LIBERTY, DEMOCRACY, COMMUNITY, AND THE AMERICAN DREAM Robert C. Binning B.A., California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo THESIS Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS in GOVERNMENT at CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO SPRING 2010 LIBERTY, DEMOCRACY, COMMUNITY, AND THE AMERICAN DREAM A Thesis by Robert C. Binning Approved by: __________________________________, Committee Chair R. Jeffrey Lustig, Ph.D. __________________________________, Second Reader Monicka Patterson-Tutschka, Ph.D. ____________________________ Date ii Student: Robert C. Binning I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for the thesis. __________________________, Graduate Coordinator ___________________ James Cox, Ph.D. Date Department of Government iii Abstract of LIBERTY, DEMOCRACY, COMMUNITY, AND THE AMERICAN DREAM by Robert C. Binning American politics is ultimately driven by American culture and the values that it seeks to promote. These values are largely defined by American history and different goals for the futuregoals that are often defined by the American Dream. This essay seeks to analyze the foundations of the American Dream, and to analyze the claim that through perseverance, virtue, and a little luck, every American has the opportunity to improve their socioeconomic position in society. I present a new historical narrative that explains that with the bureaucratization of labor and decreasing opportunities for social mobility, Americans have turned inward, and become almost exclusively focused on their private interests. As a result, the modern, middle class conception of the American Dream emphasizes private, individual liberties, and is largely apolitical. I conclude that the American Dream is only likely to be significantly redefined if Americans reclaim their collective power through the formation of groups and the creation of community interests. _______________________, Committee Chair R. Jeffrey Lustig, Ph.D. _______________________ Date iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS To Mom, Dad, Nana, and to all of my amazing friendsIf it weren’t for your love and support I never would have made it this far. To all of you, I am eternally grateful. Dr. Monicka Patterson-Tutschka, Dr. R. Jeffrey Lustig, and Dr. Matthew MooreThank you for helping me to discover the joys of Political Theory, and helping me to nourish that passion. Without the enthusiasm of excellent professors, the CSU is truly doomed. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Acknowledgments.................……………………………………………………..…...v Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................1 Principles Found in the American Dream. ........................................................ 3 2. THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE AMERICAN DREAM, DEMOCRACY, AND LIBERTY IN AMERICA ...........................................................................10 The Puritan Formation .....................................................................................10 The Codification of the American Dream .......................................................14 3. CONFLICTING INTERPRETATIONS OF THE AMERICAN DREAM DURING THE ANTEBELLUM PERIOD...................................................…....19 Frederick Douglass and Rights Based Conceptions of the American Dream..22 George Fitzhugh and Standardizing the Quality of American Life .................24 The Impact of the Antebellum Period on the American Dream ......................28 4. HORATIO ALGER’S AMERICAN DREAM, THE RISE OF PROCEDURAL JUSTICE, AND ITS CULTURAL IMPLICATIONS ..............32 Land: the Great Equalizer ................................................................................35 Gatsby and the American Dream .....................................................................37 Horatio Alger’s Conception of the American Dream in Modern America .....41 C. Wright Mills and White-Collar Laborers ....................................................44 5. THE REDEFINING OF ALGER’S CONCEPTION OF THE AMERICAN DREAM AND MODERN AMERICANS............................................................48 vi Divergent Interests and the Lack of Community among Americans ...............51 Prospects for the Formation of Community.....................................................56 Bibliography ................................................................................................................66 vii 1 Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION Over the course of American history, the “American Dream” has represented a better future for most Americans. Herbert Croly described the American Dream as “the Promise of America,” and noted: They [Americans] still believe that somehow and sometime something better will happen to good Americans than has happened to men in any other country; and this belief, vague, innocent, and uninformed though it may be, is the expression of an essential constituent in our national ideal… They mean, of course, in general, that the future will have something better in store for them individually and collectively than has the past or the present. (1965, p. 3) Although the term failed to become popular until the late eighteenth century, the American Dream, even when not identified under that term, has always been present in American culture, and represented the promise that the future would bring the opportunities, benefits, and successes that individuals desired. This optimistic model of the future has motivated Americans for centuries to fight for their political rights and economic goals, under the constant presupposition that their hard work would enable them to experience the future that they chose for themselves. However, the specific goals and promises that the country should pursue have been widely debated, and with changes in public opinion, the political implications of the American Dream have changed as well. For the most part, conceptions of the American Dream have rested on assumptions about the application of various democratic principles to both the economic 2 and political spheres. (Aberrations to this claim have most frequently occurred in times of war when the country has been united under the banner of security or other military pursuits; however, these represent mere digressions from the typical values found within the American Dream.) From the beginning of the colonization of the United States, its inhabitants sought religious freedom and to escape from debts that they hoped to leave behind in Europe and other parts of the world. As American institutions grew, and the country developed, the Declaration of Independence and later the Constitution codified the American Dream. Although these documents described the American Dream in vague terms, it allowed future generations to interpret these basic terms, and to form their own conceptions of the American Dream. Because the American Dream changed over time, it was vital that these documents allowed for changes in American culture to change the goals that American policy pursued. Justice Kennedy explained that decisions made by the American government reflected the social norms and arrangements of American society. He wrote: Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom. (Lawrence v. Texas, 2003) American public policy is the result of not only precedents and laws, but it is the direct result of American culture. Each generation of Americans created a new vision for a better future, and consequently redefined the American Dream. The way that they 3 interpreted the different principles of democracy determined what goals the government and society would pursue, and what potential goals would be ignored. Principles Found in the American Dream The unifying element in American society has been citizens’ expectations about the promise of the future. Americans have two different ways, however, of conceiving of that future. One part of the society has adopted an individualistic emphasis on liberty and a procedural conception of justice. It emphasizes negative freedom, which Isaiah Berlin described as, “liberty from; absence of interference beyond the shifting, but always recognizable, frontier” (1969, p. 127). Negative liberty must be limited at some point to protect the liberty of other individuals, although when negative liberty must be limited to protect others is determined by society. The individualistic emphasis on negative liberty had also led to the adoption of a procedural conception of justice. Michael Sandel, describing this conception of justice, wrote: A just society seeks not to promote any particular ends, but enables its citizens to pursue their own ends, consistent with a similar liberty for all; it therefore must govern by principles that do not presuppose any particular conception of the good. (1984, p. 82) Procedural justice does not presuppose any vision of normatively superior ends, but seeks to establish a system that treats all individuals with equal rights in both their economic and political interactions. 4 A procedural conception of justice is most compatible with the development of a pure free market economic system. Free market capitalism requires that individuals be given equal liberty (or opportunity) to pursue their economic goals. Theoretically, it assumes that individuals act from similar starting points, allowing the hardest working, most intelligent, and luckiest individuals to be most successful, while individuals that lack exceptional work ethic, intellect, or luck, receive the economic gains that their abilities or fortunes dictate. Additionally, this emphasizes limited government involvement in the free market, and promotes greater economic rights for individuals. Economic success is justified by each individual’s choices as autonomous and moral actors, in light of either possessing or lacking natural abilities. Alternatively, some Americans look to the future for the fulfillment of a substantive conception of justice separate besides simply the individual right to choose emphasized by a procedural conception of justice. To the extent this is a democratic conception, it might also seek reductions in structural inequalities, promote substantive freedoms, try to fulfill the common good and promote a more communitarian ideal. Mere equal liberty to pursue economic gains fails to account for the structural disadvantages and inequalities that are inherent in the free market system. The education, family, and economic starting points of individuals can have a significant impact on the outcomes of economic interactions. The substantive conception of justice demands that these structural inequalities are mitigated so that individuals have an actual equal opportunity to compete. Economic advantages further translate into political advantages for 5 individuals. Thus, unless economic inequalities are mitigated, at minimum in changes to the starting points of individuals and at most extreme the equalization of economic outcomes, economic inequalities may translate into unequal access to political power. A substantive conception of justice would enable individuals to pursue the ends that they truly desire. It is not enough to empower individuals with formal rights, but individuals must also understand the ends that their choices promote. This creates substantive freedoms for individuals to pursue the ends that they ultimately desire. The simplest example of substantive freedom comes from education. Without education, individuals experience the liberty to make many choices, but without the knowledge of the implications of their actions and the expansion of their capabilities, individuals are largely incapable of making the choices that they would with greater knowledge or ability. This substantive conception of justice seeks to expand the liberties of individuals in some areas, but requires placing some additional limits on the negative liberties of individuals. A substantive conception of justice may also pursue a common good. An entire population may not unanimously understand or condone a single conception of the common good, yet it may still serve as an important element in the pursuit of individual and collective ends. For example, a society must collectively choose to provide education to individuals under the assumption that it will enable individuals to experience greater individual freedom, and to use democratic practices to promote their true interests 6 (especially important in the ability of citizens to overcome propaganda and the elite dominance). An effective democracy requires that its citizens are capable of understanding the political issues that affect them, and can effectively participate in the democratic process. Additionally, individuals must understand that collective action is necessary in some situations to fulfill the common good (i.e. national defense, public education, and environmental regulations), that may infringe on the negative liberties of individuals. Although individuals may not understand how to solve these problems, they must allow their government to address these collective action problems, and hold the government accountable when it fails to address these problems. Conceptions of the common good enable individuals to form a cohesive body politic that can promote the collective interests of the state and its citizens effectively. In order for any conception of the common good to become politically significant, a large portion of the population must become united behind that conception, creating a sense of community among those individuals. A feeling of community among individuals enables them to overcome collective action problems and to make public policy directed at the elimination of structural disadvantages. Without a sense of community, it is unlikely that individuals will willingly sacrifice individual liberties for the common good, or seek to eliminate structural disadvantages that do not personally affect themselves. 7 Increasing cultural diversity in the state contributes to the adoption of a procedural conception of justice within our society. As diversity increases, the sense of community among individuals is lost, encouraging individuals to identify the government less as an expression of their own will, and more as an agent that threatens their selfinterests. Diversity causes individuals to lose faith in the abilities of their fellow citizens to promote a version of the common good that they may find amenable. They increasingly expect others to use the government to further goals they do not support. As a result, individuals seek to protect themselves through the establishment of a procedural conception of justice that forbids any intrusions on their liberty beyond what is necessary. A procedural conception of justice creates obstacles to policies that might promote substantive freedoms and the common good, both of which require limits on some forms of liberty. The competitive spirit encouraged by a procedural conception of justice led to individualism, and the formation of an American Dream that made the creation of a community among the people difficult. This version of the American Dream claimed that economic success was available to all individuals that were willing to work hard enough. Individuals were taught that structural inequalities did not actually influence one’s ability to achieve economic success, and consequently promoted free market capitalism. As a result, Americans ignored the role of government in the reduction of structural inequalities, and the development of substantive freedoms and common goods that were unaccounted for in the free market model. Additionally, individuals believed that there 8 was no reason for the government to protect others, as their failures represented their own shortcomings. This conception of the American Dream placed individuals in competition with their fellow Americans, eliminating most tendencies towards community that may have otherwise emerged. Explaining the unique historical position of America, John Locke noted, “in the beginning all the world was America” (1948, p. 26). The geographic isolation of the American colonies offered the founders an opportunity to start-over. Fernando Martinez noted, “Above all, they [settlers] could validate a new political vision, setting the bases for the modern American constitutionalism” (2002, p. 23). Previous societies had historical expectations for government; whereas in America (especially earliest on), individuals had the freedom to determine what the role of the individual and what the role of government should be. Other modern democracies developed out of past traditions, and were largely based upon the fusion of those traditions with abstract democratic principles like equality and liberty. Without these common and established traditions, Americans were unified by their understanding and application of democratic principles, and their expectation of the fulfillment of their dreams. This essay will explain how American culture has brought about different conceptions of the American Dream and social justice. It will focus on some of the most important periods that offer insight into some of the most dramatic shifts in American culture. Additionally, this essay will show how the emergence of Horatio Alger’s 9 conception of the American Dream popularized notions of economic liberty, and led to the widespread adoption of a procedural conception of justice throughout the country. Following the rise of corporations and administrative bureaucracies Americans became increasingly disassociated from each other, as they became more focused on the private liberties (most often expressed through leisure activities) within their own, private lives. This marked a retreat from more public involvement within unions, political parties, and other social groups. The American Dream became defined in terms of how each individual’s life could become better, and became less focused on communal goals. As a result, the collective power of Americans was largely lost as the American Dream was redefined as merely a personal goal for the future. I conclude with an examination of current American opinion that suggests that a sense of community may return to American culture, but is threatened by the nation’s diversity and continuing emphasis on individual liberty. 10 Chapter 2 THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE AMERICAN DREAM, DEMOCRACY, AND LIBERTY IN AMERICA The Puritan Formation The Puritan formation of the American Dream was found in religion. They came to America searching for the freedom necessary to practice their religion in the manner that they believed was best. John Winthrop explained to his congregation: The end is to improve our lives to do more service to the Lord, the comfort and increase of the body of Christ whereof we are members, that ourselves and posterity may be the better preserved from the common corruptions of this evil world, to serve the Lord and work out our Salvation under the power and purity of His holy ordinances. (1956, p. 82) Restrictions on religious practices and the existing corruption in other parts of the world prevented the Puritans from freely practicing their religion. As a result, they sought absolute freedom to practice their religion in the New World. However, religious freedom was only a means to their greater goal: they sought to create a model of worship that could be emulated by the rest of the world. Winthrop continued: For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill, the eyes of all people are upon us. So that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken, and so cause him to withdraw his present help from us, we shall be made a story and a by-word through the world: we shall open the mouths of enemies to speak evil of the ways of God, and all professors for God's sake; we shall shame the faces of many of God's worthy servants, and cause their prayers to be turned into curses upon us, till we be consumed out of the good land whither we are a going. (1956, p. 83) 11 For Winthrop and other Puritans, the American Dream not only required the opportunity to freely practice their own religion, but also served as a means to improve religious practices throughout the world. It was not enough merely for the colonists to better themselves, but they sought to improve the world as a whole. He believed that their colony could thus serve the common good by serving as an example of proper worship throughout the world. The American Dream for Puritans represented a revolution in religion that would, in the future, bring more people closer to God. The Puritan tradition also contributed to the evolution of American democracy. Although governance was often strict, they exhibited some of the earliest examples of free and fair elections and the incorporation of democratic principles within government policies in America. Additionally, the Puritan’s pursuit of religious freedom (even if only for themselves) foreshadowed one aspect of liberty that later became an integral part of the American tradition. Colonists were united by religion that created strong communal ties that enabled the settlements to pursue their interpretations of the common good. Professor Jim Cullen concluded, “some of the most important reforms in American life, from the end of slavery to the creation of the nation’s great universities, derived from conceptions of community and morality central to the Puritan worldview” (2003, p. 34). The Puritan tradition was based on a substantive conception of justice, and sent cultural reverberations throughout American history that continue to be felt today. Although Puritan settlements were small, and thus more manageable than later American 12 societies were, they provide insight into the origins of democratic principles, liberty, and community in America. The Protestant Ethic encouraged individuals to remain true to their original covenants and to act in accordance with the norms established by their religion. The Puritans believed that God was the ultimate power, and that He existed unquestionably above them. It was their charge to obey Him without hesitation. In a similar manner, Puritan political leaders acted with supreme authority derived from God. Perry Miller noted, “The government is brought into being by the act of the people, but the institution itself is from God. The governors are elected by the people, but elected into an office that has its warrant from heaven” (1956, p. 90). Puritan leaders like John Cotton and John Winthrop argued that it was the duty of rulers to act as trustees of the people and to guide them in the manner that they, the leaders¸ believed was in the peoples’ best interests. For example, Cotton wrote, “for children and servants, or any others you are to deal with: give them the liberty and authority you would have them use, and beyond that stretch not the tether; it will not tend to their good nor yours” (1956, p. 87). This paternalistic attitude resulted from the belief that Puritan leaders understood the will of God more accurately than their constituents understood it, and as a result, knew what was best for them. However, the leaders also believed that governance required the consent of their community. In his Hartford Election Sermon, Thomas Hooker reminded his community, 13 “the foundation of authority is laid, firstly, in the free consent of the people,” emphasizing the role that the people needed to play in their own government (1956, p. 89). John Winthrop also recognized that the success of communities not only rested in the providence of God, but also in the unity of the people. In A Model of Christian Charity, he noted: That every man might have need of other, and hence they might be all knit more nearly together in the bond of brotherly affection… For the work we have in hand, is by mutual consent, through special overruling providence and a more than an ordinary approbation of the churches of Christ, to seek out a place of cohabitation and consortship, under a due form of government both civil and ecclesiastical. (1956, pp. 79-82) The success of the colonies required both certain religious practices and the effective administration of the civil state. New England was a harsh environment that required colonists to work together and to form an effective civil government that could appropriately structure the community to withstand the practical problems of their settlements. Due to the extreme difficulties created by the choice to settle in colonial America, the unity of the colony was vital to both survival and successful completion of their goal to become a “City upon a Hill” for the rest of the world to emulate. The creation of community among individuals enabled the Puritans to overcome the severe hardships that they experienced. The Puritans did not believe in all, or even most, of the democratic principles that the founding fathers later espoused. Instead, the foundations of American democracy only rest with them. Perry Miller argued that the bond found in Puritan communities was 14 not between men, but between rulers and the people (1956, p. 84); however, the power of the people was preserved through the democratic accountability of rulers to their people, and the covenanting of individuals with each other. He concluded: In the Puritan formulation, it held that a body politic could be constituted only out of the consent of the governed, yet also out of an agreement not to terms of the people’s own divising but only to the pre-stated terms of God’s eternal law of justice and subordination. (1956, p. 78) The relationship between rulers and the community was sometimes framed in paternalistic terms as an extension of the ultimate authority of God. However, unlike the rule of God, leaders were accountable to the community through elections (in most colonies). The founding fathers built upon this history, creating a system of governance that drew on the democratic elements of Puritanism. The Codification of the American Dream Building upon the Puritan foundation, the founding documents of the United States continued the traditions of democracy, liberty, and community. The language of the Virginia Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence explained the formation of government as a bond among free men. Adopted just a month before the Declaration of Independence, the Virginia Bill of Rights stated, “That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them.” Because the power of the government remained 15 within the people, government remained accountable to the interests of the citizens. This is further reflected in the Declaration of Independence that noted, “[governments] derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Without that consent, governments were illegitimate. Arendt noted that bonds formed through mutual consent presupposed equality, a foundation of American democracy found throughout different conceptions of the American Dream (2006, pp. 161-2). The language repeated in these documents emphasized the importance of individual liberty and equality within a democratic society. The Constitution of the United States and the Declaration of Independence highlighted the potential conflict between liberty, equality, and governmental involvement, within American democracy. The Declaration of Independence posited, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” highlighting the importance of individual liberty within American culture. However, it further noted that government should “organize its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their [the people’s] safety and happiness” [emphasis added]. This call for government involvement was echoed in the Preamble of the Constitution: We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. 16 These documents sought to ensure that individual liberties were protected, but also encouraged the government to act in accordance with the general welfare (possibly in reference to the common good). Although these documents are often viewed as the basis for American democracy and governance, they promoted values and interests that often conflicted. Additionally, the concepts of equality, liberty and the role of government were vaguely expressed and remain open to interpretation. The vagueness of these terms allows modern scholars and citizens to interpret these ideas and to decide how they should be applied to the governing of our state. The use of the phrase, “pursuit of happiness” is particularly important within the context of debates between interests rooted in individual liberty, and interests rooted in other democratic principles. Hannah Arendt explained that with this term Thomas Jefferson meant public happiness. Public happiness “consisted in the citizen’s right of access to the public realm, in his share of public power… as distinct from the generally recognized rights of subjects to be protected by the government in the pursuit of private happiness” (Arendt, 2006, p. 118). Public happiness, according to Arendt, was a vital component to America as it gave individuals the opportunity to influence their government, and provided the clearest distinction between American governance and systems of monarchy that tyrannized over the public, even when restrained by law. Without access to the political sphere, Jefferson believed that individuals were in essence ruled by a tyranny, even when their individual rights were protected (Arendt, 2006, p. 121). Although individual involvement in government expanded throughout American 17 history, it was coupled with policies that emphasized private liberties. The vagueness of the Declaration’s terms allowed each subsequent generation to interpret the phrase as it pleased (Arendt, 2006, p. 119). Thus, although political liberty has become equal among almost all Americans, the concept of a public sphere that provides for substantive freedoms and the pursuit of the common good remained limited. Most Americans interpreted the meaning of the “pursuit of happiness” to merely reflect private goals and individual liberties, while they ignored the more expansive public realm that it also entailed. The vagueness of these terms is, in some ways, beneficial to American governance. If scholars could successfully infer the exact meanings of these terms from the founders, it would make policies less dynamic and adaptive to change. Although this would make appeals to these documents more clear, it would also make revisions to the Constitution more frequent. Part of the reason that Thomas Jefferson argued for frequent revolutions within society, including the rewriting of constitutions, was so that forms of government and its laws would reflect the changed culture of each period. The vagueness of these documents enables revisions to occur within the public consciousness, without altering the explicit claims of our founding documents. As a result, Constitutional claims about liberty and democracy can be viewed in the present context of the debate, not through the lens of a different culture. 18 This process of reinterpretation is particularly important in the United States due to our tendency to look forward. As explained earlier, the American Dream entails significantly optimistic assumptions about the state of affairs in the future. Americans are not linked together by an extensive historical tradition, but by a vision of the future as Croly noted. This promise of a better future obtained through the pursuit of opportunity, security, equality, and liberty, defines the very essence of the American Dream. Although the role of government was fundamentally defined during the formal founding of the state, modern interpretations of the founding documents re-define the current obligations for government and redefine the American Dream. 19 Chapter 3 CONFLICTING INTERPRETATIONS OF THE AMERICAN DREAM DURING THE ANTEBELLUM PERIOD In the years following America’s founding, important divisions within American culture developed, largely as the result of slavery. Within these diverging cultures, different conceptions of liberty and democracy emerged throughout the nation. The Civil War, and the philosophies that emerged from it, changed American culture forever. Prior to the Civil War, the role of equality, both in terms of access to economic opportunities and the liberties granted to individuals, was severely limited by slavery. From this divide, different conceptions of the American Dream emerged. The Civil War is particularly important because the social and economic questions behind it threatened to dissolve union (and did so in half of the country). Although the conclusion of the Civil War failed to bring about a renaissance of community across the nation, it created communities in both the North and the South that pursued their own formulations of individual liberty and democratic principles within the public and private spheres. The policies that resulted from the Civil War mark important changes in American history in which particular ideas of democracy and liberty became fundamentally ingrained in the practice of American politics. The literature produced in the antebellum period provided important examples of divergent conceptions of the American Dream and radical examples of how it can be understood. 20 Frederick Douglass and other abolitionists radically opposed the institution of slavery using a rights-based critique. They argued that all men had a fundamental and equal right to economic opportunity, security, and liberty. Equality in this conception primarily reflected the need for equal political and economic liberty among individuals- a conception that they believed was supported by the Declaration of Independence. In opposition to these claims, George Fitzhugh argued that the quality of life among wage laborers and slaves should be equalized. The movement did not seek to end slavery, but instead to ensure that all citizens were guaranteed the same “advantages” as slaves. Fundamentally, Fitzhugh’s claims relied on a critique of capitalism and questionable assumptions about the lifestyle of most slaves. Interestingly, this conception emphasized equality of social outcomes, and largely ignored the importance of individual liberty. Together these theories offer different insights into the future that Americans hoped to bring about. Douglass and some abolitionists believed that the American Dream was dependent upon the equalization of political and economic liberties among most individuals. Alternatively, Fitzhugh argued that the American Dream represented the fulfillment of the basic material comforts of individuals, irrespective of economic and political liberties. Although the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution serve as the basis for American governance, only the Constitution tacitly approved of slavery, making it a legal right. It did not ignore the question of slavery, but codified it into law. Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3, and Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1, explicitly noted that “other 21 persons” would count as three-fifths of a person and that the importation of slaves would not be barred until at the earliest 1808. These clauses were the result of great compromises between those opposed to slavery and Southerners that viewed it as a necessary and/or moral right. However, even during the writing of the Constitution, there was growing sentiment opposed to slavery. In 1786, John Jay noted: It is much to be wished that slavery may be abolished. The honour of the States, as well as justice and humanity, in my opinion, loudly call upon them to emancipate these unhappy people. To contend for our own liberty, and to deny that blessing to others, involves an inconsistency not to be excused. (quoted in Mount, 2009) Jay explicitly argued that all individuals deserved equal liberty. But despite protests from prominent public figures, slavery remained an untouchable topic for Southern politicians and plantation owners. Most Northern reformers were content to ignore the issue, effectively avoiding the political battle that was destined to come to the forefront of early American politics. Herbert Croly noted, “They shirked the problem whenever they could and for as long as they could… The truth is, of course, that both of the dominant parties were merely representing the prevailing attitude towards slavery of American public opinion” (1965, p. 73). However, the conflict over slavery was destined to emerge as a pressing political problem that highlighted the cultural conflicts that were emerging within antebellum America. 22 As the slavery question became increasingly prevalent in popular American thought during the early-to-mid-nineteenth century, the direct and principled conflict among the opposing sides became crystallized. Croly observed: Our country was committed by every consideration of national honor and moral integrity to make its institutions thoroughly democratic, and it could not continue to permit the aggressive legal existence of human servitude without degenerating into a glaring example of political and moral hypocrisy. (1965, p. 73) The democratic ideals of economic and political liberty- with no mention of racial requirements- opposed the continued existence of an institution that was fundamentally oppressive; however, the conflict of these ideals with the language of the Constitution made compromise difficult. Highlighting this conflict, Croly further noted, “Loyalty to the Constitution meant disloyalty to democracy, and an active interest in the triumph of democracy seemed to bring with it the condemnation of the Constitution” (1965, p. 75). As politicians, novelists, and writers began to embrace the moral and legal questions of slavery, public political discourse could no longer avoid addressing the problem of slavery. From both sides emerged powerful arguments that highlighted the divide between different conceptions of the American Dream at that time. Frederick Douglass and Rights Based Conceptions of the American Dream Among the abolitionists, Frederick Douglass was one of the most important voices against slavery. A former slave, Douglass was capable of both making poignant, 23 heart-felt arguments based on his own experiences, and making philosophically persuasive arguments against slavery that had widespread appeal. Douglass acknowledged the difficulty in expunging slavery from the Constitution, but argued that its immorality was spreading and destroying the fundamental democratic principles of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. He argued: It [slavery] has become interwoven with all American institutions, and has anchored itself in the very soil of the American Constitution. It has thrown its paralysing [sic] arm over freedom of speech, and the liberty of the press; and has created for itself morals and manners favorable to its own continuance. (1950a, p. 114) Like others opposed to slavery, Douglass believed that the continuance of slavery had far-reaching effects on liberty and equality within American democracy, and that if slavery continued, those values were in danger of disappearing. He claimed that the American people were compelled by duty and safety to help dissolve slavery, and that a man’s inherit right to liberty was violated by slavery (1950b, pp. 116-7). These sentiments were echoed by Abraham Lincoln who argued, “There is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence- the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” (2004, pp. 42-3). Despite the acceptance of slavery found in the Constitution, Douglass attacked slavery for its infringement on the equal entitlement of each man to individual liberty, which he believed was fundamental to American democracy. The American Dream, as Douglass and his supporters understood it, required that each individual had equal political and 24 economic liberty, which they believed was fundamental to the American democratic tradition. George Fitzhugh and Standardizing the Quality of American Life George Fitzhugh argued that liberty was an inessential element of the American Dream, and that the role of government was to provide all individuals with a minimum standard of living (1960, p. 72). Rather than providing African Americans equal liberty, he instead sought to provide wage laborers with the same lifestyle “advantages” as slaves. In doing so, he sought to remove almost all elements of liberty from the lives of the entire lower class. This would have provided the most disadvantaged elements of society with a minimum quality of living, improving their lives. In his interpretation, democracy merely required that all individuals received the necessities for life, but not that they experienced any political or economic liberty. Additionally, he assumed that the lower class was incapable of effectively exercising economic liberty, and that their best prospects for a good life were to have their needs directly provided for them by others. As a result, Fitzhugh redefined the American Dream strictly in terms of the quality of life available to all individuals, and downplayed the need for political or economic liberty in order for individuals to experience a fulfilling life. 25 In Cannibals All! Or Slaves Without Masters, Fitzhugh criticized the capitalist system for unfairly distributing goods, and claimed that the lives of slaves were in fact better than the lives of wage laborers. He argued that the private care that slave owners provided their slaves was superior to the care business owners provided their laborers through their wages. As a result, wage laborers would lead more fulfilling lives if they were given the same benefits that slaves received from their masters. He felt that capitalism “was far more cruel than the black slave trade, because it exacted more of its slaves, and neither protected nor governed them” (1960, p. 15). Fitzhugh asserted that masters protected and governed their slaves, while capitalists did not take similar steps to protect and govern their wage-laborers. Additionally, he argued that slaves had more individual liberty than wagelaborers. Wage laborers had to provide for all of their families needs with only their meager earnings. While at work, they were under the control of capitalists, and after leaving work, they had to care for the needs of their family. In contrast, slaves remained free in both body and mind after their workday had ended. The master provided “food, raiment, house, fuel, and everything else necessary to the physical well-being of himself and his family” (1960, p. 16). This provided them with liberty after finishing their work that wage-laborers never experienced. This was the only type of liberty that Fitzhugh believed the lower class could effectively use. Overall, Fitzhugh claimed that establishing a minimum quality of life that was equally available to all men was the 26 primary end of government, as it maximized the liberty that the working class was capable of exercising, while ensuring that their basic needs were met. In making this argument, Fitzhugh redefined democracy. He found the social arrangement created by capitalism unjust because it enabled capitalists to treat wagelaborers worse than slaves. Fitzhugh concluded: Democracy and liberty are antagonistic; for liberty permits and encourages the weak to oppress the strong, whilst democracy proposes, so far as possible, to equalize advantages, by fairly dividing the burdens of life and rigidly enforcing the performance of every social duty by every member of society, according to his capacity and ability. (1960, p. 82) Unlike Douglass, Fitzhugh believed that political arrangements should be judged by the equality (or in his terminology, democracy) that they created among the working class. In his opinion, liberty and equality were inherently in conflict with one another in capitalist systems. His theory rested on the assumption that slaves were incapable of competing in the capitalist system. Unlike capitalists, slave owners had an incentive to take care of their workers. Slaves were treated as property, leading Fitzhugh to argue, “should they not be obliged to take care of man, their property, as they do their horses and their hounds, their cattle and their sheep” (1960, p. 20). If slave-owners failed to take proper care of their slaves, the slaves would be less productive and consequently less valuable. He argued, “the law of self interest secures kind and humane treatment to Southern slaves. All the legislative ingenuity in the world will never enact so efficient a law in 27 behalf of free laborers” (1960, p. 79). Thus, Fitzhugh claimed that the enslavement of blacks protected them, while it ensured that they received equal treatment and the necessities for life. Wage laborers were easier to replace because capitalists had no direct tie (such as direct ownership) to their workers. Fitzhugh also believed that there was social pressure to treat weak or dependent individuals correctly. As a result, he expected that slave owners did properly feed, house, dress, and manage their slaves. He even argued that slaves received better educations than wage-laborers. Whereas wage-laborers primarily interacted among themselves, slaves commonly interacted with their masters, who they consequently learned from (1960, p. 29). Fitzhugh’s theory rested entirely on the premises that the lives of slaves were better than that of the wage-laborers, and that wage-laborers were incapable of effectively using most forms of liberty. The fundamental conflict between the theories of Douglass and Fitzhugh existed beyond the direct question of slavery. Douglass, demanded that each individual had access to economic opportunities and equal political liberty. For Douglass, the better future promised by the American Dream required that individuals had access to political and economic liberties, enabling them to lead the lives that they desired. Alternatively, Fitzhugh denied the need for economic and political liberties for individuals to lead a fulfilling life. Instead, he argued that individuals only required an equal quality of life be made available to them. Although the factual premises of his defense of slavery were wrong, his conception of American democracy openly challenged the natural rights based claims posited by Douglass. Fitzhugh’s conception of the American Dream required that 28 there was an equal quality of life available to all Americans, and ignored the need for opportunities within the economic and political spheres to exist for Americans to lead a good life. The Impact of the Antebellum Period on the American Dream The various Southern interpretations of the American Dream were largely rejected by the Northern public. Although slave owners and Southern politicians found these arguments for the continuation and expansion of slavery convincing, relatively little of the Northern public was persuaded. Instead, according to Croly: [The Northerners] insisted upon a conception of the Constitution… more comprehensive and dignified than that of existing legal rights; and in so doing the Northerners undoubtedly had behind them, not merely the sound political idea, but also a fair share of the living American tradition. (1965, pp. 82-3) For them, the concept of American democracy stood for more than the law as described by the Constitution and law books. They developed a greater meaning behind American democracy that was more attuned with their popular conceptions of economic opportunity, security, equality, and liberty, during the period. To preserve slavery meant threatening the ideals that many Americans increasingly associated with democracy and America itself. Although most Americans questioned absolute racial equality, most recognized the threat that the continuance of slavery posed to the democratic ideals of liberty and equality. 29 Abraham Lincoln understood that slavery constituted a direct threat to the developing American moral culture that the American Dream had come to presuppose. Following his inauguration, Lincoln explained in a speech at Independence Hall: I have often inquired of myself, what great principle or idea it was that kept this confederacy so long together. It was not the mere matter of the separation of the colonies from the mother land; but something in that Declaration giving liberty, not alone to the people of this country, but hope to the world for all future time. It was that which gave promise that in due time the weights should be lifted from the shoulders of all men, and that all should have an equal chance. This is the sentiment embodied in that Declaration of Independence [emphasis added]. (1989, p. 213) Lincoln further expanded upon the idea of a developing conception of the Declaration of Independence and American democracy in his Gettysburg Address. Within the address, he implied that the Declaration of Independence promised to create a society that would establish democracy and liberty among men, and that it was the responsibility of future generations to further those goals. Croly emphasized the importance of Lincoln and explained: Thus for the first time it was clearly proclaimed by a responsible politician that American nationality was a living principle rather than a legal bond; and Lincoln’s service to his country in making the Western Democracy understand that living Americans were responsible for their national integrity can scarcely be over-valued. (1965, p. 88) Lincoln understood that American democracy was built upon more than simply a legalistic framework that explicitly declared how government worked and how it and the individual must interact. Instead, it was an agreement among the people to develop a public discourse regarding important issues concerning equality and liberty, and to apply 30 that discourse to the governing of the state, improving the future of America in the process. James Fitzpatrick further noted: The Declaration, he [Lincoln] argued, was a pledge to work for a country in which all men would be treated as equals before the law; it established a national ideal, an aspiration. It outlined the kind of society that the Founding Fathers hoped would one day be established in the new country. The Constitution on the other hand was a working instrument with which to organize the American society as it existed in the late eighteenth century. (1977, pp. 118-9) Under Lincoln’s interpretation, the Constitution and the legal code acted merely as the means towards establishing the ends defined in the Declaration. Lincoln was among the first to identify the promise of a better future for America and the underlying democratic principles established in America’s founding documents as the basis for the American Dream. The question of slavery highlighted the dynamic and evolving character of the American Dream. Douglass (and Lincoln to some extent) argued that the American Dream and the foundation of American democracy were defined by the preservation and equalization of political and economic liberty among individuals. This theoretically provided each individual an equal opportunity to influence their government and to become economically self-sufficient. Alternatively, Fitzhugh argued that the better future that the American Dream symbolized required that a satisfactory quality of life was made available to all Americans. Rather than merely providing equal opportunities for influence and success, Fitzhugh argued that the benefits of economic outcomes needed to be, to some extent, equalized, and that those incapable of effectively participating in 31 politics were excluded from it. Democracy and the American Dream, in his view, only required that individuals received the private benefits necessary for a satisfactory life, while he ignored the possible benefits of participation in the public sphere. Following the antebellum period, the equality of outcomes that Fitzhugh demanded was subjugated to a conception of the American Dream similar to Douglass’ that emphasized the importance of individual political and economic liberty. 32 Chapter 4 HORATIO ALGER’S AMERICAN DREAM, THE RISE OF PROCEDURAL JUSTICE, AND ITS CULTURAL IMPLICATIONS Opportunities for economic success have always been an integral part of the American experience. In his most famous work, Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville observed: In America everyone finds opportunities unknown anywhere else for making or increasing his fortune. A breathless cupidity perpetually distracts the mind of man from the pleasures of the imagination and the labors of the intellect and urges it on to nothing but the pursuit of wealth. (2000, pp. 454-5) Economic opportunity and optimistic expectations for those opportunities have been a part of the American Dream since even before our founding. Tocqueville observed that the pure pursuit of wealth could lead one to neglect other important goals. With the rise of Horatio Alger’s conception of the American Dream, American policy became largely focused on promoting economic opportunity through free market capitalism and the application of procedural justice. The pursuit of economic success has been present in the culture of our young country since even before its explicit founding. Its roots are found in the Protestant work ethic that coupled success with virtue and hard work. This notion that the success or failure of an individual was directly related to his or her own hard work and virtue is inherited from our Puritan founders, and evolved into a modern justification for wealth and failure. As a result, American culture frequently judged the success or failure of an 33 individual based solely on their financial success. A new conception of the America Dream emerged at the end of the nineteenth century that emphasized economic liberty, and ignored the unequal opportunities for success that structural disadvantages created. One explanation for this shift towards a new economic American Dream was that America became increasingly populated by poor European immigrants who sought economic success more than the democratic principles that the founders believed America rested upon. Arendt noted: The trouble was that the struggle to abolish poverty, under the impact of a continual mass immigration from Europe, fell more and more under the sway of the poor themselves, and hence came under the guidance of the ideals born out of poverty, as distinguished from those principles which had inspired the foundation of freedom. For abundance and endless consumption are the ideals of the poor: they are the mirage in the desert of misery. (2006, p. 130) For the growing population of poor Americans a better economic future was the most important goal and the means to an overall better future. Technological advances in the short-term enabled many of the poor to increase their economic status, and had “the effect of confirming for the dreamers that they really had come to live in the best of all possible worlds” (Arendt, 2006, p. 131). However, this shift from the pursuit of substantive democratic ideals to purely economic goals led to policies that largely ignored the importance of political participation and the fulfillment of a common good. The creation of free markets and the development of policies promoting negative liberties did not lead to the better future that many Americans expected the policies to 34 create. Instead, free markets created the opportunity for exploitation and led to greater inequalities of goods and capital. From this unequal distribution, the advantaged class further established political controls to help protect the social arrangement. Jeffrey Lustig observed: We can see that by the last quarter of the nineteenth century America faced an inarticulate policy choice about which business practices would be deemed legitimate and which harmful, which placed outside the scope of public authority and which placed within it. (1982, p. 55) Americans, under the guidance of the political and economic elites, chose to put their faith in the liberalization of free trade, and the myths that it promulgated. They were told that wealth and industry would fairly emerge through free trade, and that all Americans would benefit from economic liberty. However, these policies led to reduced opportunities for social mobility and led to greater divides between the quality of life experienced by the rich and the poor to develop. This new version of the American Dream emphasized economic liberty, free trade, and led to the adoption of a procedural conception of justice. Although the assumptions behind this conception of the American Dream were once true, structural inequalities increased in the twentieth century, leading to decreased social mobility and increasing gaps in the standards of living among the different economic classes. Land: the Great Equalizer 35 Westward expansion and an abundance of available land primed Americans to believe that success was determined by hard work. The Homestead Act of 1862 enabled individuals to move westward and to claim up to 160 acres of land. Citing the work of Henry George, Lustig noted: The original promise of American life was not of great wealth nor even equality of condition. It was the promise of “opportunity” to work, to decide how to apply one’s own wit to nature, and to make one’s contribution to society without being beholden to superiors. (1982, p. 61) The great excess of land allowed individuals that were dissatisfied with their position in society, or the culture that was developing around them, to move west and to create new lives for themselves. Fundamental to this frontier conception of the American Dream was the independence that it provided them, in addition to the economic success that it often brought with it. Most of these individuals were simply subsistence farmers that existed largely outside of the national economy, yet they were free from government and social restraints. This ideal emphasized the equal opportunities for all individuals to be independent and to live a comfortable, albeit difficult, life. Individuals had little excuse not be successful when land was freely available, and only required the input of their hard labor, and a little luck, to be self-sufficient. Westward expansion relied upon what was seemingly an unlimited commons that provided every individual with the opportunity to be economically successful. From the beginning, the United States was largely made up of small independent farmers. Even at the beginning of industrialization, as middle class businessmen 36 emerged, the possibilities of upward mobility into that privileged class was available to the most talented and the most determined workers (Mills, 1951, pp. 3-6). C. Wright Mills noted, "Between mercantilism and subsistence farming in the beginning, and monopoly and high finance at the end, the society of the small entrepreneur flourished and became the seedbed of middleclass ideal and aspiration and myth" (1951, p. 6). These men largely owned their own property, which also gave them their industry, giving them freedom and independence. The large entrepreneur middle class had significant political capital, as they formed a unified bloc with converging interests in both preserving their economic power, and promoting their community’s interests. However, as the availability of arable land decreased and westward expansion reached the west coast, the opportunity for individuals to obtain some sort of sustainable economic success became much more difficult. Without the opportunity to merely claim land, prospective farmers were forced to buy their land from others, requiring a monetary investment that was beyond the means of many. Instead, the best and often only option for many individuals was to take advantage of the opportunities created by industrialization and to find employment in factories. Often, these positions provided unsafe and harsh work environments, coupled with long hours for little pay. Unlike farming opportunities, these individuals had little autonomy and were subject to the demands of their employers. Additionally, due to the growing competition for employment in industrial centers and the low skill requirements of much of the work, individuals entering into the manufacturing sphere could rarely move beyond their initial 37 socioeconomic class. However, despite the loss of the western commons, Americans continued to believe that every individual had an equal opportunity to be successful, and that failure to do so was the result of either poor luck, laziness, or a flawed moral character. Despite the loss of the western commons, the belief that each individual had an equal opportunity to find economic success remained a key assumption of the American Dream. Gatsby and the American Dream F. Scott Fitzgerald’s exploration of the American Dream in The Great Gatsby helps to explain the disillusionment with industrialization and wealth that had already begun to permeate American culture in the 1920’s. Although the search for material wealth continued to dominate the minds of Americans, Fitzgerald and many of his contemporaries recognized both the inherent desperation and impossibility of the American Dream, as the lost generation understood it. In many ways, Jay Gatsby represented the embodiment of the American Dream. He grew up in the mid-west with relatively unsuccessful parents, and through determination and hard work, created a fortune for himself. Edwin Fussel noted that Gatsby wrote his resolutions in a similar fashion to Benjamin Franklin, although Gatsby documented his in the back of a copy of Hopalong Cassidy (1952, p. 296). These 38 resolutions included not wasting time, maintaining proper hygiene, reading, and saving. Spurred by this evidence of early resolve, Gatsby’s father noted, “Jimmy [Gatsby] was bound to get ahead. He always had some resolves like this or something” (Fitzgerald, 1986, p. 175). However, throughout the novel, Fitzgerald made multiple references to the possible mob and bootlegging roots of Gatsby’s fortune, and it is unclear for the reader how he actually made his fortune. Thus, Fitzgerald rewrote Alger’s parable and questioned what moral and personal sacrifices individuals needed to make in order to achieve the wealth that Alger implied was possible to every hard working and virtuous American. Readers can understand Gatsby as a character with more ambition than other, more overtly materialistic characters, like Tom and Daisy; however, Gatsby’s Dream is ultimately centered upon possessions- both material and figurative- like other less developed characters in the novel. Fitzgerald wrote that before Gatsby acquired his wealth: Each night he added to the pattern of his fancies until drowsiness closed down upon some vivid scene with an oblivious embrace. For a while these reveries provided an outlet for his imagination; they were a satisfactory hint of the unreality of reality, a promise that the rock of the world was founded on a fairy’s wing. (1986, p. 100) Fitzgerald implied that during the 1920’s Americans believed that ultimately their desire for wealth would lead them to their fortunes. Fitzgerald recognized the growing infatuation with wealth that was embodied in the American Dream, and through Gatsby 39 questioned the satisfaction that it ultimately led to. Tom and Daisy, the paradigm Fitzgerald used to represent an entire class of Americans, were stuck in a mostly loveless marriage that both were afraid to leave, and were ultimately dissatisfied with their lives. John Callahan observed, “Daisy saw Gatsby’s possessions for the Horatio Alger emblems that they were and responded only to the passion, will, and tenderness that laid behind them- the struggle over Daisy (and, parabolically America) was fought on the field of property” (1996, p. 382). The pursuit of greater wealth and the enjoyment of that wealth served as the motivation for Daisy and many of the other characters in Gatsby, yet they tended to spend most of their time unhappily criticizing others, resulting in lives that left them largely unfulfilled. Callahan further noted, “sooner or later human feelings were negotiated in relation to property or some other form of material reality subject to ownership” (1996, p. 382). Thus, the language of success and happiness became only reflections of wealth and property holdings, even for Gatsby. In Gatsby’s final confrontation with Tom over who Daisy would be in a relationship with, they argued about Daisy with little regard for her own opinion. Instead, they commodified their relationships with her, and debated the ownership of her, without even the regard for her own input. Ultimately, she represented a piece of property to both men, the possession of which equated to success. Fussel explained, “Possession of an image like Daisy was all that Gatsby could finally conceive as “success;” and Gatsby is meant to be a very representative American in the intensity of his yearning for success, as well as the symbols which he equated with it” (1952, p. 296). 40 Although Gatsby seemed for much of the book to have transcended the American tendency to equate happiness with economic success, his eventual treatment of Daisy revealed that he simply redefined the property that he was in search of. For Gatsby, in many ways the embodiment of the American Dream, the acquisition of property was never finished, and all human relationships defined in terms of property. For Fitzgerald, the American Dream constituted not only a myth that deceived Americans, but in Alger’s conception of it, it also commodified human relations, and reduced them to mere contests over possession. For Gatsby the American Dream was strictly private. Despite the power and influence that Gatsby’s wealth could have conceivably brought him, all of his goals were limited to his own economic success and bringing Daisy back into his life. Fitzgerald largely ignored the importance of democratic principles like equality or liberty in the lives of individuals, except for the individual capacity to escape cultural norms. The affairs of Tom, Daisy, and Myrtle, were conducted out in the open, and subject to few social repercussions. Tom was so bold as to introduce Nick, the cousin of his wife, to his mistress. Additionally, the public sphere was corrupted by economic elites. For example, while speeding with Nick in the car, Gatsby was approached by a police offer, whom he promptly showed a card given to him by the commissioner, and was let go. Fitzgerald depicted the public sphere as subservient to private economic power, which seemed to be the ultimate power within society. Economic wealth provided his 41 characters with the individual liberty to act however they wished within the private sphere, and gave them privileges in the public sphere that were unavailable to others. Horatio Alger’s Conception of the American Dream in Modern America The American Dream as many view it today was largely popularized by Horatio Alger, a Harvard graduate and author from the late nineteenth century, who sold between 100 million and 400 million books worldwide (estimates from literary historians vary greatly) (Moddocks, 1973). Alger wrote stories about young men that through hard work and determination were able to move beyond their lower class roots. Millions of young, impoverished children read these dime novels at the end of the nineteenth century, popularizing the myth of upward mobility, and popularizing the elite’s explanation for the poverty and failure of millions: lack of determination. His conception of the American Dream stated that upward mobility, wealth, and happiness were the products of hard work and perseverance, or in the words of Celeste MacLeod, “everyone who tried hard enough could rise and become rich” (1980, p. 3). Many of the most successful individuals truly believed that material success is easy to achieve, and often failed to understand the structural advantages and luck that most that enjoy it experienced. Rather than simply providing individuals with hope for upward mobility, individuals also used Alger’s conception of the American Dream to 42 blame less successful individuals for their place in society. Charles Reich explained that these people believe: Material success is the road to happiness… Competition is the law of nature and man; life is a harsh pursuit of individual self-interest… the American Dream is still possible, and that success is determined by character, morality, hard work, and self-denial. It does not accept the fact that organizations predominate over individuals in American life, or that social problems are due to something other than bad character, or that the possibility of individual success, based on ability and enterprise, is largely out of date. (1970, p. 25) Proponents of this conception of the American Dream applied a flawed theoretical explanation for what occurs in the real world. This distortion of the Protestant work ethic enabled them to justify the success and failure of individuals based on their moral character and their work ethic. The successful were deemed right and just, while those who struggled or failed were weak and lacked proper virtue. Macleod observed, “belief in the Dream has a special advantage for those who embrace its tenets: It serves as a screen that shuts out the real world, at least temporarily” (1980, pp. 3-4). This became problematic when individuals were persuaded by this version of the American Dream to place their faith in free markets, despite the structural inequalities that existed and fundamentally shaped the outcomes of free market exchanges. Although Alger’s conception of the American Dream was popular for much of the twentieth century, as opportunities for social mobility into the old middle class diminished and corporate bureaucracy developed, individuals became less focused on economic success and became less defined by their jobs. As a result, individuals sought 43 other means of satisfaction in their lives, and began to redefine the American Dream in the process. C. Wright Mills noted that as work became increasingly less enjoyable for individuals, they chose to pursue leisure activities in their free time in order to escape from work. He explained: The old middle-class work ethic- the gospel of work- has been replaced in the society of employees by a leisure ethic, and this replacement has involved a sharp, almost absolute split between work and leisure. Now work itself is judged in terms of leisure values… Their leisure diverts them from the restless grind of their work by the absorbing grind of passive enjoyment of glamour and thrills. To modern man leisure is the way to spend money, work is the way to make it. (1951, pp. 236-8) For white-collar workers, work became a means for creating personal leisure time, while leisure provided a mindless escape from the monotony of the workplace. Although wage laborers attempted to reach the socioeconomic levels of white-collar workers, the position offered little additional satisfaction to individuals, except for increased wages. Mills argued that due to their unsatisfactory work conditions, most white-collar workers chose to pursue leisure activities in their free time, and ignored greater intellectual or creative pursuits (1951, p. 235). These changing priorities led to another redefining of the American Dream for those who became dissatisfied with corporate culture and looked outside of the workplace for satisfaction. Their conception of the American Dream embraced individual private liberties, leading this group of individuals to largely ignore their role in public discourse and become passively tolerant of structural inequalities. Believers in this Dream were uninterested in changing the political or economic status quo, and instead sought merely to protect their private rights and regrettably diminished 44 economic opportunities. The believers of this revision of Alger’s conception of the American Dream sought to increase their independence at home, as an escape from the positions they filled at work. Mills noted, “Leisure time thus comes to mean an unserious freedom from the authoritarian seriousness of the job” (1951, p. 236). This new conception of the American Dream shared the focus on independence that some previous conceptions of Americans Dreams had emphasized, but those who embraced this new conception had accepted the restraints that workplaces now placed on them. Independence, the goal of these dreamers, had only become possible in the private sphere. C. Wright Mills and White-Collar Laborers With the development of corporate bureaucracy, much of the middle class became white-collar workers and lost their economic independence, according to Mills. He argued that the existence of the white-collar class actually replicated the experiences of the production class of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, where their lives were dominated by impersonal labor that failed to provide them either independence or satisfaction. This role in society replaced prior embodiments of the middle class that consisted of farmers, artisans, and entrepreneurs that had significant independence in their labor and were directly linked to their products through that labor. This created more psychologically fulfilling lifestyles for those middle class individuals. Mills noted: 45 Now rationality seems to have taken on a new form, to have its seat not in individual men, but in social institutions which by their bureaucratic planning and mathematical foresight usurp both freedom and rationality from the little individual men caught in them. (1951, p. xvii) When individual autonomy was restricted in the workplace, individuals began to search for other means to express themselves and find satisfaction outside of work, often leading them away from conceptions of happiness that were found in the workplace, and towards private, often leisurely ends. Mills wrote, "democratic property, which the owner himself works, has given way to class property… class property means that, in order to live, man must submit to the authority which property lends its owner" (1951, p. 14). Furthermore, the separation of property and work for white-collar workers fundamentally altered the life plans and psychology of its members (Mills, 1951, p. 14). Large firms emerged over time in most industries, leading to greater gaps in profits between firms, and the elimination of most small competitors. New entrepreneurs were rarely successful, especially in the longterm, driving them back to large firms. Large firms spread corporate cultures that encouraged uniformity, leaving employees little independence to form their own identities and made them extensions of the corporate model (Mills, 1951, pp. 30-33). Individuals working under these conditions received adequate wages, but were less likely to be satisfied with their work than previous middle class workers who had greater autonomy. Without independence, employees could not enjoy a feeling of accomplishment, as their success was more dependent on corporate orders than it was on 46 their own ingenuity, hard work, or independence. This led to the commoditization (and thus the unhappiness) of the individual in the workplace. Although social mobility was an important assumption of the conception of the American Dream that led to free market economic policies and eventually corporate bureaucracy, opportunities for social mobility became increasingly rare. As structural inequalities grew, Alger’s conception of the American Dream increasingly became a tool used for propaganda, and for most Americans, less of a realistic vision for a better future. Mills posited: Thus the principle of the self-made man, and the justification of his superior position by the competitive fire through which he has come, require and in turn support the ideology of free competition. In the abstract political ranges, everyone can believe in competition; in the concrete economic case, few small entrepreneurs can afford to do so. (1951, p. 36) Naturally, even those whose success was made possible through open competition favored limiting their competition once they gained a satisfactory share of the market. This made it increasingly difficult for new entrepreneurs to enter into markets and compete, and made entrance into the upper echelons of society almost impossible. Large corporations continued to espouse free market theory in order to legitimize their success (Mills, 1951, pp. 39-40). As the American worker began to abandon these free market principles and to accept decreasing social mobility, they replaced Alger’s conception of the American Dream with a new vision. This new conception of the American Dream was created as those who had become disillusioned with the old Dream, and turned 47 inwards, seeking happiness in the private sphere. Not only did this lead to the wide scale abandonment of the public sphere (i.e. political participation), but also led many Americans to become complacent with the economic status quo. The new American Dream was not one of a better future for the country or even necessarily for mainstream Americans; instead, believers in this new Dream asked, “What is a better future for me?” 48 Chapter 5 THE REDEFINING OF ALGER’S CONCEPTION OF THE AMERICAN DREAM AND MODERN AMERICANS There are essentially three groups of individuals in modern America: those who are living what they understand as the American Dream (in Alger’s conception of it); those who still believe in that American Dream; and those that understand that Alger’s conception of the American Dream is a false reality and have redefined it. Affluent Americans are most likely to believe in Alger’s conception of the American Dream. John Zogby found that forty-five percent of individuals making over seventy-five-thousand dollars per year equated material success with the American Dream, and claimed that it was attainable for themselves and most middle-class Americans, the highest among any group (2008, p. 125). Considering that these individuals are most likely to receive beneficial structural advantages such as a college educations, beneficial personal connections, and safety nets to protect them against failure, it is not surprising that they do not understand the impact of structural inequalities on the economic opportunities available to most Americans. The second group of Americans consists of non-affluent individuals who are striving for the economic success they believe the American Dream has promised them. These individuals often face a number of structural disadvantages to achieving success, such as poor family structures, subpar educations, lack of resources, or lack of opportunities. Despite these disadvantages, most believe in Alger’s conception of the 49 American Dream. One explanation may be that through the disproportionate influence of elites on the media, they can promulgate Alger’s conception of the American Dream throughout society, even spreading it to individuals that face significant structural inequalities. Additionally, with the loss of the autonomous working class culture that unified the working class under similar values and goals, there are few alternatives to Alger’s conception of the American Dream promoted by economic elites. As a result, the working class continues to believe the myths of the American Dream fed to them by those elites, trusting that their hard work will pay off, and that social mobility is still possible. Even in 1980, Macleod noted, “The United States is dividing into two societiesthe affluent and the non-affluent. The gap between the two- in terms of income, education, standard of living, life-style, and outlook- is widening, and so is their distrust of each other’s values” (1980, p. 142). Macleod’s observation foreshadowed the divergence of society into separate groups that may define success differently, and the development of new versions of the American Dream. Zogby found that the meaning of the American Dream has changed in recent years. Although thirty-six percent of total respondents identified themselves as Traditional Materialists (those who subscribe to Alger’s version of the American Dream), an equal number of respondents (within the margin of error) described themselves as Secular Spiritualists. When asked, “Which of the following statements best represents 50 your goals in life?” Secular Spiritualists answered, “I believe you can achieve the American Dream through spiritual fulfillment rather than material success” (2008, p. 121). Zogby stressed that this response did not exclusively appeal to religious individuals, but instead represented individuals that defined the American Dream in nonmaterial terms. His polls revealed that this group he defined as Secular Spiritualists were growing, leading him to conclude: People are… worn out with getting and spending; in some cases, they are broken by it. They want an America that looks to the spirit as well as to the pocketbook, and they want to move beyond the specifically religious nostrums to get there… That those of us in our late middle years are looking outward away from the daily struggle and beyond any dreams we might once have had for our own well-being; that even the youngest among us can see that money can’t buy you love; and that the old promise of materialism is falling on deaf ears everywhere. There’s a huge gap between having things and having the happiness that Secular Spiritualism seeks to provide. (2008, p. 132-40) Although the term ‘Secular Spiritualist’ lacked any clear description of what this different conception of the American Dream exactly entailed, individuals identified under that term believed that the American Dream did not require the material success that Alger’s conception of the Dream assumed. Instead, this emerging group of Americans to nonmaterial symbols of success, including their families, marriages, the quality of their work, religion, and leisure time. Although they may have believed in some of the assumptions within Alger’s conception of the Dream, they did not identify those material gains with necessarily a better future. Their conception of a better future- their version of the American Dream- 51 required other forms of success, however they chose to define it. This new Dream is inherently private, and although it may require social interactions (such as with one’s family), the role of political or commercial institutions is largely irrelevant to this inner happiness. As a result, these new Dreamers are unlikely to be politically involved, or to challenge the economic arrangements that are already in place- provided they do not threaten their private, nonmaterial pursuits. The new individualistic American Dream is primarily private, and developed from the disillusionment with work described by Mills. Ultimately, this conception of the Dream leads to the application of procedural justice to the governance of the state, as individuals seek to protect themselves from a government and society that they feel no longer represents them. Divergent Interests and the Lack of Community among Americans The era of upward mobility is over for most Americans. Although mobility from the lower to middle class may still exist, movement into the upper echelon is no longer possible with simple hard work and ingenuity. The middle class faces a ceiling of upward mobility and a glass floor that could break at any moment. The white-collar middle class is disjointed and lacks the economic and political capital it needs to reassert its collective power. Unless white-collar workers recognize themselves as a cohesive political group and forge a communal identity, they cannot begin to breakdown the economic and social obstructions that limit their social mobility. Either the middle class 52 must abandon its faith in Alger’s conception of the American Dream, or it must attempt to use politics to redefine the structure of society to once again create social mobility. However, this latter option appears unlikely, as there is low political efficacy and little sense of collective interests among middle and lower class workers. Among middle and lower class Americans, few shared interests have become salient. Michael Sandel noted that by the mid-to-late twentieth century: Except for extraordinary moments, such as war, the nation proved too vast a scale across which to cultivate the shared self-understanding necessary to community in the formative or constitutive sense. And so the gradual shift, in our practices and institutions, from a public philosophy of common purposes to one of fair procedures, from a politics of good to a politics of right, from the national republic to the procedural republic . (1984, p. 93) By scale, we can assume that Sandel was referring to two important changes in the national character. First, with the westward expansion, the United States became so large that it became difficult for individuals to identify with other members of the nation that were thousands of miles away. However, this geographic expansion merely foreshadowed a greater cultural divide that occurred within the state. Before Americans became geographically and culturally divided from each other, it was easier for individuals to identify themselves as members of a larger body, united by shared interests and experiences. These communities enabled individuals to think beyond their selfinterests and to recognize larger, more substantive ends. By the twentieth century, the United States became saturated with diverse opinions and cultures that threatened any conception of a unique national character. Rather than individuals feeling connected to 53 their fellow citizens, and thus willing to provide greater equality and to promote a shared conception of a public good, the diversity of cultures within the country led many different divergent strands of political opinion to emerge, each with different policy goals and assumptions about the role of government. As the state increased in geographic size, became more diverse, social mobility decreased, and unity within industries and socioeconomic classes shrunk, individuals shifted their focus to their private lives and largely began to ignore the public sphere. The result, as Sandel and this essay argue, was a return to governance focused most on promoting private and economic liberties and the procedural conception of justice that came with it. Rather than furthering a cohesive public will, citizens grew more interested in protecting their own rights out of fear that the government and the diversity that it represented would threaten their private interests. Private interests became separate from any conceptions of the greater public good. As a result, individuals sought to pacify government power by, according the Sandel, strengthening judicial and bureaucratic powers, while weakening the legislative branch (1984, p. 94). Increasingly, divergent private interests led to government policies that emphasized private and economic liberties and a procedural conception of justice- the result of diminishing communal consciousness among believers in Alger’s conception of the American Dream. 54 Additionally, the lack of middle class consciousness described by Mills was an important factor in the establishment of the procedural republic. Middle and working class individuals rarely understood themselves as a cohesive political class that was united by economic and social interests. Rather than perceiving themselves as a socioeconomic class, they defined their identities in private terms or along limited occupational lines. Alger’s version of the American Dream taught Americans that they were destined for the upper class, and thus that any attack on upper class interests for the benefit of other classes was, ultimately, not in the self-interest of any hard working, optimistic American. Alternatively, much of the upper class was united by their economic interests, and moved beyond their occupational divides, becoming class conscious. The unification of the upper class allowed them to promote policies that served their own interests, while other classes remained divided and merely sought to establish rules to protect themselves. As a result, upper class interests were often framed under a guise of liberty, and were successfully implemented into policies, whereas middle and working class interests were ignored, as they were unable to recognize their own potential communal interests and power. For Mills, the American Dream espoused by Horatio Alger was patently false. Although a middle class life became possible for many, it was not the life of luxury and happiness that was promised, as it often required a work life that was unfulfilling. Mills suggested that white-collar workers would recognize themselves as a politically relevant class, and band together to restructure the work place, likely recreating a more traditional 55 middle class system of small enterprises. However, despite the growing evidence that social mobility was diminishing, believers in Alger’s conception of the Dream sought to defend their private and economic liberties, and redefined Alger’s Dream as purely apolitical. The new Dream was for each individual to be left alone to their own private pursuits within their homes, to disengage from the public sphere, and to spend their free time enjoying the leisure activities that brought them the most pleasure. In today’s modern global economy, creating greater social mobility through the restructuring of the economic system by politically active groups of united, middle class individuals has become even more difficult. It is unlikely that any single group of individuals, even one as large as the middle class white-collar workers, could demand the restructuring of our economic model without becoming class conscious. The economic American Dream of Horatio Alger is simply not possible anymore for Americans. Instead, political activism may lead to some significant changes, although likely not to a return to agrarian and small independently owned business cultures that Mills envisioned. The greatest hope for a return to governance based on a substantive conception of justice likely requires that the American people rediscover their underlying communal interests that continue to unite them (even if they fail to recognize them now). As economic policy increasingly emphasized free market principles, conceptions of equality beyond mere equality of rights were reduced. The resulting national conception of justice became strictly procedural. Public policy largely ignored the 56 equality of outcomes, and even the equality of starting points for individuals during this period. However, the rise of corporate culture and the reduction of class mobility may have begun to create a community that has begun to embrace policies outside of the free market framework that capitalism has created. Prospects for the Formation of Community As the American Dream increasingly emphasizes private liberties, the ability for the public to achieve “public happiness” is threatened. In order for democratic outcomes to reflect the best interests of the public at-large, the people need to play an active role in the democratic process. This requires that they are educated and have political knowledge. Although most Americans are rarely involved in the political process beyond voting, education and political knowledge enables the people to hold their government accountable. Croly noted: Men are uplifted by education much more surely than they are by any tinkering with laws and institutions, because the work of education leavens the actual social substance. It helps to give the individual himself those qualities without which no institutions, however excellent, are of any use, and with which even bad institutions and laws can be made vehicles of grace. (1965, p. 400) The political education of the people is vital to promoting socially beneficial democratic outcomes and enables the people to determine what types of policies their government will pursue. 57 Education alone does not ensure that substantive freedoms or the common good are pursued. Instead, with political knowledge, the people merely have the opportunity to put their conception of the American Dream into the political world and to try to shape American policies. Alger’s conception of the American Dream led the people to seek procedural justice within the law that emphasized individual liberties. Only with the emergence of a different vision for a better future, does the pursuit of substantive freedoms and the common good become possible. This is particularly troubling in that the destruction of the community created by Alger’s conception of the American Dream and procedural justice distorts democracy over time. If the American people no longer consider themselves to be a cohesive political body, participation in democracy, and even the importance of government involvement, become marginalized. Selective incentive programs or even patronage agreements meant to encourage political participation would likely only increase the appearance of greater public involvement, while the people would remain largely only motivated by their own private interests. The key to the future achievement of communal benefits is the formation of collective power by uniting individuals. Only if they identify themselves as part of a greater collective, and feel responsible for the achievement of goals beyond their private interests, can expansive changes within the system take place. Community may be essential to effective democratic involvement by the people, and as the American people become increasingly detached from each other, the likelihood of effective democratic involvement also decreases. the reemergence of communities among the American people and the 58 widespread reintegration of the people into the democratic process may be integral to the creation of a new American Dream. In order to staff the growing white-collar needs of American businesses, education levels have consistently increased. Both in theory and in practice, we observe that as a capitalist economy becomes more complex and has greater needs for skilled administrative workers, education, specifically college education, becomes increasingly important. This is especially true in the United States where the actual manufacturing of most products is rare. Instead, the manufacturing and building of American ideas constitutes the economies of other countries throughout the world. As a result, the United States economy is built upon formulating and staffing the highest administrative and bureaucratic functions of the world’s leading businesses. The United States’ economy is increasingly dependent upon the work of college educated, white-collar workers. Although these workers may no longer adopt the same conception of the American Dream that previous generations of laborers did, they must largely pursue these careers in order to attain the lifestyles that they desire. A survey of the growing education levels of Americans over-time shows the number of individuals with at least four years of college experience has rapidly grown in the last seventy years (US Census Bureau, 2009). Overtime, this creates large, educated groups of individuals, many of which may no longer support the free market culture that dominated the past. This growing class of educated individuals could be more likely to move beyond economic needs that are no longer met 59 by their unsatisfying work environments, and instead pursue greater freedom in their personal lives to find happiness. Increasing levels of education in the United States has led to a sense of entitlement among workers that creates discontent when these perceived entitlements are not met. American culture teaches its children that the attainment of a college education will ensure that they will find a fulfilling job that will economically and socially reward them for their education. However, Americans are increasingly realizing after they graduate, that this is not always the case. Individuals graduate from college, often even with graduate degrees, and cannot find work. They have spent years in school being conditioned to believe that their education will guarantee them a job and the lifestyles that they are conditioned to desire. However, when these jobs are not available and they begin to suspect that the conception of the American Dream that they have been taught may actually be a myth, it breeds discontent. Additionally, young college graduates are not the only victims of their own delusions. Older, more experienced (and therefore more expensive) professionals lose their positions to new graduates that are willing to do the work cheaper. This class of older, disillusioned individuals harbors even greater discontent, as they often have not only aspirations, but also real-world requirements for a certain standard of living. With mortgage payments, families, and children’s college educations at stake, these disillusioned professionals do not have the option to move back into their parent’s home 60 or to take-on roommates to help offset the problems created by the economic system. Not only do these individuals have little chance to achieve their goals, but are likely to be pushed out of their current lifestyle by these economic hardships. Together these educated classes may develop discontent for the status quo, making them particularly likely to embrace policies that move away from the free market assumptions that have betrayed them. Although they may not recognize the systematic side effects of capitalism that have harmed them, they are more likely to seek other frameworks with which to analyze governance. Additionally, this disillusionment can serve as a sparking point for the formation of a communal identity that can unite these individuals. Joseph Schumpeter notes, “Discontent breeds resentment. And it often rationalizes itself into that social criticism which as we have seen before is in any case the intellectual spectator’s typical attitude toward men, classes, and institutions especially in a rationalist and utilitarian civilization” (1950, p. 153). Because current social arrangements fail to meet their expectations, these individuals in particular are apt to question material conceptions of success, and to call for changes that can address some of their discontent. They are quickly realizing that the social mobility assumed by Alger’s version of the American Dream no longer exists. Unlike poorer classes, these educated groups tend to be both politically motivated, and have access to the media and political power. This generation of educated and dissatisfied workers is the pivotal class of individuals that can (and are most likely) to revise the American Dream through a new vision of how to improve the future. 61 Moreover, criticism of Alger’s conception of the American Dream also comes from the prominent class of intellectuals that build their careers largely on social criticism. Academics, the media, and even entertainers gain the largest followings and enjoy the most popularity when their work is connected to the important issues of the day. Intellectuals have a significant impact on cultural norms and the understanding of society. Schumpeter finds, “Intellectuals… staff political bureaus, write party pamphlets and speeches, act as secretaries and advisers, make the individual politician’s newspaper reputation… In doing these things they to some extent impress their mentality on almost everything that is being done” (1950, p. 154). This class of individuals has the ability to shape the way that the American people interpret the role and performance of their government, making their contribution to American culture greater than possibly any other class within society. Although many Americans question the efficiency of the government, most recognize the need for the government to help some individuals. A Pew Research Center report finds that since 1987, Americans have remained consistently skeptical of the government’s ability to operate efficiently (about 60% of respondents believed that “when something is run by the government, it is usually inefficient and wasteful”) (2009, p. 29). However, the public is increasingly open to government intervention that helps to protect individuals from systematic disadvantages and hardships. Another report from the Pew Research Center finds positive trends supporting the claim that the “government should care for those who can’t care for themselves” (up from 57% in 1994 to 69% in 62 2007), and that the “government should help the needy even if it means greater debt” (up from 41% in 1994 to 54% in 2007) (2007, p. 1). These may be indicators that there is a growing sense of community among Americans, and that this may eventually translate to greater public support for policies that sacrifice some individual liberties to promote the common good (the most obvious sacrifice coming in the form of higher taxes to redistribute wealth to the poor in the form of public assistance programs). This survey data represents a growing trend in American culture: although individuals remain skeptical of government efficiency, they sometimes recognize the need for government intervention when it creates higher levels of equality or provides individuals with necessities for life. Americans also typically expect the government to protect them from market failures and high information costs that would otherwise reduce their quality of life (i.e. health and safety regulations). Studies also show that civil liberties are becoming more important to the American people. Since 2001,1 Americans are becoming less willing to sacrifice civil liberties in order to help curb terrorism (The Pew Research Center For The People & The Press, 2009, p. 94). The same Pew Research Center report finds that similar downward trends show that there is also eroding support for warrantless wiretaps and limitations on freedom of speech (2009, p. 95). Interestingly, these trends have not been coupled with 1 Data before this time would be largely suspect due to the significant impact of 9/11 on the American psyche. 63 resurgence in widespread conservative ideology, despite the traditional links between civil liberties and conservatism. The Pew Research Center found that social conservatism, especially among younger generations, is steeply declining (2009, p. 47). This decline in social conservatism is also linked to less restrictive social policies, specifically related to marriage and family life. Despite the more restrictive outcomes of some state initiatives (for example Proposition 8 in California), the greater national trend over-time has been towards more equal social policies across the board (providing equal rights to all individuals). This data is consistent with a vision of the future that would protect the private liberties of the individual, consistent with the refinement of Alger’s conception of the American Dream that developed during the 1950’s and described by Mills. This essay does not seek to suggest that liberty or democracy are the ends that government should promote absolutely. Instead, it only seeks to show that the values liberty and democracy have often conflicted with each other in both the economic and political spheres. In the economic realm, liberty and democracy conflict over the extent that the government should intervene in the market to reduce structural inequalities that the free market will not self-correct. In the political sphere, given equal political liberty to all citizens (i.e. free speech, equal voting rights, etc.), liberty and democracy primarily conflict over the balancing of private liberties and the role of government. As a sense of community grows among Americans, they may be more willing to sanction government involvement that promotes substantive freedoms and a common good, while often 64 infringing on negative liberties. (Most often the negative liberties sacrificed come through taxation, which takes away from an individual’s ability to spend that money however they wish.) Although substantive freedoms and the common good may be viewed in an abstract sense as goods determined by the public, they are not absolute goods. Instead, they merely reflect the formation of limited consensus among citizens in a pluralist state, and must be viewed as such. Although the work of Mills and Schumpeter suggest that individuals are less interested in the absolute protection of the free market system than they have been in the past, individuals have largely turned away from the political sphere, and have concentrated on their individual, private interests. This is largely due to the lack of any significant communal bonds among individuals, and the increasing diversity found within American culture. Although Alger’s conception of the American Dream originated from free markets and social mobility, the continuation of an apolitical version of that Dream may depend upon the increasing diversity of American cultures and interests. Further, although community may be necessary for democracy to promote a communal conception of the common good (as opposed to merely a rights-based conception of the common good), it remains unclear what version of the American Dream is capable of uniting the American people, and bringing about a new substantive conception of justice. In conclusion, I wish to caution that the mere emergence of resistance to the social impacts of capitalism is not enough to show that the development of a new 65 community among the American people will lead to a new conception of the American Dream. Writing in 1909, Croly observed: The automatic fulfillment of the American national Promise is to abandoned, if at all, precisely because the traditional American confidence in individual freedom has resulted in a morally and socially undesirable distribution of wealth… The existing concentration of wealth and financial power in the hands of a few irresponsible men is the inevitable outcome of the chaotic individualism of our political and economic organization, while at the same time it is inimical to democracy, because it tends to erect political abuses and social inequalities into the system. (1965, pp. 22-3) Over one-hundred-years ago, Croly identified many of the same inherent problems of free market capitalism that we identified over the past century, but this failed to facilitate significant changes in governmental social or economic policies. Although some important policies have emerged that reflect a return to the principle of equality (the civil rights movement for example), a revised, apolitical conception of Alger’s version of the American Dream remains prevalent in American society. As a result, American policies continue to emphasize the private liberties of individuals, and ignore many of the substantive freedoms and collective goods that are only possible through the formation of collectives among American citizens. However, as long as the apolitical version of Alger’s American Dream remains popular, these collectives, and their subsequent benefits remain unlikely. 66 BIBLIOGRAPHY Arendt, H. (1965). On Revolution. New York: The Viking Press. Arendt, H. (2006). On Revolution. New York: Penguin Books. Berlin, I. (1969). Two Concepts of Liberty. In Four Essays on Liberty (pp. 118-72). Oxford University Press. Callahan, J. F. (1996). F. Scott Fitzgerald's Evolving American Dream: The "Pursuit of Happiness" in Gatsby, Tender is the Night, and The Last Tycoon. Twentieth Century Literature , 42 (3), 374-395. Cotton, J. (1956). Limitation of Government. In P. Miller, The American Puritans: Their Prose and Poetry (pp. 85-88). New York: Columbia University Press. Croly, H. (1965). The Promise of American Life. (A. M. Schlesinger, Ed.) Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Cullen, J. (2003). The American Dream: A Short History of an Idea that Shaped a Nation. New York: Oxford University Press. Douglass, F. (1950a). Lecture on Slavery, No. 1. In P. S. Foner, & P. S. Foner (Ed.), The Life and Writings of Frederick Douglass (pp. 132-139). New York: International Publishers. Douglass, F. (1950b). Lecture on Slavery, No. 2. In P. S. Foner (Ed.), The Life and Writings of Frederick Douglass (pp. 139-149). New York: International Publishers. Fitzgerald, F. S. (1986). The Great Gatsby. New York: Scribners. Fitzhugh, G. (1960). Cannibals All! or Slaves Without Masters. (C. V. Woodward, Ed.) Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Fitzpatrick, J. K. (1977). Builders of the American Dream. Harrison: SH Press. Fussel, E. S. (1952). Fitzgerald's Brave New World. ELH , 19 (4), 291-306. Hooker, T. (1956). Hartford Election Sermon. In P. Miller, The American Puritans: Their Prose and Poetry (pp. 88-89). New York: Columbia University Press. Lawrence v. Texas , 02—102 (The Supreme Court June 26, 2003). 67 Lincoln, A. (1989). Speech at Independence Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In D. E. Fehrenbacher (Ed.), Abraham Lincoln: Speeches and Writings 1859-1865 (pp. 213-4). New York: The Library of America. Lincoln, A., & Douglass, S. A. (2004). First Joint Debate, Ottawa, August 21, 1858. In The Lincoln-Douglas Debates (pp. 26-65). Mineola: Dover Publications, Inc. Locke, J. (1948). The Second Treatise of Civil Government and a Letter Concerning Toleration. (J. Gough, Ed.) Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Lustig, R. J. (1982). Corporate Liberalism: The Origins of Modern American Political Theory, 1890-1920. Berkeley: University of California Press. MacLeod, C. (1980). Horatio Alger, Farewell: The End of the American Dream. New York: Seaview Books. Martinez, F. R. (2002). The Religious Character of the American Constitution: Puritanism and Constitutionalism in the United States. University of Kansas Journal of Law and Public Policy , 459-492. Miller, P. (1956). The American Puritans: Their Prose and Poetry. New York: Columbia University Press. Mills, C. W. (1951). White Collar. Scranton: Oxford University Press, Inc. Moddocks, M. (1973, Feb 12). Books: Up from Penury. Retrieved Jan 8, 2010, from Time.com: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,903859,00.html Mount, S. (2009, Nov 16). Constitutional Topic: Slavery. Retrieved Jan 5, 2010, from USConstitution.net: http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_slav.html Pew Research Center. (2002, Sept 5). One Year Later: New Yorkers More Troubled, Washingtonians More On Edge. Retrieved March 28, 2010, from http://peoplepress.org/report/?pageid=633 Reich, C. A. (1970). The Greening of America. New York: Random House. Rossiter, C. (1956). The First American Revolution. New York. Sandel, M. J. (1984). The Procedural Republic and the Unencumbered Self. Political Theory , 12 (1), 91-96. 68 Schumpeter, J. A. (1950). Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc. The Pew Research Center For The People & The Press. (2007). Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes: 1987-2007. Political Landscape More Favorable to Democrats. The Pew Research Center For The People & The Press. (2009). Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes: 1987-2009. Independents Take Center Stage in Obama Era. Tocqueville, A. d. (2000). Democracy in America. (J. Mayer, Ed., & G. Lawrence, Trans.) New York: Perennial. US Census Bureau. (2009, April). Years of School Completed by People 25 Years and Over, by Age and Sex: Selected Years 1940 to 2008. Retrieved February 3, 2010, from Census.gov: http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/education/cps2008/tabA-1.xls Winthrop, J. (1956). A Model of Christian Charity. In P. Miller, The American Puritans: Their Prose and Poetry (pp. 79-84). New York: University of Columbia Press. Zogby, J. (2009, Jan 29). The American Dream Is Still Strong. Retrieved Jan 9, 2010, from Forbes.com: http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/28/american-dream-polling-opinionscolumnists_0129_john_zogby.html Zogby, J. (2008). The Way We'll Be: The Zogby Report on the Transformation of the American Dream. New York: Random House.