America's Evolving Identity

I randomly tuned into "Scarborough Country" last night which was in the middle of a hot debate about "white America." There was Pat Buchanan, who actually sounded pretty reasonable compared with Jared Taylor of American Renaissance. Taylor said his position was analogous to Rabin's about Israel when Rabin said that at least 80% of Israel's population should always be Jewish. Taylor thought that 80% of the American population should always be white. It's a matter of keeping America America.

Buchanan was more moderate. He said that we should completely halt illegal   immigration and have a moratorium on legal immigration to give American society a chance to assimilate those who have already come into the country. He fears   that the U.S., especially in the states bordering Mexico, is in danger of becoming the Balkans or Canada with its Francophone separatists. He also suggested that   this was Mexico's attempt to win back what it had lost back in the 1840s, and   that the southwest was reverting to the Third World.

The pro-immigration people in the debate said what might be expected, but   what struck me about Buchanan and Taylor was their assumption that American   cultural identity was no longer robust enough to transform immigrants into   Americans, that the immigrants were going to pull America down rather than   America pull the immigrants up. Buchanan kept saying that the country that   he grew up in was a good country, implying that the one he's living in now is no longer good. He is clearly fearful that American identity is being lost in this massive invasion by the "Other" who he thinks are more resistant to assimilation than the European immigrants of the 19th and early 20th centuries.

What's interesting about the immigration problem is how it's not really a   clear-cut, right/left issue. Plenty of people on the right want open borders   because it's an endless source of cheap labor. Plenty of people on the left,   concerned about raising the wages of the working poor, want to close the borders. So nothing's likely to change.

But my interest in this subject isn't primarily economic, but cultural. American   identity is interesting and unique because it isn't primarily defined by its   premodern past. America was born out of a rejection of that past. And while   white English Protestants working with ideas from the European Enlightenment   created the basic framework that sets the rules for how American society works,   the basic content is dynamic and evolving.

I'm not a multi-culturalist, but a cultural fusionist. American identity is   not in some essential way linked to the America Pat Buchanan grew up in, nor   will it revert to a premodern culture in the way he fears. Once a culture upgrades   to modernity, it never reverts to earlier versions, even if there are reactionaries   in the culture who would like it to.

The Western Enlightenment framework has established what modernity means,   but the Modern Age expired around World War I. We're in between "ages" now,   and for want of a better name we call our present transitional era the "postmodern." The   American and global postmodern future will be an evolving story that develops   primarily within the Western framework, but it will be a story of the emergence   within that framework of a global fusion culture.

This does not mean only the Americanizaton of the globe, but also the globalization of America. That's what scares Buchanan and Taylor. As premodern cultures modernize, the already modern cultures are retrieving and assimilating premodern cultural forms. Already we're seeing it in religion and spirituality, in the plastic arts, and in music. It's a hodgepodge now, but in the long run some coherent synthesis is inevitable. The postmodern = modernity + premodernity. This means maintaining modern critical consciousness as we retrieve elements from the premodern that the modern rejected as irrational. That's my working hypothesis anyway. The framework for the future was created by dead, white Europeans--and we are deeply in their debt--but the long-term future is not white and European. And that's ok, so long as things keep moving forward.

An ongoing reflection on what "moving forward" means is the primary   purpose of this website. For better or worse, in the short run at least, American   culture, such as it is, leads the way.

(For those who maybe interested I've just uploaded the archives from this blog posted in its pre-TypePad incarnation.  This post from 11/13/03 struck me as relevant in relationship to the current brouhaha about immigration.)

Comments

[Joshua]

"This does not mean only the Americanizaton of the globe, but also the globalization of America. That's what scares Buchanan and Taylor."

It also relates to what I believe to be both major parties' greatest shortcoming: the apparent inability to grasp the full implications of globalization and what it means for America.

America may be unique among nation-states, but with globalization now challenging the very viability of the Westphalian nation-state system itself, what does it mean to be American in a globalized world? I'd like to think it means more than being, say, a fan of the hometown sports team, but I'm under no illusion that it means what it once did - or that I'm alone in this awareness.

Immigration may be the proximate political issue here, but the question of national identity in the face of globalization touches upon any and every issue you can name, and the "war on terror" in particular. I've commented on other blogs that we may go through two or three more Presidents before we finally get one who fully grasps all that it will take to win this war, and that's mainly because I expect it to take that long to grasp the new kind of world, and the new kind of America, that is taking shape. Also, it may well turn out that many of the things about America that we've come to count on and treasure over the years may no longer be viable in the post-Westphalian world. How would we adjust to that? Our politicians, across the ideological spectrum, have barely begun to tackle questions such as these - no doubt because they don't have an answer that can be turned into a winning campaign slogan.

Interesting times indeed. We're all living that old Chinese curse now.

[Matt Zemek]

Joshua,

You got to the truth at the end of your remarks.

It's not a failure of knowledge or thought; it's a failure of nerve and moral courage.

[Mike McG...]

"This does not mean only the Americanizaton of the globe, but also the globalization of America. That's what scares Buchanan and Taylor. As premodern cultures modernize, the already modern cultures are retrieving and assimilating premodern cultural forms... The framework for the future was created by dead, white Europeans--and we are deeply in their debt--but the long-term future is not white and European. And that's ok, so long as things keep moving forward."

Good, Jack. Ironies abound. As you've often pointed out, it is the economic system the Right so rigidly defends that is largely responsible for the demise of their cultural sensibilities. Meanwhile, the Mexican diaspora Buchanan seems to despise displays in spades many of the cultural sensibilities he defends. Go figure.

What is sad is the American inability to appreciate all the benefits we derive by shedding blinders and broadening perspectives. It seems so obvious that we have much to learn. One very clear lesson we stand to learn is that our obsession with autonomy can be a trap. Immigrants teach me daily that a hightened appreciation for community and reciprocity are essential components to the good life.

The spectre of America, arms folded and scowling at the rest of the world, is frightening indeed.