This article was downloaded by: [Columbia University]On: 14 November 2014, At: 09:29Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Peace Review: A Journal of Social JusticePublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cper20

Citizenship and Transnationalism in RandolphBourne's AmericaChristopher McKnight NicholsPublished online: 09 Sep 2008.

To cite this article: Christopher McKnight Nichols (2008) Citizenship and Transnationalism in RandolphBourne's America, Peace Review: A Journal of Social Justice, 20:3, 348-357, DOI: 10.1080/10402650802330212

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10402650802330212

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, orsuitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publicationare the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor &Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independentlyverified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantialor systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and usecan be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Citizenship and Transnationalismin Randolph Bourne’s AmericaCHRISTOPHER MCKNIGHT NICHOLS

One of the most influential intellectuals of the early twentieth century,

Randolph Bourne (1886–1918) was a daring thinker, a brilliant essayist,

and an intrepid idealist. He reconceived citizenship for what he called a

“trans-national America,” deepening and explicating his classically pro-

gressive belief that the equitable distribution of political, economic, and

social resources, as well as a more complete respect for human dignity,

should form the essence of a revitalized democracy in the United States.

Bourne’s aim was for America, by dint of its fluid sense of identity and

numerous social and ethnic groups, to become the first nation in which the

multiple cultures of ethnic and personal identifications, understood as over-

lapping types of “citizenships,” would be interconnected within a political

framework that sought peace abroad and embraced pluralism and social

justice at home.

Recent scholarship has explored the extent to which institutions and

practices of citizenship operate as a “quest for inclusion,” an issue

with which Bourne was deeply engaged. This work tends to focus on civil

rights and the most vulnerable groups of citizens. Central to such studies

are three principal expressions of citizenship: voting, labor, and consump-

tion. Political theorists and scholars such as Judith Shklar have argued that

the most significant development in the United States during the course of

the twentieth century has been the extension of egalitarianism across the

three categories. She and others have observed the critically important demo-

cratic role conveyed by the right to vote (rather than the act of voting) and the

pressing need for equal pay (for equal work, regardless of race, class, gender)

and the ability to purchase goods without restraint (that is, the freedom of

consumption).

Others, such as sociologist Bryan Turner and political scientists Cliff

Zukin and James Fishkin, have emphasized the changing shape of citizenship

in modern democracies. These scholars tend to explore questions of political

and civic engagement, deliberation, and democratic as well as human values

Peace Review: A Journal of Social Justice, 20:348–357

Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN 1040-2659 print; 1469-9982 online

DOI: 10.1080/10402650802330212

348

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

29 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

factoring into the rights, obligations, and practices of citizens. The central

point of convergence in many of these studies is an emphasis on what

engages citizens and the ways that deliberative or discursive democratic citi-

zenship can be theorized and improved. An insight of this scholarship lies

with separating political from civic engagement in two critical respects—

first, as a means of distinguishing what types and by what measures engage-

ment is increasing and decreasing, and second, to discern the major social

justice and other concerns that animate particular groups and communities

and guide ideas about nationalism.

This essay draws on the contributions of this recent scholarship to take a

comprehensive look at Bourne’s ambitious political philosophy as it was

forged during the tumultuous environment of WWI. Bourne’s was very

much a quest for inclusion. In seeking it, he did not relegate the cultural and

political issues of the day—a wide-ranging struggle over patriotism and

rival forms of nationalism, identity, dissent, and citizenship in wartime—to

abstractions of political theory. Instead, he asserted that those issues were

the very throbbing heart of American democracy, connecting the local to the

global, perhaps promoting peace, and broaching broad issues of free speech

and the equal application of justice across social groups and citizenship status.

Bourne’s ideas illuminate how contested understandings of citizenship

and alternative visions of how to harmonize overlapping types of citizenships

have been the keys to understanding rights and responsibilities of membership

in a political community. Disputes often appear in sharpest relief during times

of social stress, such as war or economic depression. Bourne demonstrated

remarkable prescience by identifying the stressors and their effects,

given when external threats and internal pressuring subject citizenship

institutions and practices to their greatest coercion and restriction. Striking

parallels emerge between the political debates of 1914–1918 and those of

2001–2008. The Espionage and Sedition acts of 1917 and 1918 cannot but

remind us of the Patriot Act of 2001.

A prolific cultural critic, Randolph Bourne was both admired and pitied.

Disfigured and hunch-backed from birth, he had worked hard and at

many jobs to support and educate himself. In 1913, he earned a Gilder

Fellowship from Columbia University that enabled him to travel for much

of the next year. Thus, in the frigid early months of 1914, he and a

colleague from the University experienced firsthand the rumblings of war

and expressions of nationalistic fervor in Austria and Germany. What

happened on that trip had a profound impact on Bourne and led him to

become a bristling opponent of American entry into WWI.

It took him almost two years to fully absorb, integrate, and write about

his European experiences. Of greatest significance, he decided, had been the

competing parochialisms he observed in Europe. They undermined harmony

CITIZENSHIP AND TRANSNATIONALISM 349

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

29 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

at the expense of shared, if heterogeneous, social values of class and

ethnicity; they turned political differences toward bellicosity rather than

dialogue. Looking to America, Bourne was troubled by the nativist and

nationalist “Americanization” preparedness programs that appeared to him

to be European-style nationalist developments. Such programs, he said

restrict rights and reorient the citizen as an “Anglo-American” patriot.

The nationalist path toward war in Europe had been ominously similar to

what he witnessed in America with, for example, the calls for a patriotic

“new nationalism” made by the hyper-nationalistic and bellicose Theodore

Roosevelt first in 1912, and again under the rubric “Americanism”

after 1914.

With courage and audacity given the times, Bourne made a series of

proposals that represented one of the first major efforts of the twentieth

century to re-envision and re-invigorate American citizenship through

cultural pluralism and social justice. He called for an alternative to those

Americanization programs that sought to homogenize the population and for

the institution of a “trans-national America”—that is, for an America that

would transcend national revival and develop an expansive vision of

liberalism, renewal, and social reform. For the United States to fulfill its demo-

cratic promises, he said, the nation had to extend rights to all those who were

owed them and to make demands of citizens to build the nation up by

embracing a federation of cultures within its citizenry and across national

boundaries. This would move the country toward a type of cosmopolitanism,

Bourne believed, that held the potential to reconstruct American citizens into

transnational ones beyond the reach and bellicose appeal of the nationalisms

that tore Europe apart. “Whatever American nationalism turns out to be,”

Bourne wrote, “it is certain to be something utterly different from the

nationalism of twentieth-century Europe.”

Advocating that America “reject” the “melting pot” concept, which he

regarded as an illusion, Bourne argued it was wrong-headed and futile to

promote homogenization of identities, which he said inevitably would stifle

individuals and groups. “No reverberatory effect of the great war has caused

American public opinion more solicitude than the failure of the ‘melting

pot,’” he wrote in the Atlantic Monthly in 1916. “The discovery of diverse

nationalistic feelings among our great alien population has come to most

people as an intense shock.” The country needed a new structure for citizen-

ship and social relations to avoid violence. According to Bourne, Americans,

among whom he included the “migratory alien” resident who has “caught the

pioneer spirit and a sense of new social vistas,” were the only people who

could fully embrace a peaceful and pluralist trans-national vision. In soaring

rhetoric, he argued that in this initial stage, “only the American . . . has the

chance to become that citizen of the world.” Clearly Bourne saw the United

States as the best place for his experimental philosophy.

CHRISTOPHER MCKNIGHT NICHOLS350

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

29 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

Hearkening to philosopher-pragmatist Josiah Royce’s essay “Self-

Consciousness, Social Consciousness, and Nature,” Bourne argued that

the “pioneer spirit” of “self-consciousness,” if properly engaged, could facili-

tate peace through conciliation and an enhanced mutual understanding or

“social consciousness” in the global community. At the same time, he

asserted that this shared consciousness of self in relation to other citizens—

and countries—held the potential to build dynamic cultural connections

within and across nations through such efforts as progressive social justice

reform and the cultivation of a common cosmopolitan appreciation.

Lately, as international and global frames have been introduced and

embraced across most of the humanities and social sciences—and with the

popularity of the term “globalization” and ideas such as Thomas

Friedman’s “flat world”—the term “trans-national” has appeared frequently,

yet without sufficient attention to its origins. Often invoked by scholars today

but not always fully understood, the political philosophy of “transnational-

ism” originated in Bourne’s writings. Bourne’s phrase “trans-national

America,” which is one of the hallmarks in the history of American

pluralism and intellectual history, represented more than a blurring of

national boundaries, as has sometimes been implied.

Bourne began to argue for transnationalism by explaining it as a positive

framework for a new American citizenship, operating at the halfway point

between strict forms of parochialism and assimilationism implicit in the

Americanization campaigns sweeping the nation. In his writings from 1916

to 1918, Bourne developed a political philosophy that sought to combine

ethnic and racial pluralism with a cosmopolitan isolation from entanglement

in international conflicts. Although his ability to publish political tracts was

constrained by patriotism and censorship, Bourne persevered. He aimed to

promote a global cultural community and the creation of a sociopolitical

philosophic base with the potential to stave off conflict by helping citizens

communicate within the nation across borders and identities.

Interestingly, Bourne argued that a truly “trans-national America” could

recognize shared values and identities across borders, and therefore would

necessarily leverage those characteristics to diffuse conflicts, seek compromise,

and create harmony. This intrinsic, positive foreign policy component in

Bourne’s hybrid of foreign and domestic policy is conspicuously absent

in most scholarly evaluations of his broader political thought. Christopher

Lasch, for instance, once commented that Bourne’s opposition to the war

was “a politically negative act (however appropriate or correct) signifying his

continuing preoccupation with the personal as opposed to the public.” This

view is incomplete. Transnationalism was radically “public” as a cultural prop-

osition and positive in its idealistic blending of anti-interventionist isolationist

thought with peaceful cultural engagement and an internationalist-pacifist view

of the myriad shared-citizenships that could unite peoples and nations.

CITIZENSHIP AND TRANSNATIONALISM 351

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

29 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

This new vision was characterized by a decentralized domestic pluralism

that explicitly opposed the conformity that had been promoted by

wartime Americanizers, such as the hyper-patriotic National Security

League and the former-progressive muckraking journalist George Creel’s

Committee on Public Information. Bourne perceived that political and civic

engagement were intricately intertwined, for citizens were laced together in

a vast, complicated matrix of identifiers such as gender, class, ethnicity,

religion, nationalism, and politics. Bourne wanted to extend and protect

voting rights for all citizens, regulate industry to advance the interests of the

common laborer, and deploy progressive schemes to reform education. The

last point, Bourne argued, would encourage flexible-thinking and an appreci-

ation of culture—a genuine “cosmopolitanism.” But he saw thoroughgoing

progressive reform slipping away given the exigencies of wartime.

While John Dewey and other pragmatic pro-war progressives made the

case that there would be a “plastic juncture” after the war to achieve signifi-

cant reforms, Bourne considered the war a crucible for American values of

citizenship and social progress. He argued that joining the war was a

mistake. Instead, Bourne reasoned that the nation should first transform for

the better at home, then—or even simultaneously—lead mediation abroad.

By releasing the energies of the nation’s ethnic and racial subcultures

through his “trans-national higher ideal”—rather than being bound by

treaties, enraptured by nationalism, or embroiled in wars abroad—Bourne

thought the United States could achieve its transnational democratic

potential.

Toward the end of his seminal essay “Trans-National America,”

published in the Atlantic Monthly in July 1916, Bourne observed, “the war

has shown America unable, though isolated geographically and politically

from a European world-situation, to remain aloof and irresponsible. She is

a wandering star in the sky dominated by two colossal constellations of

states.” He asked: “Can she not work out some position of her own, some

life of being in, yet not quite of, this seething and embroiled European

world? This is her only hope and purpose.” Bourne drove the reader then

to reach two conclusions about the meaning of American society and the

nation’s proper role in the world: the United States should encourage trans-

national citizenship at home and remain out of direct involvement in foreign

wars and politics.

With this political position Bourne set himself apart from most of his

peers on the progressive left, such as Walter Lippmann, Herbert Croly,

John Dewey, and Walter Weyl, four of the most prominent figures at the

New Republic who were gradually coming out in support of Wilson and

what would become entry into the war in 1917. A pacifist and a progressive,

Bourne collaborated with Jane Addams and others in several American-led

mediation efforts in 1915 and 1916, while he called for immediate

CHRISTOPHER MCKNIGHT NICHOLS352

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

29 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

progressive reforms in education, politics, and economics. So, too, Bourne

was an exceptionalist. He consistently maintained that the United States

offered a unique place, with a recent democratic founding (Bourne contrasted

America and France), without the entrenched elites or bellicose values of the

Old World, and with a dynamic immigrant population, which together

formed the foundation for an American transformation into the first transna-

tional state.

In considering the United States as a unique country to the world community,

Bourne extended his view of citizenship beyond individuals and set it in

terms of nation-states. That is, Bourne’s transnational philosophy permitted

an individual to identify with a vast array of interconnected citizenship types

(such as working class, Italian-American, farmer, Jewish, urban, female,

or Midwestern). When applied to nations, Bourne saw that these same

“integrating” principles could be scaled up and fulfilled through “a trans-

nationality of all the nations . . . [by which] it is spiritually impossible for

[America] to pass into the orbit of any one. It will be folly to hurry herself

into a premature and sentimental nationalism, or to emulate Europe and play

fast and loose with the forces that drag into war.” Bourne embraced

America’s traditional reluctance to join foreign wars and the recent neutrality

debates. As he put it, “Let us look at our reluctance rather as the first crude

beginnings of assertion on the part of certain strands in our nationality that

they have a right to a voice in the construction of the American ideal.”

Uniting these elements of his cosmopolitan internationalism and his sense of

exceptional geographic and historical isolation was his argument for the

uniquely “American” capacities and composition of its people.

As Bourne observed, native-born Americans—whom he called “Anglo-

American” patricians—declared themselves besieged, and as they did so natio-

nalistic bellicosity increased, immigration was reduced to a trickle, and nativist

sentiments continued to rise. Opposing these trends as Lippmanesque “drift,”

Bourne argued it was urgent for immigration to be enlarged and embraced.

Diversity of people and opinions formed the spirit of America, he said.

Immigrants of the “new” and “old” stock provided a unique possibility—not

for any facile assimilation of the melting pot, but for the integration, combi-

nation, and cross-fertilization of people, ideas, and cultures. He explained,

the “most effective integration will be one which coordinates the diverse

elements and turns them consciously toward working out together the place

of America in the world-situation, . . . which can only come when no national

colony within our America feels that it is being discriminated against

or that its cultural case is being prejudged.” Bourne aspired to lead

this large-scale progressive transformation of American national values

to move beyond “parochialism” and toward inclusion through a shared

“cosmopolitan spirit.”

CITIZENSHIP AND TRANSNATIONALISM 353

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

29 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

Bourne was also diametrically opposed to any closing of ranks to

join with belligerent powers abroad and defend “democracy.” He suggested

that the alternative was to blend peaceful mediation abroad and cultural

tolerance with dynamic pluralism at home. In “Trans-national America and

the Jew,” a speech to the Harvard Menorah Society also published in

December 1916, Bourne made new connections by linking pluralism,

religion, and politics. A Protestant from an old puritan family, Bourne

expanded the conception of “trans-nationality” to include the practical “inter-

national idealism” of Zionism into a “co-operative Americanism.” He proposed

a secular, American version of Zionism to unite people of various identities and

overlapping “citizenships” under a centralizing ideology, which could substi-

tute for the inflexible forms of contemporary nationalism. An “ardent

Zionism,” argued Bourne, would be one that “involves the responsibility for

an equally ardent effort for that progressive democratic reconstruction in

America, which is the ideal of all true Americans, no matter what their

heritage or trans-nationality.”

Although Bourne promoted intensive cross-fertilization of cultures, his

was not an entirely inclusive system. First, he stigmatized and rejected the

“narrow nationalism” of transient immigrants who simply came to America

to work and then returned to their home nations. Second, he had little

tolerance for his base fellow Americans, those whose moral and political

standards were merely “those of the mob.” He occasionally called this group

“half-breeds” and derided them as the “flotsam and jetsam of American life”

because of their shared love for “leering cheapness and falseness of taste and

spiritual outlook.” Critiques of mass culture aside, Bourne held hope that

even many “base” individuals could be redeemed by a transnational America.

Bourne saw his cultural project as an effort to generate an enhanced national

life by lifting the national discourse, embracing distinct ethnic groups, and

protecting them from the homogenizing influence of Anglo-Saxon-American

intolerance. In this effort Bourne blended philosopher Horace Kallen’s

concept of cultural pluralism with his own cosmopolitan ideal to propose that

immigrants and native Anglo-Americans work together as “integrating

forces” within U.S. society.

Those forces held the potential to reconstruct democracy as an expansive,

cumulative transnational culture, which Bourne later connected to

foreign policy in his shrewd articles on such topics as “The Collapse of

American Strategy” and “Doubts about Enforcing Peace.” In the latter, a

six-page essay intended for publication but never placed in print, Bourne

propounded a romantic yet surprisingly grounded politics. He remarked

that the advocates of the League of Nations were “more realistic than the pro-

fessional pacifists.” But he cautioned that without collective tolerance, their

ideas might bring “tremendous possibilities of peril to this country.” True,

CHRISTOPHER MCKNIGHT NICHOLS354

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

29 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

America should facilitate international mediation, he said. Yet the primary

focus abroad, Bourne argued, ought to be “international justice” rather

than picking favorite allies. The nation should under no circumstances

engage in “wars in which we perhaps have no concern whatever.” His

attitude in this piece evidenced strong pacifist and anti-interventionist

eanings, as well as surprising exceptionalist and non-entanglement principles

of isolationism.

Bourne held that public and private experience should be inseparable as

individuals cooperated within an “environment of the Beloved Community,” a

phrase he borrowed from Josiah Royce. He saw this community as the integral

intersection between domestic and foreign policy as an ideal means for civic

and political engagement by citizens. For Bourne, ever the pragmatist, the

transnational would be the conceptual locus where pragmatic evaluation of

means and ends helped to shape the role the nation ought to take in the

world and would redefine commitments to citizenship at home. It was on the

grounds of this pragmatic means-ends emphasis on domestic reform goals

that Bourne’s views contrasted most sharply with what he deemed the naı̈ve

“illogic” propounded by John Dewey and Walter Lippmann, whose end

goals were to make the war end rapidly and without harsh reparations, to

make the world safe for democracy, and achieve momentous progressive

reform after the war.

In light of the perceived failure of melting pot assimilation and the rival

ethnic and nationalist views appearing at home during WWI, transnational-

ism was Bourne’s attempt to enhance social justice and to promote progress-

ive educational and political reform, while opposing the negative effects

exposed by the conflict. It was a means to breathe “a larger air” as a

“citizen of a larger world.” Although he died in late 1918, a victim of the

influenza epidemic, and his publications were limited in the last two years

of his life due to the restrictions on free speech and self-imposed restraints

by liberal editors, Bourne’s opposition to the war as a means to achieving

progressive ends seems all the more prescient given the dimmed achieve-

ments of progressives in the 1920s. His transnationalism was more an ideal-

istic philosophy than a program. Its origins in wartime America, however,

help to explain why it did not achieve greater prominence or traction in its

day, especially because much of his writing was censored or suppressed.

These ideas were not eclipsed by Bourne’s death, by wartime repres-

sion, or even by the so-called return to normalcy after WWI. From John

Dos Passos to Christopher Lasch to Noam Chomsky, and recently Michael

Ignatieff, generations of later social activists, internationalists, and antiwar

thinkers have invoked Bourne’s transnationalism as a potent theoretical

basis for their own new programs of social justice, innovative ideas about

citizen engagement and identity, new forms of national and international citi-

zenship, and firm stances against interventions abroad.

CITIZENSHIP AND TRANSNATIONALISM 355

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

29 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

In today’s purportedly “flattened” and increasingly interconnected world,

competing nationalisms seem stubbornly persistent. They are just as

relevant and almost as inflammatory as they were nearly a century ago. So,

too, despite meaningful commitments to multiculturalism and deep common-

alities among citizens today, race, nationality, inequality, physical handicaps,

and other hyphenated-identifiers often appear to divide more than to unify.

In both world wars, during much of the Cold War, and even during the

recent “War on Terror,” noble pluralistic goals often have been trumped by

the visceral pull and push of parochial nationalism, homogenizing patriotism,

and unbridled self-interest. Nevertheless, the shared hope of many American

citizens appears to be one for greater egalitarianism and cooperation. If

recent polling is a guide, there may be a rising desire for retiring the “old”

politics and turning toward something new at home and abroad, an idealistic

sort of “transnational” political philosophy with its embrace of overlapping

citizenships as a means of uniting within and across nations.

In the last few years, a new trend has been laid bare. There has been an

increase in dissent. Unlike in Bourne’s WWI era, politicians and citizens

have called for little extension of obligations and made very few demands

for citizen sacrifice to the state due in part to enlarged egalitarian and indi-

vidualistic modern American understandings of rights. Although there has

been limited contemporary public curtailment of citizenship rights in the

United States as a response to the attacks of September 11, 2001 and the

ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the quest for inclusion and social

justice has succeeded admirably and continues unabated. Still, it is

difficult to discern which directions these trends and these historical

examples indicate are most likely.

Scholars of citizenship in both its national and transnational contexts

are only now fully grappling with what Bourne recognized as the impli-

cations of institutional complexity and cultural diversity for modern demo-

cratic decision making. Many of the most pressing and hotly contested

social and political questions remain entangled with disputes over the

nature of national and personal identity, notions of engagement, rights and

duties of citizenship, as well as the proper application of social justice.

The waning influence of pro-war politics in 2008 and the increasing reach

and scope of the social, economic, and political connections loosely under-

stood as globalization make this an appropriate moment to return to

Randolph Bourne’s emphasis on community and pluralistic citizenship as

the “impelling, integrating forces” for a transnational vision of social justice.

RECOMMENDED READING

Abrahams, Edward. 1986. The Lyrical Left: Randolph Bourne, Alfred Stieglitz, and the Origins of

Cultural Radicalism in America. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.

CHRISTOPHER MCKNIGHT NICHOLS356

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

29 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

Blake, Casey. 1990. Beloved Community: The Cultural Criticism of Randolph Bourne, VanWyck Brooks,

Waldo Frank, and Lewis Mumford. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Bourke, Paul F. 1974. “The Status of Politics, 1909–1919: The New Republic, Randolph Bourne and Van

Wyck Brooks.” Journal of American Studies, 8 (August): 171–202.

Bourne, Randolph. 1916. “Trans-National America.” The Atlantic Monthly, CXVIII (July): 86–97.

Bourne, Randolph. 1956. History of a Literary Radical and Other Papers. New York: S.A. Russell.

Bourne, Randolph. 1964. War and the Intellectuals: Essays by Randolph S. Bourne, 1915–1919, Carl

Resek (ed.). New York: Harper and Row.

Clayton, Bruce. 1984. Forgotten Prophet: The Life of Randolph Bourne. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State

University Press.

Fishkin, James. 1993. Democracy and Deliberation: New Directions for Democratic Reform. New Haven:

Yale University Press.

Hansen, Olaf (Christopher Lasch, pref.). 1977. Randolph Bourne: The Radical Will, Selected Writings,

1911–1918. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Kallen, Horace. 1915. “Democracy Versus the Melting Pot, A Study of American Nationality.” Nation,

100 (February 18 & February 25): 190–194; 217–220.

Kennedy, David. 1980. Over Here: The First World War and American Society. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Lasch, Christopher. 1965. The New Radicalism in America, 1889–1963, the Intellectual as Social Type.

New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Livingston, James. 2003. “War and the Intellectuals: Bourne, Dewey, and the Fate of Pragmatism.” The

Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era, 2 (4) (October): 431–450.

Nichols, Christopher McKnight. 2004. “What Would the Public Think? An Experiment in Deliberative

Democracy.” The Hedgehog Review: Critical Reflections on Contemporary Culture, 7(3) (Fall): 67–76.

Shklar, Judith N. 1998. American Citizenship: The Quest for Inclusion. Cambridge: Harvard University

Press.

Stone, Geoffrey. 2004. Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime, From the Sedition Act of 1798 to the War

on Terrorism. New York: W.W. Norton.

Turner, Bryan S. 1990. “Outline of a Theory of Citizenship.” Sociology, 24(2): 189–217.

Vaughan, Leslie J. 1997. Randolph Bourne and the Politics of Cultural Radicalism. Lawrence: University

of Kansas Press.

Westbrook, Robert. 1991. John Dewey and American Democracy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Zukin, Cliff, Scott Keeter, et al. 2006. A New Engagement?: Political Participation, Civic Life, and the

Changing American Citizen. New York: Oxford University Press.

Christopher McKnight Nichols is Postdoctoral Fellow in U.S. history at the Institute for Advanced Studies

in Culture at the University of Virginia. Nichols is co-editor and co-author of Prophesies of Godlessness:

Predictions of America’s Imminent Secularization from the Puritans to the Present Day (Oxford

University Press, 2008). Nichols is revising a book for publication on isolationism and internationalism

in American thought. E-mail: cnichols@virginia.edu

CITIZENSHIP AND TRANSNATIONALISM 357

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

29 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014