Puritans in the USA

The Puritans were a facet of US society, if we may call it that retroactively, that quickly gave way and often in modern musical parlance 'sold out' in favour of more open religions. Nonetheless, they have a symbolic reference in the USA - the modern USA was in a sense constructed as against the Puritans, and many of its images are quite empty and only have impact due to being contrasted to something considered 'more objectionable.' A state identity which is based only on feeling slightly less of something than another, is one which resembled this USA: highly dynamic or contested politically, if only in appearance, and at the same time reliant on posturing and perhaps expansionism to remain in this mode. In lieu of strict adherence to anything, this America has only a lack of political strictness as a state - to allow for the economy to run freely, and interact with the people freely on the market - compared to for instance dictatorial nations, and a place which only seems 'better' than other places and by itself is a void without determinate character. It was hence inevitable that capital would eventually gravitate towards the centrality of such a democratic state with such emphases, and just as much that dictatorial states trying to keep up would have to turn increasingly to anti-capitalist ideas of the time, with whatever results.

But the Puritans have a reputation which could be misleading. Many nations, indeed most of the major ones, have a tradition of earlier communities and ideas which are branded in much the same ways as Puritanism: strictly governed, 'prudish,' strict about adultery (although marital vows are still quite 'strict' about forbidding this - if people want society to marry them, why do they want it to pretend that it never did this and what it says means nothing?), religious, handing out punishment easily, and so on. In this sense, the Puritans merely represented, and in a sense constructed, an image of earlier communities regularly attacked in many nations from India to Britain.

However, if nations are able to use this as against things like the USSR, and indeed all threats that come against it, to make it its watchword of sorts as a bastion against new political threats, then it is clear that what is feared about the Puritans is actually whatever they might represent about a future society, albeit to a limited extent and on a past basis. Hence, pointing out that the Puritans were attempting to cleave to tradition is a double-edged sword - it still leaves the persistent threat of the Puritans in stark display, and hence may be taken as threatening. America has over the years smeared its enemies almost mechanically with the same epithets, and expected to derive enthusiasm from this - whether they were the Nazis, the Soviet Union, the Middle Eastern nations, and if perhaps they were aliens, the same old line would be drawn out. This is deceptive longevity: it ultimately derives its seeming enthusiasm from saying to its people, 'go on with whatever you are doing, and we will support this as a state' - a rather embarrassing juxtaposition, given the cultural traits its people are renowned for - or in brief because of people's interest in their own temporary pleasures and interests, and the seeming renewal provided by this which is actually irrelevant to the political statement itself, but as soon as the statement and propaganda is put into stark relief as a political statement it becomes empty. It is in a sense a mere mirage. Politically, it does not appear substantial - cynicism about America ran rampant elsewhere. It in a sense requires the increasing subjection of political to 'economic,' of the overall social regulation to anyone's lives and actions, and this to ever-heightening levels.

Nonetheless, if the Puritans express something common to most nations' official histories, why are they here concentrated or codifying this in one society? In a sense, they are constructing the history of a major nation, a nation which would be central to the world system, if primarily despite themselves. They are contributors to this new nation. To claim a direct implantation of a 'Puritan work ethic' on American society would be misleading: to 'work for God' and to 'work for money' are highly different things and highly different ideological statements. Even when it is used loosely, to refer to 'strict work which isn't enjoyable,' Americans are not expected to work except because it has 'enjoyment' attached in the form of money, which is quite different. In a way, the Puritans had their work and society expropriated and twisted into something wholly opposed to their intent, something which America in its identity felt quite comfortable positioning itself against continually and leaning on to define their nation by inversion. The USA could very much promote its whole populace - but it couldn't for all of its 'pluralism' do anything else but rail against the Puritans. It hence in a sense dug its own grave - it couldn't go beyond the 'Cold War,' and always had some conflict over positions in the Middle East, because trying to take a firm hold would reduce it to the robotic repetition of the same things as if to gain new enthusiasm each time, without any real basis for this enthusiasm. It was a parasite.

The Puritans hence invite the problem of a society where actions are not only inverted to foreign purposes, but taken away by forces that shall later constitute themselves as 'America.' The Puritans wished to form a religious state, but then were rendered unable to because this was too 'strict.' Lack of power corrupts absolutely, and the USA is a tribute to this.

However, the Puritans flowed quite smoothly into future societies, and hence were in a sense quite compromised. They also connected Britain to the USA - both their histories shared the Puritans as major 'antagonists' in the official retelling, and hence they were closely linked in terms of what they could easily oppose. A country's ideological enemies generally speaking need a historical basis, or the country has gone its whole time not being defined against this, and has to remake itself to face an enemy which isn't even its enemy as it is so far, which seems implausible for most notable nations. Hence, the link between the USA and Britain, despite being frayed earlier, dovetailed in the 1900s. As the Puritans started giving way to opposed tendencies, which they had always accommodated, and became in a way 'Americanised' as opposed to the religions they had sought to bring from Britain, so also Britain started to serve the less strict USA. This is misleading: Britain is in many ways laissez-faire, as its highest state position has little legislative power. Still, this is not something they can build an image around. The British state was too swathed in illusions to stand for anything, it could only stand still and cast these illusions if it was supported from elsewhere.


So then, were the Puritans that unique? In a way, yes: they were concentrated and modern. As an American historical figure, however, they have been surrounded by a certain mysticism. They were in many ways not that distinct in the traits usually pointed out. However, they were from the beginning compromised - they attempted to form a new society, without any detailed social theory, pretty much as they had experienced 'society' in previous states, with whoever was eligible (which could be anyone), but they also tried to take a stance against this form of society in various if limited ways. Hence, it involved conflicting elements. It could not do what it was trying at a given time. It constructed something that fought it, but that fought it with its own help. Their conflict was hence that between positivism - the acceptance of how things were in the general society, and its accepted implementation - and the ability to implement political and religious ideas of their own, or social regulation. This conflict continued to be major through the years. The Puritans were very much a question of observation - people saw things they disliked, and acted against this or on an opposed principle, but did not however have legislative power to initiate a direction fundamentally opposed to this. Yet, for these Puritans, the ensuing history of the state was in political terms something of a nightmare.