George Lucki;57268 wrote:
Do Americans simply view their polity as themselves "L’etat c’est nous"? or do in practice do they see their sovereignty as being embodied in something distinct - the organs of government?
I think it unlikely that we will all agree on an answer to this question, but for my own part, I would say "L’etat, c’est nous" sounds a little more left-wing than the normative American perception of where sovereignty lies. I think we have a clear sense that the government is "of the people, by the people, and for the people," but I don’t think we see the government as identical with the citizenry—though perhaps we once did and might benefit from restoring that vision.
Fred White;57283 wrote:
In fact, Joseph, I kind of feel obliged to say a loud mea culpa and credit your rather lyrical exhortations to preserve the ideals of the Founding Fathers with actually implanting in me an aversion to a number of ideas around the subject of heraldry, nobility, etc. I’ve generally been sympathetic to in the recent past. From one point of view, it is deeply ironic, but involvement in the AHS definitely has pushed me towards ardor for republican principles.
Lyrical is nice, although I’ll settle for less than that!
Actually, I’ve had something of the same experience. Examining how this institution (heraldry, not the AHS) survived transplantation across the Atlantic and then the rift with the Mother Country sort of forces you to examine how the two cultures have diverged over the last 400 years as well as how they’ve remained similar, doesn’t it?
Joseph McMillan;57281 wrote:
It’s not a register that would be bizarre but the idea that registering arms with the federal or state government created some kind of bond with the polity that was different from that enjoyed by any other citizen.
I accept your view (and you’ve even persuaded Fred) as perhaps representative of US Citizens but will say it seems odd (your point) that citizens would not wish to have a way of reemphasizing their bond with the polity and the connection between their lineage and nation in symbolic (heraldic) ways that of course create no offense either to equality or liberty…
Fred White;57286 wrote:
I think it unlikely that we will all agree on an answer to this question, but for my own part, I would say "L’etat, c’est nous" sounds a little more left-wing than the normative American perception of where sovereignty lies. I think we have a clear sense that the government is "of the people, by the people, and for the people," but I don’t think we see the government as identical with the citizenry—though perhaps we once did and might benefit from restoring that vision.
I agree with Fred that the normative (good word) perspective is considerably more complex. For one thing, the whole concept of "the state" (other than as the term for one of the constituent entities within the United States) really is not even a standard term of American political discourse. "The government" is not us, and yet we are the government. The subtleties are multiplied by the fact that we live under many concurrent sovereign polities; even our local governments are thought of as deriving their powers directly from the people, not from higher political entities, notwithstanding that they hold their charters from their respective state legislatures.
Ultimately, however, I think that if forced to answer the question "who is sovereign," most Americans would say "the people." They don’t exercise that sovereignty directly, and may have very ambivalent attitudes toward the complex of institutions that do, but in the final analysis we’re inculcated with the concept that "the consent of the governed" is the only legitimate source of political power.
All of which is related to heraldry only in that it should make people cautious about exporting heraldic models that may work well in one polity into a completely different one.
George Lucki;57291 wrote:
but will say it seems odd (your point) that citizens would not wish to have a way of reemphasizing their bond with the polity…
Most Americans, I would venture to say, would probably find it equally odd for anyone to feel the need to reemphasize such bonds. One thing we seem to share with our British cousins, along with Shakespeare, the King James Bible, and the common law, is an assumption that our socio-political norms are everyone’s socio-political norms and a sense of astonishment when we encounter evidence to the contrary.
But as Sgt Daniel Dravot, aka King Sikander II, wisely observed: "Different countries, different customs; mustn’t be prejudiced."
Joseph McMillan;57294 wrote:
Most Americans, I would venture to say, would probably find it equally odd for anyone to feel the need to reemphasize such bonds. One thing we seem to share with our British cousins, along with Shakespeare, the King James Bible, and the common law, is an assumption that our socio-political norms are everyone’s socio-political norms and a sense of astonishment when we encounter evidence to the contrary.
But as Sgt Daniel Dravot, aka King Sikander II, wisely observed: "Different countries, different customs; mustn’t be prejudiced."
Again, I agree (I guess heraldry makes strange bedfellows), and I think the allusion to "The Man Who Would Be King" is richly apropos in this context.
deleting duplicate post
Fred’s mea culpa, I think, is indicative of a greater disconnect or contradiction in the US. We have a rich official governmental heraldic tradition in some ways—distinctive unit arms and insignia produced by TIOH; the Great Seal of the US; many state and civic seals that follow good heraldic practive—but no official recognition for individual armigers.
(Similarly, the US armed forces have a vast array of medals and recognition, probably the deepest system of any country, but our civil honors system is practically non-existent.)
I am not entirely sure what this says about how Americans view themselves in relation to their goverment and vice-versa; I do find this apparent disconnect, the tradition of arms receiving official sanction for the military but not civilians, to be interesting.
Chris
Chris W.;57309 wrote:
... but our civil honors system is practically non-existent.
Not really non-existent; perhaps just not as formally structured or widely publicized as in some countries.
<ul class=“bbcode_list”>
<li>Presidential Medal of Freedom</li>
<li>Congressional Gold Medals</li>
<li>Presidential Citizens Medal</li>
<li>National Medal of Science</li>
<li>National Medal of Arts</li>
<li>National Medal of Technology</li>
<li>President’s Award for Distinguished Federal Civilian Service</li>
<li>National Security Medal</li>
<li>Kennedy Center Honors</li>
<li>Jefferson Lectureship (Smithsonian Institution)</li>
<li>Poet Laureateship</li>
<li>A large number of federal agency and department-specific civilian decorations</li>
<li>Various state and local government honors</li>
</ul>
And of course many of our more meaningful honors are conferred by the private sector: Pulitzer Prize, Pritzker Architecture Prize, Caldecott and Newberry Medals for children’s literature, elective membership in the American Academy of Arts and Letters, American Philosophical Society, National Academy of Design. All of which is probably a reflection of the amorphousness of our concept of sovereignty—we don’t have the notion of a single "font of all honors" in this country.
Quote:
I do find this apparent disconnect, the tradition of arms receiving official sanction for the military but not civilians, to be interesting.
It seems to me to be consistent with our entire heraldic modus operandi. The army devises arms for its own units; state governments adopt seals and arms for themselves and their agencies; universities and schools design arms for themselves and their own components; societies and companies design arms for themselves; and private individuals design arms for themselves.
wrote:
And of course many of our more meaningful honors are conferred by the private sector: Pulitzer Prize, Pritzker Architecture Prize, Caldecott and Newberry Medals for children’s literature, elective membership in the American Academy of Arts and Letters, American Philosophical Society, National Academy of Design. All of which is probably a reflection of the amorphousness of our concept of sovereignty—we don’t have the notion of a single "font of all honors" in this country.
I think this is an important point with respect to the concept of honor, writ large, for American society. Notwithstanding the various governmental honors noted by Joe, familial honor and status in American society is usually reflected in private institutions and how the elites chose to sort themselves: schools, country clubs, etc.
Joe and Ben:
You are both reinforcing my main point, ie that there is extensive federal recognition of military merit, but not civil merit.
I am cognizant of this broad spectrum of awards, but if you look at the list, as you both noted, most of them are awarded by private or at best quasi-governmental agencies, so not the federal government. The Presdiential Medal of Freedom and Citizen’s Medal, and Congressional Gold medal, are the only general merit awards available from the federal government (the others are either awarded by private groups, or are for achievement in a specific area). They are awarded quite abstemiously, and are very underpublicized. They are rewarded only to the most deserving, conspicous individuals; most countries have federally granted honors for lesser acts of merit—the UK Order of the British Empire is handed out for people that perform meritorious deeds or longstanding service on a local scale, for example.
Joseph McMillan;57313 wrote:
It seems to me to be consistent with our entire heraldic modus operandi. The army devises arms for its own units; state governments adopt seals and arms for themselves and their agencies; universities and schools design arms for themselves and their own components; societies and companies design arms for themselves; and private individuals design arms for themselves.
True, that. This does reconcile the "disconnect" I mentioned, to some extent—and in mentioning private societies, kind of brings us back to the original topic of this thread 
Ben Foster;57319 wrote:
I think this is an important point with respect to the concept of honor, writ large, for American society. Notwithstanding the various governmental honors noted by Joe, familial honor and status in American society is usually reflected in private institutions and how the elites chose to sort themselves: schools, country clubs, etc.
I would suggest that some of your examples (country clubs, perhaps) apply more to the concepts of "prosperity" or "success" rather than "honor" or "merit". At least I hope so!
Chris
Chris W.;57331 wrote:
I would suggest that some of your examples (country clubs, perhaps) apply more to the concepts of "prosperity" or "success" rather than "honor" or "merit". At least I hope so!
Chris
I think that is true to an extent, although the concepts are certainly difficult to untangle at times, particularly if we are discussing familial honor as a sociological phenomenon. If we look at the phenomenon of the heralds’ visitations, we can see how this played out in England with the relationship between achievement of gentle status (largely tied to economic prosperity) and the right to arms. Arms in the US do not generally serve the purpose of conveying familial status as they did, and perhaps to a certain extent still do, in England, but we have numerous examples of how the elites sort themselves through their choice of, and admittance to, selective private institutions. Bear in mind, I am not trying to make a normative distinction here, merely an observation.
My point is that we are very unlikely to see heraldry as a government sanctioned means of recognition for honor or merit in the US (even if we do see some form of legal protection in the future). All arms will be "equal," so to speak, under the law. The former role will inevitably need to be filled, if at all, by private organizations.
Perhaps "social standing" would be a more neutral term than "honor" in this context.
Ben Foster;57335 wrote:
My point is that we are very unlikely to see heraldry as a government sanctioned means of recognition for honor or merit in the US (even if we do see some form of legal protection in the future). All arms will be "equal," so to speak, under the law. The former role will inevitably need to be filled, if at all, by private organizations.
Joseph McMillan;57336 wrote:
Perhaps "social standing" would be a more neutral term than "honor" in this context.
Agreed on both points!
Chris