National identity is political, like everything else, and changes over time, says a political scientist
“To make gains, you have to convince or compromise with the other side, because they’re going to be at the table, too,” says Deborah Schildkraut. “But the point is, you have to be at the table.” Photo: Shutterstock
As the United States marks the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence this year, one thing that’s never far from mind is what makes America distinctive.
Defining who we are as Americans, and what sets us apart, has been important since the beginning, says Deborah Schildkraut, the John Richard Skuse, Class Of 1941, Professor of Political Science. She studies American national identity and the implications of the changing ethnic composition of the United States on public opinion, and is co-author of Everyday Democracy: Liberals, Conservatives, and Their Routine Political Lives and States of Belonging: Immigration Policies, Attitudes, and Inclusion.
Tufts Now spoke with Schildkraut about U.S. identity, the role politics plays in it, and the fragility of democracy.
How has national identity in the U.S. changed over the last 250 years?
There’s always been an aspirational quality to American identity. What are we striving for? What do we envision ourselves to be, and how can we make reality closer to that vision? That’s been a constant. That vision has typically been defined by what we call civic ideals.
There’s also this belief that America is distinctive compared to other countries. Anybody can become American if you live in America, contribute to American society, and have certain beliefs that sustain individualism, community and civic engagement, and constitutionalism.
That’s been a constant, but it has existed uncomfortably alongside strains of ethnic or ethnocultural exclusivity, which comes and goes.
Is there a gulf between the ideal identity and the actual one?
When I teach intro to American politics, one of the themes of the class is there’s always been a gap between what we like to think America is and what America really is. That gap gets wider and narrower at different times.
“When you bring groups of people together who have different interests and different preferences, there’s going to be conflict, and that conflict needs to be managed.”
On the one hand, for example, there’s the idea of the country being a nation of immigrants. It wasn’t as prominent in the country’s earlier years, but it’s something a lot of people today say defines America. It’s something they feel a sense of nostalgia or pride about, even if they feel uneasy with things they see happening in immigration today.
The idea that we are a multi-ethnic product of immigration is something that resonates with a lot of people about what makes America distinctive.
It seems like there’s been a strain of a xenophobia in American culture. Is this something that’s always been part of our identity—distrusting foreigners, even though our ancestors were immigrants in their time?
There’s the psychological tendency to see the world in terms of us and them. Who is us and who is them is always something people are seeking to answer. And that’s defined in part by politics, political leaders, and political entrepreneurs—people who find a way to make an issue salient for political gain—who want to prioritize a certain version of us that can be used for political gain.
The “who is us and who is them” can change over time, but there are times throughout American history where the “them” is foreigners, recent immigrants, or people who don’t fit a certain dominant cultural or racial background. It’s politics interacting with human nature.
You’ve said that democracies are always fragile. Why is that the case?
When I teach my introduction to American politics class, I say that when you bring groups of people together who have different interests and different preferences, there’s going to be conflict, and that conflict needs to be managed. If conflict isn’t managed well, that’s when you run the risk of people resorting to violence to get their way.
How do we get people who don’t want to work together to resolve their differences nonviolently? As political scientists, we consider the best way is by employing democratic procedures, where people feel that they have a voice, where there’s equal opportunity to be involved, where there’s rule of law—these things help manage conflict.
But people don’t necessarily want to do that. People want to get their own way. They don’t want to have to work with people that they dislike or who have different values. That conflict is always going to be there.
That means we can’t sit back and think, all right, democracy’s done, we achieved our goals. That struggle to manage conflict is always going to be there—that’s why I say democracy is always fragile.
What does it take to make democracy work?
Any of the good things that have happened in American politics don’t come out of nowhere. They happen because people make them happen, usually over a very long period of time.
Political change happens because people are willing to put in the work for things they care about and think narrows that gap between who we are and who we want ourselves to be. You build coalitions, and you work hard over long periods of time, and that’s only how any of this ever happens.
This is why you need politics to manage it, because political action is going to happen on all sides. To make gains, you have to convince or compromise with the other side, because they’re going to be at the table, too. But the point is, you have to be at the table.
