People of Plenty: Economic Abundance and the American Character (Walgreen Foundation Lectures)

245 Pages·1958·11.37 MB·English

by  David M. Potter

People of Plenty

People of Plenty
Economic Abundance and the American Character
By
DAVID M. POTTER
THB UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS
CHICAGO & LONDON
CHARLBS R. WALGRBBN FOUNDATION LBCTURBS
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS, CHICAGO 60637
The University of Chicago Press, Ltd., London
Copyright 19'4 by The University ofChi&ago
All rights reserved, Published 1954
Paperba&k edition 19'8
Printed in the United States ofAmeri&a
04030201 009998979695 18192021 22
ISBN:0-226-67633-1 (paper)
LCN:54-12797
9€ Thepaperusedinthispublicationmeetstheminimum
requirementsoftheAmericanNationalStandardforInformation
Sciences-PermanenceofPaperforPrintedLibraryMaterials,
ANSIZ39A8-1984,
TO DILYS

Introduction: History, the Behaviorial
Studies, and the Science of Man
In the summer of 1950, under the stimulus of an invitation from
the Walgreen Foundation, I embarked upon the seemingly inno
cent task of writing six lectures on the American character, and
especially on the influence of American economic abundance
upon this cha.racter. The theme itself was certainly a wide-open
one, and nobody capable of arranging words on paper has ever
been required to show any further credentials before offering
vast generalizations 011 the American, this "new man," as Creve
creur called him. My originalpurpose, therefore, was only to join
the mixed lot of scholars, maiden ladies, itinerant lecturers, pro
fessional pundits, and overnight experts whose writings have
adorned this subject. As Imoved into the inquiry, however, I was
assailed by misgivings as to the validity of the whole concept of
"national character," and, as I burrowed into the literature relat
ingtoit,I wasembarrassed,asahistorian, to discoverthatthemost
telling contributions, in my opinion, came from cultural anthro
pologists and social psychologists rather than from my fellow
historians.
After a while, the problems of establishing a valid concept of
national character and ofseeking some possible links between the
work done by historians and by behavioral'scientists in this field
began to seem more important than the specific problem of the
influence of economic abundance upon the American character.
Yet, at the same tinle, it remained true that my primary purpose
wasto examinethe operationofthis economicfactorinthe devel
opmentofAmerican life. First one aspect hasseemed to predomi
nate and then the other, and I am at last left in uncertainty as to
vii
viii INTRODUCTION
which side is heads and \vhich side tails on my own coin. One can
read this volunle as a theoretical study of the conceptual problenl
of national characterand of the relationships between history and
the behavioral sciences, regarding the chapters on abundance and
its influence in Alnerica as merely illustrative; or one can read it
as the concrete study of the impact of one tangible factor upon
the character of the Anlcrican people, regarding the opening sec
tions onhistorical and behavioral approaches to national character
simply as a framework necessary for fixing the material on
America in its proper logical place in the literature of the subject.
I am keenly aware that f1y thus writing a book of a dualistic
nature I expose myself to the inevitable gambit of the reviewer:
that the portion on which he is expert really will not do at all but
that the other part appears rather interesting. Perhaps I will be
fortunate if each partis notcompared unfavorably with the other.
In any event, it seenlS valid to begin by recognizing that gen
eralization about national character is only a special case of the
larger practice ofgeneralization about human groups of any kind.
There are justa few branches of learningwhich attempt this kind
of generalization, and history was, for Inany centuries, the only
one. But today there arc several, and it may be well to start with
aconsideration of the way in \vhich these various disciplines have
approached this part of their responsibility in the study of nlan.
Of all the branches of learning cultivated by man, there is
probably none which deals with a greater body of data than does
history. The task of history, to record all that is significant in
human experience, for many centuries and many lands, has im
plied such animmense responsibility, and one of such immediacy,
that it has engendered in historians an ahnost obsessive drive to
geton with the job, to start111arshaling the data, to beginstraight
ening out the detailed and complex factual questions with which
the record abounds. Consequently, history has become pre
eminently aconcrete and "practical"subject, with but little atten
tion to philosophical or theoretical aspects. Occasionally, some
ix
INTRODUCTION
aberrant historian has paused to consider the philosophy of his
tory, the problem of historical causation, the existence of laws of
history, or the like, but the rank and file of historians have never
paid very patient attention to these speculations. With mutterings
about"workto do," they have quicklyturned back to their busy
ness with deeds and events. As for historical interpretation, they
have often disclaimed any such function, insisting that the facts
alone would answer the historian's questions and never recogniz
ing that these questions themselves, like fishers' nets, might pro
foundly influence the character of the facts which would be
caughtin the haul.
This preoccupation with fact, coupled as it was with a rough
and-ready willingness to tackle the most profound problems of
society, has been the principal glory and, at the same time, the
major weakness of history as a branch of learning. The glory,
because history has dared to seek the answers to questions which
other disciplines would have declined for the lack of an adequate
method. History has never held itself aloof from life or guarded
its own purityby confining itself to topics for which it possessed
afully tested methodological ~nd conceptual apparatus of attack.
It has never permitted the tyranny of method to dictate the sub
jects which it would investigate and has never shifted its atten
tion from men to mice because of the seductive fact that mice
lend themselvesto preciseinvestigation more readily than do men.
It has also been the glory of history that its professional dev
otees have never entirely lost communication with the intelligent
layman, as the practitioners of the social sciences have almost
universally done. The language of history has never become di
vorced from the common speech, and the historian has scarcely
been touched by the baneful belief that it would lower his pro
fessional standards to write in plain terms which any man might
understand. In a democracy which depends upon men of learn
ing to provide the ordinary man with sound infonnation for
dealing ,vith public nffairs, the historian is almost the only kind