Les Jones

Critique of Rifkin’s “The European Dream”

Friday, June 17th, 2005 | European Union |

James Bennett reviews Jeremy Rifkin’s The European Dream: How Europe’s Vision of the Future is Quietly Eclipsing the American Dream.

Rifkin’s book is a strange duck. It initially seems to offer a conventional example of the second Europeanist position. And in fact, it does include the standard Euro-critiques of the American socio-economic approach: prisons, McJobs, consumerism and so on. As usual, these arguments are used to fill in the argumentative gaps created by the shortcomings of actual, existing Europe, as opposed to the theoretically ever-more-efficient Europe beloved of the Wall Street Journal and the Economist.

Layered underneath these fairly standard approaches, however, is a deeper and more philosophical level of argument than Europeanists usually present. Rifkin argues that the European approach (The European Dream of his title) is precisely the abnegation of traditional progressivism in its most fundamental sense: the belief in the desirability of material and scientific progress, and the individual identity and freedom that accompany it. Thus, Rifkin’s is a two-level critique of America contrasted with virtuous Europe. First, he asserts that Europe is surpassing America on the conventional criteria of prosperity. But he then adds that where economic success is absent in Europe, that’s okay too, because progress is bad for you anyway.

[...]

At this point one must turn to the underlying level of Rifkin’s critique, that of the entire complex of ideas of autonomous individuals with enforceable constitutional rights. In essence, Rifkin is saying “Okay, perhaps United Europe will after all be poor and strife-ridden. But at least you will lose your freedom and individualism in the bargain.”

1 Comment to Critique of Rifkin’s “The European Dream”

Dave Justus
June 17, 2005

Interestingly enough, I have never seen anyone feel the need to defend the American Dream or explain why it is a good thing. People differ on how to get there, but the idea itself seems to require no defense.

I would guess if you have to write a book to explain why an alternate dream is better, you have already lost the debate.

Leave a comment