American national character and historical development

American National Character (history)

The Ongoing Search for an "American National Character"

This assignment asks the following pertinent and challenging questions: Is it possible to find trends amongst so much diversity? What characteristics are distinctly American, regardless of class, race, and background? What is problematic about making these generalizations and inheriting the culture? What have we inherited exactly? What problems arise with our ideals - and are we being honest with ourselves? Discuss individualism and the "American Dream." Are these goals realized and are they realistic? This paper seeks solid answers to these often elusive questions.

The search for a national character should be never-ending, and the pivotal part of the search that should be enlightening and enriching for the seeker of that knowledge may just be the inspiration from the books and authors springing into the seeker's mind along the way to discovery.

Who is presently engaged in a search for the national character of America?

Unfortunately, many young people today are not inclined to search for anything close to the character of America - they're too engaged in searching for that next fun party, or for that good looking person of the opposite sex who can attend the football game on Saturday, or hang out with at the mall. Or, the search might be for a reason mom should hand over the credit card for a cool shopping splurge at Dillard's or Target.

It may seem somewhat unfair to generalize, but it does seem upon careful scrutiny and observation of the pop and youth culture that's out there in America today, that the younger generation - the generation that is "GEN-X," "pre-GEN-X" and "post-GEN-X" - is obsessively self-absorbed, and even selfishly engaged in myriad forms of hedonism. Electronic games have become addictive for millions of younger people - and the thought of breaking away to search for an American character, even for an afternoon - would be repugnant to your average teen age boy of today (which is not to say there aren't bright, engagingly curious young people, but they are too few and far between, if you study the situation, if you speak to high school teachers, counselors, and others).

And beyond electronic games (3-D games, mesmerizing games that are often violent and even misogynistic), the youth in many parts of America are in search of cool Web sites (paintball, anyone?), raunchy Web sites (soft core or hard core? What's your preference?), Web sites with the latest electronic games. Youth live on cell phones (can one search for the American character using Verizon's "photo-phone"?), and youth live for food, fun, material goods, cars, movies, magazines, alcohol, and of course, clothes. Because the American family has become a much less cohesive institution (this has been documented by religions, journalists, social scientists and others), children are more often than not able to independently choose what they will do with their free time, how they will dress, with whom they will associate, and what they believe about the America that they live in.

In the meanwhile, probably the very few among us who truly conduct serious searches into the character of a people are historians, journalists, marketing consultants preparing advertising strategies for corporations, and of course, writers who are in search of story and character ideas, or, just enjoy discovery. One such serious searcher was Octavio Paz, who loved the search as much as the discovery. Indeed, Paz certainly was a man who enjoyed discovering ideas and thoughts worthy of his poetry and essays; in fact, Paz won a Nobel Prize for literature in 1990, eight years prior to his death.

Meanwhile, Paz' interesting book, The Labyrinth of Solitude, addresses "self-discovery" on page 9, while he writes about the fact that humans - all of us, in at least one moment in our life and times - receive a vision of "our existence as something unique, untransferable and very precious." He writes that "Self-discovery is above all the realization that we are alone"; and by that he means, during that moment of enlightenment and discovery, we humans (as adolescents) discover an opening in the "wall" between the real world out there and ourselves.

And the larger question asked by Paz is, "What are we, and how can we fulfill our obligations to ourselves as we are?" This is the question that is being asked for this paper; and in this writer's search for answers and for those seeking answers, Paz admits that he once had so serious and intense a "preoccupation" with the "significance of my country's individuality" that he began to feel it was "pointless." And so, he plunged into his work, believing that a nation of peoples could distinguish itself more by "our creations" than any "dubious originality of our character," which was, after all, in a constant state of flux and change.

Cowardly" is how he came to feel towards the questions he was asking about the "supposed character of the Mexican" - and later he understood that his obsession for analyzing the character of the Mexican was due to "an inferiority complex." To observe and ponder what Paz has said thus far in his book, is to realize that here is a man who truly cares enough about the meaning of North American life to "encounter my own questioning image..." while in the U.S. And while he was living in the U.S. (in Los Angeles), he actually was surprised by "...the city's vaguely Mexican atmosphere."

That atmosphere, which he discovered in his search for character in America, "cannot be captured in words or concepts." What he felt in Los Angeles was a kind of "Mexicanism" (at the time he was there the Mexican-American population in Los Angeles was a million persons; it's double that or more today) which was reflected in a "delight in decorations, carelessness and pomp, negligence, passion and reserve..." actually, he wrote, "floats in the air." Why the word "floats"? "Because it never mixes or unites with the other world, the North American world based on precision and efficiency." Indeed, this Mexicanism he alludes to, in search of character, "hovers" and is "blown here and there by the wind." Sometimes, it even breaks up "like a cloud," and other times this Mexicanism stands "erect like a rising skyrocket."

Also, this Mexicanism of which Paz speaks, "creeps...wrinkles...expands and contracts; it sleeps or dreams; it is ragged but beautiful," he continues, seeming to be attempting to find good in something he clearly views as bad.

While his search of the Mexicanism in California continues, he observes that the Mexicans "act like persons wearing disguises," and are "afraid of a stranger's look because it could strip them and leave them stark naked." Their sensibilities "are like a pendulum" - a pendulum that has "lost its reason and swings violently and erratically back and forth."

Why does Paz feel this way towards his own people? Why does his search for the character of his people - of his own culture, transplanted into southern California - reveal to him that Mexicans in southern California suffer from a "lack of spirit," and are forming gangs in the U.S. Maybe Paz was setting himself up for failure and disillusionment by conducting his search in the first place.

As to why his Mexican people seem to suffer a "lack of spirit," the answer is at least partly because, on page 14, Paz believes that "North American racism has vented its wrath on them more than once." That's a pretty heavy charge, to say that a culture has changed because the larger culture it has moved in with is racist. Paz describes the typical young Mexican living in southern California as a "Pachuco" - "they are youths...who form gangs" and can be spotted by their "language and behavior as well as by the clothing they effect."

The young men known as pachucos, Paz writes, "cannot adapt" to a "civilization which, for its part, rejects" them. Getting into the racial milieu, Paz explains that the "Negroes...oppressed by racial intolerance, try to 'pass' as whites and thus enter society. They want to be like other people," he continues. That said, as for the Mexicans, who have clearly not suffered as much as blacks, "instead of attempting a problematical adjustment to society, the pachucos actually flaunts his differences," which Paz terms "grotesque dandyism and anarchic behavior."

One trend here, in terms of the search for an American national character, would be individualism - no matter that the pachucos are not showing pride in their heritage, or behaving the way Paz would like them to behave, they are individuals, acting out, playing out the roles they have chosen while they reside in America.

Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

When discussing "freedom of the press" in Chapter 3, he makes clear he loves the concept more "out of consideration for the evils that it prevents far more than for the good that it does." Why does he say that? It's like saying some people in New York who are Mets fans love seeing the Yankees lose more than seeing their own team win. Meanwhile, Tocqueville argues that "newspapers in America lack power," and he spells out the reasons why through a comparison between French newspapers and American papers. "In America (209), political life is active, varied, and even agitated, but it is rarely roiled by deep passions." And since passions are rarely stirred "unless material interests are compromised, and in the United States material interests prosper," he suggests that thinking alone passionate lines is not very deep nor very frequent.

Further, by glancing at a newspaper in France, Tocqueville sees that "commercial advertising occupies only a very limited space... [and] the vital part of a [French] newspaper is the section that features political debates." However, "three quarters" of "the bulky newspaper that is set before you in America is filled with advertising," and the remainder is "unremarkable anecdotes" and some "political news." As for impassioned debates on social issues, they are found in American papers "only occasionally," and that debate is in "some forgotten corner" of the newspaper. French readers get this impassioned debate Tocqueville speaks of on a "daily" basis.

So, what is he saying here? Is he really putting down America? He certainly seems to have a problem with capitalism, and all those ads in the paper; those who understand how business works know that newspapers don't just pay for themselves in America - the publishers need to have advertisers, sponsors, in order to pay the bills and bring in profit to hire journalists and other talent.

On page 211 Tocqueville, who earlier (209) talked about how in France the newspapers are centralized - "Almost all its power is concentrated in one place, and in a sense, in the same hands..." - critiques the local nature of American newspapers, located in almost every town. "With such a large number of combatants in the field," he writes, "it is easy to see that discipline and unity of action are impossible to achieve. Thus each paper flies its own standard." Because every paper in every town has its own way of expressing freedom of the press, Tocqueville believes that American newspapers "cannot create currents of opinion so powerful that not even the most formidable of dams can withstand them."

Based on these pontifications from Tocqueville, he then declares that "the position of journalist is not a very high one; his education is rudimentary at best, and his ideas are often expressed in a vulgar way."

Perhaps what these opinions are showing readers is that Europeans don't understand the American way of presenting news and information to citizens. Maybe this is also part of the American character - which is not connected to race, gender, and class - and that is the independence each community has from the one next to it. Every town has its own newspaper, of course, and that is part of the provincial spirit, the independent spirit that is reflected in towns and cities, but really has its roots in the people who populate those towns.

In Chapter 4, Tocqueville takes a bite out of American associations, "...the decision of a certain number of individuals to adhere publicly to certain doctrines, and to commit themselves to seek the triumph of shoe doctrines in a certain way." Associations help the launching of opinions, he writes: "when an opinion is represented by an association, it has to be expressed in a clearer, more precise form than would otherwise be the case" (216). Why is that true? The expressing of an opinion (a very big part of the American character, which Tocqueville clearly is in search of) "calls upon supporters to stand up and be counted, and enlists then in the cause."

Moreover, these American characters who have stood up in an association, or a bond, to profess beliefs, "learn about each other." The act of communicating as an association "links the efforts of divergent minds," and further, "vigorously propels them toward a single goal..." From there, Tocqueville goes into the "second stage" in the citizens' right to for associations, and that is to "assemble." What is more closely linked to the American character than protest? Whether it be a "pro-life" gang of protestors in front of an abortion clinic in New Jersey, or a group of animal rights activists gathering (assembling in an association of people with shared ideas but divergent backgrounds) in front of Sea World in San Diego, or San Antonio, and protesting the use of Killer Whales with large signs waving as cars pass?

In these gatherings of associations, "...men [and women] can see one another, pool their resources, and exchange views with a forcefulness and warmth that the written word can never achieve." Now, it is fair to note at this point that Tocqueville is not just extolling the value of associations and gatherings of people who unite to become proponents of a strongly held position. He is also critiquing the freedom of the press, as he did in chapter three. And he is saying that the American character, or the American democracy, is best suited to real live people expressing viewpoints in a public arena, and those American opinions are best conveyed through voices, not the printed word.

Both the use of the printed word, and the assembly of people airing their grievances to others through protest, are elements of the American character - and both of these elements can be and are often employed as forces for change irregardless of race, class, background.

But as to the question posed for this assignment, of problems that arise with our ideals and individualism and our desire for the American dream, there are always snags in the "fishing line" of life when a people have the freedom to express their views and hope for badly needed change. When a person is a strong and long-time ardent advocate of conservation of wilderness, of wildlife and natural resources, for example, and casts his line out into the pond of public opinion (by writing a letter to the editor or speaking out at city council meeting), that person sets himself up for disillusionment.

There is a danger in expressing views that offend others; and for example, if this individual rages in public about the policy of the administration in Washington to allow timber companies to carve new roads in National Forest land - with the intent to (and permission to) clear-cut hundreds of acres of old growth forest - that person runs the risk of seeming unpatriotic, because he is "against the president."

Speaking to a neighbor across the backyard fence about an article that appeared in the paper during the first week in August - that timber companies were clear-cutting old growth forest in Alaska, and the lumber was rotting in huge stacks because there was no market for it - can run the risk of alienating that neighbor. That person next door may believe that America needs to tap into all resources whatever the cost, because the country is at war with terrorists and jobs are important; hence, men who cut timber have to support their families and send their kids to college, too, and it would be "un-American" to shut down the timber interests.

This example is used because it illustrates the possibility of failure to clearly communicate one's message, and also of personal disillusionment in search of the dream that America can be urban and modern but yet still preserve the wonder of wilderness for our children's children. Indeed, there are many millions of Americans who are very concerned about the wanton destruction of wildlife habitat by oil and gas companies seeking to squeeze the last drop of crude oil out of Alaska, and to suck the very last puff of natural gas out of a pristine plot of land adjacent to a national park in Utah. But to go into the streets with an association of those who agree that wilderness must be preserved, and to speak out in public, puts one at risk.

Meantime, Tocqueville in Chapter 14 addresses the fact that "men in democratic times" require freedom in order to "procure for themselves more easily the material gratifications for which they constantly yearn." And he carries this yearning for material things a step further (629) by asserting the "excessive taste for...gratification" by Americans "delivers them into the hands of the first man to assert his mastery." He makes Americans sound like a huge flock of sheep here. But there is truth within his mockery of the American material world, where neighbors take pride that their Lexus sedan is shinier and newer than the Jones Ford wagon next door, and both parents must work in order to keep the mortgage payment up, pay the cable bill, go on vacation to Disneyland and send junior to a good college upstate.

On page 630, Tocqueville takes on democracy and he could be writing in the 21st Century when he claims that Americans are so "solely preoccupied with the need to make their fortunes" that the "exercise of their political duties strikes them as a troublesome inconvenience..." When it comes to Election Day, what could be more true than the statement above? About half of eligible voters went to the polls during the 2000 presidential election (that is a rough estimate, but it isn't far off), and in a stunning twist on democracy, the nation watched while the Supreme Court voted 5-4 in favor of the current president. Basically, the current administration lost the popular vote, and may well have lost in Florida (based on the recount of disputed ballots by a collation of media in 2001); but in the final hour, a Republican majority of the Supreme Court sent this administration into the White House.