How do oppressed minorities bear on the question of American exceptionalism?

A Critique of American Exceptionalism in Contemporary Orientalist Studies and International Relations

            Americans tend to revolve around the idea that their nation is superior to everyone else. The general notion of American expectionalism has become embedded in our culture and attitude regarding the rest of the world. We see our way of life as the only plausible one; other countries that don’t follow our model of government or have cultural differences are viewed as inferior. If they don’t conform, like the many nations that show resentment or opposition to American world order, then they are met with animosity. This is specifically true in the context of the America’s representation of the Arab world. In the book, “Orientalism”, Edward Said, a Christian-Palestinian American, explicates the underlying assumptions the western world has towards the Middle East. At a very fundamental level, “Orientalism” is a critique of western epistemology. But Orientalism the way Said identifies it can be attributed to America’s exceptionalist attitude it chooses to take regarding the Middle East and the rest of the world. It goes on to explain how we view the Arab world as barbaric, inferiors, and are constantly attempting to take interventionist policies in the region to conform them to the United Studies supposed utopian government system of free-market capitalism and democracy. Intellectuals must problematize America’s orientalist outlook towards the Arab world shaped by exceptionalist justifications, and understand that exceptionalism oppresses the minority voice of the international community.

            To strive to be the best nation possible and become that “city on the hill” that Winthrop speaks of is not inherently wrong; it’s the idea that we have the need to impose our ideals upon other nations simply because we are exceptional. There is “a profound difference between the will to understand for purposes of coexistence… and the will to dominate” (Said xix). America has the idea that our model of government is right, and anyone else who has another system is outright wrong and must be reformed; this unfortunately shapes the black-and-white dichotomy of American politics, creating “ polarizations like ‘Islam v. the West’” (Said xxiii). For example, nations such as the United Kingdom or Israel fit our mold for a westernized society so they are viewed as our allies, or the “good guys”. Nations like Iran who oppose American world order and have a very different regime as well as way of life that westerners don’t quite understand are considered our “enemies”. American exceptionalism simply means we cannot accept difference. Our leaders feel as if the ideals of America must be imposed upon every nation, as if we have found the ideal model. The book “The End of History and the Last Man” by Francis Fukuyama is an example of this type of rhetoric; Fukuyama depicts American’s Western liberal democracy as the endpoint of humanity’s search for the ideal government. He cites the same principles of westernized democratic promotion politicians use today. The United States fails to understand “notions as modernity, enlightenment, and democracy are by no means simple and agreed-upon concepts” (Said xix). Governments who choose any alternate system are considered “backward”, a result of the United States not tolerating any regime outside their "exceptional" model. 

            America’s attempts to reform other nations and cultures to fit their “exceptional” mold often times result in atrocities of horrendous proportions that go ignored simply because of our orientalist outlook. Policymakers attempt to “impose [their] own forms of life for these lesser people to follow” (Said xviii). This results in “massive and calculatedly aggressive… attack on the contemporary societies of the Arab and Muslim for their backwardness” (Said xix). Empiricism of America’s interventionist policies in the Middle East make this very evident; Iraq was a war claimed to spread “freedom and democracy” for the Orient, and a similar justification is used for our actions regarding Afghanistan. Said indicates that “Orientalists who betrayed their calling as scholars… helped the American [war] hawks think about such preposterous phenomena… as Islamic decline that only American power could reverse” (Said xx) These wars are a product of American exceptionalism, and lead to the mass death of thousands through horrors such as drone strikes on civilians, simply because we are incapable of tolerating difference. Humanitarian violations in institutions such as Guantanamo Bay go unquestioned by the political elite.  How far should America go in its attempt to reform the rest of the world to its westernized way of life? It is by no means ethical to say that peoples of different cultural backgrounds like Arabs are disposable simply because “people over there [are] not like ‘us’ and [don't] appreciate ‘our’ values” (Said xx).

            American exceptionalism results in Said’s notion of Orientalism, a justification to view the Arab world, as well as any nation that has reformed to the ways of the Occident or the west, as inferiors. Without “orientalist dogma… there would have been no war” (xx), especially in the context of theaters of conflict like the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Just like the way Hawthorne depicts the Puritans as intolerable bullies in his novel the “Scarlet Letter”, America is now a power-hungry nation bent on reforming the rest of the world to its way of life simply because it views itself as exceptional. Militaristic policies will continue to plague the minorities of the international community as long as they don’t fit into America’s “exceptional” utopia.