Media - Statements

STATEMENT OF JAMES CEASER
June 3, 2008

On the back of the dollar bill is an image of the Great Seal of the United States, with an eagle holding in its beak a banner inscribed with the words “E Pluribus Unum.” This phrase, which many have long considered to be the motto of the nation, has variously been translated as “from many one” or “from diversity unity.”

In selecting the title “E Pluribus Unum” for its report, the Bradley Foundation Project on National Identity embraces the conviction that plurality and unity are not necessarily in tension with one another, but are supporting ideas of the same national experiment. Plurality is only made safe when it is grounded in a deeper commitment to national identity. Unity is the precondition for healthy diversity.

The data from a recent Harris Interactive National Survey commissioned by the Bradley Project provide evidence for two broad propositions about Americans’ attitudes on national identity. The first is that the public overwhelmingly supports the notion of an American identity. Asked whether “Americans share a unique national identity based on a shared set of beliefs, values, and culture,” more than eight in ten respondents answered in the affirmative. Three quarters (76%) subscribed to the view that while “there are many ethnic groups and cultures” in the United States, there is “a unique American culture that defines what it means to be an American.”

The second proposition is that despite this affirmation of a common identity, Americans are greatly worried that unity is under threat. They sense there is danger of its unraveling, with 63 percent of the respondents agreeing with the statement that the shared national identity “was getting weaker.” There is apprehension too about the depth of current divisions, with eighty percent of Americans registering “concern about the amount of division between ethnic and cultural groups in the United States.”

What troubles many Americans from middle-age on (thirty five years and older) is that they are failing to bequeath the greatest of their treasures—a sense of national identity—to the succeeding generation. The Harris Survey provides suggestive evidence on this point. On almost all of the measures of commitment to a national identity, those from the youngest generation (18-34) had the greatest doubts. For example, while more than 80 percent of those over 35 years old favored giving priority in school to the teaching of general American citizenship over each student’s ethnic identity, this was true for only 57 percent of those from the 18-34 age group.  One can only wonder whether similar or accelerating signs of diminished attachment are found among those now of school age.

From these findings as well as from extensive testimony taken from journalists, public officials, and scholars, the Bradley Project Report concludes that there is an impending “identity crisis” in America. The weight of all this evidence suggests mounting confusion about the meaning of American national identity and a loss of commitment to its promotion. The purpose of the Bradley Project is to “initiate a national conversation on American national identity” in light of the urgent concern about how to perpetuate an informed sense of American citizenship.

To this end, the Bradley Project considered the proper source of national identity. It derives first from an adherence to a set of ideas set forth at the time of the American founding. These consist in the great principles of natural right stated in the Declaration of Independence along with the basic concepts embodied in the Constitution. The Project report speaks of a nation “founded not on a common ethnicity,” but “on an idea.”  One of its central arguments is that “a nation founded on an idea starts anew with each generation and with each new group of immigrants.”  It continues:  “Knowing what America stands for is not a genetic inheritance. It must be learned, both by the next generation and by those who come to this country.” From this premise follow many of the recommendations to strengthen the serious study of American principles and the American founding at all levels of formal education, including college.

Just as important as the claim that national identity rests on an appreciation of a set of ideas is the argument that there are certain critical cultural values that help to sustain these ideas and that operate themselves to foster national unity. It is not a question of ideas (or creed) versus a culture, but of the two working together. A key element of concern to the American people is the priority given to the place of the English language, which not only is a source of pride in its own right, but which provides the basis for common communication among citizens. Without the possibility to communicate, democracy becomes not a deliberative process but a mere assertion of wills. Fully 96 percent of the populace believes that it is important for the “future of the American political system that all citizens be able to speak and read English.” The report urges government, schools, businesses, and civic organizations “to ensure new citizens learn English, understand democratic institutions, and participate fully in the American way of life.”

The Bradley Project invites speculation on some of the sources of this identity crisis.  First, many seem to hold that maintaining national identity is a task that takes care of itself.  Nothing, the report argues, is further from the truth. Sustaining a proper understanding of the source of national identity must be an ongoing enterprise and is one of the chief responsibilities that each generation owes to the next.   Second, some contend that fostering an American national identity serves as a form of oppression that seeks to fit all peoples into a narrow mold. While conceptions of national identity have been used in this way, it is also the case that this country’s great projects of liberation have in the end appealed to key American principles for their vindication. Third, in a view that has made great headway in our age, many believe that one’s deepest identity is to be found in an attachment to an ethnic or racial group. No belief is more misbegotten. Respect for groups or subcultures requires a commitment to the common rights of all.  Such a commitment allows for the formation and protection of subcultures and enables all individuals, insofar as they wish or are able to, to move among these different groups. Finally, some maintain that national identity has become outmoded in the complex world in which we now live, and that allegiance should shift from citizenship in America to citizenship in supra-national entities. While the precise responsibilities of Americans to the world remain to be determined, these are in no sense matters to be confused with genuine citizenship. The national community is the primary seat of protection and security, and the place where Americans exercise their common right to self-government.

Evidence from the Harris survey suggests that most Americans dismiss these objections and remain committed to nurturing and maintaining a strong national identity. It is the task of leaders in all walks of American life, from the political to the educational and cultural, to embrace this sentiment and support it with viable plans that promote an informed American citizenship.