James Baldwin’s Essay: The Discovery of What it Means to Be an American (1961) (full text)
*Below is a full copy of Baldwin’s essay exploring his identity as an American. specifically as an American writer. For me, Baldwin shares some hope of commonality that ties all of us Americans. He doesn’t define it definitively. More, he discovers a sense of it, this commonality, on occasions outside of America.
James Baldwin: The Discovery of What It Means to Be an American (1961)
“It’s a complex fate to be an American,” Henry James observed, and the principal discovery an American Writer makes in Europe is just how complex this fate is. America’s history, her aspirations, her peculiar triumphs, her even more peculiar defeats, and her position in the world-yesterday and today-are all so profoundly, and stubbornly unique that the very word “America” remains a new, almost completely undefined and extremely controversial proper noun. No one in the world seems to know exactly what it describes, not even we motley millions who call ourselves Americans.
I left America because I doubted my ability to survive the fury of the color problem. (Sometimes I still do.) I wanted to prevent myself from becoming merely a negro; or, even, merely a Negro writer. I wanted to find out in what way the specialness of my experience could be made to connect me with other people instead of dividing me from them. (I was as isolated from Negros as I was from whites, which is what happens when a Negro begins, at bottom, to believe what white people say about him.)
In my necessity to find the terms on which my experience could be related to that of others, Negros and writes, writers and non-writers, I proved, to my astonishment, to be as American as any Texas G.I. And I found my experience was shared by every American writer I knew in Paris. Like me, they had been divorced from their origins, and it turned out to make very little difference that the origins of white Americans were European and mine were African-they were no more at home in Europe than I was.
The fact that I was the son of a slave and they were the sons of free men meant less, by the time we confronted each other on European soil, than the fact that we were both searching for our separate identities. When we had found these, we seemed to be saying, why, then, we would no longer need to cling to the shame and bitterness which had divided us so long.
It became terribly clear in Europe, as it never had been here, that we knew more about each other than any European ever could. And it also became clear that, no matter where our fathers had been born, or what they had endured, the fact that Europe had formed us both was part of our identity, and part of our inheritance.
I had been in Paris a couple of years before any of this became clear to me. When it did, I, like many writers before me upon the discovery that his props have all been knocked out from under him, suffered a species of breakdowns and was carried off to the mountains of Switzerland. There, in that absolutely alabaster landscape, armed with two Bessie Smith records and a typewriter, I began to try to recreate the life that I had first known as child, and from which I had spent so many years in flight.
It was Bessie Smith, through her tone and cadence, who helped me to dig back to the way I myself must have spoken when I was a pickaninny, and to remember the things I had heard and seen and felt. I had buried them very deep. I had never listened to Bessie Smith in America (in the same way that, for years, I would not touch watermelon), but in Europe she helped to reconcile me to being a “nigger.”
I do not think I could have made this reconciliation here. Once I was able to accept my role-as distinguished, I must say, from my “place”-in the extraordinary drama that is America, I was released from the illusion that I hated America.
The story of what can happen to an American Negro writer in Europe simply illustrates, in some relief, what can happen to any American writer there. It is not meant, of course, to imply that it happens to them all, for Europe can be very crippling, too; and, anyway, a writer, when he has made his first breakthrough, has simply won a crucial skirmish in a dangerous, unending and unpredictable battle. Sill, the breakthrough is important, and the point is that an American writer, in order to achieve it, very often has to leave this country.
The American writer, in Europe, is released, first of all, from the necessity of apologizing for himself. It is not until he is released from the habit of flexing his muscles and proving that he is just a “regular guy” that he first realizes how crippling this habit has been. It is not necessary for him, there, to pretend to be something he is not, for the artist does not encounter in Europe the same suspicions he encounters here. Whatever the Europeans may actually think of artists, they have killed enough of them off by now to know that they are as real-and as persistent-as rain, snow, taxes, or businessmen.
Of course, the reason for Europe’s comparative clarity concerning the different functions of men in society is that European society has always been divided into classes in a way that American society never has been. A European writer considers himself to be part of an old and honorable tradition-of intellectual activity, of letters-and his choice of a vocation does not cause him any uneasy wonder as to whether or not it will cost him all his friends. But this tradition does not exist in America.
On the contrary, we have a very deep-seated distrust of real intellectual effort (probably because we suspect that it will destroy, as I hope it does, the myth of America to which we cling so desperately). An American writer fights his way to one of the lowest rungs on the American social ladder by means of pure bull-headedness and an indescribably series of odd jobs. He probably has been a “regular fellow” for much of his adult life, and it is not easy for him to step out of that lukewarm bath.
We must, however, consider a rather serious paradox: though American society is more mobile than Europe’s, it is easier to out across social and occupational lines there than it is here. This has something to do, I think, with the problem of status in American life. Where everyone has status, it is also perfectly possible after all, that no one has. It seems inevitable, in any case, that a man may become uneasy as to just what his status is.
But Europeans have lived with the idea of status for a long time. A man can be as proud of being a waiter as of being a good actor, and in neither case, feel threatened. And this means that the actor and the waiter can have a freer and more genuinely friendly relationship in Europe than they are likely to have here. The waiter does not feel, with obscure resentment, that the actor has “made it,” and the actor is not tormented by the fear that he may find himself, tomorrow, once again a waiter.
This lack of what may roughly be called social paranoia causes the American writer in Europe to feel-almost certainly for the first time in his life-that he can reach out to everyone, that he is accessible to everyone and open to everything. This is an extraordinary feeling. He feels, so to speak, his own weight, his own value.
It is as though he suddenly came out of a dark tunnel and found himself beneath the open sky. And, in fact, in Paris, I began to see the sky for what seemed to be the first time. It was borne in on me-and it did not make me feel melancholy-that this sky had been there before I was born and would be there when I was dead. Ad it was up to me, therefore, to make of my brief opportunity to most that could be made.
I was born in New York, but have lived only in pockets of it. In Paris, I lived in all parts of the city-on the Right Bank and the Left, among the bourgeoisie and among the les miserables, and knew all kind of people, from pimps and prostitutes in Pigalle to Egyptian bankers in Neuilly. This may sound extremely unprincipled or even obscurely immoral: I found it healthy. I love to talk to people, all kinds of people, and almost everyone, as I hope we still know, loves a man who loves to listen.
This perpetual dealing with people very different from myself caused a shattering in me of preconceptions I scarcely knew I held. The writer is meeting in Europe people who are not American, whose sense of reality is entirely different from their own. They may love or hate or admire or fear or envy this country-they see it, in any case, from another point of view, and this forces the writer to reconsider many things he had always taken for granted. This reassessment, which can be very painful, is also very valuable.
This freedom, like all freedom, has its dangers and its responsibilities. One day it begins to be borne in on the writer, and with great force, that he is living in Europe as an American. IF he were living there as a European, he would be living on a different and far less attractive continent.
This crucial day may be the day on which an Algerian taxi-driver tells him how it feels to be an Algerian in Paris. It may be the day on which he passes a cafe terrace and catches a glimpse of the tense, intelligent and troubled face of Albert Camus. Or it may be the day on which someone asks him to explain Little Rock and he begins to feel that it would be simpler-and, corny as the words may sound, more honorable-to go to Little Rock than sit in Europe, on an American passport, trying to explain it.
This is a personal day, a terrible day, the day to which his entire sojourn has been tending. It is the day he realizes that there are no untroubled countries in this fearfully troubled world; that if he has been preparing for anything in Europe, he has been preparing himself-for America. In short, the freedom that the American writer finds in Europe brings him, full circle, back to himself, with the responsibility for his development where it always was: in his own hands.
Even the most incorrigible maverick has to be born somewhere. He may leave the group that produced him-he may be forced to-but nothing will efface his origins, the marks of which he carries with him everywhere. I think it is important to know this and even find it a matter for rejoicing, as the strongest people do, regardless of their station. On this acceptance, literally the life of a writer depends.
The charge has often been made against American writers that they do not describe society, and have no interest in it. They only describe individuals in opposition to it, or isolated from it. OF course, what the American writer is describing is his own situation. But what is Anna Karenina describing if not the tragic fate of the isolated individual, at odds with he time and place?
The real difference is that Tolstoy was describing an old and dense society in which everything seemed-to the people in it-though not to Tolstoy- to be fixed forever. And the book is a masterpieces Tolstoy was able to fathom, and make us see, the hidden laws which really governed this society and made Anna’s doom inevitable.
American writers do not have a fixed society to describe. The only society they know is one in which nothing is fixed and in which the individual must fight for his identity. This is a rich confusion, indeed, and it creates for the American writer unprecedented opportunities.
That the tensions of American Life, as well as the possibilities, are tremendous is certainly not even a question. But these are dealt with in contemporary literature mainly compulsively; that is, the book is more likely to be a symptom of our tension than an examination of it. The times has come, God knows, for us to examine ourselves, but we can only do this if we are willing to free ourselves of the myth of America and try to find out what is really happening here.
Every society is really governed by hidden laws, by unspoken but profound assumptions on the part of the people, and ours is no exception. It is up to the American writer to find out what these laws and assumptions are. In a society much given to smashing taboos without thereby managing to be liberated from them, it will be no easy matter.
It is no wonder, in the meantime, that the American writer keeps running off to Europe. He needs sustenance for his journey and the best models he can find. Europe has what we do not have yet, a sense of the mysterious and inexorable limits of life, a sense in a word, of tragedy. And we have what they sorely need: a new sense of life’s possibilities.
In this endeavor to wed the vision of the Old World with that of the New, it is the writer, not the statesman, who is our strongest arm. Though we do not wholly believe it yet, the interior life is a real life, and the intangible dreams of people have a tangible effect on the world.”