”  He also called for writers and poets to be a big part of the growing democracy and to continue the work he started.  However, as Brooks states, those people “have not arrived” and Whitman’s work is still “the best explanation of the nation’s energy and aspirations.”  Sometimes, even in a democracy, voices are silenced and the majority can be wrong, but have the power just the same.

However, at its best, I think democracy does some good things for us.  To me, living in a democracy means you have the ability and power to choose.  You can choose to change, influence, speak, and better yourself in hopes of making a difference in the place you are.  I think that is what Whitman was hoping for when he talks about people “freely branching and blossoming in each individual, and bearing golden fruit.”  The idea of democracy is more than just an outline for a government and a country, but also a basis that we can springboard from to become better individuals, and therefore a better nation.  Whitman wanted this idea to be rooted so deeply in the hearts and character of the American people that they would die so that others could experience it and possess such a kind of life, like the soldiers that he talks fondly of.

Democracy is the hope that you can make a difference in this country and change things instead of watching people decide the rules of your life for you.  Even if we do not have a direct democracy and can not single handedly pass legislature, we have the ability to change someone else’s mind or come together and stand alongside someone who has that power.  Although democracy can involve a give and take of freedoms like submitting to security measures in airports in order to receive the freedom from fear, we still have that ability to deny giving up a freedom; we have the choice to say no.  Other people in other countries do not have the choice of giving something up or not.  This option is very important to Americans, I think, but also is taken for granted every day.

Lastly, I think that the idea of democracy is important to the way we look to the future.  Being a college student, I think ahead in time and realize that the things I aspire to do are made possible by the existence of a democracy.  I know that I can better myself and the lives of those around me through being a nurse because of how the majority has deemed healthcare important and the fact that everyone should be able to reap its benefits.   Democracy allows us to have a say in what our future will look like and how we will live.  This alone is a distinguishing factor of our country and what I think Whitman had in mind when he wrote that Americans should be “realizing, above the rest, that known humanity, in deepest sense, is fair adhesion to itself, for purposes beyond.”