In getting caught up in the theological fuss of the last post, which was fun to think about and fun to research, I forgot about another interesting connection that came to mind as I was watching the film.
In some sense the spiritual/religious “trendsetting” could be seen as an anticipation of certain (usually) more conservative movements in American culture. But the communal way of life and emphasis on simplicity and non-commercialism also prefigures the hippie movement, which is more associated with the left. The agrarian emphasis (especially coupled with the trip away from crowded London to the wild, rural, sparsely populated American colonies) prefigures the back-to-the-land and/or self-sufficiency (which eventually became “prepper”) movements. What you call it is somewhat a reflection of your own political bias, but the idea is essentially the same and as far as I’m concerned that one is non-partisan.
Also, they were pacifist: another nonpartisan and very common American trait. “But wait,” you say. “Isn’t the antiwar movement a product of the political left?” Indeed it was, during the Vietnam war and for several decades afterwards. It’s there today, although much less influential than it has been. But there is also a strong undercurrent of antiwar sentiment on the Right, often ignored but every so often it surfaces. This is where the opposition to World Wars I and II came from, and more recently it’s an important part of what elected Donald Trump. For all his faults, which are myriad, and for all his failures to follow through (I’m looking at you, Iran hawks), Trump was the one candidate who advocated getting out and staying out of entanglements in the Middle East, and he was the one candidate who ran (especially notably in 2016 and 2024) on peace with Russia. That was THE reason to vote for him, for many. In some sense it doesn’t matter that he reneged on the promise, what matters is that is what people voted for. The gauntlet has been thrown. It’s up to the leadership class to go with, or to go against, the people’s will. I will also add here, that enormous numbers of the immigrants who came here, particularly European ones in the 19th century, particularly from central Europe, were evading conscription. The Amish, for starters. It’s quiet, it’s an undercurrent, but it’s there and it’s important and it’s part of the culture.
In light of this, one could say that the Shaker ethos, small as the movement was, epitomizes a great deal of American culture. Perhaps this is a part of why it seems to have an outsized impact on historians, compared to its actual impact in its time which was somewhat modest. At its height there were only about 6000 members, spread across a few dozen small communities peppering primarily the northeastern United States. Perhaps another reason is because they have a unique ability to capture the imagination. To the extent that this movement took root in the imaginations of a handful of religious misfits who risked everything to attain their vision of utopia, this seems fitting.
To the extent to which “it can’t happen here” is even true (I’m not so sure that it is), this is why. America is the island of misfit toys. Anyone who would attempt to impose any kind of rigid, uniform, one-size-fits-nobody authoritarian solution across the country is going to have his work cut out for him, and is doomed to failure. Whatever it is, it is guaranteed to rankle enough people to cause major problems. The politicians can cajole, and they can coax, and they can incentivize…but they can’t really impose. It won’t work. At least, not as long as the disparate factions can manage to hang together. If they can be concentrated, and corralled, and pitted against each other, the whole thing can be broken up…but it is rare to find a place in this land that has a split that is much greater than 60:40. There are a few places that are 70:30, but only very few.
As long as the people can agree to disagree and go on about their business peaceably, making reasonable allowances for each other, there may be the occasional squabble but as a whole they cannot be conquered. If, on the other hand, the factions begin to congeal, and migrate, and separate themselves from each other and form tribes… In that event, the old familiar “divide and rule” tactic will become irresistible. It’s the oldest trick in the book, or close to it. The country will break up, and a once beautiful and powerful thing may well be gone forever. Finding like-minded people to hang out with is okay, but the point is you can find them no matter where you are. Neither the Left nor the Right has a coherent, consistent philosophy. Neither can offer utopia. Neither has your best interests at heart. Neither has a Garden of Eden to offer. There are pros and cons to both. Mixing and matching as best as possible is the only non-destructive way to proceed. That is the true meaning of “diversity is our strength.” Perhaps diversity was the wrong word. I suggest we replace it with tolerance.
Leave a Reply