OCR Text |
Show Hinckley Journal of Politics Spring 2000 ating it themselves" (Lienesch 1983, 458). Political millen-nialism became key to early construction of American identity, influenced by Puritan thought in terms of America's divine mandate and obligation as a "chosen people," to share democracy and help others shed yokes of despotic oppression. In the Gettysburg Address (1863), Abraham Lincoln likewise invokes the notion of Americans as a virtuous people in terms of freedom. To solidify the people politically, he says that, "our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal" (1995, 482). He further states that the actions of the soldiers who died fighting to preserve the Union, "consecrated" the ground by their actions, and invokes unity when he says "we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain-that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom-and that government of the people, by the people, [and] for the people shall not perish from the earth" (Lincoln 1995, 482). Most importantly, Lincoln suggests that as a democracy, the United States is watched by the world. To Lincoln, in the Civil War America was "testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure" (Lincoln 1995, 482). Lincoln defines Americans as moral, virtuous and Godfearing in terms of democracy, underscoring the importance of religious overtones in constructing nationalism. Cultural Practices: Individual Rights and Collective Inclusion multiculturalism versus assimilationism Currently, American identity debates take place between supporters of multicultural ism and assimilationism. American multicultural ism extols retention of cultural and ethnic traditions by immigrants. Assimilationism disregards these by arguing for uniformity over individuality, further extending the argument between civic republicanism and liberal individualism. American multiculturalists claim that both civic and individual identities can find expression, echoing sentiments of Anthony D. Smith who claims that two sets of allegiances operate, ...one public and political with its official symbolism and all-embracing mythology, and one semi-private and cultural for each ethnic community...between the 'home' and the 'world,' between the enclosed, warm but narrow, networks of familiar ethnic and the broad, open but impersonal ties of citizenship in the state and its public community and the professional world of work (1994, 151). To this end, multiculturalists advocate preservation of several unique cultures while maintaining loyalty to the state. Smith maintains that "this kind of 'dual loyalty1 is common in all complex societies with their main cross-cutting ties and different objects of attachment" (A. Smith 1994, 152). Assimilationists on the other hand possess overarching belief in a single identity for everyone in the state, largely expressed in terms of language, ethnicity and culture. The Importance of Language in Defining American Identity "English Only" and Calls for Linguistic Uniformity. Both language and ethnicity become key to construction of American identity, particularly speaking English. As minority language groups seek recognition, debates about language policy "come to symbolize a larger set of issues about the relationship between ethnic and national identity," according to Ronald ]. Schmidt (1993, 88). He states that reacting against the exclusion of "racial" minority groups from the dominant (and largely subconscious) image of "the American people," this culturally based political campaign is fundamentally about "constructing" a new prototype for full membership in the American political community, a new understanding of the national identity (Schmidt 1993, 88). Speaking English becomes desirable in a nationalistic sense as unifying Americans. Here, constructivism helps to explain "both the strong emotional trigger...and centrality of power" in a battle about who determines American identity (Schmidt 1993, 89). Consequently, Americans "in some contexts...are willing to curb individual rights to further the good of the community," because requiring immigrants to learn English reflects the "need" for a "common language to run the country" (Conover et al. 1991, 816). This rises out of "insecurity about national cohesion," prompting a "movement to designate English as the country's official tongue" (Citrin et al. 1990, 1125). In their research, Citrin and colleagues find that "the staying power of Lockean liberalism in American political culture is impressive. As long as it is spoken in English" (1990, 1134). English serves to unify Americans in interactions with each other, and the media. Constructivists such as Benedict Anderson underscore the critical nature of uniform language in defining national identity. He believes that the start of "the nation was conceived in language, not in blood, and that one could be invited into the imagined community" (Anderson 1991, 145). Thus today, Anderson adds, "even the most insular of nations accept the principle of naturalization, no matter how difficult in practice they make it" (1991, 145). He further claims that what the eye is to the lover- that particular, ordinary eye he or she is born with- language- whatever language history has made his or her mother-tongue- is to the patriot Through that language, encountered at mother's knee and parted with only at the grave, pasts are restored, fellowships are imagined, and futures dreamed (Anderson 1991, 154). Language serves to provide a vehicle for constructing identities. To multiculturalists, language deserves preservation among ethnic groups as an individual right to cultural preservation. To assimilationists, recognition of one language contributes to one identity. This translates into actions on the part of assimilationists to force all ethnic groups to speak one language, exemplified in recent efforts to codify English as America's official tongue. 85 |