The American Dream—A Stale Metaphor

Today’s employment/unemployment numbers have set off a round of critical commentary and more cries that the American Dream is dead.  The numbers were bad, see here.  Macro level analysis about the ongoing class warfare in America, the wealthy versus the not wealthy, is painted as The Betrayal of the American Dream, a discussion about a new book by that name.

These reports got me to thinking about the phrase “American Dream” or, more precisely, the complex metaphor that it is.

First, here is what Wikipedia has to say (here):

“The American Dream is a national ethos of the United States; a set of ideals in which freedom includes the opportunity for prosperity and success, and an upward social mobility achieved through hard work.”

The idea is more than a focus on materialism, however.  It also means a person can pursue their inner betterment without artificial constraints, such as religious, artistic and moral freedom.

I generally believe that knowing the origin and popular duration of phrases helps to understand their meaning.   In this case, James Truslow Adams coined the phrase in 1931:

“…the American dream, that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for every man, with opportunity for each according to his ability or achievement. It is a difficult dream for the European upper classes to interpret adequately, and too many of us ourselves have grown weary and mistrustful of it. It is not a dream of motor cars and high wages merely, but a dream of social order in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, and be recognized by others for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position” (here).

Obviously, it is a Modernist phrase, conceived in modernist terms, such as “achievement” and “social order.”  However, it does contain many older American ideas, so the phrase may be older.  If it is older, then it was never widely used as chart 1 shows.

While Adams used the phrase in 1931, it was 30 years later that it became popular and part of the American collective vocabulary, as shown in chart 2.

My point here is that while many of the ideas bundled together in the phrase are old in American culture, the metaphor “American Dream” is a product of the mid 20^th century.  It is a metaphor that came into being as the American High was transforming into the Fourth Awakening, the climax of Modernism.  It represents the greatness of America at the height of its own achievements.

The popularity of the metaphor has been in decline since 1975.  For young Americans, under age 45, it is an idea from their parent’s, grandparent’s, and great grandparent’s generations.  For them the American Dream is like eating stale bread.

Thus, it is a legacy metaphor.  And, in our new Romanticism, it may not be a useful metaphor or one that has deep meaning, one that provides sustenance to our culture going forward.

The above charts clearly demonstrate that “American Dream” began in popularity about 1960.  It was in that year that Life Magazine began a series of essays on “Our National Purpose” (here).  It’s very hard to imagine today our nation having such a conversation in print or multimedia.  But we need one.

To me, the American Dream is not just about personal success, freedom, or the chance to better myself.  It is about our nation’s role in the world, our purpose as a collective entity about which we can all share a sense of pride and loyalty.  We need a new metaphor that combines the best of the American Dream, Manifest Destiny, and American Exceptionalism.

I don’t know what the new phrase, metaphor, would be.  I do know that worrying about “losing the American Dream” is a wasted effort, a fake controversy, because our spirit is still intact.  The oligarchy does not own that.

Our American Empire versus Morris Berman

This weekend I have watched several videos about Morris Berman (hat tip to Jesse’s Café for reminding me of Berman) who is a student of American culture and, some would say, one of its harsher critics.  For more about him see here and here.  Berman’s work is important because he summarizes much of the basic underlying narrative of American culture.  Unfortunately, he chooses to believe that the crass side of it is always dominant.  Thus, his description and forecast is a negative one.  I am in agreement with 90 percent of his analysis except I believe we a have a chance of a positive outcome.  We can have a better America and it doesn't have to be excessively crass and stupid.

Here are two versions of his recent lecture that he seems to be giving frequently called The Way We Live Today but is typically referred to as Why America Failed, the title of his most recent book.

Berman’s message is a dark one.  He sees America as a failed culture filled with hustlers; his recent book of that title is a “postmortem” on the culture.  The end is here.  When asked if it can be corrected he basically says no, that the process has to play out.  It is a fatalist view.  For individuals, you can leave, as he did by moving to Mexico, or you can live a “monastic” life by finding solace and community locally, live small and tough it out.  Another option, which he thinks is unlikely, is that the culture will be turned upside down and will improve.

Berman has taken a narrow view of the American character.  I think we are more than simple hustlers.  This hustler idea comes from historian McDougall, Freedom Just Around the Corner.  However, in that same book, McDougall also described the “betterment ethic” that is so deeply embedded in the American, and Western, psyche.  And, that ethic is not tied solely to crass materialism but also to spiritualism and empathy.

Berman decries the decline of empathy in America, and argues that more cruelty is coming.  He may be correct but that does not mean that empathy will never rebound.  To me, Berman is manifesting those qualities and ideas that mark the crisis era and that develop out of the unraveling era.  In the four part cycle of cultural high, awakening, unraveling, and crisis, ideas about the end of the world (end of culture) seem to be present.  In fact, as each part of the cycle turns there are often anticipations of the end of something.  In 1987 the band REM released a song called It's the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine) that enjoyed much success.  The song was a manifestation of the end of the Fourth Awakening (1960-1990), a recognition that a phase of American culture was over, and a new one had begun.

Now, to be clear here, I do believe that our crisis gets much darker before it ends and I have written of this previously, here and here.  And when this crisis is over, there will be a new America.  I for one, think it will be a much stronger entity and much larger.  Our current “decline” is a step back before a leap forward.

One of the things I haven’t seen from the various Berman videos is any discussion about the life cycle of empires, the rise and fall of empires.  Certainly, Jared Diamond has gotten much attention along that line but when one argues that the US has failed I think that the empire discussion is relevant.  Berman is against American empire.

My understanding of empires comes from a little known political sciencist from UC Irvine, Rein Taagepera.  I met him when I was a student there, and sat through some of his lectures.  His main essays on empires are:

(1968), Growth curves of empires, General Systems 13, 171-175.

(1978), Size and duration of empires: Systematics of size, Social Science Research 7,108-127.

 (1978), Size and duration of empires: Growth-decline curves, 3000 to 600 BC, Social Science Research 7, 180-196.

(1979), Size and duration of empires: Growth-decline curves, 600 BC to 600 AD, Social Science History 3, 115-139.

All of which I read in the late 1970s - early 1980s but continue to use because of the strong cyclical empahisis.  I accept America as an empire and assume there will be a strong public desire to continue it.  The gist of Taagepera's argument is that successful empires that have long durations tend to develop slowly and expand geographically.  Empires that expand too fast will decline quickly (Nazi Germany, Alexander the Great).  Empires that grow slowly can continue for many centuries (Rome, Great Britain).

The American empire has been developing slowly since the 17^th century, first as a child of Britain, then on its own.  This empire continued to grab up new territory until the early 20^th century at which point it stopped geographically expanding (Alaska and Hawaii being the last states added to its list) and switched to an economic-military extractive posture.  Through most of the 20^th century and into the 21^st it has used its extensive military bases around the world to project its power and to extract resources from allies/partners/the third world without actually colonizing them.

For the American empire to continue it must periodically expand geographically, or break up.  And, since the first priority of any superpower is to remain one as long as possible, it is time for America to expand geographically.

This can come about in many ways:

1.      Peacefully; the US can announce to the world that it will accept more states.  Invite other nations to join the US.  I assume there will be takers.  This is a empathetic path.

2.      Violently; America conquers another nation and chooses to colonize (oil nations of Africa and South America come to mind). This is a non empathetic path.

3.      Out of economic necessity; a political Union of North America comprising Canada, US, and Mexico is created and politically merged. This offers the possibility of an empathetic union.

4.      WW3 with China creates the opportunity to incorporate Taiwan and or South Korea into the US empire.  This is a non-empathetic path.

The point here is that empires require LAND not pseudo colonies based on economic exploitation.  I hope for versions 1 or 3 or some combination.

The above options require a mindset, an ethos, that helps rationalize the expansion.  Can it be done with harmony and a sense of doing good and bettering society?  Or, must it be a surge of American crassness?

I think that 40 years of run amok crassness and materialism is about to end and the pendulum will swing the other way, toward increased empathy.  Americans could also be shamed into this position.

In one video Berman spoke about how he did not believe that Americans can change from their hustling ways.  We are not like the violent Norse who became the socialist Scandinavians.

Berman offers no options but I think there are plenty.  The Norse did change; and many Germans are embarrassed about their Nazi past; and the Japanese are no longer samurai warriors.  Americans can become Saints living peacefully on a hill if they chose to do it.  They can turn their world upside down (remember the song from Yorktown).