A Distinct Method?
Can a field like American studies known for its multidisciplinary attributes use a specific method to understand America? Although the basis for the field is to broaden its perspective via several disciplines, there are certain methods the study has utilized to better understand America. Such methods as myth and symbol, contextualism and engaging in one discipline have been established for deciphering text, finding themes, and deconstructing groups. These theories, which have been useful in many ways, have been criticized for their limitations. Critics do agree that there are certain attributes to the methods used in the American studies, however using them as a basis for all scholarship has its concerns. Even with the validity of the methods, they have a narrow perspective, …show more content…
The concern with myth and symbol is that it is a generalization that one viewpoint fits everyone in society. The method gives the perception that what one group values, all others must value also. This idea is limiting in its scope for American populations because not everyone sees the nation from the same angle. Bruce Kuklick remarked on this method that, “we need only remember that many people live in a country and that attribution of motives to all of them require extensive evidence”(Kuklick 82). In order to discover what makes America grasp on to certain ideals, diverse methods need to meet the diverse makeup of the nation. Literature and historical documents usually applied to a univocal group and that group was the elite, white American. Nash himself realized the limiting aspects of specific methods in discussing contextualism in the works of Mark Twain. The author in his article Can “American Studies” Develop a Method?, found that interpreting context from limited literary works only looked at the author’s frame of reference. Mark Twain, although an excellent writer,
Can a field like American studies known for its multidisciplinary attributes use a specific method to understand America? Although the basis for the field is to broaden its perspective via several disciplines, there are certain methods the study has utilized to better understand America. Such methods as myth and symbol, contextualism and engaging in one discipline have been established for deciphering text, finding themes, and deconstructing groups. These theories, which have been useful in many ways, have been criticized for their limitations. Critics do agree that there are certain attributes to the methods used in the American studies, however using them as a basis for all scholarship has its concerns. Even with the validity of the methods, they have a narrow perspective, …show more content…
The concern with myth and symbol is that it is a generalization that one viewpoint fits everyone in society. The method gives the perception that what one group values, all others must value also. This idea is limiting in its scope for American populations because not everyone sees the nation from the same angle. Bruce Kuklick remarked on this method that, “we need only remember that many people live in a country and that attribution of motives to all of them require extensive evidence”(Kuklick 82). In order to discover what makes America grasp on to certain ideals, diverse methods need to meet the diverse makeup of the nation. Literature and historical documents usually applied to a univocal group and that group was the elite, white American. Nash himself realized the limiting aspects of specific methods in discussing contextualism in the works of Mark Twain. The author in his article Can “American Studies” Develop a Method?, found that interpreting context from limited literary works only looked at the author’s frame of reference. Mark Twain, although an excellent writer,