Joseph McMillan;92087 wrote:
Perhaps it would have made sense to say that the desire for personal and family distinctiveness was an assertion of superiority in a time and place in which the ordinary people were viewed as an undifferentiated mass. The United States was founded on a different premise.
The United States was founded on the premise that each of us should be free to make the life of his choosing so long as he doesn’t infringe on the rights of his neighbors. It was founded on the idea that the playing field should be as level as possible, not the idea that everyone who plays should win the MVP award (or some equivalent).
Narratives in which the protagonist’s basic goal is to differentiate himself from the mob—which is in one way or another represented as stupid, dangerous, or just inert—figure prominently in American culture.
Well, let us drink to the future, happier USA citizens, for whom it will be rather distinctive, not to have arms at all 
Fred White;92088 wrote:
Narratives in which the protagonist’s basic goal is to differentiate himself from the mob—which is in one way or another represented as stupid, dangerous, or just inert—figure prominently in American culture.
Can you reference a well known example of such a narrative?
Michael Y. Medvedev;92089 wrote:
Well, let us drink to the future, happier USA citizens, for whom it will be rather distinctive, not to have arms at all :(
Fred White;92088 wrote:
It was founded on the idea that the playing field should be as level as possible, not the idea that everyone who plays should win the MVP award (or some equivalent).
Or, in the interest of creating a better analogy with heraldry, what I should say is that the U.S.A. was founded on the idea that everyone should have a shot at trying out for the team, not the idea that everyone who tries out for the team should make the cut or walk away with a letter.
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison;92091 wrote:
Can you reference a well known example of such a narrative?
Plenty. Can’t you? Whether we’re talking about "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow" or The Godfather, it’s there all the time.
Fred White;92094 wrote:
Plenty. Can’t you?
Possibly, but I was indirectly asking you to supply an example so as not to make incorrect assumptions about what you mean.
Now more directly, could you please do your audience the courtesy to provide an example so it knows just the sort of narrative which supports your point that you are referring to? :D
Fred White;92093 wrote:
Or, in the interest of creating a better analogy with heraldry, what I should say is that the U.S.A. was founded on the idea that everyone should have a shot at trying out for the team, not the idea that everyone who tries out for the team should make the cut or walk away with a letter.
This is a very good analogy which is worth contemplating.
Michael Y. Medvedev;92089 wrote:
Well, let us drink to the future, happier USA citizens, for whom it will be rather distinctive, not to have arms at all
No, let’s not. That USA would look an awful lot like the USSR.
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison;92096 wrote:
This is a very good analogy which is worth contemplating.
Why, thank you!
Jeffrey Boyd Garrison;92095 wrote:
Now more directly, could you please do your audience the courtesy to provide an example so it knows just the sort of narrative which supports your point that you are referring to? :D
I added two examples, but as I say, such narratives positively line the shelves of Blockbuster and Barnes and Noble.
I’ve gone back to Bryce’s American Commonwealth and read the essay, "Equality," from which the passage Joseph cited is taken. It has to be said, first of all, that the whole essay has some bearing on the question of whether an Official Arms Granting/Sanctioning Authority would ever work in the U.S., but I would argue that the passage in "Equality" most pertinent to the discussion at hand is as follows:
Quote:
The total absence of rank and the universal acceptance of equality do not however prevent the existence of grades and distinctions in society which, though they may find no tangible expression, are sometimes as sharply drawn as in Europe. Except in the newer parts of the West, those who deem themselves ladies and gentlemen draw just the same line between themselves and the multitude as is drawn in England, and draw it in much the same way. The nature of a man’s occupation, his education, his manners, and breeding, his income, his connections, all come into view in determining whether he is in this narrow sense of the word "a gentleman," almost as they would in England, though in most parts of the United States personal qualities count for rather more than in England, and occupation for hardly anything. The word is equally indefinable in both countries, but in America the expression "not quite a lady" seems to be less frequently employed. One is told, however, that the son of cultivated parents would not like to enter a retail store; and even in a Western city like Detroit the best people will say of a party that it was "very mixed." In some of the older cities society was, till the sudden growth of huge fortunes towards the end of last century, as exclusive as in the more old-fashioned English counties, the "best set" considering itself very select indeed. (p. 1419)
Sorry to enter the fray so late in the game—at least after 148 postings, one hopes it’s late in the game!
To address what I see as the core of the debate (others may differ!)—I’ll respond to Joe’s posting #115. Usually Joe & I are on roughly the same page, but ...
Joe wrote, "the display of arms ought to suggest" ... "that one has arrived at a certain level of standing in the world."
To me, the assumption of arms, at least in the American context, "ought NOT to suggest" standing in the world. Arms ought NOT to convey or signify status—rather, they should convey what, in the American context, arms are intended to convey—i.e. identity. Arms (should) signify or reflect the identity of persons, families, or communities. Period. (Well, one exception noted further below.)
The particular person, family or community identified by a particular set of arms may well enjoy some level of social standing or recognized merit. That’s an inherent factor in any society, ours included, though we may base standing or merit on different measures than some other societies.
And whatever identifying marks or symbols are associated with a notable person, family or community—whether arms, team jerseys ("community" of players & fans), trading cards, etc.—may bask in the reflected glow of their owners/members glory.
But note that whatever glory (or ignominy) may attach to the arms or other symbols, is merely a reflection of whatever respect or celebrity or disgrace society accords to the owner. With one limited exception, the existence of arms (or team jerseys or baseball caps or whatever) do not confer or convey glory, they merely reflect whatever glory is already there based on the accomplishments of the person/family/community.
Take the arms of JFK, also used by (some of) his family to signify the family connection. The existence of the arms didn’t make the Kennedy family great; rather, the greatness of the family rubbed off on the arms, at least to those who are aware of them and care about such things. Besides that reflected glory, all that JFK’s arms signify is the identity and unity of that man and his family. They would be equally great had the arms never existed, except that we heraldry fans enjoy seeing them.
And for a more ordinary person/family/community, the fact of adopting arms doesn’t make them greater than they would otherwise be; rather, the arms—to the degree anyone pays attention—will merely reflect the larger identity.
(If the particular person/family/community takes pride in their arms, team jerseys or baseball caps and are motivated to "live up" to some higher ideal, that’s of course commendable; but it will be their success in living up to a higher standard that will hopefully contribute to any increased status, not the arms/caps/jerseys themselves.)
The one limited exception IMO is that the artistic excellence (or lack) of the emblazonment may confer respect on the owner as either an artist or a patron of that artwork—and except for DIY renditions, the real glory goes to the artist. Joe is IMO a good example—his standing in society is based on his personal and professional achievements. (Someone kindly posted a link to his impressive achievements in service to his country.) His arms merely reflect his identity; and to some degree may reflect his professional achievements if we are aware of them. But in fact it’s the medals suspended below his shield that most strongly reflect his professional successes; it’s those medals (the real ones, merely reflected in his arms) that conferred any official standing, not the arms themselves.
The one exception, as noted above, is that the high quality of the design and execution of his several emblazonments. At least to those of us who care about such things, they do confer credit on Joe as an heraldic artist for the versions he did, and patron of heraldic art for the commissioned pieces.
(Sorry to pick on Joe, but IMO he’s a pretty good exemplar for my premise, even if he doesn’t agree with it! )
Michael F. McCartney;92181 wrote:
[...]whatever glory (or ignominy) may attach to the arms or other symbols, is merely a reflection of whatever respect or celebrity or disgrace society accords to the owner. [...]
Seconded. Unless arms justifiedly contain any specifically honourable element, this is absolutely true.
Michael F. McCartney;92181 wrote:
But note that whatever glory (or ignominy) may attach to the arms or other symbols, is merely a reflection of whatever respect or celebrity or disgrace society accords to the owner. With one limited exception, the existence of arms (or team jerseys or baseball caps or whatever) do not confer or convey glory, they merely reflect whatever glory is already there based on the accomplishments of the person/family/community.
I don’t think anyone here is arguing that arms confer status. What I have been arguing is that they are generally understood to reflect status. However hard it is to define the social distinction they make, they do make it. Whether that ought to be the case is another question, but there it is, and my feeling is that that’s the basic reason why the federal government is unlikely to ever sponsor an arms registering authority. On some inescapable level, it would just smack too much of the world our founders rejected.