The Power of Paradigms

In the early 1980's I was asked to write the 20th century chapters for a new edition of an American History textbook for Harcourt Brace. The request came from one of my former high school history teachers (who gave me a D+ in his Russian History course--but that is another story) who did not have time to do the writing. My interest was piqued by two things--first, this was the book that was used by cadets at West Point and I would get the chance to write the Vietnam War chapters; in fact, my "audition essay" was about why 1968 would be seen as the pivotal year for a generation of Americans. Second, I had just discovered the concept of shifting paradigms. Thomas Kuhn in his landmark book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions posited that it was the anomalies in science that triggered revolutions which took the form of the creation of entirely new paradigms or "maps" of our world view.  One of his primary examples was the "Copernican Revolution" that overturned the previously held Ptolemaic idea that the earth was at the center of the solar system. But if you have any doubt about how powerful even discredited paradigms can hold on, consider that you probably often check the weather report to see what time the sun is going to "rise" or "set." And, while I confess that as I look out at the sky it does appear to my eyes that the sun is setting or rising, the science just doesn't seem to back up my visual experience.




This idea of a paradigm shift became the rage all over the academic world at this time, and my response to it was no exception. It was pretty clear to me what the "anomalies" were in the way American history was told then in any book:  women, African-Americans, Native Americans, and immigrants (more on that in a bit). Clearly what was needed in order to have the necessary revolution in the telling of American history was a re-imagining of the narrative to overturn the present paradigm.

The reigning paradigm was one that had gained huge traction from Louis Hartz' award-winning book The Liberal Tradition in America (1955) -- "American exceptionalism." Hartz created a story that posited that America was unlike any other country before it, and it had a superior place in world history because it was a special blend of liberty, the frontier experience, democratic republicanism, political liberalism, laissez-faire capitalist economics, and individualism. As a testament to the lasting power of paradigms, this is precisely what we are fighting over every night in 2018 on FOX news and MSNBC. Remember Obama's comment in 2009 about American exceptionalism? In an interview in Europe he responded to a journalist's question, "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism." He then went on to say, "I see no contradiction between believing that America has a continued extraordinary role in leading the world towards peace and prosperity and recognizing that leadership is incumbent, depends on, our ability to create partnerships because we create partnerships because we can't solve these problems alone." Outrage followed from many circles! James Kirchick called him the Squanderer in Chief in the New Republic. Mitt Romney attacked full frontal in his tome, No Apology: The Case for American Greatness, and you can tune into Sean Hannity or Tucker Carlson almost any night and hear Mike Huckabee repeat what he said then, "He (Obama) grew up more as a globalist than an American," Huckabee said. "To deny American exceptionalism is in essence to deny the heart and soul of this nation." Old paradigms are very powerful. Have you ever noticed that we are the only country in the world with the greatest number of "We're #1" foam fingers (often made in China) that we wave constantly for every possible reason? As I travel the world I fail to see other countries waving these ubiquitous fingers.

Given the civil rights revolution of the late 60's and early 70's, however, it was clear that this paradigm of American exceptionalism did not include large segments of the "anomalous" population in the story. In fact, it was hard to find them in the books at all. In my father's United States History book from the 1920's by renowned Columbia University Professor David Saville Muzzey, all of these people-- women, African-Americans, Native Americans, immigrants and many other groups--are completely absent as the story is one of the relentless progress toward freedom and equality which ends with the American "making the world safe for democracy" in 1919. Muzzey's book (it should be noted that he was a Progressive for his time) was the coin of the realm from 1911 for the next fifty years. The best anyone was doing to change this narrative in the 1980's was putting a little added addendum on such topics as the Trail of Tears at the end of chapters on Andrew Jackson and the Rise of American Democracy or about Manzanar at the end of the World War II chapter about the vanquishing of Hitler and his racist policies. We could not figure out how to actually be Copernicus, we were just doing the equivalent of what Ptolemy did to further his theory by creating a "retrograde motion of Mars" to cover the deep faults. We were essentially re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.

But this was not just a problem for historians. Sociologists used to say that American immigration could be summarized in a non-scatological version of the old bumper sticker that could read, "Assimilation Happens." The theory was that ALL groups will eventually assimilate. Robert Park, a colleague of Booker T. Washington at Tuskegee Institute, developed a widely accepted paradigm for sociology (see illustration of his theory below) at the University of Chicago that paralleled Louis Hartz's consensus view of American political history. However, sociologists have recently been looking at the data and finding anomalies that have challenged Park, and led to concepts such as the "segmented assimilation" of second generation immigrants (especially in New York City) and even to the idea of people developing a "transnational identity" rather than assimilating. New paradigms are just now being developed to explain new data and to question old assumptions. 


Obviously, my book did not pioneer the new paradigm either, but I did get the to explore some new metaphors that might replace the old one of the "melting pot" first created by J. Hector St. John de Crevecoeur in his Letters from an American Farmer in1782.  de Crevecoeur had seen the process of becoming American as the new immigrant "leaving behind him all his ancient prejudices and manners, receives new ones from the new mode of life he has embraced, the government he obeys, and the new rank he holds. He becomes an American by being received in the broad lap of our great Alma Mater. Here individuals of all nations are melted into a new race of men, whose labors and posterity will one day cause great changes in the world." You can clearly see in his thinking part of what will eventually become American exceptionalism. 

Carl Degler saw America as a "salad bowl," New York City mayor David Dinkins as "a grand mosaic," and some people as a "chocolate fondue with various fruits for dipping." John F. Kennedy in his 1958 book A Nation Of Immigrants had also joined the food metaphor club when he wrote, “...a ‘typical American menu’ might include some of the following dishes: ‘Irish stew, chop suey, goulash, chile con carne, ravioli, knockwurst mit sauerkraut, Yorkshire pudding, Welsh rarebit, borscht, gefilte fish, Spanish omelette, caviar, mayonnaise, antipasto, baumkuchen, English muffins, gruyère cheese, Danish pastry, Canadian bacon, hot tamales, wienerschnitzel, petit fours, spumoni, bouillabaisse, mate, scones, Turkish coffee, minestrone, filet mignon.’ ”

Appetizing as many of these new paradigms might be, they do not capture the central paradox of the unofficial motto of the United States, E Pluribus Unum--Out of Many, One." In the next blogpost I want to explore some paradigms that are central to the way we tell our national story and how they have been adopted in schools.

But just to give you a final example of the power of paradigms to shape our thinking, E Pluribus Unum was never the official motto of the United States and it refers not to the inhabitants of the country but to the joining together of the thirteen separate colonies to form one country. The official motto of the United States you can find in your pocket on any piece of currency--In God We Trust. The fact that we put it on our money probably matters as well.

When was that motto adopted?  1956. The year after Louis Hartz's book was published championing American exceptionalism. Always respect the power of paradigms to shape your thinking.

Coda Below: a visual paradigm mash-up of how we constantly create and re-create our own personal and national histories--