This book was received as an ARC by the publisher on NetGalley。If my Goodreads followers haven't been able to tell yet， I love reading about American national identity and material leading up to the "Age of Trump。" I don't care much for memoirs or biographies on the subject， but larger studies of American history to make a point about our present moment are a genre of books that I tend to find difficult to put down。This book belongs to that category。 Although not dealing *explicitly* with politi This book was received as an ARC by the publisher on NetGalley。If my Goodreads followers haven't been able to tell yet， I love reading about American national identity and material leading up to the "Age of Trump。" I don't care much for memoirs or biographies on the subject， but larger studies of American history to make a point about our present moment are a genre of books that I tend to find difficult to put down。This book belongs to that category。 Although not dealing *explicitly* with political debates as they're shaped today， Goldman's book is dedicated to a perennial question in American history that many around the country are asking: How do we define the "American nation？" Or rather， "What is the best way to define the American nation？" To answer this， Goldman spends the bulk of his book examining three enduring definitions of American nationhood: the Covenant， the Crucible， and the Creed。 Then， he goes onto argue that one of the greatest causes of divisiveness in this country is that none of these conceptions are held by all， or even most， Americans。The Covenant was the earliest "universal" defintion of the American nation， and it is rooted in the New England Puritan ideal of America as a city upon the hill。 Although English， German， Dutch， French， and other European languages were spoken in the US， it saw the United States as a fundamentally Protestant country。The Crucible emerged as a result of the crises of the late 19th-early 20th centuries: the American Civil War， mass immigration， the Great Depression， two World Wars; the Crucible defines the United States of a melting pot where all peoples living in the States--barring those who are "unassimilable" （in the period at hand， primarily East Asians） into one people。 Rather than all people blend equally， the myth was that all peoples would blend into the WASP ideal that emerged after the American Civil War。 Unlike the religious conception of America seen by New England Protestants， the Crucible saw American identity in ethno-cultural terms。Finally， the Creed reached its moment as the definition of American nationhood in the years following the Second World War， which we generally describe as a period of liberal consensus。 To those supporting the idea of the Creed， ethno-cultural background and religious faith are secondary to civic attitudes， and it is in the Creed that we see the idea of "civic nationalism" par excellence。 Adherents of the Creed saw American nationhood in basically political terms。While all three of these conceptions of American nationhood are， in some sense， true。 All three are also myths。 None really do a great job of defining who the "American people" are， although they do have coherent narratives based in strong understandings of the past。After his discussion of the three ideas of American nationhood， Goldman goes on to examine more recent attempts of defining the American nation， especially since the end of the Cold War。 The first multicultural attempt was tried by the New York Board of Education in the early 1990s， which looked to give more emphasis to the failings of American state and society， alongside its strengths。 This aim came under fire by Lynne Cheney， who was then Chair of the National Endowment for the Humanities。 Cheney argued that it was necessary to continue to give due deference to the positive history of the United States， especially through the lens of great figures like the Founding Fathers， Abraham Lincoln， and the rest。 Another notable attempt was Jill Lepore's recent book， These Truths: A History of the United States [which have yet to read]， which aims to paint a positive picture of American history without the transendence attempted by those who came before。In the end， Goldman finds that any attempt to create a coherent narrative and/or mythology of the American nation is doomed to failure。 However， he concludes on a positive note， arguing that the necessarily failure of historical narratives does not inevitably lead to national divisiveness。 Instead， the way forward should be to create and/or strengthen community institutions that allow Americans to contest the ideas of their neighbors， colleagues， friends， family， and media without descending into a spiral of polarization。 In some ways， this solution echoes that of Herbert McClosky at the 1962 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association， in which McClosky argued that American politicians need to move past consensus to prevent American politics from being dominated by what would become a uniparty。 McClosky would get his wish， and now we're facing ludicrous levels of partisan polarization。I think Goldman has a lot of sense here。 The first objection I had when working through his argument is that there already are spaces for contestation--especially on the internet。 But， as I thought about it more， I realized that few people listen--actually listen--to one another in political discussions， unless they already share the same constellation of ideas。 In this sense， the internet cannot replace local， face-to-face interactions facilitated by larger institutions。 I'm still not wholly convinced， but Goldman's idea is definitely worth thinking about closely。 。。。more