ABSTRACT
In 1776 Thomas Paine called for American independence from Britain, arguing that “there is something very absurd, in supposing a continent to be perpetually governed by an island.” Compared to North America’s continental grandeur, the island was, for Paine, a narrow and inferior geographical form. From the myth-symbol school to the transnational turn, American Studies scholars have tended to follow Paine in this valorization of the continent and prejudice against the island. But what would happen if Americanists moved away from the traditional pejorative view of islands, looking instead toward Édouard Glissant’s notion of every island as an “opening”? How would Americanist treatments of island spaces change as a result of this open and transregional view of insularity? Such questions are urgent in light of the fact, via its imperial claims to Pacific and Caribbean archipelagoes, the United States currently claims more water space than it does land space, with a larger oceanic exclusive economic zone than nearly any other country. This chapter, in its discussions of “archipelagic American Studies” and its model of open and comparative insularity, suggests that the field would benefit from becoming more insular in an archipelagic way.
