ach suggest that the study of the variant cultures which compose America will eventually result in the birthing of a "new common culture" (Raz 67). These advocates suggest that by fostering minority groups, encouraging both their "cultural and material development", and by honoring all people through an acknowledgement of their "freedom and human dignity", a new and more secure society can be shaped (Raz 67). Yet detractors counter that multiculturalism "poses a threat to the unity of the United States and weakens national integration" (Craige B3). In "Multiculturalism and the Vietnam Syndrome" Craige asserts that if multiculturalism "dominates the curricula at universities, racial and ethnic issues will gain importance over national issues, affecting the cultural integration of the nation and promoting ideological disunity" (Craige B3). Cragie extends her observation to quite an extreme point when she contends that multiculturalism might actually erode public and youth support for national policy decisions, especially the waging of war. Her underlying fear that loyalty to the country will be eclipsed by loyalty to one's race and community indicates a prejudicial bias in her reasoning process. It is difficult to accept her statements as level when they seem to be motivated by fear. Ironically, her own multicultural ignorance seems to fuel a growing paranoia.
Writing in The New Republic Wieseltier rails against America's far-too-intensive tendency toward self-scrutinization. Wieseltier contends that if Americans turned away from their all-too-consuming preoccupations with the self and self-identity, American culture would be more likely to advance. Wieseltier blames Erik Erikson and his too scrupulous investigation of identity formation for this American tendency. Wieseltier is critical of Erikson and the brand of popular psychology which he represents. In suggesting that this American preoccupation with the self can be tr...