Despite, or perhaps because of, this country’s short history, the American identity is one of the most highly contested and undefinable of intangible ideas. Many of the highly debated abstract concepts are so often and sometimes needlessly argued over because they are indefinable. So much can fall under the categories of these types, like art, love, and poetry, that deems them impossible to narrow down into workable definitions. A blank canvas can be considered art and free verse is somehow still poetry, but the vagueness of the definitions of these words is not what plagues the attempts to specify the American identity. It is instead the juxtaposition of blatant contradictions that makes this particular abstract so difficult to pin down accurately.
America consists almost solely of polarization at this point, and the contradictory counterpart oriented nature was not simply invented by the last few generations. The nation’s conception is due to a great attitude of defiance and great acts of rebellion. It follows easily that a launching point might set enough precedence that the definition could orient itself around this same perspective; i.e., that the American identity could become defined by the exact disobedience that constructed the existence of such an identity in the first place. The most inclusive parameter of said identity to be present while still defining it more than the fans of semantics will with other abstract concepts is the progress based evolution of ideals that are heavily rooted in dissent from the traditional. This continuous progression translates to not only a culture that values the self, but vibrant counterculture movements that can go so far to question the value of this anti-tradition character altogether. Individualism is possibly the most integral part of the American identity, and even this simple concept has undergone significant changes through the densely compacted past of the nation. Though the pioneer days are recalled on the surface as being a time of dependence only on the self, the original intention of many new world settlers relied heavily on the unity of and responsibility to the society. John Winthrop’s A Model of Christian Charity provides the quintessential phrase of early American community: the “city upon a hill.” Though the exceptionalism necessary to make Winthrop’s claim has definitely been carried into essentially all modern definitions of the identity, it is the sense of duty to the general public that American rebellion grew away from. “All the parts of this body being thus united are made so contiguous in a special relation as they must needs partake of each other’s strength and infirmity, joy and sorrow, weal and woe.” There is a Christian motivation for this ideal that Winthrop expresses, true of many beliefs held in early America especially, and the need to take care of the fellow man existed as a mainstream until the ideological compulsion to be contrary exposed itself in the form of reason. Benjamin Franklin’s “Thirteen Virtues” from his autobiography subtly exposes this shift. His list sets out to cultivate oneself into a better person in a sense the same way A Model of Christian Charity does. However, even the intended audience uncovers some of the transition, for Winthrop’s work is directed at a community and Franklin’s virtues are meant to be utilized on an individual basis. The demands of these manifestos of morality deal in qualitatively different terms as well. Christian Charity describes how to help others, evident in even its title, but the thirteen virtues’ sense of improvement is invested in for the sake of the person committing them instead of following sets of rules for the betterment of society and thus the glory of God. D.H. Lawrence’s claims on the subject of pilgrims and Puritans provides insight on how and why that rebellious spirit arose. Naturally, politics played a hand on the governmental side, but the evolution between Winthrop and Franklin is more based in ideology than concrete wrongdoings. "[The Pilgrims] didn 't come for freedom. Or if they did, they sadly went back on themselves." Lawrence calls attention to the hypocrisy of claiming to be for religious freedom and then perpetrating the kind of religious blank that Hawthorne’s writing
America consists almost solely of polarization at this point, and the contradictory counterpart oriented nature was not simply invented by the last few generations. The nation’s conception is due to a great attitude of defiance and great acts of rebellion. It follows easily that a launching point might set enough precedence that the definition could orient itself around this same perspective; i.e., that the American identity could become defined by the exact disobedience that constructed the existence of such an identity in the first place. The most inclusive parameter of said identity to be present while still defining it more than the fans of semantics will with other abstract concepts is the progress based evolution of ideals that are heavily rooted in dissent from the traditional. This continuous progression translates to not only a culture that values the self, but vibrant counterculture movements that can go so far to question the value of this anti-tradition character altogether. Individualism is possibly the most integral part of the American identity, and even this simple concept has undergone significant changes through the densely compacted past of the nation. Though the pioneer days are recalled on the surface as being a time of dependence only on the self, the original intention of many new world settlers relied heavily on the unity of and responsibility to the society. John Winthrop’s A Model of Christian Charity provides the quintessential phrase of early American community: the “city upon a hill.” Though the exceptionalism necessary to make Winthrop’s claim has definitely been carried into essentially all modern definitions of the identity, it is the sense of duty to the general public that American rebellion grew away from. “All the parts of this body being thus united are made so contiguous in a special relation as they must needs partake of each other’s strength and infirmity, joy and sorrow, weal and woe.” There is a Christian motivation for this ideal that Winthrop expresses, true of many beliefs held in early America especially, and the need to take care of the fellow man existed as a mainstream until the ideological compulsion to be contrary exposed itself in the form of reason. Benjamin Franklin’s “Thirteen Virtues” from his autobiography subtly exposes this shift. His list sets out to cultivate oneself into a better person in a sense the same way A Model of Christian Charity does. However, even the intended audience uncovers some of the transition, for Winthrop’s work is directed at a community and Franklin’s virtues are meant to be utilized on an individual basis. The demands of these manifestos of morality deal in qualitatively different terms as well. Christian Charity describes how to help others, evident in even its title, but the thirteen virtues’ sense of improvement is invested in for the sake of the person committing them instead of following sets of rules for the betterment of society and thus the glory of God. D.H. Lawrence’s claims on the subject of pilgrims and Puritans provides insight on how and why that rebellious spirit arose. Naturally, politics played a hand on the governmental side, but the evolution between Winthrop and Franklin is more based in ideology than concrete wrongdoings. "[The Pilgrims] didn 't come for freedom. Or if they did, they sadly went back on themselves." Lawrence calls attention to the hypocrisy of claiming to be for religious freedom and then perpetrating the kind of religious blank that Hawthorne’s writing