Nathan Dinneen, Rochester Institute of Technology
It is hard to say if America has a distinctive identity. What would make the American identity听distinctivefrom other national identities while also being 迟丑别听samefor all Americans? The possibility of glimpsing the American identity reminds of U.F.O. sightings鈥攕ome people claim to have seen them but only the government seems to know if they truly exist. That is to say neither patriotism nor governmental claims on behalf of the national interest are in short supply. Patriotism, however, is variously defined. Some grasp a part of our identity claiming it is like an elephant, others that it is like a donkey. As for the national interest, does it mean the act of ensuring our security through underwriting global security? Or is the act of underwriting global security undermining our way of life? But what is our way of life? That question again!
狈辞飞听颈蹿听Patrick Deneen is onto something in听Why Liberalism Failedwhen he describes liberalism in America as a 鈥減olitical technology鈥� that is inherently 鈥渁nticulture,鈥� then one has to wonder if we have yet to arrive at听迟丑别听American identity if cultures still remain within America. In a nostalgic manner, Deneen believes what is most needed today is a political culture 鈥済rounded in the experience of a听辫辞濒颈蝉.鈥�As such, he sets the 鈥渇orm鈥� of 迟丑别听辫辞濒颈蝉听against the 鈥渋dentity鈥� of America. Building on Tocqueville鈥檚 reflection that liberal democracy 鈥渢ends to scorn 鈥榝orm鈥�,鈥� Deneen calls out the discourse of 鈥渋dentity鈥� as an assault on 鈥渇orm.鈥澨�Formis made manifest through the culture of what is potential or naturally latent. Nature is presupposed. The implication of Deneen鈥檚 argument is that 鈥渋ssues of identity鈥� obscure, even forget, the 鈥渕ost elemental boundaries found in nature.鈥�
To be sure, the grounding of liberalism in the 尘辞诲别谤苍听苍补迟耻谤补濒听right teaching of self-preservation encourages an effort to transcend the state of nature through advancing the arts and sciences. The modern notion of art thus becomes mastering without a mind toward natural form, that is, imposing an artificiality on matter in service of comfortable self-preservation. Potentiality itself is liberated from an orientation toward the actualization of a natural form. Pure potentiality is presupposed. The limits we experience, then, are not understood as being natural per se but merely the limits to our present-day capabilities.
The premodern, or classical, notion of nature without a voice is thought in all of its silence to limit, even to forbid鈥攚e must but observe. The modern interpretation of nature鈥檚 silence is understood not as forbidding but permitting鈥攚e must but master. What we have to ask is whether this transformation in our understanding is in our true interests as human beings and citizens, regardless of it being identifiable as the prejudice of the Founding Fathers, who in their originality politically promoted the 鈥淧rogress of Science and useful Arts鈥� in the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8) in hopes of advancing听尘辞诲别谤苍听civilization. Whether one, like Deneen, regards liberalism as a 鈥�politicaltechnology鈥� or 鈥�cultureas a technology,鈥� perhaps the real issue we face today is the problem of听technology, not only in terms of the political implications of technological innovation but also, more importantly, for how it narrows thinking in general.
During a lecture in 1942, Leo Strauss attempted to counteract German nihilism in defense of civilization. His efforts could serve today as a model in challenging technological nihilism. He encourages a reconceptualization of civilization that rests not on the pillar of modern scientific-technological progress but rather on the two pillars of moral and intellectual virtue, which serve, among other things, to orient artful innovation. These pillars principally encourage an open mind. Strauss proclaims, 鈥淐ivilization is inseparable from听濒别补谤苍颈苍驳,听from the desire to learn from anyone who can teach us something worthwhile.鈥� In 1959 in his lecture 鈥淲hat is Liberal Education?鈥�, he says, 鈥淭he greatest minds to whom we ought to listen are by no means exclusively the greatest minds of the West.鈥� His notion of civilization truly means 鈥渢he desire to learn from听anyone.鈥� Thus we need to drink more deeply from the well of wisdom, from Plato鈥檚 and Xenophon鈥檚 Socrates to Walter Mosley鈥檚 Socrates of South Central L.A., from the罢补辞听to 迟丑别听Philokalia.
听Barring a natural or technological cataclysm that would make Deneen鈥檚 wish of renewing 迟丑别听辫辞濒颈蝉听a possibility,听补濒濒听should work听迟辞驳别迟丑别谤听toward sowing the seeds and establishing the roots of Strauss鈥檚 noble formulation of civilization鈥攁 civilization dedicated to human flourishing. Otherwise, American identity will remain deracinated and adrift like an unidentified flying object. That is, we will be alien to ourselves, as well as to others, no matter how much we claim to be an intelligent life form.