‘Paradoxes of American Individualism’ by Claude S. Fischer argues that American individualism is not egoistic nor asocial, but rather, it is a form of agency, freedom, and voluntarism that is integral to American exceptionalism. Poet Walt Whitman would likely have agreed with Fischer’s notion, as both seem to view America as an idealized, flawless nation superior to all. On the contrary, Langston Hughes held a more realistic perspective and was able to face some problems the American society still suffers from today.

As a non-American, I found both Fischer and Whitman’s writing inaccurate that for a second, I doubted if Fischer’s piece was propaganda material and if Whitman was being ironic. Yet I can see how certain audiences would agree with and celebrate their messages without a second thought- the white, Christian, and lower-middle-class-and-above Americans who take pride in all things American unconditionally. To those, the two pieces would be a massage for their ego, an anthem for their Americanness, and a reinforcement for their belief in American exceptionalism. Both writers intentionally left out the rest of America, the poor, minority, immigrant, and non-Christians America who Hughes spoke for.

Fischer’s logic was loaded with flaws and the evidence he listed was not all sound. He argued that American culture is not essentially individualistic, since according to sociology studies, Americans embrace individualism less than other westerners. It was such a Eurocentric view that played to Fischer’s advantage- non-western cultures are largely collectivistic, and by taking these cultures into account, America surely will land on the more individualistic side of the spectrum. Moreover, the studies he mentioned were cherry-picked and could not represent America as a country. Survey respondents and experiment participants are at least literate and have a fairly decent SES, as many of the surveys were those employed as they probed questions that only happen in the work environment. In addition, though not specified, the religious Americans mentioned were likely Christians judging by Fischer’s description. All the identities and characteristics painted a portrait of privileged Americans, which could not speak for the whole nation, especially not the underprivileged ones who appeared invisible to Fischer. Moreover, Fischer used predominantly self-reported survey responses as evidence to justify his arguments, yet it is a consensus in the research community that respondents are more likely to give socially desirable answers when doing self-report, leading to less valid results. In fact, a more accurate way to gauge how individualistic America is and what American individualism entails is probably by looking at things happening in this country today. It is hard to believe that someone with Fischer’s intelligence and training had all these flaws in his work by accident. To me, ‘Paradoxes of American Individualism’ seems like an uncritical acceptance of American individualism, and sophistry to justify its existence.