II

If we come to find this point of view plausible, we shall have to give

up the search for our native “American” culture. With the exception of

the South and that New England which, like the Red Indian, seems to

be passing into solemn oblivion, there is no distinctively American

culture. It is apparently our lot rather to be a federation of

cultures. This we have been for half a century, and the war has made

it ever more evident that this is what we are destined to remain. This

will not mean, however, that there are not expressions of indigenous

genius that could not have sprung from any other soil. Music, poetry,

philosophy, have been singularly fertile and new. Strangely enough,

American genius has flared forth just in those directions which are

least understanded of the people. If the American note is bigness,

action, the objective as contrasted with the reflective life, where

is the epic expression of this spirit? Our drama and our fiction,

the peculiar fields for the expression of action and objectivity,

are somehow exactly the fields of the spirit which remain poor and

mediocre. American materialism is in some way inhibited from getting

into impressive artistic form its own energy with which it bursts. Nor

is it any better in architecture, the least romantic and subjective

of all the arts. We are inarticulate of the very values which we

profess to idealize. But in the finer forms--music, verse, the essay,

philosophy--the American genius puts forth work equal to any of its

contemporaries. Just in so far as our American genius has expressed

the pioneer spirit, the adventurous, forward-looking drive of a

colonial empire, is it representative of that whole America of the many

races and peoples, and not of any partial or traditional enthusiasm.

And only as that pioneer note is sounded can we really speak of the

American culture. As long as we thought of Americanism in terms of the

“melting-pot,” our American cultural tradition lay in the past. It was

something to which the new Americans were to be moulded. In the light

of our changing ideal of Americanism, we must perpetrate the paradox

that our American cultural tradition lies in the future. It will be

what we all together make out of this incomparable opportunity of

attacking the future with a new key.

Whatever American nationalism turns out to be, it is certain to become

something utterly different from the nationalisms of twentieth-century

Europe. This wave of reactionary enthusiasm to play the orthodox

nationalistic game which is passing over the country is scarcely vital

enough to last. We cannot swagger and thrill to the same national

self-feeling. We must give new edges to our pride. We must be content

to avoid the unnumbered woes that national patriotism has brought in

Europe, and that fiercely heightened pride and self-consciousness.

Alluring as this is, we must allow our imaginations to transcend

this scarcely veiled belligerency. We can be serenely too proud to

fight if our pride embraces the creative forces of civilization which

armed contest nullifies. We can be too proud to fight if our code of

honor transcends that of the schoolboy on the playground surrounded

by his jeering mates. Our honor must be positive and creative, and

not the mere jealous and negative protectiveness against metaphysical

violations of our technical rights. When the doctrine is put forth that

in one American flows the mystic blood of all our country’s sacred

honor, freedom, and prosperity, so that an injury to him is to be the

signal for turning our whole nation into that clan-feud of horror

and reprisal which would be war, then we find ourselves back among

the musty schoolmen of the Middle Ages, and not in any pragmatic and

realistic America of the twentieth century.

We should hold our gaze to what America has done, not what mediæval

codes of dueling she has failed to observe. We have transplanted

European modernity to our soil, without the spirit that inflames it

and turns all its energy into mutual destruction. Out of these foreign

peoples there has somehow been squeezed the poison. An America,

“hyphenated” to bitterness, is somehow non-explosive. For, even if

we all hark back in sympathy to a European nation, even if the war

has set every one vibrating to some emotional string twanged on the

other side of the Atlantic, the effect has been one of almost dramatic

harmlessness.

What we have really been witnessing, however unappreciatively, in

this country has been a thrilling and bloodless battle of Kulturs. In

that arena of friction which has been the most dramatic--between the

hyphenated German-American and the hyphenated English-American--there

have emerged rivalries of philosophies which show up deep traditional

attitudes, points of view which accurately reflect the gigantic issues

of the war. America has mirrored the spiritual issues. The vicarious

struggle has been played out peacefully here in the mind. We have seen

the stout resistiveness of the old moral interpretation of history

on which Victorian England throve and made itself great in its own

esteem. The clean and immensely satisfying vision of the war as a

contest between right and wrong; the enthusiastic support of the Allies

as the incarnation of virtue-on-a-rampage; the fierce envisaging of

their selfish national purposes as the ideals of justice, freedom and

democracy--all this has been thrown with intensest force against the

German realistic interpretations in terms of the struggle for power and

the virility of the integrated State. America has been the intellectual

battleground of the nations.

History of a literary radical, and other essays · 第 62 / 65 题