The Early American Economy as Explained by Will Hunting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIdsjNGCGz4

“I was just hoping you could give me some insight into the evolution of the market economy in

the southern colonies?” So begins the showdown between Will Hunting and the pony tailed

Harvard grad student during the bar scene of the 1997 movie Good Will Hunting. It is a scene where two characters hash out competing arguments over the nature of the early pre-revolutionary American economy.

“My contention is that prior to the revolutionary war, the economic modalities, especially in the

southern colonies, could most aptly be characterized as agrarian pre capitalist..” With this line a Harvard grad student looks to embarrass Will Hunting’s friend, Chuckie, and impress Will’s future girlfriend (spoiler alert) Skylar, played by Minnie Driver.

This is also where the original thought of the Harvard man ends and the regurgitation begins. He goes

on to give the contention of Pete Garrison by pawning it off as his own, as Will points out.

Although Pete Garrison was the only fictionalized historian referenced in this scene, there are

actual Marxian historians who hold the same contention. So what do these historians mean by

agrarian pre-capitalist when describing the pre-revolutionary economic modalities of the

southern colonies? They contend that southern colonies at that time consisted of family farmers

focused primarily on their own subsistence and not necessarily economic gain through surplus

production. They were not workers, specifically in this case farmers, selling their labor to

another landowner but rather using their labor for their own ends. This bond of labor and

ownership is what defines an agrarian pre-capitalist economic modality. A fine theory, but Will

does not agree with it. He knows that some historians believe the economic landscape was

changing far before the Revolutionary War. Get beyond the first year of grad school and you’ll

bump into a man named James Lemon.

James Lemon, as Will points out, has a different take on the economic modalities and their

evolution in pre-revolutionary America. In referencing the agrarian pre-capitalist argument Will

states, “You’re gonna be convinced of that until next month when you get to James Lemon.

Then you’re gonna be talking about how the economies of Virginia and Pennsylvania were

entrepreneurial and capitalist way back in 1740.” Let’s pump Will’s breaks there for a second

and look into James Lemon’s argument. Will is interpreting James Lemon’s argument that

Pennsylvanians and Virginians at that time were already interested in pursuing profits and

material gain rather than simply just subsistence. They had land, suitable soil, and effective

enough farming practices that freed up their labor for additional economic pursuits. In his view,

they led to the kindling of an entrepreneurial spirit and these people were eager to put their

capital to work. To sum it up, these individuals had aims beyond their own subsistence which

were taking place “Way back in 1740.” Will thinks our grad school friend, Clark, will toy with this

idea for a year or so but then move on to the theory of a more notable figure, Gordon Wood.

Gordon Wood, as Will proclaims, attributes the evolution of the market economy in early America to something more distinct, prepping for the revolution itself. Will

highlights this by predicting that Clark will be regurgitating Gordon Wood’s theory of a “Pre-

revolutionary Utopia and the capital forming effects of military mobilization.” This is a big jump

from James Lemon. In Gordon Wood’s view, prepping for the Revolutionary War drove the

growth of the market economy as the war effort required things like weapons, equipment, and

clothing which could most efficiently be supplied through a market economy. This military

mobilization, alliteration aside, led to Wood’s previously mentioned pre-revolutionary Utopia. In

Wood’s eyes this Utopia stemmed from the class leveling effects this economic boom was

having as more and more people could deploy their capital for economic gain. This idea is what

leads our Harvard friend to think he’s caught Will and is going to get the intellectual upper hand.

He plays what he hopes is his ace in the hole by saying, “As a matter of fact I won’t, because

Wood drastically underestimates the impact of social distinc…”. But then Will has him, as he

completes the passage from a book by a historian named Daniel Vickers that the Harvard man

was about to pawn off as his own.

“Wood drastically underestimates the impact of social distinction predicated upon wealth,

especially inherited wealth. Yeah I read that too.” This line from Vicker’s book Farmers and

Fishermen: Two Centuries of Work in Essex County, Massachusetts, 1630–1850 is the knockout

blow for Clark. In it, Vicker’s is essentially saying that Wood’s idea of a pre-revolutionary

Utopia fueled by military mobilization does not distinguish among the experiences of different

classes such as slaves, the lower class, and those that do not have the benefit of inherited wealth as

a form of capital. Vicker’s perspective is that Americans at this time differed in their pursuit of profit

and use of capital based on the social class they came from. At this point the Harvard man is

thoroughly embarrassed and Will has successfully defended his friend in front of the two ladies. It’s

a fascinating scene to begin with and understanding the historical arguments behind their exchange

makes it all the more enjoyable. How bout them apples?