What is American Culture?
I
What is American culture? Since this blog will probably be read by Americans for the most part, it seems relevant. Given the American, or, more broadly ‘Western’ role of moral leadership in world affairs that continues to this day, it’s an important question for everyone. Wherever the tides may be turning, at the moment America still stands as a figurehead for world leadership, the lifestyle of its people something to be aimed for. But there are also many problems, many critics. Many think America, or rather Americans, to be ignorant. It is thought that they pursue a selfish, materialistic way of life. Alternatively, America and Americans remain in some ways an ideal, a goal to be reached, and immigration to this country continues. So what exactly is American culture? What are the elements that shape a distinctly American identity and way of life? This is the question with which we start.
To answer any question of the form “What is the culture of x like?” the most workable way to move forward is through simple enumeration of common characteristics of the people in that culture. This should work for Americans, Europeans, atheists, punk fans, vegetarians, and so on; what we want is those set of elements that sets America apart, and that all Americans (or at least a broad majority) share. This list would include beliefs, icons, habits and tendencies, a sense of one’s own history, and so on; basically, it is a list of factors that make up the socially constructed part of one’s identity. Not only must the concrete elements be shared, but there should also be a shared sense of meaning; two very different groups can start from the same basic ideas, documents, historical figures, etc. and draw very different lessons from them, based on other factors. Keeping all of this in mind, what do we find when we look at America?
Maybe the most firmly established line of commonality is a shared historical identity. There is a definite history, beginning with European discovery at the end of the Middle Ages and leading through colonization, war, and independence. The Founding Fathers represent both war heroes and icons of statesmanship; they set standards for bravery, sacrifice, prudence, and so on. In a way, the Founders are like the figures of a religious epic; larger than life figures who faced a great opponent and great odds, and came out successful, with their work establishing the foundation stone for many customs, habits, and practical facts of life that we encounter today. Thus, for example, the Constitution is the standard for law, having an absolute authority that shall not be superseded (and not just because it says so); unlike the laws of daily life or younger constitutions in younger countries, the Constitution has a sort of tangible sense of importance and necessity attached to its provisions, of historical destiny. Of course, it is a human document, made by human minds; but time and story changes many things, and the Constitution, along with the thoughts and beliefs of the founders themselves, has become something more than the sum of its parts.
This document provides a huge source of shared identity and sense of selfhood for what is a very large nation. One can compare, for example, the American reaction to 9/11 to any number of terrorist acts in Iraq during the occupation period. When Americans saw the terrorist attacks on television, what many felt was a sense of patriotism and compassion for the victims, despite in most cases not knowing a single person who died. Iraq, where terrorists attacks are still all too frequent, does not go through this range of events. What happens is more frequently a process of blame, and a consequent increase in tensions between ethnic groups. This is important; what is widely seen, in the news at least, is not related to a national patriotism in Iraq; if anything, it’s a threat to a commonality and a cause of further danger and potentially warfare (as Al Qaeda knows). Americans feel proud of their country -and what it stands for- in a way rarely seen, neither in Iraq nor Europe nor elsewhere.
But, as noted, we must pay attention not only to symbols and ideas but also how they’re interpreted, that is, their meaning. It’s not enough to share a belief in the role of the Constitution; there should also be some common ideas about what it stands for, exactly. After all, Christians and Jews all share a set of texts, but they deviate greatly in the significance those texts, foundational though they may be, play in identity. We run into something similar here, for, as recent events have demonstrated, there has been developing recently a very vocal dissention between groups as to what exactly America stands for. I’m of course referring to the conservative anti-government attitude that has developed recently, the Tea Party. These are people who see a great danger in what is happening to America and the direction it is headed. They hold firm to their understanding of the Constitution, and cite it frequently. Further, they hold that the opposition is not simply misguided but anti-American (note: this does not describe the whole Tea Party. It is, however, a clearly visible and driving undercurrent in the movement). Those on the other side, including the Democratic government leadership and opposing protest groups, think the same thing, that they are doing what is right according to fundamental American values and objectives. Where does this difference come from?
II
Whatever it is, it isn’t new. Though we might want to think otherwise, serious dissention and mass protest movements are not new to American life, nor is the scale a novelty. It’s not too long ago that the Vietnam protests occurred, as well as the civil rights movement. And for anyone who thinks that this can be isolated to recent decades, one ought to remember that the Civil War involved differences great enough to literally split the country. What I’d like to point out here is that, while it is true that there is considerable dissention in America about many fundamental issues today, and many of those differences seem poised (or are said to be poised) to affect the structure of American society, this is not a new phenomenon, and not without precedent.
What led to such differences, in this case and others? Much of this will be discussed in greater depth in the next article, so I am anticipating somewhat. But there are some important general features that can be made out now. The first is the very unusual nature of America’s development. Unlike, for instance, most European and Asian countries, America doesn’t follow any sort of rough natural ethnic boundaries. In fact, it went directly towards the opposite direction; America was a recipient, starting long before it became independent, of a broad mixture of ethnic, religious, and other groups from many parts of the world, something that continues to this day (though more now come from Asia and Mexico/South America than from Europe). What those people found was a huge swath of land, what has become one of the largest countries in the world. Thousands of square miles and everything from desert to tundra to Pacific Island are found in America. There are collectives of port cities on the coasts, and broad swathes of farmland with towns through much of the middle. You can find a huge variety of local habits and shared interests, different common practices (theater-going is still a possibility in New York City, and hunting remains important throughout the Midwest) and different levels of contact with the world at large. In short, America’s sheer size, variety of geographies, and different immigrant influences (the latter having perhaps less significance now than in the past) lead to a huge diffusion of ‘mini-cultures’ within American culture, more broadly construed. The incredible degree of variety, as well as the unusual history, allows greater variation than might be possible in many smaller countries, making America uniquely open to difference.
Which makes it very strange that America has held on so well through the years, particularly today, when, in the wake of greater world-exposure and the increase of casual relativism, one would expect more dissention than before. Yet again, there are influences for commonality at work. With the rise of world-exposure came the ability to move farther and quicker throughout our own country, an expansion of political, economic, and social spheres. This combines with the fact that the United States government has remained a consistent player in American life to strengthen a common element in daily life; the presence of persistent institutions that frame common problems and methods for their solution for people throughout the country. This provides a common backdrop of issues that every person deals with and reacts to (everybody, after all, is supposed to pay taxes) and thus another important piece of identity. These institutions are not just political; in addition to the Founding Fathers, there are pop stars that provide shared entertainment and information interests, common trends, visible social movements, and so on, with the latter being a bond of identity (whether you love or hate the newest television show) just as the Constitution is, since both provide a common object towards which one relates and against the context of which one defines oneself. What is important here is not the ‘purity’ or historicality of these sources; rather, it’s how they help to define one, and whether these sources give us a common starting point from which there is a mutual understanding of what is up for debate and interest, and what, broadly speaking, is to be held close to one’s heart, even when there are cases of disagreement. In this sense, taste in music or food has just as much possibility for forming identity as the Constitution of the United States; it’s something that helps us to announce who we are, in the process explaining to ourselves who we are, and letting us know who is like us, who shares our world.
III
This last point is important, since it seems to me that this form of identity is moving more to the forefront than the more traditional, historically based forms of identity. History has become less central to our identity than it was before (another subject of a later post), which helps in part to explain what the Tea Party members (and conservative movements in general) are after. The new small-government movement is a curiosity in part because of its obsession with its interpretation of history; the sight of a Tea Party member wearing colonial clothing and holding up a copy of the Constitution was not always an everyday thing. Part of what they’re trying to preserve is the identity that comes with that outfit, the historical values that they feel are threatened. Of course, whether those ideals are ‘historical’ in the sense of being the exact values the Constitution was meant to uphold is up for debate; what isn’t is that these protests are meant to represent of a sort of culture that the average Tea Partier feels is being threatened. A set of values is now being challenged, or so it appears; and the danger is significant enough to make sometimes substantial sacrifices to preserve it (as a note, this isn’t reflective, of course, of everyone in the Tea Party movement; but at the same time, it’s clearly present often and as one of the major driving factors in the movement). The same was true in the other historical cases, such as the civil rights movement; there was a growing conflict introduced between a shifting universal ‘American’ identity and the ‘American’ identity of a certain way of life, a subculture within the broader American culture.
Such fragmentations are not limited to America, of course; what’s interesting about this case, however, is the fact that the idea of ‘American’ culture in the universal sense is fighting with ‘American’ culture in particular instances. It’s not like an ethnic conflict with national implications, such as in various separatist movements through history. Think again of the civil rights movement; both sides not only claimed to be preserving American identity, they most certainly and strongly believed it. This is a very strange thing; America is shared as an idea, as a common history, set of values, and so on. But at the same time, there is great differentiation in practice, in what ‘America’ means. Part of the conflict is the distinction between symbols and meaning; the common symbols have different meanings that lead to conflict in cases such as the ones highlighted. At the same time, the symbols (and understood meanings) are so powerful as to preserve a common identity against all opponents, even the American culture itself. Whether this has ever happened before, I don’t know.
We’ve wandered far and wide here, so let us finally get back to our question before we close. What is American culture? Overall, it seems to me that there may be no such thing. There are clear common elements in history, figures, and so on, and they have clear unifying power. Even if one assumes that the role of such things is declining, there are shared institutions (and with it many shared issues and concerns) and many shared media that convey common messages across the country with ease. We share a general economic outlook and lifestyle as well, meaning that our position relative to other countries is mostly consistent. Yet at the same time one can find vastly different ways of living in different states, vastly different sets of values, and so on. It is clear that there are differences in how life is lived depending on where you go and who you talk to, to a high enough degree that you may sometimes think that you are in another country. What is not clear is how deep these differences run, and, the most difficult thing of all, how, in spite of it all, we can still claim so many common symbols and still stand together as a country when the time calls for it. How has America stood so strong, in spite of the challenges it has faced? And what can we learn from this? Might we be able to find, in this seeming contradiction, a way to strengthen the unity of other societies?
What is American culture? Since this blog will probably be read by Americans for the most part, it seems relevant. Given the American, or, more broadly ‘Western’ role of moral leadership in world affairs that continues to this day, it’s an important question for everyone. Wherever the tides may be turning, at the moment America still stands as a figurehead for world leadership, the lifestyle of its people something to be aimed for. But there are also many problems, many critics. Many think America, or rather Americans, to be ignorant. It is thought that they pursue a selfish, materialistic way of life. Alternatively, America and Americans remain in some ways an ideal, a goal to be reached, and immigration to this country continues. So what exactly is American culture? What are the elements that shape a distinctly American identity and way of life? This is the question with which we start.
To answer any question of the form “What is the culture of x like?” the most workable way to move forward is through simple enumeration of common characteristics of the people in that culture. This should work for Americans, Europeans, atheists, punk fans, vegetarians, and so on; what we want is those set of elements that sets America apart, and that all Americans (or at least a broad majority) share. This list would include beliefs, icons, habits and tendencies, a sense of one’s own history, and so on; basically, it is a list of factors that make up the socially constructed part of one’s identity. Not only must the concrete elements be shared, but there should also be a shared sense of meaning; two very different groups can start from the same basic ideas, documents, historical figures, etc. and draw very different lessons from them, based on other factors. Keeping all of this in mind, what do we find when we look at America?
Maybe the most firmly established line of commonality is a shared historical identity. There is a definite history, beginning with European discovery at the end of the Middle Ages and leading through colonization, war, and independence. The Founding Fathers represent both war heroes and icons of statesmanship; they set standards for bravery, sacrifice, prudence, and so on. In a way, the Founders are like the figures of a religious epic; larger than life figures who faced a great opponent and great odds, and came out successful, with their work establishing the foundation stone for many customs, habits, and practical facts of life that we encounter today. Thus, for example, the Constitution is the standard for law, having an absolute authority that shall not be superseded (and not just because it says so); unlike the laws of daily life or younger constitutions in younger countries, the Constitution has a sort of tangible sense of importance and necessity attached to its provisions, of historical destiny. Of course, it is a human document, made by human minds; but time and story changes many things, and the Constitution, along with the thoughts and beliefs of the founders themselves, has become something more than the sum of its parts.
This document provides a huge source of shared identity and sense of selfhood for what is a very large nation. One can compare, for example, the American reaction to 9/11 to any number of terrorist acts in Iraq during the occupation period. When Americans saw the terrorist attacks on television, what many felt was a sense of patriotism and compassion for the victims, despite in most cases not knowing a single person who died. Iraq, where terrorists attacks are still all too frequent, does not go through this range of events. What happens is more frequently a process of blame, and a consequent increase in tensions between ethnic groups. This is important; what is widely seen, in the news at least, is not related to a national patriotism in Iraq; if anything, it’s a threat to a commonality and a cause of further danger and potentially warfare (as Al Qaeda knows). Americans feel proud of their country -and what it stands for- in a way rarely seen, neither in Iraq nor Europe nor elsewhere.
But, as noted, we must pay attention not only to symbols and ideas but also how they’re interpreted, that is, their meaning. It’s not enough to share a belief in the role of the Constitution; there should also be some common ideas about what it stands for, exactly. After all, Christians and Jews all share a set of texts, but they deviate greatly in the significance those texts, foundational though they may be, play in identity. We run into something similar here, for, as recent events have demonstrated, there has been developing recently a very vocal dissention between groups as to what exactly America stands for. I’m of course referring to the conservative anti-government attitude that has developed recently, the Tea Party. These are people who see a great danger in what is happening to America and the direction it is headed. They hold firm to their understanding of the Constitution, and cite it frequently. Further, they hold that the opposition is not simply misguided but anti-American (note: this does not describe the whole Tea Party. It is, however, a clearly visible and driving undercurrent in the movement). Those on the other side, including the Democratic government leadership and opposing protest groups, think the same thing, that they are doing what is right according to fundamental American values and objectives. Where does this difference come from?
II
Whatever it is, it isn’t new. Though we might want to think otherwise, serious dissention and mass protest movements are not new to American life, nor is the scale a novelty. It’s not too long ago that the Vietnam protests occurred, as well as the civil rights movement. And for anyone who thinks that this can be isolated to recent decades, one ought to remember that the Civil War involved differences great enough to literally split the country. What I’d like to point out here is that, while it is true that there is considerable dissention in America about many fundamental issues today, and many of those differences seem poised (or are said to be poised) to affect the structure of American society, this is not a new phenomenon, and not without precedent.
What led to such differences, in this case and others? Much of this will be discussed in greater depth in the next article, so I am anticipating somewhat. But there are some important general features that can be made out now. The first is the very unusual nature of America’s development. Unlike, for instance, most European and Asian countries, America doesn’t follow any sort of rough natural ethnic boundaries. In fact, it went directly towards the opposite direction; America was a recipient, starting long before it became independent, of a broad mixture of ethnic, religious, and other groups from many parts of the world, something that continues to this day (though more now come from Asia and Mexico/South America than from Europe). What those people found was a huge swath of land, what has become one of the largest countries in the world. Thousands of square miles and everything from desert to tundra to Pacific Island are found in America. There are collectives of port cities on the coasts, and broad swathes of farmland with towns through much of the middle. You can find a huge variety of local habits and shared interests, different common practices (theater-going is still a possibility in New York City, and hunting remains important throughout the Midwest) and different levels of contact with the world at large. In short, America’s sheer size, variety of geographies, and different immigrant influences (the latter having perhaps less significance now than in the past) lead to a huge diffusion of ‘mini-cultures’ within American culture, more broadly construed. The incredible degree of variety, as well as the unusual history, allows greater variation than might be possible in many smaller countries, making America uniquely open to difference.
Which makes it very strange that America has held on so well through the years, particularly today, when, in the wake of greater world-exposure and the increase of casual relativism, one would expect more dissention than before. Yet again, there are influences for commonality at work. With the rise of world-exposure came the ability to move farther and quicker throughout our own country, an expansion of political, economic, and social spheres. This combines with the fact that the United States government has remained a consistent player in American life to strengthen a common element in daily life; the presence of persistent institutions that frame common problems and methods for their solution for people throughout the country. This provides a common backdrop of issues that every person deals with and reacts to (everybody, after all, is supposed to pay taxes) and thus another important piece of identity. These institutions are not just political; in addition to the Founding Fathers, there are pop stars that provide shared entertainment and information interests, common trends, visible social movements, and so on, with the latter being a bond of identity (whether you love or hate the newest television show) just as the Constitution is, since both provide a common object towards which one relates and against the context of which one defines oneself. What is important here is not the ‘purity’ or historicality of these sources; rather, it’s how they help to define one, and whether these sources give us a common starting point from which there is a mutual understanding of what is up for debate and interest, and what, broadly speaking, is to be held close to one’s heart, even when there are cases of disagreement. In this sense, taste in music or food has just as much possibility for forming identity as the Constitution of the United States; it’s something that helps us to announce who we are, in the process explaining to ourselves who we are, and letting us know who is like us, who shares our world.
III
This last point is important, since it seems to me that this form of identity is moving more to the forefront than the more traditional, historically based forms of identity. History has become less central to our identity than it was before (another subject of a later post), which helps in part to explain what the Tea Party members (and conservative movements in general) are after. The new small-government movement is a curiosity in part because of its obsession with its interpretation of history; the sight of a Tea Party member wearing colonial clothing and holding up a copy of the Constitution was not always an everyday thing. Part of what they’re trying to preserve is the identity that comes with that outfit, the historical values that they feel are threatened. Of course, whether those ideals are ‘historical’ in the sense of being the exact values the Constitution was meant to uphold is up for debate; what isn’t is that these protests are meant to represent of a sort of culture that the average Tea Partier feels is being threatened. A set of values is now being challenged, or so it appears; and the danger is significant enough to make sometimes substantial sacrifices to preserve it (as a note, this isn’t reflective, of course, of everyone in the Tea Party movement; but at the same time, it’s clearly present often and as one of the major driving factors in the movement). The same was true in the other historical cases, such as the civil rights movement; there was a growing conflict introduced between a shifting universal ‘American’ identity and the ‘American’ identity of a certain way of life, a subculture within the broader American culture.
Such fragmentations are not limited to America, of course; what’s interesting about this case, however, is the fact that the idea of ‘American’ culture in the universal sense is fighting with ‘American’ culture in particular instances. It’s not like an ethnic conflict with national implications, such as in various separatist movements through history. Think again of the civil rights movement; both sides not only claimed to be preserving American identity, they most certainly and strongly believed it. This is a very strange thing; America is shared as an idea, as a common history, set of values, and so on. But at the same time, there is great differentiation in practice, in what ‘America’ means. Part of the conflict is the distinction between symbols and meaning; the common symbols have different meanings that lead to conflict in cases such as the ones highlighted. At the same time, the symbols (and understood meanings) are so powerful as to preserve a common identity against all opponents, even the American culture itself. Whether this has ever happened before, I don’t know.
We’ve wandered far and wide here, so let us finally get back to our question before we close. What is American culture? Overall, it seems to me that there may be no such thing. There are clear common elements in history, figures, and so on, and they have clear unifying power. Even if one assumes that the role of such things is declining, there are shared institutions (and with it many shared issues and concerns) and many shared media that convey common messages across the country with ease. We share a general economic outlook and lifestyle as well, meaning that our position relative to other countries is mostly consistent. Yet at the same time one can find vastly different ways of living in different states, vastly different sets of values, and so on. It is clear that there are differences in how life is lived depending on where you go and who you talk to, to a high enough degree that you may sometimes think that you are in another country. What is not clear is how deep these differences run, and, the most difficult thing of all, how, in spite of it all, we can still claim so many common symbols and still stand together as a country when the time calls for it. How has America stood so strong, in spite of the challenges it has faced? And what can we learn from this? Might we be able to find, in this seeming contradiction, a way to strengthen the unity of other societies?
posted by Derek at 11:46 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home