Interview with Sara Margaret Evans

Born in 1943 in South Carolina, Evans graduated from high school in Dallas, Texas, and received her B.A. and M.A. degrees from Duke University and her Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. She began teaching at the University of Minnesota in 1976 and has been Distinguished McKnight University Professor since 1997. Her Personal Politics related U.S. women's liberation to the Civil Rights and New Left movements. Her Born for Liberty: A History of American Women is in its second edition and has been translated into a number of foreign languages. A noted activist, feminist, and teacher, Evans has coauthored books on women's history, consulted on several video productions, participated in national review panels, and served on the boards of various professional organizations. She has a 31-year-old son and a 19-year-old adopted daughter from Korea. This interview was conducted in Evans's office at the University of Minnesota by Roger Adelson in March 2000.     

Performing dialogical Dutchness: negotiating a national imaginary in parenting guidance

In contemporary Europe, national identities are fiercely contested and governments have sought ways to strengthen national identification. Notwithstanding this European pattern, government policies are implemented differently and belonging to the nation comes to involve different images and enactments across contexts. In the Netherlands, especially, belonging to the nation is at stake in many high‐profile public and political struggles. In this context, a pervasive public imaginary we call ‘dialogical Dutchness’ represents the Dutch as distinctly anti‐nationalist and open to difference. This raises the question whether national boundaries actually become traversable in view of such a national imaginary. How does one become a Dutch subject if Dutchness entails not being nationalist? Through the analysis of a Dutch social policy practice – state‐provided parenting courses – we show how dialogical Dutchness is negotiated and transformed in actual enactments of national difference and belonging. Although dialogical Dutchness foregrounds openness to difference and valorises discussion, it comes to perpetuate and substantiate boundaries between those who belong to the nation and those whose belonging is still in question.     

Interview with Stephen J. Pyne

Born in California in 1949, reared and educated in Arizona, Pyne earned his bachelor's degree in English at Stanford University and his master's and doctoral degrees in American Studies at the University of Texas at Austin. Pyne has written about fire on earth as none did before him. He has fought fires on the North Rim of the Grand Canyon, collected a unique library on how different cultures have used and misused fire in the past, and consulted on fire management for many agencies throughout the world. He has published seven books, three monographs, fourteen reports, and over fifty articles and essays. A MacArthur Fellow from 1988 to 1993, Pyne is a professor of American Studies at Arizona State University West. He and his wife, Sonja Sandberg, were married in 1977 and have two daughters. They live in Glendale, Arizona, where this interview was conducted in September 1994 by Roger Adelson.     

Raising the question: articulating the Dutch identity crisis through public debate

In place of a ‘tolerant no more’ narrative, this article proposes a different conception of nationalism's re‐articulation in the Dutch context. The salience of nationhood in public and political life, particularly concerning issues of immigration, religion and diversity, is not reconstructed as a backlash against a purported multiculturalism. Instead, attention is given to a re‐articulation of the very notion of nationhood. A long‐term historical move away from characterology is assessed and applied in understanding the emergence of a national‐identity discourse. This discourse not merely embellishes talk of Dutchness with new terms, but indicates – so the articles aim to demonstrate – a different conception of nationhood all together. Apart from what the nation is – about which very little disagreement took place – discussions formed about how Dutchness was imagined and to what extent people themselves were able to form a national image. The emergence of national‐identity discourse is empirically reconstructed. Not only is it made clear how a logic of popularity begins to be reiterated across a variety of positionings, but public debate and dissensus acquire a new significance and performativity in the process.