Some food for thought. More below the break:
From Wikipedia:
Some interpret the term to indicate a moral superiority of Americans, while others use it to refer to the American concept as itself an exceptional ideal, which may or may not always be upheld by the actual people and government of the nation. Dissenters claim “American exceptionalism” is little more than crude propaganda, that in essence is a justification for a America-centered view of the world that is inherently chauvinistic and jingoistic in nature. Historians and political scientists may use the term to simply refer to some case of American uniqueness without implying that an innate superiority of Americans resulted in the development of that uniqueness.
Basically I think of exceptionalism as a paradigm. A paradigm is a framework of assumptions and values that guides our thoughts, feelings, and attitudes as well as delineating the acceptable methods of inquiry and topics of discourse. As long as one stays within the bounds of the dominant paradigm, one’s ideas will be considered by their peers. However, those whose views fall outside of the dominant paradigm are likely to be viewed as crackpots, heretics, traitors, etc.
I believe that as a framework American exceptionalism – in the sense that America is somehow morally superior or that it is somehow an exceptional ideal (albeit one that is not always lived up to) has a number of serious limitations. One major problem is cognitive. From the research on motivated cognition, we know that people tend to 1) tend to actively seek out information that confirms their beliefs and 2) ignore or discount information that is contrary to their beliefs. Exceptionalists, when confronted with those stubborn facts regarding American-induced genocide, support of brutal dictators, use of torture, and so forth will tend to either minimize the severity and scope of those details or will find some way of interpreting those details to conform to their beliefs. Another problem will arise with regard to self-perception. To the extent that we tend to identify ourselves with our nation, we are motivated to think well of our nation as it is a reflection of who we are as individuals. The exceptionalist is motivated then to seek out the data that make them feel good about their nations and by extension themselves. Bringing up those stubborn contrary facts will make exceptionalists rather unhappy to the extent that they view mention of those facts as a threat to self.
Thus, what I see happening in America that we dissidents must face is the enormous task of 1) presenting facts contrary to the paradigm of exceptionalism in the face of a motivated cognitive system that is not disposed to handle such facts, and 2) presenting those facts in the face of a great deal of pressure not to in order to preserve the self-esteem of the exceptionalists.
This is obviously a very overly-simplistic presentation, but hopefully you get the idea. I’m willing to flesh out these ideas further as time permits.
Very interesting.
I agree with your analysis.
I do wonder about this one bit:
I think the question is, why do we dissidents even have to tackle American Exceptionalism?
I’m not feeling too idealistic tonight, so I’ll just ask — why do you think we need to address American Exceptionalism at all? The risks seem partially self-evident, but what are the benefits?
( I’m curious where we can go with this. )
It’s way late and I’ll be out of town much of the day Tuesday. Just wanted to let you know that I did read your comment, and will reply – just too tired at the moment to do your comment justice.
Thanks. I was too tired to hold my end as well.
I’m I think at a point now where I can try to do your question some justice. Basically, I was trying to point out that those of us who are on some level challenging the American exceptionalism paradigm are going to run into some resistance doing so, that we need to expect that to be the case.
I’m just a two-bit armchair pundit and small-time activist, so I suppose I might have more luxury in pushing those inconvenient truths that others might not want to hear. I don’t have an election or re-election to worry about or the fear of the loss of campaign contributions if I say something deemed politically incorrect.
What are the benefits of chipping away at a paradigm that no longer works? I suppose a clean conscience is one of them. If the goal is winning elections, a clean conscience won’t buy much, perhaps. However, those who have an alternative to the old paradigm stand to gain in terms of power and respect once the old paradigm is abandoned. It happens in the sciences, and I’d bet it happens in politics too (the New Deal was the outcome of such a paradigm shift in the 1930s). The paradigm shifts themselves are largely driven by outsiders – not always but usually. Those outsiders subsequently become the new insiders. Those insiders who were best poised to adapt to a new paradigm will remain as insiders within the new framework.
Exceptionalism as a framework will eventually be replaced – maybe sooner rather than later. The public has certainly been treated to enough chips in the Exceptionalist facade as of late (Abu Ghraib and post-Katrina NOLA come most readily to mind) which suggests to me that there may be a more receptive audience to those who want to pursue a more humane alternative that can account for those inconvenient truths in a straight-forward fashion – something that cannot be accomplished as long as we stay wed to the old framework. Those of us who want to entertain a post-exceptionalist America will take some flak from those most invested in the current state of affairs. There’s no way around it. It’s those who are unsatisfied with the current approach that we work on – by explaining the facts better than the exceptionalists can and by offering policies that correspond with those facts better.
Just a couple cents worth. Hopefully did the question some justice.
A few remarks about paradigm change. There are two basic conditions for a change of paradigm to succeed:
First the “old” paradigm must be in a crisis so deep that it clearly cannot be dealt with within the paradigm,
Second, you must have a new paradigm (i.e. a consistent framework of concepts, assumptions, methods and values) to offer, and this new paradigm must be strong enough to convince people it will help them to tackle their problems better than the old one.
For the first condition, it took Europe a devastating war and the collapse of the colonial empires to accept to discard the old Westphalian paradigm (and not everybody is convinced yet…).
For the second condition, it required leaders who were pragmatic dreamers to propose a Union in which we have been able to build new national identities.
Last remark: It’s a gradual process and it takes time. For Europe, it started in the 1950’s and it’s still an ongoing – sometimes chaotic – process…
Friends, IMHO the right way to criticize the far right is NOT by attacking exceptionalism. Instead, we should embrace it, like Lincoln did in the his message to Congress, when he called America: “the last best, hope of earth.”. Then we should point out how the far right agenda betrays American ideals. Torture and fraud are abhorent to everyone – so we should make the Republicans wear them like a ball and chain. At the end of the day, their agenda of imperialism abroad and corruption at home simply doesn’t have much support. The best way to remove them from power is by reclaiming America’s idealism.
“Exceptionalism” is essentially a fancy word for “America owns the world.” It is a modern “pardigm” of the divine right of kings, with America as self-crowned king.
That is not compatible with any of those lofty ideals like freedom, equality, justice, etc.
There are some Americans today who struggle with this conflict. All their lives, they have been told about freedom, equality and justice, then as they learn more about their country’s history, there is some disappointment, some shock and awe.
And now they must decide. Exceptionalism, or freedom, equality, etc.
Do Americans want to be a responsible, respected member of the community of nations, or an exception?
This is something that only the American people can decide.
And they deserve the respect of being told the truth, which is that exceptionalism does have some consequences, due to the fact that the concept is just not as popular outside of the US, and the chances of it catching on are slim to none.
The US has 300 thousand people, there are 6 billion people on earth. Having 530 thousand people living in fear of US and its exceptionalism might sound pretty good if you’re an arms dealer, but not so great if you are a third grade math teacher.
Freedom and equality and justice also have consequences. Some rich men would not make more money.
Populations considered undesirable by the affluent might wind up having housing, health care, a living wage.
And the US might wind up not being the most feared entity on earth.
It’s America’s call. The rest of the world can only quake in fear, and do what it needs to do to protect its children from a life of that fear.
I didn’t realize that this term “American Exceptionalism”, which has been tossed around a bit here lately, had this accepted and specific meaning. I’m right there with you, DTF — I reject this notion outright as injust, and I think the fundamental inequality that underlies it is dangerous to contemplate – even by those progressives who, as someone said above, should turn it against the Right as a mythology of the American Dream. To that I say “Booooooo!”
However, I disagree with that last paragraph, and quite strongly. American Exceptionalism is not America’s call. It is something that the American people can embrace, redefine, or reject. It is something that polititions can exploit, or ignore. It can be a policy that the military, State Dept., etc. carry out, or not. But, America does not act like a single individual. America does not make a call. America is 260 million or so people, living their own lives, in a common place, with a common government.
And, as to the rest of the world, as a part of that group, let me tell you and all of America: we’ve got a lot better things to do with our time than “quake in fear”. Even if your government has enough bombs to destroy the Earth 10 times over. So, while your government wrestles with its foreign policy and your people wrestle with their mythology, I’ll be busy dancing and tending my garden, thank you. If you need me, don’t check the bomb shelter, because it’s empty.
You are correct that the American public is not a monolith, the underclass especially is effectively marginalized and disenfranchised enough so that the American affluent might want to consider the benefits of quaking in fear versus focusing a bit on their domestic time bomb.
And I agree with you that the rest of the world has better things to do than quake in fear, but I am posting from one US server to another one, and I think it would be a violation of the Patriot Act, not to mention culturally insensitive, to suggest that quaking in fear of hearing the bomber planes overhead is not the preferred pasttime of Mr. and Mrs. Restoworld.
So while the Restoworlds may indeed have their own security to think about, how Restoworld chooses to protect his home, and his children’s future from wild beasts and whatever other dangers may be present is not America’s call.
America’s call is just how much of a threat to the Restoworld security they want to continue being.
All Americans may not agree on the question of whether they would rather have liberty and justice for all or exceptionalism, but they will all bear the cost of whatever decision they make, and that payment will be demanded not just by Restoworld, but from their own countrymen.
Hmm… My apologies if I incorrectly assumed that you are American. I don’t think that changes anything I would’ve said except my choice of pronoun. I have to say, the “Patriot Act” comment was hysterically funny, and it’s true that all citizens must pay for the actions of their government(s).
But, I can see that you will not be convinced to let go of the illusion of a single-actor and single-decision. I know that history will prove you correct and me wrong, because that’s the way history is told. But I still don’t believe it. I’ll have to collect my thoughts on this matter a bit more – I’m convinced you’d agree if I could just make my case.
That would certainly simplify things, especially for Americans.
If they choose exceptionalism, sadly, because of the realities you mention, they will all pay for it, though not all will have chosen it.
If they choose liberty and justice for all, unless “they” includes the most powerful and wealthy who stand to make a lot more money from “exceptionalism,” those bad boys will make them pay for that choice until the very minute they are loaded onto the C-130s and packed off to the Hague.
And getting them there will be a long, tough, and I am sad to say, bloody trip.
I don’t know that we need to confront the paradigm within which the idea of American exceptionalism is propagated so much as we need to emphasize one huge flaw, one primary characteristic absent from that paradigm.
Missing is the basic idea that discerning truth is more valuable to us all than just believing what we want to believe. If we seek the truth and respect the truth, and allow the truth to guide our actions rather than acting based on what we want to believe, then in the end we experience less suffering and hardship as the result of all those mistakes we make when laboring under false assumptions.
The primary support for the idea of American exceptionalism is based on how successful proponents ofthat idea are at denying or obfuscating the truth. In short, the concept of American exceptionalism is rooted in deception.
Denial has long been the bane of us (spposedly) civilized humans. In recent years, denial has been both institutionalized and weaponized by the political process under which we’re being assaulted with lies and a neverending, relentless stream of propaganda 24/7. BushCo left the rails of reality-based thinking a long while ago, so it’s pretty much useless to try to reach any of them with rational argument. But if we can get the people to embrace the idea that the truth of things will prove to be more valuable to them than whatever illusions they have, (and which require they spend enormous amounts of energy defending in the face of overwhelming evidence that those illusions they cling to are false), then we can make real progress.
I look forward to a day when most people understand that knowing the truth is a central pillar, an essential component of any paradigm if that paradigm is to permit real progress in the social and political arenas.