My FYP examines the extent to which the ideology of American ‘exceptionalism’ is contested by American writers. I have chosen to do so via a textural analysis of samples of Theodore Dreiser’s work - focusing on the decades between the two World Wars (approximately 1918-1938) and, especially, via key texts such as Dreiser’s novel An American Tragedy (1925).
The origin, and definitions, of American ‘exceptionalist’ ideology are much debated – as is the extent to which this multi-dimensional term is considered more a myth than a reality. The complexity of the debate is such that I have chosen to focus on one aspect of ‘exceptionalism’ for my presentation: social mobility.
In 2004, economics academic Joseph P. Ferrie published the following research paper:
‘The End of American Exceptionalism: Occupational and Geographic Mobility in the U.S., 1850-2000’, National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper Series, October 2004,
http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/~fe2r/papers/Exceptionalism.pdf
Professor Ferrie’s research is of specific interest as it focuses on comparisons of social mobility which span a significant epoch of American history (1850-2000). This epoch includes the period of Dreiser’s life (1871-1945) and, specifically, the era in which he was most active as a writer (1900-1940). Dreiser’s left-wing sympathies, and realistic portrayals of American society, categorise him as both radical and as a pioneer of the ‘naturalist’ literary genre. His advocacy of biological and social determinism, fatalism and ‘happenstance’, are strong themes in his texts. His observations of America as a society strictly divided by boundaries determined by a financially stratified, class hierarchy – the outcome of the politics and economics of capitalism - is a direct contestation of the egalitarian, class-free, socially mobile society which forms part of the American ‘exceptionalist’ debate. Ironically, when viewed against Ferrie’s conclusions, Dreiser’s contestation reveals more about America’s then future than her past.
Three questions to consider:
1) Are the data samples (of both US internal comparisons and US versus UK international comparisons), on which Ferrie’s conclusions are based, problematic? If so, how and why?
2) Is pro/anti-exceptionalist bias evident in the paper?
3) Ferrie comments that his findings suggest that ‘something fundamental changed in the U.S. economy after 1900-1920..... and no later than 1950/56....’ but he omits speculation or analysis thereof. What factors would you consider most likely to be responsible for this ‘fundamental’ change?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I found this article rather difficult to follow at times (especially the stats!) but I think I understand the general idea of what he was trying to demonstrate.
ReplyDeleteComparing census and other data is rather difficult when there is a comparison with the U.S and the UK as I think mobility and occupational mobility differs widely. Britain as a whole had been settled centuries earlier and the distances of the two countries just don't relate - 'Most moves in Britain were short distance, while in the United States distances were longer' - one third over 1000 miles. Size-wise this makes the data comparison rather non-nonsensical. Also their industrial might rose at different times - Britain heading the industrial revolution at least a century earlier than the modern industrial techniques/factories and production lines that sprang up in the U.S.
I'm not sure as to the pro or anti exceptionalist bias in the article but I think there is a tendency to anti as there doesn't appear to be a conclusion that Americans are still exceptional - not in the context of mobility.
As far as the something fundamental happening between the dates concerned I would think this was due to the 'double whammy' of legislation against immigration to the U.S. (the combination of WWI and it ending the Great Deluge)and the Wall Street Crash and the Depression of the 1930s
I, too, found the article difficult to follow at times, but I feel as though I understand the basics. The idea of American exceptionalism is evident throughout it's history, and in a sense Americans like to beleive themeselves to be exceptional. However, in terms of social mobility, a sense of exceptionalism is not evident, as the article states on page 2 that Canada and Sweden are more socially mobile than the USA. This shows that, whilst America was a nation founded to be a "city on a hill" and example of equality to the rest of the world this is not true in terms of social mobility, certainly in the present day. An anti-exceptionalist bias is evident, as the argument does not conclude that Americans are exceptional in terms of social mobility in the present day. Some possible factors in the economic change between 1920-1956 could be the Wall St. Crash which led to the Great Depression, a devestating time for the US economy. However, the New Deal and WWII helped bring the nation out of this, and by 1956 America had returned to being an economically advanced and wealthy state.
ReplyDelete