Introduction

Thomas D. Clark

From colonial times to the present, generations of Americans have viewed this country as a land of opportunity, where everyone, without regard to family, race or class, could attain success. This myth-the myth of the self made “man”-has been a central image in the American dream. It is evident as clearly in Cotton Mather’s claim that, “Obscure mechanics and husbandmen have risen to estates, of which they once had not the most distant expectations,”’ as in Jimmy Carter’s autobiography, Why Not the Best 22, in which he describes his initiative and moral character in returning in 1954 to Plains, Georgia, where he worked long and hard to build his peanut and fertilizing business from a two-hundred dollar endeavor into a million dollar enterprise in only ten years. Yet for neither Mather nor Carter nor the great majority of America’s success philosophers has wealth been regarded as an end in itself. Rather it has been viewed as a reward for grit and pluck or moral resolution. And in some versions of the myth, “success” has been defined in spiritual rather than material terms. Indeed, it seems likely that the myth of the self-made man has remained central to American thought because it has absorbed three often conflicting imperatives: an economic imperative, a moral imperative and a spiritual imperative. And the peculiar blend of values this concept has encompassed has led to some intriguing contradictions in the American psyche. While entrepreneurs have been condemned for sharp business practices, they also have been admired for their singlemindedness and drive, and praised if they used at least some of their ill-gotten wealth for public benefit. Similarly, a number of success philosophers have confessed to admiring the rich, but oddly enough, not their children. Russell Conwell, for example, maintained that the children of the rich, sheltered by their mothers from the rough and tumble world of the self-reliant, often failed because they lacked the discipline, drive, canniness and compassion that attendance at the “school of hard knocks” instills in its most successful graduates.3

Although interpretations differ of what means should be used to attain success and what ends constitute success, the self-improvement philosophies share a common premise: that all Americans have control over their personal destinies. Self-discipline is regarded as essential to the achievement of material, moral and spiritual excellence; conversely, failure implies a lack of talent, initiative, perseverance and self-denial. Indeed, the very words “gospel of success” suggest that the inability to improve oneself is akin to personal sin and personal failure. And as many American novelists and social critics have argued, such a highly individualistic standard of judgment predisposes those who are not successful to become isolated in American society and alienated from it.

Nonetheless, although sociological data indicate that relatively few have experienced rapid upward mobility in American society, the ideal of unlimited opportunity has survived. As a case in point, S.J. Kleinberg

1

2 ONWARD AND UPWARD

demonstrates how blue collar workers have modified their definitions of success to accommodate the lockstep of their lives to the rags-to-riches ideal. Similarly, John Cawelti demonstrates how the “greening of America” in the 1960s led not to an abandonment of the ideals of self improvement, but rather to changes in definitions of successful living. Thus, the American dream, based on future hopes as well as present realities, lives on, even though definitions of what constitutes success are in constant flux.

A highly resilient and influential ideal, the success ethic is reflected in such a broad range of materials that it is impossible, as Cawelti points out, for any work “to survey extensively the vast range of materials in which the theme of self-impr~vement”~ is a significant element. This anthology, while not comprehensive, takes an interdisciplinary view of the rags-to-riches ideal and helps broaden our understanding of the “up by the bootstraps” perspective. Scholars from the fields of sociology, rhetoric, popular culture, psychology, history and literature examine a number of important representations of the success tradition. Elbert Hubbard, Sarah Bolton, Richard Nixon and Al Capone take their places beside Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Carnegie, Russell Conwell and Bruce Barton, other well-known “apostles of success.” In addition, popular turn of the century books including the McGuffey Readers, the Horatio Alger novels, and the Baseball Joe series, as well as contemporary works such as Ragtime, Passages, Winning Through Intimidation, The Watergate tapes, and Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance are analyzed. The twelve essays are divided, somewhat arbitrarily, into five sections, each of which is preceded by a brief introductory note.

The Spring Conference of the 1977 Ohio-Indiana chapter of the American Studies Association provided the occasion which produced ten of the twelve original essays which make up this book-a unique exchange among scholars of many disciplines in pursuit of a common yet elusive quarry. Although each of the essays contributes to our knowledge of the evolution of the concept of the self-made “man” in America, none was required to come to a common judgment or to adopt a uniform style of writing. No definitive answers are offered as to why Americans view success and self-improvement as they do; the contributors present evidence that leads to a number of persuasive answers. Taken together these analyses contribute substantially to an understanding of the American ideal of success.

More people than I can list have assisted me in the editing of this book. Robert Erwin is to be thanked for his suggestion that I undertake this project and for his encouragement throughout the year of its preparation. Ron Carter, Joseph Trimmer, Peter Williams, George Blakey, John Cawelti, Giles Gunn and Stanley Lindberg are among those who served as readers and evaluators of the manuscripts and offered valuable advice for revisions. Alexander Schilt, Donald Fasnacht, William Richardson, Wayne Barker, Howard Gongwer and Thomas J. Thomas of the Indiana University East campus lent substantial assistance in helping organize a conference on the self-made man in America. Janis Turner typed the draft and final version of the manuscript and made numerous corrections, always with a smile. Finally, I thank my wife, Marilyn, whose love and

INTRODUCTION 3

devotion have been invaluable.

Notes

‘Cited in A. Whitney Griswold, “Three Puritans on Prosperity,” New England Quarterly, 7

ZCarter, Why Not the Best? (New York: Bantam Books, 1975). Wonwell, Acres of Diamonds (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Spire Books, 1972), pp. 31-35. ICawelti, Apostles of the Self-Made Man (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965). pp. vii-

(1934), 482.

viii.

Thomas Clark is an assistant professor of English and speech, and director of the American Studies program at the Richmond campus of Indiana University. He has published a variety of studies on revolutionary rhetoric, transcendentalism and contemporary American religious and campaign oratory.