Deforming American Political Thought: Ethnicity, Facticity, and Genre

1. Securing the American Ethnoscape: Official Surveys and Literary Interventions

1฀ Securing฀the฀American฀Ethnoscape Official฀Surveys฀and฀Literary฀Interventions These฀times฀are฀unfriendly฀toward฀Worlds฀alternative฀to฀this฀one. —Thomas฀Pynchon,฀Mason฀&฀Dixon Every฀map฀presses฀down฀onto฀a฀physical฀terrain฀that฀it,฀in฀part,฀orders฀ and,฀in฀part,฀effaces. —Philip฀Fisher,฀“Democratic฀Social฀Space:฀ Whitman,฀Melville,฀and฀the฀Promise฀ ฀ of฀American฀Transparency”฀ The฀“Fact-Minded”฀Thomas฀Jefferson When฀Judith฀Shklar,฀the฀late฀and฀much-revered฀Harvard฀political฀theorist ,฀delivered฀her฀presidential฀address฀at฀the฀American฀Political฀Science ฀Association’s฀annual฀meeting฀in฀1990,฀she฀said฀that฀she฀felt฀her฀ responsibilities฀“particularly฀deeply.”฀One฀aspect฀of฀that฀depth฀derived฀ from฀her฀position฀as฀the฀first฀female฀president฀of฀the฀association.฀The฀ other฀was฀associated฀with฀her฀vocation฀as฀a฀political฀theorist.฀Entitling฀ her฀address฀“Redeeming฀American฀Political฀Thought,”฀Shklar฀insisted฀ that฀American฀political฀theory,฀“far฀from฀being฀demeaning฀and฀scienti fically฀superfluous,”฀ought฀to฀be฀integrated฀into฀a฀political฀science฀ that฀is,฀in฀its฀best฀incarnation,฀“fact-minded.”1 The฀redemption฀of฀American฀political฀theory฀for฀Shklar฀was฀therefore ฀ a฀ matter฀ of฀ overcoming฀ its฀ marginal฀ status฀ by฀ challenging฀ the฀ widely฀held฀presumption฀that฀it฀has฀lacked฀scientific฀rigor฀ever฀since฀ the฀colonial฀period.฀To฀make฀her฀case,฀Shklar฀treated฀what฀she฀called฀ “three฀ political฀ sciences฀ in฀ America,”฀ developed฀ during฀ America’s฀ 2฀ ฀ Deforming฀American฀Political฀Thought revolutionary฀ and฀ founding฀ periods.฀ These฀ belong฀ to฀ Thomas฀ Jefferson ,฀James฀Madison,฀and฀Alexander฀Hamilton,฀whose฀approaches฀ were฀“speculative฀and฀physiological,”฀“institutional฀and฀historical,”฀and฀ “empirical฀and฀behavioral,”฀respectively.2 ฀Once฀she฀cast฀the฀“founding฀ fathers”฀as฀political฀scientists,฀the฀bulk฀of฀her฀address฀treated฀instances฀ of฀their฀fact-mindedness฀and฀scientific฀rigor. However,฀ Shklar’s฀ desire฀ to฀ integrate฀ the฀ inaugural฀ period฀ of฀ American฀political฀theory฀into฀a฀scientific฀political฀science฀did฀not฀exhaust ฀her฀historical฀focus.฀Unlike฀most฀of฀her฀predecessors,฀for฀whom฀ the฀American฀political฀tradition฀constituted฀an฀unambiguously฀proud฀ legacy,฀Shklar฀noted฀that฀among฀the฀“political฀phenomena”฀that฀distinguished ฀the฀development฀of฀American฀political฀theory฀was,฀“most฀ deeply฀.฀.฀.฀the฀prevalence฀of฀chattel฀slavery.”฀As฀a฀result,฀she฀asserted,฀ “this฀country฀has฀embarked฀upon฀two฀experiments฀simultaneously:฀one฀ in฀democracy,฀the฀other฀in฀tyranny.”3 ฀Given฀the฀dominant฀tendency฀of฀ APSA฀presidential฀addresses฀to฀celebrate฀“the฀American฀political฀tradition ,”฀this฀was฀a฀stunning฀departure.฀But฀Shklar฀offered฀an฀immediate฀ palliative.฀She฀went฀on฀to฀suggest฀that฀the฀stain฀of฀chattel฀slavery฀had฀ been฀effectively฀removed,฀thanks฀in฀part฀to฀the฀social฀sciences฀within฀ which฀“the฀democratization฀of฀values”฀is฀implicit.฀However฀tyrannical฀ the฀institution฀of฀slavery฀was,฀a฀“democratic฀political฀science฀was฀eventually ฀to฀be฀expected.”฀And฀that฀political฀science,฀given฀to฀us฀“in฀embryonic ฀form”4 ฀by฀Jefferson,฀Madison,฀and฀Hamilton,฀helped฀to฀sanitize฀a฀ besmirched฀American฀democratic฀tradition. Yet฀despite฀her฀faith฀in฀the฀democratic฀proclivities฀of฀the฀entire฀trajectory ฀of฀American฀political฀science,฀which฀originated฀in฀the฀“thoughtworld ”5 ฀of฀the฀framers฀of฀the฀nation-state’s฀founding฀documents,฀Shklar฀ recognized฀a฀flawed฀perspective฀in,฀for฀example,฀Jefferson’s฀anthropology ฀with฀which฀he฀was฀able฀to฀legitimate฀the฀unjust฀treatment฀of฀“Indians ”฀and฀slaves.฀But฀we฀should฀not฀blame฀social฀science,฀she฀insisted,฀ only฀the฀choice฀of฀inquiries.฀Jefferson’s฀mistake฀was฀his฀attempt฀to฀“assimilate ฀social฀science฀to฀natural฀history.”6 ฀She฀did฀admit,฀however,฀that฀ ultimately,฀despite฀its฀important฀role฀in฀the฀democratization฀of฀values,฀ America’s฀early฀versions฀of฀political฀science฀had฀their฀limits.฀Even฀with฀ their฀ exemplary฀ ethos,฀ the฀ founding฀ thinkers฀ “could฀ not฀ imagine฀ a฀ multiracial฀citizenry.”7 ฀Remarkably,฀Shklar฀was฀undaunted฀by฀this฀failure ฀of฀imagination.฀Since฀things฀have฀worked฀out฀well—she฀implied฀ that฀America฀achieved฀a฀democratic,฀multiracial฀political฀order,฀thanks฀ in฀part฀to฀the฀scientific฀orientation฀of฀American฀political฀theory—she฀ Securing฀the฀American฀Ethnoscape฀ 3 could฀comfortably฀restrict฀the฀theorizing฀to฀white฀founders.฀The฀period ฀of฀chattel฀slavery฀that฀Shklar฀lamented฀(however฀“deep”)฀is฀merely฀ one฀of฀the฀“political฀phenomena”฀that฀provoked,฀in฀a฀seemingly฀positive ฀way,฀an฀American฀political฀theory฀that฀is฀strictly฀the฀provenance฀of฀ Euro-Americans.฀Shklar฀felt,฀for฀example,฀that฀she฀could฀safely฀treat฀ Jefferson฀as฀“a฀revered฀founder฀of฀a฀nation฀dedicated฀to฀the฀universal฀ principles฀of฀human฀rights฀and฀individual฀liberties,”฀and฀ignore฀the฀ Jefferson฀whom฀many฀have฀seen฀as฀“an฀example฀of฀that฀‘white฀mythology ’฀which฀conceals฀an฀oppressive฀racial฀imperialism฀in฀a฀language฀of฀ universal฀philanthropy.”8 Shklar’s฀claims฀for฀the฀social฀science฀probity฀of฀all฀three฀thinkers฀ are฀worthy฀of฀analysis.฀However...