The American Dream has been the inspiration of many political speeches, political writings, and works of literature throughout American history. Most recently, it has inspired political groups like the Center for the New American Dream and academic groups like the Xavier University Center for the Study of the American Dream. As of late, the notion of the American Dream has begun to crop up more often than not in main stream political discourse, especially surrounding the topic of immigration with the aptly named Dream Act. Why has the American Dream drawn this new attention and inquiry? Why and how is it important to American Political thought? What does it mean? Why does it endure? As a complex issue of American culture, this thesis will use disparate methods of analysis to form answers to these questions. The American Dream is often referred to as our national myth. It is comprised of the many ideals and narratives which undergird American politics and culture. Through examination of literary works of fiction and of political texts, this research will examine the meaning and the history of the American Dream. Then, using secondary survey data, this research will examine the implications and state of the American Dream. Finally, to answer the question of why the American Dream endures, this research will employ elements of psychoanalytic and Marxist theory to argue that the Dream works as a cycle of American political thought.

Violent islamistic extremism has together with violent right-wing extremism been marked as the highest probable threat for potential terrorist attacks in Sweden. Research within violent extremism has shown a certain level of consensus around what factors drive radicalization. A consensus about theories or models that most adeptly explain its causation is however not prevalent within the academic community. This paper presents a model based on conclusions drawn from the Social Identity Theory (SIT) and will test this model's relevance by analyzing empirical data from interviews made with five practicing Muslims. The interviewees' attempts to explain factors of radicalization have been analyzed by being compartmentalized into an ideological- or identity-based continuum. Factors of radicalization able to be explained by the SIT-model have been categorized as identity-based explanations, whereas factors depending on knowledge, ideology, or religion have been categorized as ideology-based explanations. Most of the experienced factors could be explained by the SIT-model, while only some of two interviewees` experiences could be categorized as ideology-based. The significance of the empirical data from this research and its implications will be presented in the chapter of discussion along with previous research and its theoretical framework; recommendations for de-radicalization and continued research will be given at the end.

No description available.

No description available.