Identity Politics
I am reading Who We Are: the Challenges of America’s National Identity, by (the late) Samuel Huntington. It’s a quick read, but there are many interesting insights. One that resonated with me is Huntington’s critique of the notion of America as a nation of immigrants. He says that no, America is a nation of settlers and immigrants. These are quite different, and until recently the settler ethos was the dominant strain in American identity.
Americans commonly refer to those who produced independence and the Constitution in the 1770s and 1780s as the Founding Fathers. Before there were the Founding Fathers, however, there were the founding settlers. . . . It began with the first settler communities of 1607, 1620, and 1630. What happened in the 1770s and 1780s was rooted in a product of the Anglo-American Protestant society and culture that had developed over the intervening one and a half centuries.
. . . .
Before the Revolution . . . English and Dutch colonists “conceived of themselves as settlers and planters–the formative population of those colonial societies–not as immigrants.” . . . The term “immigrant” came into the English language in the America of the 1780s to distinguish current arrivals from the founding settlers.
America’s core culture has been and, at the moment, is still primarily the culture of the seventeenth- and eighteenth-century settlers who founded American society. The central elements of that culture can be defined in a variety of ways but include the Christian religion, Protestant values and moralism, a work ethic, the English language, British traditions of law, justice, and the limits of government power, and a legacy of European art, literature, philosophy, and music. Out of this culture the settlers developed in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries the American Creed with its principles of liberty, equality, individualism, representative government, and private property. Subsequent generations of immigrants were assimilated into the culture of the founding settlers and contributed to and modified it. But they did not change it fundamentally. This is because, at least until the late twentieth century, it was Anglo-Protestant culture and the liberties and economic opportunities it produced that attracted them to America.
There’s much more, but I recommend you read it for yourself.
That resonates with me personally. My maternal grandfather’s family was of settler origin. Nobody from the 1607 settlement, but many from the New England settlements, including 3 on the Mayflower in 1620, and several from the 1630s founding of settlements in Connecticut. They remained settlers for the most part, moving west throughout the 17th, 18th, and early-19th centuries. (A GGG Grandfather was “the last white man killed by Indians in Washington County, Ohio,” in 1794. Maybe sometime I’ll write about the full story, which is fascinating. His tombstone inscription is priceless: “Here lyes the body of Abel Sherman who fell by the hand of the savage on the 15th of August 1794, and in the 50th year of his age.” The original tombstone is in the Campus Martius Museum in Marietta, OH, where my mother’s family is from.)
But the rest of my family is immigrant. On my mother’s side, English, Scot, Irish, and German. On my father’s, almost exclusively Scandinavian, with one German (whence the name Pirrong.) Mainly Protestant, but a sprinkling of Catholics (Irish and German). But for the most part, as Huntington describes, they absorbed the settler ethos. At Thanksgiving aunt told a story that captures this perfectly. She related how when in first grade, the teacher in a Chicago public school asked everyone to state their nationality. Being Chicago in the 1920s, it was a mix, but mainly Polish and Irish in her school. My aunt says she didn’t know how to answer, because this had never been discussed in her home, but her teacher told her she had to. So she went home, and asked her dad, who took umbrage. “Tell them that you’re an American,” he said.
(The one exception to the absorption of the settler ethos. A maternal great-grandfather was a noted socialist. A former concert coronetist, he would play his horn on the street corner with my pre-10 grandmother singing on a soapbox. When a crowd assembled, he’d give a speech about socialism. In her 90s, my grandmother would say: “I didn’t believe it [i.e., his socialism] when I was 8, and I sure don’t believe it now.” LOL.)
I think it’s fair to say that I internalized this settler mindset, sharing many of the beliefs that Huntington identifies with it (with the exception of the formal religious aspects: as my Navy dog tags said, I’m “PROT NO DENOM,” and only cast shadows in a church as a tourist.) And I think that the main political fault lines in the US right now are largely defined by the settler ethos, and those who reject it, or deconstruct it (as Huntington describes). It is also a crux of many of the debates in the comments.
The subject of the current salience of historical identity came up recently in a completely different context. I was visited by an academic for Azerbaijan who is in charge of developing an energy education program at a new university in Baku. He was asking my opinion about what to include in his program, who would be good to bring in to lecture in it, whether I would be interested in speaking there, etc. I asked him whether the courses would be conducted in Azerbaijani, English, or Russian. He said English. I asked him whether Russian was still an important language there. He hurriedly and emphatically said “No!” and went on to say that not just in Azerbaijan but throughout the former FSU people (at least in business) were striving to de-orient themselves from Russia and re-orient themselves westward.
The conversation turned to how although Russia (or, more properly, the USSR) had been a leader in petroleum engineering and the geosciences, it had fallen far behind the times, and was now a relic, a shadow. (Which is why this new Azerbaijani energy education initiative is consciously focused on western practices and companies.) I asked him for his opinion as to what it would take for Russia to rejuvenate itself. He said: “They have to figure out who they want to be. They can’t decide on their identity. Do they see themselves as the imperialists of the past or as a part of the modern world? Superiors or equals?”
Good questions. And ones that point out the path dependence of identity, and its influence on virtually all aspects of social and political interaction.
The cited Azerbaijani is a puppet for the greater imperialists. Not all Azerbaijanis share his views.
Russia is still of significance, whether the anti-Russian crowd likes it or not.
Comment by jojo — December 6, 2009 @ 11:21 am
[…] page http://bit.ly/87lVfg info http://bit.ly/5vNgRV info 2 tweet […]
Pingback by Twitter Trackbacks for Streetwise Professor » Identity Politics [streetwiseprofessor.com] on Topsy.com — December 6, 2009 @ 1:55 pm
Actually, I totally agree with the visitor from Azerbaijan. Much like many other contemporary nations, who one might think had settled their identity long time ago, Russia also finds herself in the deep struggle of an identity crisis, clinging to the ghost of the former Soviet glory. In my view, the concept of the so called historic mission of the Russian nation is the major impediment on the way of the nation’s growth. It is like a stone hanging from the neck of the Russian people, who are attempting to swim in the ocean of human progress.
Much of Russia’s international and domestic political behavior these days could be explained namely by the inferiority complex of this “historic mission.†I characterize it as a complex, since apparently it is required for Russian self-respect.
Somehow, to feel her own “greatness,†Russia needs to believe that she still is the nation leading others towards the “light,†whatever form it might take. She needs to project power, even if she doesn’t have it. She needs to be perceived by her own people “the great nation†which is leading others and is as good as other [super]powers.
A couple of immediate examples come to my mind: the voyage of the two (or was it one?) arcane Russian military vessels to Venezuela and the challenging of the American air space by the Russian Air Force in the last couple of years [in the aftermath of the booming oil prices]. Both events were presented to the Russian people as a testament to Russian might and her ability to challenge its old adversary – the USA – while for clear reasons, both events were received by the US A with a chuckle under the best case scenario. I remember Condoleezza Rice once claiming on TV [quite accurately] that the following the voyage Russian rhetoric was something to be taken with a grain of salt and it was directed at the internal audience in Russia [I am paraphrasing her response addressing one of the US congressmen].
Much of Russia’s posture regarding Iran can be also seen along the same lines of opposing the Americans – in their own mind the opposition elevates Russia and puts them on the same level of perceived equality in the eyes of the Russian people – something that apparently they have a need for. In some ways, it reminds me the Iraqi effort to project power in the eyes of their own people (and perhaps Iran), even making an appearance of owning weapons of mass distraction at the detriment of the true well being of their nation. One could say, that most of all, Iraq feared its own people. In the same way, Russia fears her own people and needs to constantly inject a sense of “greatness†because without that sense it is very hard to hold that vast country – Frankenstein’s Monster – together since the collapse of the ideas of World Revolution and Communism.
To make a long story short, I am reminded of a Russian cartoon of my childhood, which is called “Frog the Traveler.†It is a story of a frog who once managed to fly with a flock of geese – two geese held a rod with their beaks and the frog flew with them while hanging from the rod.
Upon her return, the frog constantly bragged about her journey and always started her story with “Well, I kept flying and flying…†[Так лечу, Ñ Ð»ÐµÑ‡Ñƒ…]. It got so frequent that everybody started to laugh at the Frog the Traveler. As soon as she would open her mouth, someone would immediately narrate sarcastically “Так лечу, Ñ Ð»ÐµÑ‡Ñƒ…†The frog grew visibly upset with the sarcasm and started to claim/shout, “You’ll see, I’ll fly again.†And one day a stork got her in her beak, lifted her and flew with her on her final journey. And the last words of the frog were â€œÑ Ð»ÐµÑ‡Ñƒâ€¦â€
Comment by MJ — December 6, 2009 @ 3:38 pm
MJ–very entertaining story at the end. I agree with your diagnosis too.
“..in their own mind the opposition elevates Russia and puts them on the same level of perceived equality in the eyes of the Russian people..”
So, without real opposition to government in Russia, Russians obviously do not consider themselves equal with their leaders. Russians do not eveb try to be equal with their leaders. Something is wrong over there, I never thought politicians are something special, something above us, ordinary citizens.
Comment by Deith — December 6, 2009 @ 6:14 pm
Sorry for not being very clear. I meant “in their own mind the opposition [to USA, per se] elevates Russia and puts Russia on the same level of perceived equality [with USA] in the eyes of the Russian people”
Comment by MJ — December 6, 2009 @ 6:23 pm
Yes, I got You right. If Russians feel that opposition is what raises them on the same level, why do not they oppose their government when they do not agree with its decisions?
Comment by Deith — December 6, 2009 @ 6:25 pm
“..in the minds of Russian ideologists the opposition [to USA, per se] elevates Russia and puts her on the same level of perceived equality [with USA] in the eyes of the Russian people†🙂
Comment by MJ — December 6, 2009 @ 6:30 pm
Well, I am stupid, sorry for that. If its “in the eyes of Russian people” than Russians share their view with those ideologists, do not they? If in the eyes of Russian people is the opposition of their nation toward other nation seen as proof of the same “level” than the same has to work in “lower” perspective – citizens/government. Which leads to my previous post – they do not consider themselves equal with their leaders (ideologists), because they do not openly oppose them.
Comment by Deith — December 6, 2009 @ 6:37 pm
I don’t know you. Therefore cannot comment on personal matters… 😉
As to your comment, I do not follow your chain of thought. How is the alleged by me opinion of Russian ideologists regarding what it is that provides self-esteem to the Russian people equate the sense of equality of the Russian people with their own leadership? Why should one imply the other?
Comment by MJ — December 6, 2009 @ 6:43 pm
I’ll try to break it to smaller pieces, which is quite a challenge with my English.. 🙂
Russian ideologists oppose USA on Iran, because they consider opposition as proof of equality. But you also stated another reason – because it is seen the same way (as proof of equality) by ordinary Russians. And I actually think the first one is not the reason but only a way to get the latter – feel of equality among ordinary Russians, that is what they want most – respect from others. But, if the Russian people think this way in nation-nation scenario, they have to think the same way in citizen-government scenario. Which raises question why they do not oppose (read as: consider themselves equal with) their leaders/ideologists? Maybe You already answered – maybe the sense of “equality” with superpower like USA brings another feeling – fear. Maybe Russians think that government able to oppose superpower is able to crush any opposition to itself – whether its from outside (other nation) or within (its own citizens).
Do I make sense a bit now? Please, do not be honest and say yes. 🙂
Comment by Deith — December 6, 2009 @ 6:55 pm
“Russian ideologists oppose USA on Iran, because they consider opposition as proof of equality. But you also stated another reason – because it is seen the same way (as proof of equality) by ordinary Russians.â€
Actually, I didn’t mean to say that these are two different reasons. I claimed that in the opinion of the Russian ideologists, opposing USA (on Iran, among other things), gives the Russian people a sense of “greatness,†or sense of equality of Russia with USA, per se.
Now, I don’t know why a “nation-to-nation equality scenario†should translate into a “citizenry-to-government equality scenario.†Why is it implied that the Russian people should consider themselves equals to their government? In fact, if I know anything about the Russian people, they are not that afraid of their government crashing them. To the contrary, the Russian people have an amazing sense of respect for authority.
Comment by MJ — December 6, 2009 @ 7:15 pm
“Actually, I didn’t mean to say that these are two different reasons. I claimed that in the opinion of the Russian ideologists, opposing USA (on Iran, among other things), gives the Russian people a sense of “greatness,†or sense of equality of Russia with USA, per se.”
You did not, my fault. Still, Russian leaders/ideologists oppose USA because they want their people to fell great. But Russian leaders are not known for love to their citizens, so why do they do this? That is question for tomorrow. 🙂
“Now, I don’t know why a “nation-to-nation equality scenario†should translate into a “citizenry-to-government equality scenario.†Why is it implied that the Russian people should consider themselves equals to their government? In fact, if I know anything about the Russian people, they are not that afraid of their government crashing them. To the contrary, the Russian people have an amazing sense of respect for authority.”
Fine, after 4 posts I am still unable to make myself clear. Last try, it is 1:40 in the morning over here and I need some sleep.
Russian people consider opposition to someone strong as proof of equality, did I get You right on this? If Russians think it is opposition that is the proof of equality it has to work everywhere – if nation opposes nation, they are equal. If you oppose your brother/father/superior/God than you are equal to him, right? If you want to be equal with your leaders or ideologists you have to oppose them. That is, according to You, how Russian people think. Opposition is proof of equality. If they really believe it, they simply have to believe it on every level. And question about fear/respect, fear is just extreme respect, do not You think? Russians have a lot of respect to authority, You said. I think they have TO much of respect to authority which is why I called it fear previously.
Comment by Deith — December 6, 2009 @ 7:38 pm
God, feel and not fell.. Sorry for another post.
Comment by Deith — December 6, 2009 @ 7:39 pm
The conversation turned to how although Russia (or, more properly, the USSR) had been a leader in petroleum engineering and the geosciences, it had fallen far behind the times, and was now a relic, a shadow. (Which is why this new Azerbaijani energy education initiative is consciously focused on western practices and companies.)
The Azeri Westernizers are invariably russophone.
I asked him for his opinion as to what it would take for Russia to rejuvenate itself. He said: “They have to figure out who they want to be. They can’t decide on their identity. Do they see themselves as the imperialists of the past or as a part of the modern world? Superiors or equals?â€
The Soviet Union was far too humane. Instead of total Russification, they allowed the multi-culti crap, ethnic regional elites, etc..
Much of Russia’s posture regarding Iran can be also seen along the same lines of opposing the Americans – in their own mind the opposition elevates Russia and puts them on the same level of perceived equality in the eyes of the Russian people – something that apparently they have a need for.
No it’s simple geopolitics. They do not want the Americans to completely control the Gulf. Much like the the US (and England in the past) does it’s best to keep the continent divided, Monroe doctrine, etc.
In some ways, it reminds me the Iraqi effort to project power in the eyes of their own people (and perhaps Iran), even making an appearance of owning weapons of mass distraction at the detriment of the true well being of their nation. One could say, that most of all, Iraq feared its own people.
The posturing was to deter Iran. It was a convenient excuse to invade, of course. No-one believed the WMD bullshit. (Did you, Professor?)
In the same way, Russia fears her own people and needs to constantly inject a sense of “greatness†because without that sense it is very hard to hold that vast country – Frankenstein’s Monster – together since the collapse of the ideas of World Revolution and Communism.
Russia without Kiev, Minsk, Odessa is an abortion.
BTW, Americans are far more paranoid than Russians. Red Menace, Yellow Menace, UN world gummint, black helicopters, WMDs, Iran, North Korea, space aliens… You are surrounded by 2 oceans for Christ’s sake.
Comment by So? — December 6, 2009 @ 8:56 pm
MJ – “Much of Russia’s posture regarding Iran can be also seen along the same lines of opposing the Americans – in their own mind the opposition elevates Russia and puts them on the same level of perceived equality in the eyes of the Russian people – something that apparently they have a need for.”
No it’s simple geopolitics. They do not want the Americans to completely control the Gulf. Much like the the US (and England in the past) does it’s best to keep the continent divided, Monroe doctrine, etc.
MJ- Why? Who should control it? Why not to join the Americans and Europeans, then, to control it under a robust international agreement? And by the way, how does Iran obtaining nuclear weapons benefit Russia more than “Americans controlling the Gulf,†unless what you are thinking about, but not saying it out loudly, is the weaponization of oil?
MJ- In the same way, Russia fears her own people and needs to constantly inject a sense of “greatness†because without that sense it is very hard to hold that vast country – Frankenstein’s Monster – together since the collapse of the ideas of World Revolution and Communism.
Russia without Kiev, Minsk, Odessa is an abortion.
MJ_ Why? And what are you going to do next? Invade Kiev, Minsk and Odessa?
Comment by MJ — December 6, 2009 @ 9:37 pm
Why? Who should control it? Why not to join the Americans and Europeans, then, to control it under a robust international agreement? And by the way, how does Iran obtaining nuclear weapons benefit Russia more than “Americans controlling the Gulf,†unless what you are thinking about, but not saying it out loudly, is the weaponization of oil?
The status quo is fine. The Soviet Union developed the bomb 4 years after the Americans. Iran has supposedly been about to build one “any day now” for the last 20 years. They simply do not have the industrial capacity. Just look at their joke military parades. They may build one or two fizzers, and that’s about it. How much have NK’s nukes affected anybody’s security?
Why? And what are you going to do next? Invade Kiev, Minsk and Odessa?
With that mutant eagle at the helm, I wouldn’t worry about it.
Comment by So? — December 6, 2009 @ 9:58 pm
Dear Deith , no, it is not right. Much like killing an adversary solder in a war is not considered to be sin or crime, but killing your brother, father, superior is. Opposition on its own is not a proof of equality. However, in some circumstances one might attempt to use opposition on such capacity.
Now, you attribute the submission of the Russian people to the authority to their fear. I have attributed it more to their respect for authority – “Ne polozheno…†😉 Perhaps I am of a better opinion of the Russian people than you are. I wouldn’t mind, since I am indeed of a better opinion on them.
Finally, I hope you are making these back and forth arguments for the sake of clarity and not for turning it into polemics, which I am really not interested in. My opinion is clearly expressed, and as you claimed, you have stated yours already four times.
I’ll leave it there.
Comment by MJ — December 6, 2009 @ 10:11 pm
Even if we assume the status quo is fine, there can be skepticism about the dynamics of that status quo and its tendency to be lasting.
Now, shoudl I understand it that one needs to give Iran 20 years head start to becoem a strategic threat, then deal with the issue? By the way, even if in isolation Iran would not be a strategic problem, there is a significant likelihood that next, Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and who knows who would pursue nuclear weapons and perhaps get it with the same success as Iran. And then, given that in this region no one has lost love for the other, it becomes a hell of a strategic problem for the entire world. By the way, what would be Russia’s response if Iran and Turkey become nuclear countries? And what would be Kazakhstan’s response, coincedentally? Or are you thinking of deploying Russian strategic nuclear warheads in Caucasus and Central Asia in response?
Comment by MJ — December 6, 2009 @ 10:25 pm
I figured I am missing an intended response in the last posting of mine, which is never mind Kiev, Minsk and Odessa. First try to keep Zauralie and Dal’nii Vostok.
Comment by MJ — December 6, 2009 @ 10:43 pm
dear craig,
it is nice to see parts of our conversation appear here. sharing is good.
i just wanted to make one little modification that russian is still very big in azerbaijan. the elite is overwhelmingly russian-speaking, although this needs to be detached from the affection towards russia; the two are not always interrelated. but i do agree that there is more and more emphasis on english, and if some people still send their kids to russian schools it is becasuse we do not have enough schools teaching in english.
but especially regarding higher education, no one in azerbaijan has the illusion that russian language and therefore russian social scientific capital is the main way go. not any more. scientifically russia is in the 1970s. unfortunately. we are in 2010 now. when russia comes to the present it may start competing with the french and the german maybe. but still not with english.
Comment by elnur — December 7, 2009 @ 2:05 am
OBAMA, DECEMBER 7th and OUR IDENTITY
How would things work if Obama were president when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941? Would he immediately launch into a world trip to apologize for America? Would he express his understanding of why the Japanese attacked our base in Hawaii? America has been accused of trying to undermine Japanese culture. That would justify the attack. It would excuse the conquest of the Philippines and the savagery against our captured troops and non-Japanese citizens of conquered territories. After all, we are supposed to get along. America is too arrogant, too satisfied and focused on individual freedom. Everyone else is properly subjected to the rule of a few elites who know best how communities are supposed to live. Perhaps Obama would give Hawaii to Japan as a forward base for them to protect their nation against what they fear about America. Sixty percent of Hawaii’s population was Japanese and, when in control of those islands, the Japanese could exterminate those of non-Japanese ancestry in short order. Obama would have to show the same consideration to Hitler, possibly even bowing to him as he did the Japanese Emperor. It would sure be a better world with America sandwiched between Japan on the West and Germany and Russia on the east, with no one left in between not already conquered. Claysamerica.com
Comment by Clay Barham — December 7, 2009 @ 12:56 pm
Is Russia heading for a double-dip recession? Russia Economy Watch’s expert seems to think so:
http://larussophobe.wordpress.com/2009/12/06/editorial-a-double-dip-recession-for-putins-russia/
Comment by La Russophobe — December 7, 2009 @ 1:20 pm
Hi, Elnur–
Wow. Amazed that you responded to my invite and began reading SWP . . . esp. so closely to have waded through stuff about my personal genealogy to get to the part about our conversation:) Thanks for being understanding about my “sharing,” and for clarifying things. I want to make sure that I characterize people’s views properly.
Feel free to pitch in whenever you have something to contribute. Lot’s of debate about Russia/CIS/FSU issues here. Your insights would be appreciated.
Thanks again.
SWP
Clay–I can say this: pre-war Obama almost certainly would have shared the appeasement mindset that brought on the war. How he would have reacted to PH I don’t know but I find it hard to imagine the circumstances in which he would be a committed warrior.
A pre-war Obama would be a different Obama. Leaders reflect the times they live in.
Comment by So? — December 7, 2009 @ 9:31 pm
“How would things work if Obama were president when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941? Would he immediately launch into a world trip to apologize for America? Would he express his understanding of why the Japanese attacked our base in Hawaii? America has been accused of trying to undermine Japanese culture. That would justify the attack. It would excuse the conquest of the Philippines and the savagery against our captured troops and non-Japanese citizens of conquered territories. After all, we are supposed to get along. America is too arrogant, too satisfied and focused on individual freedom. Everyone else is properly subjected to the rule of a few elites who know best how communities are supposed to live. Perhaps Obama would give Hawaii to Japan as a forward base for them to protect their nation against what they fear about America. Sixty percent of Hawaii’s population was Japanese and, when in control of those islands, the Japanese could exterminate those of non-Japanese ancestry in short order. Obama would have to show the same consideration to Hitler, possibly even bowing to him as he did the Japanese Emperor. It would sure be a better world with America sandwiched between Japan on the West and Germany and Russia on the east, with no one left in between not already conquered.”
All of those courses of action would be superior to the one that would have been chosen by a President Dubya in 1941, which would have been to declare war on Japan, accept the German and Italian declarations of war, and then make the main US effort against the British in Iraq.
Comment by rkka — December 8, 2009 @ 6:10 am