Chapter 3 Literature Review
3.3 The American Narrative
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Of course, there are also scholars who are critical of the ways in which historical
narratives are shaped and used. For example, Andrew Norman (1991) is skeptical of the integrity of of these narratives due to his concerns of historian bias. He asks whether a historical narrative can be meaningful if its structure is “imposed” upon the past by a historian, and whether the past in question had any kind of meaning before this projected narrative. Furthermore, he questions whether the past is even capable of having a plot, an element he states is necessary for the existence of a narrative (Norman, 1991). Norman’s concerns regarding the authenticity of
historical narratives are interesting and valid, yet they do not diminish the political importance of established narratives. Regardless of where and how the narratives originate, they have political importance if they can be seen to affect political rhetoric, perspectives, or policy.
3.3 The American Narrative
An oft-discussed narrative that shapes the American domestic and international identity is American exceptionalism. This is the idea behind the origins of the U.S. as a country; the idea that the U.S. has a unique destiny and place in the world. American exceptionalism not only holds that the U.S. is fundamentally different than other nations, but also that it is superior to other nations and therefore has an obligation to lead the world toward American values (Nayak
& Christopher, 2009). At the nation’s founding, this narrative of exceptionalism set the U.S.
apart from Britain and the rest of Europe. It has continued to define the U.S. as a special country and to define and justify its international role as a moral leader and global hegemon. The
narrative has persisted in the form of the idea that the U.S. is the greatest country in the world, and that its values are more true and progressive than those of any other country (Nayak &
Christopher, 2009). This narrative has had the effect of shaping the American identity that colors
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
its foreign policy. The American narrative as it pertains to U.S.-China relations stems from this more general idea of American exceptionalism, continuing a bit further to involve aspects of unreciprocated benevolence. There is a gap in the literature when it comes to this specific narrative. Due to the connection this narrative has to American exceptionalism, it is useful to include that relevant literature here.
Much has been written about the idea of American exceptionalism. It is often credited with being a foundational part of the American identity, both domestically and internationally.
The earliest writings of Puritan colonists identify their mission to be a moral beacon for the world, exemplifying the ideals that would later come to be called exceptionalism. These Puritan ideas were carried on through the Enlightenment and thus became associated with progress as well as God (McEcoy-Levy, 2001). For the Puritans, the exceptionalism story explains how they overcame persecution to achieve their goal of life with religious freedom. American
exceptionalism is perhaps most well-known under the term “Manifest Destiny,” coined by John L. Sullivan as a way to justify the seemingly endless westward expansion of America (Nayak &
Christopher, 2009). American exceptionalism has risen both from its own assertions and beliefs about its identity and from the observations of foreigners. In particular, there were two
Frenchmen who early on noted the exceptionalism that characterized America. Hector St. Jean de Crèvecoeur described Americans as a “new people melted into one” at the creation of the U.S.
(Lewis, 2012). Alexis de Tocqueville, to whom the term “American exceptionalism” is
attributed, traveled to the U.S. in the 19th century and observed its distinguishing characteristics as the following: individualism, faith in democracy, and a certainty of living in an unbounded land (Lewis, 2012).
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Other scholars have understood American exceptionalism through different lenses. For example, Peter Onuf (2012) puts forth the idea that what makes the U.S. exceptional is not its prided values, institutions, or origins, but rather its insistence upon the exceptionalism narrative throughout history. The fact that so many Americans believe in the idea of American
exceptionalism and moral superiority is a more distinctive trait to Onuf than the other characteristics of America. The exceptionalism narrative can also be interpreted as
exemptionalism. Harold Koh (2005) writes that because the U.S. believe its commitments to certain values (liberty, equality, laissez-faire economics, among others) render it immune from the forces that corrupt other nations, it can be exempt from the rules it imposes on others. He argues that this exceptionalism-turned-exemptionalism affects the role of the U.S. in its international engagements by justifying its self-exemption from some international laws, rules and agreements. He refers to this double standard as the U.S.’s willingness to be a “flying buttress” instead of a “pillar” of the international community, following the rules the majority of the time for political appearances instead of real legal obligation (Koh, 2005).
There are also a number of scholars who have pointed out problems with American exceptionalism and highlighted the downsides that come with embracing a narrative of superiority and exceptionality. Others have even questioned the validity of claims to exceptionalism. For example, Michael Kammen (1993) questions how “unique” and
“exceptional” the U.S. really is, implying that it does not fundamentally differ from many industrialized nations and that any form of exceptionalism is rooted in the past. Alternatively, he suggests that the American identity might be better served by considering other meanings of
“American” that can define national identity and national experiences (Kammen, 1993).
Margaret MacMillan notes the implications exceptionalism can have for international relations,
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
writing, “Faith in their own exceptionalism has sometimes led to a certain obtuseness on the part of Americans, a tendency to preach at other nations rather than listen to them, a tendency as well to assume that American motives are pure where those of others are not” (2003). William E. B.
Du Bois was a prominent American who also acknowledged the problematic side of
exceptionalism. He understood the U.S. as in constant conflict between its ideological goals of freedom for all and its materialistic goals of private wealth and power. He described this as the
“American Assumption,” where the best of America was built on the ideas of exceptionalism, but failed to cover up the issues of class and race buried in the foundation (Lewis, 2012).
Andrew Bacevich (2008) sees the widespread acceptance of American exceptionalism as a primary cause of many American economic, political, military, and cultural conflicts. He argues that the endless pursuit of American values, principally freedom, results in too many impossible obligations, and so, the U.S. needs to put a stop to its imperial tendencies and “reassert control over its own destiny” (Bacevich, 2008).
Exceptionalism is the narrative that shapes the American identity. It serves as a
justification for its domestic and foreign policies, validates its status as a global hegemon, and confirms (at least for Americans) the correctness and moral righteousness of their interests and values. Margaret MacMillan writes that American exceptionalism “has always had two sides: the one eager to set the world to rights, the other ready to turn its back with contempt if its message should be ignored” ( (MacMillan, 2003). This identity narrative informs the benevolent hegemon story that guides American interactions abroad. The benevolent hegemon story portrays the U.S.
as a helpful and well-intentioned global leader whose interactions with other nations are always rooted in efforts to help the other party become better in some way. However, the narrative holds that these attempts are not always appreciated by the receiving country and the U.S. winds up
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
being taken advantage of and used. This is the narrative structure that colors the way the U.S.
discusses its relationship with China, and its trade dealings in particular. The U.S. views itself as enacting fair and open trade policies with China, whereas China continuously disappoints the U.S. by pursuing “unfair” or illiberal policies and failing to conform to American values.