The American Dream as Process: Analysis of One Journey

  

The American Dream as Process: Analysis of One Journey

Mark Olofson

University of Vermont 

Link to pdf

_________________________________________________________________________________

"That dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for every man, with opportunity for each according to his ability or achievement."

- James Truslow Adams (Adams, 1931, p. 404)

The American dream, as presented above, is a broad concept that describes a society where all individuals are able to attain the most they can based upon their capabilities. The dream is that of a true meritocracy, where the initial conditions of a person’s life are not seen as being a help nor a hindrance to future success. In his book Ain’t No Makin’ It, Jay MacLeod (2009) goes in search of this ideal and is left with a different understanding of the state of affairs. Instead of limitless possibility, he finds that institutions have ways of halting mobility based on class (p. 152). Individuals and groups can work with or against the reproduction of their social class, but the mechanisms cannot be ignored. The dialectic process between the structure and individual leads to lesser opportunities and lowered aspirations (p. 255).  But is there another way to frame the American dream that might give us further insight into the definition of a positive outcome for individuals? Instead of focusing on individual states, attitudes, and conditions, this paper will instead consider the process of the American, dreaming.

The focus on process over position can be dated back to the work of Heraclitus, a position that has been summed up on the popular assertion that one cannot step in the same river twice (Graham, 2011). The idea that process is a more powerful descriptor than a static state is present in many different spheres. Writers in diverse categories such as religion (Hartshorne, 1984)(Daly, 1985), feminism (Christ, 2003), and teaching (John, 2006) have taken this stance. When applied to the American dream, the process of obtaining a richer and fuller life becomes the focus. It is a process that is defined by striving, struggling, and evolving. It is a process that takes place in the context of an individual’s family, culture, and world. It is an experience that can be rejected, endured, or embraced.   

Due to its longitudinal methodology, Macleod’s Ain’t No Making It (2009) gives a view of the process of the changing interactions that constitute the path of a dreaming American. Although it is not at the center of the sociological analysis in the book, by comparing the position of a participant in different time frames, the process of the dreaming American, and his understanding of the process, can be illuminated. This paper will consider the path of Frankie; how he changes, acts, reacts, progresses, and sees his own progress in a few specific realms. The focus will be on Frankie’s evolving identification with and perception of his family, his changing group membership, and his relationships with leadership and power in order to hint at the processes that make him perhaps the largest success story in the book, if one considers the American dream to be the path and not the end point.

Frankie is a member of a family that was held in some esteem in the underworld of his community (MacLeod, 2009, p. 26). The initial timeframe finds Frankie proud of his familial ties to the prison world (p. 29) as well as proud of his brothers’ history of racial violence (p. 37). Although his believes that his brothers can help him secure employment (p. 68), he is also aware that his surname can make finding an outside job more difficult (p. 74). By 1991, however, although his family connections were able to land him a number of under the table employment opportunities, Frankie acknowledges that he has “burned a lot of those bridges now,” (p. 169). By 2006 his attitudes towards the position of his family during his youth have changed; he now identifies fear as dominating his youth. He also now believes that to outsiders he was “just another O’Sullivan,” (p. 284). His relationship with his family’s reputation moved from defiant pride through something for him to overcome to a remnant from which he finally detaches. By the end of the book he has drawn a defining line between himself and his brothers in order to gain employment and move forward (p. 279).

In 1991, Frankie has begun to set up a family of his own. His relationship with his girlfriend is important, as he begins to incorporate his girlfriend into his identity. He justifies an incident of violence by stating that “He bumped into my girl…Hey, I was protecting myself,” (MacLeod, 2009, p. 185). At this time he was aware of his shifting priorities and his changing identity, pointing out his transformation of character from simply being a biological father to “being a decent dad,” (p. 195). His identity continues to develop in this way, and by 2006 he proudly occupies the role of working father, and has expanded the role farther to the persona of “neighborhood dad,” (p. 282).

Frankie’s changing attitude about his family demonstrates the presence of process in his life. All of the different understandings and identities functioned as understood by him at the time when they were held. When he was in his teens, his identification with the reputation of his family did bring him a certain standing in his community, but as a middle-aged father, his view of that time as dark and fearful allows him to more deeply work for a better life for his own son. By only considering one or the other view as authentic, true, or useful, the connection between the two may be overlooked, but to do so would be to lose the continuity of his character. Frankie’s process is reflected in his changing understandings, and it is this process that shows us his familial aspect as a dreaming American, where change must happen in order to make firm an initially shaky foundation.

The procession of Frankie’s identity can also be seen in his shifting attitude towards and membership in other, non-familial groups. As a teenager, Frankie sees the negative nature of the Hallway Hangers, and believes that he could have a positive future if not for his membership in the wrong group (MacLeod, 2009, p. 122). However, even though he recognizes the harm that his membership in the Hallway Hangers is doing, he chooses to maintain his membership and identity as part of the group.

His changing attitude about the value of group membership in light of negative effects to his person is seen in his willingness to change work groups. Although he identifies as a worker (MacLeod, 2009, 283), he has allowed himself to leave work situations where he perceived the group as being negative. He left one situation where the group’s behavior threatened his sobriety (p. 168), and another where he saw the gossip of coworkers as being destructive (p. 171). In 2006 he maintained membership in his new road crew group, as well as his union, which he found to be positive (p. 280).

Frankie’s ties to the Clarendon Heights community are based on his family’s long history there (MacLeod, 2009, p. 52). He was unable to sever those ties when he moved away from the area, as well as when he could see the negative impact of the group of people there who facilitated his relapse into drugs (p. 176). However, instead of leaving Clarendon Heights, or passively going along with the nature of the community, he exited the drug-related portion of the community and responded to his concern that the community was degrading by progressing into a role where he now helps a self-sustaining community of tenants (p. 288). Progression in his choice of group membership and his knowledge of the role that they play is apparent, and speaks to his growing agency and optimism.

This growth of agency and deeper understanding of direction can also be seen in the context of Frankie’s progress related to leadership and positions of power. Although he often rejected formal leadership roles, his process in this area can be discovered by considering how his attitudes towards leadership are not a product from one point in time, but rather as another part of an overall process.

Consider the difference between Frankie’s interactions with people in places of unearned (as perceived by Frankie) power at the three different stages. As a teenager, he had a session with a school psychologist wherein he took an adversarial stance (MacLeod, 2009, p. 87). Farther along his process, the 1991 Frankie was presented with a situation where a high school student being placed as his superior. Frankie raised the concern with the owner of the company, only to discover the nepotistic nature of the situation. He tried to make the situation work, but eventually removed himself from the position (p. 170). At this stage, Frankie was also uncomfortable when he was the beneficiary of an unearned position of power. When he was given a management role over a cleaning crew, he was unable to exist in the role and abandoned it (p. 246). In 2006, Frankie continues to clash with management, but is able to remain in the situation and cope with his initial aggressive thoughts by using the skills he developed in recovery (p. 280).

A constant thread for Frankie is that of informal leadership, a role that we can see developing and changing. In the first section of the book, Frankie is the acknowledged leader of the Hallway Hangers (MacLeod, 2009, p. 26). This role, although widely recognized, is of an informal group. In 1991 he is preaching about the evils of drugs and alcohol in his community (p. 168). In this role he is not leading by reinforcing the group’s status quo, but rather attempting to lead them away from those things that he perceives as keeping his community down. Although the role of informal leader remains, it has shifted. In 2006 he has progressed farther, having taken an informal leadership role in that he speaks out for people on his crew. Here, he is seeing the role of a leader as standing up for individuals who may not be able to speak their own truth to power (p. 280).

Frankie explains his rejection of formal leadership roles in that he does not want the responsibility (MacLeod, 2009, p. 287). What he goes on to explain is that in a formal role he would have to make decisions about people as though they were stationary, based on their current situation and way of being. This conflicts with Frankie’s understanding of people as individuals going through their own processes. Throughout the decades that are covered in Ain’t No Makin’ It, there are many examples of Frankie’s understanding of life as changes instead of static states.

At the beginning of the book, Frankie shows a solid understanding of the nature of the progression of people in his surroundings. Talking about his brothers and others who previously occupied his current space, he says “They fucking go; that group’s gone. The next group came…Now it’s our turn. We’re here,” (MacLeod, 2009, p. 118). In this space, he is naming and understanding the presence of process. He does not just hope that he does not follow a downward trajectory; he confesses that he is trying not to (p. 71).

When the book returns to Frankie in 1991, he has more to say about progression and its value. About one job: “I was working hard, but it was also a learning process,” (MacLeod, 2009, p. 167). He understands that his motivations have changed (p. 261) and that his views on opportunity have evolved from believing his situation was hopeless to seeing real opportunity present (p. 260). He even names his changing attitudes and presence in his family, from simply being a biological father to now “being a decent dad,” (p. 195).

The portrait of Frankie in 2006 shows us the American, dreaming. Although the analysts rank him as the fourth most successful of the boys, if we consider the individual understanding the struggle as the dream, Frankie has made it; he continues to push farther. Not only has he progressed through a number of jobs, but he sees the nature and necessity for this progression (MacLeod, 2009, p. 278); he is obtaining a skills so that he may progress even farther (p. 279). He is a member of his community with which he identifies and has also helped to define. He has gradually changed the interaction between his family and his personal identity to where it now presides.

So, from where does Frankie’s understanding of process and his role in it come? It is hard to determine the foundation his initial long-view, but it is possible that given the presence of a number of older brothers, he was able to get a snapshot of the nature of progress simply by looking around his household. He could see a number of similar people at different points on a similar trajectory. However, this does not explain his ability to take agency in his own process.

Frankie’s participation in Alcoholics Anonymous could possibly explain his perspective. AA stresses many concepts with which Frankie identifies; the importance of community, family, and informal leadership (Alcoholics Anonymous, 2001). AA also focuses on recovery as a process, one that is constant and ongoing. In AA, it is the process that is at the center of the program, not the outcome. Those that are working the twelve steps are meeting the goal of the program. It is possible that Frankie internalized this notion of success, leading to his deeper acknowledgement of process after the beginning of his involvement with AA.

Through Frankie’s story, the notion of progress, not simple reproduction, can be seen. His attitudes and roles change, grow, and expand. They have roots that are static but their routes are not predetermined. It is through focusing change, not just initial conditions, that we are able to understand. The American dream itself is a changing thing; for example, home ownership, a commonly cited marker of having “made it,” is now less common among young people, even when presented with pathways that make home ownership more easily attained (Fisher & Gervais, 2011). The American Dream, as stated, was a product of its own time, and although culture has progressed, we still try to understand that time’s American dream as applying. A reformation of the American dream could be sought, but individual achievement of the dream would still be hindered by the structural mechanisms described by MacLeod. It is difficult for a strong criticism of these structures to be generated in the presence of any static understanding of the American dream. They are, after all, helping people who have achieved the stationary American dream remain in that state. However, when we reframe the dream as a progression instead of a static state, we can see that these structures that are out of alignment with that progression. They serve to keep people in the same place, no matter their socio-economic level. This is antithetical to the American dream as process.

Focusing on process also allows us to value those that are achieving, instead of demeaning them for what they have not yet achieved. When we decouple the process from the perceived goal, we can identify mindsets that contribute to the positive process (Carter, 2008). We are able to value the individual that is working, instead of simply the individual who has the markers of having achieved. As MacLeod shows, these markers can be nearly impossible for many to obtain. The American dream, as it is framed, is not achievable for most. But the dreaming American, as identified by their process, is a transformational role that can be occupied by many. Acknowledging and valuing the process allows for more to join, gives us reason to remove reproductive structures, and benefits the greater society.

References

Adams, J. T. (1931). The Epic of America. Greenwood Press. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=paIpt-vBVR8C&printsec=frontcover&client=firefox-a&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q&f=false

Alcoholics Anonymous: the story of how many thousands of men and women have recovered from alcoholism. (2001) (4th ed.). New York City: Alcoholics Anonymous World Services. Retrieved from http://www.aa.org/bigbookonline/

Carter, D. J. (2008). Achievement as resistance: The development of a critical race achievement ideology among Black achievers. Harvard Educational Review, 78(3), 466–497.

Christ, C. P. (2003). She who changes: re-imagining the divine in the world. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Daly, M. (1985). Beyond God the Father: toward a philosophy of women’s liberation. Boston: Beacon Press.

Fisher, J. D., & Gervais, M. (2011). WHY HAS HOME OWNERSHIP FALLEN AMONG THE YOUNG?*. International Economic Review, 52(3), 883–912.

Graham, D. W. (2011). Heraclitus. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2011.). Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2011/entries/heraclitus/

Hartshorne, C. (1984). Omnipotence and other theological mistakes. Albany: State University of New York.

John, P. D. (2006). Lesson planning and the student teacher: re‐thinking the dominant model. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(4), 483–498. doi:10.1080/00220270500363620

MacLeod, J. (2009). Ain’t no makin’ it: aspirations & attainment in a low-income neighborhood. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.