After reading the two essays, I have come to support both the statements of Wood and Young. Wood stresses on assessing the country’s historic monarchy and traces its transition to a republic democracy established in the contemporary society in America. This monarchy, as Wood puts it, linked people together in an order determined by hierarchical ranks. The power ruled and people’s dependency over each other was governed by their need and social power, in the sense that the small depended on the high and mighty. This need based relationship was the foundation of the society. The radical movement in the eighteenth century that followed dissolved the monarchy system and claimed to have weakened the social connections based on dependency and patronage.
I agree with the contrast of the motives presented by Woods in the essay where he states that while the radical movement claimed to have and intended to have replaced the historic monarchy and the social dependency dominated by power with an independent society governed by people who would place their petty personal agendas and corrupted self-interests behind them when pursuing a socially beneficial government. What America came to be governed under in the modern society was a set of people belonging to the middling ranks elected by the common men to champion their interests. This was something which the founding fathers had not desired nor anticipated, because as pointed out in the essay written by Young that the framers of the constitution were more concerned with protecting their own economic interests and sustain political dominance in the years to come over the benefit of the common man. However, the constitution reflects considerations otherwise and this was the outcome of the pressures from the, as Young puts it, “ghosts” of the society which are interest groups and social activists that were engaged in social movements gaining public interest.
|Development of an Individual||Article Summary|