American Exceptionalism: A Double-Edged Sword
American Exceptionalism: A Double-Edged Sword
复制标题
美国例外论：一把双刃剑
DOI：
10.1086/ahr/102.3.749
复制
发表时间：
1997
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
S. Lipset
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Tiziano Bonazzi;S. Lipset
加拿大学者通常不会强烈反对西摩·马丁·利普塞特的美国例外论，尽管这一概念的推定挥之不去。事实上，他们可能对此分担一些责任。人们可能会认为“未被选中的人”对选举的自负特别敏感，但事实并非如此。除了父子关系上的共谋之外，加拿大历史学家在这个问题上的“软弱”可能部分源于这样一个事实：美国例外论顺便证明了他们自己的主体加拿大存在一个独立的身份，即使他们自己对此并不确定。利普塞特在《第一个新国家》系列书籍中指出，民主平等主义和个人主义成就的文化在国际价值比较尺度上显然是一个异类，它永久地塑造了美国历史。由此可见，那些聚集在缅因州和佛蒙特州北部、五大湖区以及北纬 49 度线直至阿拉斯加（狭长地带可能除外）的人们不是美国人，而是其他人。从这个角度来看，加拿大人的本质变得更加清晰——一个历史悠久的民族，处于一个基于临时协议的谈判国家，一个文化马赛克，一个冷漠的北方民族，对他们来说，富裕从来都不是问题。此外，他们的基本价值观与南方邻国的价值观有很大不同。调查显示，他们更尊重权威，较少追求成就和自愿，尊重而不是怀疑政府，更有秩序，更少暴力。由于加拿大历史学家从来没有完全确定自己独特的“加拿大性”，因此令人欣慰的是，它不仅得到了消极的肯定——通过将美国身份如此自信地确立为不同的身份，而且得到了积极的肯定，因为美国例外论者一直是勤奋的比较学者，并研究了加拿大的数据进行对比。在批判性地思考美国例外论时，加拿大人深层次的、当然未被承认的弱点也许在于它的保险价值：如果加拿大的计划不成功，那么美国例外论也可能适用于他们。在这一代人中，没有哪个美国学者比我们更能证明美国的观点。
CANADIAN SCHOLARS HAVE NOT AS A RULE taken strong exception to Seymour Martin Lipset's version of American exceptionalism, despite the lingering presumption of the concept. They may, indeed, share some responsibility for it. One might expect a "not chosen people" to be particularly sensitive about the conceit of election, but this has not necessarily been the case. Beyond complicity in paternity, Canadian historians' "softness" on this subject may stem in part from the fact that American exceptionalism has incidentally attested to the existence of a separate identity for their own subject, Canada, even if they are uncertain about this themselves. Lipset has argued, in a series of books running back to The First New Nation, that a culture of democratic egalitarianism and individualist achievement, clearly identifiable as an outlier on a comparative international scale of values, permanently shaped American history.' It follows from this that those people huddling north of Maine and Vermont, the Great Lakes, and the 49th parallel up to Alaska (with the possible exception of the panhandle) are not American but are something else. What Canadians are becomes even clearer in this optic-a historical people in a negotiated state based on a provisional agreement, a cultural mosaic, stolid northern folk for whom abundance has never been a problem. Moreover, their basic values differ to a substantial degree from those of their southern neighbors. They are, according to the surveys, more deferential to authority, less achievement oriented and voluntaristic, respectful rather than suspicious of government, more orderly, and less violent. As Canadian historians have never been absolutely sure of a distinctive "Canadian-ness" on their own, it is gratifying to have it affirmed not only negatively-by having the American identity so confidently established as different but also positively, since American exceptionalists have been assiduous comparative scholars and have worked up the Canadian data for the contrast. Canadians' deep and certainly unacknowledged weakness when it comes to thinking critically about American exceptionalism perhaps rests on its insurance value: should the Canadian project not work out, then American exceptionalism might also apply to them. No U.S. scholar has done more in this generation to make the case for American