I tend to leap at what seem like good ideas without full preparation and then, like Wile E. Coyote, I find myself suspended in midair, looking down at a huge chasm beneath me. I then hold up a little sign that reads “Oh no!”, or something like that, before plummeting to the ground with a muffled thump and a little cloud of dust. I did this on Monday with my blog entry, and then, to an even greater extent, I did it today in my classroom.
On Monday, I mentioned Richard Slotkin’s influential book, Regeneration through Violence: The Mythology of the American Frontier, 1600-1860. My statements on that blog post were not wrong, but I had not read Slotkin since long ago in graduate school, so my memories of his book were hazy. Happily for me, I did not make any major mistakes in my mention. Then today, I decided I would toss my prepared curriculum out the window and discuss the American violence myth with my class to see what their take on this was. Unfortunately, I think I intimidated them with the set-up, and they had a hard time getting past the initial stages of the discussion. It can work to toss out your lesson plan and make it up as you go along, but it can also be terrifying. Imagine that whistling noise that on the old Warner Brothers cartoons signified the Coyote falling past buttes and mesas before crunghing into the ground–that was me today.
I checked the book out from the library today to remind myself of Slotkin’s argument, and it is a very interesting and clearly articulated line of reasoning. He claims that America’s national character is torn between two forces: a frontier mythology and an antimythology. The antimythology asserts that America is founded on rational idealism, an ideology that values the future at the expense of the past. This enlightened, idealistic strain ran into trouble by attempting to create a new mythology and sell it; it was essentially a top-down program.
The true mythology, though, grew on its own and spread unconsciously. This more vibrantly living myth is “subliterary” and therefore moves through the culture in a more fluid and dynamic fashion. The heroes of the real mythology were not the rational founding fathers but the “rogues, adventurers, and land boomers; the Indian fighters, traders, missionaries, explorers, and hunters who killed and were killed until they had mastered the wilderness.” What all of these characters have in common is the violence that informs their lives and permeates their mythic status in our imaginations. Slotkin summarizes his project his way:
The first colonists saw in America an opportunity to regenerate their fortunes, their spirits, and the power of their church and nation; bu the means to that regeneration ultimately became the means of violence, and the myth of regeneration through violence became the structuring metaphor of the American experience.
I am struck again by that idea of regeneration. Our culture seems to hold fast to the idea that we can remake ourselves–that is the essential quality of the American dream–but that remaking in many cases implies violent action. In our imaginations, the way to create a new life is to force that new life at gunpoint: chase away the Indians, kill the “bad guys,” force others to allow you your freedom.
When I discussed this idea in class today, some of the students took it as a sort of implicit attack on American culture, and they resisted. What about other violent cultures, they asked. Look at ancient Rome–those guys were really horrible. I was not quite sure how to answer that, because I think there is a difference between violent acts in a culture and a national myth in which violence becomes embodied as the ideal chracteristic. All cultures are violent, so does that negate Slotkin’s point? Or is America different in having a mythology that extols violence to this extreme degree?
What an interesting idea. I think Slotkin might be onto something. I don’t think all cutlures having violence in them is the same as a culture that is based on violence. Difference of degree maybe or a difference of mythology as Slotkin suggests. The US is a violent nation, we love our guns and violent movies and figures like Clint Eastwood and John Wayne are more celebrated than someone like Ghandi. It’s our right to fight for what we want and too many people choose to take fight literally instead of metaphorically. It’s a big thing to think about and maybe your students just need time to consider the ideas before they are ready to discuss them. More of what you said probably stuck with them than you might suppose.
Normally I lurk (came to you via Dorothy W.) but I’m stepping out of the blogwood on this one.
Most interesting indeed. I like the point about remaking in America being a violent action. It doesn’t mean the society as a whole is based on violence, but it sub-consciously allows for violence as an acceptable undercurrent (because something new and good may come from it). This ties in very well with Bush’s confrontational comments after 9/11 which so offended the rest of us around the world (“If you’re not with us you’re against us”): we will remake the rest of the world to suit our image too, and using violence to do this is therefore ok too because it will result in an ultimate good of democratic society everywhere. Hmm. Much to ponder.
Sorry your students didn’t pick up and run with it.