Skip to main content

Nathan Glazer, RIP

Image result for nathan glazer

Nathan Glazer died on the 19th of last month.

He is best known as the author of BEYOND THE MELTING POT (1963) and of WE ARE ALL MULTICULTURALISTS NOW (1997) These are both books that, as the titles indicate, discussed in a scholarly way the vexed issue of ethnic and cultural identities in the United States within the context of two very different political eras.

There was much else to Glazer's life and career, but I will focus here on those two books, BTMP and WAAMN.

BTMP as a book formally co-authored with Daniel Patrick Moynihan, then executive assistant to the Secretary of Labor. But it is generally recognized as consisting mostly of Glazer's work. It made the then-unusual argument that ethnicities don't melt. Focusing especially on New York City, the authors contended that the children and even grandchildren of waves of immigration to NYC, from Puerto Rico, Italy, Ireland, or by Jews from much of the continent of Europe [Glazer's parents were Jews from Poland, and the family spoke Yiddish at home] -- had retained their identity and consciousness, and that there was no reason to expect that any of them would become indistinguishable from each other or from WASPS. 

AAMN, on the other hand, was a book written when the argument of BTMP had become passe, when it was taken for granted that heritage was and would remain distinctive and indeed there was a strong impulse in many quarters to celebrate that fact. "Multiculturalism" is an "ism" as a celebration, not because or if it is simply an empirical observation.

Glazer wasn't all that happy about this celebration. He wrote, "I feel warmly attached to the old America that was acclaimed in school textbooks" back when the melting pot was the dominant metaphor. He was attached, that is, to the ideal of assimilation and commonality, even though he wrote the book (literally) on the unreality of that ideal. He was worried about the "fixing of lines of division" that had set in by the late '90s because movement in the opposite direction had been idealized.

His life, then, has a fascinating narrative arc. One observer, James Traub, has described that arc as "a terrible dashing of the hopes that liberalism itself once rested upon."

Glazer lived for more than two full decades after WAAMN, but he seems to have taken that warm attachment to the grave with him.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak