It is often said that being
an American means sharing a commitment to a set of values and ideals. Writing
about the relationship of ethnicity and American identity, the historian Philip
Gleason put it this way:
To be or
to become an American, a person did not have to be 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. Thus the universalist ideological character of
American nationality meant that it was open to anyone who willed to become an
American.
To take the motto of the Great Seal of the United
States, E pluribus unum – "From many, one" – in this context
suggests not that manyness should be melted down into one, as in Israel
Zangwill's image of the melting pot, but that, as the Great Seal's sheaf of
arrows suggests, there should be a coexistence of many-in-one under a unified
citizenship based on shared ideals.
Of course, the story is not so simple, as Gleason
himself went on to note. America's history of racial and ethnic exclusions has
undercut ,for being an American has also meant sharing a national culture, one
largely defined in racial, ethnic, and religious terms. And while solidarity
can be understood as an experience of willed affiliation," some forms of
American solidarity have been less inclusive than others, demanding much more
than simply the desire to affiliate. In this essay, I explore different ideals
of civic solidarity with an eye toward what they imply for newcomers who wish
to become American citizens.
Why does civic solidarity matter? First, it is
integral to the pursuit of distributive justice. The institutions of the
welfare state serve as redistributive mechanisms that can offset the
inequalities of life chances that a capitalist economy creates, and they raise
the position of the worst-off members of society to a level where they are able
to participate as equal citizens. While self-interest alone may motivate people
to support social insurance schemes that protect them against unpredictable
circumstances, solidarity is understood to be required to support
redistribution from the rich to aid the poor, including housing subsidies,
income supplements, and long-term unemployment benefits. The underlying idea is
that people are more likely to support redistributive schemes when they trust one
another, and they are more likely to trust one another when they regard others
as like themselves in some meaningful sense.
Second, genuine democracy demands solidarity. If
democratic activity involves not just voting, but also deliberation, then
people must make an effort to listen to and understand one another. Moreover,
they must be willing to moderate their claims in the hope of finding common
ground on which to base political decisions. Such democratic activity cannot be
realized by individuals pursuing their own interests; it requires some concern
for the common good. A sense of solidarity can help foster mutual sympathy and
respect, which in turn support citizens' orientation toward the common good.
Third, civic solidarity offers more inclusive alternatives
to chauvinist models that often prevail in political life around the world. For
example, the alternative to the Nehru-Gandhi secular definition of Indian
national identity is the Hindu chauvinism of the Bharatiya Janata Party, not a
cosmopolitan model of belonging. "And what in the end can defeat this
chauvinism," asks Charles Taylor, "but some reinvention of India as a
secular republic with which people can identify, It is not enough to articulate
accounts of solidarity and belonging only at the transnational levels while
ignoring senses of belonging to the political community. One might believe that
people have a deep need for belonging in communities, perhaps grounded in even
deeper human needs for recognition and freedom, but even those skeptical of
such claims might recognize the importance of articulating more inclusive
models of political community as an alternative to the racial, ethnic, or
religious narratives that have permeated political life. The challenge, then,
is to develop a model of civic solidarity that is "thick" enough to
motivate support for justice and democracy while also "thin" enough
to accommodate racial, ethnic, and religious diversity.
We might look first to Habermas's idea of
constitutional patriotism .The idea emerged from a particular
national history, to denote attachment to the liberal democratic institutions
of the postwar Federal Republic of Germany, but Habermas and others have taken
it to be a generalizable vision for liberal democratic societies, as well as
for supranational communities such as the European Union. On this view, what
binds citizens together is their common allegiance to the ideals embodied in a
shared political culture. The only "common denominator for a
constitutional patriotism" is that "every citizen be socialized into
a common political culture."
Habermas points to the United States as a leading
example of a multicultural society where constitutional principles have taken
root in a political culture without depending on "all citizens' sharing the
same language or the same ethnic and cultural origins." The basis of
American solidarity is not any particular racial or ethnic identity or
religious beliefs, but universal moral ideals embodied in American political
culture and set forth in such seminal texts as the Declaration of Independence,
the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address,
and Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech. Based on a
minimal commonality of shared ideals, constitutional patriotism is attractive
for the agnosticism toward particular moral and religious outlooks and
identities to which it aspires.
What does constitutional patriotism suggest for the
sort of reception immigrants should receive? There has been a general shift in
Western Europe and North America in the standards governing access to
citizenship from cultural markers to values, and this is a development that
constitutional patriots would applaud. In the United States those seeking to
become citizens must demonstrate basic knowledge of U.S. government and
history. A newly revised U.S. citizenship test was instituted in October 2008
with the hope that it will serve, in the words of the chief of the Office of
Citizenship, Alfonso Aguilar, as "an instrument to promote civic learning
and patriotism. The revised test attempts to move away from civics trivia to
emphasize political ideas and concepts. There is still a fair amount of trivia:
"How many amendments does the Constitution have?" "What is the
capital of your state The new test asks more open-ended questions about
government powers and political concepts,"What does the judicial branch
do?" "What stops one branch of government from becoming too
powerful?" "What is freedom of religion.
Yet language is a key aspect of "ethical-cultural"
forms of life, shaping people's worldviews and experiences. It is through
language that individuals become who they are. Since a political community must
conduct its affairs in at least one language, the ethical-cultural and
political cannot be completely. As theorists of multiculturalism have stressed,
complete separation of state and particularistic identities is impossible;
government decisions about the language of public institutions, public
holidays, and state symbols unavoidably involve recognizing and supporting
particular ethnic and religious groups over others. In the
United States, English language ability has been a statutory qualification for
naturalization since 1906, originally as a requirement of oral ability and
later as a requirement of English literacy. Indeed, support for the principles
of the Constitution has been interpreted as requiring English literacy. The
language requirement might be justified as a practical matter we need some
language to be the common language of schools, government, and the workplace,
so why not the language of the majority, but for a great many citizens, the
language requirement is also viewed as a key marker of national identity. The
continuing centrality of language in naturalization policy prevents us from
saying that what it means to be an American is purely a matter of shared
values.
In contrast to constitutional patriots, liberal
nationalists acknowledge that states cannot be culturally neutral even if they
tried. States cannot avoid coercing citizens into preserving a national culture
of some kind because state institutions and laws define a political culture,
which in turn shapes the range of customs and practices of daily life that constitute
a national culture. David Miller, a leading theorist of liberal nationalism,
defines national identity according to the following elements: a shared belief
among a group of individuals that they belong together, historical continuity
stretching across generations, connection to a particular territory, and a
shared set of characteristics constituting a national culture. It is not enough
to share a common identity rooted in a shared history or a shared territory; a
shared national culture is a necessary feature of national identity. I share a
national culture with someone, even if we never meet, if each of us has been
initiated into the traditions and customs of a national culture.
What sort of content makes up a national culture,
Miller says more about what a national culture does not entail. It need not be
based on biological descent. Even if nationalist doctrines have historically
been based on notions of biological descent and race, Miller emphasizes that
sharing a national culture is, in principle, compatible with people belonging
to a diversity of racial and ethnic groups. In addition, every member need not
have been born in the homeland. Thus, "immigration need not pose problems,
provided only that the immigrants come to share a common national identity, to
which they may contribute their own distinctive ingredients.
No comments:
Post a Comment