Who: Dr. Hilde Eliassen Restad
Where: Oslo Nye University College, Oslo, Norway
What: Associate Professor in International Studies
Photo Credit: Thomas Strømstad
The study trip to Israel and the West Bank, where we meet with pretty much anyone who will meet with us and eat all the food we can (yum), has a profound impact on our students.
Your PhD research focused on the concept of American exceptionalism as an identity, which you later developed into your first book, American Exceptionalism: An Idea that Made a Nation and Remade the World. Can you tell us a bit about the concept of American exceptionalism and how it might help us understand the current situation in the US?
American exceptionalism is often – especially by Americans – thought to mean a sociological fact, leading researchers to ask questions like “How exceptional is the United States in x area?” whereas I argue that American exceptionalism is better thought of as a national narrative. In my book I ask how the pervasive narrative of American exceptionalism shapes American foreign policy. There is a sort of conventional wisdom which states that American exceptionalism comes in two variations – the exemplary version and the missionary version.
Being exceptional, experts in US foreign policy argue, means that you either withdraw from the world like an isolated but inspiring “city upon a hill,” or that you are called upon to actively lead the rest of the world to a better future. I reject this dichotomy and my book challenges this assumption, arguing that US history has displayed a remarkably constant foreign policy tradition, which I label as “unilateral internationalism.” The United States has not vacillated between an “exemplary” and a “missionary” narrative. Instead, the United States has developed an exceptionalist narrative that, while idealizing itself as an exemplary “city upon a hill,” more often than not errs on the side of the missionary crusade in its foreign policy.
Of course, Donald Trump challenges the assumption that the exceptionalist narrative is pervasive in US foreign policy. He definitely breaks with what was a bipartisan consensus on the need for the United States to lead because of its self-perceived exceptional character. But Trump complicates analyses of US foreign policy in more than one way. For instance, in arguing that putting “America First” would make America “great again,” one might think that Trump, in fact, is promoting American exceptionalism. The idea of American exceptionalism is certainly connected to “greatness.” Republican voters might think Trump is embracing exceptionalism – understood as American superiority and even a sense of national mission. Meanwhile, I do not think Trump himself is concerned with American exceptionalism in the sense this concept has commonly been understood for many decades.
In my article “Whither the ‘City Upon a Hill’,” I try to analyze Trump’s grand strategy and argue it is different in kind, and not just in degree, from US postwar foreign policy because it rejects the underlying master narrative of American exceptionalism. The competing narrative Trump has adopted underscores this: The United States is not morally or ideationally superior to other countries – it is not an “exemplar.” In fact, according to Trump’s worldview, it is remarkably similar to countries that define themselves by materialist national interests and an ethnic national identity. Specifically, Trump’s embrace of an “America First” foreign policy entails a rejection of the moral mission that has been central to modern US foreign policy: promoting – in theory, anyway – liberal internationalism through democratization, free-market economics, and human rights. Trump’s master narrative views the world somewhat similarly to realists: as a competitive, anarchic place where it is every state for itself, where alliances are temporary, and where only the fittest survive. In this worldview, making America “great” means making America economically wealthy, militarily powerful, and safeguarding the white, Christian cultural heritage of the United States.
This, I could argue, means that the post-war and post-Cold War era of US foreign policy is over, because the (tenuous) bipartisan foreign policy consensus that existed has collapsed. We are now in a brand-new era of US foreign policy, where lots of factors are in flux, including the concept of American exceptionalism.
I always like to ask scholars what the process of turning their PhD dissertation into a book was like. Did you have any support or guidance? What went well? What would you do differently if you had to do it again? Basically, what advice do you have for early career scholars hoping to publish their first book?
Well, let me first say that I am very grateful for getting to pursue my PhD in the United States because that is a longer and more educational experience than doing a PhD in Norway (my home country and where I work now). In Norway, you do a PhD not as a student admitted to a program, but as a researcher whose project is funded by some kind of research council or existing research program with funding for a PhD position. So you are an employee working on a project. Doing my MA and PhD at the University of Virginia (UVA) was a great experience because I got to be a student, find my own way, and take lots of lots of incredible classes with wonderful professors. I learned widely across American Politics and International Relations, which has served me really well in zooming in on the domestic factors that affect US foreign policy. The drawback to the US system is that – because you are a student and not a researcher-in-training collaborating with others – you are often not taught how to actually publish! So I definitely felt like I was on my own after graduating UVA, trying to figure out this whole turning-my-thesis-into-a-book thing. My advice would be to pick everybody’s brain in terms of relevant presses, specific individuals at those presses whom you may be able to contact directly, and to circulate drafts of your book proposal for feedback from people who have already published books. There’s no need to do this blindly or alone.
I know that you have close connections to the Middle East because of your husband’s Palestinian family. You have also regularly taken students in the Peace and Conflict Studies programme on trips to Israel and Palestine in the past. What motivated you originally to organise these trips and are they still happening?
I was really lucky in that once I started my job as an Associate Professor of what is now known as the Oslo New University College in Oslo, they had already tried running this study trip once. The students loved it, but the university needed someone with local contacts to devise a program that could grow through the years. I have been in charge of this study trip since 2013 and it has been one of the highlights of my job. The study trip to Israel and the West Bank, where we meet with pretty much anyone who will meet with us and eat all the food we can (yum), has a profound impact on our students and they consistently tell me that it was the most important thing they did during their BA. I am so saddened that our trip has been prevented first, by COVID, then the war on Gaza, and now the onslaught on the West Bank we are seeing in the wake of Gaza. There is no substitute for seeing for yourself and I hope we can once again take our students there.
An academic’s life is busy. You’re also a parent. How do you manage your writing and publishing?
The two most important factors facilitating my career are, first, that I live and work in Norway, which has the laws and the norms in place to help women both become mothers and maintain their careers. Not that Norway is perfect, but I know from my colleagues around the world that we are very lucky in terms of not only maternity and paternity leave, but also in the guaranteed and very reasonably priced spot in nursery for your child from age 1. The second important factor is that my husband, Nadim Khoury, is very supportive of my career. He is also an academic and so we proceed as partners, rather than from a point of view where one person’s career is more important than the other’s. It’s perhaps controversial to say this, but for a woman who wants a career, it truly matters what kind of partner she chooses. Especially if you have kids.
So, given that these important structures are in place, in terms of managing writing and publishing, I have learned what time of day is my most productive and focused (mornings, before checking emails!) and I try to protect that time.
I also noticed that you have publications both in English and Norwegian. Why do you think it’s important to also publish in a language other than English?
Norway is a small country, and so we are constantly worrying either about not keeping up with the English-speaking academic world (and therefore feeling inferior and irrelevant) or, alternatively, about losing our language to that damn dominant English-speaking academic world… But in any case, I think academics have a duty to participate in their countries’ public debates and publish when they can in their native languages (both academic articles and articles/op-eds and other kinds of communications meant for a general audience). For myself, Norway is so dependent on the United States in our security policies that I try to spend some of my time participating in Norwegian-language debates about American politics.
And finally, what’s your next publication that we can look forward to?
This past fall I spend a semester as Fulbright visiting fellow at the Clements Center for National Security at UT Austin, Texas. While I was at this (really wonderful) center I finished editing and writing a forthcoming book titled American Exceptionalism and US Foreign Policy, co-edited with Richard Maass (Old Dominion University), to be published by Georgetown University Press. In this volume, we argue for why taking American exceptionalism seriously as a concept is important for anyone researching American foreign policy, whether they are political scientists, historians, or from any other discipline. We also try to grapple with Trump and the new era that American politics now is in. On that note, I also want to add that the Trump administration currently is trying to stop funding for the esteemed and historically significant Fulbright Program, which was founded in 1946 as part of the US’ “soft power” strategy in the Cold War. I cannot thank Fulbright enough for the wonderful opportunities it has given me (I also received a Fulbright scholarship to fund my very first year as an MA student at UVA) and I cannot imagine what purpose this could possibly serve that would be helpful to the United States. I hope the Trump administration will reconsider.
This interview is part of the Interview with a Scholar series.