Page 8 - Šolsko polje, XXVIII, 2017, no. 3-4: Education and the American Dream, ed. Mitja Sardoč
P. 8
šolsko polje, letnik xxviii, številka 3–4
book Seeking the American Dream, ‘[i]t would be foolish, and counter-
productive, to ignore the contributions that derive from history, litera-
ture, economics, anthropology, political science and journalism’ (Hau-
hart, 2016: p. ix).
Yet, its ‘standard’ interpretation as an idealized ‘metaphor of basic
American values’ and the US ‘dominant national ideology’ (Hochschild
and Scovronick, 2003: x), is no longer straightforward, as the American
Dream has also been associated with a wide range of ideas not everyone
finds appealing. As an archetype of (material) success and consumerism in
general, the American Dream has also been subjected to a number of ob-
jections leading to the criticism that its promise of equal opportunity and
material prosperity for all has not been fulfilled. As the writers of the joint
report Opportunity, Responsibility and Security: A Consensus Plan for Re-
ducing Poverty and Restoring the American Dream by two of the leading
US think-thanks, i.e. Brookings Institution and the American Enterprise
Institute for Public Policy Research [AEI] have emphasized, the current
state of affairs ‘contradicts our country’s founding ideals’ (AEI/Brook-
ings, 2015: p. 8). 1
Furthermore, backed with indicators and other data on increasing
economic inequality (compared to other democratic countries), some of
the leading contemporary scholars (e.g. Krugman, 2012; Putnam, 2015;
Rank et al., 2016) and public intellectuals (e.g. Chomsky, 2017; Reeves,
2014) have questioned its emancipatory potential as well as its basic prom-
ise of upward social mobility.2 It is precisely this gap between its emanci-
patory potential and its idealized image on one side and a set of indicators
suggesting that the American dream has utterly failed, that has given rise
to a series of objections leading to the assertion that it represents an emp-
ty or even false promise. In fact, while its advocates champion it as some
sort of a ‘brilliant construction’ (Hochschild, 1995: p. xi), its [many] crit-
ics depict it as nothing less than a ‘necessary illusion’ (Lasch, 1996: p. 52).
Surprisingly enough, despite a number of divergent approaches aim-
ing to shed light on this complex [and controversial] social ideal, some of
the recent interpretations over its alleged failure(s) have been disturbing-
ly simplistic. While part of the ‘problem’ in understanding the American
Dream is to a large extent dependent on the complexity of the social fact
1 The report is available at Brookings’ webpage: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/
uploads/2016/07/Full-Report.pdf
2 See, for example, Alan Krueger’s article ‚The great utility of the Great Gatsby Curve‘
discussing the relationship between intergenerational mobility and income inequality
in USA https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2015/05/19/the-great-
utility-of-the-great-gatsby-curve/
6
book Seeking the American Dream, ‘[i]t would be foolish, and counter-
productive, to ignore the contributions that derive from history, litera-
ture, economics, anthropology, political science and journalism’ (Hau-
hart, 2016: p. ix).
Yet, its ‘standard’ interpretation as an idealized ‘metaphor of basic
American values’ and the US ‘dominant national ideology’ (Hochschild
and Scovronick, 2003: x), is no longer straightforward, as the American
Dream has also been associated with a wide range of ideas not everyone
finds appealing. As an archetype of (material) success and consumerism in
general, the American Dream has also been subjected to a number of ob-
jections leading to the criticism that its promise of equal opportunity and
material prosperity for all has not been fulfilled. As the writers of the joint
report Opportunity, Responsibility and Security: A Consensus Plan for Re-
ducing Poverty and Restoring the American Dream by two of the leading
US think-thanks, i.e. Brookings Institution and the American Enterprise
Institute for Public Policy Research [AEI] have emphasized, the current
state of affairs ‘contradicts our country’s founding ideals’ (AEI/Brook-
ings, 2015: p. 8). 1
Furthermore, backed with indicators and other data on increasing
economic inequality (compared to other democratic countries), some of
the leading contemporary scholars (e.g. Krugman, 2012; Putnam, 2015;
Rank et al., 2016) and public intellectuals (e.g. Chomsky, 2017; Reeves,
2014) have questioned its emancipatory potential as well as its basic prom-
ise of upward social mobility.2 It is precisely this gap between its emanci-
patory potential and its idealized image on one side and a set of indicators
suggesting that the American dream has utterly failed, that has given rise
to a series of objections leading to the assertion that it represents an emp-
ty or even false promise. In fact, while its advocates champion it as some
sort of a ‘brilliant construction’ (Hochschild, 1995: p. xi), its [many] crit-
ics depict it as nothing less than a ‘necessary illusion’ (Lasch, 1996: p. 52).
Surprisingly enough, despite a number of divergent approaches aim-
ing to shed light on this complex [and controversial] social ideal, some of
the recent interpretations over its alleged failure(s) have been disturbing-
ly simplistic. While part of the ‘problem’ in understanding the American
Dream is to a large extent dependent on the complexity of the social fact
1 The report is available at Brookings’ webpage: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/
uploads/2016/07/Full-Report.pdf
2 See, for example, Alan Krueger’s article ‚The great utility of the Great Gatsby Curve‘
discussing the relationship between intergenerational mobility and income inequality
in USA https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2015/05/19/the-great-
utility-of-the-great-gatsby-curve/
6
