The word “American” sounds ordinary until scholars ask what it includes—and what it leaves out.
A Useful Name or a Limiting One?
For decades, many scholars defended “American studies” as a practical name for a field focused on the United States. Janice Radway, Wai Chee Dimmock, and Heinz Ickstadt each argued in different ways that the term remained meaningful, even if it imposed boundaries on the questions scholars asked.
The name creates a recognizable subject. It helps organize research on American literature, history, society, and culture, while connecting work across disciplines.
The Weight of the Adjective
Critics argue that “American” can imply a unified national culture that does not exist. It may also carry colonial associations, especially when English-language texts and dominant demographic groups are treated as the unmarked or “unhyphenated” norm. Other communities then appear as qualified versions of the national identity: African American, Asian American, or Latino.
Jeffrey Herlihy-Mera proposed more descriptive alternatives, such as referring to spaces claimed by the political body and the people living within them. Markha Valenta went further, suggesting that scholars consider abandoning “America” as the field’s identifier.
A Name Under Examination
The debate is not merely linguistic. Naming determines what counts as evidence, whose experiences seem central, and whether the United States is treated as a stable object or a contested political construction.
The field’s enduring question is therefore also its most basic: can a discipline study American power without allowing the word “American” to dictate the boundaries of the study?