Review:
The Disuniting of America: Reflections on a Multicultural Society
by Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr.


Schlesinger, Arthur M. Jr. The Disuniting of America: Reflections on a Multicultural Society. New York City: W.W. Norton & Company, 1998.


Although Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. approves America's attempts to grow beyond its racist past and become a color-blind society, he does not believe that multiculturalism is the best means to achieve this end. Thus he wrote The Disuniting of America: Reflections on a Multicultural Society to expose what he believes are the flaws of the multicultural movement, and how it could destroy America by splitting our unified nation into smaller ethnic groups, all suspicious of one another. He states this boldly in the introduction, then continues in the book to provide evidence for such a conclusion.

The format of the book is somewhat unusual. Schlesinger divided his argument into five chapters with an introduction and an epilogue; the chapters are further subdivided into five or so parts. This odd setup tended to distract me from his argument.

In the first chapter he traces the birth in the 18th century of the idea of America as a 'melting pot' where men and women of all ethnicities, nationalities, religions, languages, and so forth would unite as Americans in their yearning for freedom and democracy. But in the early twentieth century, people began to wonder whether this melting pot was such a wonderful idea after all. To what degree should an immigrant continue the traditions of his home country (this diversity thus enriching all of America), and to what degree should he assimilate? And as Americans' optimism and hope waned in the late 1900s, they began looking back at an imaginary glorious past in their ancestors' homelands, "a symptom of decreasing confidence in the American future" (Schlesinger, 47).

Those ethnic groups whom historians had typically ignored in writing their histories, however, had no past to look back upon; thus they invented a past, one which Schlesinger believes is full of "embroidered" tales and "myths" (53). History, instead of being written and taught as an objective science, is being used as a weapon to right past injustices. And when a historian feels it is more important to redress past grievances than to coolly and calmly report the facts, his history almost always loses its grounding in reality.

I have personally experienced this bad history before, with history professors that sought to present the Native Americans and Africans as a peacefully, idyllic, gentle people whose wonderful way of life was destroyed by those evil, greedy, immoral white men. This simply isn't true: a quick glance through a serious monograph on African history would reveal that Africans are not or less warlike and ethnocentric than white people. So the chapters on the biased history taught in schools really connected with me. As an aspiring historian, it never hurts to be reminded once again of the problems that occur when one is not as objective and unbiased as possible in one's writing.

A desire to end racism in America is, of course, an admirable goal, Schlesinger says. But insisting that a persons makeup is more determined by the color of his skin than by the ideals of freedom and democracy will "begin to threaten the idea of an overarching American nationality" ( 81) and America may splinter into many smaller states like so many countries have, particularly in Eastern Europe. He speaks of a battle for control of the schools which, if the multiculturalists win, will irreparably damage the fabric of American society, as different ethnicities huddle together in isolation instead of all coming together for the common good. In particular, he mentions "the Afrocentric campaign", which tries to prove that black people were the cornerstone of Western civilization. Black students should not allow themselves to be segregated into "black dormitories, black student unions, black fraternities" (108); isn't 'separate but equal' a provably false doctrine?

In the last chapter, Schlesinger reminds multicultural enthusiasts that, although black Americans and Hispanic Americans and every other ethnic group deserve their place in our history books, white Americans deserve their place as well. The very principles which are used to condemn Western culture--the belief in the equality of all men, most of all--were in fact products of Western culture. "Let us by all meansÉlearn about those other continents and civilizations. But let us master our own history first" (145) and learn to take pride in ourselves as Americans, to preserve our nation.

This is one of the greatest flaws of the book: it spends one hundred and fifty pages criticizing our current system, and only the last two or three proposing a solution. Criticism that does not provide a better suggestion is hardly constructive.

I feel that Schlesinger builds his thesis on reliable sources, ones that try to be as unbiased as they possibly can. He references primarily either famous writers which every American would recognize as great (Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, W.E.B. Du Bois, and others) or fairly impartial, professional sources like the Journal of American History or the Washington Times. And, although this past month has led many Americans to question the reliability of the newspapers, I believe they can be relied upon for this much at least. Most obvious of all, Schlesinger is biased in favor of America remaining united as a whole nation; perhaps history will prove that balkanization and dividing a country upon ethnic lines is a better idea--although I do not find this proposition too likely. A proponent of multiculturalism may protest that a white man such as Schlesinger could not hope to understand the black perspective in this issue, and thus is not qualified to speak on this subject, but he deals with this objection in chapter four. So overall I found Schlesinger's thesis well-supported and his logic sound.

The epilogue, however, puzzles me. It doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the book; he spends an introduction and five chapters extolling the dangers of multiculturalism, but then sticks on a ending warning of the dangers of monoculturalism. It seems to me almost as if he, a liberal professing a very conservative point of view, had to prove to his party that he was still a loyal Democrat by randomly attacking Republicans. The anger and ferocity in this last section surprised me; it contrasts quite vividly with the cool and reasoned debate earlier in the book. The logic is less than sound: how can Republicans be "primitive" and "emotional" in their thought processes (163) and a "well organized, well funded, and ruthless" conspiracy (165)? Either they are throwbacks to a less civilized kind of man or they're evil criminal geniuses; they can't be both!

Even though I wish his solution to the multicultural dilemma were more developed and he had left off the unfortunate epilogue, I found The Disuniting of America to be an engaging read with a very convincing message. For those who enjoy politics and books about politics, I would recommend taking a look at Schlesinger. He is careful to use only plain, everyday language so his work is comprehensible to the general public. His greatest talent, I believe, is in making the works of long-dead white guys like Thomas Jefferson relevant to the here and now; reading this book made me want to go hunt down a copy of John Stuart Mill and read it cover to cover.