Michael Walzer

What Does It Mean to Be an “American"?

There is no country called America. We live in the United States of America, and we have appropriated the adjective “American” even though we can claim no exclusive title to it. Canadians and Mexicans are also Americans, but they have adjectives more obviously their own, and we have none. Words like “unitarian” and “unionist” won’t do; our sense of ourselves is not captured by the mere fact of our union, however important that is. Nor will “statist,” even “united statist,” serve our purposes; a good
many of the citizens of the United States are antistatist. Other countries, wrote the “American” political theorist Horace Kallen, get their names from the people, or from one of the peoples, who inhabit them. “The United States, on the other hand, has a peculiar anonymity.”’ It is a name that doesn’t even pretend to tell us who lives here. Anybody can live here, and just about everybody does-men and women from all the world‘s peoples. (The Harvurd Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups begins with Acadians and Afghans and ends with Zoroastrians?) It is peculiarly easy to become an American.The adjective provides no reliable information about the origins, histories, connections, or cultures of those whom it designates. What does it say, then, about their political allegiance?

Patriotism and Pluralism

American politicians engage periodically in a fierce competition to demon- strate their patriotism. This is an odd competition, surely, for in most countries the patriotism of politicians is not an issue. There are other issues, and this question of political identification and commitment rarely comes up; loyalty to the patrie, the fatherland (or motherland), is simply assumed. Perhaps it isn’t assumed here because the United States isn’t a patrie. Americans have never spoken of their country as a father-land (or a motherland). The kind of natural or organic loyalty that we (rightly or wrongly) recognize in families doesn’t seem to be a feature of our politics. When American politicians invoke the metaphor of family
they are usually making an argument about our mutual responsibilities and welfarist obligations, and among Americans, that is a controversial argument3 One can be an American patriot without believing in the mutual responsibilities of American citizens-indeed, for some Americans
disbelief is a measure of one’s patriotism.
Similarly, the United States isn’t a “homeland” (where a national family might dwell), not, at least, as other countries are, in casual conversation and unreflective feeling. It is a country of immigrants xho, however grateful they are for this new place, still remember the old places. And their children know, if only intermittently, that they have roots elsewhere. They, no doubt, are native grown, but some awkward sense of newness here, or of distant oldness, keeps the tongue from calling this land “home.”The older political uses of the word “home,” common in Great Britain, have never taken root here: home counties, home station, Home Office, home rule. To be “at home’’ in America is a personal matter: Americans have homesteads and homefolks and hometowns, and each of these is an endlessly interesting topic of conversation. But they don’t have much to say about a common or communal home.
Nor is there a common patrie, but rather many different ones-a multitude of fatherlands (and motherlands). For the children, even the grandchildren, of the immigrant generation, one’s patn‘e, the “native land of one’s ancestors,” is somewhere else. The term “Native Americans” designates the very first immigrants, who got here centuries before any of the others. At what point do the rest of us, native grown, become natives? The question has not been decided; for the moment, however, the language of
nativism is mostly missing (it has never been dominant in American public life), even when the political reality is plain to see. Alternatively, nativist language can be used against the politics of nativism, as in these lines of Horace Kallen, the theorist of an anonymous America:

Behind [the individual] in time and tremendously in him in quality are his ancestors; around him in space are his relatives and kin, carrying in common with him the inherited organic set from a remoter
common ancestry. In all these he lives and moves and has his being. They constitute his, literally, nafio, the inwardness of his nativity.

But since there are so many “organic sets” (language is deceptive here: Kallen’s antinativist nativism is cultural, not biological), none of them can rightly be called “American.” Americans have no inwardness of their own; they look inward only by looking backward.
According to Kallen, the United States is less importantly a union of states than it is a union of ethnic, racial, and religious groups-a union of otherwise unrelated “natives.” What is the nature of this union? The Great Seal of the United States carries the motto E pluribus unum, ”From many, one,” which seems to suggest that manyness must be left behind for the sake of oneness. Once there were many now the many have become like sheaf of arrows. Here there is no merger or fusion but only a fastening, a
putting together: many-in-one. Perhaps the adjective “American” describes this kind of oneness. We might say, tentatively, that it points to the citizenship, not the nativity or nationality, of the men and women it designates. It is a political adjective, and its politics is liberal in the strict sense: generous, tolerant, ample, accommodationg - it allows for the survival, even the enhancement and flourishing, of manyness.

On this view, appropriately called "pluralist," the word "from" on the Great Seal is afalse preposition. There is no movement from many to one, but rather a simultaneity, a coexistence - once again, many -in-one. But I don't mean to suggest a mystery here, as in the Christian conception fo a God who is three-in-one. the language of pluralism is sometimes a bit mysterious - thus Kallen's description of America as a "nation of nationalisties" or John Rawls account of the liberal state as a "social union of social unions" - but it lends itself to a rational unpacking. A sheaf of arows is not, afrer all, a mysterioud entity. We can find analogues in the earliest forms of social organization: tribes composed of many clans, clans composed of many families. The conflicts of loyalty and obligation, inevitable products of pluralism, must arise in these cases too. And yet, they are not exact analogues of the American case, for tribes and clans lack Kallen's "anonymity." American pluralism is, as we shall see, a peculiarly modern phenomenon - not mysterious but highly complex

In fact, the United Staes is not a "nation of nationalities" or a "social union of social unions." At least, the signular natiion or union is not constituted by, it is not a combination or fastening together of, the plural nationalities or unions, In some sense, it includes them; it provides a framework for their coexistence but they are not its parts. Nor are the individual states, in any significant sense, the parts that make up the United States. The parts are individual men and women. The United States is an association of citizens. Its "anonymity" consists in the fact that these citizens don't transfer their collective name to the association. It never happened that a group of p[eople called Americans ccame together to form a political society called America. The people are Americans only by virtue of having come together. And whatever identity they had before becoming Americans, they retain (or, better, they are free to retain) afterward. There is, to be sure, another view of Americanization, which holds that the process requires for its success the mental erasure of all previous identities - forgetfulness or even, as one enthusiast wrote in 1918, "absolute forgetfulness." But on the pluralist view, Americans are allowed to remember who they were and to insist, also, on what else they were.

They are not, however, bound to the rememberance or to the insistence. Just as their ancestors escaped the old country,m so they can if they choose escapes their old identitiex, the 'inwarness" of th eir natiivity. Kallen writes of the individual that "whatever else he changes, he cannot change his grandfather."
He doesn’t become a better American by doing these things (though that is sometimes his purpose), but he may become an American simply, an American and nothing else, freeing himself from the hyphenation that pluralists regard as universal on this side, though not on the other side, of the Atlantic Ocean. But, free from hyphenation, he seems also free from ethnicity: “American” is not one of the ethnic groups recognized in the United States census. Someone who is only an American is, so far as our bureaucrats are concerned, ethnically anonymous. He has a right, however, to his anonymity; that is part of what it means to be an American.
For a long time, British-Americans thought of themselves as Americans simply-and not anonymously:they constituted, so they would have said, a new ethnicity and a new nationality, into which all later immigrants would slowly assimilate. “Americanization” was a political program designed to make sure that assimilation would not be too slow a process, at a time, indeed, when it seemed not to be a recognizable process at all. But though there were individuals who did their best to assimilate, that is, to adopt, at least outwardly, the mores of British-Americans, that soon ceased to be a plausible path to an “American” future. The sheer number of non-British immigrants was too great. If there was to be a new nationality, it would have to come out of the melting pot, where the heat was applied equally to
all groups, the earlier immigrants as well as the most recent ones. The anonymous American was, at the turn of the century, say, a place-holder for some unknown future person who would give cultural content to the name. Meanwhile, most Americans were hyphenated Americans, more or less friendly totheir grandfathers, more or less committed to their manyness. And pluralism was an alternative political program designed to legitimate this manyness and to make it permanent-which would leave those individuals who were Americans and nothing else permanently anonymous, assimilated to a cultural nonidentity.

Citizens

But though these anonymous Americans were not better Americans for being or for having become anonymous, it is conceivable that they were, and are, better American citizens. If the manyness of America is cultural, its oneness is political, and it may be the case that men and women who
are free from non-American cultures will commit themselves more fully to the American political system. Maybe cultural anonymity is the best possible grounding for American politics. From the beginning, of course, it has been the standard claim of British-Americans that their own culture is
the best grounding. And there is obviously much to be said for that view. Despite the efforts of hyphenated Americans to describe liberal and democratic politics as a kind of United Way to which they have all made contributions, the genealogy of the American political system bears a close
resemblence to the geneology of the Sons and Daughers of the American Revolutionary War. The parliamentary oligarchy of eighteenth-century Great Britain wasn’t, after all, all that useful a model for America. When the ancestors of the Sons and Daughters described their political achievement as a “new order for the ages,” they were celebrating a break with their own ethnic past almost as profound as that which later Americans were called upon to make. British- Americans who refused the break called themselves “Loyalists,” but they were called disloyal by their opponents and treated even more harshly than hyphenated Americans from Germany, Russia, and Japan in later episodes of war and revolution.
Citizenship in the “new order” was not universally available, since blacks and women and Indians (Native Americans) were excluded, but it was never linked to a single nationality. “To be or to become an American,” writes Philip Gleason, “a person did not have to be of any particular national, linguistic, religious, or ethnic background. All he had to do was to commit himself to the political ideology centered on the abstract ideals of liberty, equality, and republicanism.”’ These abstract ideals made for a politics separated not only from religion but from culture itself or, better, from all the particular forms in which religious and national culture was, and is, expressed-hence a politics “anonymous” in Kallen’s sense. Anonymity suggests autonomy too, though I don’t want to claim that American politics was not qualified in important ways by British Protestantism, later by Irish Catholicism, later still by German, Italian, Polish, Jewish, African, and Hispanic religious commitments and political experience. But these
qualifications never took what might be called a strong adjectival form, never became permanent or exclusive qualities of America’s abstract poli-tics and citizenship. The adjective “American” named, and still names, a politics that is relatively unqualified by religion or nationality or, alternatively, that is qualified by so many religions and nationalities as to be free from any one of them.
It is this freedom that makes it possible for America’s oneness to encompass and protect its manyness. Nevertheless, the conflict between the one and the many is a pervasive feature of American life. Those Americans who attach great value to the oneness of citizenship and the centrality of political allegiance must seek to constrain the influence of cultural manyness; those who value the many must disparage the one. The conflict is evident from the earliest days of the republic, but I will begin my own account of it with the campaign to restrict immigration and naturalization in the 1850s. Commonly called “nativist” by historians, the campaign was probably closer in its politics to a Rousseauian republicanism.’’ Anti-
Irish and anti-Catholic bigotry played a large part in mobilizing support for the American (or American Republican) party, popularly called the Know-Nothings; and the political style of the party, like that of contemporary abolitionists and free-soilers, displayed many of the characteristics of Protestant moralism. But in its self-presentation, it was above all republican. more concerned ahout the civic virtue of the new immisrantc than the Know-Nothings had to do largely with questions of citizenship at the national level and of public education at the local level. In Congress, where the party had 75 representatives (and perhaps another 45 sympathizers, out of a total of 234) at the peak of its strength in 1855, it seemed more committed to restricting the suffrage than to cutting off immigration. Some of its members would have barred “paupers” from entering the United States, and others would have required an oath of allegiance from all immigrants immediately upon landing. But their energy was directed mostly towardrevising the naturalization laws.ll It was not the elimination of manyness but its disenfranchisement that the Know-Nothings championed.
Something like this was probably the position of most American “nativists” until the last years of the nineteenth century. In 1845, when immigration rates were still fairly low, a group of “native Americans” meeting in Philadelphia declared that they would “kindly receive [all] per-
sons who came to America, and give them every privilege except office and suffrage.”” I would guess that the nativist view of American blacks was roughly similar. Most of the northern Know-Nothings (the party’s greatest strength was in New England) were strongly opposed to slavery, but it did not follow from that opposition that they were prepared to welcome former slaves as fellow citizens. The logic of events led to citizenship, after a bloody war, and the Know-Nothings, by then loyal Republicans, presum- ably supported that outcome. But the logic of republican principle, as they understood it, would have suggested some delay. Thus a resolution of the Massachusetts legislature in 1856 argued that “republican institutions were especially adapted to an educated and intelligent people, capable of and accustomed to self-government. Free institutions could be confined safely only to free men. . . . ”13 The legislators went on to urge a twenty- one-year residence requirement for naturalization. Since it was intended that disenfranchised residents should nonetheless be full members of civil society, another piece of Know-Nothing legislation would have provided that any alien free white person (this came from a Mississippi senator) should be entitled after twelve months residence “to all the protection of the government, and [should] be allowed to inherit, and hold, and trans-
mit real estate . . . the same manner as though he were a citizen.”14
Civil society, then, would include a great variety of ethnic and religious and perhaps even racial groups, but the members of these groups would acquire the “inestimable” good of citizenship only after a long
period of practical education (but does one learn just by watching?) in democratic virtue. Meanwhile, their children would get a formal education. Despite their name, the Know-Nothings thought that citizenship was a subject about which a great deal had to be known. Some of them wanted to make attendance in public schools compulsory, but, faced with constitutional objections, they insisted only that no public funding should go to the support of parochial schools. It is worth emphasizing that the crucial is that tax money should not be used to underwrite social manyness-not in the case of religion,obviously, but also not in the case of language and culture. Political identity, singular in form, would be publicly inculcated and defended; the plurality of social identities would have to be sustained
in private.
I don’t doubt that most nativists hoped that plurality would not, in fact, be sustained. They had ideas, if not sociological theories, about the connection of politics and culture-specifically, as I have said, republican politics and British Protestant culture. I don’t mean to underestimate the centrality of these ideas: this was presumably the knowledge that the Know-Nothings were concealing when they claimed to know nothing. Nonetheless, the logic of their position, as of any “American” republican position, pressed toward the creation of a politics independent of all the ethnicities and religions of civil society. Otherwise too many people would be excluded; the political world would look too much like Old
England and not at all like the “new order of the ages,” not at all like “America.” Nor could American nativists challenge ethnic and religious pluralism directly, for both were protected (as the parochial schools were protected) by the constitution to which they claimed a passionate attachment. They could only insist that passionate attachment should be the mark of all citizens-and set forth the usual arguments against the seriousness of love at first sight and in favor of long engagements. They wanted what Rousseau wanted: that citizens should find the greater share of their happiness in public (political) rather than in private (social) activities.16 And they were prepared to deny citizenship to men and women
who seemed to them especially unlikely to do that.
No doubt, again, public happiness came easily to the nativists because they felt so entirely at home in American public life. But we should not be too quick to attribute this feeling to the carry-over of ethnic
consciousness into the political sphere. For American politics in the 1850s was already so open, egalitarian, and democratic (relative to European politics) that almost anyone could feel at home in it. Precisely because the United States was no one’s national home, its politics was universally
accessible. All that was necessary in principle was ideological commitment, in practice, a good line of talk. The Irish did very well and demonstrated as conclusively as one could wish that “British” and “Protestant” were not necessary adjectives for American politics. They attached to the
many, not to the one.
For this reason, the symbols and ceremonies of American citizenship could not be drawn from the political culture or history of British-Americans. Our Congress is not a Commons; Guy Fawkes Day is not an American holiday; the Magna Carta has never been one of our sacred texts. American
symbols and ceremonies are culturally anonymous, invented rather than inherited, voluntaristic in style, narrowly political in content: the flag, the Pledge the Fourth, the Constitution. It is entirely appropriate that they continue, even today, to figure largely in political debate. With what reverence should the flag be treated? On what occasions must it be saluted? Should we require school children to recite the Pledge, teachers to lead the recitation?Questions like these are the tests of a political commitment that can’t be assumed, because it isn’t undergirded by the cultural and religious commonalities that make for mutual trust. The flag and the Pledge are, as it were, all we have. One could suggest, of course, alternative and more practical tests of loyalty-responsible participation in political life, for example. But the real historical alternative is the test proposed by the cultural pluralists: one proves one’s Americanism, in their view, by living in peace with all the other “Americans,” that is, by agreeing to respect social manyness rather than by pledging allegiance to the “one and indivisible” republic. And pluralists are led on by the logic of this argument to suggest that citizenship is something less than an “inestimable” good.

Hyphenated Americans

Good it certainly was to be an American citizen. Horace Kallen was pre- pared to call citizenship a “great vocation,” but he clearly did not believe (in the 1910s and ’ZOs, when he wrote his classic essays on cultural pluralism) that one could make a life there. Politics was a necessary, but not a
spiritually sustaining activity. It was best understood in instrumental terms; it had to do with the arrangements that made it possible for groups of citizens to “realize and protect” their diverse cultures and “attain the excellence appropriate to their kind.”17 These arrangements, Kallen thought, had to be democratic, and democracy required citizens of a certain sort-autonomous, self-disciplined, capable of cooperation ard compromise. “Americanization” was entirely legitimate insofar as it aimed to
develop these qualities; they made up Kallen’s version of civic virtue, and he was willing to say that they should be common to all Americans. But, curiously perhaps, they did not touch the deeper self. “The common city- life, which depends upon like-mindedness, is not inward, corporate, and inevitable, but external, inarticulate, and incidental . . . not the expression of a homogeneity of heritage, mentality, and interest.”18
Hence Kallen’s program: assimilation “in matters economic and political,” dissimilation “in cultural The hyphen joined these two processes in one person, so that a Jewish-American (like Kallen) was similar to other Americans in his economic and political activity, but similar only to other Jews at the deeper level of culture.20 It is clear that Kallen’s “hyphenates,” whose spiritual life is located so emphatically to the left of the hyphen, cannot derive the greater part of their happiness from their citizenship. Nor, in a sense, should they, since culture, for the cultural pluralists, is far more important than politics and promises a more complete satisfaction. Pluralists, it seems, do not make good republicans-for the same reason that republicans, Roussesau the classic example, do not make good pluralists.
Kallen’s hyphenated Americans can be attentive and conscientious citizens, but on a liberal, not a republican model. This means two things. First, the various ethnic and religious groups can intervene in political life only in order to defend themselves and advance their common interests- as in the case of the NAACP or the Anti-Defamation League-but not in order to impose their culture or their values. They have to recognize that the state is anonymous (or, in the language of contemporary political theorists, neutral) at least in this sense: that it can’t take on the character or the name of any of the groups that it includes. It isn’t a nation-state of a particular kind and it isn’t a Christian republic. Second, the primary political commitment of individual citizens is to protect their protection, to uphold the democratic framework within which they pursue their more substantive activities. This commitment is consistent with feelings of gratitude, loyalty, even patriotism of a certain sort, but it doesn’t make for fellowship. There is indeed union in politics (and economics) but union of a sort that precludes
intimacy. “The political and economic life of the commonwealth,” writes Kallen, “is a single unit and serves as the foundation and back round for the realization of the distinctive individuality of each nation. Here pluralism is straightforwardly opposed to republicanism: politics offers neither self-realization nor communion. All intensity lies, or should lie, elsewhere.
Kallen believes, of course, that this “elsewhere” actually exists; his is not a utopian vision; it’s not a case of “elsewhere, perhaps.” The “organic groups” that make up Kallen’s America appear in public life as interest groups only, organized for the pursuit of material and social goods that are universally desired but sometimes in short supply and often unfairly distributed. That is the only appearance countenanced by a liberal and democratic political system. But behind it, concealed from public view, lies the truesignificance of ethnicity or religion: “It is the center at which [the individual] stands, the point of his most intimate social relations, therefore of his intensest emotional life.”22 I am inclined to say that this
is too radical a view of ethnic and religious identification, since it seems to rule out moral conflicts in which the individual’s emotions are enlisted, as it were, on both sides. But Kallen’s more important point is simply that there is space and opportunity elsewhere for the emotional satisfactions that politics can’t (or shouldn’t) provide. And because individuals really do find this satisfaction, the groups within which it is found are permanently sustainable: they won’t melt down, not, at least, in any ordinary
(noncoercive) social process. Perhaps they can be repressed, if the repression is sufficiently savage; even then, they will win out in the end.
Kallen wasn’t entirely unaware of the powerful forces making for cultural meltdown, even without repression. He has some strong lines on the effectiveness of the mass media-though he knew these only in their infancy and at a time when newspapers were still a highly localized medium and the foreign-language press flourished. In his analysis and critiaue of the nressure to conform. he anticipated what became by the the conformity of ethnic-Americans to that spiritless “Americanism” he so much disliked, a dull protective coloring that destroys all inner brightness. In any case, he is sure that inner brightness will survive, “for Nature is naturally pluralistic; her unities are eventual, not primary. . . . Eventually, he means, the American union will prove to be a matter of “mutual accommodation,” leaving intact the primacy of ethnic and religious identity. In the years since Kallen wrote, this view has gathered a great deal of ideological, but much less of empirical, support. “Pluralist principles . . . have been on the ascendancy,” writes a contemporary critic of pluralism, “precisely at a time when ethnic differences have been on the wane.”24 What if the “excellence” appropriate to our “kind” is, simply, an American
excellence? Not necessarily civic virtue of the sort favored by nativists, republicans, and contemporary communitarians, but nonetheless some local color, a brightness of our own?

Peripheral Distance

This local color is most visible, I suppose, in popular culture-which is entirely appropriate in the case of the world’s first mass democracy. Consider, for example, the movie American in Paris, where the hero is an American simply and not at all an Irish- or German- or Jewish-American. Do we drop ourhyphens when we travel abroad? But what are we, then, without them? We carry with us cultural artifacts of a quite specific sort: “une danse arnericaine,” Gene Kelly tells the French children as he begins to tap dance. What else could he call it, this melted-down combination of Northern English clog dancing, the Irish jig and reel, and African rhythmic foot stamping, to which had been added, by Kelly’s time, the influence of the French and Russian ballet? Creativity of this sort is both explained and celebrated by those writers and thinkers, heroes of the higher culture, that we are likely to recognize as distinctively American: thus Emerson’s defense of the experimental life (I am not sure, though, that he would
have admired tap dancing), or Whitman’s democratic inclusiveness, or the pragmatism of Peirce and James.
“An American nationality,” writes Gleason, “does in fact exist.”25 Not just a political status, backed up by a set of political symbols and ceremonies, but a full-blooded nationality, reflecting a history and a culture-exactly like all the other nationalities from which Americans have been, and continue to be, recruited. The ongoing immigration makes it difficult to see the real success of Americanization in creating distinctive types, characters, styles, artifacts of all sorts which, were Gene Kelly to display them to his Parisian neighbors, they would rightly recognize as “American.” More important, Americans recognize one another, take pride in the things that fellow Americans have made and done, identify with the national community. So, while there no doubt are people plausibly called Italian-Americans or Swedish-Americans. spiritual (as well as political life-this is Gleason’s view.

This view seems to me both right and wrong. It is right in its denial of Kallen’s account of America as an anonymous nation of named nationalities. It is wrong in its insistence that America is a nation like all the others. But the truth does not lie, where we might naturally be led to look for it, somewhere between this rightness and this wrongness-as if we could locate America at some precise point along the continuum that stretches from the many to the one. I want to take the advice of that American song, another product of the popular culture, which tells us: “Don’t mess with mister in-between.”26 If there are cultural artifacts, songs and dances, styles of life and even philosophies, that are distinctively American, there is also an idea of America that is itself distinct, incorporating oneness and
manyness in a “new order’’ that may or may not be “for the ages” but that is certainly for us, here and now.
The cultural pluralists come closer to getting the new order right than do the nativists and the nationalists and the American communitarians. Nonetheless, there is a nation and a national community and, by now, a very large number of native Americans. Even first- and second-generation Americans, as Gleason points out, have graves to visit and homes and neighborhoods to remember in this cuunv, on this side of whatever waters their ancestors crossed to get here.27 What is distinctive about the nationality of these Americans is not its insubstantial character-substance is quickly acquired-but its nonexclusive character. Remembering the God of the Hebrew Bible, I want to argue that America is not a jealous nation. In this sense, at least, it is different from most of the others.
Consider, for example, a classic moment in the ethnic history of France: the debate over the emancipation of the Jews in 1790 and ’91. It is not, by any means, a critical moment; there were fewer than 35,000 Jews in revolutionary France, only 500 in Paris. The Jews were not economically powerful or politically significant or even intellectually engaged in French life (all that could come only after emancipation). But the debate nonethe- less was long and serious, for it dealt with the meaning of citizenship and nationality. When the Constituent Assembly voted for full emancipation in September 1791, its position was summed up by Clermont-Tonnerre, a deputy of the Center, in a famous sentence: “One must refuse everything to the Jews as a nation, and give everything to the Jews as individuals. . . . It would be repugnant to have . . . a nation within a nation.’ The Assembly’s vote led to the disestablishment of Jewish corporate existence in France, which had been sanctioned and protected by the monarchy. “Refusing everything to the Jews as a nation” meant withdrawing the sanction, denying the protection. Henceforth Jewish communities would be voluntary associations, and individual Jews would have rights against the community as well as against the state: Clermont-Tonnerre was a good liberal.
But the Assembly debate also suggests that most of the deputies favoring emancipation would not have looked with favor even on the voluntarv associations of the lews. insofar as these reflected national sensibility “lose their particular characteristics.” I suspect that he could hardly imagine a greater triumph of French civisrne than this-as if the secular Second Coming, like the religious version, awaited only the conversion of the Jews. Brissot thought the day was near: “Their eligibility [for citizenship] will regenerate them.”29 Jews could be good citizens only insofar as they were regenerated, which meant, in effect, that they could be good citizens only insofar as they became French. (They must, after all, have some “particular characteristics,“ and if not their own, then whose?) Their emancipators had, no doubt, a generous view of their capacity to do that but would not have been generous in the face of resistance (from the Jews or from any other of the corporate groups of the old regime). The price of emancipation was assimilation.
This has been the French view of citizenship ever since. Though they have often been generous in granting the exalted status of citizen to foreigners, the successive republics have been suspicious of any form of ethnic pluralism. Each republic really has been “one and indivisible,” and it has been established, as Rousseau thought it should be, on a strong national oneness. Oneness all the way down is, on this view, the only guarantee that the general will and the common good will triumph in French politics.
America is very different, and not only because of the eclipse of republicanism in the early nineteenth century. Indeed, republicanism has had a kind of afterlife as one of the legitimating ideologies of American politics. The Minute Man is a republican image of embodied citizenship. Reverence for the flag is a form of republican piety. The Pledge of Allegiance is a republican oath. But emphasis on this sort of thing reflects social disunity rather than unity; it is a straining after oneness where one-
ness doesn’t exist. In fact, America has been, with severe but episodic exceptions, remarkably tolerant of ethnic pluralism (far less so of racial pluralism).~~ I don’t want to underestimate the human difficulties of adapting even to a hyphenated Americanism, nor to deny the bigotry and
discrimination that particular groups have encountered. But tolerance has been the cultural norm.
Perhaps an immigrant society has no choice; tolerance is a way of muddling through when any alternative policy would be violent and dangerous. But I would argue that we have, mostly, made the best of this necessity, so that the virtues of toleration, in principle though by no means always in practice, have supplanted the singlemindedness of republican citizenship. We have made our peace with the “particular characteristics” of all the immigrant groups (though not, again, of all the racial groups) and have come to regard American nationality as an addition to rather than a replacement for ethnic consciousness. The hyphen works, when it is working, more like a plus sign. “American,” then, is a name indeed, but unlike “French” or “German” or “Italian” or “Korean” or “Japanese” or “Cambodian,” it can serve as a second name. And as in those modern marriages where two patronymics are joined.

We might go farther than this: in the case of hyphenated Americans, it doesn’t matter whether the first or the second name is dominant. We insist, most of the time, that the “particular characteristics” associated with the first name be sustained, as the Know-Nothings urged, without state help-andperhaps they will prove unsustainable on those terms. Still, an ethnic American is someone who can, in principle, live his spiritual life as he chooses, on either side ofthe hyphen. In this sense, American
citizenship is indeed anonymous, for it doesn’t require a full commitment to American (or to any other) nationality. The distinctive national culture that Americans have created doesn’t underpin, it exists alongside of, American politics. It follows, then, that the people I earlier called Americans simply, Americans and nothing else, have in fact a more complicated existence than those terms suggest. They are American-Americans, one more group of hyphenates (not quite the same as all the others), and one
can imagine them attending to the cultural aspects of their Americanism and refusing the political commitment that republican ideology demands. They might still be good or bad citizens. And similarly, Orthodox Jews as well as secular (regenerate) Jews, Protestant fundamentalists as well as liberal Protestants, Irish republicans as well as Irish Democrats, black nationalists as well as black integrationists-all these can be good or bad citizens, given the American (liberal rather than republican) understanding of citizenship.
One step more is required before we have fully understood this strange America: it is not the case that Irish-Americans, say, are culturally Irish and politically American, as the pluralists claim (and as I have been assuming thus far for the sake of the argument). Rather, they are culturally Irish-American and politically Irish-American. Their culture has been significantly influenced by American culture; their politics is still, both in style and substance, significantly ethnic. With them, and with every ethnic and religious group except the American-Americans, hyphenation is doubled. It remains true, however, that what all the groups have in common is most importantly their citizenship and what most differentiates
them, insofar as they are still differentiated, is their culture. Hence the alternation in American life of patriotic fevers and ethnic revivals, the first expressing a desire to heighten the commonality, the second a desire to reaffirm the difference.
At both ends of this peculiarly American alternation, the good that is defended is also exaggerated and distorted, so that pluralism itself is threatened by the sentiments it generates. The patriotic fevers are the
symptoms of a republican pathology. At issue here is the all-important ideological commitment that, as Gleason says, is the sole prerequisite of American citizenship. Since citizenship isn’t guaranteed by oneness all the way down, patriots or superpatriots seek to guarantee it by loyalty oaths and campaigns against “un-American” activities. The Know-Nothing party having failed to restrict naturalization. they resort instead to political restriction,pride and power-a demand for political recognition without assimilation, an assertion of interest-group politics against republican ideology, an effort to distinguish this group (one’s own) from all the others. American patriotism is always strained and nervous because hyphenation makes indeed for dual loyalty but seems, at the same time, entirely American.
Ethnic revivalism is also strained and nervous, because the hyphenates are already Americans, on both sides of the hyphen.
In these circumstances, republicanism is a mirage, and American nationalism or communitarianism is not a plausible option; it doesn’t reach to our complexity. A certain sort of communitarianism is available to each of the hyphenate groups-except, it would seem, the American- Americans, whose community, if it existed, would deny the Americanism of all the others. So Horace Kallen is best described as a Jewish (-American) communitarian and a (Jewish-) American liberal, and this kind of coexistence, more widely realized, would constitute the pattern he called cultural pluralism. But the different ethnic and religious communities are all of them far more precarious than he thought, for they have, in a liberal political system, no corporate form or legal structure or coercive power.
And, without these supports, the “inherited organic set” seems to dissipate- the population lacks cohesion, cultural life lacks coherence. The resulting “groups” are best conceived, John Higham suggests, as a core of activists and believers and an expanding periphery of passive members or followers, lost, as it were, in a wider America. At the core, the left side of the (double) hyphen is stronger; along the periphery, the right side is stronger, though never fully dominant. Americans choose, as it were, their own location; and it appears that a growing number of them are choosing to fade intothe peripheral distances. They become American- Americans, though without much passion invested in the becoming. But if the core doesn’t hold, it also doesn’t disappear; it is still capable of periodic revival.
At the same time, continued large-scale immigration reproduces a Kallenesque pluralism, creating new groups of hyphenate Americans and encouraging revivalism among activists and believers in the old groups. America is still a radically unfinished society, and for now, at least, it makes sense to say that this unfinishedness is one of its distinctive features. The country has a political center, but it remains in every other sense decentered. More than this, the political center, despite occasional patri-
otic fevers, doesn’t work against decentering elsewhere. It neither requires nor demands the kind of commitment that would put the legitimacy of ethnic or religious identification in doubt. It doesn’t aim at a finished or fully coherent Americanism. Indeed, American politics, itself pluralist in character, needs a certain sort of incoherence. A radical program of Americanization would really be un-American. It isn’t inconceivable that America will one day become an American nation-state, the many giving way to the one, but that is not what it is now: nor is that its destiny.

return to Soc 316 or Issues Reader