• 영어영문학
• /
• 제57권3호
• /
• pp.391-411
• /
• 2011

This paper examines Du Boisian critique of American exceptionalism through a close textual analysis of his writings from early essays to later works. As an attempt to respond to the persistent grip American exceptionalism has on both the academia and the intellectual world at large, this paper tries to fill in the gaps within the discourse of American exceptionalism by exploring the works of one of the most towering American intellectual figures, and suggests that the discourse of American exceptionalism has remained within the purview of white scholars. Although at times inconsistent and contradictory, Du Bois's trenchant critique of American civilization and Western imperialism deconstructs the original ideals of America, creating more than a fissure in the ideology/hegemony/state fantasy of American exceptionalism. I argue that Du Boisian critique of American exceptionalism shows its violent marginalization and racialization based on white supremacy. Du Boisian critique should be a cautionary tale for those scholars who talk of "reform" or "replenishment" or even who occlude the possibility that American exceptionalism has not always functioned as a "state fantasy" by assuming its absolute blinding powers.

• 미국학
• /
• 제44권1호
• /
• pp.155-182
• /
• 2021

This study explores how American war films modify or reenact American exceptionalism depending on political and social situations in the United States. To this end, it analyzes the two war films, Saving Private Ryan and We Were Soldiers that were released before and after the 9/11 attacks as a critical juncture in the twenty first century, respectively. While the former conducts a partial modification on American exceptionalism in order to restore the national identity and moral authority of the United States lost ever since the Vietnam War, the latter demonstrates a complete reenactment of American exceptionalism in accordance with the foreign policy of the Bush administration and neoconservatism. It concludes with the illumination that the examination of American war films within the framework of American exceptionalism is efficacious in understanding from a broad perspective how American exceptionalism is utilized depending on political and social situations in the United States.

• 비교문화연구
• /
• 제25권
• /
• pp.55-85
• /
• 2011

Many States such as Arizona, Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, California, New Mexico, Florida were obtained either from Spanish Empire or from Mexico. In 1848 due to the Guadalupe-Hidalgo treaty America could obtain half of the original territory of Mexico. American identity cannot be understood without the history of American expansionism further consolidated by the Spanish-American War in 1898, which brought other ex-Spanish colonies such as Guam, Puerto Rico, the Philippines to the US. The US's interest in these territories dates back to the Monroe doctrine in 1823 when Monroe "declared the Americas off-limits to any new European colonization." America justifies their expansion based on the notion of Manifest Destiny which was created by O'Sullivan at the hight of American fever to annex Texas to US. The intent of this paper is to study how Anglo-Saxon and Latin Culture clashed against each other especially right before and after the Spanish-American War. In this study the American hero, Theodore Roosevelt and Latin American hero, $Jos{\acute{e}}$ Martí will be compared, though they did not meet each other during the Spanish-American war due to Marti's early death in 1895 at the battle for the Cuba Libre. Their comparison is significant in that the former represents the American expansionist spirit and the latter the spirit of Anti-imperialism and Anti-Anglocentrism. Along with the concept of Manifest Destiny of America, 'American exceptionalism' is also mentioned which motivates U.S. to expand further even after the Spanish-American war in the form of 'informal imperialism' characterized by 'gunboat politics'of the US. These discussions will draw attention to how recent theorists such as Bryce Traister criticizes the Border Theory represented by $Jos{\acute{e}}$ David Saldívar. Here the Border Theory is criticized to repeat the discourse of the globalized capitalism which prefers the weak state and the transnational aspects by focusing on the in-betweenness of the border. In the end the paper will focus on how the Border theory as represented by Saldivar is political enough and sets up a resistant example against American expansionism of today in its focus on the call for pan-American and pluri-versal subjectivity of the borderlands. This point will be supported by a discussion of how Saldivar's view is confirmed by Walter Mignolo who advocates the "bottom up" resistance of the indigenous people of Chiapas and other social forums such as World Social Forum and the Social Forum of the Americas derived from the Zapatistas' movement whose motto is "A World in which many world co-exist."