FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2023615096> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2023615096 endingPage "398" @default.
• W2023615096 startingPage "367" @default.
• W2023615096 abstract "Rites of Dissent: Literatures of Enthusiasm and the American Revolution John Mac Kilgore (bio) In a recent television appearance on the Fox Business Network’s Follow the Money with Eric Bolling, conservative pundit Ann Coulter compared the slogans of the ongoing Occupy Wall Street protests to “mob” ideas in the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, and even Nazi Germany. “It [the protest rhetoric] all comes from the French Revolution,” said Coulter, and thus it represents the “molecular opposite of the beginning of this country, with the American Revolution” (“Coulter”). Coulter testifies to the endurance of a popular historical narrative that juxtaposes the conservative or prudent ideology of the American Revolution and the radical or excessive ideology of the French Revolution. Philosophers and historians, cultural critics and literary scholars, across a wide intellectual spectrum—from Hannah Arendt to Gordon Wood, Antonio Negri to Sacvan Bercovitch—have tended to agree with Coulter on the conservative roots of the American Revolution.1 However one understands its shaping, whether from the vantage point of republicanism or Puritanism, moneyed interests or Lockean liberalism, or some synthesis thereof, the American Revolution certainly was not a movement tending toward radical “mob” ideas, according to most commentators.2 Two arguments for a conservative American Revolution (and its aftermath) that have been influential on American literary scholarship are the Puritan thesis and the Anglicization thesis. Representative of the former is Sacvan Bercovitch’s classic 1975 text, The Puritan Origins of the American Self, which he recently republished. In his new introduction, Bercovitch continues to assert that the American Revolution was, for its ideologues, the political consummation of a sacred mission rooted in longstanding Puritan theories of America’s divine “federal identity” (89). As Bercovitch concisely puts it in Rites of Assent, “The sacred origin was the Puritan migration; [End Page 367] the telos was the Revolution” (38). The false parity between the strict logic of Puritanism and Revolutionary bourgeois society is irrelevant: what matters are “the forms and strategies of cultural continuity” that unify all American political—and literary—projects around the central myth of a “sacred teleology” embodied by the American self (Rites 30; Puritan 136). From Jonathan Edwards to Ralph Waldo Emerson, Thomas Paine to Nathaniel Hawthorne, the narrative of a special, cosmic American self survives through various historical and literary mutations, transforming all political dissent into new strains of cultural consensus about the American mission. When pressed as to the deeper point of this mission, Bercovitch tends to accent the conservative, capitalistic economic values of American liberalism: nationalist exceptionalism translates into “middle-class hegemony” in the making, and the “rhetoric of the millennium” into the “spiritual version of free enterprise” (American xiii; Rites 53).3 Recent eighteenth-century scholarship, however, tells a very different story than Bercovitch, but arguably one no less conservative in its understanding of the American Revolution. Edward Larkin has recently called it the “Anglicization thesis” of American independence (“Nation” 501). This thesis states that, in the cultural and economic fruition of the American colonies, an intensifying identification with and consumption of Englishness—a veritable Anglophilia—led to an eventual crisis: the colonies came to see themselves as central, rather than peripheral, actors in the empire, deserving of the same political rights, certainly, but also warring in defense of true Englishness so as to supplant the declining and corrupted British Empire.4 In Larkin’s view, the Revolutionary War was fought over the constitution of empire, not a desire for discrete and special American nationhood; in this sense, a move away from the Puritan migration back across the Atlantic so to speak, in a cultural continuity of Englishness, resulted paradoxically in a political collision over the distributive hierarchies of power within the British Empire. As Leonard Tennenhouse argues in The Importance of Feeling English (2007), Americans, especially in their literature from 1750 to 1850, saw Americanness as a distinctive culture of Englishness transplanted in North America, part and parcel of a British diaspora in which English-derived cultures forge their own unique version of the English heritage that they continue to adopt subsequent to political independence. This narrative arguably replaces American with English [End Page 368] rites of assent: Americans organize dissent in..." @default.
• W2023615096 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2023615096 creator A5022673302 @default.
• W2023615096 date "2013-01-01" @default.
• W2023615096 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W2023615096 title "Rites of Dissent: Literatures of Enthusiasm and the American Revolution" @default.
• W2023615096 cites W1486127480 @default.
• W2023615096 cites W1509733653 @default.
• W2023615096 cites W1524727470 @default.
• W2023615096 cites W1545455060 @default.
• W2023615096 cites W1545477674 @default.
• W2023615096 cites W1561286942 @default.
• W2023615096 cites W1571490899 @default.
• W2023615096 cites W1599073997 @default.
• W2023615096 cites W1963993132 @default.
• W2023615096 cites W1968105493 @default.
• W2023615096 cites W1973444982 @default.
• W2023615096 cites W1976548821 @default.
• W2023615096 cites W1977777811 @default.
• W2023615096 cites W1985844208 @default.
• W2023615096 cites W1992007186 @default.
• W2023615096 cites W1996896162 @default.
• W2023615096 cites W2000999132 @default.
• W2023615096 cites W2010518664 @default.
• W2023615096 cites W2013159333 @default.
• W2023615096 cites W2021853122 @default.
• W2023615096 cites W2025258154 @default.
• W2023615096 cites W2037444726 @default.
• W2023615096 cites W2043069681 @default.
• W2023615096 cites W2044725342 @default.
• W2023615096 cites W2055748280 @default.
• W2023615096 cites W2064353358 @default.
• W2023615096 cites W2072690008 @default.
• W2023615096 cites W2073256314 @default.
• W2023615096 cites W2073453400 @default.
• W2023615096 cites W2075034089 @default.
• W2023615096 cites W2089273502 @default.
• W2023615096 cites W2094760898 @default.
• W2023615096 cites W2096446578 @default.
• W2023615096 cites W2105726565 @default.
• W2023615096 cites W2111747681 @default.
• W2023615096 cites W2113706005 @default.
• W2023615096 cites W2126353671 @default.
• W2023615096 cites W2165919197 @default.
• W2023615096 cites W2316742100 @default.
• W2023615096 cites W2322966127 @default.
• W2023615096 cites W2324914502 @default.
• W2023615096 cites W2328912303 @default.
• W2023615096 cites W2336639951 @default.
• W2023615096 cites W2591916548 @default.
• W2023615096 cites W2738272857 @default.
• W2023615096 cites W2795845044 @default.
• W2023615096 cites W2798190707 @default.
• W2023615096 cites W2803033073 @default.
• W2023615096 cites W288465021 @default.
• W2023615096 cites W2902153946 @default.
• W2023615096 cites W3044964423 @default.
• W2023615096 cites W3129460539 @default.
• W2023615096 cites W365959001 @default.
• W2023615096 cites W371371857 @default.
• W2023615096 cites W375749888 @default.
• W2023615096 cites W564265844 @default.
• W2023615096 cites W585985409 @default.
• W2023615096 cites W592584908 @default.
• W2023615096 cites W603647626 @default.
• W2023615096 cites W613459480 @default.
• W2023615096 cites W618491081 @default.
• W2023615096 cites W655453718 @default.
• W2023615096 cites W635645701 @default.
• W2023615096 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/eal.2013.0024" @default.
• W2023615096 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
• W2023615096 type Work @default.
• W2023615096 sameAs 2023615096 @default.
• W2023615096 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W2023615096 countsByYear W20236150962015 @default.
• W2023615096 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2023615096 hasAuthorship W2023615096A5022673302 @default.
• W2023615096 hasConcept C124952713 @default.
• W2023615096 hasConcept C1370556 @default.
• W2023615096 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2023615096 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W2023615096 hasConcept C158071213 @default.
• W2023615096 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2023615096 hasConcept C199033989 @default.
• W2023615096 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2023615096 hasConcept C27206212 @default.
• W2023615096 hasConcept C2778061430 @default.
• W2023615096 hasConcept C2781354396 @default.
• W2023615096 hasConcept C523173360 @default.
• W2023615096 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W2023615096 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W2023615096 hasConceptScore W2023615096C124952713 @default.
• W2023615096 hasConceptScore W2023615096C1370556 @default.
• W2023615096 hasConceptScore W2023615096C138885662 @default.
• W2023615096 hasConceptScore W2023615096C142362112 @default.
• W2023615096 hasConceptScore W2023615096C158071213 @default.
• W2023615096 hasConceptScore W2023615096C17744445 @default.
• W2023615096 hasConceptScore W2023615096C199033989 @default.

• next