After Nationalism: Being American in an Age of Division

by Samuel Goldman

Nationalism is on the rise across the Western world, serving as a rallying cry for voters angry at the unacknowledged failures of globalization that has dominated politics and economics since the end of the Cold War. In After Nationalism, Samuel Goldman trains a sympathetic but skeptical eye on the trend, highlighting the deep challenges that face any contemporary effort to revive social cohesion at the national level.



Noting the obstacles standing in the way of basing any unifying political project on a singular vision of national identity, Goldman highlights three pillars of mid-twentieth-century nationalism, all of which are absent today: the social dominance of Protestant Christianity, the absorption of European immigrants in a broader white identity, and the defense of democracy abroad. Most of today's nationalists fail to recognize these necessary underpinnings of any renewed nationalism, or the potentially troubling consequences that they would engender.

To secure the general welfare in a new century, the future of American unity lies not in monolithic nationalism. Rather, Goldman suggests we move in the opposite direction: go small, embrace difference as the driving characteristic of American society, and support political projects grounded in local communities.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, History, American History

130 pages, Kindle Edition

First published June 4, 2021

Reviews

[Miles Smith · Rating 5 out of 5]

The best short primer on the realities of the discussion on nationalism in the 21st Cent United States.

[Evan Leister · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed reading this book as an excellent guide and pointer to some other works. The idea of "institutions of contestation" is going to be sticking with me for a while.

[Johnny · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hey wow, this was a great 5 chapter read.

Goldman taxonomizes American conceptions of nation into three categories: covenant, crucible, and creedal.

Covenant is your classic city on the hill, Puritan ideal of being vertically bound to God and horizontally bound to one another through that in shared Anglo Saxon, Protestant values (spoiler: it never really worked). Crucible is the melting pot of America around and after the Civil War, as Germans and Irish assimilated into American culture through an ethnic blending (spoiler: it never really worked). Creedal is the WWI/WWII/Cold War telegenic belief in America as a quasi-religion, where history was leading us to a commonly shared belief in the American ideal of freedom, liberty, yadda yadda (spoiler: Goldman argues this one *mostly* worked at the cost of bloodshed in WWII, but still didn't really work). His descriptions of the thinkers describing, evaluating, and pushing these conceptions contemporaneously is fascinating and concise. Goldman stays out of the muck and coolly writes through the rise and fall of each, with solid post mortems and descriptions of the ghosts that live on.

The ghosts are the best part: his fourth chapter describes the memory of American history that motivates the teaching of American history, all slightly backdropped against first post-modernism, Zinn, and the culture wars of the 80s and 90s. What I walked away with here is how lazy so much of our frames of history are: it really does seem to be repressive consensus building or aimless dunks and destruction. Even here, I am cheering the dunk, which is why I'm not a historian and instead only deal in the narrative world. If I'm coming back to anything, it's to what he describes here: that we backwardsly try to apply some consistent ideology to our beliefs as if we individually had any consistency across all situations, and that on the left and right attempt to construct some undeniable truth of what the country has been evolving to, as if there was some equivalent of divine intelligent design of the nation state—like I'm saying with both the manifest destiny'ers and whatever we'd describe the opposite as.

Goldman leaves us with a sorta gotcha, and his last chapter seems really aimed at his fellow conservatives (unsurprisingly, chapter 5 was presented first at the US Naval Academy). I think he is on to something totally right when he describes debate around immigration as a repository of deeper anxieties that have nothing to actually do with immigration or immigrants. He dismisses calls for more centralized or heavy handed creations of a national identity without breathing fire, which always works better. And then he leaves us by basically saying "Well, there's not really a way to be cohesive with 300 million people, and we've never been cohesive anyway, and that's okay, go be with your smaller groups and work in the ever changing overlaps while engaging in benign constitutional patriotism."

If I had to attack this, to David and Goliath this 5 minutes after finishing reading it in the literal shower because I couldn't put it down, I guess I'd say that this passivity to building something larger leaves people vulnerable? But I don't know, he's not really interested in presenting the solutions, only in doing the history, and his description and analysis of American thought around nation is compelling.

He also writes so cleanly, gah I loved the actual writing.

St. Louis shoutout in the German triangle of Milwaukee and Cincinnati, wonderful.

Lots of really good, calm "Uh, like no one spoke English in this country in your late 19th Century glory days..." and "The Puritans claimed that Pennsylvanians were brash, loutish people who had already destroyed the country" rebuffs of our collective impulses, but never as a dunk which just seems to, again, absolutely be the way. My God I am so tired of snide dunks it is so boring and NEVER ACCOMPLISHES ANYTHING.

You can read this quick.

This is the third thing I've picked up off of Know Your Enemy /a>. Thanks, KYE!

[Daniel Vaughan · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a small but interesting book on the bonds that tie Americans together. It explores everything from nationalism to pluralism and everything in between. A significant portion is devoted to how history plays a role in shaping what being an American means.

While it offers few answers for how to unite Americans, it is a decent exploration of all the methods Americans have deployed to claim a common bond. Whether one of those methods succeeds is a different matter entirely.

[Nick Quenga · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good very short book, focuses on different changes that are tearing America apart. Some application at the end to help, but not anything that will actually work.

[patrick]

i like the way the book divides history and explores how america sees itself, great read

[Benjy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Short engaging overview of the different conceptions of national identity Americans have relied on — from Anglo-Saxon Puritanism, to a melting pot of immigrants, to America as a shared set of ideas — and the ways they’ve each failed to fully outmuscle their rivals. I think there’s less need for one grand unified theory of America than the author for it to function — there’s truth to each of his examples, and others — but seeing as we’re going to be arguing about this for the rest of our lives, it’s a good way to frame the debate.

[Serge · Rating 4 out of 5]

Goldman does a great job tracing he origin and end of the American Covenant, American Crucible and American Creed narratives. I applaud his determination to help his readers rediscover the power of contestation, disharmony and pluralism in civic culture. He tackles the very difficult question of the political necessity for noble lies and the moral underpinnings of national myth-making. There is no denying the Anglo-Protestant identity of early America, its materialism ( see Weber) and its communitarian spirit (see Robinson). Still a national history has to adapt to the vicissitudes of time and to resist the temptations of comforting nostalgia. If Christian Republicanism no longer encapsulates American exceptionalism, with what useful fabrication will we replace this organizing principle? Otherwise as Rorty predicted, we are doomed to suffer the wiles of opportunistic demagogues to distract, malign, misinform, and denigrate. Goldman challenges s to recast American hope.

[Bill Hooten · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a really interesting book! The subtitle "Being American in an Age of Division" describes why is an interesting book. To me, it describes how our country has tried to meld into a "united" group of people. The description of New England Puritans trying to shape the colonies into their image, then to the "melting pot" image, and to the war creed model, the rebellions of the 60's and 70's, and then nationalism. It seems we are moving into a time of diversity, when each individual groups all want their specific wants needs to be most important. I will probably re-read this in the near future.

[Addie · Rating 3 out of 5]

I think the title slightly misrepresents the self-proclaimed “analytical character” of this book. It presents arguments for and critiques of the three historically prominent ways of viewing American identity: the Covenant, Crucible/Melting Pot, and Creed. He presents the future as a choice between accepting “messy” plurality and continuing to search for “unity that continues to elude us.” Can any historians and theorists out there offer any hope? Is America really a community of communities—and is it possible for most people to be on board with that conception?

[James · Rating 3 out of 5]

Slight but solid. He mentions Rorty a couple of times, and I think this is a fair updating of "Achieving our Country" for the dour present. Some sort of national solidarity is probably good in the way of belief, to really Rorty this up, but as Goldman points out, all of our old models are fatally flawed. There's probably no way to have an intelligent conversation about nationalism with a proto-fascist party and a corporatist party as the only choices.

[Paul Goins · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very good and highly recommended. A conservative casts a skeptical eye at the various “nationalist” tendencies, programs, and prescriptions emanating across the political spectrum, especially those birthed on the right.

[Philip · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5

[Jeremy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Maybe 3.5. Short and sweet. Hard to place this work.

[Elijah Lais · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some interesting thoughts and ideas, but feel like this could have been an essay or an article instead.

[Russ · Rating 4 out of 5]

A helpful—and concise—history of America’s recurring flirtations with the various forms of nationalism.

[Caroline 'relaxing with my rescue dogs' · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a very good short book and gave me an interesting insight into american history.

I was given a free copy by netgalley and the publishers but the review is entirely my own.

[Andy Kostrub · Rating 4 out of 5]

Americans disagree about important things and there will continue to be politics.