Abstract The paper shows that according to Daniel J. Boorstin in his book "The Image: A Guide to Pseudo Events in America", as a society dominated by the media, America now strives for images instead of ideals. The perfection of films and television shows has created an imaginary world, distracting us from reality. Politics has become a show, and through the media, America presents itself as a perfect utopia. We tend to mistake celebrities for truly great people, when in actuality, they are merely well-known for being well-known. This paper evaluates Boorstin's argument and concludes that, although his assessments may be true, we are not doomed by his predictions. America will not be the victim of its own devices.
From the Paper "Daniel Boorstin is somewhat right in his description of how The Image has changed the character and values of America for the worse, but to say that The Image made these changes on its own is quite inaccurate. The Image and the Graphic Revolution were bound to come out of a democratic nation, and have acted as catalysts in enhancing those preexisting negative characteristics and myths of democratic America that we see today. Boorstin seems to be biased toward the American life of the past, and he seems to think it was better and more "real" than what it is today. Yet history is a ghost that haunts modern society and it always presents itself as more glorious and meaningful than current times do. We cannot really know if life was more "real" back then. Civilizations throughout history have dealt with myths, illusions, and fabrications, and it is human nature to choose to believe something or not, or to perceive something in one way or another. However, I agree with Boorstin in some instances when says that we need to ?disillusion ourselves.? Most of us could probably benefit from a stronger grasp on reality, and an ability to recognize all of the fabrications that pervade the media."
Tags: culture, democracy, illusions, modern, myths, news, politics, society, television
Abstract This paper asserts that the differences between the peoples of America are what comprise America's unique culture and provide a basis for discussing the distinction between multiculturalism and Daniel Boorstin's "American Exceptional-ism." It examines how Boorstin believes the country's rich heritage is unique and even set apart from others in that it is the combination of a variety of cultural backgrounds, social beliefs, and personal experiences.
From the Paper "While Boorstin's American exceptionalism is very optimistic and makes an effort to promote equality, taking account for each and every individual, there are many who argue such an all-encompassing view of American culture masses everyone together, disregarding the significant differences in American society. Furthermore, they maintain this view results in a loss of individuality-a surrendering of one's own cultural, ethnic identity. In fact, this line of thinking is nothing more than a revision of the melting pot theory, which carries the implication that all will become the same. Unlike the melting pot theory, the idea of a mosaic accounts for significant divisions along ethnic, gender, and religious lines."
Compares the authors' views on the Founding Fathers' views on constitutional system, federalism, republican vs. democratic government and survival of the union.
1,350 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 2 sources, 1999, $ 47.95
Abstract "Richard Hofstadter in the early chapters of his book The American Political Tradition characterizes the Founding Fathers and the constitutional system they developed and addresses certain issues of federalism as they developed in the thinking of James Madison, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and others, and he shows elsewhere in his book how the concept of federalism was tested and preserved in American history and American political life.
From the Paper "Richard Hofstadter in the early chapters of his book The American Political Tradition characterizes the Founding Fathers and the constitutional system they developed and addresses certain issues of federalism as they developed in the thinking of James Madison, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and others, and he shows elsewhere in his book how the concept of federalism was tested and preserved in American history and American political life. His analysis is less theoretical and more centered on the intentions of the framers of the Constitution and on what they wanted to achieve, protect, and promote.
One of the more interesting statements made by Hofstadter is that it is ironic that the Constitution "is based upon a political theory that at one crucial point stands in direct antithesis to the mainstream of American democratic faith""
