In the twenty-first century, global interconnectedness has become the dominant paradigm of social, economic, and political life. Cosmopolitan ideals, such as global citizenship, transnational governance, and the celebration of universal human rights, have been championed as markers of progress and modernity. Yet, this enthusiasm for a borderless world often comes at the expense of local and regional identities, which are frequently dismissed as backward, parochial, or resistant to change. Donald Davidson’s Regionalism and Nationalism in the United States: The Attack on Leviathan (1938) and Still Rebels, Still Yankees (1972) offer an incisive critique of these assumptions. Through his analysis of regional identity and its moral, political, and cultural significance, Davidson demonstrates that rootedness in local communities is not an anachronism but a crucial condition for ethical and civic life. His work offers a prescient lens through which to evaluate the contemporary tension between cosmopolitan globalism and the enduring need for regionalism.
Donald Davidson (1893–1968) was an American poet, literary critic, and leading intellectual voice of the Southern Agrarian movement, best known for his defense of regional tradition, cultural continuity, and moral limits to modern industrial society. A member of the Fugitive poets at Vanderbilt University and a contributor to the influential 1930 manifesto I’ll Take My Stand, Davidson articulated an Agrarian vision that opposed the homogenizing forces of industrial capitalism, centralized bureaucracy, and technological progress divorced from ethical restraint. His poetry and criticism emphasized place, memory, and historical inheritance, arguing that culture grows organically from lived communities rather than abstract economic or political schemes. As a teacher and essayist, Davidson sought to preserve what he saw as the humane, civic, and spiritual dimensions of Southern life, insisting that genuine freedom required rootedness in tradition, local responsibility, and a coherent moral order rather than the unchecked expansion of modern “progress.”
From this Agrarian commitment to place, tradition, and lived community flows Davidson’s political critique of modern power. His suspicion of abstraction in economics and culture naturally extended to the structure of the modern state, which he viewed as increasingly detached from the moral sources that sustain civic life. For Davidson, political authority was legitimate only insofar as it remained intelligible to, and shaped by, concrete communities with shared histories and practices. When governance becomes centralized, bureaucratic, and oriented toward efficiency rather than moral formation, it severs the connection between power and responsibility. It is against this background—his defense of regional culture as a living moral order—that Davidson’s sustained attack on centralized authority must be understood.
Davidson’s Critique of Centralization
The Attack on Leviathan is a pointed critique of the centralizing tendencies of modern state authority. Drawing upon the metaphor of the Leviathan, Davidson identifies the dangers of abstract, distant power that seeks to impose uniformity on diverse social contexts. He writes, “A government that is too strong is a government that is too remote,” highlighting the disconnect between distant governments and the communities they govern. Such centralization risks eroding the ethical and moral sensibilities that have been cultivated within local communities. For Davidson, the lived experience of regional life, its customs, practices, and historical memory, is a repository of practical wisdom that resists abstract rationalization. As he notes, “The traditions of a people are the soil in which their moral and intellectual life grows,” emphasizing that moral and cultural frameworks are grounded in local traditions rather than abstract authority.
Davidson contrasts the Leviathan, or centralized state, with the decentralized capacities of regional communities, defining it as “the idea of the Great Society, organized under a single, complex, but strong and highly centralized national government, motivated ultimately by men’s desire for economic welfare of a specific kind rather than their desire for personal liberty.” This captures his concern that state centralization prioritizes material efficiency and bureaucratic order over ethical and civic life, eroding the conditions that enable genuine community participation and which sustain genuine liberty. Davidson’s analysis thus serves as a warning against the abstraction and moral homogenization inherent in distant, all-encompassing governance.
Still Rebels, Still Yankees complements this argument by offering a historical case study of New England regional identity. Davidson examines how New Englanders maintained distinct cultural and civic practices despite the centralizing pressures of national institutions. He emphasizes the resilience of regional character, writing, “The function of a region is to preserve the continuity of a people’s life, to conserve their traditions, and to provide a setting in which their culture can flourish.” The region’s inhabitants cultivated a robust sense of civic responsibility and moral coherence through shared customs, local narratives, and a strong attachment to place. Davidson portrays this regional character as both resilient and adaptive, capable of negotiating external pressures without sacrificing its essential distinctiveness. In fact, Davidson spent many summers teaching at Breadloaf in Vermont, where he experienced firsthand the distinctiveness, at least in rural Vermont, that he praises in his book. The New England example illustrates that regional rootedness fosters a coherent ethical and political life precisely because it is grounded in local practices and historical memory.
The Necessity of Regional Rootedness
Both works converge on the insight that regional rootedness is essential for moral and political life. By embedding ethical frameworks and civic responsibilities in specific historical and geographical contexts, communities develop norms that are meaningful and enforceable. Davidson’s critique of cosmopolitan abstraction anticipates contemporary concerns about the moral and social fragmentation often associated with globalization. While cosmopolitan ideals celebrate universality, they frequently neglect the local conditions in which ethical life is cultivated. Davidson reminds us that human flourishing depends not only on abstract principles but on the rich texture of localized social life, where morality, politics, and culture are interwoven in ways that distant, centralized systems cannot replicate.
The contemporary appeal of globalism is undeniable. Economic integration, digital communication, and transnational institutions have fostered a sense of shared human destiny. Cosmopolitanism promises tolerance, cross-cultural understanding, and the expansion of human rights across borders. Yet, it is precisely in this context that Davidson’s emphasis on regional rootedness acquires contemporary relevance. The erosion of local identities risks producing societies that are culturally atomized and morally disoriented. When regional practices and historical memory are subordinated to global imperatives, individuals may lose the context necessary to navigate complex ethical and political decisions. Regional rootedness, as Davidson illustrates, offers a stabilizing anchor, providing moral clarity, civic responsibility, and cultural continuity in an era dominated by abstract global forces.
Davidson’s work also interrogates the difference between living traditions and rigid formalism, a distinction he articulates succinctly in Still Rebels, Still Yankees: “Tradition is the living faith of the dead; traditionalism is the dead faith of the living.” This insight is crucial in the context of modern cosmopolitanism, where globalized ideals often impose abstract norms without consideration for the vitality of local practice. For Davidson, the ethical and cultural life of a community depends not merely on inherited forms but on the ongoing engagement of present actors with their traditions. It is this dynamic interplay between memory and action that sustains moral and civic cohesion.
Davidson’s Regionalism as a Model for the Twenty-First Century
Davidson’s work offers three critical lessons for contemporary society. First, regional rootedness provides moral and ethical grounding. Ethical principles are not self-evident; they are cultivated through practice within specific communities. Local customs and historical memory offer guidance that is responsive to lived experience rather than imposed from afar. Davidson’s insistence on the centrality of place-based moral frameworks underscores the limitations of purely universalist approaches, which often fail to account for the nuanced contexts in which human action occurs. Without rootedness, morality risks becoming abstract, relativistic, or detached from the practicalities of everyday life.
Second, regionalism supports political cohesion and resilience. Davidson’s depiction of New Englanders as civic-minded rebels illustrates how regional identity can balance autonomy with collective responsibility. He observes in Still Rebels, Still Yankees, “The South has not been conquered; it has been converted,” highlighting the ways communities can adapt to external pressures while maintaining their essential identity. Local institutions, customs, and narratives serve as buffers against excessive centralization, thereby fostering governance that is both accountable and responsive to local needs and concerns. In the contemporary global order, supranational institutions and distant bureaucracies often operate without immediate accountability to local populations. Davidson’s analysis suggests that regional rootedness can temper the alienation and disempowerment produced by such systems, ensuring that political authority remains intelligible, accountable, and morally legitimate.
Third, rootedness sustains cultural vitality and fosters a sense of identity. Local languages, practices, and narratives are repositories of human experience, creativity, and memory. Davidson demonstrates that cultural distinctiveness is not a relic of the past but a source of resilience and innovation. In an age of global standardization, regional culture provides a foundation for adaptive engagement with external influences. By preserving distinctive ways of life, communities retain the capacity to negotiate global pressures without losing their essential character. Regionalism, in this sense, is not inherently backward-looking; it is a vehicle for meaningful human engagement with both the local and the global. Davidson’s assertion, “The traditions of a people are the soil in which their moral and intellectual life grows,” encapsulates the vital connection between cultural rootedness and ethical life, reinforcing the relevance of regionalism in contemporary debates over globalization.
Addressing Criticisms of Regionalism
It is essential to address potential objections. Critics of regionalism might argue that attachment to local identity can breed insularity, exclusion, or resistance to beneficial change. Cosmopolitan advocates argue that global networks foster tolerance, economic opportunities, and cross-cultural understanding. Davidson anticipates these critiques, emphasizing that regional rootedness does not entail isolation. On the contrary, rooted communities can selectively and meaningfully engage with the broader world without sacrificing their distinctiveness. The key is balance: regional attachment provides a stable foundation for ethical, civic, and cultural life while allowing for interaction, exchange, and adaptation. Davidson’s work thus offers a model for integrating rootedness with openness, demonstrating that local identity and global engagement are not mutually exclusive.
In conclusion, Donald Davidson’s The Attack on Leviathan and Still Rebels,Still Yankees offer enduring lessons for the twenty-first century. Amid the celebration of cosmopolitan globalism, his work reminds us that regional rootedness is essential for moral, political, and cultural life. Rooted communities cultivate ethical clarity, civic responsibility, and cultural vitality, providing the necessary anchor for human flourishing in a rapidly changing world. While global connectivity offers significant opportunities, it cannot replace the grounding provided by local traditions, practices, and narratives. Far from being backward or regressive, regional rootedness is a vital counterbalance to the homogenizing pressures of globalism, ensuring that individuals and communities retain both their distinctiveness and their capacity for meaningful engagement with the broader world. Davidson’s insights thus remain profoundly relevant, offering guidance for navigating the tension between the global and the local in the twenty-first century.
The views expressed at AbbevilleInstitute.org are not necessarily those of the Abbeville Institute.
