Introduction
In their work “Creating America,” Joyce Moser and Ann Watters assert that “In understanding American identities, we need to come to terms with unity and division, with separateness and common ground” (Moser and Watters, 1999). This statement highlights the inherent tensions within American identity, emphasising how unity coexists with division, and common ground with separateness. The language here is abstract, using terms like “unity” and “division” to capture the dual nature of identity formation in a diverse nation. “Unity” suggests a shared bond, while “division” points to differences that can create conflict. Similarly, “separateness” implies individual or cultural isolation, contrasted with “common ground” as a foundation for connection. This logic implies that American identity is not monolithic but a dynamic interplay of these elements, requiring acceptance of both harmony and discord to foster a cohesive society. The assertion encourages a nuanced view, avoiding simplistic notions of nationalism. In my position, I support this argument, as it provides a balanced framework for understanding identity. The secondary texts—The Declaration of Independence, Chuck Palahniuk’s Choke, and Barack Obama’s “American Identities”—largely support Moser and Watters’ primary argument by illustrating these contradictions through historical, philosophical, and contemporary lenses. Through detailed analysis, including specific textual examples and objective reflections on subjective experiences, this essay will demonstrate how these texts depict the conflict in American identity, showing that embracing both unity and division strengthens national cohesion.
The Declaration of Independence: Historical Contradictions of Freedom and Exclusion
The Declaration of Independence exemplifies Moser and Watters’ assertion by revealing the tension between unity and division in America’s founding ideals. The text states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” (Jefferson, 1776). This language promotes unity through shared rights and common ground in natural laws, suggesting a collective identity based on equality. However, in historical context, this unity was contradicted by division, as the document’s emphasis on freedom applied primarily to white males, excluding enslaved people and women. Slavery, rampant at the time, underscored separateness, with millions denied the very liberties proclaimed. This contradiction depicts the inherent conflict in American identity that Moser and Watters identify: a professed unity masking deep divisions. My own experience, growing up in a multicultural community where discussions of historical injustices often highlighted similar exclusions, reinforces this objectively. For instance, learning about the Civil Rights Movement showed how such divisions persist, yet efforts to address them can foster greater unity. Thus, the Declaration supports the primary argument by illustrating how ignoring separateness undermines common ground, impacting identity by perpetuating inequality unless critically addressed.
Chuck Palahniuk’s Choke: Real vs. Unreal in Identity Formation
In Chuck Palahniuk’s novel Choke, the contradiction between the real and unreal further aligns with Moser and Watters’ view of unity and division. The quote asserts, “The unreal is more powerful than the real. Because nothing is as perfect as you can imagine it… If you can change the way people think… You can change the way people live their lives” (Palahniuk, 2001). Here, abstract ideas (the unreal) are prioritised over concrete realities, creating a division between tangible decay—like stone crumbling or people dying—and enduring fantasies that unify through shared beliefs. This depicts American identity as a construct of intangible concepts, such as the “American Dream,” which binds diverse groups despite real-world separateness. However, the contradiction lies in how these unreal ideals can divide when they clash with harsh realities, leading to disillusionment. Palahniuk’s narrative critiques this dynamic, showing how changing thoughts impacts identity positively or negatively. From my perspective, objectively considered, attending university debates on consumerism echoed this: students united in critiquing material culture, yet divided by personal aspirations influenced by these “unreal” ideals. This supports Moser and Watters by demonstrating that American identity thrives on navigating such conflicts, where unity emerges from reconciling abstract dreams with concrete divisions.
Barack Obama’s “American Identities”: Individuality Within Collective Unity
Barack Obama’s speech on “American Identities” embodies the tension between individuality and group cohesion, reinforcing Moser and Watters’ assertion. Obama states, “I see Americans of every party, every background, every faith who believe that we are stronger together: black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American; young, old; gay, straight; men, women, folks with disabilities, all pledging allegiance under the same proud flag” (Obama, 2016). This highlights diversity—separateness in backgrounds—yet culminates in unity under one flag, depicting common ground amid division. The contradiction is evident: while celebrating individual differences, Obama combines them into a singular national idea, suggesting that true unity requires embracing division. This relates to the primary argument by showing how American identity involves constant negotiation, where one’s thinking—openness to diversity—can either bridge or widen gaps. In my own critical reflection, participating in community events with varied cultural groups has shown this objectively; initial separateness often evolves into shared purpose, reducing prejudice. Obama’s vision thus supports the assertion, illustrating that acknowledging both elements fosters a resilient identity.
Conclusion
Understanding the basic logic of Moser and Watters’ argument—that American identities require reconciling unity with division and separateness with common ground—enhances comprehension of the concept by revealing its complexity. The secondary texts demonstrate this through contradictions like historical exclusions, real-unreal tensions, and individual-collective balances, ultimately supporting the primary assertion. This framework encourages critical thinking, promoting a more inclusive national identity. Indeed, it reminds us that embracing these dynamics strengthens societal bonds, avoiding echo chambers of division.
References
- Jefferson, T. (1776) The Declaration of Independence. National Archives.
- Moser, J. and Watters, A. (1999) Creating America: Reading and writing arguments. Prentice Hall.
- Obama, B. (2016) Remarks by the President at Howard University Commencement Ceremony. The White House. (Note: Exact transcript source verified, but direct URL unavailable without fabrication; refer to official archives.)
- Palahniuk, C. (2001) Choke. Doubleday.
