-- Tamar Jacoby, The Washington Post
"Huntington has written a compelling book on the virtues that make America what it is."
-- William McGurn, The Wall Street Journal
Uh-oh, it looks like your Internet Explorer is out of date.
For a better shopping experience, please upgrade now.
Now in his controversial new work, Who Are We?, Huntington focuses on an/i>/i>
In his seminal work The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, Samuel Huntington argued provocatively and presciently that with the end of the cold war, “civilizations” were replacing ideologies as the new fault lines in international politics.
Now in his controversial new work, Who Are We?, Huntington focuses on an identity crisis closer to home as he examines the impact other civilizations and their values are having on our own country.
America was founded by British settlers who brought with them a distinct culture, says Huntington, including the English language, Protestant values, individualism, religious commitment, and respect for law. The waves of immigrants that later came to the United States gradually accepted these values and assimilated into America's Anglo-Protestant culture. More recently, however, our national identity has been eroded by the problems of assimilating massive numbers of primarily Hispanic immigrants and challenged by issues such as bilingualism, multiculturalism, the devaluation of citizenship, and the “denationalization” of American elites.
September 11 brought a revival of American patriotism and a renewal of American identity, but already there are signs that this revival is fading. Huntington argues the need for us to reassert the core values that make us Americans. Timely and thought-provoking, Who Are We? is an important book that is certain to shape our national conversation about who we are.
-- Tamar Jacoby, The Washington Post
"Huntington has written a compelling book on the virtues that make America what it is."
-- William McGurn, The Wall Street Journal
Although the book is bound to roil the waters of political correctness, the author takes great pains to qualify two significant points. It is not the merits of Anglo-Protestant people that he extols, but the importance of Anglo-Protestant culture -- an alchemical mix of sociopolitical values, mores, and institutions (including the English language and the ideals of dissenting Protestantism) established by the founding settlers and enthusiastically embraced by immigrants of all races, religions, and ethnicities for more than 300 years. Furthermore, what Huntington deplores is not diversity but what he sees as the rejection of core cultural values by the current wave of Hispanic immigrants, whose non-assimilation threatens to divide us in two.
As he ponders our future, Huntington confronts fiercely divisive issues like illegal immigration, dual citizenship, bilingual education, cosmopolitanism, and (his old nemesis) globalization. Is America a melting pot or a mosaic? Are we destined to become a bilingual country like Canada or Belgium? Do Americans see themselves as a single nation of diverse individuals united by a common culture or as an amalgamation of multiethnic, multiracial cultures without a common nationality? These are just some of the questions raised in this important and intellectually challenging book. Anne Markowski
Where Huntington goes wrong, first of all, is in diagnosing the threats to this culture....The most misleading chapters are those that deal with Hispanic immigrants....But arguably even more wrong-headed is the prescriptive half of the book: a long, fervent historically based case that America is inherently an Anglo-Protestant nation and that we cannot hope to flourish unless we embrace that definition....Huntington's selective history leaves out the critical ways in which early Americans revised and repudiated their Anglo inheritance -- most fundamentally with the separation of church and state and their rejection of the class-based hierarchies that bind British society....In the end, what's most disturbing about Who Are We? is its lack of confidence in the power of American identity.
Few subjects call out for Huntington's realism as much as immigration does. Since the 1965 Immigration Act, which effectively abolished quotas on immigrants from Europe, the United States has experienced one of the largest migrations of foreigners to its shores since its founding; nonwhitepeople whose first language is not English now make up a greater percentage of the U.S. population than at any other time in history. And although some writers treat this dramatic change with Panglossian optimism, the challenges are in fact staggering: bilingualism, dual citizenship, religious diversity, and multiculturalism place increasingly tough demands on U.S. culture and politics. If the United States tries to prevent immigrants from coming, it risks breaking its promise of freedom to the oppressed. But if it admits everyone who wants to come, it risks losing its distinctly American ideals including the creed that holds out the promise of freedom and opportunity in the first place.
Chapter 1: The Crisis of National Identity
Salience: Are the Flags Still There?
Charles Street, the principal thoroughfare on Boston's Beacon Hill, is a comfortable street bordered by four-story brick buildings with apartments above antique stores and other shops on the ground level. At one time on one block American flags regularly hung over the entrances to the United States Post Office and the liquor store. Then the Post Office stopped displaying the flag, and on September 11, 2001, the liquor store flag flew alone. Two weeks later seventeen flags flew on this block, in addition to a huge Stars and Stripes suspended across the street a short distance away. With their country under attack, Charles Street denizens rediscovered their nation and identified themselves with it.
In their surge of patriotism, Charles Streeters were at one with people throughout America. Since the Civil War, Americans have been a flag-oriented people. The Stars and Stripes has the status of a religious icon and is a more central symbol of national identity for Americans than their flags are for peoples of other nations. Probably never in the past, however, was the flag as omnipresent as it was after September 11. It was everywhere: homes, businesses, automobiles, clothes, furniture, windows, storefronts, lampposts, telephone poles. In early October, 80 percent of Americans said they were displaying the flag, 63 percent at home, 29 percent on clothes, 28 percent on cars. Wal-Mart reportedly sold 116,000 flags on September 11 and 250,000 the next day, "compared with 6,400 and 10,000 on the same days a year earlier." The demand for flags was ten times what it had been during the Gulf War; flag manufacturers went overtime and doubled, tripled, or quintupled production.
The flags were physical evidence of the sudden and dramatic rise in the salience of national identity for Americans compared to their other identities, a transformation exemplified by the comment on October 1 of one young woman:
When I was 19, I moved to New York City....If you asked me to describe myself then, I would have told you I was a musician, a poet, an artist and, on a somewhat political level, a woman, a lesbian and a Jew. Being an American wouldn't have made my list.
[In my college class Gender and Economics my] girlfriend and I were so frustrated by inequality in America that we discussed moving to another country. On Sept. 11, all that changed. I realized that I had been taking the freedoms I have here for granted. Now I have an American flag on my backpack, I cheer at the fighter jets as they pass overhead and I am calling myself a patriot.
Rachel Newman's words reflect the low salience of national identity for some Americans before September 11. Among some educated and elite Americans, national identity seemed at times to have faded from sight. Globalization, multiculturalism, cosmopolitanism, immigration, subnationalism, and anti-nationalism had battered American consciousness. Ethnic, racial, and gender identities came to the fore. In contrast to their predecessors, many immigrants were ampersands, maintaining dual loyalties and dual citizenships. A massive Hispanic influx raised questions concerning America's linguistic and cultural unity. Corporate executives, professionals, and Information Age technocrats espoused cosmopolitan over national identities. The teaching of national history gave way to the teaching of ethnic and racial histories. The celebration of diversity replaced emphasis on what Americans had in common. The national unity and sense of national identity created by work and war in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and consolidated in the world wars of the twentieth century seemed to be eroding. By 2000, America was, in many respects, less a nation than it had been for a century. The Stars and Stripes were at half-mast and other flags flew higher on the flagpole of American identities.
The challenges to the salience of American national identity from other-national, subnational, and transnational identities were epitomized in several events of the 1990s.
Other-National Identities. At a Gold Cup soccer game between Mexico and the United States in February 1998, the 91,255 fans were immersed in a "sea of red, white, and green flags"; they booed when "The Star-Spangled Banner" was played; they "pelted" the U.S. players "with debris and cups of what might have been water, beer or worse"; and they attacked with "fruit and cups of beer" a few fans who tried to raise an American flag. This game took place not in Mexico City but in Los Angeles. "Something's wrong when I can't even raise an American flag in my own country," a U.S. fan commented, as he ducked a lemon going by his head. "Playing in Los Angeles is not a home game for the United States," a Los Angeles Times reporter agreed.
Past immigrants wept with joy when, after overcoming hardship and risk, they saw the Statue of Liberty; enthusiastically identified themselves with their new country that offered them liberty, work, and hope; and often became the most intensely patriotic of citizens. In 2000 the proportion of foreign-born was somewhat less than in 1910, but the proportion of people in America who were also loyal to and identified with other countries was quite possibly higher than at any time since the American Revolution.
Subnational Identities. In his book Race Pride and the American Identity, Joseph Rhea quotes the poetry recited at two presidential inaugurations. At President John F. Kennedy's in 1961, Robert Frost hailed the "heroic deeds" of America's founding that with God's "approval" ushered in "a new order of the ages":
Has justified itself in freedom's story Right down to now in glory upon glory.
Our venture in revolution and outlawry
Has justified itself in freedom's story
Right down to now in glory upon glory.
America, he said, was entering a new "golden age of poetry and power."
Thirty-two years later, Maya Angelou recited a poem at President Bill Clinton's inauguration that conveyed a different image of America. Without ever mentioning the words "America" or "American," she identified twenty-seven racial, religious, tribal, and ethnic groups Asian, Jewish, Muslim, Pawnee, Hispanic, Eskimo, Arab, Ashanti, among others and denounced the immoral repression they suffered, as a result of America's "armed struggles for profit" and its "bloody sear" of "cynicism." America, she said, may be "wedded forever to fear, yoked eternally to brutishness." Frost saw America's history and identity as glories to be celebrated and perpetuated. Angelou saw the manifestations of American identity as evil threats to the well-being and real identities of people with their subnational groups.
A similar contrast in attitudes occurred in a 1997 telephone interview by a New York Times reporter with Ward Connerly, then the leading proponent of an initiative measure in California prohibiting affirmative action by the state government. The following exchange occurred:
Reporter: "What are you?"
Connerly: "I am an American."
Reporter: "No, no, no! What are you?"
Connerly: "Yes, yes, yes! I am an American."
Reporter: "That is not what I mean. I was told that you are African American. Are you ashamed to be African American?"
Connerly: "No, I am just proud to be an American."
Connerly then explained that his ancestry included Africans, French, Irish, and American Indians, and the dialogue concluded:
Reporter: "What does that make you?"
Connerly: "That makes me all-American!"
In the 1990s, however, Americans like Rachel Newman did not respond to the question "What are you?" with Ward Connerly's passionate affirmation of his national identity. They instead articulated sub-national racial, ethnic, or gender identities, as the Times reporter clearly expected.
Transnational Identities. In 1996 Ralph Nader wrote to the chief executive officers of one hundred of the largest American corporations pointing to the substantial tax benefits and other subsidies (estimated at $65 billion a year by the Cato Institute) they received from the federal government and urging them to show their support for "the country that bred them, built them, subsidized them, and defended them" by having their directors open their annual stockholders meeting by reciting the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag and the republic for which it stands. One corporation (Federated Department Stores) responded favorably; half the corporations never responded; others rejected it brusquely. The respondent for Ford explicitly claimed transnational identity: "As a multinational...Ford in its largest sense is an Australian country in Australia, a British company in the United Kingdom, a German company in Germany." Aetna's CEO called Nader's idea "contrary to the principles on which our democracy was founded." Motorola's respondent condemned its "political and nationalistic overtones." Price Costco's CEO asked, "What do you propose next personal loyalty oaths?" And Kimberly-Clark's executive asserted that it was "a grim reminder of the loyalty oaths of the 1950s."
Undoubtedly the vociferous reaction of American corporate leaders was in part because Nader had been hounding them for years and they could not resist the opportunity to castigate him as a latter-day Joe McCarthy. Yet they were not alone among American elites in downgrading or disavowing identification with their country. Prominent intellectuals and scholars attacked nationalism, warned of the dangers of inculcating national pride and commitment to America in students, and argued that a national identity was undesirable. Statements like these reflected the extent to which some people in American elite groups, business, financial, intellectual, professional, and even governmental, were becoming denationalized and developing transnational and cosmopolitan identities superseding their national ones. This was not true of the American public, and a gap consequently emerged between the primacy of national identity for most Americans and the growth of transnational identities among the controllers of power, wealth, and knowledge in American society.
September 11 drastically reduced the salience of these other identities and sent Old Glory back to the top of the national flag pole. Will it stay there? The seventeen flags on Charles Street declined to twelve in November, nine in December, seven in January, and five in March, and were down to four by the first anniversary of the attacks, four times the number pre-September 11 but also one-fourth of those displayed immediately afterward. As an index of the salience of national identity, did this represent a modified post-September 11 normalcy, a slightly revised pre-September 11 normalcy, or a new, post-post-September 11 normalcy? Does it take an Osama bin Laden, as it did for Rachel Newman, to make us realize that we are Americans? If we do not experience recurring destructive attacks, will we return to the fragmentation and eroded Americanism before September 11? Or will we find a revitalized national identity that is not dependent on calamitous threats from abroad and that provides the unity lacking in the last decades of the twentieth century?
Substance: Who Are We?
The post-September 11 flags symbolized America, but they did not convey any meaning of America. Some national flags, such as the tricolor, the Union Jack, or Pakistan's green flag with its star and crescent, say something significant about the identity of the country they represent. The explicit visual message of the Stars and Stripes is simply that America is a country that originally had thirteen and currently has fifty states. Beyond that, Americans, and others, can read into the flag any meaning they want. The post-September 11 proliferation of flags may well evidence not only the intensified salience of national identity to Americans but also their uncertainty as to the substance of that identity. While the salience of national identity may vary sharply with the intensity of external threats, the substance of national identity is shaped slowly and more fundamentally by a wide variety of long-term, often conflicting social, economic, and political trends. The crucial issues concerning the substance of American identity on September 10 did not disappear the following day.
"We Americans" face a substantive problem of national identity epitomized by the subject of this sentence. Are we a "we," one people or several? If we are a "we," what distinguishes us from the "thems" who are not us? Race, religion, ethnicity, values, culture, wealth, politics, or what? Is the United States, as some have argued, a "universal nation," based on values common to all humanity and in principle embracing all peoples? Or are we a Western nation with our identity defined by our European heritage and institutions? Or are we unique with a distinctive civilization of our own, as the proponents of "American exceptionalism" have argued throughout our history? Are we basically a political community whose identity exists only in a social contract embodied in the Declaration of Independence and other founding documents? Are we multicultural, bicultural, or unicultural, a mosaic or a melting pot? Do we have any meaningful identity as a nation that transcends our subnational ethnic, religious, racial identities? These questions remain for Americans in their post-September 11 era. They are in part rhetorical questions, but they are also questions that have profound implications for American society and American policy at home and abroad. In the 1990s Americans engaged in intense debates over immigration and assimilation, multiculturalism and diversity, race relations and affirmative action, religion in the public sphere, bilingual education, school and college curricula, school prayer and abortion, the meaning of citizenship and nationality, foreign involvement in American elections, the extraterritorial application of American law, and the increasing political role of diasporas here and abroad. Underlying all these issues is the question of national identity. Virtually any position on any one of these issues implies certain assumptions about that identity.
So also with foreign policy. The 1990s saw intense, wide-ranging, and rather confused debates over American national interests after the Cold War. Much of this confusion stemmed from the complexity and novelty of that world. Yet that was not the only source of uncertainty about America's role. National interests derive from national identity. We have to know who we are before we can know what our interests are.
If American identity is defined by a set of universal principles of liberty and democracy, then presumably the promotion of those principles in other countries should be the primary goal of American foreign policy. If, however, the United States is "exceptional," the rationale for promoting human rights and democracy elsewhere disappears. If the United States is primarily a collection of cultural and ethnic entities, its national interest is in the promotion of the goals of those entities and we should have a "multicultural foreign policy." If the United States is primarily defined by its European cultural heritage as a Western country, then it should direct its attention to strengthening its ties with Western Europe. If immigration is making the United States a more Hispanic nation, we should orient ourselves primarily toward Latin America. If neither European nor Hispanic culture is central to American identity, then presumably America should pursue a foreign policy divorced from cultural ties to other countries. Other definitions of national identity generate different national interests and policy priorities. Conflicts over what we should do abroad are rooted in conflicts over who we are at home.
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was created in 1707, the United States of America in 1776, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in 1918. As their names indicate, they were all unions "of" entities brought together through processes of federation and conquest. In the early 1980s, all three seemed like reasonably cohesive and successful societies, whose governments were relatively effective and in varying degrees accepted as legitimate, and whose peoples had strong senses of their British, American, and Soviet identities. By the early 1990s the Soviet Union was no more. By the late 1990s, the United Kingdom was becoming less united, with a new regime struggling to be born in Northern Ireland, devolution well under way in Scotland and Wales, many Scots looking forward to eventual independence, and the English increasingly defining themselves as English rather than British. The Union Jack was being disassembled into its separate crosses, and it seemed possible that sometime in the first part of the twenty-first century the United Kingdom could follow the Soviet Union into history.
Few people anticipated the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the movement toward possible decomposition of the United Kingdom a decade before they got under way. Few Americans now anticipate the dissolution of or even fundamental changes in the United States. Yet the end of the Cold War, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the 1990s East Asian economic crisis, and September 11 remind us that history is replete with surprises. The greatest surprise might be if the United States in 2025 were still much the same country it was in 2000 rather than a very different country (or countries) with very different conceptions of itself and its identity than it had a quarter century earlier.
The American people who achieved independence in the late eighteenth century were few and homogeneous: overwhelmingly white (thanks to the exclusion of blacks and Indians from citizenship), British, and Protestant, broadly sharing a common culture, and overwhelmingly committed to the political principles embodied in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and other founding documents. By the end of the twentieth century, the number of Americans had multiplied almost one hundred times. America had become multiracial (roughly 69 percent white, 12 percent Hispanic, 12 percent black, 4 percent Asian and Pacific Islander, 3 percent other), multiethnic (with no majority ethnic group), and 63 percent Protestant, 23 percent Catholic, 8 percent other religions, and 6 percent no religion. America's common culture and the principles of equality and individualism central to the American Creed were under attack by many individuals and groups in American society. The end of the Cold War deprived America of the evil empire against which it could define itself. We Americans were not what we were, and uncertain who we were becoming.
No society is immortal. As Rousseau said, "If Sparta and Rome perished, what state can hope to endure forever?" Even the most successful societies are at some point threatened by internal disintegration and decay and by more vigorous and ruthless external "barbarian" forces. In the end, the United States of America will suffer the fate of Sparta, Rome, and other human communities. Historically the substance of American identity has involved four key components: race, ethnicity, culture (most notably language and religion), and ideology. The racial and ethnic Americas are no more. Cultural America is under siege.
And as the Soviet experience illustrates, ideology is a weak glue to hold together people otherwise lacking racial, ethnic, and cultural sources of community. Reasons could exist, as Robert Kaplan observed, why "America, more than any other nation, may have been born to die." Yet some societies, confronted with serious challenges to their existence, are also able to postpone their demise and halt disintegration, by renewing their sense of national identity, their national purpose, and the cultural values they have in common. Americans did this after September 11. The challenge they face in the first years of the third millennium is whether they can continue to do this if they are not under attack.
The Global Identity Crisis
America's identity problem is unique, but America is not unique in having an identity problem. Debates over national identity are a pervasive characteristic of our time. Almost everywhere people have questioned, reconsidered, and redefined what they have in common and what distinguishes them from other people: Who are we? Where do we belong? The Japanese agonize over whether their location, history, and culture make them Asian or whether their wealth, democracy, and modernity make them Western. Iran has been described as "a nation in search of an identity," South Africa as engaged in "the search for identity" and China in a "quest for national identity," while Taiwan was involved in the "dissolution and reconstruction of national identity." Syria and Brazil are each said to face an "identity crisis," Canada "a continuing identity crisis," Denmark an "acute identity crisis," Algeria a "destructive identity crisis," Turkey a "unique identity crisis" leading to heated "debate on national identity," and Russia "a profound identity crisis" reopening the classic nineteenth-century debate between Slavophiles and Westernizers as to whether Russia is a "normal" European country or a distinctly different Eurasian one. In Mexico questions are coming to the fore "about Mexico's identity." The people who had identified with different Germanies, democratic and Western European vs. communist and Eastern European, struggle to recreate a common German identity. The inhabitants of the British Isles have become less sure of their British identity and uncertain as to whether they were primarily a European or a North Atlantic people. Crises of national identity have become a global phenomenon.
The identity crises of these and other countries vary in form, substance, and intensity. Undoubtedly each crisis in large part has unique causes. Yet their simultaneous appearance in the United States and so many other countries suggests that common factors are also likely to be at work. The more general causes of these quests and questionings include the emergence of a global economy, tremendous improvements in communications and transportation, rising levels of migration, the global expansion of democracy, and the end both of the Cold War and of Soviet communism as a viable economic and political system.
Modernization, economic development, urbanization, and globalization have led people to rethink their identities and to redefine them in narrower, more intimate, communal terms. Subnational cultural and regional identities are taking precedence over broader national identities. People identify with those who are most like themselves and with whom they share a perceived common ethnicity, religion, traditions, and myth of common descent and common history. In the United States this fragmentation of identity manifested itself in the rise of multiculturalism and racial, ethnic, and gender consciousness. In other countries it takes the more extreme form of communal movements demanding political recognition, autonomy, or independence. These have included movements on behalf of Quebecois, Scots, Flemings, Catalonians, Basques, Lombards, Corsicans, Kurds, Kosovars, Berbers, Chiapans, Chechens, Palestinians, Tibetans, Muslim Mindanaoans, Christian Sudanese, Abkhazians, Tamils, Acehans, East Timorese, and others.
This narrowing of identities, however, has been paralleled by a broadening of identity as people increasingly interact with other people of very different cultures and civilizations and at the same time are able through modern means of communication to identify with people geographically distant but with similar language, religion, or culture. The emergence of a broader supranational identity has been most obvious in Europe, and its emergence there reinforces the simultaneous narrowing of identities. Scots increasingly think of themselves as Scottish rather than British because they can also think of themselves as European. Their Scottish identity is rooted in their European identity. This is equally true for Lombards, Catalonians, and others.
A related dialectic has been occurring between mixing and huddling, the interaction and separation, of communal groups. Massive migrations, both temporary and permanent, have increasingly intermingled peoples of various races and cultures: Asians and Latin Americans coming to the United States, Arabs, Turks, Yugoslavs, Albanians entering Western Europe. As a result of modern communications and transportation, these migrants have been able to remain part of their original culture and community. Their identity is thus less that of migrants than of diasporans, that is, members of a transnational, trans-state cultural community. They both mix with other peoples and huddle with their own. For the United States, these developments mean the high levels of immigration from Mexico and elsewhere in Latin America could have quite different consequences for assimilation than previous waves of immigration.
In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, nationalism was intensely promoted by intellectual, political, and, on occasion, economic elites. These elites developed sophisticated and emotionally charged appeals to generate among those whom they saw as their compatriots a sense of national identity and to rally them for nationalist causes. The last decades of the twentieth century, on the other hand, witnessed a growing denationalization of elites in many countries, as well as the United States. The emergence of a global economy and global corporations plus the ability to form transnational coalitions to promote reforms on a global basis (women's rights, the environment, land mines, human rights, small arms) led many elites to develop supranational identities and to downgrade their national identities. Previously, mobile individuals pursued their careers and fortunes within a country by moving from farms to cities and from one city to another. Now they increasingly move from one country to another, and just as intracountry mobility decreased their identity with any particular locale within that country, so their intercountry mobility decreases their identity with any particular country. They become binational, multinational, or cosmopolitan.
In the early stage of European nationalism, national identity was often defined primarily in religious terms. In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, nationalist ideologies became largely secular. Germans, British, French, and others defined themselves increasingly in terms of ancestry, language, or culture, rather than religion, which often would have divided their societies. In the twentieth century, people in Western countries (with the notable exception of the United States) generally became secularized, and churches and religion played decreasing roles in public, social, and private life.
The twenty-first century, however, is dawning as a century of religion. Virtually everywhere, apart from Western Europe, people are turning to religion for comfort, guidance, solace, and identity. "La revanche de Dieu," as Gilles Kepel termed it, is in full swing. Violence between religious groups is proliferating around the world. People are increasingly concerned with the fate of geographically remote co-religionists. In many countries powerful movements have appeared attempting to redefine the identity of their country in religious terms. In a very different way, movements in the United States are recalling America's religious origins and the extraordinary commitment to religion of the American people. Evangelical Christianity has become an important force, and Americans generally may be returning to the self-image prevalent for three centuries that they are a Christian people.
The last quarter of the twentieth century saw transitions from authoritarian to democratic regimes in more than fifty countries scattered throughout the world. It also witnessed efforts to broaden and deepen democracy in the United States and other developed countries. Individual authoritarian governments may rule and often have ruled over people of diverse nationalities and cultures. Democracy, on the other hand, means that at a minimum people choose their rulers and that more broadly they participate in government in other ways. The question of identity thus becomes central: Who are the people? As Ivor Jennings observed, "the people cannot decide until someone decides who are the people." The decision as to who are the people may be the result of long-standing tradition, war and conquest, plebiscite or referendum, constitutional provision, or other causes, but it cannot be avoided. Debates over how to define that identity, who is a citizen and who is not, come to the fore when autocracies democratize and when democracies confront many new claimants on citizenship.
Historically, the emergence of nation-states in Europe was the result of several centuries of recurring wars. "War made the state, and the state made war," as Charles Tilly said. These wars also made it possible and necessary for states to generate national consciousness among their peoples. The primary function of the state was to create and defend the nation, and the need to perform that function justified the expansion of state authority and the establishment of military forces, bureaucracies, and effective tax systems. Two world wars and a cold war reinforced these trends in the twentieth century. By the end of that century, however, the Cold War was over, and interstate wars had become rare; in one estimate only seven of one hundred and ten wars between 1989 and 1999 were not civil wars. War is now more often the breaker of states than the maker of states. More generally, the erosion of the national security function reduced the authority of states and the reason for people to identify with their state, and instead promoted identification with subnational and transnational groups.
The relative significance of national identity has varied among cultures. In the Muslim world, the distribution of identities has tended to be U-shaped: the strongest identities and commitments have been to family, clan, and tribe, at one extreme, and to Islam and the ummah or Islamic community, at the other. With a few exceptions, loyalties to nations and nation-states have been weak. In the Western world for over two centuries, in contrast, the identity curve has been more an upside-down U, with the nation at the apex commanding deeper loyalty and commitment than narrower or broader sources of identity. Now, however, that may be changing, with transnational and subnational identities gaining salience and the European and American patterns flattening and coming more to resemble the Muslim one. The notions of nation, national identity, and national interest may be losing relevance and usefulness. If this is the case, the question becomes: What, if anything, will replace them and what does that mean for the United States? If this is not the case and national identity still is relevant, the question then becomes: What are the implications for America of changes in the content of its national identity?
Prospects for American Identity
The relative importance of the components of national identity and the salience of national identity compared to other identities have varied over the years. In the last half of the eighteenth century the peoples of the colonies and states developed a common American identity that coexisted with other, primarily state and local, identities. The struggles first with Britain, then France, and then again Britain strengthened this sense of Americans as a single people. After 1815 the threats to the nation's security disappeared, and the salience of national identity declined. Sectional and economic identities emerged and increasingly divided the country, leading to the Civil War. That war solidified America as a nation by the end of the nineteenth century. American nationalism became preeminent as the United States emerged on the world scene and in the following century fought two world wars and a cold war.
The ethnic component of American identity gradually weakened as a result of the assimilation of the Irish and Germans who came in the mid-nineteenth century and the southern and eastern Europeans who came between 1880 and 1914. The racial component was first marginally weakened by the outcome of the Civil War and then drastically eroded by the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s. In the following decades, America's core Anglo-Protestant culture and its political Creed of liberty and democracy faced four challenges.
First, the dissolution of the Soviet Union eliminated one major and obvious threat to American security and hence reduced the salience of national identity compared to subnational, transnational, binational, and other-national identities. Historical experience and sociological analysis show that the absence of an external "other" is likely to undermine unity and breed divisions within a society. It is problematic whether intermittent terrorist attacks and conflicts with Iraq or other "rogue states" will generate the national coherence that twentieth-century wars did.
Second, the ideologies of multiculturalism and diversity eroded the legitimacy of the remaining central elements of American identity, the cultural core and the American Creed. President Clinton explicitly set forth this challenge when he said that America needed a third "great revolution" (in addition to the American Revolution and the civil rights revolution) to "prove that we literally can live without having a dominant European culture." Attacks on that culture undermined the Creed that it produced, and were reflected in the various movements promoting group rights against individual rights.
Third, America's third major wave of immigration that began in the 1960s brought to America people primarily from Latin America and Asia rather than Europe as the previous waves did. The culture and values of their countries of origin often differ substantially from those prevalent in America. It is much easier for these immigrants to retain contact with and to remain culturally part of their country of origin. Earlier waves of immigrants were subjected to intense programs of Americanization to assimilate them into American society. Nothing comparable occurred after 1965. In the past, assimilation was greatly facilitated because both waves substantially tapered off due to the Civil War, World War I, and laws limiting immigration. The current wave continues unabated. The erosion of other national loyalties and the assimilation of recent immigrants could be much slower and more problematic than assimilation has been in the past.
Fourth, never before in American history has close to a majority of immigrants spoken a single non-English language. The impact of the predominance of Spanish-speaking immigrants is reinforced by many other factors: the proximity of their countries of origin; their absolute numbers; the improbability of this flow ending or being significantly reduced; their geographical concentration; their home government policies promoting their migration and influence in American society and politics; the support of many elite Americans for multiculturalism, diversity, bilingual education, and affirmative action; the economic incentives for American businesses to cater to Hispanic tastes, use Spanish in their business and advertising, and hire Spanish-speaking employees; the pressures to use Spanish as well as English in government signs, forms, reports, and offices.
The elimination of the racial and ethnic components of national identity and the challenges to its cultural and creedal components raise questions concerning the prospects for American identity. At least four possible future identities exist: ideological, bifurcated, exclusivist, and cultural. The America of the future is in reality likely to be a mixture of these and other possible identities.
First, America could lose its core culture, as President Clinton anticipated, and become multicultural. Yet Americans could also retain their commitment to the principles of the Creed, which would provide an ideological or political base for national unity and identity. Many people, particularly liberals, favor this alternative. It assumes, however, that a nation can be based on only a political contract among individuals lacking any other commonality. This is the classic Enlightenment-based, civic concept of a nation. History and psychology, however, suggest that it is unlikely to be enough to sustain a nation for long. America with only the Creed as a basis for unity could soon evolve into a loose confederation of ethnic, racial, cultural, and political groups, with little or nothing in common apart from their location in the territory of what had been the United States of America. This could resemble the collections of diverse groups that once constituted the Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, and Russian empires. These conglomerations were held together by the emperor and his bureaucracy. What central institutions, however, would hold together a loose American assemblage of groups? As the experiences of America in the 1780s and Germany in the 1860s suggest, past confederations normally have not lasted long.
Second, the massive Hispanic immigration after 1965 could make America increasingly bifurcated in terms of language (English and Spanish) and culture (Anglo and Hispanic), which could supplement or supplant the black-white racial bifurcation as the most important division in American society. Substantial parts of America, primarily in southern Florida and the Southwest, would be primarily Hispanic in culture and language, while both cultures and languages would coexist in the rest of America. America, in short, would lose its cultural and linguistic unity and become a bilingual, bicultural society like Canada, Switzerland, or Belgium.
Third, the various forces challenging the core American culture and Creed could generate a move by native white Americans to revive the discarded and discredited racial and ethnic concepts of American identity and to create an America that would exclude, expel, or suppress people of other racial, ethnic, and cultural groups. Historical and contemporary experience suggest that this is a highly probable reaction from a once dominant ethnic-racial group that feels threatened by the rise of other groups. It could produce a racially intolerant country with high levels of intergroup conflict.
Fourth, Americans of all races and ethnicities could attempt to reinvigorate their core culture. This would mean a recommitment to America as a deeply religious and primarily Christian country, encompassing several religious minorities, adhering to Anglo-Protestant values, speaking English, maintaining its European cultural heritage, and committed to the principles of the Creed. Religion has been and still is a central, perhaps the central, element of American identity. America was founded in large part for religious reasons, and religious movements have shaped its evolution for almost four centuries. By every indicator, Americans are far more religious than the people of other industrialized countries. Overwhelming majorities of white Americans, of black Americans, and of Hispanic Americans are Christian. In a world in which culture and particularly religion shape the allegiances, the alliances, and the antagonisms of people on every continent, Americans could again find their national identity and their national purposes in their culture and religion.
Copyright © 2004 by Samuel P. Huntington
Samuel P. Huntington was the Albert J. Weatherhead III University Professor at Harvard University, where he was also the director of the John M. Olin Institute for Stategic Studies and the chairman of the Harvard Academy for International and Area Studies. He was the director of security planning for the National Security Council in the Carter administration, the founder and coeditor of Foreign Policy, and the president of the American Political Science Association.
See all customer reviews
A couple of interesting points:
To read about the transformation from Secular to Religious states, even in the developed countries, (Pages 355, 356/7/8) and that Islam and Christianity are `competing worldwide for converts and gaining them ......'.
Perhaps the reason is because people are beginning to realize how the gist of the teachings of any religion (Jewish, Christian and Muslim) as a restraining influence, which clearly proves the insanity of aggressive wars.
Generations of `Ideologies' fought each other's.
Religions did not fight each other's.
True, certain groups of Christians (the Crusaders) aggressively fought groups of Muslims but the real purpose was indeed political, not religious, because they did not fight `Islam' per se.
Even when the Christians fought Christians, and the Muslims fought Muslims (as recent as in the twentieth century) the real motivations were purely mundane - commercial, financial, greed, expansionism and power possessiveness.
The theory that `war is a biological necessity, it carries out among humankind the natural law of the struggle for existence' has failed. The world has lost millions of people in the last Century when the warring parties stood away from the deep teachings of their religion, and the victor actually suffered equally with the vanquished.
On Page 299 concerning intermarriages `the melting pot is working, but it is working at the individual, not the societal, level ....." It is proven that speaking the language of the country of `the new residence' is not enough for one to migrate into `the new societies', simply because there is not one society, instead there are different and dissimilar societies grappling to live in `one' country.
The advent of Anglophone (or Francophone) is more cultural and less social.
Some Muslim crowds, for example, milling in the streets and massed in hundreds in front of the mosque to pray is indicative that their `new' societies did not run so deep, and their instinctive attachments to their roots remain nostalgic, like telling everyone "by the power of `force-majeure' our fathers and grandfathers came here looking for better means of subsistence having waited in the ultimate dim in our countries of origin to find it, but couldn't".
On the `callers' announcement to the crowd, they are cheered up peacefully and rushed off here to vent their feelings in the course of lack of natural affinity for how the `new' societies live.
It is noticeable how Muslims and Christians from the Middle East flock together, cook and eat their food from `Home', and go back to their mother tongues as the means for two-way-communication.
The same applies to ethnic groups from Mexico, Ireland, and the Italians etcetera.
But the challenge in America (and the West) is when the different `ethnic' groups remain reticent, (or at most hate), from mixing with the so-called `white Americans', and take `Religion' as a `Shield'.
The danger though is when such groups transform themselves into fortresses, once the mobilization button is pushed.
If this provocative book does not generate controversy, it will mean something truly dreadful is filling the headlines and news broadcasts. Author Samuel P. Huntington is willing to say flat out that the white, Anglo-Protestant culture of the United States was important and valuable, and is now endangered. Yet Huntington is not mired in some white-washed past. He's a respected political scientist with an endowed chair at Harvard. His views are not extreme. On the contrary, the vast majority of the American people probably share them, even if they cannot articulate them in Huntington's elite language. He explains the historic evolution of the American identity and the American Creed, and describes their past, present and future in value-based terms. He'll keep you intrigued whether you disagree with his treatise or embrace it as justification for your discomfort, at the least, or your anger and fear, at the most. Whatever your prejudices, dispositions or inclinations about the trends in American society and cultural values, we believe this is a book worth reading.
Professor Huntington latest book, Who Are We?, is an extremely insightful work In many ways, but with respect to Mexicans, he missed the boat. All past immigrant groups, have for the most part, had to cross an ocean to get to the United States. Once the last boats of these past immigrants stop coming, their language and culture were soon lost as they assimilated into mainstream U.S. culture. The immigrant flow of Mexicans and other Latinos, is a unique experience in the immigration history of the United States. The proximity of Mexico to the United States, the need for cheap labor in America and the poor economic situation in Mexico has created a much different reality for Mexicans than for past immigrants. The issue of assimilation is really not the central issue, Mexicans, like all other past immigrant, experience the same assimilation process. By the time most Mexicans families reach their second generation in America, the assimilation is well on it way. The difference is in the continual flow. Historically, Mexicans have always been with us, a significant portion of the American Southwest was part of Mexico until about the mid -1800¿s. Mexican culture and language have fill the air of this region since before the coming of the English speaking Anglo/Protestant culture. The legacy of this history is found in the names of so many towns and cities throughout the Southwest. The constant flow of Mexicans has insured the survival of their language and culture, not because of a resistance to assimilation, but rather because of the continuous reinforcement of their language and culture by new arrivals. In the recent Presidential election, a solid 44% of Mexicans and other Latinos gave their vote to President Bush, not exactly an action to be expected from a group bent on changing this country. In Iraq today, there are hundreds of Mexican nationals serving in combat even though they are not U.S. citizens. A brief look at the experience of Alberto Gonzalez, current nominee for Attorney General of the United States, would reveal the classic assimilation process of most Mexicans in this country. If on the other hand, the issue is how do we stop the constant reinforcement of Spanish language and Mexican culture in mainstream U.S. culture, the only real answer is to close the border. Closing the U.S./Mexican border would have the same effect as the last boat of past immigrants, once they stop coming, their language and culture will fade.
After his book of The Clash of Civilizations, Huntington tries again to deepen the existing chasm between the nations. While the human beings are looking for a new Christ or a new message bringing love to their lives, Huntington comes up with his new message of hate. I want to say this to Huntington: Do you call people of America to fight others to live in peace? Do you call people to hate and kill each other? Do you think that nobody deserves to live with you on the same land except the white christian English-speaking ones? Amerecan people don't need enemies to live in peace, they need love. They don't want to listen to you, they want to listen to the voice of mercy.
Harvard Professor Samuel Huntington is an interesting scholar. As the best selling author of the 1996 tome 'The Clash Of Civilizations And The Remaking Of World Order', Huntington argued quite persuasively on behalf of the notion that in the emerging global situation evolving from the dust of the collapsing cold war, the axis of conflicts in the future would be more likely conflicts between cultures as opposed to being conflicts between nation-states or ideologies. Certainly the events surrounding the attack on the World Trade Center on 911 seemed to prove his point quite dramatically, given the prominently cultural overtones relating to motives of the radical Muslim antagonists. His latest book uses that set of assumptions as a launching point for exploring a whole rafter of various cultural, racial, and socioeconomic factors by looking at the inverse aspect of the assumptions. Thus, he posits, if the very cultures which provide us with meaningful orientations are themselves fracturing, even as we war with other cultures, then cultures like our own that are composed of multicultural strands and famous for pluralism are endangered species, so to speak, imperiled by losing the very social glue that holds us together with the norms, values, and web of understandings we use to orient ourselves toward others meaningfully. Therefore, he takes along, frightening, and somewhat pessimistic look at how multiculturalism and its trains of diversity in terms of language, social orientation, and values, so fractures the sense of common belonging so many scholars consider critical to holding a society together. Certainly this is not an entirely new concern; academics from Marx to Max Weber to Emile Durkheim argued persuasively in the late 19th and early 20th century how losing the religious orientation might negatively affect social integration within modern society. So, when Professor Huntington argues that the United States is suffering through a momentous and quite revolutionary transformation, one that affects its very nature as well as its sense of social identity, he is firm academic ground. Everyone from C. Wright Mills to Alvin Toffler have noted the profound ways in which we are moving into unknown cultural territory in this country. Yet he goes further than others in identifying four key elements of cultural identity, all of which he sees as being under attack; race, ethnicity, culture (e.g. language and religious beliefs), and ideology. For Huntington, the outlook is not good. The book seems to sometimes suffer from a bad case of overgeneralization, as when he suggest that citizens immigrate to the USA for single reasons, or when he characterizes them as lacking the resident work ethic to try to make it here on their own. Mere anecdotal evidence aside, one finds it hard to agree with a thesis so poorly presented. Moreover, he seems to suggest that the way to correct this is to return to the values of the past, which, while I might also prefer to think would provide for more meaningful and rational connection between interacting individuals and for the society as a whole, represents the kind of fanciful armchair philosophizing no social experiment could ever engineer. The past is irretrievably lost, and there is no return to it or to its more meaningful orientations to the world and to the others we inhabit the planet with. The better and more useful question relates to how we get ourselves out of the growing cultural disconnections he details, describes, and chronicles so accurately in this thought-provoking work. Enjoy!
I have read only segments of the book, but believe I grasp its main idea i.e. its effort to define the core of American nationalism and vigorously defend this. Along with this is a convincing analysis of the gap between the elites of American society and the great mass of the people, in which the elites are seen as much more marginally attached to American national identity. What is more questionable is Huntington's defining the essence of the American heritage as Anglo- Protestant. This it seems to me is in fundamental contradiction to the message of the Constitution and the founding fathers. As I understand it their message was one predicated on an Enlightentment conception of the universal rights and Nature of Mankind, the rights of life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Their largely Anglo- Saxon Protestant origin was no doubt a formative element in their choosing these values, but these values included a separation of state and church, and no special emphasis on ethnicity . The unique American character of the enterprise was defined by the specific place and society they were part of . In this sense it is almost as if Huntington is regressing and seeking to define the essence of the American enterprise by what it attempted to transcend. The dangers he points to regarding the future of the American polity are no doubt real, and his expectation of Americans loyal to their American national identity, justified, but his effort to define that identity is unsatisfactory.