How Does Gordon Wood Characterize Colonial America As A Pre-Modern Society?
In the book The Radicalism of the American Revolution, Gordon S. Wood analyzes Colonial America on the eve of the American Revolution. By describing the social hierarchy and patriarchal dependence in the colonies, he depicts the colonies as a pre-modern society.
Gordon Wood depicts colonial America as a pre-modern society by describing the social hierarchy of the time period. The colonists lived with an intricate class system that was strictly followed. Those of higher standing were to be afforded respect by people in lower classes, and any interaction between those of different classes was to be entirely professional. It would have been seen as condescending, or even degrading, for a person of higher status to interact with someone of a lower …show more content…
Rather, they were based off of a person’s status or “quality.” Those who had no property were considered part of the lowest social ranking, and then there were the artisans, and finally at the top there were the gentleman. Movement between classes was unlikely, an artisan would always be of the middle class no matter how wealthy, but one could move within their own class to a position of greater respect. It was a rigid and unequal system, but it ensured that everyone had a place within society, which was perhaps why it lasted so long in pre-modern America.
Gordon Wood also describes colonial America as pre-modern by discussing the patriarchal dependence evident in its society. According to Wood, when it came to dealing with subordinates and inferiors, those of higher classes “often thought of themselves as parents dealing with children” (43). This mindset was apparent on all levels of society. The King was seen as a parental figure to his subjects, just as the master of a house was seen as a parental figure to his family and servants. In turn, subjects of the throne were dependant on the King, and family members and servants in the home were dependant on the …show more content…
Indentured servitude, for example, was a common occurrence. People would enter into contracts with the head of a family, some to pay off passage to the colonies, others for different reasons, and would work either as a house servant or as an agricultural servant. Those in such positions were dependant on and at the mercy of their master, who could treat them like property. “Most colonial servants,” Wood states, “could be bought or sold, rented out, seized for the debts of their masters, and conveyed in wills to heirs… [servants] could not marry, buy or sell property, or leave their households without their master’s permission” (53). Additionally, some households had slaves, who legally had no rights and were completely dependant on their masters. In fact, so many people were in some form of servitude or another that “at any one moment, as much as one-half of the colonial society was legally unfree” (Wood,
Gordon Wood depicts colonial America as a pre-modern society by describing the social hierarchy of the time period. The colonists lived with an intricate class system that was strictly followed. Those of higher standing were to be afforded respect by people in lower classes, and any interaction between those of different classes was to be entirely professional. It would have been seen as condescending, or even degrading, for a person of higher status to interact with someone of a lower …show more content…
Rather, they were based off of a person’s status or “quality.” Those who had no property were considered part of the lowest social ranking, and then there were the artisans, and finally at the top there were the gentleman. Movement between classes was unlikely, an artisan would always be of the middle class no matter how wealthy, but one could move within their own class to a position of greater respect. It was a rigid and unequal system, but it ensured that everyone had a place within society, which was perhaps why it lasted so long in pre-modern America.
Gordon Wood also describes colonial America as pre-modern by discussing the patriarchal dependence evident in its society. According to Wood, when it came to dealing with subordinates and inferiors, those of higher classes “often thought of themselves as parents dealing with children” (43). This mindset was apparent on all levels of society. The King was seen as a parental figure to his subjects, just as the master of a house was seen as a parental figure to his family and servants. In turn, subjects of the throne were dependant on the King, and family members and servants in the home were dependant on the …show more content…
Indentured servitude, for example, was a common occurrence. People would enter into contracts with the head of a family, some to pay off passage to the colonies, others for different reasons, and would work either as a house servant or as an agricultural servant. Those in such positions were dependant on and at the mercy of their master, who could treat them like property. “Most colonial servants,” Wood states, “could be bought or sold, rented out, seized for the debts of their masters, and conveyed in wills to heirs… [servants] could not marry, buy or sell property, or leave their households without their master’s permission” (53). Additionally, some households had slaves, who legally had no rights and were completely dependant on their masters. In fact, so many people were in some form of servitude or another that “at any one moment, as much as one-half of the colonial society was legally unfree” (Wood,