Skip to main content

This is a book review of Rosemary Radford Ruether's America, Amerikkka, a book by a "Professor of Feminist Theology" which offers a theological take on American history as well as a recommendation for a "liberation theology" in the American context.

Book review: Ruether, Rosemary Radford.  America, Amerikkka: Elect Nation and Imperial Violence.  London: Equinox, 2007.

One of the most curious things about writing essays is that one may "plan out" an argumentative text, with an introduction stating the main thesis, a body elaborating upon the text’s main points, and a conclusion, yet the whole journey of writing out the introduction and body can make the conclusion into something rather unexpected and different from what it was thought to be when the introduction was written.

This, indeed, appears to have happened with Rosemary Radford Ruether’s book America, Amerikkka.  This book starts out as a meditation upon the "double identity of America," the one (American) identity being the identity of "democracy and freedom," and the other identity being the "evil twin that is concealed behind this rhetoric of positive national values and beliefs" (1).  The second spelling of "Amerikkka," of course, was a pejorative term for imperial American used in the 1960s.  So this book starts from the premise of two Americas, one good, one bad, thus the title.  What it ends with is a meditation on the future, one that is productive but that does not necessarily follow from the rest of the book.

The content of the book is itself largely a meditation upon American history.  Throughout American history, as Ruether shows in chapters 1 through 6, America itself has been governed by this "evil twin": the ideology of American life presumed (and presumes) that America is a nation of God’s Elect, and that in this role it can do no wrong.  Ruether elaborates:

The United States was thus founded on a basic contradiction.  Although claiming to be based on a universal "rights of man," the founders held an implicit and often explicit assumption that these rights were the peculiar legacy of Anglo-Saxon Protestant (males).  (41)

Ruether’s book then proceeds to detail the history of this (theological) presumption, from John Winthrop’s notion of a "city on a hill" to the neoconservative ideologies of global empire.  In each case, we are told of what is done to the excluded others (from the native peoples of the Americas to the imported African populations to the slaughtered Filipinos and Cubans of the Spanish-American War to the suspected "Communists" and "terrorists" of our era).  That, in a nutshell, is the content of chapters one through six.  The history written in these chapters appears as an especially well-organized (and easy to read) version of the histories written by Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, or William Blum.  It will enlighten people who were not properly taught this material in high school or college.

Chapter 7 shifts focus, suggesting that a number of famous historical figures (from Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson to Martin Luther King Jr.) established an American "protest tradition" in contrast to the tradition of America’s "evil twin."  This term "protest tradition" concerns me a bit: the image I get is that of protesters standing by the sidelines while the imperialists notch up triumphs and celebrate them in victory parades.  Chapter 8, even more radically, proposes an alternate theology to the one said to predominate throughout American history.

Now, the word "theology" as used in America, Amerikkka does not carry with it many of the "merely religious" connotations it might otherwise have.  Ruether wishes to get at the cores of metaphysical belief beneath our ideologies.

At the beginning of this book, as I said, is this premise of the two Americas, the one of democracy and freedom and the other of the "evil twin."  The great bulk of this book is taken up with a lengthy description of the actions of this "evil twin," for it is the main actor of US history in its relation to the "other."  The US throughout its history has been an imperial nation, some groups of Europeans conquering a continent and wiping out its native peoples while (to a certain extent) importing Africans to work as slaves on the conquered land.  Reuther explains the US "theology," through which (white, male, Protestant) Americans regarded themselves as God’s Elect, through a comparison with the 18th-century British, French, and Spanish "theologies" of similar character.

As imperial pretexts dried up (the end of the western frontier, the end of the Cold War), the ruling elites created new imperial contexts for conquest and new enemies to fight.  After the closing of the frontier, for instance, there was the Spanish-American war (and the subsequent slaughter in the Philippines), and after the Cold War there was the Gulf War, which led in turn to the Project for a New American Century and its visions of war throughout the world.

This version of history, although something of a gloss on writing done earlier by William Blum (who Ruether cites) or Noam Chomsky (which she doesn’t), makes a great antidote to much of American political thinking, which still abides by the proposition that "America can do no wrong" in foreign affairs.  Even more common is the presupposition that "America is the only country that matters."  This book provides an antidote to that idea as well.

Chapters 7 and 8, however, deal with the other vision of America.  Chapter 7, "Alternative Visions of America," deals with the "protest tradition," of the history of liberation movements in America. This tradition was quite effective in achieving social change in the US during the 1960s and 1970s.  Chapter 8 outlines a vision of a "US Theology of Liberation."  The beginning of Chapter 8 appears as a desire to undo the domination represented in Ruether’s depictions of American history:

In 1977, Sister Marie Augusta Neal wrote a short book called A Socio-Theology of Letting Go.  This book made a strong impression on me since it seemed to articulate the other side of a liberation theology, the side of a liberation theology addressed to those who are holding oppressive power over others.  For those who are oppressed to be liberated, those who hold oppressive power must "let go" (or must be made to let go), must relax their grip on domination so others can go free.  Ultimately a transformation of both sides must take place so there is no more poor and rich, oppressed and oppressors, elect and non-elect, privileged and nonprivileged, but a new society where all members enjoy dignity and access to the basic means of life. (250)

Now, this makes sense as the foundation for Ruether's statement of liberation theology.  It also makes sense of the previous chapters, in which a theology or a number of theologies ("American exceptionalism" might encompass all of them) served as pretexts for (white, male, Protestant, American) domination.  But then a different element enters Ruether’s thinking:

A theology of liberation and letting go today must be understood as a theology of ecojustice, just relations between humans to each other and between humans and the earth. (251)

Now, justice between people was understandably a part of the protest tradition of American democracy.  But "just relations... between humans and the earth" is a curious notion.  How is the Earth an object of "justice"?  I do not want to be nitpicking here: Ruether is using "ecojustice" as a figure of speech for ecological sustainability.  But ecological sustainability is not a form of justice, but rather a form of stability.  There can be ecological sustainability without justice: there were traditional societies that have survived, sustainably, for centuries without being just.  There can be justice, moreover, even toward the things of nature, without sustainability: what characterizes ecological sustainability is not the just respect we might devote to the things of this Earth (such as we might have in creating wildlife preserves), but whether our practices in living in our natural habitats can be maintained for thousands of years without causing ecological crisis.

It is in this sense of ecological sustainability that Ruether’s last chapter introduces something new to America, Amerikkka.  For there are things in the recommendations of Chapter 8 that readers would expect to be in an "American liberation theology" –- a discussion about "dismantling the theology of American empire," a discussion of "re-imagining America’s place in the world community," a discussion of "poverty" – these are all familiar subjects from the earlier parts of the book.  Ruether’s recommendation of reduced military budgets is quite pertinent to this history.  Ruether’s discussion of environmental sustainability, however, introduces a qualitatively new challenge.

What has happened, as Ruether’s history has progressed, is that, as capitalism has progressed and as capitalist discipline has "domesticated" people and the land, the nature of (in Sister Mary Augusta Neal’s words) "oppression" has changed.  What are the main differences between "oppression" then and "oppression" today?  One difference is that, in the United States today’s "oppressed" people have won a modicum of rights and have been allowed participation in a consumer society.  These things aren’t experienced as "oppression."  (Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno thought people were oppressed by consumerism, but they don’t share the consumer’s point of view.)  

Meanwhile, however, the international gap between rich and poor has widened, slavery continues to occur, and the world as a whole stands the risk of being urbanized into life in the world’s growing slums.  But this is an international phenomenon.  Ruether’s book is an occasion for a specifically American soul-searching.

Ruether’s ability to make a radical renewal (265) will be limited by her ability to persuade large numbers of people of the rightness of her liberation theology.  I doubt that everyone who reads this book will be persuaded of everything she says.  Sometimes she "skims over" some of the important historical points she makes.  An example:

Bush, commanding the vast weaponry of the largest military power on earth, has wreaked far more death and destruction in the last four years than Osama bin Laden in his mountain hideout.  Measured by sheer levels of killing, maiming, and destruction of the means of daily life, Bush has done far more evil than Osama bin Laden.  (261)

Granted, readers should have been prepared to read sentences like these by the history that preceded them.  But some of them will still want to understand in great detail why Ruether isn’t just "siding with the terrorists" with a statement like this.  This could have been a bigger, more detailed book.

Some will dismiss America, Amerikkka as propaganda for the idea that "God is a liberal" or that "God is a socialist."  America, Amerikkka is a critique of an important ideology which openly proposes its own counter-ideology.  Needless to say, I am far more sympathetic to Ruether’s project than to "American exceptionalism," given that the former is based on a genuine reckoning with the facts and that the latter is based on ignorance.  It’s probably quite a leap, however, for its author to propose "ecological sustainability" after having us read a history of US imperialism.  Reading another, more overarching history of the capitalist system as a whole (such as Kees van der Pijl’s Transnational Classes and International Relations) would assist readers of America, Amerikkka in understanding the bigger picture.

Originally posted to Cassiodorus on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 10:24 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  tips for liberation theology (13+ / 0-)

    Don't know how it will fly in the American context, tho...

    "It's the same old dream -- world domination." James Bond, in Ian Fleming's Doctor No (1958)

    by Cassiodorus on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 10:20:19 AM PDT

    •  Nice attempt to summarize a serious work. (4+ / 0-)

      Few have been privileged to have sat in a classroom with her, but she does inspire students to really think hard and critically about the relationships between faith, society, power structures, and witness.  Organizing for change requires some sort of underlying liberating 'theology' - at least as a perspective that can powerfully critique the status quo from a better vision of what human beings can and should be together, if not one that finds that God's Spirit is pushing the social change agenda upon us and calling for us to step up and make it happen.

      When life gives you wingnuts, make wingnut butter!

      by antirove on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 10:36:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Excellent review (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cassiodorus

    Ecojustice versus ecological sustainability was an excellent distinction.

    The list of malfeasances is so dang long.... Buffalo Girl

    by niteskolar on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 10:31:58 AM PDT

  •  Coherence and contradiction (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cassiodorus

    For those who are oppressed to be liberated, those who hold oppressive power must "let go" (or must be made to let go), must relax their grip on domination so others can go free.

    The notion of "letting the oppressed free" is either jibberish in the current context or presupposes such a rich conception of rights, economics, etal, that the only people that will agree are those that are already convinced.

    The compelling reading of history described turns on the "excluded other" as that which is ought to be included in the realm of universal rights but which is arationally (or cynically) excluded.  The problem with applying that reading to contemporary America is that formerly oppressed people are no longer excluded (generally speaking) from the purely formal rights for which they had formerly fought.  

    Now, of course, the battle isn't over formal rights, but material goods.  And I don't see how any kind of coherentist argument ('the rich say rights are universal, but they exclude population X; that's incoherent and unjust') can capture the sense of the movement for material goods.

    •  Yeah -- there's an argument missing there (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ChaosMouse

      I'm not saying, mind you, that the working class in the US isn't oppressed... persuading it that it is oppressed, however, is a tall order...

      "It's the same old dream -- world domination." James Bond, in Ian Fleming's Doctor No (1958)

      by Cassiodorus on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 11:02:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Title: a Jefferson Starship reference? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cassiodorus

    That was a wild album.  (Yes, I said album, as in dinosaur disc, vinyl).

  •  Thanks for writing this diary (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ChaosMouse, Cassiodorus, Cliss

    It's things like this that make our corner of the blogosphere rich in thought as well as sagacious in action.

    In my own researches found that the idea of "the blessed elect" has particularly deep roots in Western thought. It arguably forms the core of Platonism. It is explicit in Augustine and of course John Calvin - from whom, through John Knox and others, John Winthrop and the American Puritans took this strain of belief and injected it into emergent American elite culture.

    Kenneth Burke has argued that the idea of election is implicit in the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient, creator god. Such a god knows all things that appear as past, present, and future to the human mind. He knows who is saved and who is damned. He knows their number. The Elect themselves cannot know for certain, but it is the mission of "civilizing institutions" to sort out the wheat from the chaff, and therefore it is best for "Christian saints" and leaders of the "City of God" to think and act as if they were saved, and to surround themselves with people of like mind and compatible actions.

    Perry Miller, great scholar of colonial New England, also talks about this logical imperative, and its connection both to the evolution of theological thought and to the rise of American capitalism.

    Again, thanks for bringing up such thoughts in the midst of the daily kos political grind.

    The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings. -- Julius Caesar, I.ii.

    by semiot on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 10:55:04 AM PDT

  •  A very nice diary. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ChaosMouse, Cassiodorus

    If "nice" is an apt description of something so horrible as a Country Divided, from its very source or so it seems.

    Jekyll and Hyde?
    Or hidden Shadow identity?

    While I agree that the US is a serious case of a split personality, it seems that a lot of it is has come from Washington in the guise of indoctrination.  The White House has become a spin machine of propaganda, rivalling the worst examples of other countries which spew and endless string of lies and spin.  
    But - I think a lot of it comes from the churches, as well.  The idea of "God's chosen" or Manifest Destiny really resonates well with the message from the church.  Makes the church-goers feel really good as they sit there on Sunday.  Also, it allows for the Empire to go out on looting expeditions in foreign countries.

    As long as the citizens feel that they are actually HELPING the poor miserable countries by taking their titanium oxide, or bananas whatever the case may be, it serves several purposes.

    But it doesn't change the fact.  The average American knows that we burn through, guzzle, eat and consume about 25% of the earth's resources right here.  We only represent about 3.8% of the world's population.  If every other country tried to live like us, we would need 4 more planets.

    So much for the "good twin".  Looks like the "evil twin" has the upper hand.

  •  Unimpressed (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cliss

    She's not saying anything even remotely new here, and blaming the usual suspects - rich, white, protestant, males - misses the point entirely.

    The real problem is that socially, the US is stuck in an adolescent timewarp. If you look at many teenage boys, you'll see they typically show all of the qualities of 'Amerikkkan theology' - a love of military hardware and explosions for their own sake, a deep sense of entitlement, minimal empathy, a 'fuck you you can't make me' attitude to criticism, exaggerated dominance and aggression, tribalism and violent contempt for outsiders and nonconformists, an inability to take personal responsibility for the negative consequences of actions, and kneejerk reflexive reactions with little or no strategic thinking.

    Doesn't that sound like most of one political party, and a big slice of the other one?

    This is just psychology. Theology isn't required. And by blaming males exclusively, the author misses the point that women can be just as likely to admire these values - and some of them are even present within feminism and progressive politics, as much as in the traditional WASP targets. (Although it's true that some of the WASPs reliably take them to extremes not seen elsewhere.)

    What the US seems to lack is a counter-tradition that sets limits to selfishness and self-absorption, and creates negative consequences for stupid and narcissistic behaviors.

    What happens instead is that the jock-iest of the jocks, and the most permanently adolescent sociopaths are rewarded with riches on Wall Street and in boardrooms, and with power in Washington.

    Nothing will change until that reward system is broken.

    My guess is that it won't be broken until the natural world or one or more external powers sets a hard limit - or shatters that shared adolescent hallucination of narcissistic omnipotence in some other way.

    "Be kind" - is that a religion?

    by ThatBritGuy on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 12:31:40 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site