Frontpage Magazine has an interesting Symposium on White Nationalism. One of the participants is Carol Swain, the author of The New White Nationalism in America. I read it, and it’s a very interesting book. She is very balanced (in that she presents different sides) and thorough (the book’s scope is very wide, and delves into much of the same material as The End of Racism by D’Souza). Two things I would quibble with her: in the introduction she says that those who want a frank discussion of race should not even think about speaking of genetic differences, and she also has a naive belief in the power of Christian universalism (and I think she underestimates the contempt that much of the liberal white elite has for Christianity).
On the first point-Jamie Glazov who moderated the symposium above asked if we can proceed forward as a nation that values equality before the law if we speak of genetic differences. Anyone that reads this blog knows that the phrase equality before the law is a hot-button of mine. I have argued constantly that empirical results from studies of individual or group differences do not refute the basic normative idea of equality before the law. But there is a more important point-what if the progress of genetic science points clearly to a difference between groups or individuals in key capacities? What exactly would we do if we did not even entertain the possibility?
Here is a snippet about the “violence gene,” MAOA (full text here):
The study, published in today’s issue of the journal Science, was based on 442 boys in New Zealand who were tracked from birth to age 26. The scientists correlated statistics about abuse and mistreatment among the children with variations of a gene that coded for an enzyme called monoamine oxidase A, or MAOA….
What if we find out that there are different frequencies of the variations of MAOA in diverse human populations? The implications for those who want to see it are clear-what will those of us who believe in equality before the law and the presumption of free will do if we stick our heads in the sand and ignore these possibilities? I don’t have the answers, I’m not an ethicist, legal theorist or political philosopher, but those who are might have to begin addressing more controversial topics coming out of neuroscience and genetics sooner than they expect.
On the second point about the unifying power of Christianity to forge a common American identity, I’m skeptical, because as they say, America is a nation of Indians (religious) ruled by Swedes (not as religious) [1]. I also think Swain et al., like many black intellectuals, don’t understand how much contempt white liberals have for traditional religion (as opposed to a vague spiritualism). The secular liberals who came south in the 1960s bowed their heads when everyone prayed-but from what I know, many liberals who are sympathetic to civil rights and support the black political movement roll their eyes inwardly at these expressions of faith. The true allies in religious universalism are conservatives, who with black Americans still revere the truisms of the Old Time Religion. Try to square that circle….
[1] I don’t doubt the sincerity of many of our political leaders in their faith, but even though some Republicans (Tom DeLay) have made noises about rejecting evolution, these sort of issues, the true test of theological fundamentalism, are beyond the outer bounds of the conservative leadership. This is important, because the majority of Americans favor some inclusion of Creationist teaching in the classroom, and 50% are Creationists outright. Of course, I’m not saying this brings out emotions like abortion, but it is an indicator that Creationists are seen as nuts in the elite media, and don’t get that much sympathy from elite politicians even though they form half the electorate. I won’t go so far as to say that one can not be theologically liberal and a sincere believing Christian, but those that are tend to be hyper-intelligent individuals who have complex ideas about theism (see Borg’s theology of panentheism for instance). On the other hand, the vast majority of committed believers are on the conservative edge of theology and more emotional, less cerebral, variant of worship and devotion. And yet somehow, conservative Christians, both black & white, still remain in separate churches and adhere to opposing parties.
Comments are closed.