Introduction
In his book, “Who Are We? The Challenges to America's National Identity,” Huntington attempts to define America's identity starting from the beginning of its history and working through to modern day America. Huntington dries to examine the history of Americas' settlers, immigrants, natives and others who make the population of this cast countries. Huntington dispels various misconceptions that are often held on the national identity of America. He also assesses the challenges that have characterized national identity and offers possible solutions to the problems. There are many critics of Huntington, including Fonte John, Rose Douthat, Martha Nussbaum, and Luis Menand, who attempt to take a close look at Huntington’s arguments. The paper analyzes the opinions of critics of American identity and provides a synthesis of the articles to establish the stance that the new America should be embraced with its diversity instead of always pursuing an elusive collective identity.
Martha Nussbaum’s article titled “Toward a globally sensitive patriotism”, opens up with a critical historical look at patriotism, how it was measured, and its tendency to exclude foreigners and those deemed not to exhibit patriotic tendencies. Nussbaum holds that no politics should force people to adopt a prescribed set of doctrine as proof of their patriotism or otherwise. She notes that America’s challenge in achieving a national identity has been hindered by the push to deal with things like terrorism, which has seen the limitation of civil liberalities (Nussbaum 93). She concludes that America is consumed by fear of others, which has led them to exclude others. Nussbaum concludes that patriotism can only be successful if it is approached a little less judgmentally and allowed to thrive as in a democracy by respecting emotional engagements and imagination.
Ross Douthat terms Huntington’s idea of national identity an anomaly (Douthat 77). Douthat disagrees with Huntington’s position that America is formed by immigrants who came in, and were forced to lose their identity for the common culture handed down to them by the settlers. He defends Huntington from critics who accuse him of furthering the whites’ agenda by fronting them as being more patriotic. He also bashes Huntington’s critics for accusing of not differentiating between Mexicans and Hispanics in his claim that data shows that Mexicans are the least receptive to assimilations when compared to other earlier immigrants (78). Despite his support, he questions Huntington's view of where America is going and accuses Huntington of being "too optimistic and too dark" (79). She sees no hope in Americanization and argues that it is not institutionally supported and calls for people to embrace America the way it is currently.
John Fonte’s critic is full of praise but points to a weakness in Huntington's presentation, citing that Huntington fails to show how the ideologies of the settlers in the 18th century influenced the beliefs at that time, and how they shaped America's morality. Fonte declares Huntington’s work “irreproachable”, and cites how Huntington approaches factors that relate to national identity such as immigration, language, and others (Fonte 41). Fonte attempts to summarize the argument as being a question of the extent to which "loyalty to the American Nation is occurring” (41).
Louise Menand bases her arguments on recent research that focused on America's universal values like hard work, belief in God, appreciation of the English language and love for the country and concludes that America is indeed the most patriotic nation (Menand n.p). She points that Huntington’s qualities of patriotism are abstract and points that even patriotic citizens would most likely not identify those factors as what informs their patriotism (Menand).
Douthat's comments on Huntington’s book are realistic and practical. Society is dynamic; it grows and changes with time, and is influenced by the motions of life. To hang on to the old Protestant- American culture is to be unrealistic, rigid and not- progressive. It is said that American population is currently composed of 40% minority groups, the majority of which are immigrants. To expect these people, who have had a different life, deeply rooted culture to come in, disregard their lives and start a new quest to Americanize, is to be too optimistic, I agree. It would be more beneficial if people moved past trying to have a national identity and be more accommodating of immigrants with their cultural differences and instead focus on a common national bond based on diversity. His call for Americans to embrace the new America and love it as his should be extended to immigrants, who should now love America as their new home, and do their best to adapt to the new culture without necessarily losing their identity.
On the other hand, Nussbaum approaches the subject from a scholarly perspective, examining patriotism through the psychological, and emotional human engagement, as well as incorporating current world issues that may influence the pursuit for patriotism. Her concerns for the exclusionary practices that America has embraced in its attempt to deal with new global problems like terrorism are valid. These acts can further aggravate the gains made in trying to embrace diversity in America and even in the pursuit of collective identity.
Fonte’s contribution does not offer much regarding his personal opinions but only praises there ‘remarkable' job that Huntington has done in his work while also trying to criticize his critics by highlighting the weaknesses in their arguments. He pokes holes into critics' views and points to factors like the reference to less objectively structured research questions, which have yielded varied results. Through his support for Huntington, Fonte emerges as being agreeable to Huntington’s contributions. His critic/ review can be deemed lacking since it is an overemphasis of what Huntington has presented, without offering a critical look at it.
Menand's arguments go beyond the focus on domestic attempts to achieve a national identity to assess the way the world relates and look at America and how this patriotism or lack thereof, affects how America relates to the rest of the world. She argues that since the world is moving towards globalization, it lessens the need for a mono-cultured America. This is true but has a few shortcomings as well. Globalization does not mean the whole world is becoming Americanized; America should also be more receptive to influence from other parts of the world. This is not seen in its engagement with the immigrants domestically.
The critics present the different perspectives on Huntington’s contributions and are appreciative of his work. Menand and Douat do not agree with Huntington but base their stance on the various aspects. Menand focuses on how patriotism in America plays out in the light of globalization while also believing that Americans are patriotic. Douat on the other hand, appreciates Huntington’s view on lack of national identity but doubts his proposed solutions and instead advocates for not pursuing the idea any further. Huntington receives support from Fonte, who idolizes his work and endorses every proposition while Nussbaum supports Huntington and offers a critical look at factors that hinder the pursuit of national identity and how the country can get round them.
The American population is reflective of the modern society where different communities have found themselves living together. In as much it would be desirable to forge a collective national identity, it is a far-fetched expectation, and going by the fact that majority of them are not born in America, but moved there with their diverse cultures, which most of them have continued to pass to successive generations. The views held by other Americans about these newcomers also hinder successful assimilation as immigrants are often left feeling like outsiders. The fact that most immigrants are also in America illegally further drowns attempts to forge a national identity since these illegal immigrants keep to their communities where they are safe, and view the rest as possible ‘enemies’. To this end, Huntington’s book provides a sound basis for dialogue on American patriotism, but like his critics have pointed out, his recommendations and assessments need to be practical and cognizant of the existing facts on immigration. The critics, especially the opponents, provide insights into how to appreciate diversity without appearing to suffocate others and how to assess American values in a more practical manner.
Works Cited
Douthat, Ross. “Who We Will Be." Policy Review 127 (2004): 77- 83. Web. 16 May 2016.
Fonte, John. "Assimilation Nation." National Review Online. N.p., 2004. Web. 16 May 2016.
Menand, Louis. "Patriot Games - The New Yorker." The New Yorker. N.p., 2004. Web. 16 May 2016.
Nussbaum, Martha C. "Toward A Globally Sensitive Patriotism". Daedalus 137.3 (2008): 78-93. Web.
Questions on similarities and differences
What main ideas do you see for each text?
Fonte
the validity of national identity
The extent to which national identity is practiced.
Douthat
Impractical approaches to patriotism
Lack of appreciation for current state of the nation
Menand
Domestic and global approaches to monoculturalism and multi-culturalism
Nussbaum
Patriotism that is sensitive to globalization.
What are the main similarities and differences in the authors arguments?
Commonalities and intersections, contradictions
All the authors raise issues about Huntington's approach, except for Fonte, who is in full support of the book's perspective.
The rest, while opposing the author's perspectives, focus on entirely different points of view in their criticism.
Similarities in authors’ underlying values and assumptions
All the authors appreciate American patriotism and are enthusiastic in its achievement and appreciation of its existence.
What overlap is there in author’s ideas.
Overlap is only seen in two authors, Menand, and Nussbaum, who take a scholarly assessment of globalization.
Personal reflection:
I initially thought that patriotism in America was an obvious fact for all Americans including immigrants. I, however, see, having read different perspectives from different authors, that this is not the case and the issue is far more complex. I had thought that all immigrants moved for the love of America, but I now realize that the matter is debatable, and a small matter of patriotism can attract so much debate.
Douthat's perspective was more convincing than other authors since it is more practical and long-term. It is also presented in a simple, straightforward argument that is convincing.
