Editing Young Meiser 2007
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
*Civil war was politically about whether the West would develop as a homogenous society predominately white, or if it would be biracial, where the slaves would be welcome. | *Civil war was politically about whether the West would develop as a homogenous society predominately white, or if it would be biracial, where the slaves would be welcome. | ||
Viewpoint 1: | Viewpoint 1: | ||
Line 15: | Line 13: | ||
*Generally accepting of King and Smith, **BUT** they believe an alternative approach better explains the role of race in the political and economic development of the United States from the Nation’s founding until the Civil War. | *Generally accepting of King and Smith, **BUT** they believe an alternative approach better explains the role of race in the political and economic development of the United States from the Nation’s founding until the Civil War. | ||
Reasoning: because the white racist supremacist order was dominant in all three regions of the nation, all the political conflicts that ultimately led to disunion and civil war took place almost entirely within the context of the single racial institutional order | Reasoning: because the white racist supremacist order was dominant in all three regions of the nation, all the political conflicts that ultimately led to disunion and civil war took place almost entirely within the context of the single racial institutional order. | ||
*Young and Meiser see conceptualize antebellum American society as a plural society. “in which distinct social orders live side by side, but separately, within the same political unit.” | *Young and Meiser see conceptualize antebellum American society as a plural society. “in which distinct social orders live side by side, but separately, within the same political unit.” | ||
The Anglo-American State maintained the stability of the American Plural Society | The Anglo-American State maintained the stability of the American Plural Society. | ||
1. The state had to sustain its legitimacy through republican accountability to American citizens. | |||
2. State actors had to exercise brutal, coercive control over large groups of non-citizens to maintain slavery and promote the geographical expansion necessary to economic growth. | |||
* | *Because of this, Young and Meiser see the Antebellum American state as a dual state: “predatory” in dealing with non-whites, but a “contract state “ in respect to the internal governance of the dominant group, Anglo-American Males. | ||
*This was an intentional action on the founders parts. It was to have two forms of capacity: the power of the contract state was its ability to shape American development, and the power was the coeriece through dominant force. | |||
In summary, the duality ensured that Anglo-American society would do well because of the dispossession of native Americans and their land and the enslavement of African Americans. | In summary, the duality ensured that Anglo-American society would do well because of the dispossession of native Americans and their land and the enslavement of African Americans. | ||
Potential issue: Fallcy of reification, meaning that states and racial groups are analytically perceived as social actors. | |||
Response: Looking at political entrepreneurs and the preexisting institutional orders as key independent variables gets rid of this issue. Do this by | |||
1. Anglo-American political elites focused on economic growth on geographical expansion | 1. Anglo-American political elites focused on economic growth on geographical expansion | ||
2. During Jefferson and Jackson | 2. During Jefferson and Jackson, kept expanding westward | ||
3. | 3. Mexican War, changed the perspective of the West as a zero-sum game for farmers | ||
4. In the context of the federal system, | 4. In the context of the federal system, pressed on tensions of slavery and how it wouldn’t be possible to compromise. | ||
5. Lincolns' election | 5. Lincolns' election triggered Southern secession and civil war. | ||
The | The limitation of a Eurocentric World View | ||
King and Smith VP: American political scientists have historically not been more successful than America itself in addressing racial issues | King and Smith VP: American political scientists have historically not been more successful than America itself in addressing racial issues | ||
Line 51: | Line 52: | ||
Plural Society Theory and American Social Reality | Plural Society Theory and American Social Reality | ||
Plural societies - “in which distinct social orders live side by side, but separately, within the same political unit” | |||
J. S. Furnivall - says that European sociological, political, and economic theories were inapplicable to the realities of plural societies. | |||
in a plural society, the division of labor tends to be along racial or ethnic lines, and economic inequities tend to coincide with and reinforce social and cultural differences. Is only “held together by some force exerted from outside” | |||
furnivall furthers that plural societies arose as a result of the primacy or economic considerations in European colonial policy, which led to the immigration and commingling of disparate racial and cultural groups whose only social bond was economic independence. | |||
Based on this Pierre van den Berghe, had a useful list of key characteristics | Based on this Pierre van den Berghe, had a useful list of key characteristics | ||
Line 63: | Line 64: | ||
1. Segmentation | 1. Segmentation | ||
2. Social structure compartmentalized | 2. Social structure compartmentalized | ||
1. relative absence of value consensus | 1. relative absence of value consensus | ||
2. relative presence of cultural heterogeneity | 2. relative presence of cultural heterogeneity | ||
3. relative presence of conflict between significant corporate groups | 3. relative presence of conflict between significant corporate groups | ||
4. Relative autonomy between parts of the social system | 4. Relative autonomy between parts of the social system | ||
5. Relative importance of coercion and economic interdependence as bases of social integration | 5. Relative importance of coercion and economic interdependence as bases of social integration | ||
6. Political domination by one of the corporate groups over the others | 6. Political domination by one of the corporate groups over the others | ||
7. primacy of segmental utilitarian nonaffective and functionally specific relationships between corporate groups and those who aren't. | 7. primacy of segmental utilitarian nonaffective and functionally specific relationships between corporate groups and those who aren't. | ||
Line 98: | Line 92: | ||
North’s Typology of Contract and Predatory States | North’s Typology of Contract and Predatory States | ||
North believes that the US is a very successful contract state | |||
The federal political system, checks and balances, and a basic structure of property rights have encouraged the long-term contracting essential to creating capital markets and economic growth. | |||
Believes that the contract state and the predatory state are mutually exclusive categories, but Young and Meiser believe that the US was both a contract state and a predatory. | |||
The Anglo-American State was predatory, and it was the key means by which the new Anglo-American state demonstrated its effectiveness and gained legitimacy. | |||
The founders intentionally designed the institutions to have two forms of capacity: low capacity regarding political interactions within the dominant governing group and high capacity for dealings with non-whites. | |||
The | The power was established through | ||
1. The dominance of ideological power by state actors and their allies among the political elite | 1. The dominance of ideological power by state actors and their allies among the political elite | ||
2. the effectiveness of the new Anglo-American state | 2. the effectiveness of the new Anglo-American state | ||
The hard power of the predatory state was coercion through dominant force | The hard power of the predatory state was coercion through dominant force. |