Jan Michael Kotowski
U.S. Nationalism: The Academic Discourse
I. Introduction
My main argument in this paper is based on the belief that nationalism
constitutes an encompassing discourse1 rather than a neatly bounded specific
phenomenon such as an identity or a political movement. This is not say that the
latter two aspects are of secondary importance but that we cannot properly and
fully understand nationalism if we artificially restrict its conceptual scope. The
discourse of nationalism, or more precisely, nation−ness,2 includes various levels
of representations, ranging from the very broad and institutionalized understanding
of the nation−state as the quasi−natural setting of modern politics to very specific
meso− and micro−discourses where nationalism functions as a means for political
mobilization or cultural contestation. I aim to show that American nationalism
cannot be reduced to a single objectively identifiable subject matter, but that it
has to be conceptualized as a multidimensional and inherently ambiguous
discourse that includes and connects various notions of politics, history, culture,
identity, and territoriality. As a means of illustration, I will focus on the academic
usages of U.S. or American nationalism because this interdisciplinary micro−
discourse makes the polymorphic nature of the greater concept particularly
visible. Moreover, this approach has the additional benefit of providing an
overview of the otherwise highly fragmented field of studies on American nationalism.
The term nationalism has been used to describe a multitude of phenomena:
processes of nation−formation; ideologies and doctrines; political movements,
1
I see discourses as contested, yet structuring totalities of symbolic and semantic orders
that make the world tangible and appear natural or commonsensical. My concept of discourse
shares the Foucauldian interest in the rules, possibilities, and conditions of the production and
dissemination of knowledge but it also goes beyond the dichotomy of the discursive/non−dis−
cursive in the tradition of Laclau and Mouffe (105–114).
2 In my understanding the closely related “national” phenomena of nation, nationhood,
national identity, and nationalism jointly constitute discursive formations (Calhoun 19–20) that
I shall call either nation−ness, with regard to their discursive totality, or “national spheres,”
when referring to their respective national specificity and singularity.
61
Jan Michael Kotowski
attitudes and actions; collective sentiments of a shared identity; and individual
feelings of loyalty and attachment to the state (A. Smith 72). This multidimen−
sionality can also be found in the wide variety of contexts in which American
nationalism has been used, namely:
1) its differentness from, or similarity to patriotism;
2) its historical role in the making, changing, or maintaining of the U.S. nation−state;
3) its empirical usefulness for measuring socio−political attitudes and opinions;
4) its reflection in a wide range of cultural representations; and
5) its application as an explanatory tool for contemporary society, culture, and
politics.
Before each of these five aspects will be analyzed in a separate section below
some further theoretical clarifications are in order. I aim to include all these five
usages of American nationalism because I conceive of them as discursively
connected. Craig Calhoun is to the point in emphasizing the linkage of the discursive
form between different expressions of nation−ness, i.e., the “common denominator
among, say, Japanese economic protectionism, Serbian ethnic cleansing,
Americans singing the ‘Star−Spangled Banner’ before baseball games, and the
way the World Bank collects statistics” (21–2). Such a conceptualization is, of
course, problematic for scholars who see definitional rigor as a necessary cor−
rective to the putative ambiguity of the concept of nationalism (cf. Connor;
Barrington). While these approaches are generally laudable in their aim for clari−
ty, they fail to take into account that nationalism’s conceptual heterogeneity is the
mirror image of all the equivocal notions and ideas clustered around the histori−
cally evolved discursive nodal point of “the nation” (Torfing 191–203; Suny 870).
It therefore seems futile to strive for a singular definition of nationalism because
the concept is overflowing with a multitude of meanings, webs of associations,
and terminological derivatives. This, however, does not imply that the discourse
of “nation−ness” is wholly unstructured or arbitrary. On the contrary, the
discourse’s central significance for modern politics has to be seen in its “open
structure” that provides vastly different socio−political entities with a shared
frame of reference that includes notions of history, territory, culture, and other
constructions of commonality, identity, and legitimacy.
Discursive formations such as nation−ness shape the mindscapes and lived
realities of already, or yet to be, nationalized populations. The naturalization of
these mindscapes, i.e., the mental institutionalization of nation−ness, is most
successful in connection with state, educational and media apparatuses that
materialize the socio−cultural framework of the respective national sphere and
simultaneously function as a political legitimization of the existence of the state
62
U.S. Nationalism: The Academic Discourse
itself (Balibar 93; Bourdieu 7–8). However, this hegemonic dimension of the
socio−political order of nationhood (Croucher 182) does not promote absolute uni−
formity, but should rather be understood as an arena of continual definitional
quarrels about the nation’s alleged characteristics and concerns. The “national
character” is often in dispute, yet the existence of the “nation” is always taken
for granted and accepted as natural, particularly in “fully” developed nation−states
like the U. S. where these disputes range from diverging everyday assumptions
about “what it means to be an American,” to intra−societal “culture wars” and
partisan politics. In my own conceptual terms nationalism, then, is best under−
stood as the competition for definitional, and ultimately, socio−political authority
over a specific national sphere that, as the overriding hegemonic discourse,
always remains unchallenged.
As a means of illustration, I now aim to apply these abstract theoretical
deliberations to the multidisciplinary academic discourse of American nationalism
in order to highlight the enormous differences in conceptualizations of nationalism
both across and within disciplines. However, I conceive of these differences not
primarily as results of their various academic origins but as the very “nature”
of nationalism itself. Hence, for my theoretical purposes it is of secondary
importance if a certain political scientist’s definition of nationalism is more plausible
or useful than the one used by a historian or anthropologist; instead it is the very
fact that all these scholars rely on the concept of nationalism to make sense of
their respective research interests that simultaneously connects them as
producers and “consumers” of the discourse of American nationalism. This article
is focused on the wide variety of works that actually make use of the concepts of
nationalism, patriotism, and national identity in the American context. I will thus
concentrate on scholarship that relies on these specific concepts as opposed to
analyses that deal with important aspects or contents of U.S. nationhood (e.g.,
state−building, multiculturalism, immigration, foreign policy etc.) sans the explicit
conceptualization of nationalism. While such works can, for instance, be incorpo−
rated into an Andersonian theory of a “distinctly American imagined nationalism”
(Mercieca 279–81, 295–99), my objective is to show the plethora of concepts
(identity, ideology, history, citizenship, etc.) that have been subsumed under the
label of nationalism and how this multifariousness mirrors the significance of
nation−ness as the crucial foundation of modern politics and society. Needless to
say, the narrow scope of this paper requires a quantitative restriction of the works
that can be included in this discursive survey, which, consequently, does not raise
the claim of completeness or even−handedness.
63
Jan Michael Kotowski
As a field of study, U.S. or American nationalism is still rather unorganized.
Referring to the canonical literature, David Hollinger bemoans that “theorists of
nationalism tend to circle around the United States like boy scouts who have spot−
ted a clump of poison oak” (116). This can be partially explained by the inherent
Eurocentrism of these theories (Parish 227). Americanists, on the other hand, have
indeed shown a substantial interest in nationalism (Doyle and Pamplona 2). However,
this interest has not led to profound changes within the field of nationalism studies.
Benedict Anderson may have shifted some of the focus on nationalism’s origins away
from Europe towards the Americas as a whole, but certainly not towards the United
States in particular. On the other hand, notions of exceptionalism still inform many
influential theoretical accounts of American nationalism. Exceptionalism has, for
instance, been seen in the nation’s creedal character that supposedly makes the
U.S. more akin to an abstract universal idea than to a European−style community of
descent. To be sure, this is a celebratory notion for some and a potential worrisome
for others (McClay 55–57). Walker Connor, for instance, goes even further when he
argues that the United States does not constitute a “proper” nation after all, because
“the absence of a common origin has made it more difficult, and conceivably
impossible, for the Americans to appreciate instinctively the idea of the nation in the
same dimension and with the same poignant clarity as do the Japanese, the Bengali,
or the Kikuyu” (“Nation is a Nation” 381).
Michael Billig offers a different explanation for the “theoretical amnesia”
towards American nationalism: it is said to be produced by a form of “sociological
common sense,” i.e. a habitual academic agreement on which topics are
worthy of scholarly attention (51). Finally, U.S. nationalism can also be seen as
non−exceptional insofar as it is typical of firmly established Western nation−states
where nationalism is seen as nonexistent because its “distinctive bonding is
perceived as natural and obvious” (Williams 183). These accounts undoubtedly
point towards important patterns of thought; however, this paper aims to show
that conceptions of American nationalism are in fact frequently used in a myriad
of academic contexts. Nevertheless, this relative abundance is also characterized
by an utter lack of definitional agreement. Moreover, the concept of nationalism
is used for various reasons: either as the main object of analyses or as an
explanatory tool for other phenomena such as foreign policy or immigration.
The former variety, where nationalism is the dependent variable, is still a relatively
rare breed, and the latter, where it is the independent variable, often suffers
from a lack of theoretical depth. Both forms of research are most often
focused ver y narrowly on certain historical or socio−political aspects of
American nationalism, which are then taken to form the essence of the overall
phenomenon.
64
U.S. Nationalism: The Academic Discourse
While nationalism as an analytical framework for contemporary American
politics and society has gained some prominence, particularly in the aftermath of
September 11, it is strikingly (and typically) absent in the self−definition of the
political establishment and the self−perceptions of the populace. The paradoxical
nature of American nationalism has also been explained in terms of the country’s
unawareness of its own nationalism and its ignorance of the power of nationalism
abroad (Pei 31–2; Fuller 2). Only on the fringes of academia does one find the
kind of triumphant and self−congratulatory rhetoric as expressed by Michael
Barone: “American nationalism…is better than any other, because it has room for
all the rest…Anyone can belong” (52). Patriotism, on the other hand, is the
overwhelmingly popular term used to describe the pronounced relationship
between American citizens and their nation−state’s institutions as well as the
“responsible” policies of a government preoccupied with ensuring the nation’s
well−being. It is not my objective to indulge in moral judgments and simply brand
America’s “good” patriotism as “bad” nationalism, but rather to disentangle the
manifold relations between the two concepts under the hypothesis that they form
a discursive entity. In this respect, the American example can serve as both an
initial vantage point for analysis and a transmitter for far broader theoretical
considerations concerning nationalism and patriotism more generally.
II. Nationalism and Patriotism in America
Given the preferential treatment of patriotism vis−á−vis nationalism in U.S. political
and, often times, academic discourses it seems appropriate to begin this review
with a closer look at possible distinctions and similarities between the two
concepts. For this purpose, Walker Connor’s glossary is a helpful starting point:
Nation—a group of people sharing a myth of common ancestry; it is the largest grouping
that can be mobilized by appeals to common blood…
Nationalism—identity with and loyalty to one’s nation in the pristine sense of that
word…nationalism is often incorrectly used to refer to loyalty to the state...
Patriotism—devotion to one’s state and its institutions (civic nationalism is the currently
fashionable, but confusing, substitute for patriotism; civic loyalty or civic identity would bet−
ter convey this type of devotion, without misrepresenting it as a form of nationalism).
(“Timelessness” 39)
While a clear terminology is most certainly needed within the field of nationalism
studies, one cannot help but wonder how much insight is gained by Connor’s
definitional rigidity which deviates so radically from both popular and academic
65
Jan Michael Kotowski
discourses. This by no means implies that the distinction between “categories of
practice” and “categories of analysis” should be considered insignificant
(Brubaker and Cooper 4). Nevertheless, Connor’s definitions fail to take the
various entanglements of state and nation into account and, moreover, display
a certain scholarly arrogance regarding the putatively “improper” language of
whole populations. Finally, one should not be deceived by Connor’s seemingly
unbiased conceptualizations as they are in fact thoroughly judgmental in nature.
His stance is typical of the belief that the loyalties of U.S. citizens to their state
constitute patriotism as opposed to nationalism, and that patriotism entails
positive values while nationalism implicates irrationalism and potentially dangerous
emotionality (Billig 55–6). The most common theme in differentiating “good”
patriotism from “bad” nationalism is that the former constitutes love and
attachment to one’s country while the latter comprises tendencies such as
aggressive chauvinism and warmongering. While patriotism is understood to be
an in−group phenomenon that can have positive effects like the strengthening of
a civil identity, nationalism is equated with negative attitudes and beliefs (even
actions) towards out−groups (Billig 56–7). The fact that the term nationalism has
almost entirely negative connotations in Western societies, particularly in the
U.S., does not, however, reduce the need for a positive terminology referring to
the relationship between individuals (or societies) and their nation−state. In fact,
through the “rhetorical distinction” between “dangerously irrational, surplus and
alien” nationalism and the “beneficial, necessary and, often, American force” of
patriotism one can find a new positively charged self−understanding (Billig 55).
Michael Lind makes a similar observation: despite nationalism’s utterly negative
image it forms the most influential form of identity among U.S. citizens today. He
understands American nationalism as a reflex rather than a reflection, as a “political
doctrine that dares not speak its name” (6).
A broad range of scholars agree that there should be no strict conceptual
distinction between nationalism and patriotism. The common differentiation
between legitimate love of country (patriotism) and aggressive attitudes and
behavior towards others (nationalism) is seen as both normative and not analytical
(Breuilly 19). Furthermore, their “psychological and behavioral manifestations”
and their impact on policies are said to be indistinguishable (Pei 32). Rogers
Brubaker stresses the malleability and ambiguity of the two concepts and argues
against a strict terminological distinction because despite “somewhat different
connotations and resonances” there is a considerable overlap between these two
“highly flexible political languages” that both appeal to the “patria, the fatherland,
the country, [and] the nation” (120–1). In Graham Fuller’s understanding,
66
U.S. Nationalism: The Academic Discourse
“American patriotism in relation to the outside world is in fact functionally a form
of nationalism in most respects” (2). Others have typologically subsumed state
patriotism as a form of nationalism and refer to it as “the dominant expression
of American nationalism since the Second World War” (Delanty and O’Mahony
123). This last aspect is, in fact, an expedient segue into the more historical
dimension of nationalism (and patriotism) and their respective roles in the evolution
of the American nation−state. I will, however, focus on works that use nationalism
as
a
concept
for
historical
analysis
because
an
inclusion
of approaches that rely solely on patriotism would not only go beyond this
paper’s limited scope but also miss the point of conceptualizing nationalism
as a broader phenomenon than simply the classification of certain historical
developments.
III. Historical Approaches to Nation−formation
Scholars tend to disagree strongly on the “birth date” of both the American
nation and American nationalism. Reflecting specific historical and intellectual
developments, the American nation itself has been defined in a myriad of, at
times, contradictory ways: as a chosen and Christian nation (Hughes 19–44,
66–90), as a nation of nations (Kohn 133–170), and as the first new nation
(Lipset 15–16), to name just a few among the many. As John M. McCardell Jr.
puts it: “The story of American nationalism…begins from multiple starting points,
defined by multiple understandings.” He points out that these understandings of
“the nation” ranged from ideological and “almost mystical” notions of the
American promise to “legalistic arrangements” of the political system (383). This
ambiguity is, of course, typical for the multidimensionality of nationalism and it is
also mirrored in many scholarly analyses, particularly in terms of the nation/state
relationship: for Wilbur Zelinsky, the American nation does not develop into
a proper state until the end of the Civil War (223–32), whereas for Rudolph
J. Vecoli, American statehood (achieved in 1776) precedes the long−term process
of nation−building (9–12). Susan−Mary Grant points to a further divide in scholarship:
historians of the United States tend to accentuate the Civil War as the founda−
tional event of the American “nation” as opposed to the pre−war “Union,” where−
as nationalism scholars like Hans Kohn, Liah Greenfeld and Anthony D. Smith
privilege the breaking away from Great Britain as the origin of American nationalism
(When is a Nation 105–7). This “modernist consensus” emphasizes ideational
(liberalism mainly) as well as politico−economic factors in the creation of American
nationhood (“Modern Formation” 103–4). Despite his ethno−symbolist credentials,
67
Jan Michael Kotowski
Smith’s analysis of U.S. nationhood is driven by a reformulation of Kohn’s
civic−ethnic dichotomy that make the United States appear prototypical for
a pluralistic conception of the nation united by a firmly political national identity
(“Nationalism and Modernism” 194). This interpretation has recently been
critiqued by Kaufmann and Zimmer who fault Smith for overemphasizing the “civic”
character of the United States (68). In his earlier works, Kaufmann’s approach is
influenced by ethno−symbolism as he stresses the originally ethnic component
(Anglo−American Protestants) of the American nation, which is said to have simul−
taneously emerged with this dominant ethnicity (“Modern Formation” 105–15).
Since the mid−1990’s, nationalism has increasingly been used as an explanato−
ry tool or interpretative scheme for accounts of long−term historical change in the
American socio−political development. It figures large in Michael Lind’s narrative
that emphasizes different conceptions of nationalism (racial, nativist, Anglo,
Euro−, liberal, multicultural, etc.) throughout American history (1–15). Gary
Gerstle’s account, on the other hand, is more preoccupied with the dualism
between civic and racial nationalism, particularly after 1890 (3–13). Finally,
Patrice Higonnet’s judgmental work uses nationalism as an explanation for the
country’s recurring misdeeds and the “attendant cruelties” committed in the
name of the American nation, whereby he sharply differentiates between the
traditions of inclusionary patriotism and exclusionary nationalism (xv−l). This
theme is also central to one of the few theoretically sophisticated analyses of
U.S. nationalism as a political movement, in which Joseph Gerteis and Alyssa
Goolsby focus on the Populist movement of the late 19th century and show how
the discourse of nationalism accommodates both ethnic and civic, as well as
in− and exclusionary notions of belonging (199–204, 217–220).
The works summarized in this section emphasize the temporal dimension of
phenomena that have been subsumed under the label of nationalism, which is
here used to explain the processes of state formation, socio−political integration
and classification, as well as ideological developments. History and historiography
are, of course, crucial components of the discourse of nationalism as the
contemporary political legitimacy of nationalism has to be constructed through
the continuity with a suitable narrative of temporality. The next section, on the
other hand, is more concerned with the significance of nation−ness in contemporary
contexts, particularly with its commensurability and its explanatory relevance for
other socio−political phenomena.
68
U.S. Nationalism: The Academic Discourse
IV. Empirical Approaches to American National Identity and Nationalism
A common paradoxical observation is that although the U.S. is a supposedly
highly nationalistic country it does not perceive herself as such (Pei 31). With
some reservations in mind about the accuracy of public opinion research, one
should still consider the latest empirical works on national pride. In two large
comparative studies, conducted in 1995/96 and 2003/04, the United States
ranked second and first among 24 and 33 countries respectively. While “feeling
national pride is not equivalent to being nationalistic” the studies do, however,
confirm the common observations of extraordinarily strong national feelings in the
U.S. (T. W. Smith and Kim 127–31). Given this explicitness, it is somewhat urprising
that recent studies (Harris Interactive Poll (13 May 2008)) find America caught up
in a veritable “national identity crisis,” meaning that the American citizenry is
increasingly losing its sense of commonality (“The Bradley Project on America’s
National Identity” 1).
Unified by the belief that subjective conceptions of national identity can be
measured and used to categorize socio−cultural attitudes and policy preferences
of the American people, researchers in the behavioralist tradition usually rely on
survey research in their attempts to analyze the respective phenomena. For
example, Citrin et al. have studied conceptions of American national identities to
explain attitudes towards ethno−cultural minorities and foreign policy preferences.
Differentiating between cosmopolitan liberalism, nativism, and multiculturalism
as the three main ideological variants of U.S. national identity (“Is American
Nationalism Changing?” 5–10), this research resembles Rogers M. Smith’s
non−behavioralist “multiple traditions” thesis (“Beyond Tocqueville” 558–63),
which in turn has functioned as a point of departure for a critical empirical re−
evaluation by Schildkraut (599). More recently, Citrin et al. have empirically test−
ed and “disproved” some of Samuel Huntington’s main hypotheses about the
weakening of American identity through Mexican immigration (31–47).
As mentioned earlier, a good amount of scholarship in this subfield is
oncerned with measuring degrees of national identification, often times
distinguishing between patriotism and nationalism (Huddy and Khatib; Li and Brewer).
As we have seen there exists a general tendency towards moral judgments in the
“patriotism vs. nationalism” debate. This is also reflected in empirical studies
that eventually “reveal, not so much an objective difference between nationalism
and patriotism, but the readiness to claim such a difference” (Billig 57). For
instance, Linda J. Skitka’s 2005 study of “flag−display behavior” after September
11 “proved” that this flagging was motivated by “patriotism (love of country and
69
Jan Michael Kotowski
in−group solidarity)” rather than “nationalism (uncritical acceptance of national,
state, and political authorities and out−group antipathy)” and that “patriotism can
exist without nationalism, even in the context of people’s reactions to a terrorist
attack” (1995). Finally, some research in this empirical field is concerned with the
“implicitness and automaticity of American nationalist ideology”: system justifying
behavior and attitudes are said to be produced unintentionally through the ercep−
tion of nationalistic cues, e.g., newscasts, flags, and other national symbols
(Ferguson, Carter and Hassin 70–1).
Within the research summarized in this section, nationalism and national
identity are mainly treated as clearly identifiable and measurable socio−political
phenomena that are said to be of use for comparative purposes or the explanation
for other research interests. National identity, in particular, is often seen as
a primarily subjective property that, in turn, gains “national relevance” through its
cumulative effects for the collective national identity. This collective national
identity is, however, less represented through the pronouncement of personal
opinions but through the “myth−symbol−complexes” visible in national architectures,
rituals, and everyday life. It is to these representations of nation−ness that we will
turn in the next section.
V. Cultural Representations of American Nation−ness
Many approaches within this field can indeed be described as ethno−symbolist
in nature, as they focus on the “emotional symbols of collective identification
[e.g.] the national anthem, the flag, national ceremonies, rituals and monuments
to dead heroes” (Parekh 69). In the American context, a plethora of works is
concerned chiefly with these symbolic representations of nationalism: traditions
and mythical forms of memory (Kammen 25–32), heroic figures like Washington
and Lincoln (Zelinsky 20–68), as well as representative art and architecture, for
instance in Washington D.C.’s federal district (Schirmer 119–63). More firmly
entrenched in contemporary nationalism studies are Grant’s work on the Civil War
and the “nationalization” of memory, particularly with respect to the nation’s
dead (509–11) and Cecilia O’ Leary’s study of pre− and post−Civil War patriotic
culture (10–69). National celebrations have been analyzed in terms of their
significance for both the establishment of nationalism (Waldstreicher 1–14) and
for its sustainment through official forms of commemoration, e.g., (bi)−centenni−
als (Spillman 11–16). Following Hobsbawm and Ranger’s “invention of tradition”
approach, Janet Siskind stresses the ritual importance of Thanksgiving for the
American self−understanding as a “chosen people” (170–4). Amy Adamczyk’s
70
U.S. Nationalism: The Academic Discourse
treatment of the same national holiday differs in that she follows Halbwach’s
conception of “collective memory” as a “reconstruction of the past [adapted]…to
the beliefs and spiritual needs of the present” (345). The “suitable historic past”
(Hobsbawm 1) Ellis Island and the Statue of Liberty are meant to evoke is
critically explained by John Bodnar: a clichéd representation of the putative
openness, opportunity and freedom of the American nation of immigrants (137).
The American flag is a central piece of Billig’s analysis of America’s “banal”
nationalism, where the continual reproduction of nationhood is symbolized more
by the “flag hanging unnoticed on the public building” than “a flag which is being
consciously waved with fervent passion” (8). On the other hand, the Stars and
Stripes are, despite their ubiquity and commodification, also a symbol of
America’s civil religion whose moral and legal defense “against desecration
reinforces nationalism [and] patriotism” (Welch and Bryan 88). The flag has even
been elevated to a totemic status that is supposedly central to the ritual system
of American nationalism (Marvin and Ingle 3).
Another strand of scholarship is more directly influenced by Cultural Studies,
dealing for instance with the multicultural depiction of U.S. platoons in American
war movies (Slotkin 469–70), the significance of comic book heroes like Captain
America for popular understandings of the “political projects of American nationalism”
(Dittmer 627; Jewett and Lawrence 26–43), and the discursive mobilization of
sports−symbols like Pat Tillman and NASCAR for post−9/11 “white cultural
nationalism” (Kusz 79–86). This scholarship is consciously focused on the everyday
dimension of nationalism that differs markedly from the official representations
of nationhood referred to earlier. For many younger Americans “national
ceremonial culture and its marble icons” are said to “have moved to the
periphery of formative cultural experiences” and expressions of popular culture
like comic books, TV, and video games become bearers of the national complex
(Jewett and Lawrence 27).
This section summarized works that analyze American nationalism and national
identity as cultural representations of nation−ness, even though their content is
often political in nature. It should have become clear that the discourse of nation−
ness is nearly ubiquitous in its scope: be it through conscious constructions of
dominant and official narratives of what the American nation “is” or through
putatively banal and everyday cultural artifacts. On the other hand, there exists
also a body of literature that makes more direct use of nationalism as an explanatory
tool for contemporary American politics.
71
Jan Michael Kotowski
VI. Contemporary U.S. Nationalism
In the context of current affairs, American nationalism has been used to
explain developments in two major areas of American politics: immigration and
foreign affairs. Anatol Lieven’s influential America: Right or Wrong? An Anatomy
of American Nationalism does indeed combine both issues and is, among other
things, concerned with the prevalent beliefs of the Republican and Christian
Rights. Apart from conservative religiosity, he understands the “progressive loss
of control over society by the ‘original’ White Anglo−Saxon [and later European]
populations” to be responsible for the “social, economic, ethnic, and above all
racial anxieties” that drive the desire to take back the old and pure America” (7).
Caroline M. Swain’s work on the New White Nationalism fits into this category as
well. In her understanding, a new non−violent racist movement, driven by fears of
multiculturalism, affirmative action and continuing high levels of immigration, has
tried to dominate U.S. mainstream discourse since the mid−1990s (15–21).
Nativism is of course, not confined to the culturally defensiveness of white middle−
class America, although nativistic policies like the 1994 Californian Proposition
187 have been rightly analyzed as expressions of a populist and pseudo−democratic
nationalism (Lennon 82–91). Huntingon’s controversial Who are We? makes the
case that despite all immigration and cultural change the essence of the
“American creed” still lies in the Anglo−protestant culture of the 17th and 18th
centuries; a cultural essence now under threat from the unprecedented, viz.
unassimilable influx from Latin−American immigrants (18–20).
Immigration is also central for other, more self−affirmative conceptions of
America, e.g. the “melting pot” and the “nation of immigrants.” Bonnie Honig and
Ali Behdad both make the crucial observation that these positive notions should
not solely be read as the embodiment of a liberal and inclusive civic nationalism
inherently different from xenophobic or nativist traditions (Pickus 147–53).
Rather, the celebratory discourses serve to disguise the nation’s fundamental
ambivalence towards immigration: “on the one hand, we are a nation of
immigrants; on the other hand, we identify ourselves against our immigrants as
we try to control them” (Behdad 175). The latter aspect involves, first of all, a def−
initional dynamic of “us vs. them,” of “real” Americans in opposition to potentially
alien and dangerous foreigners, which in turn requires a wholly different nationalist
repertoire, i.e., disciplinary concepts such as immigration regulation, border
protection, and the policing of “illegal aliens” (Honig 76–7). For instance, the idea
of the American nation of immigrants is now often linked with the addition “(but)
we are also a nation of laws.” Moreover, nationalism also matters in terms of
72
U.S. Nationalism: The Academic Discourse
assimilation, i.e., the question to what extent an individualistic “one people
nationalism” exists in America outside of other group identities (King 3–14).
The academic and, to a lesser extent, public preoccupation with “American
nationalism” has increased remarkably since the terrorist attacks of September
11, 2001. This development was caused by both the American people’s rather
impressive display of “patriotism” in the aftermath of these traumatic events and
the Bush administration’s response to the attacks in the form of an aggressive
and unilateral reformulation and implementation of U.S. foreign policy. In this
reading, a latent, deeply−rooted and unreflective nationalism of the American
people was ignited by the attacks and subsequently exploited by the “Bush
administration for their own purposes” (Lieven 19). A slightly different interpreta−
tion sees the administration having succeeded in transforming a pre−9/11
“domestic patriotism” into “forceful nationalism” (Hopkins 98). Furthermore,
both the responses of the American people and of the U.S. government, e.g. the
Bush Doctrine (Monten 112–23), have been interpreted as driven by certain char−
acteristics inherent to the nation’s self−understanding and “character,” such as
messianic beliefs, missionary impulses, and militaristic compulsions. This under−
standing of nationalism, and its use as an independent variable to explain other
phenomena than itself, is at times characterized by the alignment of contempo−
rary with historical developments, i.e. the present−day U.S. is said to resemble
a certain ideal type of European nationalism (Neier 1017; Lieven 22–4), and (to
varying degrees) a moral condemnation of precisely such policies and attitudes
that are said to form the essence of nationalism.
A plethora of concepts and ideas has been used to explain American
nationalism’s significance for foreign policy: civil religion, exceptionalism, a sense
of mission, to name just a few. In this context, the most crucial and uniting theme
is surely the putatively close relationship between the religious and socio−political
dimensions of American nationhood. The significance of civil religion lies in its
delivery of ontological security in terms of the compatibility and consistency
between “political preferences and theological imperatives” (McCartney 404).
VII. Conclusion
American nationalism is proverbially many things to many people and one may
consequentially question the concept’s analytical value because of its inherent
ambiguity or overstretch. However, my main objective in this paper was to empha−
size that scholars continue to use and rely on the concept for various reasons and
in various contexts. My argument is, of course, that the broad dissemination of
73
Jan Michael Kotowski
the concept is not only caused by a lack of terminological rigidity or by academic
misappropriation but rather by the discursive strength and ubiquity of nation−ness,
i.e., the cluster of ideas, meanings, and concepts that is centered around the
“nation” as the quintessential locus of modern politics, society, and culture. It is
for this reason that any artificial definitional restriction or academically prescribed
division of labor necessarily has to fall short in terms of a complete understanding
of the national phenomenon. By categorizing the academic discourse into five
sections it may have become more comprehensible that nationalism as a concept
touches upon a multitude of areas, ranging from history to current affairs, from
political predispositions to cultural representations, and from philosophical to
banal self−understandings of individuals and collectivities alike. Furthermore,
the enormous differences in scholarly definitions should serve as valuable
reminder that the very nature of nations and nationalism lies in their inherent
contestability and the continual struggles for discursive hegemony over the
national terrain.
Works Cited
Adamczyk, Amy. “On Thanksgiving and Collective Memory: Constructing the American
Tradition.” Journal of Historical Sociology 15 (2002): 343–356.
Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of
Nationalism. London: Verso, 2006.
Balibar, Etienne. “The Nation Form: History and Ideology.” Race, Nation, Class:
Ambiguous Identities, eds. Etienne Balibar and Immanuel Wallerstein. London:
Verso, 1991. 86–106.
Barone, Michael. “The Triumph of American Nationalism.” Public Interest 111 (1993):
41–55.
Barrington, Lowell W. “Nation” and “Nationalism”: The Misuse of Key Concepts in
Political Science.” PS: Political Science and Politics 30 (1997): 712–716. Print.
Behdad, Ali. A Forgetful Nation: On Immigration and Cultural Identity in the United
States. Durham: Duke UP, 2005.
Billig, Michael. Banal Nationalism. London: Sage, 1995.
Bodnar, John. “Symbols and Servants: Immigrant America and the Limits of Public
History.” The Journal of American History 73 (1986): 137–151.
Bourdieu, Pierre. “Rethinking the State: Genesis and Structure of the Bureaucratic
Field.” Sociological Theory 12 (1994): 1–18.
The Bradley Project on America’s National Identity. E Pluribus Unum. June 2008: 1–53.
<http://www.bradleyproject.org/EPUReportFinal.pdf> (17 February 2010). Web.
Breuilly, John. “Nationalism and the State.” Nationality, Patriotism and Nationalism in
Liberal Democratic Societies, ed. Roger Michener. St. Paul: Paragon House, 1993.
19–48.
74
U.S. Nationalism: The Academic Discourse
Brubaker, Rogers. “In the Name of the Nation: Reflections on Nationalism and
Patriotism.”Citizenship Studies 8 (2004): 115–127.
Brubaker, Rogers and Frederick Cooper. “Beyond ‘Identity’.” Theory and Society 29
(2000): 1–47.
Calhoun, Craig. Nationalism. Buckingham: Open UP, 1997.
Citrin, Jack, Amy Lerman, Michael Murakami, and Kathryn Pearson. “Testing
Huntington: Is Hispanic Immigration a Threat to American Identity?” Perspectives
on Politics 5 (2007): 31–48.
Citrin, Jack, Ernst Haas, Christopher Muste, and Beth Reingold. “Is American
Nationalism Changing? Implications for Foreign Policy.” International Studies
Quarterly 38 (1994): 1–31.
Connor, Walker. “A Nation is a Nation, is a State, is an Ethnic Group is a...”. Ethnic
and Racial Studies 1 (1978): 377–397.
—–. “The Timelessness of Nations.” Nations and Nationalism 10 (2004): 35–47. Print.
Croucher, Sheila L. “Ambivalent Attachments: The Hegemonic Politics of American
Nationhood.” New Political Science 28 (2006): 181–200.
Delanty, Gerard and Patrick O’Mahony. Nationalism and Social Theory: Modernity and
the Recalcitrance of the Nation. London: Sage, 2002.
Dittmer, Jason. “Captain America’s Empire: Reflections on Identity, Popular Culture,
and Post−9/11 Geopolitics.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers
95 (2005): 626–643.
Doyle, Don H. and Marco Antonio Pamplona. “Introduction: Americanizing the
Conversation on Nationalism.” Nationalism in the New World, eds. Don H. Doyle
and Marco Antonio Pamplona. Athens, U of Georgia P, 2006. 1–15.
Ferguson, Melissa J., Travis J. Carter, and Ran R. Hassin, “On the Automaticity of
Nationalist Ideology: The Case of the USA.” Social and Psychological Bases of
Ideology and System Justification, eds. John T. Jost, Aaron C. Kay, and Hulda
Thorisdottir. New York: Oxford UP, 2009. 53–82.
Fuller, Graham E. “America’s Uncomfortable Relationship with Nationalism.” The
Stanley Foundation Policy Analysis Brief (July 2006): 1–12.
Gerstle, Gary. American Crucible: Race and Nation in the Twentieth Century.
Princeton: Princeton UP, 2001.
Gerteis, Joseph and Alyssa Goolsby. “Nationalism in America: The Case of the
Populist Movement.” Theory and Society 34 (2005): 197–225.
Grant, Susan−Mary. “Raising the Dead: War, Memory and American National Identity.”
Nations and Nationalism 11 (2005): 509–529.
Greenfeld, Liah. Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP,
1992.
Harris Interactive. E Pluribus Unum: A Study of Americans’ Views on National Identity:
Prepared for The Bradley Project on National Identity. 13 May 2008: 1–49.
<http://www.bradleyproject.org/Harris%20EPU%20Poll%20Summary%205–13–0
8.pdf> (17 February 2010). Web.
Higonnet, Patrice. Attendant Cruelties: Nation and Nationalism in American History.
New York: Other P, 2007.
75
Jan Michael Kotowski
Hobsbawm, Eric. “Introduction: Inventing Traditions.” The Invention of Tradition. eds.
Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UP, 1983. 1–14.
Hollinger, David A. “Authority, Solidarity, and the Political Economy of Identity: The
Case of the United States.” Diacritics 29 (1999): 116–127.
Honig, Bonnie. Democracy and the Foreigner. Princeton: Princeton UP, 2002.
Huddy, Leonie and Nadia Khatib. “American Patriotism, National Identity, and Political
Involvement.” American Journal of Political Science 51 (2007): 63–77.
Hughes, Richard T. Myths America Lives By. Urbana and Chicago: U of Illinois P, 2003.
Huntington, Samuel P. Who are We? America’s Great Debate. London: The Free P,
2005.
Hopkins, A. G. “Capitalism, Nationalism and the New American Empire.” The Journal
of Imperial and Commonwealth History 35 (2007): 95–117.
Jewett, Robert and John Shelton Lawrence. Captain America and the Crusade against
Evil: The Dilemma of Zealous Nationalism. Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans, 2003.
Kammen, Michael. Mystic Chords of Memory: The Transformation of Tradition in
American Culture. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1991.
Kaufmann, Eric. “Modern Formation, Ethnic Reformation: The Social Sources of the
American Nation.” Geopolitics 7 (2002): 99–120.
Kaufmann, Eric and Oliver Zimmer. “‘Dominant Ethnicity’ and the ‘Ethnic−Civic’
Dichotomy in the Work of A. D. Smith.” Nations and Nationalism 10 (2004):
63–78.
King, Desmond. The Liberty of Strangers: Making the American Nation. New York:
Oxford UP, 2005.
Kohn, Hans. American Nationalism: An Interpretative Essay. New York: Mcmillan,
1957.
Kusz, Kyle W. “From NASCAR Nation to Pat Tillman: Notes on Sport and the Politics
of White Cultural Nationalism in Post−9/11 America.” Journal of Sport and Social
Issues 31 (2007): 77–88.
Laclau, Ernesto and Chantal Mouffe. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a
Radical Democratic Politics. London: Verso, 2001 [1985].
Lennon, Tara M. “Proposition 187: A Case Study of Race, Nationalism, and
Democratic Ideals.” Policy Studies Review 15 (1998): 80–100.
Li, Quiong and Marilynn B. Brewer. “What Does It Mean to Be an American?
Patriotism, Nationalism, and American Identity after 9/11.” Political Psychology 25
(2004): 727–739.
Lieven, Anatol. America Right or Wrong: An Anatomy of American Nationalism.
London: HarperCollins, 2004.
Lind, Michael. The Next American Nation: The New Nationalism and the Fourth
American Revolution. New York: Free P, 1995.
Lipset, Seymour Martin. American Exceptionalism: A Double−Edged Sword. New York:
W.W. Norton, 1996.
—−. The First New Nation: The United States in Historical and Comparative Perspective.
New York: Basic Books, 1963.
76
U.S. Nationalism: The Academic Discourse
Marvin, Carolyn and David W. Ingle. Blood Sacrifice and the Nation: Totem Rituals and
the American Flag. Cambridge, UK and New York: Cambridge UP, 1999.
McCardell, John M. Jr. “United States.” Nations and Nationalism: A Global Historical
Overview (Vol.1), eds. Guntram H. Herb and David H. Kaplan. Santa Barbara: ABC−
Clio, 2008. 381–392.
McCartney, Paul T. “American Nationalism and U.S. Foreign Policy from September 11
to the Iraq War.” Political Science Quarterly 119 (2004): 399–423.
McClay, Wilfred M. “America: Idea or Nation?” The Public Interest 145 (2001):
44–58.
Mercieca, Jennifer Rose. “Choice, Loyalty, and Safety in the Construction of
a Distinctly American Imagined Nationalism.” Rhetoric & Public Affairs 9 (2006):
279–372.
Monten, Jonathan. “The Roots of the Bush Doctrine: Power, Nationalism and
Democracy Promotion in U.S. Strategy.” International Security 29(4): 112–156.
Neier, Aryeh. “America’s New Nationalism.” Social Research 71 (2004): 1015–1022.
O’Leary, Cecilia. To Die For: The Paradox of American Patriotism. Princeton: Princeton
UP, 1999.
Parekh, Bhikhu. “Defining National Identity in a Multicultural Society.” People, Nation,
and State: The Meaning of Ethnicity and Nationalism, eds. Edward Mortimer and
Robert Fine. London: I.B. Tauris, 1999. 66–74.
Parish, Peter J. “An Exception to Most of the Rules: What Made American Nationalism
Different in the Mid−Nineteenth Century?” Prologue 27 (1995): 219–229.
Pei, Minxin. “The Paradoxes of American Nationalism.” Foreign Policy 136 (2003):
31–37.
Pickus, Noah. True Faith and Allegiance: Immigration and American Civic Nationalism.
Princeton: Princeton UP, 2005.
Schildkraut, Deborah. “Defining American Identity in the Twenty−First Century: How
Much ‘There’ is There?” The Journal of Politics, 69 (2007): 597–615.
Schirmer, Dietmar. “Nation−building and Nation−Buildings: Washington Art and
Architecture and the Symbols of American Nationalism.” German and American
Nationalism: A Comparative Perspective, eds. Hartmut Lehmann and Hermann
Wellenreuther. New York: Berg. 1999. 119–163.
Siskind, Janet. “The Invention of Thanksgiving: A Ritual of American Nationality.”
Critique of Anthropology 12 (1992): 167–191.
Skitka, Linda J. “Patriotism or Nationalism? Understanding Post–September 11,
2001, Flag− Display Behavior.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 35 (2005):
1995–2011.
Slotkin, Richard. “Unit Pride: Ethnic Platoons and the Myths of American Nationality.”
American Literary History 13 (2001): 470–498.
Smith, Anthony D. Nationalism and Modernism: A Critical Survey of Recent Theories
of Nations and Nationalism. London: Routledge, 1998.
—−. National Identity. Reno: U of Nevada P, 1991.
Smith, Rogers M. “Beyond Tocqueville, Myrdal and Hartz: The Multiple Traditions in
America.” The American Political Science Review 87 (1993): 549–566.
77
Jan Michael Kotowski
Smith, Tom W. and Seokho Kim. “National Pride in Comparative Perspective:
1995/96 and 2003/04.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research 18
(2006): 127–136. Spillman, Lynn. Nation and Commemoration: Creating National
Identities in the United States in Australia. Cambridge, UK and New York:
Cambridge UP, 1997.
Suny, Ronald Grigor. “Constructing Primordialism: Old Histories for New Nations.” The
Journal of Modern History 73 (2001): 862–896.
Swain, Caroline M. The New White Nationalism in America: Its Challenge to
Integration. Cambridge, UK and New York: Cambridge UP, 2002.
Torfing, Jacob. New Theories of Discourse: Laclau, Mouffe, and Žižek. London:
Blackwell, 1999.
Vecoli, Rudolph J. “The Significance of Immigration in the Formation of an American
Identity.” The History Teacher 30 (1996): 9–27.
Waldstreicher, David. In the Midst of Perpetual Fetes: The Making of American
Nationalism, 1776–1820. Chapel Hill: The U of North Carolina P, 1997.
Welch, Michael and Jennifer L. Bryan. “Flag Desecration in American Culture:
Offenses against Civil Religion and a Consecrated Symbol of Nationalism.” Crime,
Law & Social Change 26 (1997): 77–93.
Williams, Raymond. In the Year 2000. New York: Pantheon, 1983.
Zelinsky, Wilbur. Nation into State: The Shifting Symbolic Foundations of American
Nationalism. Chapel Hill: U of North Carolina P, 1988.