As this is my final blog for this academic year I thought I would take on - somewhat foolishly - the above. As this is potentially a complex topic lets set some relatively straightforward ground rules. What is History? Well for me history is not a collection of facts, figures and faces for that is just statistics but on the surface at least history is a vast random collection of stories. These stories come in many shapes and sizes and are told, retold and updated (informally and formally) orally, visually, and in written form. They are a series of thoughts, recollections, interpretations and representations of actions and reactions that have and can inform, reform and radicalise individuals, communities, societies and nation-states. Moreover, like Hegel, Marx and to a degree Kant I see history as a evidential process, hence it inevitably has a ill defined start and a more obvious but contentious end that is not related to any conjured up spiritual images of Adam and Eve and Armageddon or by scientific determinism defined by the 'Big Bang'. This premise springs from the beginning of a rudimentary form of civic society(a grouping/community with basic rules and institutions) and ends when this entity has reached its highest level of development(or limitations) through a series of conflicts, contradictions and consolidations.
Accepting the above, lets look particularly at the 'American Story'. Firstly, unusually this piece of history has a clear beginning - 1776 - this is not to say that this space and place possessed no stories of note before this date but when colonialists began in earnest their 'ground clearing exercise' they deliberately reset the clock in terms of historical recognition. In other words, the Founders were looking not only to replace the old imperial status quo with a name and game change but remove all indigenous traces that might hamper or constrain their socio/political experiment. Therefore, their key societal benchmarks that they then used to trap and trace their progress emanated from the seminal documents of the Declaration of Independence(1776) and the US Constitution(1789).
Now what makes identification of this particular series of stories difficult to evaluate is largely twofold. Firstly, the connections and relationships between ideas, events and actions often sit below the surface of a confusing array of conflicts and contradictions. For example, the Founders claimed that from the very start that they would be 'independent' of thought and action from the Old World but at the very first hurdle in attempting to pull or jump away from their imperial masters - the British - they bounded themselves legally with the Old World monarchies of France and Spain. This pragmatic decision is one of the countless contradictions that sits within the American historical narrative. Secondly, the creation of the American Dream - a clever piece of political and cultural propaganda used to promote a nation desperate for people to emigrate and then champion this embryonic nation but this 'national advertisement' has subsequently been 'believed' by many to offer a true representation of the US. However, I suggest in the overall historical schema that these seemingly counter intuitive, paradoxical and mystical decisions were/are just 'smoke and mirrors' since underneath these dichotomies sat and sit declared ideological and sociality relationships that not only remained and remain intact but slowly strengthened over time. In other words, the US have been extremely efficient and still are of thinking one way and acting in another. This behaviour is not unique to the US however, what is, is its ability not to allow these contradictions to get in the way of the nation's aims and objectives. I guess the opposite of this position within the developed world would be France who some critics would observe have 'wasted' huge amounts of intellectual energy and costly resources on creating, recreating and preserving their creaking social model. Supporters might respond with true, but surely that's the point since France's identity is to be found in the continual and constant re-examination of societal needs whereas the US approach was and is far more pragmatic, focused and therefore, confined.
Back to the American story, if you look subsequently at the conflicts concerning expansion, ownership, citizenship, identity and governance during the period post 1787 until 1861 you can view the US and its social experiment as a messy, disjointed, insecure and confused attempt at societal consolidation but the solution to this superficial disorder came in the form of the resultant Civil War - America's true Revolution - where political pragmatism(power) and ideas(identity) clashed and violently erupted. The outcome of this vicious conversation left on the surface a scared society that was still conflicted by numerous racial, economic and social tensions - and those wounds still exist - but beneath this 'smoke and mirrors' emerged a stronger more unified community bound by a greater focus on economic freedoms and political confinements(consolidations). In other words, this nation had finally sculptured via coercion not liberty a set of priorities that finally locked in the basis for the 'liberal democracy' that they claim today - wider voting participation and economic progress based largely on a conservative constitutional interpretation.
Post Civil War, with the process defined, societal 'progress' becomes the nation's and seemingly the World's destiny. Although, the decades leading up to the 20th century were full of economic ups and downs that fuelled class and racial strife the underlying values of this nation - economic freedom aligned with social conservatism - would not be denied becoming industrially the most powerful nation in the World alongside 'declaring' themselves an imperial nation due to the 'American Eagle' spreading its political, military and economic wings across the globe(Spanish American War 1898). This concerted approach to overseas expansion promised plenty to a land committed not only to selling its wares but also its ideas on how society was best constructed. The resultant dynamics entitled and drove an 'American Century' that at first glance could look confusing if you just concentrated on the surface of society. However, allowing for the social, financial and cultural dysfunctions and disturbances generated by the First World War, the Great Depression, the Second World War and the Cold War the United States continued to progress little by little offering still wider participation within the political and economic make up of the nation. This was an extraordinarily effective and powerful journey that some overexcited commentators have called exceptional. Yet I would suggest this historical process of 'progress' that has lasted just 240 odd years has now come to an end. Moreover, unlike previous philosophical thinking and more contemporary hubristic comments - Fukuyama (1992) - this ending belongs to the US alone and not necessarily to other nations since unlike the majority of unbridled supporters of American liberalism I do not see that the universal nature of American values has found secure anchorage in all corners of the World. This is because American societal norms do not fit automatically or coercively in all societies. In other words, this amazing and bemusing series of American stories does not always easily translate into other communities histories regardless of globalisation. Maybe because of globalisation!
What is the evidence to support this view? Externally, the evidence is extensive - the Middle East, North Africa, Eastern Europe many parts of Asia and Central America have looked at the American experiment and have either ignored it, tried it and reverted and/or at best taken elements of this experiment that fits more 'naturally' with their own stories. Hence, the American form of liberal democracy has not triumphed. I would therefore suggest that Washington's attempts inconsistently and somewhat half-heartedly supported by Western Europe, to sell the American History as 'the World History' has finally run its course. Is that failure? Depends on your understanding of success and of course, your consideration of America's destiny. As I can no longer see any convincing underlying reason why many communities would want to recognise America's own form of freedom that is de-constructing before our very own eyes. Many have become increasingly disenchanted and ultimately discouraged because the conflicting chaos (smoke and mirrors) that is American contemporary society that has been kept so successfully separate from the nation's key underlying values has finally seeped into and diluted their binding legitimacy. In other words, the key to American success (progress) has been built on their ability to offer (promise) to sufficient numbers of citizens the opportunity to join the 'good life' whatever their status.
That ability and facility - that social mobility and flexibility - has dissipated as American society looks increasingly divided by the very same challenges that it faced in 1776 - inclusion and exclusion. American history has recorded and reported a form of governance that has successfully managed to deflect and distract people's attention away from their social inconsistencies by producing the glittering offerings of the material World, but the growing insidious nature of inequality has now reached down into those 'exceptional' values leaving an increasing number who have been dispossessed of genuine health care, meaningful education, decent housing and hope. This hapless condition increasingly reveals a society that has finally reached its ultimate limitations. What concerted action do we see from Congress to address this problem? What real action do we see from the White House? Why are more and more people supporting Trump and Cruz at one extreme and Sanders at the other? Why don't the American youth trust to their future? Why are the middle classes demanding unrealistic and reactionary protecting? The rich have been getting unequally richer since the end of the 1980's whilst more Americans drop into that 'one month away from financial disaster group' with the working classes seeing no real increase in living standards for 25 years. So when did 'US History' actually end? For me, paradoxically on the very day that many Americans celebrated the demise of the Soviet Union and the Cold War. For this was no victory for liberal democracy but it was the beginning of the end of that constructed socio - political experiment that was first declared in 1776.
Enjoy the summer,
KK
Accepting the above, lets look particularly at the 'American Story'. Firstly, unusually this piece of history has a clear beginning - 1776 - this is not to say that this space and place possessed no stories of note before this date but when colonialists began in earnest their 'ground clearing exercise' they deliberately reset the clock in terms of historical recognition. In other words, the Founders were looking not only to replace the old imperial status quo with a name and game change but remove all indigenous traces that might hamper or constrain their socio/political experiment. Therefore, their key societal benchmarks that they then used to trap and trace their progress emanated from the seminal documents of the Declaration of Independence(1776) and the US Constitution(1789).
Now what makes identification of this particular series of stories difficult to evaluate is largely twofold. Firstly, the connections and relationships between ideas, events and actions often sit below the surface of a confusing array of conflicts and contradictions. For example, the Founders claimed that from the very start that they would be 'independent' of thought and action from the Old World but at the very first hurdle in attempting to pull or jump away from their imperial masters - the British - they bounded themselves legally with the Old World monarchies of France and Spain. This pragmatic decision is one of the countless contradictions that sits within the American historical narrative. Secondly, the creation of the American Dream - a clever piece of political and cultural propaganda used to promote a nation desperate for people to emigrate and then champion this embryonic nation but this 'national advertisement' has subsequently been 'believed' by many to offer a true representation of the US. However, I suggest in the overall historical schema that these seemingly counter intuitive, paradoxical and mystical decisions were/are just 'smoke and mirrors' since underneath these dichotomies sat and sit declared ideological and sociality relationships that not only remained and remain intact but slowly strengthened over time. In other words, the US have been extremely efficient and still are of thinking one way and acting in another. This behaviour is not unique to the US however, what is, is its ability not to allow these contradictions to get in the way of the nation's aims and objectives. I guess the opposite of this position within the developed world would be France who some critics would observe have 'wasted' huge amounts of intellectual energy and costly resources on creating, recreating and preserving their creaking social model. Supporters might respond with true, but surely that's the point since France's identity is to be found in the continual and constant re-examination of societal needs whereas the US approach was and is far more pragmatic, focused and therefore, confined.
Back to the American story, if you look subsequently at the conflicts concerning expansion, ownership, citizenship, identity and governance during the period post 1787 until 1861 you can view the US and its social experiment as a messy, disjointed, insecure and confused attempt at societal consolidation but the solution to this superficial disorder came in the form of the resultant Civil War - America's true Revolution - where political pragmatism(power) and ideas(identity) clashed and violently erupted. The outcome of this vicious conversation left on the surface a scared society that was still conflicted by numerous racial, economic and social tensions - and those wounds still exist - but beneath this 'smoke and mirrors' emerged a stronger more unified community bound by a greater focus on economic freedoms and political confinements(consolidations). In other words, this nation had finally sculptured via coercion not liberty a set of priorities that finally locked in the basis for the 'liberal democracy' that they claim today - wider voting participation and economic progress based largely on a conservative constitutional interpretation.
Post Civil War, with the process defined, societal 'progress' becomes the nation's and seemingly the World's destiny. Although, the decades leading up to the 20th century were full of economic ups and downs that fuelled class and racial strife the underlying values of this nation - economic freedom aligned with social conservatism - would not be denied becoming industrially the most powerful nation in the World alongside 'declaring' themselves an imperial nation due to the 'American Eagle' spreading its political, military and economic wings across the globe(Spanish American War 1898). This concerted approach to overseas expansion promised plenty to a land committed not only to selling its wares but also its ideas on how society was best constructed. The resultant dynamics entitled and drove an 'American Century' that at first glance could look confusing if you just concentrated on the surface of society. However, allowing for the social, financial and cultural dysfunctions and disturbances generated by the First World War, the Great Depression, the Second World War and the Cold War the United States continued to progress little by little offering still wider participation within the political and economic make up of the nation. This was an extraordinarily effective and powerful journey that some overexcited commentators have called exceptional. Yet I would suggest this historical process of 'progress' that has lasted just 240 odd years has now come to an end. Moreover, unlike previous philosophical thinking and more contemporary hubristic comments - Fukuyama (1992) - this ending belongs to the US alone and not necessarily to other nations since unlike the majority of unbridled supporters of American liberalism I do not see that the universal nature of American values has found secure anchorage in all corners of the World. This is because American societal norms do not fit automatically or coercively in all societies. In other words, this amazing and bemusing series of American stories does not always easily translate into other communities histories regardless of globalisation. Maybe because of globalisation!
What is the evidence to support this view? Externally, the evidence is extensive - the Middle East, North Africa, Eastern Europe many parts of Asia and Central America have looked at the American experiment and have either ignored it, tried it and reverted and/or at best taken elements of this experiment that fits more 'naturally' with their own stories. Hence, the American form of liberal democracy has not triumphed. I would therefore suggest that Washington's attempts inconsistently and somewhat half-heartedly supported by Western Europe, to sell the American History as 'the World History' has finally run its course. Is that failure? Depends on your understanding of success and of course, your consideration of America's destiny. As I can no longer see any convincing underlying reason why many communities would want to recognise America's own form of freedom that is de-constructing before our very own eyes. Many have become increasingly disenchanted and ultimately discouraged because the conflicting chaos (smoke and mirrors) that is American contemporary society that has been kept so successfully separate from the nation's key underlying values has finally seeped into and diluted their binding legitimacy. In other words, the key to American success (progress) has been built on their ability to offer (promise) to sufficient numbers of citizens the opportunity to join the 'good life' whatever their status.
That ability and facility - that social mobility and flexibility - has dissipated as American society looks increasingly divided by the very same challenges that it faced in 1776 - inclusion and exclusion. American history has recorded and reported a form of governance that has successfully managed to deflect and distract people's attention away from their social inconsistencies by producing the glittering offerings of the material World, but the growing insidious nature of inequality has now reached down into those 'exceptional' values leaving an increasing number who have been dispossessed of genuine health care, meaningful education, decent housing and hope. This hapless condition increasingly reveals a society that has finally reached its ultimate limitations. What concerted action do we see from Congress to address this problem? What real action do we see from the White House? Why are more and more people supporting Trump and Cruz at one extreme and Sanders at the other? Why don't the American youth trust to their future? Why are the middle classes demanding unrealistic and reactionary protecting? The rich have been getting unequally richer since the end of the 1980's whilst more Americans drop into that 'one month away from financial disaster group' with the working classes seeing no real increase in living standards for 25 years. So when did 'US History' actually end? For me, paradoxically on the very day that many Americans celebrated the demise of the Soviet Union and the Cold War. For this was no victory for liberal democracy but it was the beginning of the end of that constructed socio - political experiment that was first declared in 1776.
Enjoy the summer,
KK
RSS Feed
