October 19, 2009

I am really enjoying reading Johnson along with Tufts' narrative because it opens up questions about how Tufts fits in with a forming nation. I am especially interested in the "neighboring" concept that Johnson discusses and how Tufts rebelled against that system. His stealing and the destruction of his own "credit" cut him off from his neighbors and the community at large. Tufts points out on several occasions that he could not really return to a normal life after a certain point because of his ruined reputation. By ruining trust he eliminated his ability to function in the neighboring economy. Stealing and cheating of course has negative and isolating effects in our society as well, but in an economy that was based on face to face recognition and trust, stealing was more like economic suicide. We now have numeric values to place on our credit that can be transmitted electronically. I give you my credit score, you sell me a car. The early Americans had to look someone in the eye who would judge them based on gossip, truth, and appearance. The distance provided by literal distance across a vast country and the internet allows buying, selling, and trust to become much less personal.

I think it is interesting to read Tufts as a figure rebelling against many different forms of community. Not only was he rebelling against an economic community, but also a community of friends and neighbors. He picks up a nomadic lifestyle that is partly a result of his criminal activities and that separates him from his family. He also determinedly rebels against marriage conventions and the familial community through his many affairs. He makes no spiritual mentions of God, and thus rebels against the religious community that surrounds him.

How important is community in the formation of a nation? I think that can depend partly on the rhetoric used to discuss the state. Is it a nation, a government, or a country? A government implies a ruling body that may or may not create a community. A nation, however, gives a sense of commonality amongst individuals. A government taxes and starts wars, but a nation competes in the Olympics. So what were all of these men trying to create in the formation of the United States? They discussed and tried to form an ideal "government," but while Washington had these debates, Johnson shows that the people in the countryside and the emerging cities like New York and Philadelphia were creating a nation and a people. Tufts shows the value of individual liberty in a nation made up of individuals. He tries to take liberty as far as it can go. Perhaps that is really how nations are created; through testing the limits.

Tufts also tests the boundaries of another word: fortune. Tufts is a fortune teller, a sufferer of misfortunes, and the constant receiver of fortune. I think that Tufts repetition of fortune is related to his test of liberty because it demonstrates a lack of personal responsibility. The all-mighty fortune can be blamed for every good or bad thing that happens to us or that we do to other people. Fortune is another exercise of liberty as it is really just an excuse. Providence, on the other hand, would demonstrate a total lack of liberty. Providence is based on a belief in a will outside of our own that has absolute control. When we speak of providence, we give credit for the good and trust for relief from the bad to a higher power. Fortune is more convenient than providence because it does not come from the will of a deity, but from a throw of the dice.