The London School of Economics and Political Science
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The London School of Economics and Political Science Mobilizing for Social Democracy in the ‘Land of Opportunity’: Social Movement Framing and the Limits of the ‘American Dream’ in Postwar United States Kristina Irene Fuentes A thesis submitted to the Department of Sociology of the London School of Economics for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, London, January 2015 2 Declaration I certify that the thesis I have presented for examination for the MPhil/PhD degree of the London School of Economics and Political Science is solely my own work other than where I have clearly indicated that it is the work of others (in which case the extent of any work carried out jointly by me and any other person is clearly identified in it). The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. Quotation from it is permitted, provided that full acknowledgement is made. This thesis may not be reproduced without my prior written consent. I warrant that this authorisation does not, to the best of my belief, infringe the rights of any third party. I declare that my thesis consists of 115, 968 words. 3 Abstract This thesis looks at the use of ‘American Dream’ language by the U.S. labour and civil rights movements during the first three decades following the Second World War. It examines, in particular, the use of such language by socialists and social democrats in three separate, unsuccessful, attempts to transform postwar American society along social democratic lines. While the limits of social democratic and other leftist efforts in and beyond the postwar period has been the subject of significant scholarly enquiry, the use of ‘American Dream’ language in these efforts has, for the most part, been neglected. The thesis begins by offering a definitional analysis of the ‘American Dream’, and suggests that it is an ideology that is built on the premise that the United States is the land of opportunity because of its capitalist system. Whereas the conventional wisdom emphasizes the flexibility and political capaciousness of the ‘American Dream’, this thesis argues that such capaciousness is overstated in the existing literature, most of which pays insufficient attention to the ideology’s relationship to capitalism. The empirical chapters test this claim through an examination of the meaning and role of ‘American Dream’ language in the three cases. Drawing from archival research, and using the analytical lens of the social movement framing perspective, the thesis explains how movement actors in each case invoked the ‘American Dream’ in hopes of redefining its hegemonic meaning, from one that legitimized, to one that fundamentally challenged, American capitalism. It also considers how and why those efforts were unsuccessful. This is done through an exploration of the decision-making processes leading to the movement actors’ use of ‘American Dream’ language, and by examining the nature of the failed attempts to mobilize around their redefined American Dream. The thesis finds that a common source of constraint on these movements in all three cases was the conflation of ‘Americanism’ and capitalism, and its pervasiveness in American political culture. In addition to casting doubt on the conventional wisdom surrounding the ‘American Dream’, the thesis also has implications for some of the broader debates about the impact of American political culture on the American left. 4 Acknowledgments One afternoon, toward the end of my first year of studies at the LSE, I was chatting with a group of staff members and fellow PhD students, and I remember commenting, at one point, on how my PhD experience thus far had gone surprisingly smoothly. I had, of course, spoken far too soon. These last few years of researching and writing have been anything but smooth sailing, and there are a number of people who I want to thank for providing assistance and support along the way. I want to begin by thanking the staff at the Tamiment Library, the Schomburg Centre, and the Reuther Library for being so helpful and accommodating during my visits. In most instances, my visits were short and therefore rather rushed, and yet I was able to accomplish a great deal of research during every visit, due to the expertise and efficiency of the staff at these libraries. I am also grateful to the LSE for providing financial assistance, which went toward financing my trips to the aforementioned libraries, through the research studentship scheme. I would also like to thank Cyril Ghosh, who was kind enough to send me the manuscript of his book prior to its publication. Among the many wonderful people I met during my time at the LSE, I am particularly grateful to Liene Ozolina, Angela Filipe, Katherine Robinson, Antonia Dawes, Nabila Munawar and Louise Caffrey for their friendship and support. My supervisor, Robin Archer, provided invaluable insight and advice on the project. I’m quite certain that I never once submitted work to him that was anywhere close to being within the maximum word limit, yet he nonetheless always read and commented on every page with great care and attention to detail. I am especially grateful for his tremendous support and encouragement in the final months leading up to the completion of the thesis. Some of the main themes underpinning this thesis represent themes that I have stubbornly clung to since I was an undergraduate student at the University of British Columbia. I was incredibly lucky to have been admitted to the honours political science program at UBC, and to have had Laura Janara as a thesis supervisor during this time. Dr. Janara encouraged me to pursue graduate studies, and I am so glad that I followed her advice. Her brilliance as a political theorist and as a teacher continues to inspire me to this day. Finally, and most importantly, I want to thank my family and friends back in Vancouver, Toronto and New York, without whose love and support this thesis would not have been possible. I have been fortunate to be surrounded by so many incredible people and although I cannot thank everyone here, there are some who I must mention. My husband, Alfonso, who joined me in London from the beginning of the PhD journey, was a constant source of encouragement and support, and was incredibly patient during the whole process. On most days, when getting home from work, he barely had a chance to get through the door before being bombarded by my daily research rantings and ramblings. Despite the exhaustion brought on by his own demanding job, he was always willing to listen, and to read and offer feedback on my work. My siblings were also a constant source of support, and I’m particularly grateful to my brother Alexander (who also put up with more than his share of rantings and ramblings), and my sister Lorena, who offered advice, encouragement, many laughs, and, whenever necessary, a shoulder to lean (and cry) on. I’m not sure I would have gotten through the rough patches without her. Thanks also to my wonderful parents-in-law, Mario and Elvira Aiello, who have rooted for me every step of the way. I’m also incredibly thankful for the love and support provided by my stepfather Ricardo, my sister Michelle, and the rest of the brilliant Castañeda clan. I want to end off by acknowledging two amazing women in my life. My grandmother, Shirley Fuentes Knight, has brightened each and every one of my days with her kindness, strength and enthusiasm. And more than anything, I want to thank my mother, Ana Lucia Fuentes, who has inspired me beyond words. This thesis is dedicated to her. 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract .................................................................................................................................... 3 Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................... 4 Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................... 8 List of Figures .......................................................................................................................... 9 Chapter 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................... 10 1. Introduction: Bringing the ‘American Dream’ in ................................................................... 10 2. Core Concepts ............................................................................................................................. 14 ‘American Dream’ ........................................................................................................................ 14 ‘American Exceptionalism’ .......................................................................................................... 20 ‘Americanism’ .............................................................................................................................. 25 3. The Cases and Concepts in Context .......................................................................................... 30 Social Democracy in the Postwar Era .......................................................................................... 30 The Postwar ‘Consensus’ ............................................................................................................. 33 The Civil Rights Era ..................................................................................................................... 35 4. Theoretical Framework .............................................................................................................