A nation’s internal self-image can diverge wildly from its global meaning

Evidence

However, although one does not confuse a person with what he or she thinks of himself/herself, such selfimages are surely very relevant indeed and constitute an essential part of the more objective description or definition. Nonetheless, it seems possible that the deeper realities of the period — read, for example, against the very different scale of, say, diachronic and secular economic rhythms, or of synchronic and systemic global interrelationships, have little to do with either our cultural stereotypes of years thus labeled and defined in terms of generational decades. … Eisenhower wore a well-known smile for us but an equally well-known scowl for foreigners beyond our borders, as the state portraits in any U.S. consulate during those years dramatically attested. — Fredric Jameson, Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic…, 615

Categorization

• XREF: Directly relevant to reader’s stated task: attempting a cognitive map of one’s own position in the world system requires acknowledging this divergence. — connects to: Imaginative totality of a country is always built from partial individual experience — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory: Classes, Nations, Literatures, 543
• SEED: Angles: ‘What did our consular portraits look like to outsiders?’ or ‘Deconstructing your own decade.’