Honors section discussion question for 9/6
As we make the transition from the Civil War era back to the 17th century, let's consider a metaphor that was much in use during both those periods: the political community as a family. How is a community such as a nation like and unlike a family? Does the metaphor have any utility in describing the roles and duties of rulers, citizens, and subjects, to the community and each other? Does it apply better to monarchy than republicanism? Just what are the connections between political and social life? (Answer any 1 or 2 of these here, but think about them all for class.)
To spur your thinking, go ahead do the next of set of readings on sovereignty in early modern Europe. The lyrics of "We Are Coming, Father Abraham," played in class this morning, may also help.
To spur your thinking, go ahead do the next of set of readings on sovereignty in early modern Europe. The lyrics of "We Are Coming, Father Abraham," played in class this morning, may also help.
posted by Jeff Pasley at 4:26 PM
8 Comments:
Our nation at this time was much like a miss-matched family. "Father" Abraham had to deal with the cession of the south much like a father has to deal with a rebellious teenager. During this time, part of the family (north) looks to its head for guidence in keeping the family one unit. A family much describes a republic. In a republic, the president (father) does not have all the power, but it is balenced among two other braches of goverment, much like the power in a family is split between a mother and father.
As we make the transition from the Civil War era back to the 17th century, let's consider a metaphor that was much in use during both those periods: the political community as a family. How is a community such as a nation like and unlike a family? Does the metaphor have any utility in describing the roles and duties of rulers, citizens, and subjects, to the community and each other? Does it apply better to monarchy than republicanism? Just what are the connections between political and social life? (Answer any 1 or 2 of these here, but think about them all for class.)
The first question that needs to be answered is whether or not the metaphor of a family applies to republics. That specific metaphor is applicable to both a republic and a metaphor; however, the roles are reversed in a republic.
In a monarchy it is the ruler's job to force the subjects to follow the monarch's rules and laws. It is the opposite in a republic. The people are required to force and direct the ruler's hand. The ruler's hand should never move without being driven by the people. In fact, the ruler should be the final check against the people getting out of hand, constantly questioning whether a specific course of action is the best or not.
The metaphor does have great utility in describing a nation. In a monarchy, the ruler is like the paternal figure in the family. The ruler orders and expects complete obedience. The subjects are like his children. In a republic, however, the "subjects" should rule over the "ruler". The masses, the people, should be the directing, guiding, paternal figure in a republic. The ruler should be as an impetuous child, constantly questioning the wishes of its superior.
I think this metaphor is a good indicator of the roles of both the rulers and the people. Farther back in history, the king or ruler would most likely have complete control over subjects in a region, similar to the older idea of patriarchy and that the father of a family would rule all of his relatives. As time went on, however, the idea of patriarchy evolved, and fathers were the leaders of the family, as well as the peace keepers, but also were concerned with the morals and beliefs that his children would learn from his example. As fathers of a nation, rulers need to be considerate to as many people as possible, molding their own rules and principles to best fit the needs of the nation, or the family. Lincoln was being pulled between the Northern and the Southern citizens, as if they were children, and tried to create a compromise for them. Ultimately, Lincoln took his own morals into consideration, believing that although blacks and whites could never be equal, slavery itself was wrong. Lincoln favored the North, thereby pushing the South into rebellion against their “father” and leader.
I believe the family metaphor applies better to monarchy than to a republic simply because a monarchy, much like a family, is based upon and under the control of a father figure. The divine ruler of a monarchy makes final decisions and is looked to by all the nation, courtiers and serfs alike, for leadership and guidance. A father's power over his family and control over each member's behavior is also like the control of the divine ruler, who holds each citizen accountable for his/her actions and maintains consequences for unacceptable behavior.
Contrarily, in a republic, there is a much greater balance of power and no one branch has ultimate or absolute power over another branch or over the body of people. Also, citizens contribute to society's laws and consequences, and more than one branch decides which behavior deserves which consequence. Furthermore, a republic is based on non-coercive leadership, unlike that of a family unit during the 18th century in which the father's decisions were final and non-negotiable.
In my opinion, a monarchy has more characteristics of a family than do republican form of governments. In a monarchy, the power is in the hands of one person. In a family, this is normally also the case. It is understood that the father has the power since most households in our society are patriarchal. Each of these figures has the authority to make changes, rules, and decide how they want their country or home to function. However at the time of the civil war, our republic government had many characteristics of a family. Lincoln, who was seen as the father, felt as though the seceding Confederate states were a rebellious child trying to break free from the Union. He, therefore, used all methods possible to try and prevent this from happening, much as a father would do for his child. Also the states fighting for their rights can be seen as individuals of a family fighting for their own privileges and liberties.
I believe the metaphor applies to both a republic and a monarchy. However, I believe it fits a monarchy better. In both a republic and a monarchy, there is a central figure that represents a father figure. In a republic, the father figure is represented by the President. In a monarchy, the father figure is represented by a king.
It seems like in a monarchy, citizens have a respect towards their king much like a child has respect for his/her father. Also, a king rules much longer than a president (usually), giving him more of a fatherly role than a president.
The father figure has to mae rules as well as enforce them (like a father). The father figure must deal with him people much like a father deals with his children. Father's set rules, and must think of ways to enforce those rules if the "children" misbehave. Examples of this would be the South cecceding, as well as any rebellions from the North or South.
The metaphor also works because in a republic as well as a monarchy, the citizens as well as the government must work together to make the relationship work. Even in a monarchy where a king is the central figure, the parliment works with the king to govern.
In many ways, politics share some of the same qualities as a family. I believe a monarchy best signifies this metaphor. In a monarchy, the king represents the father figure of the family, with children as the underlying population. It's the king's job to secure peace and prosperity for his citizens, just as it's the father's job to mediate between fights, make sure everyone gets along, and provides for them to ensure they have a bright future. Also, citizens have a duty to obey rules and laws brought forth by the ruler;if those rules are broken, they are often punished by some type of legal system. In a family, parents chastise their children in order to teach them right from wrong. In a republic, citizens control the government and how it functions. A republic compares to a family with pushover parents who do whatever their children tell them to do.
A community such as a nation is like a family in that most people in the nation have, or ought to have, a certain degree of respect for eachother as members of the same community. Also, the members of a community, like the members of a family, follow a similar set of rules.
A community/nation is unlike a family in that in a family, the members have a common heritage (except in divorced families). The lack of a common heritage within a nation can cause problems, for example the racism that many immigrant groups faced/face.
This metaphor is useful in describing the roles and duties of members to the community and to each other. In a successful family, each member pulls his/her own weight and contributes something to the family. In a nation, the citizens each have a duty and contribute to the society by working a job, voting, and following the laws. In a family, each member plays a role- the breadwinner, the “house keeper,” etc… In a community, there are certain positions/roles that must be filled- government jobs, civic jobs, etc…
Post a Comment
<< Home