The last two postings
presented the essence of Arthur M. Schlesinger’s argument[1] bolstering an
assimilationist approach to immigration policy.
This was described in counter position to a multiculturalist approach, especially
as expressed by critical theorists.
According to that historian, the multicultural position would have
immigrants rejecting the central American culture – one which is based on
Western cultural tradition – and be able to maintain their various cultural
modes of behavior and belief structures in defining their social and private affairs.
Schlesinger
sees this as depriving the nation of a central cultural base which if maintained
would serve to functionally establish basic expectations in social intercourse. Rounding his argument, he reviews a list of attributes
an alignment to a single, Western culturally based tradition should have.
First,
that tradition is/will not be a solidified orthodoxy but more of a cultural
process by which the effects of incoming traditions of current and future immigrants
are incorporated into the dominant way of life.
“It is an ever-evolving philosophy, fulfilling its ideals through
debate, self-criticism, protest, disrespect, and irreverence; a tradition in
which all have right of heterodoxy and opportunities for self-assertion.”[2]
Second,
to acknowledge the essentially European origins of the American culture as,
one, a historical fact, and, two, an origin that allows – Schlesinger seems to
say invites – for the acceptance and accommodation of various cultural
traditions. It does not disdain other
traditions but allows for evolving views – a one step at a time – of acceptance
and selected adaptation of beliefs, values, attitudes, and styles from non-European
traditions.
Third,
a cultural commitment not based on the notion that it is better for all humans,
but better for the American people. It
is history that has given this nation this tradition and that does not just
mean an accidental fact, but a fact that has a complicated, extensive, and
thorough defining effect on the American people. In short, it provides the nation its
identity.
Fourth,
a central commitment to a political culture that is not based on group rights,
as multicultural arguments seem to bolster, but based on a foundational
commitment to protect and advance individual integrity through a respect for individual
rights as defined by the Bill of Rights, the rule of law, and democratic
processes. This is further advanced by a
cultural disposition toward communal arrangements of social settings, from
families to national and international associations.
And
fifth, that cultural tradition provides reasonable expectations that in terms
of any multilayered reality – which includes any reality of any consequence – allows
for necessary efficiencies. For example,
as William K. Tabb points out, economic health depends on economic actors
having some level of a predictive ability and be able to share general views about
how the economy functionally works.[3]
All
this poses a challenge for the nation to hit upon the optimal compromise
between the nationalist bias toward exclusion of non-Western influences and the
multiculturalist bias toward prohibiting efforts at enculturating the nation’s
population to Western based cultural norms and standards. This compromise needs happen to maintain and
strengthen a true republic.
Our task is to combine due
appreciation of the splendid diversity of the nation with due emphasis on the
great unifying Western ideas of individual freedom, political democracy, and
human rights. These are the ideas that
define American nationality – and today empower people of all continents,
races, and creeds.[4]
And
another quote; this one from an account of Abraham Lincoln’s last journey – his
body being transported back to Springfield, Illinois – by the historian, Ted
Widmer,
[The American people] trusted
Lincoln’s vision of an America that aspired to keep the promises of the
Declaration of Independence. Even if
they had lost him, they knew that “the Union is not assassinated,” as Whitman
put it. They were not naïve; they knew
that the Declaration set a difficult standard, one that they would often fail
to reach. But to pretend it did not
exist was to slowly become a different kind of country, with no moral standard
at all.[5]
And that Declaration
was a product of a long development of the Western tradition.
This writer has indicated in prior postings that he accepts
the basis of Schlesinger’s argument but takes issues with its finer
points. The argument rightly points out
the dysfunctionality of a nation with disparate cultural traditions – beyond that
of what Canada has with its dual cultural base between its British and French
traditions – made up of cultural elements from around the world. But this blogger feels he soft-peddles the
lack of effort Americans have made to live up to its federalist values.
The Widmer quote above mentions the difficult standard the Declaration
sets for the American people, but how divergent does the record have to be
before one just considers that proclaimed set of values as just a pile of words? In a current issue of The Atlantic, Ed
Young[6] points out how the current
pandemic has laid bare the inequalities that exist.
And
much of that inequality, in terms of occurrence, can be superimposed on the
racial and ethnic divisions of the nation.
Yes, poverty is the culprit but if that poverty aligns inordinately
along racial and ethnic lines, then one can readily see the implied inequality
reflecting a less than enculturated commitment to the nation’s own stated
principles and values. Young writes,
Latinos were three times as likely to be infected as white
people. Asian Americans faced racist abuse. Far from being a “great equalizer,”
the pandemic fell unevenly upon the U.S., taking advantage of injustices that
had been brewing throughout the nation’s history. …
Of the 3.1 million Americans who cannot afford
health insurance, more than half are people of color, and 30 percent are Black. This is no accident. In the decades after the Civil War, the white
leaders of former slave states deliberately withheld care from Black Americans,
apportioning medicine more according to the logic of Jim Crow than Hippocrates. They built hospitals away from Black
communities, segregated Black patients into separate wings, and blocked Black
students from medical school. In the 20th
century, they helped construct America’s system of private, employer-based insurance,
which has kept many Black people from receiving adequate medical treatment …
A
number of former slave states also have among the lowest investment in public
health, the lowest quality of medical care, the highest proportion of Black
citizens, and the greatest racial divides in health outcomes. …
As
of the early July, one in every 1,450 Black Americans had died from COVID-19 –
a rate more than twice that of white Americans.[7]
Young goes on to point out a
set of data points that adequately support the claim that minorities are not
treated as white Americans when it comes to health care.
One
can easily draw the conclusion that Americans are not meeting the “difficult
standard” the Declaration of Independence stakes out. That is, any meaningful definition of “Unum”
demands more.
[1] Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., The Disuniting of
America: Reflections on a Multicultural
Society (New York, NY: W. W. Norton
and Company, 1992).
[2] Ibid., 136.
[3] William K. Tabb, The Restructuring of
Capitalism in Our Time (New York, NY:
Columbia University Press, 2012).
[4] Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., The Disuniting of
America, 138.
[5] Ted Widmer, Lincoln on the Verge: Thirteen Days to Washington (New York,
NY: Simon and Schuster, 2020), 461.
[6] Ed Young, “How the Pandemic Defeated America,” The Atlantic
(September 2020).
[7] Ibid., accessed August 4, 2020, https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/09/coronavirus-american-failure/614191/
.
No comments:
Post a Comment