Via Instapundit, I read this article by Ralph Peters on the differences between Europe and America. Da Pundit seems to think Peters paints with a broad brush--well, yeah, obviously any newspaper column that manages to summarize European decline and attribute it to a handful of causes is guilty of broad brushing. That said, the article still resonated with me, and not just because it appealed to my sense of national pride.
My undergrad institution actively encouraged JYA or Junior Year Abroad programs. It seemed as though they were intent on kicking every junior off campus and sending us to Europe or Japan. Like a lot of my friends, I took advantage of the program to get off campus and go somewhere with a lower legal drinking age. Those were my actual reasons, though I tarted them up to look much more serious on my application to the Beaver College Study Abroad Program. Granted, my desire to travel was real--it had to be to endure six months of beaver jokes--and a friend and I picked Aberdeen, Scotland as sufficiently exotic and still English-speaking. Of course, 2 weeks before my departure date the Lockerbie plane crash occurred, so my parents were a bit stressed. But that is neither here nor there.
My study abroad experience was excellent. The courses were absurdly easy (I think they only let the Americans take the "dumbed down" courses because they knew that our studies weren't our first priority), and I met and made friends with scots, englishfolk, a couple of frenchwomen, and a whole new group of Americans from all across the country. We had a blast, partly because it was so much fun to notice the differences between us. But BOY, were there differences, and the major one I saw was in attitudes about the future.
One evening before pubbing, a group of Scots and Americans were hanging out in my room, sampling Doritos and other American junk food (courtesy of my mom) and talking about future plans. To a person, the Americans' plans were grandiose, optimistic, and (statistically speaking) probably doomed to failure. But it didn't matter, because we believed that our dream futures were within our grasp, and that even if things didn't turn out exactly the way we'd planned, we'd still have happy and prosperous lives. Why not aim high? The Scots, on the other hand, seemed a little bit shocked by our attitudes. Their imagined futures were much more proscribed, and tainted by a "This is how it is. This is how it always was. Accept it." mentality. There was little talk of dreams. We (the Americans) discussed it later when we were alone, and shrugged it off as an example of typically Scottish gloom. Then we all went drinking and forgot about it, except to occasionally poke good-natured fun at the scottish world view (which was eagerly reciprocated by the Scots). The French girls, in the meantime, taught us how to make crepes, warned us not to go to Paris (the people there were categorized as insufferable snobs, which made all the Americans laugh) and breezily dismissed any serious talk of the future--things would go on as they always had, of course. There's a reason why "laissez-faire" is a French term.
The Peters article reminded me of this experience, and makes me wonder if it could be cast in a different light. I won't bother to go into the whole "are people a product of culture or is culture a product of people" chicken/egg debate, and I certainly won't pretend to categorize three separate nations on one large island based on a dorm room conversation, but Peters has a point when he describes the European desire for a safety net versus the American idolization of the individual. I've experienced that difference firsthand, and I don't see any easy way around it. For all of our Western Civilization classes and talk of America's drawing upon the Western tradition in forming its government and ideals, we aren't part of the same West that Europe is. And if you've studied European history, you'll see that the typical response to uppity rabble-rousing types (which is how they see us when they aren't freaking out about our military) who threaten the status quo is decidedly NOT laissez-faire. There's a real gulf of understanding here, and it won't be breached by Colin Powell or anyone else. More's the pity.
Posted by Big Arm Woman at August 14, 2003 09:51 AMChicken'n'egg indeed, but it does seem to be real.
I always fall back on the old "the wacky adventurous ones all LEFT." I mean, who would get in a boat, wooden OR steel, and spend months (later, weeks) crossing an ocean to a far-from-certain future?
If there is anything to temperament in genes, surely America is a bit overly-optimistic for a reason?
Posted by: Michael Tinkler at August 14, 2003 10:47 AMThe people with the money and influence stayed, by and large. The people who had nothing but wanted more were the ones who left. Many of 'em were smart but not especially well educated; some of 'em, like the first one over on my mother's side, were pirates. But, yeah, I think the net effect on Europe was to drain the talent pool pretty badly ... and I think that process is continuing today among immigrants to the U.S., which is why I'm reluctant to endorse draconian immigration limits. I think immigration, over the long haul, is a net plus for the U.S. in many more ways than just numbers.
Posted by: Lex at August 14, 2003 05:26 PMWell, here's another data point (or set of 'em).
I lived in Denmark for 8 years. At one point, after a couple of years or so, I believe I tried in various ways to actually "become" Danish. I failed and from that point on, my homesickness started to grow from something inconsequential to somethig too big to be ignored when I (& my Danish wife) moved to the States.
Curiously, now, after almost 20 years in the States, my wife has little, well actually no interest in returning to live in Little Mother Denmark.
It probably has something to with the area of Denmark from which she moved (the American equivalent of Iowa or Nebraska). However, even though we are within easy driving from the Twin Cities, the fact remains we live in rural Minnesota so it's not like she's become a Big City girl.
For her part, she doesn't know (she's not one to really analyze things), but she uses terms to describe living in Denmark like "parochial", "small", "limited", and "boring". I think in her own way she echos Mr. Peters and BAW perspectives.
Danes have a saying (in fact each of the Scandinavian countries have a version of it) to the effect that "you shouldn't think of yourself as better than anyone else". But they don't mean it in the American sense. They mean it in the sense that you shouldn't try to better yourself, enhance your career, or just improve your life.
Combined with the similar notions fostered by socialism, it's a heavy cultural burden.
For years now I have wondered, in my off hours, what why Americans are different from the rest of the world. Americans are driven, they are obsessive. They tend to dominate the social landscape even when they aren't in the area.
I used to blame microwave popcorn. I have seen people tapping their foot with impatience at the microwave ticks down the last seconds of the two-and-a-half minutes required to make popcorn. The twelve to fifteen minutes it used to take to make popcorn on a gas stove. I have realised, though, that the popcorn issue is only a symptom, as Americans can not bear to wait for anything, no matter how fast it is (ie. the Pentium processor line).
I have recently concluded that it has to do with the American West. In comparison to most other, well-established nations, the concept of an unexplored frontier just outside your borders was laid to rest fairly recently. America started out as an expansion project, and it just doesn't seem to be able to shake the reputation. Manifest Destiny has had it's unexpected collateral effects on America.
This isn't a knock at America. America's nature is not bad, and it is not good. I simply is.
Of course, that is only one anonymous man's opinion ...