“The next generation of Americans will know less than their parents about our history and founding ideals. And many Americans are more aware of what divides us than of what unites us. We are in danger of becoming not ‘from many, one’ — E Pluribus Unum — but its oppositie, ‘from one, many.’ . . . A sense of national identity is necessary to enable individuals to transcend self-absorption and commit to the common good. Without it, America can neither perpetuate its institutions nor defend itself.”

That’s from a report from the Bradley Project on America’s National Identity, an initiative of the Bradley Foundation (go here and click on “Report Overview” for a pdf). Among other things, it offers findings from a HarrisInteractive poll on people’s views of the essence of American-ness.

(See here, here, and here for comments on the report.)

Here are some numbers:

— 84 percent of Americans believe that we “share a unique national identity based on a shared set of beliefs, values, and culture.”

— Of that group, 63 percent believe that this sense of national identity is weakening.

— Almost 90 percent of Americans believe that U.S. history and government should be a requirement in the college curriculum.

— 89 percent of Americans believe that “Americanization” is important for immigrants to undergo if they are to fulfill their duties as citizens. (“Americanization” includes “learning English and embracing American culture and values.”)

The majority opinions here, of course, run against predominant thinking in scholarship and teaching. To embrace “unique national identity” is to verge on “exceptionalism,” an outlook I learned early in my Americanist training to renounce.

And to believe that national identity is weakening is to verge on reactionary thinking.

And to insist that every undergraduate must take a course in U.S. history and government is to go against the grain. My own institution just got rid of it.

And, finally, to utter the term “Americanization” without a sneer is just plain bad form.

What does it mean, however, to find that the general public adopts positions at odds with academic thinking, and in such high numbers? The divergence crosses racial boundaries, too — 89 percent of African-Americans and 90 percent of Latinos agreed that Americanization of immigrants is important — so academics can’t subdivide exceptionalism and Americanization and identity into different group commitments.

The divergence puts academics into an adversarial position, which many of them consider their proper role. But for how long can that posture survive when public resentment is growing (often for other reasons such as rising tuition fees), especially when many academics don’t seem to recognize the internal dangers of the adversarial mindset, namely, the temptations of moral and intellectual superiority?

Comments

1. It just might be that the overwhelming majority of the population is right and that the academy is wrong. This is, after all, a population that has been taught otherwise by that academy, a population whose minority members have been instructed by the academy to think otherwise as well. This could be an example of the triumph of common sense or the failure of, dare I say it, indoctrination.

   Most of the positions here associated with the academy have more moderate sides. One could, for example, consider him or herself an American as well as a citizen of the world, who respects others and seeks their happiness and collaboration without being prepared to cede our national authority to some foreign body, particularly one that has been remarkably ineffectual such as the U.N. Perhaps the problem with the academy is that it has been adopting extreme versions of positions and those stances are an affront to common sense. It is possible, for example, to believe that we should be respectful of other cultures without believing that all cultures, a priori, are equally good. The academy may be finding itself in confrontation with the vast majority of its fellow citizens because it has been, ultimately, too stark and too simple in its thinking.

   — Parent · Jul 11, 01:41 PM · #

2. This is, perhaps, a departure from the discussion of cultural relativity and its merits (or lack thereof). Additionally, I think the cries of ‘indoctrination’ are a bit played out and the notion that common sense reigns triumphant is almost always problematic.

   Nevertheless, in an age of globalization, the notions of ‘nation’, unique culture, and sovereignty are becoming increasingly superficial. If we consider the United States, an entity with a historically fluid and malleable ‘identity”, we should perhaps get past the idea of something like English as being relevant or important. Not because we need to respect diversity of language, but because in a world with growing competitors (1.5 Billion Chinese; 1 Billion Indians), English may become less important for doing business. Same with our growing Hispanic population; Spanish isn’t offered as an option because diversity is being respected, it is being offered because it is economically expedient to meet a market on its own terms, and cater to it, and reap some benefits from the exchange. Also, many of us work for multi-national corporations – not American or even state-centered, but amorphous, non-state entities that pay our bills.

   At this juncture, I’d much rather get paid in Euros rather than the U.S. dollar, again having noting to do with diversity or national pride, simply personal economic self-interest.

   Also, there seems to be some tension between these notions of ‘radical pluribus’ to the detriment of the ‘Unum’. However, individualism is truly an American ideal, often in opposition to collectivism. Maybe those who are unyieldingly holding onto cultural or ethnic differences as a mode of expressing identity are the most American of us all.

   To be clear, this isn’t a disagreement (or agreement) with Mark, simply a different perspective.

   — Tessier-Ashpool · Jul 11, 02:47 PM · #

3. As Russell Jacoby has shown, America was much more ‘diverse’ at the end of the 19thc than it is today. ‘Intermarriage’ was far less common; there were far more foreign language dailies, etc. etc. In some ways the ‘problem’ of homogenization is a false problem. The general public may be reacting to the fact that there is indeed greater ignorance now with regard to American traditions and history and a perceived effort to inculcate beliefs and atttitudes (by the academy) that run counter to the general public’s. It is, of course, part of the academy’s role to challenge received opinion. All too often, however, it has been doing so in ways that are perceived to be monolithic and ideologically-biased.

   — BeenThereDoneThat · Jul 11, 03:19 PM · #

4. Clearly this discrepancy is a terrible problem with serious practical ramifications for academia. If the general public thinks we’re all pinko commies, what level of arrogance and naivete is required within our profession to believe that the same public will gladly vote to approve more funding for higher education, funding that is ultimately a significant source of our salaries and research budgets? How is the large number of trained academics who either cannot or don’t want to be professors supposed to engage with and find gainful employment in other fields? How does the already dwindling number of liberal and activist academics plan to win over the minds of young people if the students are antagonized to the point where they no longer trust or take seriously what they are being told they must learn?

   The answers are simple: the “adversarial role” has turned off the general public so much that it very openly questions the importance, relevance, and potential contributions of higher education, at least for anything beyond “getting the piece of paper” young people need to get jobs.

   Who remembers the study of Brown graduates that found they knew less about civics at graduation than they did at matriculation??

   — bored with academia · Jul 11, 05:06 PM · #

5. And more to the point, if Bauerlein is correct about what constitutes “the predominant thinking,” what does it say about the potency and relevance of higher education that such a vast majority of Americans reject that thinking? However pervasive leftist thought may be in our universities, it failed to prevent and has yet to reverse the sea change in Congressional politics that has been a fact of life since 1994 and did little to help Gore in 2000 or Kerry in 2004. Even with an unpopular war, sagging economy, national tradition of anti-incumbency voting after two terms of one party in the White House, and an elderly Republican presidential candidate, it doesn’t seem to be doing much for Obama now.

   In the long recent blog discussion about low salaries in history and other humanities, I wrote a lot about how the situation is leading me to consider other career options. For the purposes of this discussion, I can add with great conviction that knowing my profession is essentially irrelevant in setting debate, shaping public opinion, and participating in the Republic’s larger intellectual life makes me even less inclined to continue with it than the low salary, often unavoidable geographic sacrifice, and declining professional standards already do.

   — bored with academia · Jul 11, 05:37 PM · #

6. Bored – You asked: “what does it say about the potency and relevance of higher education that such a vast majority of Americans reject that thinking?” Very little probably. According to the US census bureau, in 2007, roughly 30% of Americans had a BA. So if 1/3 of Americans have a college degree, why do the opinions of the other 2/3 reflect poorly on higher education?

   — Tessier-Ashpool · Jul 11, 05:49 PM · #

7. Simple – because with the exception of the national identity question, the figures Bauerlein gives us are in the 84-90 percent range, an impossible figure if only 2/3 of people don’t have college degrees and assuming, of course, that higher education has no influence beyond BA holders. 70% of Americans pursue some kind of post high school degree, including large numbers who enroll in college and drop out. And almost all Americans do attend compulsory primary and secondary education, run by teachers and administrators trained by and steeped in the values of their college educations.

   — bored with academia · Jul 12, 08:28 AM · #

8. Many factors share the blame for the grotesque ignorance of American history (and history in general) that besets undergraduates. The deeply anti-intellectual tone of popular culture has a lot to do with it, as does the sparsity of genuinely qualified teachers at the high school level. But the longstanding fad for jejeune philosophical nihilism amongst supposed humanists bears a good deal of the reponsibility, as does the habit, rife in the same circles, of viewing one’s own contemptuous ignorance as the mark of political virtue. It’s this sort of thing that leads to the abolition of a history requirement at precisely the time when it is most needed. No doubt many academics who want to shunt aside traditional study of poliltical, constitutional, and (dare I say it?) military history will contend that replacing it by some sort of “history from below,” rejecting sweeping narratives in favor of micro-narratives of supposedly marginalized groups, is not only an adequate substitute but politically desireable as well. Unfortunately, this doesn’t seem to hold water in any practical sense; it erases the vast canvas of historical knowledge, leaving only a few rather provincial anecdotes. The problem becomes even worse when history is wedded to dogmatic political posturing. Is it possible, these days, to escape Foucault in his guise as the great historical sage of our time? Yet this kind of veneration is grotesquely misplaced; Foucault, for one, is pretty much a crank historian, turning out historical just-so stories without much regard for sound methodology in order to propound his subjective, semi-mystical ideology. Browbeating undergrads into regarding these as sacred texts is madness, not civilization.

   Universities must somehow acquire the guts to be old-fashioned and untrendy, and, even more, to restore the notion of objectivity to its proper dignity. That means, in my view, requiring students to go through a comprehensive warts-and-all course in our national history, even if the resulting tableau seems to be crowded with too many dead white males with names like Jefferson, Jackson, Grant, and Roosevelt, to suit our reigning ideologues.

   — Fossil · Jul 12, 08:31 AM · #

9. A friend of mine who is a first-rate historian and no ideologue describes Foucault’s work as ‘history without facts’. Notice that many of the favorite thinkers of the humanities faculty (Lacan is another salient example) are not given great credence by the faculty in their actual field.

   — BeenThereDoneThat · Jul 12, 08:38 AM · #

10. The Bradley Foundation exists to promote “democratic captialism.” It’s board of directors consists of:

    Terry Considine, Chairman
    Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, AIMCO

    David V. Uihlein, Jr., Vice Chairman
    President, Uihlein-Wilson Architects

    Michael W. Grebe, President and Chief Executive Officer

    Robert P. George
    2005 Bradley Prize recipient
    McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director, James Madison Program in American Ideals, Princeton University

    Dennis J. Kuester
    Chairman, Marshall & Ilsley Corporation

    San W. Orr, Jr.
    Chairman, Wausau-Mosinee Paper Corporation

    Thomas L. Rhodes
    President, National Review

    Thomas L. Smallwood
    Borgelt, Powell, Peterson & Frauen S.C.

    Brother Bob Smith (the one non-white on the all-male board)
    President, Messmer Catholic Schools

    Pat Toomey
    Former U.S. Representative
    President and Chief Executive Officer, The Club for Growth

    George F. Will
    2005 Bradley Prize recipient
    Columnist, The Washington Post

    — Just Passing Through · Jul 12, 09:07 AM · #

11. Well, obviously the race and gender of the Foundation’s board members make them wrong, ill intentioned, untrustworthy individuals whose survey results are just wrong! Brother Bob Smith’s non-whiteness might make him more trustworthy, but his religious affiliation should clearly raise our suspicions. Let us ignore what the work of these mostly non-academic, amateur enemies of the people think and expend more effort for the third time in 8 years imagining we can convince tens of millions of people whom we disgust and who don’t listen to us to vote Democrat, read more Foucault, and let us tell them how to build a better America!

    — bored with academia · Jul 12, 12:01 PM · #

12. My goodness, what an over-the-top reaction by BWA to a simple pull from the Foundation’s own website, augmented by one tiny editorial note concerning Brother Smith’s race (hey, I’m giving the Board credit for not being all white, aren’t I?) and the Board’s maleness (c’mon, in this day and age, the total absence of women is conspicuous)! Did I say it looks like a right-wing organization whose media presence on its Board is limited to The National Review and George F. Will, and whose study results look like gussied-up nativism? No, but some part of BWA’s mind did. Maybe that little voice has got something.

    — Just Passing Through · Jul 12, 01:03 PM · #

13. Thre’s no point in denying that the Bradley foundation is emphatically right-wing in its philosophy and its overall purposes. That said, let me make a horrendous confession: I once organized a conference for which Bradley put up a large share of the money. Their participation came about when a rather standard foundation—call it PDQ— suddenly withdrew a promise to fund the event. The circumstances behind this double-cross (for that’s what it was) are rather murky, but it does seem that the PDQ program officer who initially made the enthusiastic commitment was pressured by some of his junior staff into doing an about-face because the staffers quite inaccurately tagged me as a right-wingnut (this, beacuse as a rather unbridled polemicist, I had dared to say unflattering things about some prominent superstar members of the intellectual “left”.)

    Well, in any case, Bradley came through with a nice chunk of change—and thereafter went away and left me alone to run the conference as I damn pleased. As it turned out, to the extent that politics was addressed in the ensuing conference papers, it was largely to advocate the conventional left-liberal politics that is the epicenter of faculty opinion in the liberal arts. The relilgious right, in particular, came in for rather rought treatment.

    Bradley never squawked or complained; it certainly didn’t ask for its money back, nor protest when it was duly thanked in the boilerplate of the conference volume, containing papers that flayed some of its favorite crusades. Perhaps this means that the foundation was engaged in a shrewd and subtle ploy to make itself academically respectable. Perhaps it merely means that Bradley was inattentive and absent-minded. I don’t know. The point, at the end of the day, is that the political leanings of a foundation are not a sufficient basis for judging the or condemning the conclusions of scholars who work with that foundation’s support.

    P.S. A few years later, I got a subvention for a book-writing project from a foundation of decidedly liberal leanings; they didn’t pester me either.

    — Fossil · Jul 12, 01:40 PM · #

14. This thread was much more fun before it degenerated into the standard republican/democrat, left/right, my-politics-are-more-enlightened-than-your-politics stuff.

    In the words of the late 20th century’s most insightful political philosopher/theorist, E. Cartman: “Lame”.

    — Tessier-Ashpool · Jul 12, 04:13 PM · #

15. I wholeheartedly agree with T&A, but these comments:

    “hey, I’m giving the Board credit for not being all white, aren’t I?”

    and

    “c’mon, in this day and age, the total absence of women is conspicuous!”

    indicate that at least one person in our profession has a problem with the race and gender of the Bradley Foundation’s board of directors. That contributor seems to have no empirical evidence to refute its findings, nor is there any indication beyond a crude stereotype that the board was responsible for some nefarious manipulation of the study or that those who conducted it were also just too white and too male for it to be taken seriously.

    No wonder a large majority of Americans — Cartman included — think our educational system is lame.

    — bored with academia · Jul 13, 10:52 AM · #

16. What do you call a person who speaks three languages?

    Trilingual.

    What do you call a person who speaks two languages?

    Bilingual.

    What do you call a person who speaks one language?

    An American.

    — Mr. Wiki · Jul 13, 06:26 PM · #

17. “The logic of the preservationist argument is that every culture has a pristine form, its original state. It decays when it is not longer in that form. Like racial scientists with their idea of racial type, some modern multiculturalists appear to hold a belief in cultural type. For racial scientists, a ‘type’ was a group of human beings linked by a set of fundamental characteristics which were unique to it. Each type was separated from others by a sharp discontinuity; there was rarely any doubt as to which type an individual belonged. Each type remained constant through time. There were severe limits to how much any member of a type could drift away from the fundamental ground plan by which the type was constituted. These, of course, are the very characteristics that constitute a culture in much of today’s multiculturalism talk. Many multiculturalists, like racial scientists, have come to think of human types as fixed, unchanging entities, each defined by its special essence.”

    Kenan Malik is a writer, lecturer and broadcaster. His new book is Strange Fruit: Why both sides in the race debate are wrong (Oneworld, 2008), from which this article is taken.

    ButterfliesandWheels.com

    — Just Passing Through · Jul 14, 10:12 AM · #

18. Inducting people into an identity—gender, era, profession, nation, ethnic, etc.—is usually done while we are raised some where and some time,
    as weak children molded by adults around us like parents and teachers. College is supposed to be the place where such moldings of us are made self evident, brought to consciousness, demystified, etc. so we, as Robert Kegan eloquently and thoroughly documents (along with Joseph Campbell earlier) change from “being” our identity components to “having” (wielding consciously) them.

    The adulthood project gets started and announced in colleges—you students can one day, probably in your 50s, become adult via starting now, today, in college extirpating all that is within your views, preferences, habits, and mind, replacing it with better stuff from the best in history and in the contemporary world. Thusly, colleges launch people on their personal adulthood projects hoping many will actually at about age 50 or so, be adult, that is, all that is within them THEY have consciously chosen and put there. See my works on this at https://www.youpublish.com/richard-tabor-greene and http://www.scribd.com/people/view/310309

    — Richard Tabor Greene · Jul 15, 06:55 AM · #

19. A few quick thoughts…and views of others…

    There are many ways to views this sociologically. I prefer to think in group terms, needs, desires, us, them, etc…. a Gordon Willard Allport mindset.

    There is a core social element and gradient social creatures mediate – and within civilizations it has been amplified and constructed through ideologies such as nationalism, etc. This has provided for group identity and community. I would not question whether such a profound element of social order would subside without education. I would question its long term direction without government. Social disorder leads to dissent and dissent to…..well…

    What is encouraging is that we seem to continue functioning as a society with increased diversity. Media – multimedia plays a huge role in the western mind today. For a historical model of reference, this is something Rome lacked.

    I like the idea of multiculturalism and multilingualism respected under one flag. Canada is such a superb example of unique people existing with minimal constraints placed upon language choice. And you may notice people generally may choose to adopt other languages in this environment. And no matter what language a citizen speaks in Canada – a Canadian is a Canadian. I

    — Marc Debiase · Jul 15, 07:09 AM · #

20. Mark, as always, you manage to raise the tough and necessary questions that so many want to ignore. As to why academics are so at odds with rest of the population, I wonder if it is due to the pervasiveness of a global academic culture that eschews particularities like national identity (this seems so at odds with postmodern insistence on contingency).

    At any rate, I’ll take the Bradley recommendations and continue to recommend programs like Robert George’s at Princeton (James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions).

    — Bob Osburn · Jul 15, 08:11 AM · #

21. Perhaps we have gone too far in embracing our ancestry. That is, it does seem that many wish to identify by their ancestry such as Italian, Polish (which I am), English, African, etc. What about saying you are an American? I do think that academia in general has a real indentify crisis and it’s influence in the public debate is not significant. The greater role for higher education seems to be more in the engineering and sciences in terms of technological innovation.

    — John J. · Jul 15, 08:16 AM · #

22. While I respect T-A’s (#2) comments as having some merit in the thread of this enlightening and varied discussion (valuable because it has reflected the best of many perspectives and it has been done with respect), I must challenge the notion that globalization will make the “notions of ‘nation’, unique culture, and sovereignty increasingly superficial.” It is not an either-or proposition. Even with globalization the notions of ‘nation’, unique culture, and sovereignty are still very relevant. Just travel outside of the United States and this verity will be obvious. In travels to over 20 countries I have personally seen how these notions still hold true and are held deeply even in the late 20th and early 21st century.

    As for getting “past the idea of something like English as being relevant or important,” again I point to the ease of travel around the world – a world where English is indeed the “lingua franca” spoken by almost a quarter of its inhabitants. Have you ever noticed what is the dominant language of online business and the Internet, which has spread the globalized culture (based on American science, business, and language)? Incidentally, the 1 billion Indians that T-A refers to, use English as the common medium of social contact in a country of many languages, and myriads of Chinese realize the greater ease of using written English with over 9000 fewer symbols to learn. Also, notice that the language that we usually use for academic and scholarly presentations, no matter which country is the venue, is English. A real advantage of English is that it facilitates discussions more and more in an interconnected world without need of translation. Finally, English is the truly globalized language – made of a substrate of Germanic, a majority vocabulary of French-Latin-Greek and constantly being expanded and enriched by every other language on Earth – what other language can make that claim? I don’t point to these facts triumphally or judgmentally but rather as an observation of 21st century reality.

    I might add that awareness of the world we live in as well as knowledge of our own country and culture; knowledge of English as well as an educated command of several languages (in earlier times the mark of erudition was knowledge of Greek, Latin, and Hebrew) reflects a balanced and broad liberal arts education, like earlier times.

    Finally, it has been gratifying to read a lengthy thread of scholarly comments in which so many reflect upon the disconnect between academia and the general public and finally become a little more critical and introspective of some of the flaws of our academic realm. It may help the Academy come out of its sterile and increasingly irrelevant cocoon.

    — Ole Perfesser · Jul 15, 04:22 PM · #

23. Ole Perfesser – You are correct. And I agree that it isn’t an either/or proposition. I think that their is a strong reactionary current that informs the ‘English-only’ approach in our country. While English is certainly a global language currently, language, much like culture, is difficult to regulate (and certainly impossible to legislate).

    Perhaps my perspective is too obtuse; I was thinking both historically of the differing waves of language and culture that have held dominance over the world and of a future that is probably just as diverse and unpredictable.

    In 500 years maybe no one speaks English, maybe everyone. Maybe there are ‘nations’, perhaps entirely different nations, with as-yet-uncreated cultures and languages. It is unfortunate the neither Ole Perfesser nor myself will be there to find out.

    — Tessier-Ashpool · Jul 15, 04:38 PM · #

24. People of color should not be reading slave rapists and lynchers like Jefferson, Madison, and John Marshall, but rather giants as Paul Robeson and DuBois whose Afrocentric ways of thinking trump eurocentric ways of thinking. The Soviet Union and Ghana wisely recognized that ameriKKKa is an irredeemably racist, sexist, homophobic country infected by straight white christian males who control the media.

    This post speaks truth to power.

    — dawg · Jul 16, 12:20 AM · #

25. Truth to dawg:

    Ghana Criminal Code 1960- Chapter 6, Sexual Offences Article 105:

    Whoever is guilty of unnatural carnal knowledge— (a) of any person without his consent, is guilty of first degree felony; (b) of any person with his consent, or of any animal, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

    — Mr. Wiki · Jul 16, 07:25 AM · #

26. More truth to dawg:

    “As the world marks the 200th anniversary of the end of the slave trade, Sarah Left [The Guardian, UK, March 22, 2007] says Ghanaian boys as young as four are still being sold as cheap labour.”

    “The part of West Africa that is now called Ghana was once a major slavery station. In this report Eric Campbell [broadcast on ABC on March 20, 2007]investigates the influx of thousands of African Americans now making pilgrimages to the country to pay homage to their ancestors and escape what they see as endemic racism in the United States…Yet instead of being welcomed back as fellow Africans many are finding that the locals see them as interfering and aggressive foreigners.” [Itals. added]

    — Mr. Wiki · Jul 16, 08:34 AM · #

27. Further truth to dawg:

    “During the time of the Soviet Union there were two decisive repressive measures of the State against homosexuals: the notorious article 121.1 which punished myzhelozhestvo (a man lying with another man) with up to five years of imprisonment, and psychiatry which made it possible to forcibly confine lesbian women in a psychiatric clinic.” [Source: the Swiss lesbian magazine “die”, Number 9, Fall 1998, pp. 6-8]

    — Mr. Wiki · Jul 16, 08:49 AM · #

28. Mr Wiki, you take those above quotes out of context, a typical ploy of straight white christian male fascists, just as Jesse Jackson’s intemperate quote about Obama was taken out of context in a divide and conquer response to solidarity among people of color in achieving social justice.

    This post speaks truth to power.

    — whatup · Jul 16, 03:10 PM · #

29. Truth to whatup:

    The “context” (i.e., the entire Ghanaian penal code, the entire Soviet penal code, the whole history of West African slave-trading) would just make things worse.

    And by the way why would you—you satanic lil’ stud muffin, you— suppose I’m Christian and straight?

    — Mr Wiki · Jul 16, 03:58 PM · #

30. On Comment 22 and “world English”:

    Here are the Internet usage stats for the top three languages of Internet users, English, Mandarin, and Spanish: http://www.internetworldstats.com/languages.htm Yes, English is number one BUT the growth percentage is over three times higher for Mandarin and almost twice higher for Spanish. So, in five years or ten years…?

    — Anti-hypocrisy advocate · Jul 18, 08:42 PM · #

Commenting is closed for this article.

Previous: The Critical Canon, 1985-2005
Next: A Statement About Diversity Research