Page 149 - Šolsko polje, XXVIII, 2017, no. 3-4: Education and the American Dream, ed. Mitja Sardoč
P. 149
d. štrajn ■ perversion of the american dream
nity, and success as “the constitutive elements of the Dream” (ibid.: p. 131)
are basic concepts, which form an “elastic” ideology supporting different
political ideals. Although it is difficult to add much to the Ghosh’s work in
its own framework, I think that the mythology of American Dream could
be viewed through the concept of “invented tradition”, which was itself
invented in a seminal volume, edited by Hobsbawm and Ranger (1983). In
view of the logic of invention of a tradition, Ghosh’s “iteration” appears
additionally structured as each instance of the iteration contains at least a
nuance of a projection from the present to the past. Hence, “the vision of
New England settlers” is always re-contextualised and re-constructed in
some new modifications of the American Dream; in a final analysis, it is
almost impossible to determine exactly what the settlers actually had in
their minds. The re-inventions of the American Dream represent a work
of ideology in its “standard” connotation as a daily production of a set
of beliefs, ideas, etc., which make part of the dominating (false) percep-
tions of reality. Still, I think that one seemingly not so important distinc-
tion has to be made, concerning the notion of ideology. The distinction
is not about Ghosh’s “not comprehending” the concept of ideology, since
he actually refers to the history of the word ideology and he recalls Ter-
ry Eagleton’s (1991) six “bundles of meaning of the word” (Ghosh, 2013:
pp. 13 and 26). Although I do not have any problem with understand-
ing what the author wants to say, I still find his taking of the American
Dream as an ideology somewhat superficial. Throughout the text, Ghosh
speaks about “the ideology of American Dream”, which in my view exag-
gerates the magnitude of different compositions of meanings, which trav-
el from one discourse to the other. Hence, the American Dream cannot
be itself a full-blown ideology. Of course, I do not dispute its relevance
and applications in a vast number of ideological discourses. Nonetheless,
it is important to insist that the concept or some metaphoric uses of it con-
stitute many reflexive and intellectually mature texts, which not necessar-
ily ascribe ideological meanings to it. The American dream, for instance,
can play a hegemonic role in some emancipative discourses and doctrines,
which is especially the case in the area of education.
Almost independently from the many differences between various
concepts of ideology, the notion of it is linked to the idea of community
as a form of “togetherness”. In a different indirect sense it is connected to
the construction of identity. Each ideology, which succeeds to compose it-
self into a system of “self-evident” beliefs, which underpin a community,
cannot rid itself of the individual. The concept of idiorrhythm, due to a
discovery of Roland Barthes’ lectures from the 1970s, is opening a whole
new field of thinking about the relationships between a society and indi-
147
nity, and success as “the constitutive elements of the Dream” (ibid.: p. 131)
are basic concepts, which form an “elastic” ideology supporting different
political ideals. Although it is difficult to add much to the Ghosh’s work in
its own framework, I think that the mythology of American Dream could
be viewed through the concept of “invented tradition”, which was itself
invented in a seminal volume, edited by Hobsbawm and Ranger (1983). In
view of the logic of invention of a tradition, Ghosh’s “iteration” appears
additionally structured as each instance of the iteration contains at least a
nuance of a projection from the present to the past. Hence, “the vision of
New England settlers” is always re-contextualised and re-constructed in
some new modifications of the American Dream; in a final analysis, it is
almost impossible to determine exactly what the settlers actually had in
their minds. The re-inventions of the American Dream represent a work
of ideology in its “standard” connotation as a daily production of a set
of beliefs, ideas, etc., which make part of the dominating (false) percep-
tions of reality. Still, I think that one seemingly not so important distinc-
tion has to be made, concerning the notion of ideology. The distinction
is not about Ghosh’s “not comprehending” the concept of ideology, since
he actually refers to the history of the word ideology and he recalls Ter-
ry Eagleton’s (1991) six “bundles of meaning of the word” (Ghosh, 2013:
pp. 13 and 26). Although I do not have any problem with understand-
ing what the author wants to say, I still find his taking of the American
Dream as an ideology somewhat superficial. Throughout the text, Ghosh
speaks about “the ideology of American Dream”, which in my view exag-
gerates the magnitude of different compositions of meanings, which trav-
el from one discourse to the other. Hence, the American Dream cannot
be itself a full-blown ideology. Of course, I do not dispute its relevance
and applications in a vast number of ideological discourses. Nonetheless,
it is important to insist that the concept or some metaphoric uses of it con-
stitute many reflexive and intellectually mature texts, which not necessar-
ily ascribe ideological meanings to it. The American dream, for instance,
can play a hegemonic role in some emancipative discourses and doctrines,
which is especially the case in the area of education.
Almost independently from the many differences between various
concepts of ideology, the notion of it is linked to the idea of community
as a form of “togetherness”. In a different indirect sense it is connected to
the construction of identity. Each ideology, which succeeds to compose it-
self into a system of “self-evident” beliefs, which underpin a community,
cannot rid itself of the individual. The concept of idiorrhythm, due to a
discovery of Roland Barthes’ lectures from the 1970s, is opening a whole
new field of thinking about the relationships between a society and indi-
147
