In the introduction of his research, Richard Bushman, states, \u201cGenteel culture became an independent variable, cutting across society, and leading, I argue, to the confusion about class that has long been characteristic of American society\u201d (Bushman xv). This hearkens back to our first discussion concerning the term \u201cnatural.\u201d Much like the manner in which gentility drifted from the top of society downward (and became more difficult to define), so has the ability to spot concrete natural entities in society. Much how humans took over nature and crafted it to suit their needs, gentility worked its way into a republican nation and created a hierarchical system. Bushman states, \u201cBecause it [gentility] was formed for an aristocratic leisured class, gentility was out of place in republican, middle-class America, ill suited to the lives of the people who so fervently adopted it\u201d (xvi). This reminds us of how the first Europeans were ill-suited for the New World, and how in some cases, they forced natives to assimilate.<\/p>\n
Bushman makes it clear that with gentility came great ties to material possession. Individuals became obsessed with mansions (bigger rooms), silver, mahogany\u2014material possessions that in some way impacted the environment. Thus, gentility impacted social culture and environmental culture. Is it possible that had gentility not infiltrated below the aristocratic line, humans today would be living much simpler lives? I think there might be some plausibility behind an affirmation to that questions, but it is difficult to extrapolate too much.<\/p>\n
It can be argued (and Bushman admits that he does not give this the attention it deserves) that gentility and capitalism are dependent on one another. There is a certain refinement of society that had to happen with the onset of capitalism. Recently, in his post about William Cronon\u2019s research on Chicago, Anthony<\/a> stated, “Railroads are perhaps one of the greatest developments for this country in terms of creating a unified nation along with radically altering the economy.” Without gentility, the railroad system might not have been built. Society was completely invested in material possession and wealthy by the time railroads arrived. However, here in-lies an conflict. Do we think capitalism came first or gentility? I am inclined to say gentility was first. The manner in which people lives evoked the certain types of material possession they wanted (capitalism). I think (and I think Bushman would agree) that gentility is much easier to trace back within the workings of our nation’s history. Thus, we can blame gentility for the blurred and often difficult definition of \u00a0the word “natural.” We can also blame gentility for the growth of material possessions and the negative impact those have had (and continue to have) on the environment.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In the introduction of his research, Richard Bushman, states, \u201cGenteel culture became an independent variable, cutting across society, and leading, I argue, to the confusion about class that has long been characteristic of American society\u201d (Bushman xv). This hearkens back to our first discussion concerning the term \u201cnatural.\u201d Much like the manner in which gentility … <\/p>\n