Culture Wars The Struggle to Define America by James Davison Hunter (z-lib.org)

CULTURAL CONFLICT IN AMERICA

51

children will learn. Also affected is the content of the popular media- from the films that are shown to the television shows that are aired to the books that are read and to the art that is exhibited. It has a critical effect on the conduct of law, particularly in the ways in which Americans define rights-who should have them and who should not and with whose interests the state should be aligned. Not least, this cultural clash has tremendous consequences for electoral politics, the way in which Americans choose their leaders. The contemporary culture war even has a bearing on the way in which public discussion is carried out-in the way people with opposing ideals and agendas try to resolve their differences in the public forum.

Once again, what seems to be a myriad of self-contained cultural disputes actually amounts to a fairly comprehensive and momentous struggle to define the meaning of America-of how and on what terms will Americans live together, of what comprises the good society. The purpose of this book is to explore the nature, depth, and consequences of this struggle. Part II describes the historical and societal sources that have given rise to the new cultural strains as well as the nature and historical significance of the new cleavages that divide American public culture. Part III explores the mechanisms by which cultural conflict is carried out. In particular, this section explores the nature of public discussion about national life and purpose, and how the technologies that mediate public discourse aggravate the differences and intensify the polarities. In this way we see how most Americans are eclipsed from public debate. Part IV examines the various fields of conflict-the symbolic territory over which the larger culture war actually takes place. The key areas surveyed are the family, education, media and the arts, law, and electoral politics. Finally, Part V attempts to assess the status of the conflict today and traces the implications of this conflict for the unfolding of American democracy as it embarks upon its third century.

The first task, however,.is to explore the general character of cultural conflict. The topic is somewhat theoretical but its implications are far from abstract. From it we will discern the tangible principles by which the contemporary American culture war takes shape.

2

The Anatomy

of Cultural Conflict

The idea of "cultural conflict" may sound abstract, but as we have seen, it involves real individuals who are not unlike many people we know, or perhaps even ourselves. Their lives-their thoughts, emotions, beliefs, activities, and relationships, and maybe ours too-are a central part of the way the contemporary culture war unfolds. For a brief time, however, it is appropriate to step away from the gritty details of those lives to see the larger significance. To this end, let us come right to the point: cultural

· conflict is ultimately. about the struggle for domination.

Of course, it would be senseless as well as intellectually idealistic to imagine that "class resentment," the antagonism born out of the unequal access to the prerogatives of wealth, does not play a part in explaining conflict of th.is nature. It would be equally ludicrous to imagine that ethnic and racial suspicion were somebow insignificant factors. So too would it be folly simply to dismiss the passionate convictions and ideals of the people engaged as 'irrelevant-"epiphenomena!," as the Marxists say-to its course and outcome. But in the final analysis, whatever else may be involved, cultural conflict is about power-a struggle to achieve or maintain the power to define reality. ·

The power to define reality is not an abstract power. Indeed, as we have seen, nothing less is at stake than a sense of justice and fair play, an assurance that life is as it should be, indeed, nothing less is at stake than a way of life. And because the conflict ultimately involves a struggle for power, a variety of other tangible factors are invariably involved,

THE ANATOMY OF CULTURAL CONFLICT

53

including money (a great deal of it), reputation, livelihood, and a considerable array of other resources. To be sure, cultural conflict is serious business.

Yet this is only a point of departure. Many questions beg to be answered. Among them: How does such conflict take form? Where does it take place? Who are the principal contenders? And so on. Though these questions need to be addressed in general and somewhat theoretical terms, what we learn by pursuing them is anything but abstract and useless. This venture, in fact, is critical to an understanding of cultural conflict in our own day. The first question to be addressed here concerns the location of cultural conflict in society. Once the context is established, other facets of the present situation will become much clearer.

PUBLIC CULTURE-PRIVATE CULTURE

Ifcultural conflict is mainly about the struggle for domination, the arena that is principally contested is the arena of "public culture."

Both public culture and, for lack of a better term, "private culture" can be understood as "spheres of symbolic activity," that is, areas of human endeavor where symbols are created and adapted to human needs. At both levels, culture orders our experience, makes sense of our lives, gives us meaning. The very essence of the activity taking place in both realms-what makes both public and private culture possible-is "discourse" or conversation, the interaction of different voices, opinions, and perspectives. Yet, while public and private culture are similar in constitution, they are different in their function-one orders private life; the other orders public life.

First, consider the domain of private culture. Private culture, as one area of symbolic activity, consists of the symbols and meanings that order experience within the realm of personal experience. These meanings encompass people's self-understanding and the relationships they enjoy with close friends, family, coworkers and colleagues, and other acquaintances, as well as to their circumstances and surroundings. But what do these symbols and meanings do? At one level they take the form of the rules and platitudes that guide ordinary people through the routines of everyday life, from the time they wake up in the morning to the hour they retire to bed. These would encompass the unspoken rules about how to adorn oneself for the day, when and what to eat (for example, the virtues of "fast food" or "health food"), how to spend one's

54	INTRODUCTION

leisure time (for example, reading, shooting hoops, meditating, watching television, or quaffing beers with friends), and so on. These symbols and meanings also provide a kind of map that locates one in a larger world of people, places, events, and situations. Such symbols identify, for example, who is significant in people's lives and why. (Some people are significant because they are related to you by blood-a father, mother, sibling, or child; others, because their decisions affect your life, such as a boss, teacher, coach, or politician.) But beyond the more mundane aspects of private life, priv~te culture contains the truths that help a person cope with both tragedy and elation-the inevitable seasons of anxiety, suffering, boredom, and heartbreak as well as those fleeting moments of anticipation, joy, and enchantment that are together part and parcel of human experience. They help explain why, for example, you did not get the job you really wanted ("it wasn't in the cards"), why you must endure the neighbors you have ("this must be a test of character"), or why your brother was killed in a car accident ("it must have been God's will"). The realm of private culture holds the parables and truths that help people make sense of the events that mark the cycle of their lives-birth, adolescence, marriage,.childrearing, vocation, old age, and death. These symbols are what help us see, for example, birth as "a miracle," adolescence as "a stage," marriage as "a union," and so on. Not least, private culture consists of the interpretations that allow persons to locate their own biographies and the biographies of those close to them not only in the broader sweep of community and national life but in the wider reaches of human and even cosmic history as well. ·Interpretations of this kind are heard commonly when people are described as having "made a real difference in this town"; as being "a real saint"; or, sadly, as having "wasted their life away."

Public culture, by contrast, consists of the symbols and meanings that order the life of the community or region or nation as a whole. In modern times the primary locus of collective experience is the nationstate. A person's attachment to.the local community or to a regional way 9f life (such as that linking people to the South, the West, the Midwest, or' New England) _remains important, to be sure. Ultimately, though, these particular attachments tend to be subsumed by or encompassed within the interests of national life. In this light, p~blic culture in our day and age can best be understood as the repository of the symbols of national life and purpose. What does this mean?

At its most basic and practical level, public culture consists of what could be called the "instrumentality of the state." By this term I refer

THE ANATOMY OF CULTURAL CONFLICT

55

to the entire range of procedural norms and legal codes that define the acceptable limits of personal behavior and collective action, specify the nature and extent of public responsibility (such as helping the poor, caring for the environment, and assigning rpunicipal tasks of collecti~g garbage, paving streets), and regulate interaction among different parties in the public arena (in political controversy, legal disputes, and the like).

Public culture, though, is more sublime than this, for it also embodies the symbols of national identity. These symbols express the meaning of citizenship and, therefore, the meaning of patriotism and disloyalty. More important, public culture consists of the shared notions of civic virtue and the common ideals of the·public good-what is best for the general happiness of the people and welfare of the republic. Beyond this, public culture is reflected in the shared standards by which the actions of individuals or communities as well as the actions of other nations and communities with whom it deals are evaluated and judg~d as either good or evil, right or wrong, just or unjust.

Finally, a nation's public; culture embraces the collective myths surrounding its history and future promise. These myths are usually constructed through a selective interpretation of our national history, in which certain themes and events are emphasized and others played down. For example, some may stress historical events that show America as a "secular democratic experiment"; others see America as a "Christian commonwealth; a city on a hill." Mae Duggan gave expression to o[le of these myths when she invoked George Washington's belief that good government cannot exist without religion as its foundation. Bea Blair expressed another interpretation when she claimed that America was "founded by people who did not want one group imposing their ideas on another group." Such myths elaborate the moral significance of the nation's founding in the context of global history; they guide the selection of its heroes and villains; and they interpret the content of the founding documents-its Declaration of Independence, its Constitution, its Bill of Rights. By providing an interpretation of the past in this way, these myths also articulate the precedents and ideals for the nation's future. They set out the national priorities and tasks yet to be accomplished, and they envision the mission yet to be fulfilled.

Ideally, public culture and private culture would seem to complement each other. As spheres of symbolic activity, each provides a context for the other. Public culture functions as a legal and political context for private culture by demarcating the boundaries of permissible personal

56	INTRODUCTION

behavior and even thought. At the same time, personal interests and aspirations rooted in private culture become expressed as political claims in the public realm. For example, a parent's concern about sex education in his or her own twelve-year-old's middle school becomes more general concern with the quality of education in California, where they live, and perhaps the nation as a whole. Or, a woman's own unhappy experience with an unplanned pregnancy may become a more general concern with the politics of reproduction in her city. In this way, private culture provides the context in which public culture becomes a reality intelligible and personally relevant to ordinary people. Public culture becomes a realm that can be understood and influenced, a sphere of activity in which individuals and communities can present and advocate their particular interests, the place in which the various voices of private interest can press their particular claims as public discourse. To the degree that public and private culture interact in this way, the authority of democratic regimes achieves its measure of popular consent. Such is the moral foundation of the modem liberal state.

Of course, this is how political life under democratic rule is supposed to work in theory. While some of the time practical reality "fits" the theory, much of the time it does not. The special language of public discourse, for example, often seems muddled, obscure, and incomprehensible. The impenetrable nature of legal rhetoric and bureaucratic verbiage is well known. These factors are obstacles that private citizens and local communities face in entering public debate. When the obstacles are too great, public culture remains distant and unapproachable; private culture becomes isolated and the voices of ordinary citizens remain publicly silent. When private culture remains estranged from public culture, and individuals and communities retreat from political expression, personal lives become irrelevant to the course and conduct of civic affairs.

Why is all of this important? Because the right to shape the public culture, or at least the right to have a voice in how public culture will be shaped, confers enormous benefits. The essential benefit is the right to pursue individual and community interests. Those who have no voice may be defined as illegitimate-and their interests may be deemed irrelevant. The very survival of minority moral communities is at risk, unless all have the right to help shape public culture. In real life, of course, the many different voices that contribute to the shaping of public culture are not of equal volume or authority. Many voices may be heard, but the historical tendency has bt;en for one voice to dominate. This was certainly true in the case of the Protestant domination in the nineteenth

THE ANATOMY OF CULTURAL CONFLICT

57

century. In .this cas~ and in o~hers, tl)._e _v_a}ues and _i~te!"e~ts of one mo~al community overshadowed and oftentimes. eclip11~d.~ose ..of other communities. This is what social scientists would call "cultural hegemony," and the benefits that accrue to it are nothing less than power and priv- ilege.

It is precisely for this reason that the arena contested in cultural ~arfareis the arena of public culture. It is~herethe struggle for cultural

heg@'mgny or cultural domination takes place. But in what ways does fTils struggle work itself out? This will become clearer after exploring the impact of two other aspects of public culture.

Faith and Public Culture

The first aspect concerns the place and role of faith. The .term is used broadly here to include any more or less formal system of belief. Traditional theisms (Protestantism, Catholicism, Judaism, and Islam) would all be considered faiths. By this definition it is also possible to speak about secular ideologies, including such comprehensive political philosophies as Marxism, fascism, or humanism, as faiths..

Some may ask, if "faith" is being' defined so broadly, why not use the term "ideology" instead? Besides, the word "faith" carries certain religious and sectarian connotations. The reason is this: the term, ideology, is correct and appropriate in what it implies, but its usage in the American scene is off the mark. The main reason is that the American people have never provided very .fertile soil for the growth of purely secular political ideologies. Quite the opposite. America, rather, has always been the "fertile crescent" of the industrialized world insofar as the development of religious sectarianism is concerned. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that when secular ideologies have taken root, as in the case of the humanist and free thinking movement after the Seeond World War, they have usually had a certain sectarian cast. 1 Thus, in the American context, the term "faith"-even with its religious and sectarian connotations-seems more appropriate in capturing the essence of almost everything that passes for belief in America.

But why are these belief systems, which we call faiths, and the institutions that embody them so important to this discussion? The short answer is this: politics is, in large part, an expression of culture (competing values and ideals and, often, interests based in values). At the heart of culture, though, is religion, or systems of faith. And at the heart of religion are its claims to truth ~t the world.2 This is it in a nutshell.

. q.~P·

58	INTRODUCTION
The stru	ower (which is the essence of politics is in lar e part

a .&truggle between . competing truth claims, c aims which are by their very nature "religious" in character if not~ content. This can be explained a bit more fully.

The first factor to consider is that traditional forms of faith, like any more or less formal ~ystem of belief (even secular belief) provides the fundamentai link between public and private culture. They do this in part by articulating the relationship between the individual and the larger society and between the community and the nation. Systems of faith or belief, even if just assumed and not fully articulated, locate the individual and community in the larger social order, offering not only moral explanations of where they fit in and why but of where they should fit in as well. This is to say that belief systems explain why some people are rich and others poor, why some people suffer and others do not, why some people are loved and appreciated and others despised or ignored, why there is injustice, why there is tyranny, why there is warexplanations for the issues that all individuals and communities confront in their experience at various times and in various ways. Yet these same systems of belief also prescribe principles of action that specify what should be done, if anything, to help the poor, to alleviate suffering, to pursue justice and peace in the larger social 'order.

At the same time, these faiths lay out the moral significance of different social institutions and institutional arrangements. They set forth the social and moral meaning of marriage and the family, the needs and objectives of educatio,n, the principles of law, the role of government, and so on, and the interrelationships of these institutions. Here again, systems of belief not only define "what is" but also "what should be."3

Faith and culture, then, are inextricably linked. By elucidating a broader cosmology or world view, faiths not only link the symbols of public culture with the symbols of private culture; they also infuse the symbols of each sphere with universal if not transcendent significance. This capacity is unique to these more or less comprehensive systems of belief. And despite the constraints modern societies have placed upon more traditional religious authority to remain sequestered in the private sphere, the impulse to synthesize and universalize public and private experience remains one of the central and unchanging features of religion in the modern world.

There is a second factor that explains why the belief systems, or faiths, are important to this discussiqn. Faith is the source of our most

THE ANATOMY OF CULTURAL CONFLICT

59

deeply held ideals of right and wrong, good and bad, just and unjust. As such, these fundamental assumptions and ideals not only order and guide our passions but they are often the origins and repository ofour passions as well. They make risk, sacrifice, and long-term duty and responsibility possible-the kind of commitments we have seen in the lives of Chuck Mcllhenny, Harriet Woods, Mae Duggan,. and the others. There is no way to account for the extraordinary energy and emotional intensity seen on both sides of the contemporary culture war except to say that the commitments made by the various actors-both religious and secular; orthodox and progressive-are rooted in a sense of ultimate moral truth.

Elites and Public Culture

Given the importance of these universal systems of meaning, the importance of intellectuals and other elites becomes very clear. While ordinary people participate in the construction of their own private worlds, the development and articulation of the more elaborate systems ()f meaning, including the realm of public culture, falls almost always to the

realm of elites. They are the ones who create the concepts, supply the language, and expli~ate the logic of public discussion. They are the ones

who define and redefine the meaning of public symbols. Public discourse, then, is largely a discourse of elites.4 This is the first reason why the vast majority of Americans who are somewhere in the middle of these debates are not heard. They have little access to the tools of public culture that elites have.

But it is important to be clear about which elites are most consequential to the shaping of public discourse.

Those who come immediately to mind are the intellectuals, who re- ' side in the halls of academia, devoting their careers to research, writing, consulting, lecturing, and educating young adults. Within the vast realm of higher education, the academics whose work contributes the most toward the establishment of public culture are those in the humanities, social sciences, public administration, theology, and law. Yet as important as university-based intellectuals are to the development of public discourse, their contribution tends to be fairly abstract and distant. A history of ptJblic debate among academics alone would am~unt to an intellectual one, following the relatively obscure personalities and the some~hat rarified fads and fashions of the ivory tower-deconstructionism, neoorthodoxy, death of God theologies, structuralism, and so on. This is

60 INTRODUCTION

not to suggest that academic developments and debates are in any way frivolous or inconsequential. They are anything but trifling. Nevertheless, discussion at this level of abstraction is rarely accessible to a national audience: the issues that concern these intellectuals have little immediate relevance to the shaping of widely recognized and broadly contended public symbols.

Much more influential than university-based scholars, then, are the more practically oriented "knowledge workers": public policy specialists located in think tanks, special interest lobbyists, public interest lawyers, independent writers and ideologues, journalists and editors, community organizers, and movement activists-:the national and regional leadership of grass-roots social and political organizations. Other knowledge workers include the clergy, theologians, and religious administrators of all denominations and faiths. Each of the people we met in the prologue fit into this category: Harriet Woods, the head of a university-based think tank; Bea Blair and Mae Duggan, presidents of different special interest foundations; Chuck Mcllhenny and Yehuda Levin, practicing members of the clergy; and Richmond Young, head of Stonewall Democrats, a gay political union. Knowledge elites they most certainly are, yet these ar elites who trade in a more common, but also more accessible form of deas and symbols. Individually or even in small groups the effect of t eir labors would be negligible. Collectively, however, their efforts contitute the heart of the formation and maintenance of public culture.

The difficulty in real-life situations is that elites of this sort seldom form a unified voice in their articulation of the ideals of public culture. Often they disagree on the meaning of national identity, as symbolized by the flag, or a national monument or ceremony. They also may quarrel over the interpretation of collective myths, particularly the myths of national origin. Not least they contend over the technical use of law in the resolution of public grievances. The academic question that scholars sometimes debate is whether this disagreement is ever significant enough to be disruptive to the larger society. In general, the answer is no. Most of the time such disagreement does not create confusion in the public order but is simply part of the give and take of social life in a democracy. At times, however, this conflict can be very disruptive.

This is particularly true during times of societal change and tran-

sition. According to the Italian social
is precisely urm per10 s of societal transformation that a ·	ant

cleava e orms amon intellectuals and other cultural elites.5 Knowledge workers square off in opposition to eac ot er and their conflict becomes