Within American popular discourse, George Washington is treated in almost hagiographic terms: as the so-called “father of the country”, he is portrayed as not only the literal founder of the country, but as the embodiment of American ideals. However, history as academic discipline entails critiquing the ideological and jingoistic treatment of historical events and personages, so as to provide a scientific account of its subject matter. In the case of George Washington, it is precisely the hagiographic readings of this historical figure that the historian must first suspend in order to provide an objective treatment of its subject matter.
Insofar as he is above all associated with the establishment of the U.S. as independent state, George Washington is seen as representative of a particular political ideology. More specifically, Washington is portrayed as a clear supporter of democracy and autonomy and thereby in antagonism with, for example, more archaic and oppressive systems of government, such as monarchy. Yet Washington’s background is closely linked to highly stratified social arrangements, closely linked to Britain. His family consisted of fairly recently immigrants from England, and Washington had intended to travel there to study, a plan which was interrupted by the death of his father.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"George Washington".
Furthermore, during the Seven Years War, Washington was active on the side of the British against other imperial powers such as Spain and France. Washington’s own personal ambitions were largely informed by a desire to receive commission in the British Army, a goal which he was rejected for. Washington’s image as an anti-imperialist crusader is greatly compromised by his clear involvement with the activities of imperial powers, specifically Britain, in North America: when personal biographical facts such as the rejection of his commission are also considered, his conflict with Britain could also be historically interpreted as a personal vendetta.
The image of Washington as embodiment of American democracy is further compromised by his family background. The Washington family’s wealth was closely tied to principles of slave labor, which was used to work in their tobacco plantations. Washington himself never opposed these practices. Insofar as Washington was always closely associated with an elite whose high social position was maintained by oppressive practices such as the reliance upon slave labor, the link between Washington and democracy becomes attenuated.
At the same time, Washington was also a prominent member of the Free Masons movement. To the extent that democracy is championed as a transparent and autonomous political system, the view of Washington as staunch supporter of democracy is compromised by his belonging to a powerful and influential secret society. That the Free Masons comprised the elite of American society reconfigures the account of the American Revolution as a popular and underclass uprising against imperialist and oppressive forces becomes more doubtful. Washington’s own belonging to an elite rather repaints this conflict as essentially a conflict between elites, with the aim of gaining total hegemony over the affluent territories of North America. Democracy, in this sense, becomes a point of rhetorical discourse, whereby the underclass can be mobilized by anti-British powers to fulfill strategic objectives. The realization of this strategic objective in the form of U.S. independence in this regard merely becomes a shift of hegemony from one powerful group to another.
The idealization of George Washington is tied to a specific idea of democracy and autonomy. However, this connection is jeopardized when considering historical facts associated with the life of Washington. The democratic project of the United States from this viewpoint becomes less about democracy as concept and more so indicates a hegemonic struggle between social elites.
