Ross Douthat and Paul D. Miller highlight a tension between universal and particularist definitions of American identity. Which of these narratives do you find more compelling in explaining the nation’s history, and why? Are these perspectives mutually exclusive, or can they coexist?
Week 1 Day 2 Question 3
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Douthat and Miller both point to a real tension between particularist and universal definitions of American identity, and I find them compelling in different ways. I think the particularist story is more useful for understanding American history. The country didn’t emerge only from abstract ideals but from very specific cultural, religious, and settler traditions that shaped who had power and who was excluded. Douthat’s essay is convincing in showing that ignoring this past makes it difficult to understand the continued appeal of that version of American identity.
At the same time, I’m more persuaded by Miller’s argument that a universal or creedal definition of American identity works better in the present. I think applying the particularist story today would just freeze American identity in its most exclusionary past. It would make belonging dependent on culture or heritage, which isn’t a fair basis for deciding who counts as American. A creedal definition (grounded in commitment to shared democratic rules) makes more sense for a diverse society and helps explain how American democracy has been able to expand over time. It bases belonging on choice and participation. It avoids making belonging something you simply inherit.
I don’t see these perspectives as mutually exclusive so much as doing different work. The particularist narrative helps explain where the nation came from, while the creedal narrative offers a fairer framework for belonging now. I think the real problem comes when either story claims to be the whole truth. It is so important to acknowledge that American identity has always been shaped by both history and change.
I believe both perspectives hold valid arguments and interpretations of the defining structure of American history. I am compelled to view Miller’s outlook as a stronger representation of American history while also being the more vague narrative. Miller argues that American history as we know it should be viewed in a creedal sense and our foundations should be seen through a wider lens. Using a perspective less centered on specificity and more on the goals and ambitions of the constitution allows for acceptance of differences and the enrichment we get through being a diverse nation.
I also believe it is necessary for these perspectives to coexist. As Winston Churchill once said “Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” and I believe this highlights the importance of having a historical perspective like Douthat’s in part that we need historical specificity to continue as a nation and to grow and build upon our past and present. Having only one narrative can skew our historical outlook and much can be lost through narrow-mindedness.
I was intrigued by the creedal definition, specifically when Miller writes, “Learning about national sins and failings is an important part of understanding who we are.” This honesty stood out to me. Believing in American ideals such as equality, sticking to our Constitution, and even just simple loyalty to our neighbors doesn’t mean we, as a society, can just forget about the origin and history of our country. Instead, it means we need to face it head-on. If we want to stay true to the American Creed, then I think the most important aspect is being able to admit when we fail and live up to it.
However, I don’t know how we can just dismiss the history we have about who was initially in charge and how that power has trickled down into present society. Throughout middle and high school, I was taught to believe in the American Dream through books like Of Mice and Men and The Great Gatsby, as something attainable by anyone coming to America. But reading Amy Tan specifically made me realize how complicated it really is. Her story about how she helped her mother overcome her language barriers and how society treats her like she’s not as good as everyone else because of her “broken” English reminds me how Anglo-Protestant America really is and how we view people who don’t fit into our perfect little world. For this reason, understanding who was initially in power and who wasn’t, and how that trickles down to now, can’t diminish the American Dream, but if anything, make it more surreal.