Jeremy Adelman: Fatigued Pluralist Narrative, The Gibbon Paradox, and Global Interdependence

Policy Punchline

Jeremy Adelman is the Henry Charles Lea Professor of History at Princeton University and the Director of the Global History Lab, which strives to teach students internationally how to create new global narratives even across divides. Recently, the Global History Lab has brought displaced persons and refugees into its network. His academic focus is global, economic, and Latin American history. His recent books include Worldly Philosopher: The Odyssey of Albert O. Hirschman, published in 2013. In this interview, co-hosts Tiger and Rebecca ask Professor Adelman about his views on global interdependence, why he thinks we are at a narrative impasse for multilateralism, how he uses history to understand the current global order, the resurgence of patriotic nationalism, as well as other topics relating to the Biden & Trump administration, international relations, and America’s actions in foreign affairs. Professor Adelman began by explaining how he became interested and involved in history and, specifically, Latin America. He participated in activism in Central America in the 1980s’ dealing with civil war and transitional justice. This sparked his interest in understanding how countries relate to one another and the interdependence that is needed for their survival. In order for this globalization to be successful, a narrative which promotes a shared understanding between countries must be created. 1945 was the most recent time period in which a shared sense of purpose was established around the world: fight facisim and stop another depression. This need for globalization and the actions of the different countries was controlled and moderated by the United States. This liberal sense of purpose has reached its end point and is currently fatigued leading to the current situation which calls for a new shared narrative and purpose to be developed. This need for interdependence began in the middle of the 19th century as a byproduct of the industrial revolution. It created a network in which countries relied on each other for basic necessities critical to their survival. Today, it is clear that 2008/9 were an inflection point and has resulted in us being in a transition period today. This is why there are countering narratives and beliefs regarding how the new global order should look. We’re now at a narrative impasse, writes Professor Adelman in his recent Project Syndicate column titled “The New History Wars” – “We are now caught between an outdated style of patriotism and a fatigued pluralist alternative. The old national narrative that drove the boom in monuments was born in the heyday of empire and burnished in the twentieth century’s world wars, when founding heroes and myths served as a unifying force. But starting in the 1960s, civil-rights movements, feminism, and an influx of immigrants pushed Western societies to become more inclusive, and the old emblems of patriotism looked increasingly outré.” While former President Trump was advocating for a return to a focus on the nation state, President Biden is leaning more towards Jill Lepore’s call for a progressive nationalism, one in which America has a shared national identity based on our roots in equality and fairness. Professor Adelman explains how this does not go far enough and instead America must focus on what is good about the nation in its relationship with something that is bigger. The “Great Statue Reckoning” and the 1776 Commission are both “weaponizations of history” according to Professor Adelman, but he cautions against silencing these narratives and instead urges everyone to listen to the opposing side even if you disagree. People must be heard so that they do not believe that their identities are simply dismissed by society. American society is facing a very difficult situation: how to make those with whom you disagree feel heard even when you reject their very fundamental values and beliefs?