Specification or Embellishment?

(before I start anything, this post is NOT just about the American Dream)

Our discussion in class today reminded me of a book I read about a similar topic. The first person recorded to use the term, ‘The American Dream’, was James Truslow Adams in his 1931 book titled The Epic of America. He defines this dream as “that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement. It is a difficult dream for the European upper classes to interpret adequately, and too many of us ourselves have grown weary and mistrustful of it. It is not a dream of motor cars and high wages merely, but a dream of social order in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, and be recognized by others for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position." (P.214-215)

First of all, I didn’t originally intend to critique this. However, this definition is so abstract (how the heck can you define someone’s innate capability?) that he could be talking about a plethora of other topics rather than the one that seems to be at hand. Also, there is a definite Romantic element in this, kind of like the ole ‘life is amazing’ idea we discussed; he states, “life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone”, which is basically purr word after purr word.

Here’s another point of view that is quite similar: Thomas Wolfe said, "…to every man, regardless of his birth, his shining, golden opportunity ...the right to live, to work, to be himself, and to become whatever thing his manhood and his vision can combine to make him,” referring to what America had to offer to humanity. Again, it seems when people attempt to provide the definition for what it is to be American, their words become progressively generalized and abstracted, all of which is tied with a Romantic ribbon of the perfect, peaceable, and lovely world we live in.

I don’t really think I disagree with the techniques of these two men, particularly if the purpose was propagandistic in its intention. After all, if the definitions of the American Dream were more specific, they would not be as applicable to all the people they are appealing to, which would probably not be as effective in bringing people (workers) over to the new country, or in Adams’ case, the glorification of America.

So, I guess my point is, in something as important as the goal of a nation, do you think it is more effective to lay out the facts (regardless of what eyes are upon them) in the pursuit of being informative, or is it better to simply embellish the beauty and appeal of a notion for the sake of more converts?

Steph