Issue #24, Spring 2012

Sworn-Again Americans

To read the other essays in the First Principles: Reclaiming Citizenship package, click here.

Last December I went to Taiwan to visit my grandmother. Like the Republic of China itself, she had turned 100 earlier in the year. During the trip I spent a day at the National Palace Museum in Taipei. Set among lush, green, mist-draped mountains, the museum holds the world’s most spectacular collection of Chinese artifacts—spirited away in wartime by the Nationalists who fled to Taiwan when Mao’s Communists took over the mainland.

On display that morning was a centennial exhibit of 100 masterpieces from the museum’s holdings: famous calligraphic scrolls, priceless porcelain vases, finely carved jadeite cabbages. Each exquisite object was surrounded by a welter of tourists, many from the mainland. Even more stirring than the exhibit was its ambition, the belief that something as vast as Chinese culture and tradition could be captured in a selection of iconic things. The objects, from across dynasties and millennia, were Chineseness; the exhibit, an act of re-Sinicization. It was heritage reinforcement for an audience presumed Chinese.

I wondered, on the long flight home, whether Americanness could be so captured and so reinforced. I don’t doubt that the Smithsonian could create a comparable show with 100 special objects. What I doubt is whether we have today a strong enough sense of shared identity, of common cultural and civic roots, for such an exhibit to capture the country’s imagination.

America is always in flux, but the flux today seems more disorienting than usual. As China emerges rapidly and confidently, as Americans begin to wonder aloud about relative decline, as the center of gravity in our electorate shifts away from white men, as globalization enables immigrants to stay more wedded than ever to their homelands and not their new land, as political paralysis calls into question the durability of our constitutional design—as all these trends converge, a question arises: What is the content of American identity?

Without bonds of blood or tribe or sect to pull its people together, America has always tended toward the centrifugal. We are held together by Black Friday and “I’m lovin’ it,” by bowl games and March Madness, by reality television and virtual water coolers. America’s story of self today is not so much a story as a Twitter feed. Heavily mediated, mainly commercial, and shockingly perishable is the sense of the republic that our public has today.

Of course, from the Revolution onward, America has had available a real story and a great unifying force: the self-evident ideals enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, encoded, even if imperfectly, in the Constitution, and embodied in amendments that made citizenship of the United States something transcendent and vital. Because our country began as an idea, the status of the citizen here has always been more than simply ministerial. It is, at least in theory, a trust; half a social contract. Citizens are promised liberty, and we, in turn, promise to earn it—by sustaining it.

These days, however, talk of citizenship is thin and tinny. The word has a faintly old-fashioned feel to it when used in everyday conversation. When evoked in national politics, it’s often accompanied by the shrill whine of a descending culture-war mortar. Hence the debates in recent years about birthright citizenship and whether such status ought to be denied to so-called “anchor babies,” mostly of Mexican descent. Or, less seriously but no less menacingly, the efforts to push the President of the United States out of the boundaries of American citizenship with a fervently wished-for foreign birth certificate.

When citizenship is drained of content by a commoditizing market and polarized politics, America suffers. Our ability as a people to maintain the democracy we’ve inherited diminishes, as does our ability to adapt to new challenges. We have to revive a spirit of citizenship if we want to remain a people.

That is why it is time now for a movement to re-Americanize Americans. This means reanimating our creed, cultivating the character needed for civic life, and fostering a culture of strong citizenship. Each of these imperatives is subject to abuse and co-optation by those who take a narrow view of what this country is. Which is why I argue that a twenty-first-century Americanization movement must be catalyzed by progressives.

Americanization, Last Time

A hundred years ago, as the great wave of European immigration to the United States peaked, there was a push for Americanization that crossed sector and institution. In public schools, the curriculum was changed to emphasize more American history and to teach patriotic anthems and parables. In urban slums, settlement houses like Jane Addams’s Hull House and hundreds like it taught immigrant adults how to speak English and to assimilate into the “melting pot” of the city. Historic preservation took on greater prominence. From the pulpit came more lessons about American providence. Genealogy became a phenomenon and “heritage” a cultural obsession.

Today, at the end of another great migration to the United States, the will to Americanize is much weaker. That is in part proper. The nineteenth-century Americanizers, in their frantic eagerness, were stifling even when they meant well. As the First World War approached, much of the earnest patriotism of the movement curdled into jingoism and nativism. Excluded altogether from the Americanizing embrace were most people of color, who, whether deemed black, brown, yellow, or red, were the anvil against which various European ethnicities were forged into dominant whiteness.

In ensuing generations, with the emergence of the civil rights movement and multiculturalism, the descendants of those new-century immigrants came to reject the melting-pot ideal and its obliteration of differences. They instead learned to embrace a cosmopolitan pluralism—an identity libertarianism—in which to be American is to be what you want. Out went assimilation, in came authenticity.

TAGS:
Issue #24, Spring 2012
 
Post a Comment

Patricia Little:

The "religion" part of the message makes me quiver... but the ideas in the message are outstanding. There has to be another word that is more efficient and less polarizing than "religion"-- because so much of what has failed in America has stemmed from the inherent entitlement that comes from believing you are right because you believe you are right... and most of the gravest atrocities of humanity have been "in the name of God" from some fanatical religious base. So, no--I don't want to be "religious" about anything--but I will stand with you on your ideas. You need a word expert. Hire those people that though of "Apple".

Mar 12, 2012, 4:23 PM
Patricia Little:

The "religion" part of the message makes me quiver... but the ideas in the message are outstanding. There has to be another word that is more efficient and less polarizing than "religion"-- because so much of what has failed in America has stemmed from the inherent entitlement that comes from believing you are right because you believe you are right... and most of the gravest atrocities of humanity have been "in the name of God" from some fanatical religious base. So, no--I don't want to be "religious" about anything--but I will stand with you on your ideas. You need a word expert. Hire those people that thought of "Apple".

Mar 12, 2012, 4:25 PM
Luke Lea:

Hey, my father taught at the old Highlander Folk School -- back when it was still on Monteagle.

Anyway I thought this was a fine essay. I could find nothing to disagree with.

However, there is something I think the author leaves out. I'm not sure exactly how to say it, but it has to do with that phrase near the end of Lincoln's Gettysburg address -- the one about a government "for the people."

Somehow the average person is not longer provided for in terms of their opportunities in the pursuit of happiness. This is not about success in the usual sense. Nor is it about caring for the least fortunate among us.

It is the big average mass in the middle that is being forgotten. Politicians talk about an opportunity for "everyone to go to college." That exposes the problem right there. We refuse to recognize the needs of, or to provide an appropriate education for the majority who maybe should not go to college -- to give them the skills and the training to earn a living with their hands and their feet. They do that in Germany, so it is not impossible. Germany is a prosperous country.

But the problem goes beyond that. Not only do we not provide appropriate educations for average Americans, neither to care much about giving them an opportunity to lead a good life. A good life for the mediocre majority I am talking about.

That used to be possible, back when the American dream still meant a house in the suburbs and a full-time mom who stayed at home with the kids. Even blue-collar workers could shoot for that. They can't now, and nothing has taken its place.

A lot of this has to do with corporate irresponsibility. No, I take that back. It has to do with our leaders changing the rules of the game so that corporations have to go abroad in order to survive in the marketplace. I'm talking about GATT and the WTO rules that were changed during the Clinton administration.


We didn't realize it at the time maybe but corporations do what they got to do to survive in the marketplace.

I'm not doing this well. Here is something more concrete that gets at the heart of the matter: http://facingzionwards.blogspot.com/

Please forgive my typos. I'm and old man.

Mar 12, 2012, 7:11 PM

Post a Comment

Name

Email

Comments (you may use HTML tags for style)

Verification

Note: Several minutes will pass while the system is processing and posting your comment. Do not resubmit during this time or your comment will post multiple times.