Feb 14, 2018

American Self-Determination is a Dish Best Served Non-Homogeneous by Jose @ Columbia University

Written By: Jose Smith

We are a nation; therefore, we have a right to self-determination. However, not all sociopolitical circumstances are created equally, thus debilitating our agency to define our present and self-determine our future. Our foremost tool of self-determination is our language, for it helps us relate to our environment and consequently informs our identity. Unfortunately, an important value of language has increasingly been overlooked – and that is the significance of speaking mindfully and respectfully. If we agree that we have that right to determine our own statehood and form our own allegiances and government, as well as how we control our individual life, then it follows that we must be cautious of a person or a group of people that may claim authority to define or even re-define our nation. Nevertheless, we can’t form a better civil society when we echo the uncivil words of political actors.

Kindness is a hand extended from neighbor to neighbor, city to city, county to county, state to state, and nation to nation. It is not a gift bestowed upon us from a party or an ideology. We are in peak-polarization, with claims of division coming from the Left and Right, but what remains constant is our language and shared history. By language I don’t mean English in and of itself, but rather the family of dialects that identifies Americans, from the words we use to the accent that accompanies them. The values and meaning we pass down through them help to construct our shared history. Whether it is the richness of Appalachian English, Bostonian, or if you hail from Southern California, Arkansas, or Minnesota, the cultural artifacts you produce – be it poetry or folk songs – contribute to the American narrative.

For some, the aforementioned pluralism may not translate well into a cohesive identity (ie. lack of homogeneity) if we include the rest of the languages spoken in the United States. For instance, John Stuart Mill may have believed that pluralism might not unite a nation if there are different languages read and spoken, thus obstructing the united public opinion that is required for a functional representative government. However, the same tension of perceived communal barriers is also seen within any monolingual populace, as may be appreciated from the groups of people – say, in the Pacific North West – who do not subscribe to what others on the East Coast believe in. After all, what is good for the people of Montana may very well not be good for the people of Florida. Nonetheless, these distant geographical points maintain the American story alive amidst the cries of homogeneity – whether governmental or cultural. Even Mill recognized that a wholly united nation need not be homogenized, as evidenced by our continual Republic and growing democracy. This is also corroborated by other democracies like France, where democracy thrives without a homogeneous nation.

In order to bridge the communities torn apart by the inflammatory rhetoric that swarms social media and political discussions, we could reach out to philosophers like Joseph Ernest Renan and Johann Gottlieb Fichte, who believed in a shared history founded on love and a union invited by communication. There is no reason for a scornful divide between “city folk” and “country folk” as both contribute to our shared-history, further fostering an understanding of what constitutes the American identity. The political subterfuge might try and tell us that Michigan and Kentucky are worlds apart from each other; yet instead, what we ought to see is the water crisis suffered by both: Flint, Michigan in 2014 and Perry County, Kentucky more recently. Our communities shouldn’t be played against each other for a moral high-ground when they are equally united in hardship and should rather face the policies that are depriving them of life essentials.

Arguably, partisanship has brewed populism and promised a better infrastructure and economy, while attempting to redefine the identity of a nation. Nevertheless, a nation of self-determined inhabitants forges its identity through their freedom of speech and participation – not through ethnic and cultural commonalities. If we mindfully communicated a bit more with each other, we would discover that we are not Americans because we are from Iowa, New Hampshire or wherever else  – we are American because we embody “a network of egalitarian relations of mutual recognition,” (Habermas, 1990). The flag of the United States bears fifty stars representing the fifty states in Union… and they all shine the same because they are all American.

 

Photo by Jp Valery, (in Louisiana, United States), on Unsplash, Creative Commons Zero license

Sign Up For Updates

Get the latest updates, research, teaching opportunities, and event information from the Democratic Erosion Consortium by signing up for our listserv.

Popular Tags

Popular Categories

3 Comments

  1. Celina Avalos

    I like your optimism and heartfelt message of unity and the shared history that exists amongst all of the people living in the United States. However, there are a few things that seem rather unrealistic. For one, how will communication in this day and age be effective in creating a united nation if the current issues happening — such as gun control and immigration — have left millions of citizens either dead or separated from their families? In these cases, I believe, they are humanitarian questions that deserve common human empathy, where political affiliation should not matter. Yet even when mass shootings happen in the United States — caused by United States Citizens — communication amongst lawmakers and the people is awry. In a utopian society, understanding our shared history and working towards building each other up would be ideal. But needless to say, the times we are currently in are in no way indicative of that. It has been four years since the government-made crisis in Flint, Michigan happened. Six years since Trayvon Martin was killed. Three years since the Charleston shooting. Two years since the Dakota Access Pipeline began. One year since the Muslim Ban. And One month since the Parkland Shooting in Florida. But what has happened since these tragic events? Nothing. Half of the U.S., specifically marginalized communities, are still under attack. So until communication has led to accepting that #BlackLivesMatter, #NoDAPL, #WomensRightsareHumanRights, #ImmigrantsWelcome, #NoTravelBan, #LoveisLove, #ClimateChangeisReal, the embellished U.S. as a nation of great diversity, inclusion and unity is simply false. In 2018, we cannot conform to “agree to disagree.”

  2. Quinton Otis

    This is a beautiful peace for unity and inclusion. The points you made are valid to the point of being gut-wrenching but in a positive way. Our founding fathers did not build our nation to be divided. It was built to be all-inclusive to have equal rights for all people. One would have to also think that it has an inclusion of respect. Why respect? The nation was built on respect. The freedom to bear arms, the freedom of speech, and the freedom of religion were ALL made to be inclusive and respect the difference of us as a nation.

  3. Alonzo Lepper

    After reading your post and the comments, I agree with the heart of your argument but I find it hard to see it in reality. The hopefulness you had in writing fails to respond to the current reality we continue to face. While we could in theory all embrace the idea that we are all American and that itself is substantial, this idea of unity could never come to fruition given the current state of our nation. For one, how does someone begin a conversation with another if the other doesn’t agree on core values? What principles do we share in our commonality? Who gets to dictate what is moral and just?

Submit a Comment