Roots of American Individualism and the Current U.S. Response to COVID-19
 |
|
Figure 1: Governor Tony Evers of Wisconsin, February 4, 2021. Photo courtesy of Morry Gash-Pool via Getty Images |
Senate Republicans of the Wisconsin legislature alluded to their opposition of mandating measures such as wearing a mask in public while asserting this type of action should require legislative vote. Another critical allegation included a belief voiced by Senator Duey Stroebel. In a statement, Stroebel exclaimed the recent orders from state and local governments have resulted in “unprecedented limitations on individual freedoms.”[1] Stroebel’s remark of such action being “unprecedented” is not historically accurate, but more on that later. Wisconsin also remains far from the only state with people who oppose orders requiring citizens follow pandemic-related restrictions.
Additionally, reactions from the general American public reflect a strong opposition obligatory mask-wearing. While states like Idaho have yet to require people to wear masks on a statewide level, lawmakers at local levels have taken the initiative. A notable example occurred within the city of Moscow, where Mayor Bill Lambert’s mandate initially went into effect last June, drawing both praise and criticism from its residents. When Lambert later chose to extend the mask order in September, one woman declared these orders to be “dangerous, unconstitutional, and frankly, with all due respect, insane” and added it interfered with one’s ability to exercise “their god-given right, constitutional right.”[2] Again, individual rights dictated the grounds for opposition to ordinances on mask-wearing.
Other cases of opposition to face coverings across the country have occurred in the form of outright firsthand refusal from people walking into businesses in localities where masks are required. This recently happened in an Einstein Bros. Bagels store in Boca Raton, FL when a 62-year-old woman intentionally entered without a mask. When store employees called her out for violating the local mask ordinance, she countered by proclaiming “You are violating my rights!” and “You are violating the Constitution!”[3] Like other incidents of mask-wearing resistance, the counter to the issue’s proponents focused directly on a supposed infringement on individual freedom.
These are just a few recent examples of Americans invoking pretext of face coverings “encroaching on their personal rights,” which are indicative of a common national pushback against this particular response to COVID-19. On the flip side, there are many Americans who agree with mandating masks as a matter of “public safety,” demonstrating how divided residents of the United States remain over the issue. Some who oppose mask mandates also do so on other grounds, such as a belief they are just not too effective in protecting against the virus. Still, this particular faction of Americans who reject masks on constitutional grounds raise some intriguing questions: Why do so many people rebuff mandatory face coverings on this basis? Is this the first historical event in which Americans have widely rejected such mandates? Most importantly, what are the historical roots of American individualism?
Resistance During the Influenza Pandemic of 1918
COVID-19 is not the first pandemic in which the American people had their daily routines turned upside down by a virus contagious enough to put the economy into lockdown and alter the way businesses functioned. In 1918, the Influenza pandemic inclined local governments to issue similar restrictions, including the wearing of masks, and, not unlike today, people pushed back against such mandates. Officials at the political and public levels openly opposed proposals to require mask wearing. Members of the city council in cities like Portland, OR declared the measures to be “autocratic and unconstitutional.”[4]
In San Francisco on December 17, 1918, city officials reinstituted an ordinance requiring citizens to wear face coverings in public amid surging cases after lifting its initial mandate only several weeks earlier. Although the city’s first mask ordinance also drew the ire of residents, this reinstatement of them did so by fueling new grounds justifying public resistance. Whereas the first mandate motivated many San Francisco locals to resist wearing masks on economic grounds in which businesses suffered financial burden, the new rule faced backlash from a constitutional perspective. A group of residents made formed the Anti-Mask League with some members discharging constitutional rhetoric with grumblings of masks breaching their “freedom and liberty.” Plausibly, these more widespread campaigns against mask-wearing orders under a constitutional guise came as a result of resentment and impatience over being forced comply a second time. However, another major change occurred between the issuance of San Francisco’s first ordinance in October and the second in December. When the first mandate occurred in October, World War I had not quite concluded, making it easier for political and health officials to justify its implementation as a “patriotic duty.” By December, though, the war had officially concluded and lawmakers could no longer count of playing this same card of militaristic patriotism to convince people face coverings were a just cause, even as infection cases swelled. Thus, more Americans started to see seemingly endless emergency ordinances as an unwanted interference in their lives.[5]
Figure 2: California Barbers Wearing Masks with Unmasked Customers. National Archives and Records Administration/Public Domain.
A specific case of the anti-mask resistance in San Francisco right after World War I occurred with railroad worker Frank Cocciniglia getting himself arrested for failure to comply with the city’s mask ordinance in January of 1919. In a statement to the judge during sentencing, Cocciniglia stated refuse to do anything which was “not in harmony with his feelings.” He was ultimately sentenced to a five-day period in jail.[6] Yet even in the face of legal battles, people like Cocciniglia were unwilling to concede public health was more important than any inconvenience associated with the sacrifice of wearing masks on a daily basis.
Although instances of opposition to face coverings were not as rooted in the culture of American individualism on the same pervasive level as today, there is definitive evidence such thought and rhetoric did often drive one’s resistance to it during the Influenza pandemic. A little over a century later, not much has changed in the mindset of Americans over the implementation of countless mask mandates to fight COVID-19. Rationalizations for dissenting from mandatory mask regulations have not dissipated. If anything, this individualist idiom has only intensified, even as the COVID-19 pandemic still rages on and health experts emphasize the critical role masks play in efforts to successfully curb the virus’s spread.
Mask debates over the history of pandemics, however, are merely a symbol of the existing culture behind American individualism and how the manner in which lawmakers require them during a global health crisis appears to bring this value into conflict with concerns for public safety. Resistance to face coverings is only a single example of ways Americans have historically denounced laws that seem to contradict their personal freedoms. Other relatively recent examples of this can be seen in debates over laws requiring wearing seat belts in cars or helmets on bicycles and motorcycles. Nevertheless, none of these examples sufficiently explain this ubiquitous ideal of individualism in the U.S. or how it originated.
The Historical Roots of American Individualism
The exact origin of individualist culture in the U.S. is debatable and cannot be pinpointed with precise accuracy. However, it can be said with certainty that individualism is not a recent concept, did not become engrained in the American psyche overnight, and traces back multiple centuries. Many discussing how this self-reliance culture has shaped the nation’s current response to COVID-19 suggest it has roots in the American Revolution and the country’s founding in the late eighteenth century. For example, political scientist Anil Ananthaswamy indicates this within an article for Smithsonian Magazine, proclaiming such “beliefs harken back to Thomas Jefferson and the ideals set forth in the Declaration of Independence,” especially “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” Likewise, an article by Roger Chesley from the Virginia Mercury mentions rugged individualism is “baked into the nation’s founding. A set of researchers at the University of British Columbia also conducted a study at the University of Virginia to measure historical levels of individualism in the U.S. from as early as 1790.[7]
The latter years of the eighteenth century represent a natural historical point from which to begin, as this was the period of U.S. inception. This period, nonetheless, remains insufficient to completely understand how the culture of individualism developed. After all, Americans did not wake up the day after the Revolution concluded and suddenly realize they each wanted to be individuals, nor was this an abrupt cultural epiphany that inspired defying the British government and Jefferson to write the Declaration of Independence. Such actions do not generally spring out of nowhere and the gradual development of American individualism which culminated into the modern-day response to the ongoing pandemic, in fact, traces back to an even earlier era: the colonial days.
Most of us are familiar with the 1607 establishment of Jamestown as the first permanent European settlement in North America and its significance for the fact. Equally as significant, though, were the motivations for British colonization in the Americas and many are correct to note economic expansion as an important cause of high-ranking officials venturing to find new territorial claims. On the flip side, were the common colonists themselves and their own incentives for resettlement overseas. At the turn of the seventeenth century, economic circumstances in England were not favorable, especially for those of the common working classes. This coincides with the period of numerous sailings across the Atlantic Ocean to the Jamestown settlement, in which British members of the Virginia Company commissioned indentured servants to work for periods of seven years with the promise of owning land and tools once their term of service expired. British leaders desired to promote long-term settlement for the sake of economic growth and often favored advertising to young men and women eager to achieve land ownership for themselves and their families.[8] A sense of pride in the concept of owning one’s own property resonated heavily with early North American colonists, displaying an existent ideal of individualist thinking before even departing their homeland, even if only some individuals managed to accomplish this goal while others did not.
Richard Frethorne’s exodus from England to the New World demonstrates such inspirations for risking a life familiar to people in their mother country for one with potential of greener pastures on the other side of the Atlantic. By early 1623, Frethorne arrived in colonial Virginia after land leasing became increasingly common over the previously more common property holding trend, due to an economic recession in his home region of England in 1621. Frethorne, as a result, experienced his own instability with turnover in ownership of the home he possessed, which multiple families frequently bought when another could no longer afford to cover its costs. A letter to Frethorne parents from Virginia in 1623 spoke of the miserable living conditions there, signaling his quick realization colonists were far from guaranteed to obtain private land ownership or a better life, in general, as colonial officials promised.[9] Even as many became conscious of the obstacles confronting their ultimate ambition of attaining their own plots, however, neither this ideal nor broader individualist beliefs would dissipate. Indeed, life in settlements of early colonial Virginia proved challenging and threatened prior notions of many realizing upward social mobility, yet the appeal of an independent identity remained. The ethos of self-reliance would only further solidify itself as North American settlement increased.
Figure 3: Richard Frethorne in Colonial Jamestown. Painting by Sidney King, courtesy of Colonial National Historic Park in Jamestown, Virginia.
Many settlers in colonies such as Virginia quickly experienced inequality along class lines similar to that of their former lives in England. Toiling on a daily basis and struggling to provide a decent living for their families from tobacco plantations while elites benefitting from the crop’s commercial profits and residing comfortably from little to no labor became a familiar story. Increases in taxes, meant to help the fledgling colony, during the late seventeenth century exacerbated this issue, specifically, because it occurred at a time of economic recession and the majority of colonial families were struggling. In 1676, the price of tobacco, the colony’s primary source of economic stability, was relatively low, rendering it difficult for average residents to provide for their families or maintain any claim on land ownership they possessed. Circumstances were further complicated by local disputes with tribal people over differing perceptions about use of the land and its resources. It was during this same period Nathanial Bacon lead a group of armed troops against both regional American Indian tribes and Governor William Berkeley, who played a key role in levying the aforementioned tax increases and opposed attacks on indigenous people. Attempts at driving out tribal populations failed under Bacon’s Rebellion, but these colonists did succeed in driving Berkeley from his position as governor.[10] Bacon’s Rebellion and conditions leading up to it were not only the result of colonists’ struggles, but a feeling their well-being was jeopardized and lead to a prevalent willingness to commit more drastic actions, even at the expense of others.
Additionally, the existing institution of slavery would harden along racial lines in the early years of the eighteenth century in light of growing discontent among Euro-American farmers from an inability to gain economic independence. Territorial disputes among colonists and indigenous people would remain an enduring issue, but the House of Burgesses passed the Virginia Slave Codes of 1705. Members of the House of Burgesses declared all servants entering the British colonies “who were not Christians in their native country” or could show “due proof of their being free in England” would become slaves while remaining subject to potential conversion into Christianity, thereafter.[11] This piece of legislation largely kept native people free of future enslavement while significantly reducing a path to freedom for enslaved Africans. Institutional slavery defined more sharply along racial lines did not eliminate class differences, even among white farmers, yet plantation owners viewed such a system as one which promised to increase agricultural productivity and bring greater personal social mobility. They held this perception with little concern for their own potential benefit at the expense of others.
Figure 4: J. Hector Saint John de Crevecoeur. Image is public domain.
As the eighteenth century wore on, residents of the North American colonies began assuming identities unique of those in the Old World. Born in France’s Normandy province in 1735, J. Hector Saint John de Crevecoeur compiled a set of letters numerous colonists wrote which detailed their personal experiences within the New World during his residing in New York, where he resettled in 1755. This compilation of letters would later be published during the height of the American Revolution in 1782 as the work Letters from an American Farmer.[12]
One letter entitled “What is an American?” stands out from de Crevecoeur’s publication encapsulating the growing cultural perception of American identity. A couple of the key concepts mentioned in this letter are that “the rich and the poor are not so far removed from each other as they are in Europe” and here “all are animated with the spirit of an industry which is unfettered and unrestrained, because each person works for himself.”[13] The former of these two statements is debatable, as class differences still existed and would only harden over time. The latter, however, raises particular significance with the perception each person could manage to make a living for themselves without the exploitation of laboring under someone else, unlike in Europe. Prominent enslavement alone ensured many actually faced labor exploitation, but the ideal of property ownership and self-subsistence via farming represented the standard American colonists pursued (agriculture was the primary lifestyle through the late eighteenth century). Self-reliance of this form was well-established in colonial society by the start of the American Revolution and even inspired hostilities toward the British crown when tax policies seemed to threaten colonists’ autonomy after the Seven Years’ War ended in 1763. Therefore, a omnipresent culture of individualism inspired both the Revolution and Jefferson’s principles outlined in the Declaration of Independence in 1776, rather than the other way around. American individualism and the forms in which it occurred would continue multiplying and evolving from here over a couple hundred years.
Connection Between Colonial Land Ownership and Modern Anti-Maskers:
On the surface, it appears a colonist’s quest for owning land and a contemporary American’s rejection of mask wearing have little in common. Certainly, Americans still strive for property ownership and economic self-sufficiency as an ideal part of the American Dream. At the same time, Americans tend to take issue with any sense the government is interfering with their freedom, even during a crisis. To reiterate Jefferson’s words in the Declaration of Independence, citizens are entitled to “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” The final of these three elements (Happiness) is, perhaps, the most relevant in examining the present COVID-19 pandemic on each side of the debate over mandates to wear a mask and socially distance. Proponents of these measures believe spreading the virus to others infringes on one’s right to pursue happiness while opponents counter with arguments such restrictions violate their own. The first faction cites a more public form of individualism in which people can contract an unwanted, inadvertent infection from carriers, whereas the other group counters with another individualist claim it is one’s own responsibility to protect themselves and let them do as they please.
The anti-masking Americans, though, continue fiercely rejecting the “public safety” justification for masking ordinances their state and local leaders implement. Reasons for which people reject wearing a mask are numerous and complex, but the constitutional argument remains a common go-to approach undertaken. Those rejecting masks on this basis often also reject it and other restrictions, such as resulting job loss or instability from limited business operations. Masks are just another symbolic restriction fueling such peoples’ discontent. From a constitutional standpoint, however, many Americans feel requiring masks is simply another way of government telling them what to do, leading to the countless incidents of people voicing their opposition. Although nothing in the U.S. Constitution explicitly prohibits issuing masks, opponents often consider them mandates in conflict with their daily “pursuit of Happiness.”
So, what do colonial settlers and anti-maskers have in common? Those from the past and today both display a desire for personal freedom and self-reliance. Forms this assumes, of course, vary over time and from one person to another, but the American culture of rugged individualism is undeniable and its roots trace back over four centuries ago, long before the nation’s founding. Many today are constantly shocked by the frequent selfish refusal of millions of Americans to wear masks in public and wonder how this can be the case. We are, after all, in the midst of a pandemic involving a virus which spreads easily that has already killed thousands in the U.S. alone and it seems like a substantial opportunity to unite among a common cause.
Figure 5: President Joe Biden During a White House Meeting, February 3, 2021. Photo courtesy of Stefani Reynolds/The New York Times/Bloomberg via Getty Images.
Still, presuming Americans would readily unite behind taking steps like mask wearing to eradicate COVID-19 was naïve, considering its well-established history of individualism. This is not to say convincing the vast majority of Americans to wear masks and socially distance was doomed from the first lockdowns of 2020 or will remain so in the future. However, any chance of persuading the masses to cooperate in this country cannot successfully be accomplished without first addressing the culture of individuality. Leaders initially proved this was possible at the start of the Influenza pandemic over a hundred years ago when they convinced most to wear masks for the war effort. Despite the absence of a global war today, President Joe Biden has recently made attempts to reframe COVID-19 as a “war-time undertaking” in hopes of uniting Americans behind it.[14] Yet, restrictions behind today’s pandemic are even more politicized than a century ago. Moreover, even justifying restrictions from an individualist standpoint remains a tough sell, since Americans have historically shown they will aggressively push back against any cause they deem to jeopardize their self-reliance or personal freedom and this mindset is unlikely to change anytime soon. No mandates will ever gain maximum support without accounting for this reality.About the Historian: Kevin Kipers, ABD, is a doctoral candidate working with Dr. Lawrence Hatter. Kipers’ research focuses on settlement in the US West and how migration across the frontier during the nineteenth century gave way to the gradual rise of American capitalism, especially after the West’s declared closure in the 1890s. Hailing from Reno, NV, he earned his B.A. in history from the University of Nevada, Reno with concentrations on Nevada and the West before going on to receive a M.A. in history from California State University, Fullerton with an emphasis on public history and a minor focus on history of the American frontier. Kipers’ has also conducted some regional study on the history of Orange County’s citrus industry. In his spare time, Kevin enjoys sporting events (especially college football), watching movies, going for hikes, swimming, and traveling.
[1] David LaClair, “Debate Over Repeal of Wisconsin Mask Mandate,” WEAU 13 News, January 26, 2021.
[2] Garrett Cabeza, “Moscow Face Mask Order Extended,” Daily News, September 22, 2020.
[3] Lisa J. Huriash and Rafael Olmeda, “Woman Who Refuses to Wear Mask Arrested in West Boca,” South Florida Sun Sentinel, January 15, 2021.
[4] J. Alexander Navarro, “Mask Resistance During a Pandemic Isn’t New-In 1918 Many Americans Were ‘Slackers,’” Discover Magazine, July 30, 2020.
[5] Christine Hauser, “The Mask Slackers of 1918,” New York Times, December 10, 2020.
[6] Christine Hauser, “As the 1918 Influenza Pandemic Raged in the US, Masks Took a Role in Political and Cultural Wars,” New York Times, August 3, 2020.
[7] Anil Ananthaswamy, “How the Belief in American Exceptionalism Has Shaped the Pandemic Response,” Smithsonian Magazine, December 17, 2020; Roger Chesley, “The Consequences of Rugged Individualism in a Pandemic,” Virginia Mercury, October 29, 2020; and Caroline Newman, “Big Data Analytics Shows How America’s Individualism Complicates Coronavirus Response,” UVA Today, July 6, 2020.
[8] Appelbaum, Robert and John Wood Sweet, Envisioning an English Empire: Jamestown and the Making of the North Atlantic World (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2005), 95.
[9] Ibid., 97 and Richard Frethorne to Father and Mother, 1623, “Papers of Nathanial Rich.”
[10] “The People’s Grievances,” and “The Indian War-Path” in The Story of Bacon’s Rebellion, ed. Mary Newton Standard (New York: Neal Publishing Company, 1907), 19-20 and 51-2.
[11] Kristofer Ray, “Constructing a Discourse of Indigenous Slavery, Freedom, Sovereignty in Anglo-Virginia, 1600-1750,” Native South 10 (2017): 27-8.
[12] Andrew Moore, “The American Farmer as French Diplomat,” Journal of the Western Society for French History, vol. 39, 2011.
[13] J. Hector Saint John de Crevecoeur, “Letter III: What is an American?” in Letters from an American Farmer [1782] (New York: Fox, Duffield, and Company, 1904), 49-50.
[14] Arden Farhi and Audrey McNumara, "Biden Unveils National COVID Strategy with Slate of Executive Orders," CBS News, January 21, 2021.
Comments
Post a Comment