Who Are We? - Samuel Huntington's Critique PDF

Preview

Summary

Who Are We? Valeria Del Castillo In the first article of his book “Who Are We?” Samuel P. Huntington tries to elaborate a persuasive case about the salience, substance and future of the American identity. His main argument is that when the security of the state decreases given the absence of a threa...

Description

Who Are We? Valeria Del Castillo In the first article of his book “Who Are We?” Samuel P. Huntington tries to elaborate a persuasive case about the salience, substance and future of the American identity. His main argument is that when the security of the state decreases given the absence of a threat, so does the salience of American identity; that the American identity has lost its substance as a consequence of the effects of globalisation; and that the future of the American identity will possibly be a mixture of cultural revival, exclusivism, bifurcation or creedal respect. This review demonstrates that his argument fails to be persuasive because he overlooks the complexity of identity construction, America’s hypocrisy and its role in globalisation; and the problems of predicting a future that largely depends on uncertainty in which he implicitly infers that American identity is threatened by the Hispanic diaspora. The conventional understanding of an identity as being primordial in the individual (for example, by autochthony) is challenged by the idea that identity is constructed through performative acts. The collectivisation of this performative process creates an imagined community. The American identity is just one of a plethora of identities an individual performs and belongs to. Huntington’s argument about the salience of American identity being undermined by the rise of other transnational and subnational identities is flawed. This is because the American identity coexists within the individual with other identities he feels and belongs to. American identity does not imply supremacy over others because we are “a plurality of selves”. As evidence, we can use the narratives provided by Cynthia Weber’s “I Am An American Project” where individuals that do not conform to the normative “American Identity” feel that they also belong to this imagined community (Weber, 2011).

However, Huntington complains that the American identity should always be salient in the face of both the lack of an external and the presence of an internal threat. He makes this point by saying that the American identity is being undermined by the lack of an external danger (such as the period after the Cold War where people identified with other transnational and subnational identities) or/and by the excess of internal dangers (such as the Hispanic immigrants that do not assimilate American culture as their ancestors did). Therefore, the American identity always has to be strongly reasserted in every possible scenario to remain superior to other identities. This argument is not persuasive because he is claiming that the American identity should have primacy over other identities, but as we can see in ordinary life situations, we represent an identity dependent on a very specific context. For example, America needed to reconstruct and project its power to its citizens and the world in the face of the traumatic events of 9/11. As a result, they constructed a feminised Other (Afghanistan as the metaphor of the girl) to be liberated from the evil terrorists that kept her captive (Faludi, 2007, p. 44). Huntington argues that not only the salience but also the racial, ethnical, cultural and ideological substance of the American identity is threatened by the

rise

of

subnational

and

transnational

identities,

immigration,

multiculturalism and development. Such “threats” are a product of globalisation, a process in which America has taken the leader’s role. Americans have to take responsibility in their actions for facilitating those aforementioned “threats” elsewhere in the world through globalisation (with or without the use of force). So we are confronted with the case of America considered to be an “exempt” nation, whom has the power to export its economic and political model elsewhere for the sake of “national security” (Walt, 2008, p. 12); but at the same time, a nation afraid of the loss of substance of their identity by the intrusion of other cultures. This is hypocrisy at its purest because the US exports their values and way of life – what we

have called Americanisation or McDonaldisation – everywhere in the world as the result of the process of globalisation they encouraged in the first place. Now that the world is interconnected and people have the advantage to move from one place to another, the Americans are complaining because their racial, cultural, ethnical and ideological foundation is being undermined by diversity. But is diversity not a fundamental part of the American history? There were Native Americans before Europeans settled in this land; there was the traffic of slaves and the subsequent mixture of all these races that form “America”. To be able to maintain and reproduce the dominant narratives in America about white race, European values and liberal ideology, the American people suffer from amnesia to successfully forget their colonial past (both the mix of races and ethnicities and the violence perpetrated against them) just as the forefathers Jefferson and Hamilton had to do (Behdad, 2005, p. 30). Huntington by the very end of his argument explains the possibility of disintegration that America could suffer and four other alternative futures for the American identity: creedal, bifurcation, exclusivism and cultural revival. After these concepts are explained - in which he lacks the appropriate evidence to back them up - he concludes that cultural revival in which all races and ethnicities can encourage the resurgence of their core culture. This core culture emphasizes the importance of Christianity, European values, the English language and the creedal principles (is this not reaffirming the dominant discourses of European and white supremacy?). Also, as he emphasizes throughout the chapter, the increase of the “Latino” immigrant is regarded as Other because this new wave of immigrants are having more difficulties in assimilation (since globalisation allows connection with their native communities). If these Hispanic groups do not assimilate the American culture, then their identity foundation of white European supremacy is under threat.

As a conclusion, Samuel Huntington’s arguments are not persuasive. He takes a very reductionist approach in terms of identity, by wanting all peoples that live in the US to supremely identify with the American identity in any circumstance. He is a hypocrite by demonising globalisation and diversity when America can be considered as one leading nation in both issues. He has amnesia. And finally, he provides a view of the future about diversity reconciling with the core American values in which he actually wants to maintain the white European supreme through cultural assimilation.

Bibliography

•

Behdad, A. (2005). A Forgetful Nation: On Immigration and Cultural Identity in the United States. USA: Duke University Press.

•

Faludi, S. (2007). The Terror Dream: Fear and Fantasy in Post 9/11 America. New York: Metropolitan Books.

•

Walt, S. (2011). The Myth of American Exceptionalism. Retrieved from: https://mycourses.hult.edu/courses/969606/wiki/thursday-11th-aprilwho-are-they?module_item_id=7138535

•

Weber, C. (n.d.). I Am an American Project. Retrieved from: http://www.iamanamericanproject.com...