Mass Shooting in America (2/2): American Mythical Violence

When it comes to violence, there is something different that sets the United States apart from the rest of the world.
In his masterpiece, Gunfighter Nation, Richard Slotkin says this:

What is distinctly “American” is not necessarily the amount or kind of violence that characterizes our history but the mythic significance we have assigned to the kinds of violence we have actually experienced, the forms of symbolic violence we imagine or invent and the political use to which we put that symbolism. (p.13)

Slotkin sees it as one foundational element of the American narrative, which dates back to the Puritan Era and the Frontier stories of “captivity narrative” and "American hero-as-Indian-fighter".

In political terms, think of the prevalence of the WAR METAPHOR for example. From Johnson’s “War on Poverty”, Ford’s “War on Inflation”, to G.H Bush's "War on Drugs" or G W. Bush's "War on Terror".  American media even talk about the "Cultural War" within the nation.
This may not seem like much, since after all, these are 'just' metaphors. But the war metaphor implies policies that leave no room for compromise, especially in the domain of law and order. War metaphors favor binary views with a threatening Other. It excludes ideas and polarizes. It also makes violence seem like a normal part of life.
It also favors resolution of conflict through violence over, say, diplomacy. Beyond the argument as to whether wars are necessary, it must be noted that the United States has been almost consistently in some kind of war (declared or not) since WWII.

This rhetoric of war finds its roots in the Puritan dogma of absolute good and absolute evil, which tends to rationalize violence. Interestingly, religious rhetoric in U.S. politics today also tends to emphasize the God of the Old Testament, with His wrath and judgement over the Jesus of the New Testament, with His forgiving and somewhat passive attitude.

Violence in America has become mythical (in the sense of 'sacred'), just like guns, because it is seen as a necessary evil. This is clearly visible in popular culture, especially in superhero stories that depict impotent communities requiring an extraordinary outsider to cope with the evils in their midst. The underlying effect is to consider the hero's violence (and therefore ours) benign because it is the response to the apocalyptic fight between good and evil. (see Jewett ,Robert;  Lawrence, John Shelton; Captain America And The Crusade Against Evil: The Dilemma Of Zealous Nationalism)

Of course, I am not saying that superhero stories or war rhetoric should be blamed for the massacre in Colorado. And like the pro-gun people will certainly say, it is not the guns that killed people, but the owner of the gun. Yet, this sacredness of violence, not only in movies, but also in every day language helps create an atmosphere that, in addition to the availability of guns, may make lose canons more likely to see redemption or doom in some kind of mass killings. This is after all what he has been exposed to all his life.

Despite knowing little of the killer's motivation, I find it very perplexing that he should have claimed to be "the Joker".

There is probably no short term solution. I am certainly not advocating for censorship. But maybe this great nation should have a conversation about the meaning of violence.




Maybe, the negative consequences of violence should be also shown or talked about more. Maybe people should be less accepting of vigilantes like Zimmerman. Maybe, the violent past should be less mythified, and past wars (even WWII) less glorified.
Maybe people should be less shocked about sex and more about violence when it comes to kids.

And maybe young parents should not take their infants or babies to see Batman past midnight (or any other time for that matter.), and maybe they wouldn't if the consequences of exposing young kids to violent images was frowned upon or at least talked about at a national level.

NOTE: I was glad that I was not the only one baffled by the fact that some (young) parents apparently took their infants and babies to see Batman, given the violence of the movie.
Last night, NBC newsman Brian Williams asked a relevant question
 "A whole lot of parents woke up this morning across the country and said "what were young kids doing at that movie, at that hour in that theater?".
Here's what Ann Curry responded:
"I think the answer to that is something we all really know the answer to. and that is that parents, especially young parents need a break, like everyone else. So they were going because they heard so much about this movie  and everyone was so excited to see and it was just an opportunity for them to be together, to have a family moment."
An opportunity for them to be together"? Seriously?

Sacred Freedom, Sacred Ground.

In both France and the United-States, freedom of speech is a constitutional right. In France it is guaranteed by the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen which has constitutional value and in the U.S. it is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution. In both countries there are also some restrictions to freedom of speech: in France, for instance, denying the Holocaust is prohibited by the law and in the United-States, falsely yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is illegal, and these are only two instances.

But the United-States has a looser understanding of free speech than the rest of the Western World. Certain forms of hate speech are tolerated.

For instance, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that an anti-gay church has the right to picket military funerals, even though it may cause emotional distress to the families of the dead soldiers. (BBC news). It may be immoral and disturbing but it is still coherent with the way Americans value free speech.

So it was all the more surprising to read this piece of news:

A group of friends went to the Jefferson Memorial to commemorate the president's 265th birthday by dancing silently while listening to music on headphones. Park Police ordered the revelers to disperse and arrested them when they did not. The dancers sued on free speech grounds, but the appeals court ruled last week that their conduct was indeed prohibited "because it stands out as a type of performance, creating its own center of attention and distracting from the atmosphere of solemn commemoration" that Park Service regulations are designed to preserve. (Huffington Post, WP)

How can the solemnity of a monument be more sacred than that of the funeral of an American soldier who just died for his nation?

Apparently the sacredness of the space supersedes freedom of speech :

"A prohibition on expressive activities in a nonpublic forum does not violate the First Amendment if it is viewpoint neutral and is 'reasonable in light of the use to which the forum is dedicated,'" said the Judge, and "expressive dancing” does constitute an act that undermines "an atmosphere of calm, tranquility, and reverence" at the memorial.

And in an odd footnote that demonstrates the speciousness of the argument rather than its reasoning, the court added that Jefferson "discouraged celebrations of his birthday" (WSJ) 
Well, OK then.

Of course the court’s decision simply motivated more people to go to the Jefferson Memorial and because we are in the age of instant video, the arrest of the dancers was filmed and the video went viral. The arrest itself caused a larger disturbance than the dancers themselves who were, at least in the first instance, dancing in silence. The court’s decision only aggravated the matter.

Watch :

So how does one make sense of any of this? If we want to even begin to understand what this means, we should probably keep in mind that the Jefferson Memorial is not a simple monument but that it serves the function of a modern religious temple devoted to the Civil Religion (Belah) of the nation.

Visit Washington D.C. and you'll see that the monuments and memorials devoted to the Founding Fathers are modeled after Greek or Roman temples: the Lincoln Memorial and the Jefferson Memorial are the most obvious examples. Walk into the former and you’re immediately struck by the size of the statue which is not unlike those found in religious temples in ancient Greece. In the National Museum of American History in DC you can even see a statue of George Washington modeled after the great statue of Zeus Olympios, one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. Temples, according to mythologist Mircea Eliade, house the gods and give us a sense of the sacred in our world. The architects on the national mall knew this well and built sacred temples in which to honor those gods who built the nation: a creation myth.

The idea of myth here does not reflect the idea of something false, as it often does in today's parlance, but a story of the origin which has become sacred. Myths are stories we tell ourselves in an attempt to ascribe meaning to the world. One of the most powerful forms of myth is the creation story, which tells a story of our earliest beginnings. Every society has its creation myth and all are concerned with fundamental rather than historical truths. In the case of national myths, the creation myth represents in narrative form the founding of a nation. (see Robert Segal, Mircea Eliade). Rome had the myth of Romulus and Remus, France has the French Revolution and the US has the American Revolution.

The American narrative of the origins has all of the essential features found in myth: a sacred time which is the time of origins (the American Revolution), a sacred text (the US Constitution), nearly divine demigod heroes (The Founding Fathers), rituals (4th of July, Presidential Inaugurals, etc..) and sacred places, which can take the form of temples.

There are other national myths specific to the US as well (Manifest Destiny, self-reliance, the American Dream) but the story of the founding of the US is deeply felt. So keep this in mind the next time you intend to exercise your right to freedom of speech in the US:  one can dance on graves but not at the feet of the gods.

Obama's Exceptionalism.

"For generations, the United States of America has played a unique role as an anchor of global security and as an advocate for human freedom.

(…/…)

To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and -– more profoundly -– our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. "
From President Obama's Address to the Nation on Libya, March 28, 2011.

Despite what some conservatives may have said in the past, the fact that President Obama’s remarks on the US intervention in Libya smacks of AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM is no surprise and it has been noted by many commentators, including conservative pundit Billl Kristol (see here and here)

Of course, American Exceptionalism has been one of the tenets of the American national narrative since the Revolution,. It may have taken different forms and shapes from “the shining city on a hill”, to the “Manifest destiny”, the Frontier and the American Dream, but it has always been how the Americans have envisioned their nation.

As many of his predecessors, the president linked might (“the world’s more powerful nation”, “our strength abroad (….) at home”) with right and responsibility (“our responsibilities to our fellow humans”), thus offering a new version of the “white man’s burden”.

History itself seems to dictate action (“with the course of history poses challenges”) but the past not only justifies US action in Libya today but it also serves to limit its role (“we went down that road in Iraq (…)something we can afford to repeat in Libya”).

However, if Obama uses a traditional national rhetoric, his Exceptionalism is different from more conservative presidents in that not only does he emphasize cooperation with other countries, but he also shows a very humble facet of American leadership (“The United States will not be able to dictate the pace and scope of this change”) and justifies action with defending international institutions (“The writ of the United Nations Security Council would have been shown to be little more than empty words, crippling that institution’s future credibility to uphold global peace and security.”)

In his speech, Obama clearly stated his doctrine for US intervention abroad when the US is not directly threatened:

- humanitarian reasons, (“responding to natural disasters, for example; or preventing genocide and keeping the peace”)

- regional security,

- maintaining the flow of commerce (something that would not never be used in French presidential discourse)

Interestingly to this blog is that France is the other country in the front seat of the coalition against Gaddafi. The Sarkozy government has pushed for a motion in the Security Council of the United Nations to impose a “no-fly zone” over Libya and French planes have played a crucial role in bombing Gaddafi's forces.

So how do the French see their role in this war? Well, France also justifies its action by its Exceptionalism.

As Steven Erlanger reminded us in the NYTimes:

France had “decided to assume its role, its role before history” in stopping Colonel Qaddafi’s “murderous madness,” Mr. Sarkozy said solemnly on Saturday, standing alone before the television cameras and pleasing those here who still have a strong sense of French Exceptionalism and moral leadership.

And indeed there is a wide consensus in France from the left to the right. Of course one can easily see ulterior political motive for the French president – a foreign military venture may help his popularity and unite the French people behind him.

But if the French should so easily rally round the chief in this war, it is because it has been justified on humanitarian ground precisely because they believe they have a “special role to play”. The French people are proud to have given the world the Declaration of the Rights of Man and their politicians commonly call their nation “the country of human rights” (“le pays des droits de l’homme”).

Like the United States, modern France was born out of a Revolution with universal claims of freedom, and its Exceptionalism is based on the intellectual tradition of French republicanism, and its democratic and egalitarian principles of citizenship.

As The Economist concluded a few years back :

Born of revolutions, America and France each established republics inspired by Enlightenment thinking, and based on freedom and individual rights. Within the same year, 1789, both the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the American Bill of Rights were drafted.

Above all, each nation believed in the universalism of its model—the Americans stressing liberty, the French civilisation—and shared an ambition to spread it abroad. The conviction among the French elite that France represents an alternative to the American way runs deep. It forms part of the national mythology that has helped to shore up French pride. And it explains why the French so readily pick on America at times of self-doubt. (The Economist)

The most virulent supporter of French Exceptionalism in modern French history was no doubt Charles De Gaulle who famously claimed : "Il y a un pacte vingt fois séculaire entre la grandeur de la France et la liberté du monde." (“There exists an immemorial covenant between the grandeur of France and the freedom of the world.”) and very telling these words are inscribed on the base of his statue on the Champs Elysees.

So I would agree very much with what Obama said in 2009 when asked about American Exceptionalism :

I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.

(…)

Now, the fact that I am very proud of my country and I think that we've got a whole lot to offer the world does not lessen my interest in recognizing the value and wonderful qualities of other countries, or recognizing that we're not always going to be right, or that other people may have good ideas, or that in order for us to work collectively, all parties have to compromise and that includes us. (Time)

In other words, a country’s Exceptionalism should not have to be believed at the expense of the uniqueness of other nations – in some ways, the basis of nationalism in ever country is its belief in its unique destiny but what makes France and the U.S. so different is their belief that each is the role model for other nations to follow.

Obama's National Narrative in His State of the Union Address.

The States of the Union address is fascinating to anyone interested in the use of national myths. It is a uniquely presidential genre in which the president is given the opportunity to present his political agenda but also to reconstruct the past in order to forge the future, and thus taking the role of a national historian.
Its annual delivery before Congress is not a requirement of the Constitution – which only asks the president to inform Congress from “time to time” about the “State of the Union”. It is the result of custom and tradition.
My approach here is to consider precisely not what is political in presidential speeches but what is "American".

One of the reasons the State of the Union address has become an institution over the years is that it meets a very American concern – namely the need of a diverse nation for UNITY. After all, George Washington himself already warned against the danger of division, and whether it is sectionalism, slavery, the Civil War, the Civil Rights, different religions , ethnic diversity or the shooting in Tucson, the fear of division has always haunted American presidents.


That is why the NATION AS A FAMILY used by Barak Obama at the beginning of his speech (“We are part of the American family”, “American Muslims are a part of our American family”) is a very relevant metaphor which has been used since the Revolutionary era (Marienstras). In addition to reassuring American about their quarrels, it also reinforces the ties of the people to the nation by adding an organic component to the original contract around which the nation is built (“the rights enshrined in our Constitution”). (Stuckey).
The nation is thus guaranteed by both the “law of nature” (the American family) and will (the Contract, i.e. the Constitution). What makes the American nation specific is that it is not based on an ethnic group, a language or for its first 100 years on a fixed territory. The American nation is “the first nation to be founded on an idea”, says Obama because the unity of the nation has to be about “something greater” which can never die or disappear, like an idea (“The idea of America endures”).

THE RAGS TO RICHES MYTH

So what is this “idea of America”? It is in part constituted by the AMERICAN DREAM (the word “dream” is mentioned 12 times) which is about material success or at least the opportunity for material success ( “turning a good idea into a thriving enterprise”). As president Obama reminded his audience, he is himself the incarnation of that dream (“That dream is why I can stand here before you tonight”) along with the Vice president (“a working class kid from Scranton”) and the Speaker of the House (“someone who began by sweeping the floors of his father’s Cincinnati”).
The success of the nation is understood first and foremost in economic terms:
"America still has the largest, most prosperous economy in the world. No workers are more productive than ours. No country has more successful companies, or grants more patents to inventors and entrepreneurs”

That is why the goal of the nation is “to make America the best place on Earth to do business.”

This view reveals a distinct feature of the American nation – its unity around the idea of economic prosperity which has existed since its very foundation (after all, the Revolution began with a revolt against the Stamp Act). The term “American Dream” itself was only coined in 1931 but the idea had been there in different forms, including with the Frontier where the adventurous spirit expanded an enterprising nation and its market economy (Stuckey).

It has also had the great advantage of making class or ethnic conflicts less relevant. What may often be seen as a selfish goal in Europe - material wealth - becomes the patriotic duty of all Americans since even president asks the American people to “make America a better place to do business and create jobs”
Material success is what makes you a true American – it even has redeeming power and it can even supersede the “rule of law” by making even illegal immigrants worthy of being members of the American family: “let’s stop expelling talented, responsible young people who can staff our research labs, start new businesses, and further enrich this nation”. This is of course a contentious point but it is interesting that the framing of the justification for legalizing undocumented immigrants should not be based on humanitarian grounds, but on material success.

HARD WORK AND SACRIFICE

This emphasis on material success is often misunderstood by Europeans who cynically associate it with greed and a-morality (if not immorality), but it is part of a coherent and moral system.
In the American psyche material success is moral because it is the result of hard work and sacrifices (“the hard work and industry of our people is rewarded”). The American Dream “has required each generation to sacrifice, and struggle, and meet the demands of a new age.”. Sacrifice is a biblical archetype that was at the center of the Puritan ideal and it has been written into the American civil religion (Bellah).

This is also the way president Obama morally justifies the government cuts needed to reduce the deficit: “Every day, families sacrifice to live within their means. They deserve a government that does the same.”. By definition, sacrifice needs to be hard and difficult and so it will require “painful cuts” (“Already, we have frozen the salaries of hardworking federal employees”) and it is also morally right because it is about self-discipline.
This is a return to the traditional Protestant Ethic that considers excess (likened to gluttony) morally wrong and restraint morally good (Max Weber) - a fascinating paradox of American society where more is often better - so Obama’s government cuts have to be about “excess weight” and “excessive spending”. In effect prosperity is supposed to be the result of discipline and hard work which makes it moral. (Lakoff, The Political Mind).
(Think of the self-help books which all have this underlying theme -that redemption and success come from self-discipline or why taking drugs or smoking or drinking is so frown upon).It is also a theme developed by Max Weber pointed out in his "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism".



But of course, the greatest sacrifice for the nation is that of “the men and women who serve” it. (t but here are very few references in this speech to the military and the war other than to illustrate the unity in diversity).


THE FRONTIER MYTH

Those people who serve the nation abroad are “heroic” and one of the characteristic of the American hero is that he or she is an ordinary person.
This is why many presidential speeches have been recently punctuated by the illustration of stories of regular Americans who become elevated to role models because of their character, their hard work or their hardship; and who ultimately prevailed (“Robert and Gary Allen who run a small Michigan roofing company”; “Kathy Proctor , mother of two” who “worked in the furniture industry since she was 18 years old”). Just like superheroes of the comics, what makes them heroic is not their powers (the villain also has powers) but their action and character: “From the earliest days of our founding, America has been the story of ordinary people who dare to dream.”.

Whereas yesterday’s national heroes were Jefferson’s yeoman farmer or Jackson’s frontiersman, today’s hero is the economic pioneer: the “Edison and Wright brothers” of our time, who founded “Google and Facebook”. Under different forms, it is in fact the same tale of the Frontier Myth – of “centuries of pioneers and immigrants [who] have risked everything to come here.”, and president Obama clearly links today’s challenges to yesterday’s in his “Sputnik moment” remark (“This is our generation’s Sputnik moment.”). This is not only a reference to Eisenhower’s response to the Soviet’s Space Race but it also embraces Kennedy’s rhetoric of the New Frontier and so Obama links today’s investment in “clean energy” to yesterdays’ funding of “the Apollo Project”. In the same way, he links today’s investments in “high-speed wireless” and “high-speed rail” to yesterday’s “transcontinental railroad” and “interstate highway”. This is typical of a State of the Union Address in that the past is used to talk about the future, thus reassuring Americans about policies by linking them to long held traditions and in this case, to the Frontier myth which appeals to all Americans.

THE FUTURE IS OURS TO WIN.

This New Frontier myth is also the general frame behind one of the most important themes of Obama’s State of the Union Address – the reinvention of the self.

“In Robert’s words, ‘We reinvented ourselves.’ That’s what Americans have done for over two hundred years: reinvented ourselves.”.

This is of course part of one of the most important founding myths of the American nation – the myth of creation and new beginnings, the permanent ‘Novus ordo seclorum’ of the U.S. Great Seal. (Marienstras). In America reinventing oneself is celebrated and extolled.(Lakoff) and Obama’s speech is a case in point. Re-invention is based on change and innovation. (“Our success in this new and changing world will require reform, responsibility, and innovation”; “In America, innovation doesn’t just change our lives. It’s how we make a living.”). But of course, new beginnings require a change from the past, however painful: “We cannot win the future with a government of the past”.

There are 10 occurrences of the word “future” in Obama’s speech vs. only two of the word “past” (which are negatively connoted).
The American national rhetoric is typically about embracing the future but also about the idea that the future is good because it is free and for everyone to “win” which implies the belief in the control of our destiny. (“Our destiny remains our choice”). And this is also at the core of the “American idea” and the American Dream – “the idea that each of us deserves the chance to shape our own destiny”, and the American nation is indeed a nation of "voluntarists" (Marienstras) but the ideological assumption is therefore that individuals are responsible for their economic fate and that those fates are indicators of talent and character (Stuckey), and personal responsibility is a universal value: “Around the globe, we are standing with those who take responsibility”.

This confidence in the future is reinforced by the many movement and space metaphors. Movement and journey metaphors are very common not only in political discourse but also in everyday discourse (Chilton), but they are particularly relevant in American presidential speech.
In Obama’s state of the Union Address we have a great number of metaphors about MOVING FORWARD which illustrate the idea that action in the present can shape the future which gives meaning to politics :
“What comes of this moment is up to us”; “will move forward together”; “I ask Congress to go further”, “Now, the final step – a critical step – in winning”; “we have made great strides over the last two years”; “It is time to move forward as one nation”;” I challenge you to join me in setting a new goal”; “the work ahead of us”; “hopeful, our journey goes forward,”
Even if Obama acknowledges that “for many, the change has been painful.” (and “many” means not all), and even if it may seem unfair, (“the rules have been changed in the middle of the game”), change is still mostly viewed positively (“In a single generation, revolutions in technology have transformed the way we live, work and do business. Today, just about any company can set up shop, hire workers, and sell their products wherever there’s an internet connection.”) and change is incarnated by “the fastest, most reliable ways to move people, goods, and information – from high-speed rail to high-speed internet.”.

LIFE IS A RACE

The beliefs that change is good and that we can control our destiny serve to boost confidence and morale. It also creates a narrative in which the rhetoric of competition becomes coherent and can be easily accepted and embraced. This is a view of the world that is distinctively American: life is a race which ought to be won.
The words “win”, “winning”, “winner” or “race” actually appear 20 times in president Obama’s speech. It starts with kids in school, with the “education race” and the need to win “the race to educate our kids” and very tellingly, the government program of investment in schools is called “Race to the Top”. So for president Obama, not only is competition a good thing, but it should also be celebrated and taught to kids (“we need to teach our kids that it’s not just the winner of the Super Bowl who deserves to be celebrated, but the winner of the science fair.”).
This may seem like a more conservative value as it assumes that competition is crucial because it builds discipline and character, but it must be kept in mind that competitive sports are very central to the American way of life anyway and competition is something most Americans are very comfortable with.

Politically, this narrative re frames the role of government into that of empowerment rather than support or redistribution (which would be a socialist view). In other words, if the government takes the role of a parent, it is not the nurturing role of the “nanny state” but the more masculine role of a “builder”, “investor” (“with the help of government loan”) and competitor since the entire world is in a race : after all, China and India could “compete in this new world.”
This is also why the laissez-faire economy is so much at the core of the American narrative, beyond the ideological differences between Democrats and Republicans. Government regulation should not be “barriers that stand in the way of success” or “unnecessary burden on businesses” and thus one must “reduce barriers to growth and investment”.
But the Democratic president has to walk a fine line as this is also about his political agenda he endorses the role of protection of the government (his new health-care program is its best illustration) and he won’t hesitate to “create or enforce commonsense safeguards to protect the American people.”. But he immediately reassures his audience by linking it to the past – making it an American tradition (“That’s what we’ve done in this country for more than a century.”), and by limiting it to the correcting of abuses by greedy agents in the system (the “credit card companies” or the “health insurance industry” which should be prevented “from exploiting patients”) and to common sense notions widely shared by American people (“speed limits and child labor laws”).

EXEPTIONALISM.

If competition is a natural law, it is also a reality in the world and it thus becomes a patriotic duty not only to do your best, but to be THE best.
“We know what it takes to compete for the jobs and industries of our time. We need to out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world. We have to make America the best place on Earth to do business. We need to take responsibility for our deficit, and reform our government. That’s how our people will prosper.”.
This is why the use of superlatives and comparative is so important – because America has “the largest, most prosperous economy in the world”, because “No workers are more productive than ours. No country has more successful companies, or grants more patents to inventors and entrepreneurs.”, because it has “the world’s best colleges and universities, where more students come to study than any other place on Earth”, and because “there isn’t a person here who would trade places with any other nation on Earth.” the nation can look to the future with confidence.

One of the reasons why this ambitious goal is not so much a cause of anxiety is that the narrative is built upon making past experiences (the Frontier, the American Dream or the “Space Race” - which is assumed to have been won.) the posteriori knowledge of the future (Twings).
It also brings confidence by making the future dependent on the intrinsic qualities of the American people, their unity (“it is because of our people that our future is hopeful, our journey goes forward, and the state of our union is strong.”), hard work and discipline (“success is not a function of fame or PR, but of hard work and discipline.”) which have built the American character. Finally, it is the enduring belief that the U.S. is the “greatest nation on Earth” and a “light to the world” that makes the prospect of winning the competition for the future within reach. This is of course reminiscent of the biblical archetype of the Manifest Destiny of the Chosen People so prevalent in 19th century narrative to justify western expansion. The narrative is now about the New Frontier, the economic Frontier.

Guns, an American National Myth.

"Every country has people with mental problems but not every country gives those people such easy access to guns, yet it seems it is almost outside the possible realm of discussion here [in the U.S.]".

This comment by a BBC journalist reflects pretty much how Europeans (and possibly the world) view last week's shooting in Tucson.

Gun culture in the United-States is probably the hardest thing for Europeans (or for that matter probably the rest of the world) to even begin to fathom. How to explain that?

It seems to me that this is in part the result of the pervasive influence of the Frontier Myth in American culture and politics. (Richard Slotkin's Gunfighter Nation: the Myth of the Frontier in 20th century America" offers a remarkable study of this phenomenon.).
The prevalence of this myth has many consequences, one of which is the idea that violence is the (manly) way to solve problems compared to (weak female-like) discussion or 'diplomacy'. In fact, if you carefully study political discourse, including presidential speech, you realize that this is very much the narrative of most presidents, who use this sort of rhetoric to justify wars.

So in fact gun culture is very much part of the national narrative. Yet, one can also argue that it is even more at the center of conservative ideology which tends to emphasize traditional masculine virtues of strength and the protection of women, children and property by use of force versus the feminized view of cooperation (i.e. like calling the police) so it is no surprise that Republicans should be overwhelmingly against gun control (see this gallup poll).
According to the Pew Reasearch Center survey director Scott Keeter :
"There is a very large partisan divide on the issue, with 70% of Republicans but only 30% of Democrats saying it's more important to protect the rights of gun owners than to control gun ownership"

The difficulty with national myths is that they are so ingrained that it is almost impossible for most people to think outside their frames. It is very much like the way French see their language or their relation to government. It is beyond reason for most people because it is at the core of national identities and thinking outside the national frame takes time and effort.

But still, being hard does not mean we should not try, and it might be helpful to see how people outside, our nations, people who did not grow up with the same myths, see what we do and how we think.

In the case of the United-States, what makes it even harder for a lot of Americans to challenge their national myths about gun is that the right to bear arms is in Constitution (a sacred national text, if any):

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Of course, this was written when a stay-at-home militia was necessary to perform the role of police to keep order or to help the Continental Army defeat the British, before the United-States had a string military of its own.
Many conservatives have put forward the argument that the right to bear arms is indeed about preventing 'tyranny.' As a matter of fact (conservative) Supreme Court Justice Scalia himself has used this argument in "District of Columbia Vs. Heller".

This may have made sense in 1791 but who in their right mind would think that civilians with guns could fight the U.S. army if case of a tyrannical government?
As Rachel Maddow put it this week, we may as well make machine guns, mortars, cannons, anti-tank guns available to civilians then if we want to be able to defeat the military and overthrow a potential tyrannical government.
A lot of Americans also buy guns for self-protection but on the same show, Maddow exemplified why more guns does not necessarily mean better protection : an armed bystander at the Tuscon shooting almost shot the hero that disarmed the shooter :

"I saw another individual holding the firearm. I kind of assumed he was the shooter. So I grabbed his wrist and you know told him to drop it and forced him to drop the gun on the ground. When he did that, everybody says, no, no, it's this guy." (Rawstory)

The last point one cannot ignore is that it is also about politics and the NRA(National Rifle Association) is (along with AIPAC) one of the most powerful and active lobbies in Washington. According to Scott Keeter

"even in years when there was more public support for gun control than there is now, legislative action on the issue often responded more to opponents of gun control. One reason may be that relatively few elected officials, especially in recent years, have spoken out strongly in favor of gun control, leaving the issue to be defined mostly by opponents." (WP)

The U.S. is the most armed country in the world, according to a 2007 study. In 2004, about 25% of all adults, and 40 % of American households, owned at least one firearm. And of course, most homicides being commited by firearms, it is no surprise that the U.S. homicide rate, even with years of decline, is the highest in the industrialized world with about 5 per 100,000 people, over 3 times the the average rate in Western Europe (1.5) and France (1.6). (Wiki)

It makes sense. After all, it is a lot easier to kill someone by pulling the trigger than by using a knife.

Homicide rate in the world.