Monday, October 13, 2008

What holds a country together?

When you consider the enormous differences that exist across regions and traditions in the United States, it raises an interesting question: what factors serve to knit this population together into a single polity? We don't share a single set of cultural values, a single religion, or a single political tradition. So what helps this population of some 300 million achieve some degree of civic or national identity?

One possible answer is a skeptical one: there is no such common strand of civic identity in the United States. Instead, we are a nation of overlapping identities and traditions, with the remarkable good fortune that these differences have only rarely developed into serious inter-group conflict. On this approach, the general history of harmony among groups and regions is only a happy accident.

Another possible approach goes a bit further than this one, in noticing that in fact there is quite a bit of social dis-harmony in the history of the United States. Racism and the violent oppression of African-Americans and Latinos during various periods, the hostile reception offered to internal migrants during the Great Depression, the violence and hostility offered to gay and lesbian Americans at various junctures, and the harsh words Sarah Palin directs against Easterners all point in that direction. We might say that it is the generally effective reach of the state rather than a shared civic or national identity that usually maintains a large degree of inter-group peace in the United States.

There is also, of course, the identity that derives from patriotism and the flag. This is a political psychology of nationalism, and it doesn't have much to do with reflective values. It is a constructed identity, aimed at making an identity group out of a mixed population. And if this is the best we can do, then the performances of patriotic songs and speeches are obvious mechanisms through which leaders attempt to instill the appropriate emotions. And the act of dissent may seem deeply disruptive, if this is all that holds us together.

It may be that there are other mechanisms of political identity formation that work in the direction of forging a national identity. Film and television are candidates here, and large events of shared history may play a role too. I particularly admire Lincoln's phrase, "the mystic chords of memory." But shared memories don't always create a shared identity -- for example, we can validly ask whether the remembered experience of the Vietnam War contributes more to identity or division.

But here is another and more positive possibility. We might hope that the United States has painfully and haltingly created a shared civic culture that stands above the more visceral strands of religious, ethnic, or nationalistic identity. It is a moral value system that stands deliberately above more specific value commitments that derive from our particular philosophies or traditions. This culture is the value system of liberal democracy. It valorizes the idea of the equal worth of all persons; the moral importance of mutual respect; the idea that everyone has the same rights to freedom of action and legal protection; the recognition that disagreements about values and policies are normal parts of a democracy; and the conviction that this system of equal citizenship and dignity is a morally worthwhile achievement in American history and politics.

This approach says that we do have the makings of a civic identity. But how does this approach avoid amounting to an amalgam of bromides from high school civics courses or the political theories of Locke and Rousseau?

It avoids this unhappy fate by being so hard. This political identity of equality, respect, and liberty has to be constructed rather than assumed. This requires the best efforts of leaders and citizens. And it runs into conflict with some very powerful currents in American culture -- xenophobia, racism, mistrust, and the politics of division, for example. Some of our national leaders have been articulate in nurturing these values -- Johnson amd Clinton, for example. Others have chosen a language of division -- Richard Nixon comes to mind ("the silent majority") along with Spiro Agnew and his "nattering nabobs of negativism". Unity around the values of justice, equality, and democracy is more difficult to achieve than division across group identities and interests. But it is a much more admirable basis for a human polity, and a better guide for a pluralistic America.

3 comments:

Siyuan Song said...

As a foreigner, I feel that basically the economic growth and wealth of US hold the country together.

The social structure of US has successfully resulted in positive feedback between economic growth and wealth, which reinforce each other. Then this system has stronger and stronger capability to absorb more labor. In selection of importing labor, US has established strong mechanism to gain more intelligent people over other countries. They contribute to reinforce economic growth.

Besides the successful mechanism of economy, the political structure of US has become quite stable. Politics has been a game between two parties for a long time. This might be a path dependence, which could resolve many social conflicts which cannot be resolved by the economic mechanism.

With this kind of economic and political mechanism, it seems that all kinds of social conflicts based on the demographic, religious, and cultural differences are just fluctuations which could not disintegrate this country.

Victoria FERAUGE said...

Both (economic growth and the stable political structure) may certainly be part of the picture but neither is sufficient to explain why such diverse people feel connected.

I am also a foreigner. My country of origin is the U.S. but I have lived in France for almost 15 years now. I would describe myself as someone who has successfully integrated into the culture of her adopted country. Nevertheless I continue to feel very much a part of my country of origin. This is in spite of the fact that I have not lived or worked in the US in years, I have limited exposure to the shared culture, and I have very few opportunities to participate in national rituals.

So, the question asked in this blog “What Holds People Together” is one that I have been pondering for a long time. I have yet to come up with a completely satisfactory answer but I recently read and greatly enjoyed Benedict Anderson’s Imagined Communities.

Perhaps I am an American because I believe in and behave as though I am a part of a collective fantasy (an imagined community) called America. ;-)

Victoria FĂ©rauge
v_ferauge@yahoo.com

Simon said...

This is a fascinating question and I think that, as a Canadian political scientist, I have some insights into this.

As a foreigner, I feel that basically the economic growth and wealth of US hold the country together.

I don't think this is sufficient; it helps but it is not enough. Consider the total absence of major separatist movements in the United States during the Great Depression.
One thing that has kept the United States together has been the absence of national minorities at the country's founding. Two of the ethnic minorities within the United States (African Americans and Latinos) were not participants in the founding of the country. Thus, their particular political demands had to be negotiated within the constitutional structure of the United States. Moreover, neither have links to a particular territory , hindering secessionist tendencies.

First Nations are a bit of a different matter, but the claims to territory that they have are so small that they cannot sustain secessionist movements. The only two serious secessionist movements at the moment appear to be in Hawaii, a former colony where indigenous links to a specific territory are at their strongest.

Of course, ethnicity is not the only basis to split from or join a state (or nation). Money is often at play and if the citizens of a particular region feel they are being aggrieved (either by being denied resources or because they are subsidizing poor regions) this can fuel secessionist tendencies. I think the key here is to have political institutions flexible enough to respond to the demands of different regions. Isn't this the story of the Civil War and the party system that failed to bridge regional divides at a critical moment.

Finally, I'd like to ask my own hypothetical question. I'm wondering if deep value differences, not just economics, could lead to regional splits. For example, what if the United States Supreme Court overturned Roe V. Wade and recriminalized abortion. Could you really see residents of California, Vermont and Massachusetts tolerating the criminalization of abortion?

I've really wondered about this as a foreigner.