BLEG: The History Of The Idea Of Multiculturalism

by Tim Lacy

With this post I am seeking to build a strong sense of historiography on the idea, or intellectual history, of multiculturalism. It seems, based on my own explorations and surveying colleagues, that no authoritative text exists, either in article or book form. But I have no high confidence in this assertion.

Although several books on my shelf touch on the emergence of multiculturalism in the 1970s, I will likely build my thinking on Rodgers' accounting in---you guessed it---Age of Fracture.

What texts have you found most useful for discussing the historical development of the idea of multiculturalism?

As a starting point for thinking about the idea's history, here is some excerpted material from the Oxford English Dictionary:


Definition (only one offered, surprisingly): The characteristics of a multicultural society; (also) the policy or process whereby the distinctive identities of the cultural groups within such a society are maintained or supported.

First use recorded in OED: 1957   Hispania 40 349   The key to successful living here, as it is in Switzerland, is multilingualism, which can carry with it rich multiculturalism.

To add some subtlety, let's look at a few of the OED's entries for pluralism (using their number system):

 3. Polit. A theory or system of devolution and autonomy for organizations and individuals in preference to monolithic state power. Also: (advocacy of) a political system within which many parties or organizations have access to power.

First used: 1917   H. J. Laski Stud. Probl. Sovereignty i. 6   Pluralism, in the ultimate sense, is..impossible, for it would make unintelligible any rational interpretation of society.

4. The presence or tolerance of a diversity of ethnic or cultural groups within a society or state; (the advocacy of) toleration or acceptance of the coexistence of differing views, values, cultures, etc.

First used: 1924   H. Kallen Culture & Democracy in U.S. 43   Cultural growth is founded upon Cultural Pluralism. Cultural Pluralism is possible only in a democratic society whose institutions encourage individuality in groups, in persons, [and] in temperaments.

And a bonus entry from the usage list: 1995   N.Y. Rev. Bks. 19 Oct. 30/1   The institutions and practices of liberalism are likely to open public space to previously repressed and invisible groups, turning a merely theoretical or potential pluralism into an actual on-the-ground pluralism.

So the key difference here between multiculturalism and pluralism seems to be, for the former, active maintenance and support of difference of ethnic and/or cultural groups. But the latter is characterized by more passive tolerance and acceptance. The bonus entry, furthermore, tells us that liberalism is perhaps more often associated with pluralism than multiculturalism (think of the consummate liberal Arthur Schlesinger here, and Rodgers' citation (p. 210-211) of The Disuniting of America in relation to intellectual opposition to multiculturalism).

I'm looking forward to your input!

With friends like these...

I arrived in New York a day early (the conference begins tomorrow) in order to spend some hours with Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.'s Papers at the New York Public Library. I came across a letter written to Schlesinger from John Patrick Diggins, dated February 27, 1995, regarding the National History Standards controversy. I will quote at length without commentary:

"The critique of great civilizations and great men is part of a general critique of intellectual history and the history of ideas… And here is one of the great ironies. The [Standards] regard intellectual history as ‘elitist’ and ‘chauvinist’ because by definition it has dealt with rather towering figures. But at least when one does intellectual history one must defer to those thinkers who are our superiors, must get straight what they thought and believed. In the [Standards], however, the historian is almost free to impose his or her thoughts on workers, slaves, and other subalterns of the past who have no voice of their own... ‘Those who cannot represent themselves, must be represented,’ so said Marx in The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. Ok, fair enough. The historian can claim to speak for workers and others who left no record to articulate their own thoughts. But it turns out that this so-called ‘history from the bottom up’ is really history from the top down in that it is present-day scholars who now claim to speak for the silent dead. This is elitism with arrogance."

Do You Still Read Schlesinger's Vital Center (1949)?

Andrew's post "Do You Still Read Nash?" provoked a fascinating and long debate that raised lots of issues about insiders writing about their own group and the role of politics in one's understanding of the past. But it also got me thinking about other works that people refer to but maybe no longer read. So in the spirit of Andrew's post, I'd like to ask about Arthur Schlesinger Jr.'s book, The Vital Center (1949). The book's subtitle, "The Politics of Freedom," suggests the wider argument. Schlesinger's book defends and promotes the postwar consensus around the international policies of FDR. Suggesting that communism resulted in totalitarianism (which showed the bankruptcy of the left) and that the social organicism of paleo-conservatives yielded another kind of fascist totalitarianism (which showed the bankruptcy of the right), Schlesinger placed the vital center as the mean between these two failed extremes. It was the cold war liberal vision that avoided both kinds of totalitarianism while promoting liberty around the world.

I first heard the term "vital center" in a lecture on the larger political context of postwar liberalism. While acknowledging the cold war liberal (and therefore foreign policy) application of the term, the professor emphasized that this consensus bled over into domestic issues as well, so much so that Eisenhower and even (to some extent) Nixon fell within this Vital Center. My professor was not alone in borrowing the term while ignoring the book. In essence, he took the notion of vital center and made it the center not between fascism and totalitarianism but between conservatism and the New Left.

Schlesinger himself strongly objected to such a formulation and sought to reign in the definitional unclarity. But as he did so his efforts exposed the originally partisan function of the term. For example, he wrote in the introduction to the Transaction edition of the book in 1998: "'Vital center' refers to the contest between democracy and totalitarianism, not to contests within democracy between liberalism and conservatism, not at all to the so-called 'middle of the road' preferred by cautious politicians of our own time. The middle of the road is definitely not the vital center: it is the dead center. Within democracy the argument adheres to FDR's injunction to move always 'a little to the left of center.'"

Put that way, the book seems more of a primary source written by a Cold Warrior in the middle of ideological battle, which of course it is, rather than a usable secondary source today. So I ask: Do you still read Schlesinger's Vital Center?

Do You Still Read Schlesinger's Vital Center (1949)?

Andrew's post "Do You Still Read Nash?" provoked a fascinating and long debate that raised lots of issues about insiders writing about their own group and the role of politics in one's understanding of the past. But it also got me thinking about other works that people refer to but maybe no longer read. So in the spirit of Andrew's post, I'd like to ask about Arthur Schlesinger Jr.'s book, The Vital Center (1949). The book's subtitle, "The Politics of Freedom," suggests the wider argument. Schlesinger's book defends and promotes the postwar consensus around the international policies of FDR. Suggesting that communism resulted in totalitarianism (which showed the bankruptcy of the left) and that the social organicism of paleo-conservatives yielded another kind of fascist totalitarianism (which showed the bankruptcy of the right), Schlesinger placed the vital center as the mean between these two failed extremes. It was the cold war liberal vision that avoided both kinds of totalitarianism while promoting liberty around the world.

I first heard the term "vital center" in a lecture on the larger political context of postwar liberalism. While acknowledging the cold war liberal (and therefore foreign policy) application of the term, the professor emphasized that this consensus bled over into domestic issues as well, so much so that Eisenhower and even (to some extent) Nixon fell within this Vital Center. My professor was not alone in borrowing the term while ignoring the book. In essence, he took the notion of vital center and made it the center not between fascism and totalitarianism but between conservatism and the New Left.

Schlesinger himself strongly objected to such a formulation and sought to reign in the definitional unclarity. But as he did so his efforts exposed the originally partisan function of the term. For example, he wrote in the introduction to the Transaction edition of the book in 1998: "'Vital center' refers to the contest between democracy and totalitarianism, not to contests within democracy between liberalism and conservatism, not at all to the so-called 'middle of the road' preferred by cautious politicians of our own time. The middle of the road is definitely not the vital center: it is the dead center. Within democracy the argument adheres to FDR's injunction to move always 'a little to the left of center.'"

Put that way, the book seems more of a primary source written by a Cold Warrior in the middle of ideological battle, which of course it is, rather than a usable secondary source today. So I ask: Do you still read Schlesinger's Vital Center?

The Death of Conservatism... and Other Vital Center Illusions (Cross-post)

Over at the on-line magazine Washington Decoded, check out my review of Sam Tanenhaus, The Death of Conservatism. It should be of interest to USIH readers, as I put the book in the context of intellectual history, discussing Richard Hofstadter, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., William Buckley, Jr., Whitakker Chambers, Russell Kirk, Albert Jay Nock, and James Burnham, among others.

A little tease: I introduce the essay with a Hofstadter passage from 1964:

American politics has often been an arena for angry minds. In recent years we have seen angry minds at work mainly among extreme right-wingers, who have now demonstrated in the Goldwater movement how much political leverage can be got out of the animosities and passions of a small minority.

The Death of Conservatism... and Other Vital Center Illusions (Cross-post)

Over at the on-line magazine Washington Decoded, check out my review of Sam Tanenhaus, The Death of Conservatism. It should be of interest to USIH readers, as I put the book in the context of intellectual history, discussing Richard Hofstadter, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., William Buckley, Jr., Whitakker Chambers, Russell Kirk, Albert Jay Nock, and James Burnham, among others.

A little tease: I introduce the essay with a Hofstadter passage from 1964:

American politics has often been an arena for angry minds. In recent years we have seen angry minds at work mainly among extreme right-wingers, who have now demonstrated in the Goldwater movement how much political leverage can be got out of the animosities and passions of a small minority.

Whither The White House Intellectual? Part II---A Disappointing Answer?

In January Ben Alpers provided a run down of past White House Intellectuals-in-Residence. In that post he openly wondered whether the Obama administration would appoint a particular person---in the tradition of Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.---to fill the position.

Since Schlesinger was a historian, and one who loved intellectual history, I too naturally wondered whether historians would play some part in the intellectual climate of the current administration. I received an answer, at least in part, when I saw this U.S. News & World Report story by Kenneth T. Walsh. (Tip: Don't read the comments on the article; they're depressing.)

Here are some excerpts from the piece (bolds mine):

------------------------------
President Obama has found another way to break out of the White House "bubble"—holding private discussions with eminent historians who have studied the successes and failures of his predecessors. His goal is to better understand what has worked and what has failed in the past as he makes policy today.

Obama held a dinner at the White House residence with nine such scholars on June 30, and it turned out to be what one participant described as a "history book club, with the president as the inquisitor." Among those attending were Michael Beschloss, H. W. Brands, Douglas Brinkley, Robert Dallek, and Doris Kearns Goodwin. Obama asked the guests to discuss the presidencies that they were most familiar with and to give him insights into what remains relevant to the problems of today.

At one point, the discussion turned to whether Obama was trying to do too much too fast and whether he might overload the political circuits of Congress. ...At least one historian said it's wise to push for such a bold agenda because the country is eager for change.

Participants were impressed with Obama's intellectual curiosity and his willingness to listen. And he told aides afterward that he wants to hold more such dinners to broaden his perspective.

Other presidents have held discussions with outside experts, but such outreach seems particularly important to Obama.

------------------------------

Of course I'm pleased that President Obama chose to consult with historians for advice. I'm not sure, however, that he has to limit his inquiry to historians of the presidency. Why not go with specialist historians on the issues? For instance, why not consult with historians of medicine on health care, historians of the New Deal on public programs, historians of science or the environment on energy issues, and historians of business on the effectiveness of regulatory schemes?

I guess, as an historian, I'm sick and tired of the same old names being trotted out as "the experts" on whether a president can succeed relative to his/her predecessors---namely historians of politics and the presidency. It's almost a joke. In my opinion historians of the presidency are closer to being excellent biographers than they are they are specialists on the issues that confront a president. Consulting with presidential historians on the issues is not much better than reading a solid history survey text.

As a supporter of the current administration, and someone who is generally pleased with its overall intellectual acumen, this is disappointing. Specialties exist for a reason: namely, because the issues are complex and require a deep look at the context and details to understand why policies might fail or succeed. Yes, the politics of getting policies implemented matter. But so does the starting point. If politics is about the practical, isn't it wise to have a smart practical plan in place before you turn to thinking about how to get the policy passed? You have to be able to show how something can be the solution to a problem before you think about how to maneuver it between legislators. It would seem, then, than consulting with historians of the presidency, about their politics at least, is a case of putting the cart before the practical policy horse. - TL

------------------------------
P.S.---This Chronicle Brainstorm blog post by Stan Katz highlights some of the dangers of using and abusing history in terms of policy formulation.

Whither The White House Intellectual? Part II---A Disappointing Answer?

In January Ben Alpers provided a run down of past White House Intellectuals-in-Residence. In that post he openly wondered whether the Obama administration would appoint a particular person---in the tradition of Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.---to fill the position.

Since Schlesinger was a historian, and one who loved intellectual history, I too naturally wondered whether historians would play some part in the intellectual climate of the current administration. I received an answer, at least in part, when I saw this U.S. News & World Report story by Kenneth T. Walsh. (Tip: Don't read the comments on the article; they're depressing.)

Here are some excerpts from the piece (bolds mine):

------------------------------
President Obama has found another way to break out of the White House "bubble"—holding private discussions with eminent historians who have studied the successes and failures of his predecessors. His goal is to better understand what has worked and what has failed in the past as he makes policy today.

Obama held a dinner at the White House residence with nine such scholars on June 30, and it turned out to be what one participant described as a "history book club, with the president as the inquisitor." Among those attending were Michael Beschloss, H. W. Brands, Douglas Brinkley, Robert Dallek, and Doris Kearns Goodwin. Obama asked the guests to discuss the presidencies that they were most familiar with and to give him insights into what remains relevant to the problems of today.

At one point, the discussion turned to whether Obama was trying to do too much too fast and whether he might overload the political circuits of Congress. ...At least one historian said it's wise to push for such a bold agenda because the country is eager for change.

Participants were impressed with Obama's intellectual curiosity and his willingness to listen. And he told aides afterward that he wants to hold more such dinners to broaden his perspective.

Other presidents have held discussions with outside experts, but such outreach seems particularly important to Obama.

------------------------------

Of course I'm pleased that President Obama chose to consult with historians for advice. I'm not sure, however, that he has to limit his inquiry to historians of the presidency. Why not go with specialist historians on the issues? For instance, why not consult with historians of medicine on health care, historians of the New Deal on public programs, historians of science or the environment on energy issues, and historians of business on the effectiveness of regulatory schemes?

I guess, as an historian, I'm sick and tired of the same old names being trotted out as "the experts" on whether a president can succeed relative to his/her predecessors---namely historians of politics and the presidency. It's almost a joke. In my opinion historians of the presidency are closer to being excellent biographers than they are they are specialists on the issues that confront a president. Consulting with presidential historians on the issues is not much better than reading a solid history survey text.

As a supporter of the current administration, and someone who is generally pleased with its overall intellectual acumen, this is disappointing. Specialties exist for a reason: namely, because the issues are complex and require a deep look at the context and details to understand why policies might fail or succeed. Yes, the politics of getting policies implemented matter. But so does the starting point. If politics is about the practical, isn't it wise to have a smart practical plan in place before you turn to thinking about how to get the policy passed? You have to be able to show how something can be the solution to a problem before you think about how to maneuver it between legislators. It would seem, then, than consulting with historians of the presidency, about their politics at least, is a case of putting the cart before the practical policy horse. - TL

------------------------------
P.S.---This Chronicle Brainstorm blog post by Stan Katz highlights some of the dangers of using and abusing history in terms of policy formulation.