When James Truslow Adams popularized the term “American dream” in 1931, it was not to label the emergence of the notion that one could achieve prosperity through personal industry but rather to mark that notion’s demise. Ironically, to Adams, this was in part due to legal rather than cultural Americanization; the demise, that is, corresponded to the development of an organized, bureaucratic state that restricted personal liberty. If the American dream was “the hope of a better and freer life, a life in which [one] might think [...] and [develop] as [one] willed,” then it was suppressed by the rise of government-supported corporate monopolies that kept “common” U.S. citizens subservient to “warrior lords” (Adams 22). Moreover, according to Adams, the restricted “dream” was not particularly American. As he writes, the upward mobility narrative was adopted by members of a “vast migration,” “only about one third” of whom “came to our America” (21). By 1930, and the end of his Epic of America, Adams implies that “Coolidge prosperity” had come to mark not a “new era [...] in which we were forever to lift ourselves up by our own bootstraps” but the exchange of an ideal of personal liberty for one of corporate power (313). Notably, Adams implies that both ideals were fantasies: the illusory corporate “prosperity” that led to the 1928 crash is associated with an American dream whose power lay in its resistance to materialization (314). As such, it is a motivating hypothetical, what Hans Vaihinger called in 1911 a “suitable fiction”: an idea that is not strictly “true,” but “must be retained because of [its] utility” (xxxvii). It is in its role as a suitable fiction—one that resists rather than encourages unchecked individual materialism—that the early “American dream” may appear to have much in common with what is frequently treated as its synonym: the Horatio Alger myth. Although Adams does not mention Horatio Alger in his Epic, the novelist has been associated with both of the aforementioned “American dreams.” As

中文翻译：

---

神话不是我的神话，但它的虚构性是：阿尔及尔的衣衫D的迪克，吐温/海滩的“斯蒂芬·吉拉德”和训练中的读者

当詹姆斯·特鲁斯洛·亚当斯（James Truslow Adams）在1931年普及“美国梦”一词时，它不是在标榜人们可以通过个人产业实现繁荣的概念的出现，而是在标志着这一概念的消亡。具有讽刺意味的是，对亚当斯来说，这部分是由于法律而非文化上的美国化。消亡，即与限制个人自由的有组织的官僚国家的发展相对应。如果美国的梦想是“希望有一个更好，更自由的生活，一种[一个]可能会[[]一个人愿意]思考和发展的生活”，那么，政府的崛起就压制了它。支持使“共同的”美国公民服从“武士”的公司垄断（亚当斯22）。而且，根据亚当斯所说，受限制的“梦”并不是特别美国人。如他所写，向上流动的叙述被“大量移民”的成员所采用，“只有大约三分之一”的成员“来到了美国”（21）。daccess-ods.un.org daccess-ods.un.org到1930年，以及他的《美国史诗》的终结，亚当斯暗示着“库里奇的繁荣”已经不是一个“新时代，我们永远依靠自己的靴子提振自己”，而不是“交换”。公司权力之一的人身自由理想（313）。值得注意的是，亚当斯暗示两个理想都是幻想：导致1928年经济崩溃的虚幻的公司“繁荣”与美国梦有关，美国梦的力量在于对物质化的抵抗（314）。因此，这是一个令人鼓舞的假设，汉斯·维辛格（Hans Vaihinger）在1911年将其称为“合适的小说”：这个想法并非严格意义上的“真实”，而是“由于[其]效用而必须保留”（xxxvii）。正是由于它是一部合适的小说（抵制而不是鼓励不受限制的个人唯物主义），才使早期的“美国梦”似乎与经常被视为同义词的霍拉肖·阿尔杰神话有很多共同点。尽管亚当斯（Adams）在他的《史诗》中没有提到Horatio Alger，但这位小说家与上述两个“美国梦”都息息相关。如