David Hollinger-Authority, Solidarity and the Political Economy of Identity- The Case of the United States

8/12/2019 David Hollinger-Authority, Solidarity and the Political Economy of Identity- The Case of the United States

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/david-hollinger-authority-solidarity-and-the-political-economy-of-identity- 1/13

Authority, Solidarity, and the Political Economy of Identity: The Case of the United States

Author(s): David A. HollingerSource: Diacritics, Vol. 29, No. 4, Grounds of Comparison: Around the Work of BenedictAnderson (Winter, 1999), pp. 116-127Published by: The Johns Hopkins University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1566380 .

Accessed: 22/05/2014 07:54

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Diacritics.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 194.69.13.215 on Thu, 22 May 2014 07:54:51 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1566380?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/1566380?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup



AUTHORITY,SOLIDARITY,ANDTHE POLITICALECONOMY OF IDENTITYTHE CASE OF THE UNITED STATES

DAVIDA.HOLLINGER

Theoristsfnationalismend o circle round heUnited tates ikeboyscoutswhohavespotted clump fpoison ak. Thenationalismf theUnited tateshasfiguredsmall ntherobust ndwide-rangingiscourse boutnationalismhat as involved

sociologists,istorians,olitical cientists,hilosophers,nd iterarycholars uringthe ast wodecades.Althoughhere re ignificantxceptionsothis atternf void-ance-David Miller ndLiahGreenfeldreconvenientxamples-several rominentcases llustratehepattern.he United tatessmentionednonly single ootnoten

ErnestGellner'sNations nd Nationalism.he United tates s given hort hriftnthreef hemostmportantollectionsf he1990s:HomiBhabha'sNation ndNarra-tion, ohn utchinsonndAnthony. Smith's ationalism,ndGeoff ley ndRonaldG. Suny'sBecoming ational.MontserratuibernaumentionsheUnited tates nlytwice, nd npassing,nherNationalisms: heNation-Statend NationalismntheTwentiethentury.heUnited tates ets essattentionhan anada nd heUkrainenJohn . Hall'srich,tate-of-the-artollection f1998,TheState f heNation.RonaldBeiner'sTheorizingationalismas muchmore otellus aboutQuebec han bout heUnited tates,whichs alluded o even npassing yonlyhalf he ontributorso thisvaluable nthologyf 1999.That nationalisms unknown ntheUnited tates s

claimed yElieKedouri,ven nthe ourthditionfhis lassic ext ationalism143].But hemostnterestingaseof ll s that fnationalism's ost reativend nfluentialtheorist,enedict nderson.

Andersonrovidesnly pisodic reatmentf theUnited tateswhilediscussingcreolenationalism n his influential ookImaginedCommunities.o be sure,

Anderson's emonstrationfthe imilaritiesetween largenumberfsimilarlyitu-ated, omparably eveloping ational rojects mong reolepopulationsntheNewWorlds nocausefor omplaint.t s a signal ontribution,ndstill nsufficientlyb-sorbed ya persistentlyurope-centerediscourse boutnationalism.nderson's e-

cent ook,TheSpectre fComparisons,lso dealsepisodically ith heUnited tates,which ndersonow ellsusexplicitlyasprovedtoo suigeneris or eady-to-hand[336] comparisons ith ther ational rojectsntheWestern emisphere. ost of

SpectrefComparisonssabout outheast sia,ust s the reponderancef maginedCommunitiess about atinAmerica. air nough.

For helpfulonversationsbout the ssues address nthis aper want othank hree ol-

leagues, one fwhomre ikelyobefully omfortableithmyormulations:amuelScheffler,PhengCheah, nd PeterZinoman. want lso toacknowledgehe ritical dviceofRichardBernstein,ancy raser,ndJoanHeifetz ollinger

116 diacritics9.4: 116-27







Mypoints not ofind aultwithAndersonor eing n AreaStudies pecialistnso many reasoftheworld utside heUnited tates.Nor do I haveanysignificantquarrelwithwhat ittle ndersonoessayabout heUnited tates.What sworthe-

markingpon s simplyhat ven he eastEurocentricfour ra's eading heoristsfnationalismngeneralhasemerged otfrom he tudyftheUnited tates, utfrom

the tudyfSoutheast siaandLatinAmerica. his s lessa commentboutAndersonthan bout he lassoftheoristsf which e is a member.he scholarswhose areersfocus ntheUnited tates re area tudiespecialists f kind, ut ew fthem aveintervenedellinglyn the ross-disciplinaryiscussion fnationalism. newho didwasthehistorianavidPotter, hose till-powerfulrticleHistorian's se ofNation-alism ndVice Versa waspublished early orty ears gobut srarelyited oday.

Thepoison akeffectmong heoristsfnationalismouldnotbeworthyfno-tice were t notfor ne fact hatmight e expected oattractatherhan epel hesetheorists:heUnited tates s themost uccessful ationalistrojectnall ofmodem

history. hatmakes t successful s ts ongevity,ts bsorptionf varietyfpeoples,and tssheer ower. wo-and-one-quarterenturiesftertsfoundingnd 135yearsafterts CivilWar,t s byfar hemostpowerfulation-statentheworld.No othermajornationnthe wenty-firstenturytill perates ith constitutionrittenntheeighteenth.tmanages ogetdone lotofwhat ationsreexpectedodo. thasman-agedto incorporate great arietyfethnoracialroups hroughmmigration,on-quest, nd nslavement-and-emancipation.hisprocess f ncorporationasofteneenmarkedythe ystematic istreatmentfpeopleonthebasis ofcolor,anguage,ndreligion,ut henational roject ftheUnited tates emains,rom heviewpointfa

comparativeistory,storyfrelative

tability.One can amenthe uccess f heUnited tates,r t east he vilsbywhich thasbeen chieved. necan nsteadejoicen t, rbemorallyndifferento t.Andonecanexplaint na numberfdifferentays.Butnomatter owonemay udgethenationalproject f theUnited tatesmorally,ndno matter owonemay xplaintsraw uc-cess,thedownplayingfthat roject ytheoristsfnationalismemains bitodd. tmakes s much ense as a literaturenrock ndrollthat reats huckBerry s justanothererformerith guitarnd a southernccent. o be sure, he tudy fsmallcases ikeQuebecorGhanamay urnut oprompthemost rofoundnsightsnto hegeneric henomenonfnationalism.nderson'swork s a commandingxample f

howmuch necan contributehile aying elativelyittlettentionothe igcase. Butwhenwe ook t anentireiteraturef generic, orld-historicalhenomenon,agni-tude urelyounts or omething.nless neeliminatesheUnited tates ywayofafranklyAmericanxceptionalistositionschewed ymost heoristsfnationalism,theUnited tatesstheChuckBerryfnationalism.'

Moreover,he ase of heUnited tatesmightromptslightut roductivehangein thetheorizing f nationalism, nd one thatwould entailneitherAmericanexceptionalismor he ssimilationfthe aseof heUnited tates nto niversalheo-ries fnationalism.atherhan uttingofine point nwhat sand snot nation,nd

runningndless ariationsnRenan,wemightnstead trive or nanalysisf oliticalsolidarity,ith heunderstandinghat he iversityfwhatwecall nations spart fa larger iversityfa yet arger lass ofcommunities.olitical olidaritiesbviouslyinclude ubnationalnd ransnationalormations,ome fwhichremore nationlikeor protonationalhan thers. olitical olidaritiesretonations hat enusstospe-

1.Or, f hismage stoobenign or uch roblematicntitiess nationalismndtheUnitedStates, differentigure f peech an serveustas well:wewould ook skance ta theoryfearthquakeshat aidonly assing ttentiono videncerom alifornia;heUnitedtates ouldthen edescribed s the anAndreas aultofnationalism.

diacritics winter 999 117







cies,andwhat pecies s tovarieties:he inesbetween he evelsofclassificationre

fuzzy tthe dges, s Darwin aughts long go.What nables heUnited tates ostimulatehis hift rom ation opolitical olidaritysthe apacityf heOldRepublictochallengehe ategories ithouteasing o bea nation.

The wisdom fsteppingackfrom ationsndnationalismsn order oaddress

something orenclusives indicatedyAnderson's wnrecentngagementith henotionf seriality.n ananalysis istinguishedytheheightenedbstractnessf tsbasicterms, nderson ffers distinctionetween nboundnd bound eriality.e

argues hatachstyle f erialityeneratestsownkind f politicizationndpoliticalpractice. nd t s intalkingbout hebound erialityxemplifiednthe nstitutionfthe ensus hatAnderson,nterestingly,ndertakesneof his more ustained iscus-sions ftheUnited tates.t s the ensus arriedutbytheUnited tates overnmentsince1790 that rovides nderson ith iskey xample f bound eriality,hichhas ts riginsngovernmentality,ndwhich lassifiesach ndividual onolithically.

For vivid xample f unbound eriality,ndersonakes he ough-and-tumble,on-bureaucratic,dentity-transformingorld xperiencedya characterrom fictionaltaleof therevolutionaryovementhat evelopednJava t the ndoftheperiod f

Japanese ccupation.hisyoungwoman,nthe alebyPramoedyananta oer uotedbyAnderson,found circle f cquaintancesarwider han he ircle fher rothers,sisters,ndparents. he occupied defined osition s a woman, typistn a

governmentffice,s a free ndividual. utthe plasticitynduniversalityfeachseries hat owdefineshiswoman ociallycanneverppearn census, otes nder-

son, notmerelyecause heyannot eenumeratednd otaled, ut ecause hemean-

ingf ach eries or er s

ntegratednto er ense fherselfs a

revolutionaryAnder-son, pectre 9,36-37,41-42].HenceAndersonomes losetosaying-but oes not

quite ay-thathisdistinctionetweennboundedndboundederialityrackshe las-sical distinctionetween oluntarynd scribeddentities.

YetAnderson's hoiceofexampless ironic nviewofthefact hat heUnited

States, omeofthecensus ndof oodlesofascribed ndmonolithicdministrative

identities,s alsoa site or n enormousistoryfmultipledentities,dentityransfor-

mations,ontingentdentities,ndcelebrationsf notpracticesfvoluntarydentity.Many ftheworld's ther ocietiesremarkedygreaterontinuityfthe collective

subjectivitieshat reAnderson'shief oncern.f one s looking or site n which

unboundedswell as boundederialitylourish,ump pagainst ne anotheronten-tiously,ndpresenttrikinghallengesotheoristsfpoliticalolidarity,ollectiveub-

jectivity,ndnationalism,heUnited tates asa lot o offer.Thepoisonoak effects difficulto throwff, owever,speciallywhenwe ap-

proachhe ossibilityf ven haltinglyavorableudgmentbout ationalism.nder-son closesSpectre f Comparisons ith pensivemeditationn The Goodness fNations n which eremarkspon he ometimes holesomeesulthat espect ornation's ead canhave nmaintaininghe spirationhat nationalommunityill

eventuallyiveupto tshighestelf-conception.et n juxtapositionheronyfwhich

is hard omiss,Anderson reatsll nationss onvirtuallymoral ar,whileudgingnegatively New Haven cemetery'sven-handedonor fthat ity'sdeadsoldiers,whohaddied na series fwars fwhich omeweremore onorablehan thers. fthemonumentothe ead oldiers fNewHaven,Anderson rites he ollowingecidedlymoralisticescription:

The our aceson itspedestal re inscribed ith henames fmen ndboyswho ied n our eryifferentldwars: he eroic ar fndependencegainstGeorge II's England; heunheroickirmishesgainst he ame oein1812;the ouche mperialistdventuregainstMexico n1848; and the raumatic

118







CivilWar f1861-65. t s remarkablehat hemonumentreatsll these eadas absolutelyquivalent:tmakes ot he lightestifferencehetherheymettheirives n a glorious rshamefulattlefield.he acrifice ftheirives sthus adicallyeparatedrom istorical ightrWrong.Spectre63]

Yet boutnations ndersononcludes y tringingogetherhe atriotismfMaxWe-ber bout he uturefGermanymocked ywhat appenedoWeber's elovednationin the ollowingeneration) ith hepatriotismfcontemporarymericansbout heUnited tatesAnderson'soncludingmage f which s the eticentisinclinationfClinton-hatingmericansospeak fClintonnthe ame anguage frapeAmericansoldierspplied oSaddamHusseinntheGulfWar). Nomatterhat rimes nation'sgovernmentommitsnd ts assing itizenryndorses, ndersonbserves,he ation'sdeadprompthe entimentMyCountrysultimatelyood [Spectre68].

Is thegoodness fallnationsqual?Are llvarieties fnationalolidarityqually

promising?s theuncriticalffirmationf a national radition-againsthecavalierdismissal fwhichAndersonautionswisely-a generic henomenonhathe tudentofnationalismssimplyoobserve?When oes anostensiblyeutralanguagemask ninvidiousudgment?oison ak still?

I will not epeat erewhat havesaid elsewherebout henational roject ftheUnited tates nd ts alience othediscourse nnationalismseeHollinger,llworkslisted].nstead, want o call attentionoseveral ecentontentions ithinnd aboutthenational roject ftheUnited tates hat harpenomeof thegeneral heoreticalissues about dentity,escent,ndnationality.lthough hatfollows s a decidedlyAmericocentriciscussion

roundednAmerican-style

iberalheory,

hessues nwhichI focushere ppear o be of ncreasingmportancenEurope ndelsewheres migra-tions, iasporas,ndconflictsverhuman ightsomplicateelationsetweenribe,ethnos,ation,tate,nd pecies. hepoints not oupholdheUnitedtates s amodelfor heworld, ut ourge loser crutinyfthe ase oftheUnited tatesndiscussionsof dentity,escent,ndnationality.

In theUnited tates oday,dentity,hateverlse itmaybe, s a zone ofdisputationwithin hich arious laims oncerningn ndividual'social haracterndobligationspress gainstachother. t ssue, ltimately,s the istributionf olidarity.dentitysunderstoodo be performativendsocial: one's identityarriesmplicationsor hedistributionfone'saffections,esources,nd nergiesndfor he laims necanmakeon the ffections,esources,ndenergiesfothers.Whetherdentitys understoodsmonolithicrmultiple,nduringr ontingent,thas a politicalconomy nthe ensethatdentitysdistributednonewayoranothern thebasisofauthority.

This s not heway dentitysed to be understoodntheUnited tates. dentity

oncehadtodoprimarilyith sychologicalntegration,otwith roup ffiliation.ntheheydayfErik rikson,dentityassomethingsound ersonalitychieved, su-ally fter youthfulrisis. heconcept f dentitypplied osocieties s a whole nlywhen heywere onstrueds analogues fan individual'sersonality,r character[see Erikson]. omewritersfthe1950sdidanalyze henationalommunityf theUnited tates nthese erms. ut thisholistictyle fanalysis,ftenssociatedwithconsensus istory, aswidely iscreditedn ater ecades. hroughouthe1980s nd1990s, owever,somewhatimilartyle fholisticnalysis,nder he ign f dentity,cameback nto oguewhen alkingbout thnoracialommunities.ythen,Ameri-








can dentity as understoodobe a shallow oncept,maskingiversitynd mplyingconformistentality.he oncept astobe thrownut longwith ldcopies fBoorstinandHartz. ut Chicanodentity,Asian-Americandentity,nd blackdentity ere

presenteds deepconcepts,xpressingvital nityneachcase.Holism an thuswaxandwane nrelationo entimentsbout

ustwhatwholes ndpartsre obe affirmedr

denied.Oneparty's hole an be anotherarty's art,ndvice versa.Identityecame wayofestablishingircles f we and they :who s in and

who s out oftheparticularroup hatmatters hen dentitys assertedrascribed?Thisusage xtendseyond thnoraciallyefinedollectivities;hemovementor Catho-lic dentitys a means ywhich ome olleges nduniversitiesfCatholic ffiliationhavesoughto counteracthe nfluencencampus ulturefProtestants,ews, ndfreethinkers.ven Notre ame,which asa strong atholicdentity ovementf tsown, edby ts urrentresident,indstself ccusedbyvoicesfrom therampuses f

having ailed oachieve ndmaintaintrulyatholicdentity.t snocoincidencehat

themost ar-outf heAmericaneligious-rightffiliationsastakenortsname Chris-tian dentity. Andhis ffects not imitedo theUnited tates: n thefallof 1999,Dominican epublic itizensryingooustHaitians,opush hem ack cross he or-der hat ivides he sland heyhare,arriedigns eading,Dominicandentity.

Onespecificocationnwhichwecansee dentityn ts apacitysa commodityobedistributedy uthoritysthe ontroversyver he ederal ensus. he advocates fa mixed-racelassification ighteseen spractitionersfthe olitics frecognition.Theywant census ategoryhat egistersheirmixtures,nd treats hesemixturessauthenticdentitiesntheir wnright.heopponentsfthis lassification,oncerned

with hedistributionfgovernmentenefits, ighte seen s practitionersfthe oli-ticsof distribution.heseopponentsfthemixed-raceategory orryhatwithoutaccurateccounts ytraditionalolor ategories,twillbe more ifficultoadministerremediesor iscriminationhat astraditionallygnoredmixture,s with he pplica-tion fthe ne-dropule. t seasy ounderstandhe eelingfthese pponentshathemixed-racedvocates houldook toarenas ther han he ensus ogainrecognitionfor heirmixtures.etneitherf he wo ides othis ebate, or heCensusBureau, ortheCongress f theUnited tates,which uperviseshe ensus,hasbeenwilling o

separateolorfrom ulturend hence hepolitics fdistributionromhepolitics f

recognition.s a result,he wosidesholdeach other's irtues ostage. ndmixed-

race dvocatesreopenlyccused fbreakingown he olidarityfdescentommuni-ties hat eed ntidiscriminationemedies.omeofthepeoplewithmixed escent,n

turn,nswer hat y dentifyinghemselvesrimarilys blackoras Asian-American

theyredenyinghe olidarityhey eelwithheparts ftheiramilyhatrenot lackorAsian-American.

The Censusmight,fterll,ask two uestions,ne about olorgiving ree lay othe oliticsfdistributionndone bout ultureiving ree lay o he oliticsfrecog-nition.Do youhavethephysicalharacteristicshat ender ou t risk fdiscrimina-tion t hehands fwhite eople, nd f o,do those haracteristicsakeyoublack, ed,

yellow,rbrown? hisquestionpeaks xactlyotheustifiedoncern fopponentsof themixed-raceategory. anymixed-descentndividuals, oreover,ouldeasilyanswer eswithoutiolatingheirulturaldentity.he latterouldbe elicited yan-other uestion,Do youconsider ourselfobe a memberfanyof thefollowingethnoraciallyefinedulturalroups? his econd uestionmighte asked nrelationto list f thnoracialategorieshat ould nclude ariouspecificmixtures,nd houldinclude he pportunityowritensomethingot ncludednthe ist.TigerWoods andescribe imselfs he wishesnresponseothis econd uestion,ut census fficialwouldhavegoodreason oresistf, n answer o the arlier uestionboutphysical

120







A j-IW? ?0 W v% --gd

Vow41?

snowC 40

-; f

.5

1-? i ~

do

quo*

IOL vow*

T .% ~ z~ % Illy

'-FF4~*140

sp-p

4% OF:Mopi

4b~

F~4 9' A,~:- '>i~Iew

.9-.-. /O-

AOO m

j P 40 10.~9







characteristics,oodsdenied hat eshould e classified s black.But wewillnothavethe woquestionso long s allthepartiesling othedoc-

trines hatdentitys singular,hat olor and culture o together,nd that ne can't

really hoose one's culture ecause, fterll,one's cultures indissolublyoundupwith ne's color.Hencethe

politicsfrecognition

nd thepolitics

fdistributione-main inked venwhen heres a chance oseparatehem,ndto allow each to do itsowngoodworkwithoutbstructinghe ther. nemightrguehatdentitys,or houldbe,onething, hile olidaritys,or hould e,another.ut hats not heway ifentheUnited tatess understood.

Inthe ontextfthe wareness hatdentityowhas a political conomy,everal

closely elateduestions resenthemselves.Whatsthe uthorityywhich laims bout n ndividual'sdentityre warranted?

Towhat xtentoesthis uthorityesidenthewillofthe ndividual?f ndividual illis nota sufficientlyuthoritativeasis for dentity,ho has the uthorityo ascribe

identityo an ndividual,ndwhat sthe heoreticaloundationor hatuthority?ndonthebasisofwhat onsiderationsothese ascribers elect, ven otheir wn atis-faction,ne dentityatherhan notheroassign oa givenndividual?

A strikingeaturef dentityiscoursentheUnited tates s howrarelyhese

questionsre sked.Whatmakes his oticeables the act hat he ountrys filledwith

peoplewho requitewillingotell ther olkswhat heirdentitys,and sn't. dentityascriptionlourishesestwhennoone askshard uestionsbout t. t s easier or heascribersfnoonechallengesheiruthorityrquestionsheir rinciplesfclassifica-tion.

Thedynamicsf dentityscription ightecome learerfweconsider certainclassofcontestsver dentity:hosenwhich n ndividual eclares n dentitytvari-ance with revailingxpectations.n African-Americanr an Asian-American

mightelf-identifys white, r implys anAmerican, rperhapss a Christian.Or a personwe think f as white uddenlynnounceshathe or she s Osage orCherokee.We, s a society, enerallyesist uchdeclarations,rtrivializehem s sub-

sidiary,n the uthorityf 1) thephysicalvidence f skin olor ndmorphologicaltraits,nd 2) thehistoricalvidence hat hese hysical eaturesetermineo much f

any ndividual'socialdestinyhat hese hysical eatures ust hereforee central o

identity.o heavily o werely pon his ombinationfauthoritieshatwhenwe en-

counterersistentelf-identificationt oddswith hem-a self-identificationhat on-flictswith hemarks fphysical escent-weoften ismiss his elf-identificationssomehow alse onecan'tpretendohave differentlyhaped ndhuedbody han nehas,canone?) and somehowwrongisn't t mmoral,r at leastunattractivelyelf-centered,odiminisholidarityith hosewithwhom neshares socialdestinyow-evermuch hat estinymaybe theproductfprejudicialreatmentt thehands f

empoweredacists?).Weresist speciallyhe ubstitutionfcivic-nationalI'm anAmerican )ndre-

ligious I'm a Christian )dentitiesor escent-communitydentities,pparentlye-

cause suchsubstitutionseem to be evasions fprimal ruthsbout theway thingsare, nd hus erve o nvitehe urtherictimizationfpeopleswhose true nterestsareserved y solidarityith heirommunityfdescent.We seem hemostwillingoacceptmultipledentities hen heres a clearhierarchylacingdentityydescent-communityirstaheadof dentitiesyreligion,ivicnationality,exualorientation,professionalalling,nd so forth).ndweseem hemostwillingoacceptndividualchoicewhentvalidates ocial xpectationsreatedy he hysicalmarks fdescent.nall ofthese ecisions, e seem oregarddentitys anessentiallyulturalhenomenonthat xistswithinpace argelyeterminedyphysical henomena.venwhendentity

122









ditionsmore onducive ochoice. heprinciplef ffiliationyrevocableonsentoesnotcutagainst trongffiliations,ut tdoes cutagainst scription.heprinciplefrevocable onsentsupportshe enewal ndcritical evision f those ommunitiesfdescent hose rogenyhoose odevote heirnergiesothese ommunitiesven fter

experiencingpportunitiesor ffiliating ithotherkindsofpeople [Hollinger,Postethnic merica 18].Thisprincipleakes or rantedhat omepeoplewillhavegoodreasons or hoosing oidentify ith ndcontributingo theirommunitiesfdescentvenwhen rejudice oesnot liminatehe ossibilityfexit.

But encounter,gain nd gain, he eelinghat true ommunity,truedentity,must ntail significantlement f oercion. rue elonging,t ssaid, s not omethingto whichyoucan consent. naffiliationonsentedo, nthisview, s somehowess

worthy,nd essreal, han n affiliationverwhich ouhavenocontrol.oencounterthisoutlook s ratheriketalkingwith omeonewho does notbelieve ndivorce:

marriages a meaningfulommitmentnly fthere s no escapefrom t.These are

classicallyonservativeentiments.hisway f ookingtthe elationf ndividualsogroups as a longhistory,omeofwhich shonorable,omenot.

Holocaust urvivor onrad atte,whose tory as toldrecentlyntheNew YorkTimesMagazine, hockedsraeliournalists hen etold hem hat e didnot onsiderhimselfobea Jew. isonly elt onnectionoJewishness ashaving eenpersecutedas a Jew.He did notwant ogrant itler he uthorityo determineis dentity,otellhimwithwhom o associate ven nthewakeofthe hoah.3 owshould nerespondwhenAfrican-AmericansrJapanese-Americansejecthe uthorityfwhite acists otell hemwho heyre?When he ouisiana-bornriternatole royardriedoenact

such rejection,e couldget waywitht, s Henry ouisGates,Jr., aspointedut,onlybecauseBroyardwas sufficientlyight-skinnedopass as white hroughoutiscareernNew YorkCity. royard id this t the ostofcuttingffnearlyll contactwithhisearlyife nd hisfamilyfbirth,ndbeing bliged o ive his ifeunder he

principlefwhiteness,hichppearsohave tuntedis reativitys much s liberatedit see Gates]. ntheUnited tates oday, ewishdentitys often reateds a matterfrevocable onsent. s a prominentistorianfAmerican ewryecentlyut he oint,affiliated ewsnrecent merican istorywould ontinue eingJews ecausetheywantedo,notbecause heywerebeing orced o [Shapiro 6].Butnot o with fri-can-Americanffiliation.otyet,f ver, ffiliationyrevocable onsent.

Andthis rings sbackto the ensus, ndto the ontractionshat edevil hede-bateover hemixed-raceategory.erhapsomeonewillyet esign ensible uestionsthat erve heneedsofboth ultural ffirmationndantidiscrimination,ndthus e-

spondboth othe mperativesf dentityhoice nd to someofthe oncerns ehind

identityscription.erhapsomeonewill venbe able tobuild political onstituencystrongnoughoenact uch reformf he ensus. ut nthemeantimeheres anotherreason or eepinghe ldcensus ategoriesntact,ven houghmany eoplenow hinkthe ong-termoalofequalitywouldbe best ervedfthe ensuswould top ountingpeople y ny nd ll ethnoracialategories. arriagendreproductioncross o-called

racial ines re ncreasingt a high ate.t s surelymportanthat he ensuskeepusaccuratelynformedbout his emarkableevelopment.ere, gain,t sthe hysicalratherhan he ulturalharacteristicshatmatter.he census hould ontinueomea-sure he o-called races nd heirmixing,f nly ogiveus a record fonevital spectof he trugglefAmericansoovercome he ower f race ocontrolheirndividuallives, ncludingheiridentities. 4

3. 1can't et heNazishave he astword. can't et hem ellme, You're Jew, oubelongin thiscorner,his rawer' qtd. nSchneider4].

4. For an excellentnalysis fthedifficultiesreatedor ocialscientists,umanists,nd

124







Thecensus f1990 s already decadeoutofdate, ut t shows hedemographicbase ofthenational rojectftheUnited tates obe differentromhat fmost thernations ith racist raditions strongs thatftheUnited tates. he rate fmarriageandreproductioncross thnoracialineshasbeen ncreasing apidlyvenduringperiodwhen ssimilationas been everelyriticizednthe nterestsfpreservinge-scent ommunities.ensusdata how hat 1percentfmarriedolish-Americanse-tween he gesof25 and34hadmarriedutside heir thnic roup,ndthat 3percentofItalian-Americansaddoneso. Butthefigures oncerningon-Europeanroupsdemand hegreatestmphasis, iven he ong-termistoryfEurocentricttitudesntheUnited tates. fterll,weare alkingbout nation hat idnot ven llowAsiansto becomenaturalizeditizens ntil 952.Of marriedersons etweenhe gesof25and34 in 1990whohad beenborn ntheUnited tates, bout ne-half fthosewithAsianancestryad outmarried. mongHispanics,bout 5 percent adacquiredspouseof non-Latinoescent. bout 0 percentf ndians eportedeingmarriedo

non-Indians.lack-white arriagesontinuedobe rare, ut heywere onsiderablymorefrequenthan nly fewdecadespreviously.n 1990,3.75percentfmarriedblackwomennthe wenty-five-to-thirty-fourgecohortweremarriedowhitemen,and8.5percentfthemarried lackmenweremarriedowhitewomenseeFarley].

These astfiguresoncerninglack-whitenions rovideittleupportor he re-dictions fStanley rouch ndotherocialcommentatorshat thnoracialistinctionswilldisappearnthe wenty-firstentury.lacks tillmarryutsideheir escentom-munityt a much ower ate han o other onwhites.ut hese tatisticsoindicatenextent fpubliclyroclaimedndofficiallyecognizedlack-white ixingignificant

for societyhat n1990stood nly wenty-threeears romoving .Virginia,henthe upreme ourt ftheUnited tates uled nconstitutionalll stateawsforbiddinginterracial arriage. ntil hat uling f 1967,black-white arriages ere llegal nmost f he tatesnwhich large ercentagef he opulation asblack.An ntriguingfeaturefthe ncreasenblack-white arriagess theirocationnvery ifferentartsofthe lassstructure:mong hosemost ikely omarrycross heblack-whiteolorline reenlisted ersonnelnthemilitarynddoctoral raduatesfeliteuniversities.

When ll of hese esultsf he1990 ensus re onsiderednrelationothe est ftheworld,he ld meltingot notionf heUnited tates egainsome f ts redibil-ity, lthoughevoid, fcourse, fthe enseofnaturalrogressiono long nnocentlyassociatedwith uotationsrom revecourndZangwill. politicalnd egal trugglethat ontinuesoday asbeenrequiredodiminishhe thnocentricocial ttitudesndpublic oliciesput nplaceand ong nforcedydominantnglo-Protestants.uttheUnited tatesnowdisplays degree fstructuralssimilationot o befoundven nsuch ther iverseocietiess India, witzerland,ndBelgium,osaynothingfmorehomogeneousocietiesikeGermany,apan,heNetherlands,ustria,ndPoland.

Thisrelativelyigh egree f tructuralssimilationelps omarkff he ontem-poraryationalistmpulsentheUnited tates rommanyf henationalist ovementsoftoday hat ustain nderstandableuspicionfnationalism.refero thenationalist

movementsecentlyaunched rrenewedbyBasques, Croats,Flemings,Kurds,Macedonians,erbs, ikhs, lovakians,amils, ndUkrainians.heUnited tates aseis differentven fromhesomewhatess ethnocentricationalist ovementsftheCatalonians,uebecois, ndScots.Nationalisms not f piece, ndthe arietyepre-sented ytheUnited tates asmuchessblood-and-soilxclusivityhan oseveral fthe nes ustnamed,ndeven ess inguisticarticularism.

political ctorsby heunresolvedensions hat owresidewithinhe oncept f identity,eeBrubakerndCooper,whichppeared oo ate to beofuse n the reparationf his ssay.








Bythe ame oken,henationalistmpulsef he resentmerican omentiffersfromhat oundn this ountryuringhe rogressiveraandthe1920s.Anyonewhothinks eare bout oreplayhenativistoliticsf he1920smightmaginehe onser-vativeRepublican andidate f 1924,CalvinCoolidge, cting ike his conservative

Republicanounterpartf2000,whichwouldmean ryingowinvotesbyspeakingYiddish r talian.n2000evenBob JonesUniversityasgiven pitsban on black-white ating, hile n1924 twasstillwithinhebounds frespectableublic iscus-sion mongwhite onservativeso dvocatehe xportingf he ntire lack opulationto New Guinea ndtheBelgianCongo.Theright-wingoliticiansndwhite-suprema-cistmilitias ho oday eplayndextendheAnglo-ProtestanthauvinismfMadisonGrant renot o be ignored,ut heyre at themarginsfAmericanolitics,s their

predecessorsecidedly erenot. xaggeratinghe ower fcryptofascistacismntheUnited tates oday rivializeshe ufferingf thosewho were busedbyevenworseversions oleratedyestablisheduthoritynpastgenerations.

What s rightpfrontn theAmerican ase today,onsideredn relation o suchotherthnoraciallylural ocietiess Belgium, razil, ndia, ndonesia, ewZealand,andSwitzerland,s the requencyithwhich he escentommunitieshat reconsid-ered standard hange romenerationogeneration.he historicalrocess ywhicha numberfEuropean-basedmmigrantroups ecame white as beenwidely is-cussedbyhistorians.he whiting feconomicallyuccessful sian-Americanss a

staple feverydayonversationnCalifornia, hereJapanese-Americansere akenoff oconcentrationamps ctuallyuite ecently,ithinmy wn ifetime.et hemost

strikingase is that fAmerican ews.As recentlys 1940Jewswere stigmatized

group ftenalled

race, nlybout hree

ercentf whom utmarried.

heywere

systematicallyxcluded, y egal authority,rommany pheresfemployment,ous-

ing, ndpublic ccommodations.etby he1980sbetween ne-thirdnd ne-halff ll

marriagesnvolvingews ntailedhe cquiringfa non-Jewishpouse, ndJews adbecome othoroughlyssimilatednto he European ommunityfdescenthatheyhad ceased to be counted s a distinctiveroupwhen ssuesof ethnoracialepresenta-tion ndunder-representationerediscussed.

ThisAmericanort f diversity,nwhich he ery ategoriesfdiversityhange,isdifferentrom he ort fdiversityisplayed ynationseaturingeveral istoricallycontinuousescent ommunitieshat emainharply eparate rom neanother.ne

neednot all nto he rap f mysticalAmericanxceptionalismorecognizempiri-callywarrantedifferencesetweenheUnited tates nd certainther,pecific a-tionsnd o ppreciate,nthe urrentorld-historicalontext,he alueof ny oliticalorder hat iminisheshe onstraintshatftenollow romscribed tatusccordingodescent.heUnitedtatesmay ot eunique, utt s a formidablenginef thnoracial

change.n this articular,odest espect,heUnited tates ince1945, or ll tsmani-

festlyounter-revolutionaryctionsnVietnamndGuatemala,nChile nd he ongo,hasprovedo bea trulyevolutionaryower.

As such, t is a distinctivepisode n thehistoryfnational olidarities.fthe

critical, ecessarilyuardedcrutinyf theUnited tates anhelpthe peciesfindfuturen which he arietiesfhumankindre essafraid f ntimacy ith neanother,and candraw ts various ircles f the we more eliberatelynd essprejudicially,thatwillbe all tothegood.

Yettheverydeaof theUnited tates ervings a valuable xample f a certainkind f civic nationmediatingetween he pecies ndmultipleommunitiesfde-scentneedstobe carefullyormulated.refer o an example, ot model. Thehistoricalarticularityf achnation's ituation ilitatesgainstoarrogantnotion sa model o be copied, speciallywhen he andidate ormodel tatuss theworld's

preeminentilitaryndeconomic ower. intendexample n whatmighte called

126







its oftestense: t s simply casethatanbescrutinizedriticallyypeoplewhohavereason obe interestedn t.Andnow,when omany ountries,speciallynEurope,contemplatefuture ithargermmigrantopulations,heresglobal nterestnpoliti-calcommunitieshatross thnoracialarriers ithoutretendingobe universal.hecase of theUnited tates s importantecauseracisms so deeply tructurednto ts

national istory.hiscase,dependingn the pecific ath tfollows,mayyet ervehumblyoremindheavilyacializedworldhat ven society ith deeply acist astcan ncorporatendividualsrom great arietyfcommunitiesfdescent ntermsfconsiderablentimacy ithin civic olidarity.

WORKS CITEDAnderson,enedict.magined ommunities:eflectionsntheOriginndSpread f

Nationalism.ded. London:Verso, 991.

. TheSpectrefComparisons: ationalism,outheast sia, nd theWorld. ewYork:Verso, 998.Beiner, onald.Theorizingationalism.lbany: UNY P,1999.Bhabha,Homi, d.Nation ndNarration. ew York:Routledge,990.Brubaker,ogers, ndFrederickooper. BeyondIdentity.' heoryndSociety 9

(2000): 1-47.

Eley,Geoff,ndRonaldG. Suny. ecoming ational.NewYork:Oxford P,1996.Erikson,rik.ChildhoodndSociety. ewYork:Norton,950.Farley, eyonds.Racial ssues: Recent rends nResidentialatternsnd ntermar-

riage. DiversityndItsDiscontents: ultural onflictndCommon round nContemporarymericanociety.d.NeilSmelser ndJeffreylexander.rinceton:PrincetonP,1998.85-128.

Gates,Henry ouis,Jr.White ikeMe. NewYorker 7June 996.Gellner,rnest. ationsndNationalism.xford: lackwell, 983.Greenfeld,iah.Nationalism:iveRoadstoModernity.ambridge, A:Harvard P,

1992.Guibernau, ontserrat.ationalisms:heNation-StatendNationalismntheTwenti-

ethCentury.ambridge:olity, 996.Hall,John . TheState ftheNation: rnestGellner ndthe heTheory fNational-

ism.NewYork:Cambridge P,1998.Hollinger,avidA. National ulture ndCommunitiesfDescent. iversitynd ts

Discontents.d.NeilSmelser ndJeffreylexander.rinceton:rincetonP,1998.247-62;. Nationalism,osmopolitanism,ndtheUnited tates. mmigrationndCiti-

zenshipn theTwenty-Firstentury.d. NoahPickus.Lantham,MD: RowmanandLittlefield,998.85-99.. National olidarityt theEnd oftheTwentiethentury: eflectionsn the

United tates ndLiberalNationalism. ournalfAmerican istory4 (1997):

559-69.. Postethnicmerica: eyondMulticulturalism.ewYork:BasicBooks,1995.Hutchinson,ohn,ndAnthony. Smith,ds.Nationalism.xford: xford P,1994.Kedouri, lie.Nationalism. xford: lackwell, 993.Miller, avid.OnNationality.xford: larendon,995.Potter,avid. TheHistorian's se ofNationalismndViceVersa.American istori-

cal Review 7 (1962):924-50.Schneider,eter.SavingKonrad atte. NewYork imesMagazine13Feb.2000: 54.Shapiro, dward . A Time orHealing:American ewryinceWorldWarII. Balti-

more:Johnsopkins

P,1992.


Documents

David Hollinger-Authority, Solidarity and the Political Economy of Identity- The Case of the United States