CEU Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2020
| Author | Tábor, Áron |
|---|---|
| Title | Does Exception Prove the Rule? Tracing the Discourse of American Exceptionalism |
| Summary | The first two decades of the twenty-first century saw an unprecedented proliferation of the discourse of American exceptionalism both in scholarly works and in the world of politics; several recent contributions have characterized this notion in the context of a set of beliefs that create, construct, (re-)define and reproduce a particular foreign policy identity. At the same time, some authors also note that the term “American exceptionalism” itself was born in a specific discourse within U.S. Communism, and, for a period, it was primarily understood with reference to the peculiar causes behind the absence of a strong socialist movement in the United States. The connection between this original meaning and the later usage is not fully explored; often it is assumed that “exceptionalism” existed before the label was created as the idea is traced back to the founding of the American nation or even to the Puritan origins rooted in the colonial period. Certainly, there are some important ideational continuities in this tradition. However, it is still puzzling how this specific expression has become so popular at this particular point of history, and how the term has been transformed in various contexts of American politics and foreign policy. This dissertation examines “exceptionalism” as a keyword and asks how the term “American exceptionalism” has been used since its first recorded appearance. As the term originally came from interwar Marxist terminology, I explore how its meaning has evolved from this starting point. While this approach cannot account for a complete intellectual history of the ideas associated with exceptionalism, the aims are more modest here. By pointing out the relevance of this particular line of thought, this work supplements existing analyses of exceptionalism and uncovers the linguistic actions engrained in specific formulations. For this, instead of taking the meaning of the term as fixed or predetermined, its content – as prescribed by the methodologies of the Cambridge School of intellectual history and German conceptual historians – should be discerned from its usage. Hence, I propose a form of discourse-tracing that highlights the multilayered and historical nature of the discursive development. This does not find a clear linear path from one articulation to another; the emphasis is rather on the interactions between different discursive layers as the idea moves between various contexts and spheres while it serves certain functions in a scholarly, intellectual, or political agenda. Exceptionalism, by definition, needs to reflect an understanding of both exception and rule; the particular and the universal. The analysis notes that the invocation of the term was often connected to a reinterpretation of the relationship between particularism and universalism under a perception of crisis in which previously established meanings were questioned. During these periods, agents used exceptionalism to advance political objectives and to shape collective understandings. This examination contributes to existing interpretations of exceptionalism by noting why certain reinterpretations could succeed while others fail; and by observing the shifts in the trajectory of the discourse. Moreover, it helps to understand the social-political contexts in which contestations happen and long-lasting decisions are made. This mode of analysis also emphasizes the back and forth movement of ideas between the academic and the political spheres; thus, it can also shed light on the development of those discourses that happen in the important boundary locations between politics and intellectual engagements. |
| Supervisor | Alexander Astrov |
| Department | International Relations PhD |
| Full text | https://www.etd.ceu.edu/2020/tabor_aron.pdf |
Visit the CEU Library.
© 2007-2021, Central European University