Background: Follow up reply to a reader who responded to Harry Boyte’s draft paper with the following question.
The Question Posed on Academia.edu: How can being a hyphenated American as the basis for one’s identity help individuals become contributors to a commonwealth when its major force is to produce an uncommonwealth?
This is a great question, and one that has many layers for consideration, too many layers to cover in a short response. I will attempt to address a few considerations.
“Being” a hyphenated American, is not necessarily the same as identifying as a hyphenated American. “Being” may be viewed as presuming totality. If, as an example, I am a newly arrived Italian-American immigrant, then (at least for my generation) it is very possible that my participation in the commonwealth may be negligible to non-existent. However, if I “identify” as an Italian-American while making the effort to integrate into the mainstream of community (or if I represent a subsequent generation), then it is possible that my ethnic background is one constituent aspect of my overall make-up and should not be seen all encompassing. On Sunday, I might go to church and identify as a religious observer. On Monday I may identify as an accountant, electrician or teacher. On Wednesday evenings, I might identify as a Shriner. At a local rezoning hearing, I could identify as a community resident, homeowner, tenant, or as a community member, or member of a homeowner or tenant association. At a family gathering, I might celebrate my ethnic heritage without reservation, celebrating my deeply ingrained culture. None of these identifying aspects necessarily conflict with other identifying aspects.
Of course, the question posed by the reader gets to deeper issues about identity and how self-actualization occurs. It also gets to the issue of new forms of cultural development, such as occurs through syncretism, as opposed to cultural absorption through assimilation.
We are a nation of immigrants, an oft-repeated phrase, but one that is true nonetheless. When my ancestors came to this country from Ireland, Italy, and elsewhere in Europe, they were only able to survive by maintaining their ethnic connections while they sought to assimilate. Initially, the Italians and Irish were not seen as “White,” and suffered varying degrees of discrimination. However, for them there was the implicit promise of becoming White, something from which I have benefitted. With my fourth generation status as a citizen, I am a living example of what Tressie McMillam Cottom refers to as the “elasticity” of Whiteness.
It goes without saying, however, that this elasticity stretches only so far, and for many who have migrated, and continue to migrate, to this country and add to the nation’s wealth, such assimilation – the intergenerational process of becoming White – is not possible. Instead, the American Dream for immigrants of color consists of a hope that the value of diversity is recognized, and the benefits of working to form what Hegel referred to as unity in that diversity is seen as natural and progressive, not dissimilar to the unities we find within nature (of which we are, of course, a part).
We develop as individuals within and through the contexts that surround us. This process of individuation is the result of freeing oneself from what Erich Fromm refers to as “primary ties,” which initially are based upon a prolonged dependent infancy and childhood, and later in life framed by our affiliations and occupations. During our formative years, we are not free but, in the best case scenario, we have had relative security and little doubt about who we are and the potential contained within each of us. But even as we grow apart and free ourselves from that security, we are doing so through contextual personal development. It is beneficial to remain a part of that affiliative structure. It is that felt and real sustained connection with something larger than ourselves, that which has facilitated our personal growth and development, which provides not only the basis for self-actualization, but the foundational wherewithal to interact with others outside of our direct lived experience.
Such interaction holds the promise of expanding the commonwealth, even if we continue to identify in a hyphenated manner. Engagement in diversity promotes ongoing personal development and helps prevents the kind of weariness and need to “settle” that may provide transitory comfort and security, but eventually destroys our individuality. As stated by Erich Fromm (Escape from Freedom, in discussing the felt need to accept subjugation), “the individual ceases to be himself; he adopts entirely the kind of personality offered to him by cultural patterns; and he therefore becomes exactly as all others and as they expect him to be.” Such surrender to nondescript normative living is debilitating and deprives us and others of the contributions we would otherwise be able to offer. In his book Revenge of the Tipping Point, Malcolm Gladwell goes to great lengths explaining how diversity is strength, and how without it we are less capable of resilience. This exposure and interaction promotes and enhances, instead of destroying, individuality.
This country has the potential to develop into a diverse, multi-cultural society, where out of the many, we can become one. But that will only happen if we value diversity. If we insist that every immigrant immediately and simply “become” an (unhyphenated) American, what we end up with is a society based upon surface values, tentative commitments, and the loss of mutually beneficial cultural sharing. But there is a deeper reason why some people resent those who identify as hyphenated Americans, just as those (many the same) people resent going to a store and being around people who are not speaking English.
It is important to understand that Western society, our country particularly, has turned a fabricated racial particular (“Whiteness”), into a universal norm. Due to this, racism, xenophobia, chauvinism and other forms of oppressive dominance have faded into the background, residing quietly, yet effectively, within the norm of Whiteness. As such, our expectations are framed by this fabricated reality. Once such a particular is made universal – once “Whiteness” disappears as a separate racial category, a particular, and transforms into a, universal, pervasive norm – there is no further need to even believe in or make reference to offensive racial hierarchies. Even as we make racist decisions, there is no felt racist guilt. We are simply acting within, as we also advance, an implicitly accepted norm. And yet, the racism remains. It is just hidden. [I elaborate further on this at https://communitycivics.com/2025/10/24/racist-norms-when-the-particular-is-made-universal/ ]
To be truly free and functioning members of a democratic society, we must acknowledge that our differences make us stronger, more effective and more interesting. Finding, let alone embracing, unity in diversity is challenging. Expanding the base of citizenship is part of that challenge. It requires an open mind, one that does not see identifying with a hyphenated ethnic heritage as a liability, but as an opportunity to expand one’s own knowledge, experience, and perspective.