Is America in the Constant State of Flux - Essay Example

?America is on Constant of Flux One particular issue that has been a of debates among those who are keenly observing the current socialconditions of the United States is on the issue of whether America is on the constant state of flux as it deals with identity or whether it is actually well-established and stable. The relevance of such an issue may not easily be appreciated as the country continues to struggle with tangible problems relate to the economy. However, from the viewpoint of those who think that understanding social conditions should be done through structural analysis, such economic problems are connected to the political and cultural issues plaguing the country. Therefore, it is only appropriate that debate regarding the character of the nation, one which is shaped by political convictions and cultural factors should be pushed towards a decisive conclusion. It is only through the resolution of such debate can there be a better appreciation of national and social traits be achieved, which would consequently lead to solutions for other problems in society. In presenting the arguments involved in the said debates, two articles may help. These are Who and What is American: the Things We Continue to Hold in Common by Lewis Lapham and Dinosaur Dreams: Reading the Bone’s of America’s Psychic Mascot by Jack Hitt. Both articles are attempts at understanding the American psyche, especially in relation to identity. Lapham’s article is more direct in presenting his arguments that Americans have the tendency to constantly make changes in there perspectives, stand, or tastes, many aspects, from the most important to the most trivial. On the other hand, Hitt insists that Americans are to use old symbols in order to represent their resilience and their proclivity to stabilize everything. Although both may have differences, it is obvious though these articles ultimately reach an agreement that the American mode of thinking is actually open to changes. Therefore, it is clear that the country itself cannot avoid being a state of flux always. Just like all other societies in different parts of the globe, America continues to evolve. Naturally, this means that changes are still occurring in whatever aspect, whether it is political, cultural, and economic. Even if the country is actually centuries old, its development never ceases because of the simple fact that its people are never contented about what they already have. This is not a bad thing though. In fact, the reason why innovations are made, ones that improve industry, make lifestyles more convenient, and cultures more advance is that Americans are always trying to discover something new. As American society continues to evolve, it can only be in a state of flux, largely triggered by its response to challenges of existing situations. One proof of this continuous instability is in the field of politics. It is quite clear that a huge majority of Americans voted for President Obama in the 2008 elections. However, now that he is in power, it did not take long for many to shift sides in politics. Lapham explains that “democratic politics trades in only two markets – the market in expectation and the market in blame.” (January 1992) This means that when Americans feel that their expectations are not met, they automatically lay the blame on the on the person which they previously believed could solve problems of society. Because of this attitude, there will always be the impression that Americans are rarely contented with what they have; hence, the inclination towards flux. There is, however, a counter-argument to Lapham’s theory. This articulated by Hitt as he tries to explain the Americans’ penchant for dinosaur, particularly the T-rex. Hitt points out that they tend to hold on to old symbols or extinct objects such as the dinosaur. He explains that the dinosaur’s “periodic rebirth in pop culture neatly signals deep tectonic shifts in our sense of ourself as a country.” (Hitt) The use of the dinosaur signifies the inclination to stability. The obvious fact though is that the dinosaur, which is often pictured in the form of the T-rex, is a huge predator that can easily physically beat and outwit its enemies. The dinosaur itself is a fitting representation of the much-vaunted American strength. Using this as a motif even at these current times only serve the objective of seeking stability. It is apparent that Lapham’s proposition and Hitt’s argument are opposite. There is an impression though that Americans are stubborn, which is why they tend to seek stability even objective conditions cannot be prevented from changing. Such stubbornness, however, cannot be seen in the people’s passivity to certain problems that they encounter. As a matter of fact, once such problems do appear, Americans tend to be practical about these. They would immediately begin a search for solutions. In Hitt’s article, the stubbornness referred to is about its persistence in holding on to concepts that have been considered as false as a result of scientific findings. When it was discovered that the T-rex is not really what the people always thought it is, a strong predatory monster, they vehemently resisted the findings “with the willful stubbornness of biblical creationists weighing the merits of evolutionary theory… they will admit that T. ambulated like a monstrous sandpiper, but they insist he was still a predator.” (Hitt) This just shows that when it comes to perceived symbols or, in the dinosaur’s case, mascots of strength, Americans tend to resist changes in impression. Lapham thinks, otherwise, as he insists that Americans do welcome change and make adjustments in order to adapt to it. He points out that American history is in fact filled with cases of metamorphosis; “men and women start out in one place and end up in another, never quite knowing how they got there, perpetually expecting the unexpected, drifting across the ocean or the plains until they lodge against a marriage, a land deal, a public office, or a jail.” (January 1992) If such is the case, it is only fair to conclude that Americans are not a stubborn people and they can immediately accept the changes that occur whether this is in tangible form or conceptual. Lapham’s point, in this regard, is quite logical. Hitt, on the other hand, admits that Americans can accept change but only if it does not counter the prejudice they already held for a long time. To fully appreciate the advantages of accepting change and making the most out of it, it is important for Americans to recognize instability as a positive phenomenon. Through the acceptance of the notion that America is in constant flux, the people can become more resilient and creative in the end. Lapham states that “what joins the Americans one to another is not a common race or ancestry (which testifies to the burdens of the past) but rather their complicity in a shared work of the imagination.” Americans have no choice but to accept instability as a fact of social life because they are actually a people of mixed race, one whose culture continuously evolves in response to the influx of influences coming from other countries. The result of continuously assimilating such cultural influences is flux. However, the mixture of influences can actually benefit the entire American people. Even Hitt, in the later part of his article, expresses concepts where he points out that although Americans would be in the state of flux, they would nevertheless just adapt old ideas to new situations. Ultimately, those old concepts would be changed too as such adaptations are constantly made because new situations cannot be prevented from occurring. Hitt writes that “no matter what we may think the newest dinosaur means for that month, or that decade, it will really be about what every dinosaur has always been about--not extinction but the other, deeper dream of this nation: the big comeback, the perpetual novus ordo of America, the unexpected feat of resurrection.” (October 2001) In this statement, Hitt articulates that Americans do not really resist change. What is obvious though, as shown in its strong affection for the dinosaur symbol is that they do not wish to go extinct and be forgotten. In fact, they would continually struggle for resurgence, for revitalization. It is not therefore, the resistance to change but the effort to become even stronger despite the flux. Despite some tendencies that project the image of Americans as people who stubbornly hold on to the old while resisting the new, the truth is that they are actually liable to give in to change. Some may welcome it in negative manner but most would consider this to be another opportunity to be seized in order to uplift themselves as individuals. Flux or instability may not be something that the country may want. As much as possible, America would seek ways to ensure that stability is achieved in all spheres, from the economy, politics, culture, foreign relations, and even in the social life of every citizen. However, the country is actually a combination of so many cultures and, as it continues to accept migrants, it also continues to develop such combination. This alone is already a cause for flux. It must be pointed out though that flux should never be construed as negative outright. To do so would be to resist change even if it happens. This would ultimately result into the perpetuation of outmoded ideas that cannot be applicable under new conditions. It would be resurrecting the very same dinosaur, as Jack Hitt has described in his article Dinosaur Dreams, without adapting it to new situations so that it can survive. It is imperative that Americans accept the truth that the country or that society is in a constant flux. By doing so, they can continue to seek ways to adjust to new conditions instead of just complaining over it. They would live up to their historical legacy of metamorphosing, as Lap ham has pointed out in his article Who and What is American. In the end, the outcome of such acceptance actually benefits Americans the most. When they recognize the fact that their society is ceaselessly evolving, they would see every instance of instability as a chance to introduce new things or ideas that can improve their lives. Flux, therefore, is not something that Americans should worry about. It is natural and it is inevitable. The most important thing about it though, which is the very essence it holds, is that it is the bases of improvements and innovations. Works Cited Hitt, Jack. “Dinosaur Dreams: Reading the Bones of America’s Psychic Mascot.” Harper’s Magazine, 1 October, 2001. Laphan, Lewis. “Who and What is American.” Harper’s Magazine, January 1992. Read More