To what extent does the Conflict perspective on US history challenge the concept of American Exceptionalism?

Mr. C. Goldsmith

The USA is perhaps the only country in the world where by its own admission, citizenship is a state of mind. To explain this it is necessary to compare it to my own British citizenship. One of my grandfathers’ hails from Northern Ireland, the other from Wales. The fact that I was born in England and my relatives are from other UK countries makes us all British. In the case of the US, being an American is not due to ethnic origin or place of birth, but a belief to a set of ideals and a constitution. In this sense it is possible for any American to stop being an American by not holding true to these ideals and the US itself.

This is the basis for the concept of American Exceptionalism. It is also not difficult to see the economic, political and cultural factors which may be used in the argument for American Exceptionalism. Many Americans see the good fortune of their own country as putting it in the position of having a ‘unique mission in the world’. Tied to this is the oscillating American foreign policy which on the whole sees the US as peacekeepers of the world (albeit in a “but we’ll do it our way” fashion).

When the US declared its sovereignty in 1776, it was regarded as the first new nation of modern times, ‘a new product that is American’. The constitution that was laid out stressed the importance of the individual, a meritocratic society where effort is rewarded, but as well as the significance of the individual, assimilation to collective America. Acceptance of its beliefs and ideals was also essential. This contradiction in terms illustrates the difficulties in trying to define American Exceptionalism, as the concept often goes back on itself. The concept implies a difference between American people and the rest of ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

The one challenge to American Exceptionalism is the conflict perspective on US history. The main premises of this perspective are that American history is discontinuous, marked by conflict and change comes through violent upheaval. The other school of thinking is that of consensus theory, where history progresses through peaceful continuity; and politics are always consensual. It is now necessary to apply these perspectives to American history, see which is prevalent and if a synthesis between the two can be created, and then assess whether or not the idea of American Exceptionalism is viable given the contradiction of the conflict perspective.

The key difficulty in using the conflict and consensus perspectives is that they can not be picked or chosen. The US historian Hartz undertook a study on US society. He found that the study “does not permit us to choose between “conflict” or “consensus”…American history contains both of these elements in the proportions which make it, in relation to other national histories, explicable”

The first thing to be looked at is groups of people in the USA. Affiliations or member groups in the USA are interest groups. These fall into the conflict perspective as interest groups protect consumer rights and empower members. This does not challenge exceptionalism however as it demonstrates Americas pluralistic society in action, definitely a factor of American exceptionalism.

Social grouping of people in the USA must not be overlooked. Consensus historians and most Americans themselves will tell you about the classless society of America. Although this does follow consensus theory, classless society is completely irrelevant when there are still rich and poor. America may be a classless society, but like all others it is also a circumstantial society. That is to say that there is definite conflict between those on the top and those “down there”.

Change in history is an important part of the conflict/consensus debate. Consensus historians believe that US history has flowed with peaceful transition. This is obviously one of the weaker arguments of the consensus perspective, as US history is marked with violent upheaval, from the war of independence, civil war, universal suffrage through to the race riots of LA. As far as nature of change in US history is concerned, there is only the conflict perspective.

At first glance it appears that the conflict perspective can be neatly applied to US politics. After all politics by its very nature is refined conflict, however the historian Hofstader said “however much at odds on specific issues, the major political traditions have shared a belief in the rights of property, the philosophy of economic individualism, the value of competition; they have accepted the economic virtues of capitalist culture as necessary qualities of man”.

American political traditions must be looked at using a synthesis of the two perspectives. Although there is clear conflict in politics, there is also a deeper consensus of opinion. Even though a synthesis of the two must be used, this definitely challenges American exceptionalism as all western liberal democracies are similar.

In looking at the USA, it is clear to see that there are two different types of synthesis to be compiled from the conflict/consensus perspectives.

The first is drawn from dealing with social structure and political groups. There may be visible conflict all the time but there is a deeper underlying consensus. This means that the ends are agreed upon but not the means, a superficial conflict.

After looking at affiliated groups, history and the nature of change in the US I believe that it is more the other way around, that there has been an underlying conflict in US history, which is given the appearance of consensus due to compromise. This does challenge American exceptionalism, although not to the extent I originally believed. American politics, history and the bloody nature of change offer nothing to call different or exceptional in the world.

Bibliography