< Inapoi la Cuprins Referate

Referat trimis de: Andreea Dragoescu | ADAUGA UN REFERAT! - APASA AICI!

A DISCUSSION OF JEAN-FRANÇOIS REVEL’S
THE ANTI-AMERICAN OBSESSION

Revel performs a critical exam of anti-Americanism, this unfair obsession shared by Europe, as well as Latin America, Africa and others, exposing its distrustful foundation. As there are few reasons to disagree with the well-informed author, the aim of this paper is to discuss alongside with him the roots and features of the phenomenon, giving him credit wherever he is right. My aim is also to reflect on the matter/ metaphor of ‘the scapegoat’, which Revel mentions several times as one of the foremost causes of the anti-American disorder. I believe this representation to be one of downright insight, thus it deserves further examination. Meantime, this entire paper will acknowledge Revel’s outspoken empathy with the liberal American arrangement, which gives him a more accurate vision of it, against his own French background.

The entire analysis of the sources of anti-Americanism will stand upon the elucidation of this ‘obsession’ and its nature. What is an obsession? Is it real or is it imaginary? Does it have factual roots or should we look for an explanation elsewhere? In answering this query, I set it as my task to prove that anti-Americanism is accurately labeled as an ‘obsession’. The starting point is to expound what has been set as the primary aim of this paper: the metaphor of the ‘scapegoat’. René Girard uses mythic models to explain the mechanism of this mental disorder, as a collective transfer of evil. Starting from a presumption, a mystification can staunchly become an unquestionable evidence. Besides, it is a projection and an illusion that will appease the people (Girard, 1995:87-95), which does not contradict Revel in the least.

In Revel’s view, America becomes ‘a scapegoat for the sins of the world’, which can be lawfully certified (Revel, 2004: 44;53;230). The entire chapter The United States As a Subterfuge is a display in this sense. Revel draws our attention to the difference between anti-Americanism and the pure critique of the US, the latter only being legitimous. The ‘scapegoat’ metaphor also means to Revel that Europe and chiefly the Left projects its own errors against America (Revel, 2004:230). As a result, anti-Americanism serves to console Europe of its own failure (Revel, 2004:246).

A major discussion point in this line of the argument is the thesis of America’s guilt and, thus, the ‘divine’ retribution it suffered (Revel, 2004:20). This absurdity actually justified the terrorist attacks from September 2001. A first paradox ascertains the shortcomings of the rebuke against America: it has been accused of launching this war (with total disregard to its motives). At the same time, the very fact that it was a replica came under attack as being a low instinct of retaliation… Considering that terrorism has an excuse (in poverty), as many Europeans do, means refusing to resist it (Revel, 2004:93;184). Blaming America is just a replacement strategy in this case.

In analyzing the causes of anti-Americanism, we can trace a series of other contradictions among the accusers, which Revel unswervingly incriminates. It is his strategy to dismantle anti-Americanism by uncovering its internal contradictions. As one of the most manifest causes of anti-Americanism has long been the communist penchant, it is natural that America – epitome of capitalism – be seen as the absolute evil. What is contradictory, in France at least, is anti-Americanism in those public sections which abhor communism (Revel, 2004:11-12). Revel presses charges especially against France, whose context he has better knowledge of, as an insider, but which is also more fervently anti-American than many other countries (see statistics in Kohut, Pew Global Attitudes Project; Russell Mead, Foreign Affairs, March/April, 2003). This way, the author enacts an attack at the very core of anti-Americanism by ceaselessly targeting his own country.

Secondly, the causes are dissimilar for the Right wing or for both the extreme Right and the extreme Left. The Right all over Europe is melancholy to witness that the Old Continent has lost its major role it was once proud of. This is especially an unendurable loss for France, a great power in the 20th century. Whereas, in the case of radicals, the cause of anti-Americanism is self-evident: the repugnance towards democracy and liberal economy (Revel, 2004:12). May it be someone else’s task to explain this repugnance…

Moreover, other contradictions include America’s alleged ‘isolationism’, passivity, missing from duty, as well as intrusion, interference as a ‘world police’ (Revel, 2004:18;220). Besides, America is accused of ‘unilateral’ action, but Revel shows in what way this is the work of Europeans who refuse to join in necessary action (Revel, 2004:201). In spite of all this condemnation, America’s helping intervention is still requested (Revel, 2004:48). South-American leaders are accused of ‘political bisexualism’, as their detestation of America goes hand in hand with their being clients of the US (Revel, 2004:211). Accordingly, the foremost cause of anti-Americanism is reasserted by Revel time and time again: it is, like in the case of Latin-America, the imaginary compensation of their own failure (Revel, 2004:90).

The following reasoning is another contradiction: America deserves the payback of September 2001 because its wealth contrasts bitterly with the poverty of the Third World, who all want help. On the other hand, it was attacked because it was too rich and well-developed, so it had to be punished. At the same time, most terrorist leaders are wealthy, so the argument does not hold (Revel, 2004:182-184). Another irony, America is also hated by its very allies for lawful opposition to Saddam Hussein, who only violated the ONU resolutions and treaties he had signed. What Europeans fail to remember is the unashamed support offered by Russia, and, even worse, by extremists in France and socialists in Great Britain (see weekly newspaper The New Statesman, p.29, cited by Revel, 2004:28).

Similarly, others who frown on America’s past recap arguments like the extermination of native Indians or the African slaves issue. This line of reasoning is promptly dismissed by Revel, who reminds the accusers of the damage done by colonization in the states of the Third World. England, Belgium, Spain, France, The Netherlands, later Germany and Italy have all occupied and perpetrated violence on other countries. This is only another case in point against Europeans, who were, actually, let us not forget, the first immigrants in the land that was to become America (Revel, 2004:33).

Another underlying cause of anti-Americanism is the fear against globalization, while globalization stands for the freedom of movement for individuals and goods. Therefore, opposition against it is often translated into opposition to liberalism. Once again, America is the foremost representative of liberalism, which is, thus, one of the main sources of anti-Americanism. Hence, a major imbalance arises: the equalizing of anti-Americanism anti-liberalism (Revel, 2004:53). Revel compiles countless cases of anti-globalization rage and sheer ‘violence for the sake of violence’ (Revel, 2004:57). Here again, I bring Girard’s argument which presuppose social violence in order to create an artificial ‘scapegoat’ in response to it. Anthropologically, this typically human behavior is explainable (but is it in the economy of pathology?!).

On the other hand, this incrimination of the scapegoat-of-all-trades is an older tune that comes precisely from the discontent that wealthy states do not do enough to support poor ones. This is but another contradiction, considering the argument against capitalism discussed just above. In consequence, anti-Americanism could also be considered the ‘hook’ in ‘the quarrel of the century’, i.e. that between socialism and liberalism (Revel, 2004:23). The actual stake of anti-Americanism is to rule out liberalism, whose embodiment America is. To finish off with this masquerade, we can only remark that socialist/communist regimes have gone bankrupt, which has occasioned the consequent rise of America as the only ‘superpower’ (Revel, 2004:69). It is thus the facts that discard the anti-Americanism stutter.

Another reason for universal backlash against America has been its purported lack of culture. A contradiction steps in the play here too: there is, purportedly, a void or lack of culture in America, alongside with the critique of cultural ‘imperialism’. What is it that they impose so imperialistically if there were such a complete void in the cultural segment, at the same time?! Certainly, it is not my intention to answer rhetorical questions.

Stylishly, Revel devises a good tactic to protect America’s superiority: he explains the term ‘culture’ in its broad sense, i.e. as mass culture. For instance, the American mass-media reach far worldwide, not to speak of the universally pervasive American lifestyle – fashion, pop music, eating habits and entertainment (Revel, 2004:31;166;). English is the accepted language of the Internet, science and numerous international conferences. Allowing contact between so many other cultures, this new lingua franca should be applauded, leaving envy aside (Revel, 2004:177). Politically, even the European Union emulates the American model: federal liberal democracy.

I would like to ponder a little more on the gastronomical issue, which might help to clear off a personal bias. The choice of not eating junk food in any fast food refectory should not bring us to rage in front of McDonald’s restaurants. In principle, it is preferable to have American, Mexican, Indian, Italian, Chinese and other ethnical restaurants to choose from at will, rather than to have a penury of Romania-only. Everyone can choose according to tastes, which will not be inconvenient to anybody else.

In these conditions, the answer is patently obvious: is the American model merely an artificially created necessity or, on the contrary, has it emerged and expanded successfully precisely from a global necessity? We are afraid that ‘globalization’ might mean ‘Americanization’ (Revel, 2004:71). Why should we fear losing our identity (fear invoked by Revel) if we had a vigorous personality? ‘We’ can be read here as ‘Europeans’ or any other individuals suffering from an anti-American ‘malaise’.

I believe it is a most convincing argument that isolationism no longer is an acceptable cultural policy. If ‘one cannot be different by oneself’, the only way to assert difference is against or simply among others. Thus, Revel asserts the importance of the free circulation of values and works of art. Examples range from Athens/Sparta to modern totalitarianisms (Revel, 2004:157-158;163). This assertion of diversity again gives prominence to the American culture, which does not fear diversity, but has it as its touchstone.

Being engaged in an honest undertaking, Revel does not mean, though, to ignore defects, which are also conspicuous in the case of America, as everywhere else. But, he asserts one of his major theses that it is precisely the errors of the Old Continent that renders America its huge power. For instance, only in the last century, Europe conceived the worst ‘criminal ideologies’ and had two suicidal tendencies, which were the World Wars. Consequently, America was bound to interfere. The author further points to the indefensible mistakes done by France herself. The E. U. in general staggers and faces various failures because it has to reach common agreement of its 15 member states. Whereas America has the definite ascendancy of effectiveness and prompt external reaction. It is, therefore, due to such failures that America has afforded the room to triumph and has proved its superiority (Revel, 2004:31-34). In other words, superiority is a proportional quality, one has to be superior over others who are weaker…

Revel continues the parallel between the United States of America and the European Union, the latter being as yet cripple and thus functioning much worse. It may be added that America is united by the common denominator ‘American’, which unifies much more vigorously than ‘European’ does (Revel, 2004:41). As to the dishonorable case of France, another paradox comes to light: communitarian policy has brought much damage in France, but the French keep accusing America for its multiculturalism, which is much enhanced. If an American asserts his Irish/ Jewish/… identity, this assertion does not deny his American condition. There is no conflict between the combination (Revel, 2004:139).

The long list of comparisons between America and France, Revel shows, is not to honor the latter. Obviously, France is not in a situation to scorn at America or to label its own distressing communitarian policy as being ‘à l’américaine’. On the contrary, in the U.S. cultural diversity thrives without escalating conflict against the mainstream American culture. It is improper to describe the American society as Europeans often do: as a collection of isolated but uniform individuals lacking a cultural background and history, a concoction of immigrants of all sorts. On the contrary, all of these have a double advantage: by maintaining their own cultural heritage and assuming the American profile of democratic citizenship, they accumulate twice weighty assets (Revel, 2004:150-156).

To wrap up this catalog of causes for anti-Americanism, we may conclude that the reasons behind America’s ascendancy are, on the one hand, its own strengths, but on the other hand, the missteps and the divergence of Europeans. Therefore, we can hereby construe from this analysis that the whole syndrome is pertinently labeled an ‘obsession’. It is primarily a phantasm with little factual basis and even less bona fide. The fact that America is charged with a series of issues and the very contrary at the same time confirms that we deal with an obsession rather than a cogent analysis. It is pervasive mystification that has lead to disorientation and to the inconsistencies presented here above.


REFERENCES
1. Girard, René. (1995). Violenţa şi sacru., trad. Mona Antohi. Bucureşti: Editura Nemira
2. Kohut, Andrew. Pew Global Attitudes Projec. on www.pages.zdnet.com/trimb/id214.html  
3. Revel, Jean-François. (2004). Obsesia antiamericană. trad. Dan C, Mihăilescu. Bucureşti:
Humanitas
4. Russell Mead, Walter, Why Do They Hate Us? From Foreign Affairs, March/April 2003
 

   Daca referatele nu sunt de ajuns, va recomandam pagina de download gratuit, unde veti gasi prezentari PowerPoint, programe executabile, programe pentru bacalaureat, teze nationale, etc.