Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.

E Pluribus Unum?

The attack on the common American identity is the culmination of the cult of ethnicity. That attack was mounted in the first instance by European Americans of non-British origin (“unmeltable ethnics”) against the British foundations of American culture; then, latterly and massively, by Americans
of non-European origin against the European foundations of that culture. As Theodore Roosevelt’s foreboding suggests, the European immigration itself palpitated with internal hostilities, everyone at everybody else’s throats hardly the “monocultural” crowd portrayed by ethnocentric separatists.
After all, the two great “world” wars of the twentieth century began as fights among European states. Making a single society out of this diversity of antagonistic European peoples is a hard enough job. The new salience of non-European, nonwhite stocks compounds the challenge. And the non- Europeans, or at least their self-appointed spokesmen, bring with them a resentment, in some cases a hatred, of Europe and the West provoked by generations of Western colonialism, racism, condescension, contempt, and
cruel exploitation.

Will not this rising flow of non-European immigrants create a “minority majority” that will make Eurocentrism obsolete by the twenty-first century? This is the fear of some white Americans and the hope (and sometimes the threat) of some nonwhites.
Immigrants were responsible for a third of population growth during the 1980s. More arrived than in any decade since the second of the century. And the composition of the newcomers changed dramatically. In 1910 nearly 90 percent of immigrants came from Europe. In the 1980s more than 80 percent came from Asia and Latin America.
Still, foreign-born residents constitute only about 7 percent of the population today as against nearly 15 percent when the first Roosevelt and Wilson were worrying about hyphenated Americans, Stephan Thernstrom doubts that the minority majority will ever arrive. The black share in the population has grown rather slowly-9.9 percent in 1920, 10 percent in 1950, 11.1 percent in 1970, 12.1 percent in 1990. Neither Asian-Americans nor Hispanic-Americans go in for especially large families; and family size in any case tends to decline as income and intermarriage increase. “If today’s immigrants assimilate to American ways as readily as their predecessors at the turn of the century-as seems to be happening,” Thernstrom concludes, “there won’t be a minority majority issue anyway.”
America has so long seen itself as the asylum for the oppressed and persecuted-and has done itself and the world so much good thereby that any curtailment of immigration offends something in the American
soul. No one wants to be a Know-Nothing. Yet uncontrolled immigration is an impossibility; so the criteria of control are questions the American democracy must confront. We have shifted the basis of admission three times this century-from national origins in 1924 to family reunification in 1965 to needed skills in 1990. The future of immigration policy depends on the capacity of the assimilation process to continue to do what it has done so well in the past: to lead newcomers to an acceptance
of the language, the institutions, and the political ideals that hold thenation together.

Is Europe really the root of all evil? The crimes of Europe against lesser breeds without the law (not to mention even worse crimes-Hitlerism and Stalinism-against other Europeans) are famous. But these crimes do not alter other facts of history: that Europe was the birthplace of the United States of America, that European ideas and culture formed the republic, that the United States is an extension of European civilization, and that nearly 80 percent of Americans are of European descent.
When Irving Howe, hardly a notorious conservative, dared write, “The Bible, Homer, Mato, Sophocles, Shakespeare are central to our culture,” an outraged reader (“having graduated this past year from Amherst”) wrote, “Where on Howe’s list is the Qurun, the Gitu, Confucius, and other central cultural artifacts of the peoples of our nation?” No one can doubt the importance of these works nor the influence they have had on other societies. But on American society? It may be too bad that dead white
European males have played so large a role in shaping our culture. But that’s the way it is. One cannot erase history.
These humdrum historical facts, and not some dastardly imperialist conspiracy, explain the Eurocentric slant in American schools. Would anyone seriously argue that teachers should conceal the European origins of American civilization? or that schools should cater to the 20 percent and ignore the 80 percent? Of course the 20 percent and their contributions should be integrated into the curriculum too, which is the point ofcultural pluralism.
But self-styled “multiculturalists” are very often ethnocentric separatists when we little in the Western heritage beyond Western crimes The Western culture is due not to any innate quality but simply to the spread of Western power. Thus the popularity of European classical music around the world-and, one supposes, of American jazz and rock too-is evidence not of wide appeal but of “the pattern of imperialism, in which the conquered culture adopts that of the conqueror.”
Such animus toward Europe lay behind the well-known crusade against the Western-civilization course at Stanford (“Hey-hey, ho-ho, Western culture’s got to gol”). According to the National Endowment for
the Humanities, students can graduate from 78 percent of American colleges and universities without taking a course in the history of Western civilization. A number of institutions-among them Dartmouth, Wisconsin, Mt. Holyoke-require courses in third-world or ethnic studies but not in Western civilization. The mood is one of divesting Americans of the sinful European inheritance and seeking redemptive infusions from non-Western cultures.

One of the oddities of the situation is that the assault on the Western tradition is conducted very largely with analytical weapons forged in the West. What are the names invoked by the coalition of latter-day Marxists, deconstructionists, poststructuralists, radical feminists, Afrocentrists? Marx, Nietzsche, Gramsci, Derrida, Foucault, Lacan, Sartre, de Beauvoir, Habermas, the Frankfurt “critical theory” school-Europeans all. The “unmasking, ” “demythologizing, ” “decanonizing, ” “dehegemonizing”
blitz against Western culture depends on methods of critical analysis unique to the West-which surely testifies to the internally redemptive potentialities of the Western tradition.
Even Afrocentrists seem to accept subliminally the very Eurocentric standards they think they are rejecting. “Black intellectuals condemn Western civilization,” Professor Pearce Williams says, “yet ardently wish to prove it was founded by their ancestors.” And, like Frantz Fanon and Leopold Senghor, whose books figure prominently on their reading lists, Afrocentric ideologues are intellectual children of the West they repudiate. Fanon, the eloquent spokesman of the African wretched of the earth, had French as his native tongue and based his analyses on Freud, Marx, and Sartre. Senghor, the prophet of Negritude, wrote in French, established the Senegalese educational system on the French model and, when he left the presidency of Senegal, retired to France.

Western hegemony, it would seem, can be the source of protest as well as of power. Indeed, the invasion of American schools by the Afrocentric curriculum, not to mention the conquest of university departments of English and comparative literature by deconstructionists, poststructuralists, etc., are developments that by themselves refute the extreme theory of “cultural hegemony.” Of course, Gramsci had a point. Ruling values do dominate and uermeate any societv; but they do not detrmine it.

Radical academics denounce the “canon” as an instrument of European oppression enforcing the hegemony of the white race, the male sex, and the capitalist class, designed, in the words of one professor, “to rewrite the past and construct the present from the perspective of the privileged and the powerful.” Or in the elegant words of another-and a professor of theological ethics at that: “The canon of great literature was created by high Anglican assholes to underwrite their social class.”
The poor old canon is seen not only as conspiratorial but as static. Yet nothing changes more regularly and reliably than the canon: compare, for example, the canon in American poetry as defined by Edmund Clarence Stedman in his Poets ofAmerica (1885) with the canon of 1935 or of 1985 (whatever happened to Longfellow and Whittier?); or recall the changes that have overtaken the canonical literature of American history in the last half-century (who reads Beard and Parrington now?). And the
critics clearly have no principled objection to the idea of the canon. They simply wish to replace an old gang by a new gang. After all, a canon means only that because you can’t read everything, you give some books priority over others.
Oddly enough, serious Marxists-Marx and Engels, Lukacs, Trotsky, Gramsci-had the greatest respect for what Lukacs called “the classical heritage of mankind.” Well they should have, for most great literature and much good history are deeply subversive in their impact on orthodoxies. Consider the present-day American literary canon: Emerson, Jefferson, Melville, Whitman, Hawthorne, Thoreau, Lincoln, Twain, Dickinson, William and Henry James, Henry Adams, Holmes, Dreiser, Faulkner, O’Neill. Lackeys of the ruling class? Apologists for the privileged and the powerful? Agents of American imperialism? Come on!
It is time to adjourn the chat about hegemony. If hegemony were as real as the cultural radicals pretend, Afrocentrism would never have got anywhere, and the heirs of William Lyon Phelps would still be running the Modern Language Association.

Is the Western tradition a bar to progress and a curse on humanity? Would it really do America and the world good to get rid of the European legacy?
No doubt Europe has done terrible things, not least to itself. But what culture has not? History, said Edward Gibbon, is little more than the register of the crimes, follies, and misfortunes of mankind. The sins of the West are no worse than the sins of Asia or of the Middle East or of Africa.
There remains, however, a crucial difference between the Western tradition and the others. The crimes of the West have produced their own antidotes. They have provoked great movements to end slavery, to raise the status of women, to abolish torture, to combat racism, to defend freedom of
nquiry and expression, to advance personal liberty and human rights.
Whatever the particular crimes of EuroDe, that continent is also the that constitute our most precious legacy and to which most of the world today aspires. These are European ideas, not Asian, nor African, nor Middle Eastern ideas, except by adoption.
The freedoms of inquiry and of artistic creation, for example, are Western values. Consider the differing reactions to the case of Salman Rushdie: what the West saw as an intolerable attack on individual freedom the Middle East saw as a proper punishment for an evildoer who had violated the mores of his group. Individualism itself is looked on with abhorrence and dread by collectivist cultures in which loyalty to the group overrides personal goals-cultures that, social scientists say, comprise about 70 percent of the world’s population.
There is surely no reason for Western civilization to have guilt trips laid on it by champions of cultures based on despotism, superstition, tribalism, and fanaticism. In this regard the Afrocentrists are especially absurd. The West needs no lectures on the superior virtue of those “sun people” who sustained slavery until Western imperialism abolished it (and, it is reported, sustain it to this day in Mauritania and the Sudan), who still keep women in subjection and cut off their clitorises, who carry out racial perse-
cutions not only against Indians and other Asians but against fellow Africans from the wrong tribes, who show themselves either incapable of operating a democracy or ideologically hostile to the democratic idea, and who in their tyrannies and massacres, their Idi Amins and Boukassas, have
stamped with utmost brutality on human rights.
Certainly the European overlords did little enough to prepare Africa for self-government. But democracy would find it hard in any case to put down roots in a tribalist and patrimonial culture that, long before the West invaded Africa, had sacralized the personal authority of chieftains and ordained the submission of the rest. What the West would call corruption is regarded through much of Africa as no more than the prerogative of power. Competitive political parties, an independent judiciary, a free
press, the rule of law are alien to African traditions.
It was the French, not the Algerians, who freed Algerian women from the veil (much to the irritation of Frantz Fanon, who regarded deveiling as symbolic rape); as in India it was the British, not the Indians, who ended (or did their best to end) the horrible custom of suttee-widows burning themselves alive on their husbands’ funeral pyres. And it was the West, not the non-Western cultures, that launched the crusade to abolish slavery-and in doing so encountered mighty resistance, especially in the Islamic world (where Moslems, with fine impartiality, enslaved whites as well as blacks). Those many brave and humane Africans who are struggling these days for decent societies are animated by Western, not by African, ideals. White guilt can be pushed too far,
The Western commitment to human rights has unquestionably been intermittent and imperfect. Yet the ideal remains-and movement toward it has been real, if sporadic. Today it is the Western democratic tradition. Square, they brought with them not representations of Confucius or Buddha
but a model of the Statue of Liberty.

The great American asylum, as Crevecoeur called it, open, as Washington said, to the oppressed and persecuted of all nations, has been from the start an experiment in a multiethnic society. This is a bolder experiment than we sometimes remember. History is littered with the wreck of states that tried to combine diverse ethnic or linguistic or religious groups within a single sovereignty. Today’s headlines tell of imminent crisis or impending dissolution in one or another multiethnic polity-the Soviet Union, India, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Ireland, Belgium, Canada, Lebanon, Cyprus, Israel, Ceylon, Spain, Nigeria, Kenya, Angola, Trinidad, Guyana. . . . The list is almost endless. The luck so far of the American experiment has been due in large part to the vision of the melting pot. “No other nation,” Margaret Thatcher has said, “has so successfully combined people of different races and nations within a single culture.”
But even in the United States, ethnic ideologues have not been without effect. They have set themselves against the old American ideal of assimilation. They call on the republic to think in terms not of individual but of group identity and to move the polity from individual rights to group rights. They have made a certain progress in transforming the United States into a more segregated society. They have done their best to turn a college generation against Europe and the Western tradition. They have imposed ethnocentric, Afrocentric, and bilingual curricula on public schools, well designed to hold minority children out of American society. They have told young people from minority groups that the Western democratic tradition is not for them. They have encouraged minorities to see themselves as victims and to live by alibis rather than to claim the opportunities opened for them by the potent combination of black protest and white guilt. They have filled the air with recrimination and rancor and
have remarkably advanced the fragmentation of American life.
Yet I believe the campaign against the idea of common ideals and a single society will fail. Gunnar Myrdal was surely right: for all the damage it has done, the upsurge of ethnicity is a superficial enthusiasm stirred by romantic ideologues and unscrupulous hucksters whose claim to speak for
their minorities is thoughtlessly accepted by the media. I doubt that the ethnic vogue expresses a reversal of direction from assimilation to apartheid among the minorities themselves. Indeed, the more the ideologues press the case for ethnic separatism, the less they appeal to the mass of their own groups. They have thus far done better in intimidating the white majority than in converting their own constituencies.
“No nation in history,” writes Lawrence Fuchs, the political scientist and immigration expert in his fine book The American Kaleidoscope, “had proved as successfull in managing ethinc diversity. America is the first, and the mechanism for translating diversity into unity has been the American Creed, the civic culture-the very assimilating, unifying culture that is today challenged, and not seldom rejected, by the ideologues of ethnicity.
A historian‘s guess is that the resources of the Creed have not been exhausted. Americanization has not lost its charms. Many sons and daughters of ethnic neighborhoods still want to shed their ethnicity and
move to the suburbs as fast as they can-where they will be received with far more tolerance than they would have been 70 years ago. The desire for achievement and success in American society remains a potent force for assimilation. Ethnic subcultures, Stephen Steinberg, author of The Ethnic Myth, points out, fade away “because circumstances forced them to make choices that undermined the basis for cultural survival.”
Others may enjoy their ethnic neighborhoods but see no conflict between foreign descent and American loyalty. Unlike the multiculturalists, they celebrate not only what is distinctive in their own backgrounds but what they hold in common with the rest of the population.
The ethnic identification often tends toward superficiality. The sociologist Richard Alba’s study of children and grandchildren of immigrants in the Albany, New York, area shows the most popular “ethnic experience” to be sampling the ancestral cuisine. Still, less than half the respondents picked that, and only one percent ate ethnic food every day. Only one- fifth acknowledged a sense of special relationship to people of their own ethnic background; less than one-sixth taught their children about their ethnic origins; almost none was fluent in the language of the old country.
“It is hard to avoid the conclusion,” Alba writes, “that ethnic experience is shallow for the great majority of whites.”
If ethnic experience is a good deal less shallow for blacks, it is because of their bitter experience in America, not because of their memories of Africa. Nonetheless most blacks prefer “black” to “African-Americans,” fight bravely and patriotically for their country, and would move to the suburbs too if income and racism would permit.
As for Hispanic-Americans, first-generation Hispanics born in the United States speak English fluently, according to a Rand Corporation study; more than half of second-generation Hispanics give up Spanish
altogether. When Vista, an English-language monthly for Hispanics, asked its readers what historical figures they most admired, Washington, Lincoln, and Theodore Roosevelt led the list, with Benito Juarez trailing behind as fourth, and Eleanor Roosevelt and Martin Luther King Jr. tied for fifth. So
much for ethnic role models. Nor, despite the effort of ethnic ideologues, are minority groups all
that hermetically sealed off from each other, except in special situations, like colleges, where ideologues are authority figures. The wedding notices in any newspaper testify to the increased equanimity with which people these days marry across ethnic lines, across religious lines, even, though one million interracial-mostly black-white-marriages in 1990 as against
310,000 in 1970.

The ethnic revolt against the melting pot has reached the point, in rhetoric at least, though not I think in reality, of a denial of the idea of a common culture and a single society. If large numbers of people really accept this, the republic would be in serious trouble. The question poses itself:
how to restore the balance between unum and pluribus?
The old American homogeneity disappeared well over a century ago, never to return. Ever since, we have been preoccupied in one way or another with the problem, as Herbert Croly phrased in 80 years back in The Promise of American Life, “of preventing such divisions from dissolving the society into which they enter-of keeping such a highly differentiated society fundamentally sound and whole.” This required, Croly believed, an “ultimate bond of union.” There was only one way by which solidarity
could be restored, “and that is by means of a democratic social ideal. . . . ”
The genius of America lies in its capacity to forge a single nation from peoples of remarkably diverse racial, religious, and ethnic origins. It has done so because democratic principles provide both the philosophical bond of union and practical experience in civic participation. The American Creed envisages a nation composed of individuals making their own choices and accountable to themselves, not a nation based on inviolable ethnic communities. The Constitution turns on individual rights, not on
group rights. Law, in order to rectify past wrongs, has from time to time (and in my view often properly so) acknowledged the claims of groups; but this is the exception, not the rule.
Our democratic principles contemplate an open society founded on tolerance of differences and on mutual respect. In practice, America has been more open to some than to others. But it is more open to all today than it was yesterday and is likely to be even more open tomorrow than today. The steady movement of American life has been from exclusion to inclusion.
Historically and culturally this republic has an Anglo-Saxon base; but from the start the base has been modified, enriched, and reconstituted by transfusions from other continents and civilizations. The movement from exclusion to inclusion causes a constant revision in the texture of our culture. The ethnic transfusions affect all aspects of American life-our politics, our literature, our music, our painting, our movies, our cuisine, our customs, our dreams.
Black Americans in particular have influenced the ever-changing national culture in many ways. They have lived here for centuries, and, unless one believes in racist mysticism, they belong far more to American culture than to the culture of Africa. Their history is part of the Western
democratic tradition. not an alternative to it. Henrv Louis Gates Jr. It is more disservice than those Afrocentric ideologues who would define them out of the West.
The interplay of diverse traditions produces the America we know. “Paradoxical though it may seem,” Diane Ravitch has well said, “the United States has a common culture that is multicultural.” That is why
unifying political ideals coexist so easily and cheerfully with diversity in social and cultural values. Within the overarching political commitment, people are free to live as they choose, ethnically and otherwise. Differences will remain; some are reinvented; some are used to drive us apart. But as
we renew our allegiance to the unifying ideals, we provide the solvent that will prevent differences from escalating into antagonism and hatred.
One powerful reason for the movement from exclusion to inclusion is that the American Creed facilitates the appeal from the actual to the ideal. When we talk of the American democratic faith, we must understand it in its true dimensions. It is not an impervious, final, and complacent orthodoxy, intolerant of deviation and dissent, fulfilled in flag salutes, oaths of allegiance, and hands over the heart. It is an ever-evolving philosophy, fulfilling its ideals through debate, self-criticism, protest, dis-
respect, and irreverence; a tradition in which all have rights of heterodoxy and opportunities for self-assertion. The Creed has been the means by which Americans have haltingly but persistently narrowed the gap between performance and principle. It is what all Americans should learn, because
it is what binds all Americans together.
Let us by all means in this increasingly mixed-up world learn about those other continents and civilizations. But let us master our own history first. Lamentable as some may think it, we inherit an American experience, as America inherits a European experience. To deny the essentially
European origins of American culture is to falsify history.

Americans of whatever origin should take pride in the distinctive inheritance to which they have all contributed, as other nations take pride in their distinctive inheritances. Belief in one’s own culture does not require disdain for other cultures. But one step at a time: no culture can hope to ingest other cultures all at once, certainly not before it ingests its own. As we begin to master our own culture, then we can explore the world.
Our schools and colleges have a responsibility to teach history for its own sake-as part of the intellectual equipment of civilized persons-and not to degrade history by allowing its contents to be dictated by pressure groups, whether political, economic, religious, or ethnic. The past may sometimes give offense to one or another minority; that is no reason for rewriting history. Giving pressure groups vetoes over textbooks and courses betrays both history and education. Properly taught, history will convey a sense of the variety, continuity, and adaptability of cultures, of the need for understanding other cultures, of the ability of individuals and peoples to overcome obstacles, of the importance of critical analysis
and dispassionate judgment in every area of life.

Our or the next country’s, but we have no doubt that they are better for us, reared as we are-and are worth living by and worth dying for. For our values are not matters of whim and happenstance. History has given them to us. They are anchored in our national experience, in our great national documents, in our national heroes, in our folkways, traditions, and standards. People with a different history will have differing values. But we believe that our own are better for us. They work for us; and, for
that reason, we live and die by them.
It has taken time to make the values real for all our citizens, and we still have a good distance to go, but we have made progress. If we now repudiate the quite marvelous inheritance that history bestows on us, we invite the fragmentation of the national community into a quarrelsome spatter of enclaves, ghettos, tribes. The bonds of cohesion in our society are sufficiently fragile, or so it seems to me, that it makes no sense to strain them by encouraging and exalting cultural and linguistic apartheid.
The American identity will never be fixed and final; it will always be in the making. Changes in the population have always brought changes in the national ethos and will continue to do so; but not, one must hope, at the expense of national integration. The question America confronts as a pluralistic society is how to vindicate cherished cultures and traditions without breaking the bonds of cohesionrommon ideals, common polit-ical institutions, common language, common culture, common fate-that hold the republic together.
Our task is to combine due appreciation of the splendid diversity of the nation with due emphasis on the great unifying Western ideas of individual freedom, political democracy, and human rights. These are the ideas that define the American nationality-and that today empower people of all continents, races, and creeds.
”What then is the American, this new man? . . . Here individuals of all nations are melted into a new race of men.” Still a good answer-still the best hope.

return to Soc 316 or Issues Reader