This is the first part of a thirteen-part series covering the essays in Anxious About Empire. You can read the introduction here. And of course, the author is always welcomed to respond.
The first essay in Anxious About Empire is by sociologist Robert Bellah. Some of you may know the term “American civil religion” that Bellah coined. Others may not, so here is a good summary from Wikipedia:
According to Bellah, Americans embrace a common “civil religion” with certain fundamental beliefs, values, holidays, and rituals, parallel to, or independent of, their chosen religion. This belief system has historically been used to attack nonconformist and liberal ideas and groups.
Bellah also wrote Beyond Belief: Essays on Religion in a Post-Traditional World which could be seen as the birth-pangs of the Emergent Church. This is a guy who has studied Marx, been a part of communism, critically analysed the religious institutions of America, and still speaks highly of faith.
This essay left me conflicted. How can someone criticize the actions and words of Bush and his attempt at hegemony, yet come across as pro-historical empire?
I think this is the fundamental problem for all critics of empire who benefit from empire, whether we are directly complicit or not. While we don’t like the approaches taken to maintain our security, we aren’t willing to give up that security.
I want to look first at Bellah’s pro-historical empire stance:
In human history empires are a fact of life; they have not been all bad.
So says the victors. This single line, no matter what comes further in the essay, condones empire building. One cannot say, that was ok, but this isn’t, yet Bellah seems to revolve around the idea that America became “an empire by default” unlike Britain and Rome who “intended to build is an empire.
He asserts that empires are benevolent structures, using a book by Lawrence Keeley, War Before Civilization as reference. Bellah notes that Keeley argues that the Roman and British Empires brought about “the most peaceful periods in history” as well as a “degree of tranquility encouraged unprecedented economic growth.” There are no benevolent empires, otherwise they would not be so hated, fought against, and ultimately brought down.
It is intersting that Bellah deletes the subtitle to Keeley’s book in his essay. Was it an inconvenience that Keeley compared empires to primitive tribes, instead of empires to non-empires, as is subtly suggested? The subtitle? The Myth of the Peaceful Savage.
Bellah’s pro-historical American Empire stance goes on to approve of our land grabs, saying that the Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny in was “modest” “compared to other empires.” He defends it as a need to provide space for our population to grow. Did he really say we needed Lebensraum?!?
Bellah seems to support the idea of ‘empire done right” when considering his view of the past coupled with this statement:
…the central point I want to make is that the American polity is in no way prepared for this world-historical role that has been thrust upon us, making it doubtful that we can sustain the hegemony the national security document assets.
Bellah was right in his prediction in the above statement, especially as events today unfold and we pull back from the brink that was sanctioned torture and shadowy detention camps. We will have to live with the consequences of those events however. Approve of Obama or not, he is reaping the results of 8 years of haphazard empire-building.
Bellah feared “that this latest American outburst of ‘the arrogance of power’ will mobilize most of the world against us.” It seems he was correct in that fear. My fear is that this idea that empire brings peace is a very isolationist viewpoint.
From an American point of view, it would seem as though we do live in a peaceful time, and I imagine these were the same thoughts of Roman and British citizens as well. But this point of view is completely distorted by the isolation we have from violence done in our name.
The peace we have at home comes from the fact that we are, like Britain and arguably Rome, essentially an island nation far removed from the areas of conflict.
But then Bellah throws his pro-empire talk out the window when he compares Bush’s dismissal of the United Nations to “what the Germans, Italians, and Japanese did in the 1930s: making the League of Nations “irrelevant” by refusing to abide by its decisions.
We are not left wondering where Bellah stands on the future. His idea of having us step down as ”king of the mountain” and replace it with the idea that nations will be “bound by a thousand ties of interdependence” is a bit naive and incongruent with the rest of his essay.
Bellah’s last paragraph is good, but puzzling considering individualism has always been a defining attribute of America:
A chance for another course, another role for America in the world, depends ultimately on the reform of our own culture. A culture of unfettered individualism combined with absolute world power is an explosive mixture. A few religious voices have been raised to say so. The question of the hour is whether our fellow citizens, not to mention our leaders, are ready to hear such voices.
Looking back, our fellow citizens and leaders at the time were deaf. The economy was roaring, and as long as everything was good, no one wanted to listen. Would it have been different if Bellah’s words were sharper, if the Church spoke out instead of going along? Bonhoeffer comes to mind, but then again the book is called Anxious About Empire, not Opposed to Empire.
-mike
