07. the shifting status of african americans

8/12/2019 07. the Shifting Status of African Americans

1/26

http://jbs.sagepub.com

Journal of Black Studies

DOI: 10.1177/0021934798029002021998; 29; 154Journal of Black Studies

Rebecca KookCollective Identity

The Shifting Status of African Americans in the American

http://jbs.sagepub.com The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Journal of Black StudiesAdditional services and information for

http://jbs.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jbs.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://jbs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/29/2/154SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms):

(this article cites 8 articles hosted on theCitations

distribution. 1998 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized

by Serban Vaetisi on November 2, 2007http://jbs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jbs.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://jbs.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://jbs.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://jbs.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://jbs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/29/2/154http://jbs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/29/2/154http://jbs.sagepub.com/http://jbs.sagepub.com/http://jbs.sagepub.com/http://jbs.sagepub.com/http://jbs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/29/2/154http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://jbs.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://jbs.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts


2/26

154

THE SHIFTING STATUS OFAFRICAN

AMERICANS IN THEAMERICAN

COLLECTIVE IDENTITY

REBECCA KOOK

University of Haifa

This article examines the change that incurred in the status ofAfricanAmericans vis-a-visAmerican collective identity sur-

rounding the civil rights movement. I argue that in terms of differ-ent symbolic indicators,AfricanAmericans were completelyexcluded from theAmerican collective identity up until the 1960s.From the 1970s and onward, a gradual process ofinclusion in termsof both written

symbols (textbooksand

generalAmerican

historybooks) and commemorative symbols (postal stamps, monuments,holidays, and the like) can be observed.

The 1980s and 1990s have seen a flourish of new studies on

American identity (Fuchs, 1990; Karst, 1989; Kettner, 1978; R. M.

Smith, 1995).Although citizenship is presented as the fundamentalfocus of this identity, the perspective of these studies differs fromthat characteristic of the more traditional ones (Hartz, 1955; Kohn,1957; Myrdal, 1944). Whereas the traditional works portrayed an

identity and citizenship entrenched in ideas and concepts, the newwave, so to speak, approaches citizenship through the prism of

membership, thus shifting the discourse from ideology and con-

cepts to issues of inclusion and exclusion. Perception has shiftedfrom citizenship as an ideal toward citizenship as a practical and

operative institution.

The earlier works portrayed an inclusive and staticAmericancollective identity. Within the new discourse, general issues of

membership, patterns of exclusion, and not merely the generaltrend of inclusion are seen as central to the understanding of the

JOURNAL OF BLACK STUDIES, Vol. 29 No. 2, November 1998 154-178

@ 1998 Sage Publications, Inc.


http://jbs.sagepub.com/http://jbs.sagepub.com/http://jbs.sagepub.com/http://jbs.sagepub.com/


3/26

155

American political community. This focus on issues of exclusion

bringsinto

highrelief the

categoriesof

ethnicity, race,and

gender.The exclusion of different minority groups is not dealt with tangen-tially or implicitly but is seen as an integral part of the understand-

ing ofAmerican political community. Hence, the contradictions of

citizenship are given prominence. The research raises such ques-tions as follow:Are there and have there been gradations ofcitizen-

ship ? What does this status ofcitizenship bestow on the individual?What is the relationship between the institution of citizenship andtheAmerican collective identity?

In this article, I focus on the relationshipbetween citizenship andAmerican collective identity by exploring the symbolic mecha-nisms and political logic of inclusion. Specifically, I explain the

change in the membership status ofAfricanAmericans before andafter the civil rights movement in the 1960s. Thus, I contributetoward an understanding of the practical and operative aspects of

identity and citizenship alike.

AMERICAN COLLECTIVE IDENTITY

American collective identity is a difficult concept to analyze.Ingrained misperceptions ofAmerican identity, residues ofthe plu-

ralist paradigm that so deeply dominated thinking aboutAmericafor almost halfa century, contend that in fact, there is no such thingas anAmerican collective identity. Unsurprisingly, however, mostAmericans identify themselves asAmericans (hyphenated or not),and there is clearly a distinguishing line betweenAmericans andnon-Americans both within and outside ofAmerican society (Wal-zer, 1990). Recent debates concerning multiculturalism and the

cultural fabric ofAmerican societyare

testimony to the existence ofan albeit contested, but existent nonetheless,American identity(Arthur & Shapiro, 1992).

Moreover, there is a history of scholarship onAmerican collec-tive identity, which itself has gone through shifts and turns. Tradi-

tionally, this scholarship has articulated theAmerican identity as




4/26

156

entrenched within two fundamental tenets. The first is that the iden-

tity that boundAmericans together and that incorporated themas

Americans was ideational, grounded in the belief in a set of univer-sal values. This perspective onAmerican identity was first identi-fied by the French social observerAlexis de Tocqueville and hasserved as the accepted version or interpretation ofAmerican collec-tive identity for almost two centuries (Tocqueville, 1945).Accord-

ingly,American identity has been fueled by what Tocqueville iden-tified as the

&dquo;equalityof conditions.&dquo; This fundamental equality,

born out of the fact thatAmerica-as opposed to Europe-lacked afeudal social structure; generated a civic identity; and associatedmore with the free exercise of civil rights than with a particular his-

tory, ethnicity and cultural tradition.

Picture to yourself... if you can, a ... people differing from oneanother in language, in beliefs, in opinions; in a word a society pos-

sessingno

roots,no

memories,no

prejudices,no

routine,no com-

mon ideas, no national character, yet with a happiness far greaterthan our own. (Mayer, 1979, p. 30)

The second characteristic was that the instances of exclusion

withinAmerican society, so unavoidably exemplified by theAfri-canAmericans and by the NativeAmerican, existed somehow out-side of the collective identity and thus did not seriously alter the

essential meaning of it. These two tenets are accepted by most ofthe so-called canonical theorists ofAmerican identity (Arieli,1964; Hartz, 1955; Kohn, 1957; Lipset, 1966; Myrdal, 1944).

Accordingly,American identity is seen as rooted in the notion of

citizenship, and the mere belief in this notion is enough to serve asan inclusionary mechanism.

Citizenship was the only criterion which made the individual amember ofthe national community: and national loyalty meant loy-alty to the Constitution. The formative force ofAmerican national

unity has been, then, the idea ofcitizenship; through this concept the

integration of state and society into a nation has been achieved.

(Arieli, 1964, p. 22)




5/26

157

American identity is itself a conceptual entity, definedby sharedbeliefs and quite divorced from the individuals who populated it.The values of equality, individualism, and achievement are seen tounderlie the basic identity ofAmerican society, that is, basic liberalvalues. Hence, theAmerican &dquo;character&dquo; is defined in nonethnic

and distinctly political terms-for example, the prototype of theterritorial nation-that is, a collective whose defining characteris-

tics are mainly civic and territorial is characterizedbya

legal and/orpolitical community and a common civic culture and ideology (A.Smith, 1986, 1992).

This portrayal ofAmerican collective identity emerges as funda-

mentally static and nonchanging in both its contours and content. Itassumes to incorporate a people, without designating any concretemechanisms that determine exactly who constitutes this people. Itis founded on adherence to a set of

values,whereas the

applicationofthe values is presented as belonging to a different realm of realityand a different discipline of study. Because analytically the institu-tion of citizenship, at least following the passing of the 15th amend-

ment, was inherently inclusionary, this discourse saw no need to be

concerned with specific exclusionary or inclusionary mechanisms.

AFRICANAMERICANSAND

AMERICAN COLLECTIVE IDENTITY

Nonetheless,American collective identity is not only inclusion-

ary but for a long time in its history was blatantly exclusionarytoward certain groups. The case ofAfricanAmericans is undoubt-

edly a prime example of the discriminatory and nonegalitarian

aspect ofAmerican democracy andAmerican collective identity.With the establishment of the United States, and the writing of the

constitution,AfricanAmericans were considered to be property.As property, they were denied the basic rights afforded to citizensof liberal democracies, as well as the basic human rights secured for

the average citizens of the new federation. They had no protectionunder law, savethe protection accorded to property (Foner, 1990).




6/26

158

As property, there is clearly no question as to whetherAfrican

Americans were, at that time, members of the newly foundedAmerican nation, and as such members of theAmerican collective

identity. However, at this time, more then 200 years later, it is

equally uncontested that they are. On the whole, they are consid-ered by others and by themselves to be hyphenatedAmericans:AfricanAmericans (Huntington, 1985; Martin, 1991). Two ques-tions immediately surface: How does the above portrayal ofAmeri-can

collective identity grapple with the blatant exclusion ofAfricanAmericans, and, When were they included?The answer to the first question was partially satisfied in the

briefpresentation above. The exclusion ofAfricanAmericans (andother minorities such asAmerican Indians, women, and so on) was

seen as existing outside of the value system promoted and defined

by theAmerican creed. This type of dichotomous perspectiveenabled all of the main theorists to maintain the universalistic

vision ofAmerican identity, while acknowledging the reality of

racism, segregation, reservations, and the like.The answer to the second question is more complex. The intui-

tive response is to point to the post-civil war period and the passingofthe reconstruction amendments. Nonetheless, neither emancipa-tion nor reconstruction managed to dictate a clear-cut relationship.By establishing equal citizenship, the reconstruction amendments

allowedAmericans to think of their civic nation as inclusive. Their

quick reversal, however, exemplified by the establishment of theJim Crow system in the South, and the maintenance ofsevere infor-

mal discrimination in the North, in effect rendered this short lived.

Close examination of theAmerican symbolic matrix offers

insight into this question. To a very large degree, the construction ofa collective identity is essentially an act ofconstructing and recon-

structing the nations past. Moreover, the essence ofinclusion is, aswas mentioned, the act of official recognition. Recognition of iden-

tity-group or individual-is essential to the formation of ones

identity. Similarly, the lack of such recognition, or the misrecogni-tion of identity, bars the path to the development of a collective

identity.




7/26

159

Our identity is partly shaped by recognition or its absence, often bythe

misrecognitionof

others,and so a

personor

groupof

peoplecan

suffer real damage, real distortion, if the people or society aroundthem mirror back to them a confining ordemeaning or contemptiblepicture of themselves. (Taylor, 1995, p. 249)

The primary arenas in which the act of memory constructiontakes place are symbolic. The images triggered by the symbolscumulatively make for the memories of the collective past. Com-

monly, one encounters monuments, museums, holidays, and thelike, which stand for, or symbolize, some event of heroism, (or dis-

asters) which are presented as central to the collectives history. Inthe course of analyzing these images, what is symbolized is as sig-nificant as what is not symbolized. We learn as much aboutAmeri-can collective identity from the existence ofa stamp in memory ofLou Gehrig as from the absence, from the postal canon, up until

recently,of women.

The following discussion of written and commemorative sym-bols highlights a dramatic shift in the membership pattern ofAmerican collective identity.

WRITTEN SYMBOLS

TEXTBOOKS

The process of writing the past, in the formal framework of his-

tory books is, perhaps, the most direct way of constructing anational memory.As a direct text, the process through which the

symbolic import is transmitted does not necessarily involve the

typically symbolic processof

bestowing subjective meaningto the

form of the symbol. The meaning intended is more or less at facevalue. Nonetheless, the writing, and rewriting of history, throughconventional history books, and more significantly, textbooks, is aclassic symbolic vehicle. Through history books, chosen symbolsof a nations past are transmitted and elaborated on.




8/26

160

The history book may be perceived as fundamentally the biogra-

phy ofthe nation. The vivid images that people retain of a nationspast are drawn from its pages. Much has been written about the

theoretical and practical objectivity of the historian, and about the

process involved in the selection of which facts to include or

exclude in the writing of any kind of history (Carr, 1972; Popper,1961). One simple yet most fundamental aspect of this vast debateis who is included in the nations history and who is excluded. Inother

words,when one

speaksofa nations

history,whos

historyis

one referring to?A formidable change occurred in theAmerican self-image in themid-1960s. The change revolved around the ethnic or national con-text ofAmerican society. Hence, the major changes reflect the wayin whichAmericans perceived how they were incorporatedtogether asAmericans, how they contemplated the relationshipbetween the whole and its constituent parts.

The change in the relationship betweenAfricanAmericans andAmerican society constituted one of the most dramatic changes.Early textbooks, from the first decades of the century, rarely men-tionAfricanAmericans, and when they do, the references areimbued with racist implications and commentary.Although inmost cases the blatant racism decreased gradually, as late as the

1950s,AfricanAmericans were portrayed as part ofAmerican his-

tory only in their capacity as slaves. Hence, it is actually slavery, asan institution, that is discussed and not the group itself. They wereneither perceived as nor did they constitute an integral part of

American collective identity (Kane, 1970; Katz,1971 ).A represen-tative text of the 1950s would

beg[i]n its first section on the population of the US by saying, &dquo;leav-

ingaside the

Negroand Indian

population,&dquo;and it

proceededto do

just that. The Blacks were never treated as a group at all; they were

quite literally invisible. (Fitzgerald, 1979, p. 84)

A particularly telling example is afforded by the 1961 yearbookof the National Council for the Social Studies (Cartwright & Wat-

son, 1961). The yearbook that is published periodically by the




9/26

161

National EducationAssociation (NEA), Washington, D.C., serves

as a guide for high school educators. It provides extensive bibliog-raphies and summaries ofthe new developments in the various sub-fields ofAmerican history. This specific yearbook is structured

chronologically. It has 17 chapters, starting with the colonies and

ending with then-contemporary issues such as the cold war. Its self-declared aim is &dquo;to encourage critical thinking through the interpre-tive approach&dquo; (Cartwright & Watson, 1961, p. xxi).As a guide

published bythe

NEA,it is read

bythousands of educators and is of

great influence in the determination of school curriculum. In this

light, its mention, or rather nonmention, of AfricanAmericans is

particularly significant.As is expected, this yearbook states in its general introduction,

&dquo;The slavery dispute, the civil war and reconstruction constituted a

three decade long crisis, the sharpest and gravest through which thenation has gone&dquo; (Cartwright & Watson, 1961, p. xx). Out ofa 300-

page volume, only 3 pages are devoted to this &dquo;gravest&dquo; crisis. Twoadditional pages are devoted to a discussion of &dquo;local politics andthe Negro.&dquo; The history of theAfricanAmericans, their role in the

development ofAmerican history,AfricanAmerican cultural and

political figures-none of these-or other similar issues are even

remotely related to. TheNEA guide is typical in this aspect ofmost

pre-1960s textbooks (e.g., Fitzgerald, 1984; Kane, 1970; Todd &

Curti, 1950; West & West 1934, 1948). On the whole, very littleattention is paid to this group, and when it is, it is stereotypical andfocuses exclusively on &dquo;the slave.&dquo; Furthermore, the conception ofAfricanAmericans portrayed is based on the prejudiced stereotypeofAfricanAmericans that served to legitimate and perpetuate slav-

ery : that is, submissive, carefree, contented, lazy, and irresponsible.Textbooks published from the mid-1960s onward tell an entirely

different story. The story differs on a number of dimensions. First,the amount of attention devoted toAfricanAmericans grows enor-

mously. Until and throughout the 1950s, the onlyAfricanAmeri-

can exemplars were Booker T. Washington and Dred Scot (alwayspictorially presented with his cross-eyed gaze) (Fedyk, 1979).

Beginning in the late 1960s, more and moreAfricanAmerican

personalities are discussed, from sports figures, through artists and




10/26

162

musicians, to political personalities. This finding is substantiated

by a number of studies that compared textbooks from both periods(Garcia & Goebel, 1992; Glazer & Uda, 1984; Sleeter & Grant,1990). The growth in the number ofthese kind of studies is in itself

part of the change that was spawned during the 1960s (Reinhold,1992).

Second, the way in whichAfricanAmericans themselves are

portrayed changes, with an increasing emphasis on positive quali-

ties, personalities,and contributions. In the context of the exem-

plar, as was noted above, not merely does theAfricanAmerican

appear more often but he (literally he) appears increasingly as a

positive role model. There is also an increase and diversification of

pictorial illustrations, of AfricanAmerican doctors, and of inte-

grated class rooms (Fitzgerald, 1984; Kane, 1970). In addition, theAfricanAmerican soldier emerges as a dominant model, exempli-fying theAmerican qualities of patriotism, loyalty, courage, andselflessness. TheAfricanAmerican is now more likely to beassoci-ated with traits such as intelligence, talent, ambition, and success.Most significantly, then, the image ofa positive exemplar emerges,reflecting the same qualities associated with theAmerican charac-ter and with the good citizen: ambition, energy, self-improvementthrough education, training, and hard work. TheAfricanAmericanbecomes anAmerican.

Third and finally, the entire discourse surroundingAmericanidentity was fundamentally altered. Conceptions of a melting-potsociety lost their fashionable appeal and were rapidly replaced bynew concepts, such as multiculturalism, ethnicity, group and

minority identity, and so on. This changed context is crucial tounderstand the shift in the status ofAfricanAmericans because the

changing context both was a result ofthe particular change ofAfri-

canAmericans and, in due course, served to further influence thedynamic relationship between this group and the larger society inwhich it existed. No less important of course, is the interactionbetween the different composite changes (i.e., the impact of thefeminist movement on the civil rights movement). The suddeninclusion of a variety ofgroups required a reappraisal of the entirenarrative ofAmerican history and identity.




11/26

163

COMMEMORATIVE SYMBOLS

POSTAL STAMPS

The first stamp that honored anAfricanAmerican appeared as

part of the FamousAmericans set, in 1940. This stamp honored

Booker T. Washington. Until 1967, a total offive stamps, which in

some way depicted Blacks or Black issues, were issued. Three outof the five

depictedBlacks-two

commemoratingBooker T. Wash-

ington, (one picturing his house) and one ofDr. GeorgeWashingtonCarver. The othertwo commemorated events such as the Thirteenth

Amendment and the Emancipation Proclamation. Thus, those

stamps issued prior to the passing of the 1964-1965 civil rights leg-islation that do pertain to Blacks portray either symbols that are

relatively neutral, proclamations of equality and portrayals ofnational symbols such as Lincoln, or that are well-known &dquo;token&dquo;Black figures such as Carver and Washington.

From 1965 until 1990, a total of 23 stamps that commemorated

AfricanAmericans were issued.All 23 commemorated specificAfricanAmerican personalities such as Paul Lawrence Dunbar,John Trumball, Harriet Tubman, Martin Luther King, Jr., WhitneyMoore Young, Dr. Ralphe J. Bunch, and others. In 1981, the Black

Heritage Series was initiated, which issues at least one new stampalmost every year. Moreover, we witness the gradual inclusion ofAfricanAmericans in all-American series such as theAmerican

Arts Series,American Revolutionary Bicentennial Series, GreatAmericans Regular Series, PerformingArts Series (Black Heritageon U.S. Stamps, 1990.)

MONTHSAND HOLIDAYS

An additional commemorative category includes holidays and

special extended-commemorative periods. Prior to the passing ofthe civil rights legislation in 1965, no national holidays, or com-memorative weeks or months, had ever been established to cele-

brate either anAfricanAmerican person, or event ofsignificance totheAfricanAmericans. Since the 1960s, two such holidays haveI- - - -- -__..._L1~_L_~




12/26


13/26

165

Until the 1970s, virtually no landmarks or parks existed thathonoredAfricanAmericans. The

designationof landmarks is

accepted as a sign ofthe general recognition ofthe historical impor-tance ofthe subject honored. Hence, the absence ofsuch landmarkscan be seen as quite a meaningful indication of the lack of impor-tance attributed toAfricanAmericans within the more generalAmerican context. In 1970, the Parks Service initiated a landmarks

program for &dquo;relevance,&dquo; which sought to address this lacuna, andwas significantly financed by congress. In July 1974, 13 sites werechosen and designated as landmarks including, among others, Mar-tin Luther Kings church during the bus boycott, the Ida B. Wells-Barnett House in Chicago, the Harriet Tubman Home for theAgedinAuburn, New York, and others. Continued surveys resulted, with

61AfricanAmerican landmarks by 1977 (Mackinntosh, 1985).As these changes in the landmark, monument, and postal poli-

cies indicate, the 1970s ushered in a period ofprogressive inclusion

ofAfricanAmerican cultural representations into the mainstreamofAmerican culture. By the late 1970s,AfricanAmerican historywas part of mostAmerican public and academic institutions. This

general trend was reflected, and of course reinforced, by the estab-lishment of separateAfricanAmerican museums whose purposewas to define the narrative of this groups history and its potentialrelationship (or rather relationships) toAmerican identity (Stewart

& Ruffins, 1986, pp. 307-339.) This was possible largely becauseof the support and attention given toAfricanAmerican history.

The Museum ofAfro-American History in Boston(Byron Rush-

ing), for example, tried to reflect the expanding awareness of cul-tural nationalism, indicative in most cases of the emergent sense of

AfricanAmerican ethnicity versusAfricanAmerican race. In Sep-tember 1967, theAnacostia Neighborhood Museum of Washing-

ton, D.C.,was established

bythe Smithsonian. This case reflected

the desire to create anAfricanAmerican museum that would helpto minimize the general sense of alienation of this community fromthe formal representations ofAmerican culture, and enable them tofeel that the Smithsonian was their institution. Other museums

include, for example, the Sable Museum in Chicago and the ElmaLewiss National center ofAfricanAmericanArtists.




14/26

166

AfricanAmerican public history, during this same period,

gained access to mainstreamAmerican institutions of culture suchas the Brooklyn Museum, the Field Museum in Chicago, the Los

Angeles County Museum ofArts, the National Portrait Gallery, andthe National Museum of History and Technology. These museumsstarted organizing exhibitions that emphasizedAfricanAmericancontributions toAmerican social and cultural history.At the same

time, documentary and feature films in addition to television spe-

cialswere

fundedto

reportonAfrican

American issues. Finally,AfricanAmerican history was incorporated into the public school

agenda through special assemblies and lectures during the Black

history month, and in general, observance of this month became

regular calendar events in most major White universities across thenation (Stewart & Ruffins, 1986).

THE INCLUSION OFAFRICANAMERICANS

What is the meaning ofthis change, and why did it happen whenit did? Most discussions ofAfricanAmerican history, or indeed of

American history in general, highlight particular legal junctures ascritical. For a population whose existence has been so criticallydetermined by discrimination, instances that mark either the insti-tutionalization ofdiscrimination (Dred Scott, Jim Crow, Plessy vs.

Ferguson, etc.) or the breaking down of these institutions (Brownvs. Topeka, 1960; 1964 civil rights legislation) emerge as central tothe national-or subnational-narrative (Combs, 1995; Foner,1990; Karst, 1989). Even a cursory glance at the historical and

sociological literature onAfricanAmericans reveals both a pre-dominance oflegal histories and a clearly formal or political orien-

tation in other types of histories. Indeed, the history ofAfricanAmericans can be told through a history of legislation.

However, in an attempt to superimpose the history of AfricanAmericans on the historical development ofAmerican identity, itwould appear that despite the undoubted significance of Brown and

previous civil rights legislation, the 1964 Civil RightsAct and 1965

voting rights act emerge as the critical watershed in terms of the




15/26

167

inclusion ofAfricanAmericans into the collectiveAmerican

identity.The Civil RightsAct of 1964 was by far the most extensive pieceof civil rights legislation ever passed. Its many titles covered most

aspects of race relations in the United States: voting, public accom-modations, employment, education, and health care. Two achieve-ments summarize the significance of the act. The first is the exten-sive power granted to various federal agencies, from the

Departmentof Justice to various federal commissions, to enforce

the law. Thus, for example, Title 4 gave the Department of Justicethe authority to enter pending civil rights cases and to cut offfederal

funding to states and agencies engaged in discriminatory practices.It empowered the Department of Justice to initiate suits aimed at

desegregation and to intervene in voting rights cases.The second achievement was due to the symbolic significance of

Title 2, which referred to public accommodations. With the now

fully empowered backing of the Department of Justice and the U.S.commission on civil rights, segregation in restaurants, hotels, thea-

ters, and the like was slowly eliminated. Hence, both the symbolicdisplays of exclusion and the legal displays were eliminated withthe passing of this act (Whalen and Whalen, 1985).

The big achievement in terms of voting rights came with the Vot-

ing RightsAct of 1965. The act ensured that local jurisdictions

could no longer impose restrictions on voting such as the literacytest, or the accompaniment clause, demanding that a person desir-

ing to register be accompanied by two registered voters, which defacto preventedmostAfricanAmericans from registering. InAla-

bama, for example, only 2% of theAfricanAmerican populationwas registered to vote. The Voting RightsAct gave the attorneygeneral and the Department ofJustice enlargedpowers ofinterven-

tion and enforcement: the right to file suit to enforce registrationand the right to preclear any cases ofgerrymandering that would act

againstAfricanAmericans. Essentially, it complemented the Civil

RightsAct of 1964 in asserting the authority ofthe federal govern-ment over the state government in all issues pertaining to civil

rights (Davidson & Grofman, 1994; Fuchs, 1990).




16/26

168

In light ofthe centrality of citizenship and political participationto

membershipin theAmerican

identity,no act

of legislationcom-

pares in significance to the 1960s legislation. The 1960s debateover the civil rights legislation, which sought to grant the Black

population full rights ofcitizenship, can be read simultaneously asa debate over the definition of a specifically WhiteAmerican

nationality, as opposed to the more inclusive &dquo;multiracial&dquo;Ameri-can nationality. The debate, like other similar ones, took place and,to some

degree,still takes

placein terms ofwho

properlyis amem-

ber of theAmerican nation and who is not.

Indeed, most central texts on bothAfricanAmericans and on

American identity agree that the 1960s legislation marked a water-shed. Together, they served as mechanisms of inclusion and mem-

bership because ofthe significant sense ofempowerment that con-

sequently resulted forAfricanAmericans (Weinberg, 1991).Extending the franchise and ensuring federal enforcement of other

basic civil rights together served to incorporateAfricanAmericansinto theAmerican political nation.

Full membership in the polity is impossible if one is preventedfrom participation in the communitys public life.A sense of

belonging is tantamount to a sense of potential participation and

potential influence on the policies, values, and normative life ofthat community. Denying access to the main avenues of participa-

tion is, therefore, tantamount to exclusion from the communalspirit.

Racial segregation not only stigmatizes its victims; it also excludesthem from full participation as members ofsociety, treating them asmembers ofa subordinate caste.... Denial of respect not only inhib-its the integration ofthe groups members into the larger society butalso undermines the value of belonging to the group. (Karst, 1989,

p. 323)

This belief, that political participation is related to the distributionof economic resources, is shared and has been demonstrated, bymany scholars and also by most participants in the civil rightsmovement (Button, 1989; Hamilton, 1986; Jaynes & Williams,1989). Hence, the achievement of basic political rights, most




17/26

169

important the effective enforcement of the franchise, meant farmore

thenthe mere act

of voting itself: When political rightsmean

access to political power, and access to political power meansaccess to economic advantage, empowerment is a basic conditionof equal membership in the collective identity (Hamilton, 1986).Consequently, formal and legal legitimacy provided by the twocivil rights acts, coupled a few years later with the targeted welfare

programs of Johnson and his &dquo;Great Society&dquo; platform, reinforcedthe notion, through both political and social entitlement, thatAfri-canAmericans now belonged to theAmerican collective (Divine,1987). The dramatic increases in the social services in the southerncommunities in particular (street paving, street lighting, education,water service, housing rehabilitation, fire protection, police protec-tion, and the like), and the rise in employment levels, are testimonyto the newly acquired inclusion (Button, 1989). The civil rights leg-islation and the voting rights bill incorporatedAfricanAmericans

into more then the circle ofAmerican voters, it incorporated theminto the definition ofAmerican identity.

In addition, the dramatic increases in both the numbers ofAfri-

canAmericans who participated as voters in coming elections andthe vast increases in the numbers ofAfricanAmericans elected to

political positions is testimony to the importance of this legislationto the large scale incorporation ofthis group into the core ofAmeri-

can identity.As far as voting rates are concerned, the rates amongsouthernAfricanAmericans rose from 10% in 1952, to 30% in

1964, to 70% in 1968. The voting registration percentagemore thendoubled itself between 1960 and 1970 alone-from 27% to 67%.

The advances made in elected offices are even more striking. By1974, for example, 964AfricanAmericans were elected to publicoffice in six states with a previous record of severe discrimination,

and by 1979, the number doubled (Button, 1989). In Louisianaalone, the number ofAfricanAmerican mayors tripled from 1974to 1980. The number ofAfricanAmerican elected officials in the

entire United States (including the more integrated and liberal

North) rose, from 82 in 1951, to 280 in 1964, to 1469 in 1970, and to

3,503 in 1975. The statistics follow a similar pattern in most publicposition indicators. These include the number ofAfricanAmerican




18/26

170

judges, mayors, school board members, council members, sena-

tors, congressmen, and the like (Jaynes & Williams, 1989).Animportant conclusion from these statistics is that particularly in the

South, where politics (and hence theAfricanAmerican population)was almost exclusively controlled by Whites and whereAfrican

Americans occupied a &dquo;subject&dquo; political status in terms of politicalculture, these major transformations in the racial balance ofpowertransformed theAfricanAmericans political status from that of

&dquo;subject&dquo;to that of

&dquo;participant.&dquo;This

typeof

participant politicalculture is but one more characteristic of the-at this point moreinclusive-American collective identity (Almond, 1964; Button,1989).

EXPLAINING THE CHANGE:

POLITICALACTIONAND IDENTITY

What context appropriately explains the advent of this change?Clearly, the civil rights movement was one of the most successfulsocial movements in the century, mobilizing an entire nation to itscause and single-handedly transforming civil rights into one ofthemost salient political issues in the United States. Indeed, itwas the

political salience of the issue that forced congress and the admini-

stration into action. Or in other words, it was this political saliencethat promoted the convergence oftheAfricanAmerican interest in

equal civil rights and the political interests of the Kennedy andJohnson administrations. In the final analysis, it was this conver-

gence of interests that facilitated the passing oflegislation and that

provides the accurate context in which to understand the inclusionofAfricanAmericans. Civil or social movements are only success-

ful to the extent that they manage to influence or transform politicalinterests.The interest-convergence model is helpful here (Bell, 1992).

Accordingly, actions to end racial discrimination in the UnitedStates cannot, and should not, be understood solely in the context ofthe advantages gained by those discriminated against. Of equalimportance are the incentives of those Whites who participated in




19/26

171

the efforts to enact social and political change. These interests and

positiveincentives of the

particularactors are informed-if not

guided-by the interests and incentives of the group to which theybelong, be it racial, economic, or social. In most such politicalefforts, a convergence of interests of the various coalition groupsinvolved occurs.

Perceived in this light, what then prompted the Kennedy andJohnson administrations into action? On the surface, the responseis self-evident. The national media coverage metamorphosed the

impact of the violent interracial events, bringing them into the liv-

ing room of almost every family in the country (Harding, 1983;Stern, 1992). The almost daily coverage of violent race riots, the

aggression of southern police against the passive resistance ofwomen and children, the radio and television access given to indi-viduals who detailed their own personal stories of discriminationand persecution, together brought home the horrors ofthe southern

racist system and made the famous Myrdalian gap between valuesand practice that much harder to ignore or rationalize (Morris,1984; Stem, 1992). Clearly, the national media coverage seems tobe the single most important factor in explaining the salience ofrace and civil rights during the 1960s. Nonetheless, the specificway in which this coverage affected political interests and motiva-tions needs to be spelled out. This coverage influenced domestic

and international politics in two primary ways.The domestic arena. First of all, and most simply perhaps, the

media coverage transformed civil rights into a primary electoral is-sue. This element forced the incumbent democratic administration

to respond immediately and consequently changed the traditionalbalance of power between southern conservative state interests and

those of the more liberal North. The media coverage succeeded in

both establishing the publicawareness

and, perhapsmore

impor-tant, sustaining the salience of the issue over time. The salience ofcivil rights as an issue oftremendous national significance affectedthe public agenda in two ways. First, it mobilized public opinion.Studies demonstrate, for example, that although in January 1955less than 5% oftheAmerican public considered civil rights &dquo;most

important problem,&dquo; in 1963-1964, this percentagejumped to more




20/26

172

than 40%. Thus, in answer to the question &dquo;ShouldAfricanAmeri-cans

have equal chance at jobs?&dquo; in 1945,40% agree, whereas from1960 to 1970, this percentagejumps from 80% to 100%. Similarly,more than 80% ofthe parents questioned had no objection to send-

ing their children to integrated schools in 1964 (Burstein, 1993, pp.163-166). Clearly, the statistical trend indicates that public opinionwas favorably influenced by the civil rights movement and by the

coverage of it.

Second, the transformation of race into a salientpolitical

issue,backed by a mobilized public opinion, forced, so it seems, the intro-duction of race and civil rights to the center of the political arena

and, subsequently, forced the two major parties to redefine their

political alignment. Neither Kennedy nor Johnson entered theiradministrations as staunch civil rights supporters, and their posi-tions on the issue were dictated by strategic calculations. Thedilemma of Kennedy and Johnson was, in essence, the dilemma ofthe democratic party: &dquo;How to reconcile the needs ofseveral majoralliance partners who acutely disagreed over civil rights: southernwhites, blacks, and the liberal allies of blacks, including theunions&dquo; (Stern, 1992, p. 4). Thus, in many ways, the civil rightscampaign of both presidents is a fascinating study in politicalstrategy.

Kennedy, who had become infamous as a result of his 1957

pro-McCarthy vote in congress, did not enter politics as a liberaland was not attuned to racial issues (Stern, 1992). Indeed, as the1959 democratic convention began, Kennedy was perceived as theleast popularcandidate amongAfricanAmericans. However, as the

presidential election approached, realizing the necessity ofAfricanAmerican support, Kennedy initiated a moderate courting processof AfricanAmerican leaders. In an attempt to develop a balanced

campaign position on civil rights, he developed a relationship withMartin Luther King, Jr., on one hand, and chose Johnson as a run-

ning mate on the other.In 1961, however, Kennedy staked out an activist position on

civil rights. The freedom rides shook the administration into action.The policy makers saw these activities as harbingers of a real crisisand, finally, perceived them as having direct bearing on their




21/26

173

reputation-both domestically, in terms of the perception of the

White population, and internationally, in terms of the cold warideological rivalry with the Soviet Union.

The issue of civil rights gained an accelerated momentum fol-

lowing the Kennedy assassination. With his swearing in as presi-dent, Johnson declared civil rights to be the main guiding issue ofhis administration. However, he knew that to garner liberal support,he would have to be open about the issue: &dquo;I had to produce a civil

rightsbill even

strongerthan the one

theydhave

gottenif

Kennedyhad lived. Without this, Id be dead before I could even begin&dquo;(Divine, 1987, p. 161). Promoting civil rights was a means forJohnson for establishing himself as a legitimate national leader, for

ensuring the support of the Kennedy people, and for easing his

image as merely a southern compromise. TheAfricanAmericanvote became all the more significant following the 1964 legislation.

As a result, the federal government relentlessly pursued voter-enforcement cases. Hence, the voting rights bill can be seen as a

convergence of interests in civil rights and in party electoral poli-tics. Registration was a necessary prerequisite for voting, and

hence, increasing registration was seen as a democratic campaigntactic. Indeed,AfricanAmerican registration and participationwere viewed as key elements in the future of the national demo-cratic party.

By the end of 1964, most of theAmerican public believed inenforcing voting rights forAfricanAmericans. Mobilizing that

support and translating it into political action was, therefore, the

primary strategic concern. The demonstrations and public outcryserved as the mechanism for such a political translation. The strate-

gic interests were now defined and articulated: Voting rightsbecame a pivotal political issue, which enabled the garnering of

congressional support. In addition, the added votes that wouldresult from an effective and enforced voting bill would cover the

political costs, so to speak, of White voter defection. The interestsof the administration, the public, and the civil rights movement

finally converged. The 1964 and 1965 acts were a product of this

convergence.




22/26

174

The international arena. On the international arena, coverage of

the demonstrations and protest served merelyto

heighten the al-ready sensitive issue of race relations in the United States and its

impact on the reputation ofthe United States as a leader ofthe freeand liberal world. Unsurprisingly, the Soviet Union exploited the

coverage and incorporated it as part of its ideological campaignagainst the United States. Consequently, the accumulative impactwas threatening to damageAmerican standing in the cold war ri-

valry, especiallyin

regardto its

positionin the third world,

specifi-cally inAfrica. Much as a result, the State Department consideredthe domestic racial problem to be a major foreign policy issue.

Therefore, any effort to promote civil rights within the UnitedStates was not only consistent but was seen as contributing towardthe central U.S. mission of fighting worldcommunism. Indeed, thiswas the case ever since the end ofWorldWar II and is considered to

have contributed toward various major civil rights rulings, includ-

ing and perhaps especially Brown vs. Topeka Board ofEducation.At that time the TrumanAdministration impressed upon the Su-

preme Court the necessity for world peace and national security of

upholding Black civil rights at home in a number of amicus briefs

detailing the effect of racial segregation on U.S. foreign policyinterests.

Analyses of foreign press from the end of World War II and

through the early 1960s reveal extensive coverage of civil rightsabuses in the United States.An interesting example is found in theBritish press, in which, as a defense against theAmerican attack onBritains Palestine policy, the British press counters by an attack onAmericas double standard-the United States as bastion of free-

dom, while maintaining racial discrimination at home. This cover-

age peaks during times of unrest and surrounding the advent of sig-

nificant legislation.Although it is difficult to establish a causalconnection between the two issues, it is unlikely that the cold war

atmosphere, which was so dominantly prevalent from the 1950sand onward, was ignored by the decision makers in the WhiteHouse. There appears to be aconvergence between civil rights poli-cies and actions, andAmerican foreign policy interests.




23/26

175

CONCLUSION

In this article, I expanded on the political logic of democraticinclusion: Why it happens, who does it, and how. The molding ofthe boundaries of collective identity-through inclusion, but also

through exclusion-is one of the mechanisms available to policymakers and political leaders in their efforts to govern, maintain sta-

bility, and gain legitimacy. Hence, the public good of collective

identity works so well because ultimately it is fashioned after the

interests of both the governed and those governing.To qualify for membership in the collective identity of the polity,

citizenship is a necessary condition, but it is not sufficient.As I

demonstrated,AfricanAmericans were citizens for close to 100

years before they gained inclusion into the identity. It is only with

full inclusion that citizens are then eligible for the other publicgoods provided-legitimacy and economic benefits.

Having argued for the inclusion ofAfricanAmericans into theAmerican collective identity, it is important to note that this act ofinclusion is itself not a permanent fixture of the identity. Despitetheir inclusion and their eligibility for the public good ofcollective

identity, and despite the hopes that this act ofinclusion would bringwith it economic benefits and legitimacy, the history of the past 30

years is a mixed one. On many socioeconomic indicators,African

Americans have not fared as well as theexpectations

assumed.

Moreover, the 1990s has ushered in a new outlook on integrationand cultural cohesion. The deepening multicultural outlook, cou-

pled with the backlash against such fundamentally integrativemechanisms such as affirmative action, have resulted in a more

skeptical outlook on inclusion. The debate surrounding Ebonicsand the drive for granting collective cultural rights toAfrican

Americans and to other minorities is but one manifestation of this

trend.

Collective identity and citizenship are, therefore, truly complexand flexible institutions. Toward the end of the 20th century, the

structure ofthe nation-state seems to be on the verge ofmajor trans-formations. These changes are apparent in various seemingly




24/26

176

contradictory trends: the obfuscation of national differences as

expressed by the European Union,on one

hand, and the flaring upof ethno-national difference as demonstrated by the violent ethnicconflicts in Europe,Africa, andAsia, on the other, as well as themulticultural demands in the United States. The emergence of pos-

sibly new forms of national organizations makes the study of col-lective identity all the more relevant.

REFERENCES

Arieli, Y. (1964). Individualism and nationalism inAmerican ideology. Cambridge: Harvard

University Press.

Arthur, J., Shapiro,A. (1995). Campus wars: Multi-culturalism and the politics of differ-ence. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Bell, D. (1992). Faces at the bottom of the well: The permanence of racism. New York: BasicBooks.

Bodnar, J. (1992). RemakingAmerica: Public memory, commemoration, and patriotism inthe 20th century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Burstein, P. (1979). Public opinion, demonstrations, and the passage of anti-discrimination

legislation. Public Opinion Quarterly, 43, 157-173.

Button, J. W. (1989). Blacks and social change: Impact of the Civil Rights movement insouthern communities. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Carr, E. H. (1961). What is history? Middlesex, England: Penguin.Cartwright, W. H., Watson, R. L., Jr. (1961). Interpreting and teachingAmerican history

(31st yearbook of the National Council for the Social Sciences). Washington, DC:

National EducationalAssociation.Combs, M. W. (1993). The Supreme Court andAfricanAmericans: Personnel and policy

transformations. Howard Law Journal, 36, 139-184.

Grofman, B., Grofman, C., Grofman, D. (1994). Quiet revolution in the South: The impact ofthe Voting RightsAct 1965-1990. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

de Tocqueville,A. (1945). Democracy inAmerica. New York: Vintage Books.Divine, R.A. (1987). The Johnson years. (part 2: The great society). Lawrence, KS: Univer-

sity Press of Kansas.

Fedyck, M. (1980). Conceptions of citizenship and nationality in high schoolAmerican his-

tory textbooks, 1913-1977. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Columbia University.Fitzgerald, F. (1980).America revised. New York: Vintage Books.

Foner, E. (1990). The Blacks and the constitution. New Left Review,183, 63-75.

Fuchs, L. H. (1990). TheAmerican kaleidoscope: Race, ethnicity, and civic culture. London:

Wesleyan University Press.

Goebel, J., Garcia. (1985).A comparative study of the portrayal of BlackAmericans inselected U. S. history textbooks. The Negro Educational Review, 36, 124-136.

Ueda, G., Ueda, N. (1976). Ethnic groups in history textbooks. Washington, DC: Ethics andPublic Policy Center.




25/26

177

Hamilton, C. V. (1986) Social policy and the welfare of BlackAmericans: From rights toresources. Political Science Quarterly, 101, 239-255.

Hardin, R. (1982). Collective action

.

Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press forResources for the Future.

Hartz, L. (1955). The Liberal tradition inAmerica:An interpretation ofAmerican politicalthought since the revolution. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.

Hornsby,A., Jr. (1991). Chronology of African-American history. Detroit: Gale Research,Inc.

Huntington, S. (1985).American politics: The promise of disharmony. Cambridge, MA: The

Belknap Press.

Jaynes, G., Williams, R. M. (1989).A common destiny: Blacks and American society. Wash-

ington,DC: National

AcademyPress.

Kane, M. B. (1970). Minorities in textbooks:A study of their treatment in social studies texts.

Chicago: Quadrangle Books.

Karst, Kenneth L. (1989). Belonging toAmerica: Equal citizenship and the Constitution.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Katz, W. L. (1968). Teachers guide to American Negro history. Chicago: Quadrangle Books.

Kettner, J. (1978). The development of American citizenship: 1608-1870. Chapel Hill, NC:

University of North Carolina Press.

Kohn, H. (1957).American nationalism. New York: Macmillan.

Lipset, S. M. (1963). The first new nation: The United States in historical and comparative

perspective. New York: W. W. Norton and Company.Mackintosh, B. (1985). The Historic Sites Survey and National Landmarks Program:A his-

tory. Washington, DC: History Division, National Park Service, Department of theInterior.

Marshall, T. H. (1965). Class, citizenship and social development. New York:Anchor.

Martin, B. L. (1991). From Negro to Black toAfricanAmerican: The power of names and

naming. Political Science Quarterly, 106, 83-107.Mayer, J. P. (1979). Prophet of the mass age:A study of Alexis de Tocqueville. New York:Arno Press.

Mayo, J. M. (1988). Remembrance as political critique, in War memorials as political land-scape : The American experience and beyond. New York: Praeger.

Morris,A. D. (1984). The origins of the Civil Rights movement: Black communities organiz-ing for change. New York: The Free Press.

Myrdal, G. (1944).AnAmerican dilemma: The Negro problem andAmerican democracy.New York: Harper and Row.

Ploski, H.A. (1989). The Negro almanac:A reference work on theAfricanAmerican, 5th ed.Detroit: Gale Research, Inc.

Popper, K. (1961). The Poverty of Historicism. London:ARK Paperbacks.Reinhold, R. (1991) Class struggle: Californias textbook debate. New York Times Maga-

zine, Sep.21, 26-30.Sleeter, C. E., Grant, C.A. (1991). Race, class, gender and disability in current textbooks. In

M. W.Apple and L. K. Christian-Smith (Eds.), The politics of the textbooks. London:

Routledge.Smith,A. (1986). The Ethnic Origins of Nations. Oxford: Blackwell.

Smith,A. (1992). National Identity. London: Penguin.Smith, R. M. (1995). Beyond Tocqueville, Myrdal and Hartz: The multiple traditions in

America.American Political Science Review, 87, 549-566.




26/26

178

Stem, M. (1992). Calculating visions: Kennedy, Johnson and Civil Rights. New Brunswick,NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Stewart, J. C. and Ruffins, F. D. (1986).A faithful witness:Afro-American public history inhistorical perspective, 1828-1984. In S. P. Benson, S. B. Rosenzweig, & R. Rosenzweig(Eds.), Presenting the pat: Essays on history and the public. Philadelphia: Temple Uni-

versity Press.

Taylor. C. (1995). The politics of recognition. In J.Arthur andA. Shapiro (Eds), Campuswars: Multi-culturalism and the politics of difference. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Curti, L., Curti, M., Curti, P. (1950).Americas History. NY: Harcourt Brace.

Walzer, M. (1990). What does it mean to be anAmerican? Social Research, 57, 591-614.

Weinberg, M. (1991). The Civil Rights movement and educational change. In C. V. Willie,A. M.

Garibaldi,& W. L. Reed

(Eds.),The education

of AfricanAmericans.

Westport,CT.: Greenwood.

West, W. M., West, R. (1934) TheAmericanpeople:A new history for highschools. Boston,MA: Ginn.

West, W. M., West, R. (1948). The story of our country. Boston, MA:Allyn and Bacon.

Rebecca Kook is assistant professor in the Departmentof Politics and Government atBen Gurion University. She writes on issues of citizenship and national identity

07. the shifting status of african americans

Documents