The amorphous stuff

At the risk of overloading the bandwagon, I agree with the assessment of my fellow bloggers that Hoganson's definition of honor shifts somewhat as the book unfolds, which we can discuss at length in class. That being said, I would also like to observe that as I read the book my mind kept returning to what Hoganson refers to as the "amorphous stuff of culture" (3), the building blocks for her argument concerning the motivation for American political decisions regarding foreign policy. Her ensuing discussions of gender convictions, honor, and the chivalric paradigm are fleshed out nicely, but time and again I questioned the inherent nebulous nature of an exclusively cultural approach. Is this a viable format for a convincing argument, or does this diminish the weight of her thesis by relying too much on what is essentially subjective interpretation of rhetoric, opinions, and oratory hyperbole of the times. Undoubtedly Hoganson has far greater familiarity with the subject matter than most academics from her extensive readings, but the fact that she anticipates this type of criticism in her introduction persuades me that it should be a topic of discussion. I agree with John that although this book has limitations it is certainly important for the new avenues of investigation and thought that it opens.