Page 17 - Šolsko polje, XXVIII, 2017, no. 3-4: Education and the American Dream, ed. Mitja Sardoč
P. 17
r. c. hauhart ■ american dream studies in the 21st century
the pecuniary desires inspired by the ‘success ethic’. One consequence ac-
cording to Merton was crime: the dominant ‘cult of success’ would induce
some members of society to evade the institutionalized means by break-
ing the rules resulting in “…fraud, corruption, vice, crime, in short …” (p.
675). Many, embracing Merton’s observation, have subsequently taken up
this perception of the impact and operational definition of the American
Dream (Quinones, 2015; Messner and Rosenfeld, 2013; Contreras, 2012).
In sum, Merton’s identification of pecuniary success as the predominant
cultural goal in the United States directly contradicts James Truslow Ad-
ams’ focus on the American Dream as the United States’ principal aspira-
tion and primary contribution to the world.
Jennifer Hochschild’s (1995) treatment of the definitional ques-
tion remains perhaps the most enlightening overall. Initially, Hochschild
(1995: p. 15) agrees with Merton that “[T]he American dream consists of
tenets about achieving success” and that “[P]eople most often define suc-
cess as the attainment of a high income, a prestigious job, economic secu-
rity.” Yet, Hochschild finds this answer insufficient because, in her view,
it fails to answer four questions: Who may pursue success? What does
one pursue? How does one pursue success? And why is success worth pur-
suing? (1995: pp. 18–24) Hochschild’s discussion of these questions leads
her to identify four corresponding flaws to the American Dream. Thus,
for example, the universalistic exhortation that everyone may, and should,
pursue success in the United States is problematic because everyone can-
not participate equally nor can most start over. Likewise, the belief that
the American Dream offers a reasonable anticipation of success falters
where there simply aren’t enough resources or opportunities to go around.
Further, Hochschild notes that individualism in the United States infus-
es the Dream with the idea that success results from actions and quali-
ties under one’s control, thereby placing the onus of failure on each per-
son. Finally, the separation of society’s members into winners and losers
has debilitating effects on both: losers clearly feel badly about their fail-
ure but winners suffer from pride which, as the Bible instructs, often goes
before the fall (1995: pp. 26–34). Hochschild’s cogent analysis ultimately
leads her to re-frame both Adams’ and Merton’s conception of the Ameri-
can Dream. In so doing, she emphasizes, on the basis of numerous strands
of evidence from the United States that the American Dream has come
to centrally rely on an expectation of intergenerational upward mobility
(1995: p. 44, 47). Hochschild’s conception has become perhaps the most
common, or popular, definition of the American Dream as many immi-
grant families testify to the desire for a better life for themselves and their
children as the primary motivation for coming to the United States. This
15
the pecuniary desires inspired by the ‘success ethic’. One consequence ac-
cording to Merton was crime: the dominant ‘cult of success’ would induce
some members of society to evade the institutionalized means by break-
ing the rules resulting in “…fraud, corruption, vice, crime, in short …” (p.
675). Many, embracing Merton’s observation, have subsequently taken up
this perception of the impact and operational definition of the American
Dream (Quinones, 2015; Messner and Rosenfeld, 2013; Contreras, 2012).
In sum, Merton’s identification of pecuniary success as the predominant
cultural goal in the United States directly contradicts James Truslow Ad-
ams’ focus on the American Dream as the United States’ principal aspira-
tion and primary contribution to the world.
Jennifer Hochschild’s (1995) treatment of the definitional ques-
tion remains perhaps the most enlightening overall. Initially, Hochschild
(1995: p. 15) agrees with Merton that “[T]he American dream consists of
tenets about achieving success” and that “[P]eople most often define suc-
cess as the attainment of a high income, a prestigious job, economic secu-
rity.” Yet, Hochschild finds this answer insufficient because, in her view,
it fails to answer four questions: Who may pursue success? What does
one pursue? How does one pursue success? And why is success worth pur-
suing? (1995: pp. 18–24) Hochschild’s discussion of these questions leads
her to identify four corresponding flaws to the American Dream. Thus,
for example, the universalistic exhortation that everyone may, and should,
pursue success in the United States is problematic because everyone can-
not participate equally nor can most start over. Likewise, the belief that
the American Dream offers a reasonable anticipation of success falters
where there simply aren’t enough resources or opportunities to go around.
Further, Hochschild notes that individualism in the United States infus-
es the Dream with the idea that success results from actions and quali-
ties under one’s control, thereby placing the onus of failure on each per-
son. Finally, the separation of society’s members into winners and losers
has debilitating effects on both: losers clearly feel badly about their fail-
ure but winners suffer from pride which, as the Bible instructs, often goes
before the fall (1995: pp. 26–34). Hochschild’s cogent analysis ultimately
leads her to re-frame both Adams’ and Merton’s conception of the Ameri-
can Dream. In so doing, she emphasizes, on the basis of numerous strands
of evidence from the United States that the American Dream has come
to centrally rely on an expectation of intergenerational upward mobility
(1995: p. 44, 47). Hochschild’s conception has become perhaps the most
common, or popular, definition of the American Dream as many immi-
grant families testify to the desire for a better life for themselves and their
children as the primary motivation for coming to the United States. This
15
