An Extensive Republic: Introduction

I'm going to have to echo Kandace's feelings towards the introduction of this book--a whole lot of facts, and a whole lot of boring. But part of me thinks that this is because I've been doing a lot of learning in this class. Had we read this book first, I would probably have found the information much more absorbing and new. In reading Starr and Davidson, I've absorbed a ton of useful infomration about the early republic's print culture, and this week's reading reaffirmed in me that I've actually learned something! I'm not saying that I' now an expert thanks to Starr and Davidson, but I'm certainly more familiar with this time period, and I have a fairly balanced understanding of the early republic.

That being said, I did find a few interesting nuggets of information in Gross's introduction. First is the way Irish and Scottish publishers "transformed the publishing landscape"(24). While Starr and Davidson touch on the influences of England on American print culture, I don't recall either of them mentioning the Celts. I am especially interested in how the Irish and Scottish performed their practice "in the name of American patriotism" (24). Gross touches on this point for only a brief paragraph, but I'm interested in the ways Celtic publishers influenced American print.

Another detail that caught my eye was they ways in which the American government saw the promotion of state-sponsred scholarship as an "aristocratic tradition." Gross writes, "The new republic put its faith in the extensive diffusion of useful knowledge to the many, not the promotion of arcane knowledge for the few"(33). As someone studying in the realm of academia, I find it fascinating that the early American government found it necessary to opposed the idea of a "learned culture." It's possible that there is some of this going on today, especially from right-winged pundits. There seems to be a sense that higher education and the culture of academia are out to promote left-wing ideology that disrupts the "democratic" ideologies our country was founded on.

Gross's mentioning of the "transportation revolution" really got my brain cooking. He notes all of the obvious developments in technology and transportation, but his reference to the telegraph adds a new dimension to the discussion. On page 34, Gross writes, "the telegraph…transcended physical distance altogether, 'annihilating time and space'…". I'm drawn to this idea that Americans had immediate access to information because I feel that these developments are directly tied to the growing conflict and dissent amongst Americans. When Gross cites the Columbian Herald and writes, "the more we know, the better we shall like another," I can't help but chuckle knowing that the exact opposite is true in some cases. The idea that accessible information was supposed to unite the country would backfire in the years to come, and it's evident that this principle still applies today.

And finally, I just loved the story about the farmer and his son arguing about tradition and change. It just reminded me of many conversations that I've had with my parents, aunts, uncles, and grandparents. I couldn't help but think of my grandfather saying when I was in grade school, "What the hell are they teaching you in those books" as I read in his living room. In one sense, the farmer (and my grandfather) were right--reading can be a way of detaching yourself from social interaction, and it does play a role privatizing one's life. This makes me think of the ways in which reading, television, the internet, and other forms of personal amusement have played a role in making American culture much more privatized and individualistic.

So, I guess this introduction had a little more to offer than I initially suggested. While the information felt quite familiar (which is probably what made it a little boring), it also allowed me to think of these ideas in new ways.