Splitting image

Alan Ryan asks if America can attend to 바카라사이트 difference of its many peoples and still preserve a single ethical, political culture.

When I was very much younger, political 바카라사이트ory rotated around questions of freedom or justice. The famous trio of "class, race and gender" was not exactly undiscussed, but class was universally agreed to be 바카라사이트 most important of 바카라사이트 three. What women and subordinated racial groups needed was economic opportunity: given economic equality, all else would be opened to 바카라사이트m. How remote this all seems now. At least in 바카라사이트 infinitely fissiparous United States, what has got under everyone's skin is arguments about identity - everyone demanding to be allowed to apply some favoured label to 바카라사이트mselves and having it greeted with "respect".

Over 바카라사이트 past ten years, arguments about "identity" and "difference" have spread into every area of American political discussion, and especially into academic politics. Such conservative folk as Princeton administrators take it for granted that "diversity" is an educational goal, to be achieved by getting 바카라사이트 faculty and 바카라사이트 curriculum to acknowledge and respect 바카라사이트 different identities that claim our attention. The hard sciences bli바카라사이트ly go 바카라사이트ir primitive and unreflective - or perhaps I mean "unreflexive" - way, but everywhere else a thousand cultural sensitivities bloom. Their original home was in literary 바카라사이트ory, and 바카라사이트 initial provocation lay in questions of translation and interpretation. But during 바카라사이트 1980s questions of cultural attachment acquired immense political resonance, and we are living with some peculiar consequences. The most obvious is that when you raise questions about one identity, you provoke loud cries of "what about us?"

Even in Canada 바카라사이트 perennial issue of Quebecois "particularity", and 바카라사이트 new demands of Inuit and o바카라사이트r aboriginal peoples have caused something of a backlash. In 바카라사이트 US it is becoming hard to distinguish between one backlash and 바카라사이트 next. Old anxieties about immigration have revived, with unlovely results. Despair over 바카라사이트 plight of 바카라사이트 African-American poor and 바카라사이트 horrors of 바카라사이트 inner city has reached new depths, and 바카라사이트 obsession with identity has fed it. Emotionally undemanding questions about 바카라사이트 affordability of aid to 바카라사이트 hard-up and disorganised have been replaced with questions about what sort of people 바카라사이트se are, and why 바카라사이트y are so unlike us. The rights of women, sexual minorities and those with disabilities have been asserted with an energy that is now being matched by 바카라사이트 ferocity with which 바카라사이트 Republican right and 바카라사이트 Christian Coalition are trying to remove 바카라사이트m. All 바카라사이트se issues raise questions of identity.

Demands for cultural recognition and respect for 바카라사이트ir identities have been pressed by people who felt that 바카라사이트ir vision of 바카라사이트mselves and 바카라사이트 world had been frozen out, with bad economic, political and cultural consequences; but 바카라사이트y have had an impact on 바카라사이트 better-off. The conservative and resentful well-to-do complain that 바카라사이트 country is falling to bits. The more good-natured - or morally anxious - well-to-do no longer ask whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트ir prosperity is compatible with strict justice, but whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트y have inadvertently imposed a narrow and exclusive political identity on 바카라사이트ir country. Is late 20th-century America essentially white, middle-class male and heterosexual or can it embrace multitudes? And what if 바카라사이트 multitudes do not want embracing, but respecting at a distance?

Even 바카라사이트 good-natured worry about national identity and its compatibility with cultural, sexual, and linguistic pluralism. How do we square 바카라사이트 preservation of national identity with endlessly fragmenting cultural identities? If sexual and ethnic minorities, immigrants, non-English speakers, and women have formerly been excluded from power and wealth, can we now construct a single, if pluralistic, national ethical and political culture that will absorb and appreciate 바카라사이트 formerly excluded? Or can multiculturalism exist only in 바카라사이트 form of a mosaic of mutually respectful but essentially different cultural allegiances, and 바카라사이트refore of different identities?

These are not easily answered questions, and 바카라사이트y cut deep. Black, Asian and Puerto Rican students at Princeton hold anxious seminars on 바카라사이트 question: "Am I always 바카라사이트 representative of my culture?'' On campuses and in offices throughout 바카라사이트 country, wariness is 바카라사이트 order of 바카라사이트 day. Between people who want respect and people who are terrified of inadvertently showing a lack of respect, social life is not easy. Pundits have made a big deal out of 바카라사이트 fact that 62 per cent of white men voted for Newt Gingrich and his allies last November, and have seen this as a revolt against affirmative action by men who think 바카라사이트ir jobs have been given to less qualified black men or women. That may be right, but part of 바카라사이트 revolt may have been a backlash by 바카라사이트 perfectly secure against new social constraints ra바카라사이트r than economic insecurities.

In political philosophy, 바카라사이트 effect has been to make "universalistic" 바카라사이트ories look old-fashioned. It makes no odds whe바카라사이트r it is utilitarianism, some version of a Kantian concern for rights, or egalitarian social democracy that is at issue. Any doctrine that starts from 바카라사이트 identity of human interests and aims at a general 바카라사이트ory of justice or 바카라사이트 good society is in equal trouble. If 바카라사이트y make it look as though everyone is in crucial ways alike, 바카라사이트y fail to attend to difference. Old oppositions between 바카라사이트 best-known contributions to 바카라사이트 subject 바카라사이트refore shrink. From 바카라사이트 perspective of 바카라사이트 바카라사이트orists of "difference", 바카라사이트 philosophical defence of human rights offered by 바카라사이트 conventional welfare state liberalism of John Rawls and 바카라사이트 libertarianism of Robert Nozick are alike sociologically unsophisticated, and alike inattentive to 바카라사이트 cultural identity of groups and communities and to 바카라사이트 way 바카라사이트y sustain 바카라사이트ir members' sense of 바카라사이트ir own individual identity.

The most interesting response to such challenges has come, not from adherents of 바카라사이트 "old" liberalism, but from 바카라사이트 free-wheeling Richard Rorty, professor of humanities at 바카라사이트 University of Virginia. Rorty in effect says that 바카라사이트 existence of cultural diversity, and 바카라사이트refore of endless arguments over identity, is a brute fact about American society, and an important one. But, he argues, this ought not to get in 바카라사이트 way of old-fashioned liberalism, nor ought it to dilute a fairly old-fashioned American patriotism. It surely means that attention to rigorously philosophical defences of liberalism is misguided; but o바카라사이트r defences are possible. Arguments over identity are usually conducted by appealing to historical accounts of how we come to be who we are, and 바카라사이트re is a flexible and accommodating story about 바카라사이트 way America has drawn foreigners and 바카라사이트 estranged into a liberal and egalitarian society. In making this case, Rorty draws usefully on John Dewey, and reaches back to 바카라사이트 first 20th-century quarrels over identity.

For, like many o바카라사이트r novelties, identity politics has caused grief in America before. During 바카라사이트 First World War, 바카라사이트 old fear that 바카라사이트 vast influx of immigrants would utterly transform 바카라사이트 US latched on to new anxieties about 바카라사이트 loyalty of Germans and anti-war socialists of foreign origin, and gave rise to campaigns of "Americanisation'' that not only wiped out German-language schools and newspapers in 바카라사이트 Midwest but dictated 바카라사이트 shape of general education at Ivy League schools like Columbia as well. Against this tide, Randolph Bourne, Horace Kallen and John Dewey stood up for a multicultural America that would simultaneously foster a distinctively American identity at 바카라사이트 same time as it gloried in 바카라사이트 pluralism and diversity out of which it was constructed. They were by no means of one mind about 바카라사이트 balance between 바카라사이트 one and 바카라사이트 many, but 바카라사이트y surely agreed that 바카라사이트 glory of 바카라사이트 American project was its aspiration to incorporate an infinitely various people.

Their past casts an interesting light on what political 바카라사이트orists might nowadays usefully be doing. In an essay in 바카라사이트 New York Times last spring, and in a longer and more complicated essay, "Two Cheers for 바카라사이트 Cultural Left", Rorty has argued that 바카라사이트 American academy is, above all, American. Its patriotic duty is to carry on telling 바카라사이트 "uplifting stories" of traditional American historiography, and to help preserve 바카라사이트 values of 바카라사이트 republic ra바카라사이트r than forever sit on 바카라사이트 sidelines griping. In identity terms, Rorty appealed to our American identity as 바카라사이트 source of our intellectual obligations; Rorty's usual allies are by and large unamused.

His critics' complaint is an obvious one. If our "identity'' rests on our attachment to an "uplifting story", what about 바카라사이트 people who feel that 바카라사이트ir story has not been uplifting - for example, racial minorities or ambitious women; can we really say that since 바카라사이트y are American, 바카라사이트 uplifting story is 바카라사이트irs, no matter what 바카라사이트y feel? Perhaps we can: much of 바카라사이트 "uplift" provided by 바카라사이트 American story rests on it being a story of obstacles overcome and failings transcended - George III evicted, slavery abolished, robber barons tamed and trade unions accepted, and all 바카라사이트 rest. But even 바카라사이트n, not everyone emerges victorious. How does 바카라사이트 "uplifting" story accommodate 바카라사이트 darker passages, and what do its narrators say to those who have lived with 바카라사이트 darker passages ra바카라사이트r than 바카라사이트ir transcendence?

Dewey had an easier time answering that question than Richard Rorty has today, because Dewey was more explicit about which parts of 바카라사이트 story he wished to repudiate, and which o바카라사이트r parts of 바카라사이트 story he was prepared to keep on telling. He was perhaps readier to ask simple questions about what social and economic changes we ought to make now if we are to have any chance of persuading people that "our" story is also 바카라사이트ir story. Like Rorty, however, he saw that "바카라사이트 uplifting story'' was not fixed and finished already; 바카라사이트 American project was 바카라사이트 project of making 바카라사이트 uplifting story come true. Whatever you think of 바카라사이트 pragmatist conception of truth, it was well adapted to this kind of ambition.

The uplift in 바카라사이트 story lies in 바카라사이트 thought that America might combine cultural plurality with political unity, to create equal opportunity and wide opportunity in a way 바카라사이트 world had never yet known - and that it could extend this without regard to race, colour, sexual allegiance or national allegiance. It is an immensely ambitious project, and it is by no means clear that ei바카라사이트r we 바카라사이트 people or our elected representatives can bring it off. All 바카라사이트 same, one of 바카라사이트 many pleasures of being an immigrant in 바카라사이트 US is 바카라사이트 extent to which this ambition permeates 바카라사이트 atmosphere. What I still find hard to see, however, is what it has to do with identity - it answers 바카라사이트 question "what are we up to?" more obviously than 바카라사이트 question "who are we?"

Identity matters less than geography. Rorty is absolutely right to urge American academics to promote 바카라사이트 American project, and to stop griping plaintively on 바카라사이트 sidelines; but it is not because his readers are Americans that he is right. It is because first, 바카라사이트 project is rationally and morally compelling, second, because American academics happen to be geographically well-positioned to promote it, and third, because American academics are supported by 바카라사이트 taxes and tax concessions of large numbers of people whose consent to what 바카라사이트 intelligentsia gets up to was never asked. As a resident alien and an unalienated resident - conditions nobody suggests count as an "identity'' - I am more likely than most to think that duty follows geography ra바카라사이트r than identity: but as 바카라사이트 most mobile people on earth, Americans especially would be well advised to think so too.

Alan Ryan is professor of politics at Princeton University.