A British Social Anthropologist Assesses America
Dr. Tristram Riley-Smith holds a PhD in Social Anthropology from Cambridge University. He works as a civil servant in London, and is the author of The Cracked Bell, which is reviewed in this issue of the HPR.
HPR: Can you briefly explain the background of The Cracked Bell? What motivated you to write it?
Tristam Riley-Smith: First of all, I want to emphasize that this book is not meant in any way as a polemic. Americans can be anxious, I know, about anti-Americanism, and I think the book was given a bad sleeve note. I don’t think the American dream has become a “nightmare” by any means.
It started in 2002, on the River Tweed, with Graham Baker. I had just been posted to the British Embassy in London, and he suggested I should read The Americans, by Gordon Sinclair. Sinclair was also posted to D.C., during World War II. It is a remarkable book, but a little too psychological and anthropological for me. Even so, it gave me the inspiration to collect my own field notes there and make my own observations, and this developed into an aim of trying to help people and Americans understand themselves better.
The Cracked Bell is half a million words about paradoxes, about consumerism vs. beliefs, about new vs. old, etc. Later, a theory emerged for me about the unifying thread of the ideal of liberty in America, how liberty has been elevated, even inflated to the point where it undermines society. This leads to a dispassionate suggestion: liberty is great, but it can produce problems, especially if there is too much of it, and especially too much emphasis on it. The issue is how to balance between liberty, justice, and equality. Of course, everyone faces these problems, but I think America faces them especially.
HPR: How has America’s history made it especially predisposed to these problems?
TR: I am not coming at this as an historian, but from the field of social anthropology. Being a social anthropologist is about participative observation, and looking at the symbolic and the mythical side of the world. So it’s dangerous for me to be an historian, but I would say that, going back to the creation of America, the founding fathers were very influenced by the Scottish Enlightenment. There was the assumption that the pursuit of happiness involved both the individual and his relationship with society.
Ideas like this formed the backdrop to the Declaration of Independence, and were very important for early America. Then in the early 19th century, a growing cult of individualism developed, not just in America but throughout Europe too. In Britain, this expressed itself in Romanticism, in liberalism, and in something that was positive.
But this changed in Britain as the 19th century wore on. With Gladstone we see the beginnings of a shift towards socialism, and you had Lord Salisbury, a Tory, instituting grants for the poor. While Britain was moving in the direction of socialism in late Victorian times, individualism was becoming, and has become, more and more powerful and deeply embedded in America. The question, today, is whether this can change. It would be impertinent, arrogant, and improper of me to suggest a therapy. But since the Old World has changed its outlook, and in a way become more left-wing, it must be feasible for America to do the same.
HPR: What about President Obama? What potential does he have to change America’s mindset regarding hyper-individualism?
TR: In both the introduction and afterword to The Cracked Bell, I write that personal reflections tell me it’s hard for an individual to change a culture. Confucius and Montaigne couldn’t change China and France. Russia is still the same place it has always been. Any revolution has been shown to produce the same systems and tropes.
But we need to remember that America is young. It is still a new country. If you look back to the time of King Alfred, he saw many tribes break away from his kingdom and managed to produce a sustained English identity. America today is still inventing itself in a similar sort of way. So perhaps Obama will end up being more of a catalyst of change, rather than a producer of change.
Clearly, America does have an identity, but it is nevertheless one which is still growing and developing with the challenges posed by changing demographics. We are seeing many Hispanics becoming part of the population. On the other hand, this follows waves of Germans and Irish who came before and have integrated. Germans have become more Anglo-Saxon. So this dynamic will continue, and I am tempted to say that the affect on America’s identity will not be as great as the numbers arriving suggest.
HPR: How do you think America’s influence and power will change over the course of this century?
TR: This is a more interesting issue. America needs to take stock and reevaluate. The level of economic competition and cultural influence will be corrected. America used to be much more revered in the world, with good cause to be proud, but today she seems more insecure.
If you look at the Old World, at Europe, society has been divided by deep class divisions, which have been solved either by revolution or with efforts by a ruling class to create safety nets for the less well-off. In America, these same deep divisions exist between rich and poor, but the problem has never quite become so important because of the deep-seated ideal of opportunity. But, this opportunity is an illusion to some extent. If America does go down in the world, and become less economically prosperous than today, how will that affect this optimism? My sense is that it will lead to new tensions.
HPR: But, at the same time, is America’s elevated view of liberty and opportunity not a good thing, in that it heightens our ambition and happiness, even if it’s a little artificial?
TR: Yes, absolutely. Again, I stress that I am not trying to be anti-American here. America is a modern society, but one that is as enfolded by myth, symbolism, and ritual as a tribe in Kathmandu. This is how humanity comes to terms with the world. For America, she is enfolded by the ritual of liberty. Cultural comfort blankets like this create paradoxes but are very sustaining.
HPR: What can Britain take away from America’s focus on liberty?
TR: It’s so hard to look objectively at your own society, especially after looking at someone else’s. I have recognized that Britain looks backwards while you could say that America looks forwards. This is charming but, equally, makes us weighed down by the past. And, of course, we have an extraordinary class system.
I would give as an example the Isle of Lewis, in the Outer Hebrides of Scotland. Over the past 30 years, this island has seen a great decline in communal activities and spirit. When I asked recently what’s happened to these traditions, a local man said that he thought Social Security had put an end to it. This has had a big community effect, as well as an economic one, in Britain. It is an example of how a well-meaning thing can engender bad consequences.
HPR: Does this mean the U.K. needs more Thatcherism?
TR: Thatcher looked to the United States to reform her own country, but societies are more complex than this. In America, opportunism is accompanied by the cult of the new. It is impossibly hard to do the same in Britain. I think that Britain should look to the United States as a model for how a society can deal with migrants. We are now witnessing seismic shifts in the diversity of our society, accompanied by the opening of our borders with the European Union.
So there’s a lot of transformation there, and who knows what will happen. But I think Britain can take some lessons from the United States on this front. Meanwhile, Britain has had her own experiment with devolution. On the subject of federalism, I argue that British councils and local government are too weak. But remember that Britain is a very small area; in this way it is incomparable to the United States.
HPR: How will America’s relationship with the European Union change?
TR: America’s own culture is so dominant, because America is so big, that I think the concept of Europe will be regarded only by a political class. I’m not convinced that America will regard Europe as a unified whole. The Anglo-Saxon link remains very strong. The question is whether or not the European Union can achieve more credibility, and not just in America.
HPR: Has America changed a lot in the last 10 years?
TR: There are three main points here. First, the terrorist attacks of 9/11 have left America scarred with a newfound sense of vulnerability. This was added to by the natural disasters, most of all Hurricane Katrina and the H1N1 virus, both of which have had a disproportionate effect on the nation’s poor. Lastly, the financial crisis of 2008 nearly brought the economy to its knees and shook America’s confidence in the capitalist system which has been the rallying point for individual opportunity.
Though these have all been serious strains, I think the last decade has shown stresses and paradoxes which were always there. For sure, there are more tests on the way. Global warming is a reality, and no, it won’t go nice and quietly. There’s the question of relations with China, and it’s pretty clear that the Renminbi needs to be valued up. Then you have the Iranian developments.
Most importantly, this is a book that has been written dispassionately. I write it as a big fan of America, who wants to hold up a mirror to the country.
Eli Martin ’13 is a Contributing Writer. This interview has been edited and condensed.
© 2024 Harvard Political Review. All rights reserved.