home
* back issues index * author
index * getting back issues
This article was originally
published in Caelum Et Terra, Summer 1994,
volume 4 no 3, and is used here with the author’s permission.
To obtain permission to
republish this article, contact the author by clicking on the link above.
In
Robert Louis Stevenson's adventure novel, Kidnapped, the protagonists in
their wanderings through the Highlands of Scotland come into a region called
the Braes of Balquhidder.
No
great clan held rule there; it was filled and disputed by
small septs, and broken remnants, and
what they call "chiefless
folk," driven into the wild
country about the springs of Forth
and Teith by the advance of the
Campbells.
One of the aspects of Highland life most noted
and celebrated in this novel is the connection of the individual to his chief
and his clan. This connection involves
both great personal loyalty to the person of the chief, but, in addition, an
individual's own personal identity depends upon his link with his clan. It was this which placed an individual,
which made him something on the earth with roots, instead of one of the
"chiefless folk." Without
that he was someone cut off, as it were, not just from his own people, but from
the whole human race, an atom in the void, hitting against other atoms, who
themselves were moving at random in empty space.
The
reason that some rooted connection was required for one to be able to relate to
his fellows was that a man was not conceived as existing for himself under the
terms that he himself creates. Just as
a letter of the alphabet has meaning only when it is in its place along side of
the other letters, whether that place is first or last, so a man has purpose
and meaning and relation with others only when he is in his place, along side
of his fellows. A single letter
wrenched from its series is an absurdity.
No words can be formed of it, in fact, it would be unrecognizable as a
particle of a language. The same may be
said of a human being. The Scotland of
the 18th century looked on a man torn away from his context as a lone letter,
meaningless, a sort of freak. Moreover,
the development of the unity of the clan and of its common way of life or
culture, took place over many centuries and in dialog, as it were, with the
soil, the rocks, the waters, the animals, of the place where they lived. Eventually, when the Gospel was brought to
Scotland, its light was diffused throughout this culture and brought new
elements from afar. But through all
this the culture developed in an organic fashion, in touch with both the people
and their environment.
This
way of life, whether of the Highlands of Scotland, or of any other traditional
place, proposed a certain definition of a man.
In this definition a man, a human person, means something only if he is
somehow rooted in a place and among a people.
Consider the following more recent statement of the same truth.
A
person becomes a non-person if he/she [sic] is denied his/her
identity, language, culture, customs,
traditions, history. Such
a person loses all his/her creative
powers. (Ismael Rodriguez
Bou, "Culture and Education in
Puerto Rico.")
This statement was made in the very interesting
context of the debate in Puerto Rico over the question of the political status
of that unhappy island - should Puerto Rico become a state of the United
States, continue in its present political arrangement or become independent? And to many Puerto Ricans it seems that to
become Americans in the full sense, it would be necessary for them to give up
whatever being Puerto Rican entails. I
will return to this quotation - and this question - later, but in the meantime
the question of becoming fully American brings up the question of how America,
meaning here the United States, treats of this matter of the definition of a
man within his historical and cultural context. If to 18th century Scotland someone had and found meaning only in
relation to his chief and clan, what does the United States offer in this
regard? What sort of definition of
ourselves does it hold out?
The
definition of what it means to be a human person that is proposed by the United
States is implicit in the image we commonly have of this country. Our history as a political entity extends
back only to 1776, at which time, for many, perhaps most, of us, not one of our
ancestors lived within the bounds of the thirteen English colonies. But, we are told, this should not trouble
us. We are all generously invited to
appropriate for ourselves the status of descendants of those rebellious
colonists and to make their tradition our own, and indeed to extend it back to
the first English settlements in North America, to the Pilgrims and Jamestown,
and back even further to England to capture such events as the signing of Magna
Carta, events that are held to have contributed to the formation of the
American historical and political tradition.
But in reality, as we all know, our actual histories are many and
disparate, some indeed to England, most to other European countries, many to
Africa, increasingly many to Asia. And
to an important element of the population, the Hispanics, the historical
tradition extending ultimately to Europe has been incarnated for over 500 years
in other parts of the Americas and with very different historical landmarks and
memories.
Now
what does all this mean? If to a
Scotsman cultural identity was derived in the first instance from immemorial
identification with a clan, how can the United States urge its citizens to
forget about their real historical and cultural past and assume a tradition and
history going back only a mere 200 years?
America does this because she in effect proposes a totally new
definition of what it is to be a man.
America is not interested, except in the most superficial way, in the
historcial and cultural roots of the many people who have come to live here,
because America conceives that she has something much better to offer. The following series of quotes will make
this a little clearer.
It cannot be denied, but by those who would dispute against
the sun, that with America, and in
America, a new era commences
in human affairs. This era is distinguished by free
representative governments, by entire
religious liberty, by
improved systems of national
intercourse, by a newly awakened
and an unconquerable spirit of free
inquiry, and by a diffusion
of knowledge through the community,
such as has been before
altogether unknown and unheard of. America, America, our
country, fellow-citizens, our own
dear and native land, is
inseparably connected, fast bound up,
in fortune and by fate,
with these great interests. If they fall, we fall with them; if
they
stand, it will be because we have maintained them. Let us
contemplate, then, this connection,
which binds the prosperity of
others to our own; and let us
manfully discharge all the duties
which
it imposes. If we cherish the virtues
and the principles
of
our fathers, Heaven will assist us to carry on the work
of human liberty and human happiness.
-
Daniel Webster, "A Discourse in Commemoration of the Lives
and Services of John
Adams and Thomas Jefferson," August 2,
1826.
We
are provincials no longer.... And yet
we are not the less
Americans on that account. We shall be the more American if we
but remain true to the principles in
which we have been bred.
They are not the principles of a
province or of a single
continent. We have known and boasted all along that they were
the principles of a liberated
mankind.
-
Woodrow Wilson, Second Inaugural Address, March 5, 1917.
We
stand at the opening of the one hundred and fiftieth year
since our national consciousness
first asserted itself by
unmistakable action with an array of
force. The old sentiment of
detached and dependent colonies
disappeared in the new sentiment
of a united and independent
Nation. Men began to discard the
narrow confines of a local charter
for the broader opportunities
of a national constitution. Under the eternal urge of freedom we
became an independent Nation. A little less than 50 years later
that freedom and independence were
reasserted in the face of all
the world, and guarded, supported, and secured by the Monroe
doctrine. The narrow fringe of States along the Atlantic
seaboard advanced its frontiers
across the hills and plains of an
intervening continent until it passed
down the golden slope to
the Pacific. We made freedom a birthright. We extended our
domain over distant islands in order
to safeguard our own
interests and accepted the consequent
obligation to bestow
justice and liberty upon less favored
peoples.... Throughout all
these experiences we have enlarged our freedom, we have
strengthened our independence. We have been, and propose to be,
more and more American.
-
Calvin Coolidge, Inaugural Address, March 4, 1925.
America
is not a piece of geography between two oceans and two
borders. America is an idea....
-
Attributed to Senator Hubert Humphrey.
The
above quotes (and many more could be found to the same effect) show, I think,
that America believes that she has found an entirely new way in human history,
a way in which a man finds his meaning not by his link with the living past of
his people and their organic institutions, but in a rational, calculated effort
to bring about a new kind of life on this planet. Now it is "with America, and in America, a new era commences
in human affairs," an "era... distinguished by free representative
governments, by entire religious liberty,...by a newly awakened and an
unconquerable spirit of free inquiry, and by a diffusion of knowledge through
the community, such as has been before altogether unknown and unheard of." No longer need men fear becoming
"chiefless folk," for our identity is no longer tied to our
immemorial people and history. A new,
liberated, informed citizenry has come into being, a citizenry that can invite
all to join it in its endeavor of enlightenment. This altogether new nation invites everyone to appropriate for
himself its history, embodied in its War of Independence and the formation of
its government. It does not matter
whether any of your actual ancestors were here or not at the time. For the principles you are invited to
embrace are those of "liberated mankind" itself, and our work is
universal, on behalf of no less than "human liberty and human
happiness." And if your real
ancestors were of some of the "less favored peoples," then rejoice
all the more that you have rejected them and all they stood for as you become
"more and more American."
Above
I placed a recent quote from a Puerto Rican writer which proposes a definition
of man that essentially accords with that of traditional Scotland, and indeed,
of the traditions of all of Europe and, I daresay, of the entire world. What answer does the United States make to
that definition? When she invites all
to appropriate for themselves a history that is not theirs, does she render us
non-persons, as we deny our "identity, language, culture, customs,
traditions, history?" I think that
the answer the United States would make to this charge is to maintain that
these things, though doubtless nice in their place, are not of supreme importance. What matters that the cultural, intellectual,
historical traditions that are in fact native to you are lost? Something greater is present here, something
that goes to the bedrock of human nature, something that wipes away the cobwebs
of the crusty traditions and customs of the Old World. The New Man is being created here, this is
the Novus Ordo Seclorum, as our Great Seal proclaims, the New Order of
the Ages.
It
should be obvious that there are profound differences between the philosophy of
man that America upholds and that of traditional mankind. America is full of "chiefless
folk," and instead of deploring it, she celebrates it and invites us all
to celebrate with her. If America is an
"idea," then this idea can be extended over the entire world, and
instead of men being defined by their roots and ties, they will be liberated
atoms in a rational void.
Unfortunately,
most Americans have evinced all too little discomfort with this state of
affairs. Most of us have been eager to
embrace the material goods delivered, or at least promised, by the new country,
and to let others worry about the question of lost cultures and such
matters. The Puerto Ricans who desire
statehood for their island are the latest case in point. They quote statistic after statistic about
the economy and taxation and ignore questions of personal and cultural
identity. The case of Puerto Rico,
moreover, is a very interesting one, for as Hispanics, Puerto Ricans are the
heirs to an extremely rich historical, intellectual and cultural tradition, a
tradition which differs markedly from that of the English settlers of North
America. Is it possible for an Hispanic
to give up his own tradition in order to "become an American?" In order to do so Hispanics would have to
give up the historical landmarks that define their own culture. For example, the Laws of the Indies, the
generally humane and exemplary legal code set forth by the Spanish crown for
governing the New World and its native inhabitants, where do they stand in the
national American mythology? Can they
rate beside the Mayflower Compact? Or
the Virgin of Guadalupe - could she ever compare with George Washington praying
at Valley Forge? I remember once seeing
an exhibit at a state university of facsimiles of historical documents that
were held to have contributed to the formation of the United States. They began with Magna Carta and included
documents such as the Petition of Right, the English Bill of Rights and of
course our own Declaration and Constitution.
But how could someone with the equally venerable heritage of Spain and
Spanish America appropriate all of this for himself without denying everything
that he is? Perhaps without unmaking
himself as a human being? Unless culture
and history have no meaning, and we are best understood simply as eating/drinking/procreating
beasts, then I do not see how one can simply divest himself of that which links
him with history and mankind. But what
else does the United States offer to anyone?
Hispanics
are simply the most extreme example, since they are relatively unassimilated
and live right next door to a part of their own homeland. But most of us are in fundamentally the same
situation, though the passage of two or three or more generations of ardent and
active assimilation makes it easier to forget.
But before saying how I personally look at this, we should briefly turn
to America's latest attempt to deal with the question of cultural identity, the
practice of multiculturalism.
Multiculturalism
seems to offer a remedy for the situation I have sketched, that of requiring
everyone to pretend he had an ancestor on the Mayflower. It affirms the worth of varying traditions
that have formed the peoples of the United States, and indeed, often seems to
value their traditions and experiences above those of the traditional
majority. But what really is going on
here? I would argue that
multiculturalism, as it is commonly understood, only trivializes the cultures
it purports to embrace, rendering them little more than quaint collections of
customs, and that its real goal is relativism and the promotion of Anglo-Saxon
secular liberalism. Again, let us look
at Hispanics.
Hispanic
civilization came to this hemisphere as a militantly Catholic and Latin
embodiment of late medieval culture. It
brought, besides the Faith, Roman law, universities, the study of Aristotle,
the printing press, Renaissance and baroque music and art, European cities, in
short, the spiritual, intellectual and social life of Western tradition. But is this what the multiculturalists
value? Instead they absurdly classify
Hispanics, the very people who brought the West to America, as a non-Western
minority! They are not interested in real Hispanic culture, for in it are the
very things they so much hate and fear about their own ancestors, above all, the
Catholic faith. But by contrasting
selected aspects of Latino life with their own narrow and selective version of
Western civilization (which they equate with the scientific rationalism and
liberal atomism of the last few centuries), our current official guardians of
the cultural establishment manage at the same time to denigrate the real West
and pretend to foster Hispanic culture.
But by emptying Hispanic culture of its spiritual and intellectual
content, they simply advance the notion of cultural relativism and thus end up
advancing their own orphaned and bastard segment of Western culture - a segment
that arose only with Descartes and Locke.
In
short, multiculturalism is an effort to use other cultures to create the
impression that all is flux, and to assert that any definitive judgment about
right and wrong or about truth is a kind of cultural imperialism. Were its upholders truly interested in, for
example, other religions and their adherents, they would have to recognize that
their own secularism is an affront not merely to orthodox Catholics or
conservative Protestants, but to every religion. Thus the very groups whose cultures they supposedly foster are in
fact destroyed by their efforts and teachings, for cultural relativism
ultimately teaches the triviality of every culture except modern Western
secularism.
Though
I do not know whether many others feel the need to identify with a historical
tradition in order to be whole, I admit that I certainly do. I am not at all comfortable with being of
the "chiefless folk." And the
solution to the dilemma for me - heir to decades of assimilating forebears -is
to look upon all of traditional Europe as my cultural home, since in my case
any but the slimmest of living links with any particular European nation have
been broken. Moreover, as a matter of
fact, my ancestors did come from more than one part of that continent. So though I do not have the immediate and
everyday richness of culture that Hispanics can, and should, dwell in, the
intellectual and cultural life of European civilization makes me feel not quite
so much lost. America cannot take that
from me and try to satisfy me with vain dreams of a new land of liberty and a
new beginning of the human race. And
though I lack the daily cultural customs that characterize one for whom culture
is something living, not just something taken from books, pictures and records,
still I am glad and grateful for what I can do and can try to be. It is likely to be all that there will be
for a long time.
I
fear, however, that what I just said will give the wrong impression. I do not, for example, regret that my accent
betrays me as an American or that I hold silverware in the American fashion, or
indeed, that my whole appearance and behavior show that I am an American. That is not what I mean. America, the United States, as a place where
people dwell and live in a particular way, insofar as that way of living can be
separated from its political ideology, I recognize as my home. I am not a European. I only do not want us to cut our cultural
roots, to cast aside everything that makes us part of the human race, in a
Enlightenment dream of making a new beginning and forging a new man. It is less America that I reject than the
idea of America, the idea that so many of our politicians and orators have seen
as the essence of being American. But,
paradoxically, if, as Wilson said, the principles of America are those of
"a liberated mankind," they have little or nothing to do with how we
actually live in this spot of earth.
Hitherto, the real America has been a society of mostly descendants of
Europeans living across the ocean from Europe.
To the extent that we tried not simply to adapt but to deny our
European heritage, we tried to create the myth of America as the New Order of
the Ages, an incarnate idea that offered liberation to all the "less
favored peoples" of the world. But
I think it is possible to accept America as simply a place where men dwell
across the sea from their original home.
Of course, what America will become if those whose origins are in Europe
become a minority is another story. But
for the time being, at least, I think we can overcome our status as
"chiefless folk" if we take hold of what are the only roots we have
or can ever have, those that have nourished our ancestors for centuries and
necessarily are our way of connecting to the rest of the human race. These prevent us from being atoms in the
void, even the void of a "liberated mankind."
home
* back issues index * author
index * getting back issues