DOES EXCEPTION PROVE THE RULE? TRACING THE DISCOURSE OF AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM By Aron Tabor Submitted to Central European University Doctoral School of Political Science, Public Policy and International Relations In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science Supervisor: Alexander Astrov Word Count: 91,719 Budapest, Hungary 2019 ii Declaration I hereby declare that no parts of this thesis have been accepted for any other degrees in any other institutions. This thesis contains no material previously written and/or published by another person, except where appropriate acknowledgement is made in the form of bibliographical reference. Aron Tabor April 26, 2019 iii iv Abstract The first two decades of the twenty-first century saw an unprecedented proliferation of the discourse of American exceptionalism both in scholarly works and in the world of politics; several recent contributions have characterized this notion in the context of a set of beliefs that create, construct, (re-)define and reproduce a particular foreign policy identity. At the same time, some authors also note that the term “American exceptionalism” itself was born in a specific discourse within U.S. Communism, and, for a period, it was primarily understood with reference to the peculiar causes behind the absence of a strong socialist movement in the United States. The connection between this original meaning and the later usage is not fully explored; often it is assumed that “exceptionalism” existed before the label was created as the idea is traced back to the founding of the American nation or even to the colonial period. Certainly, there are some important continuities in the ideational elements connected to the notion. However, the puzzle still arises why exceptionalism has become so popular at this particular point of history, and how this idea has worked in the various contexts of American politics and foreign policy. This dissertation examines how American exceptionalism has come to be used in the way it is used today. For this, instead of fixing a predetermined meaning to the concept, its content should be discerned from its usage. Hence, I propose a form of discourse-tracing which can highlight the multilayered and historical nature of the discursive development. This does not find a clear linear path from one articulation to another; the emphasis is rather on the interactions between different discursive layers as the idea moves between various contexts and spheres while it serves certain functions in a scholarly, intellectual, or political agenda. Exceptionalism, by definition, needs to reflect an understanding of both exception and rule; the particular and the universal. The analysis notes that the invocation of the idea was often v connected to a reinterpretation of the relationship between particularism and universalism under a perception of crisis in which previously established meanings were questioned. During these periods, agents used exceptionalism to advance political objectives and to shape collective understandings. This examination contributes to existing interpretations of exceptionalism by noting why certain reinterpretations could succeed while others fail; and by observing the shifts in the trajectory of the discourse. Moreover, it helps to understand the social-political contexts in which contestations happen and long-lasting decisions are made. This mode of analysis also emphasizes the back and forth movement of ideas between the academic and the political spheres; thus, it can also shed light on the development of those discourses that happen in the important boundary locations between politics and intellectual engagements. vi Acknowledgements First and foremost, I am grateful to my supervisor, Alex Astrov for this intellectual journey. His comments have helped me to sharpen my argument and our conversations have shaped how I look at the world in general. I thank Michael Merlingen and Thomas Fetzer for being members of my supervisory panel and for providing me with feedback and suggestions at those meetings. In addition, I appreciate the comments that I received from Erin Jenne, Lea Sgier, Xymena Kurowska, and Daniel Large about class assignments that were related to this project. I would also like to thank Robin Bellers from the Center for Academic Writing for reading and commenting on several parts of the dissertation and its earlier versions. I am grateful to Hywel Griffiths for proofreading the whole text. This dissertation could not have been concluded without research in the United States; these study trips were made possible by CEU’s own Doctoral Research Support Grant and by the Hungarian Fulbright Commission. I would like to thank Daniel Deudney for hosting me at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. I am extremely grateful to Robert Jervis for supervising my visiting research at the Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies at Columbia University in New York and for his comments on various parts of the dissertation. I am especially indebted to Ira Katznelson whose works – as one can observe just from the bibliography here – tremendously influenced my view of U.S. history, and whose fascinating class on American political development at Columbia was a great inspiration. Having members of family in the United States made these trips much easier; I hereby want to thank Lenny and Shoshana and Nancy and Lee for their kind hospitality in Cambridge and in New York. In addition, I was lucky to be able to relax in the midst of the writing process while visiting Anna, Gergő, Márton, and Jakab in Vienna. Libraries have been among the most important spaces in my life in the past decade. A large part of this dissertation was written in CEU’s own library in Budapest (in fact, in two different libraries as I could witness CEU’s move to its new building). This has been an inspiring working environment, and I just hope that it will remain in some form in Budapest – whatever happens in the coming years. I also did important research in Johns Hopkins’s Milton S. Eisenhower Library in Baltimore; in the Library of Congress in Washington DC; in Columbia’s Butler and Lehman Libraries in New York (including the Rare Book and Manuscript Library in Butler); in Yale’s Manuscripts and Archives Reading Room in the Sterling Memorial Library vii in New Haven; and in the Harvard University Archives at Pusey Library in Cambridge. In each of these places, the library staff was extremely friendly and helpful, which greatly facilitated my research. Doing a PhD can often feel like a lonely experience; however, I was lucky to take my classes and spend my time (including during those important lunchtime conversations) together with friends like Adina, Alex, Anatoly, András, Andreea, Anna, Bastian, Bruno, Caitlin, Csilla, Emrah, Georgiana, Jelena, Martin, Miles, Silvia, Vija, Viktor, and the list could go on. I am especially thankful to Sashi for his friendship and for his encouragement and advice during my writing process. In addition, I am grateful to my friends in Budapest (and in other parts of the world) – especially to Ádám, Ági, Anna, Attila, Bence, Cus, Dénes, Döme, Ferkó, Ildi, Laci, Miki, Miki, Peti, Titok, Verus, Viktor, Zalán, Zoli, Anett and Zoli, Zsófi and Bálint, and to many others, of course. I thank Mia and Czigi for making my life easier as I did not need to worry about accommodation in New York. All kinds of concerts in Budapest (and in New York and in Baltimore) were extremely helpful in both switching off my brain and in making me think. I thank all my friends (and everyone else) who play in awesome bands in Hungary. Of course, I am especially thankful to my family in Budapest. My parents provided tons of support and my sister Sára helped me a lot, especially in putting together the bibliography. In addition, Zoé might become one of the world’s most experienced cats in dissertation-writing; she is already great at sitting on notes and drafts. April 11, 2019 Cambridge, Massachusetts viii Table of Contents Declaration.............................................................................................................................. iii Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... v Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................ vii Table of Contents .................................................................................................................... ix List of Tables .......................................................................................................................... xii List of Figures ......................................................................................................................... xii Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1 Setting up the Puzzle .................................................................................................................. 3 The Object of Analysis: The Discourse on Exception and Order .............................................. 6 The Discourse-Tracing of American Exceptionalism .............................................................. 14 UNIVERSALISM-ACTIVISM: THE MISSIONARY CHARACTER ............................................................ 19 UNIVERSALISM-WITHDRAWAL: EXEMPLARISM ..............................................................................