Teaching undergraduates has been enjoyable. They bring so much energy and vitality. Their questions, concerns, and fears all surface in the context of discussion whether we are discussing literature, poetry, or an essay.
In an Asian-American literature class, I am conscious of two kinds of Asian-American students. There are the students who hate being Asian and if possible, would take a pill and become something other, more than likely, white. Then there are the students who seek to express cultural pride and are critical of people who do not reflect "being down" as whatever scattershot set of attributes they feel constitute ethnic authenticity. It is essentialism of the worst sort, the kind of oppression they like to level at their more assimilated brothers and sisters for not being more visibly "ethnic". Conversely, the assimilated types resent and reject the more ethnically conscious students separating themselves while maintaining a cliched distance and assuming an air of superiority, dismissing all things non-mainstream as mediocre or unworthy. The aggressively assimilated fail to ask whether their ethnic backgrounds might offer some insight to their lives and they do not bother to ask whether they have anything to learn from anyone else other than Euro-Americans, the very same folks they hold up as examples and models, the very same people they desire to marry. Unfortunately, some of them have wrongly assumed that their acceptance by this laughably 'elite' cultural set will always promise acceptance, that performing cultural norms as establlished by this group will somehow gain them real and full accpetance in society. Nothing could be more dangerously naive. The toughest part in teaching these two polarities is to invite them into that tenuous middle space, that part that seeks a critical balance between these two perspectives while managing to seek for an authentic identity. Too often, people gravtitate towards that which is comfortable, an inertia which guides things. But we cannot afford the kind of balkanization that leaves people ill-prepared to speak, to live, and to work with people of other backgrounds. Appiah has suggested a kind of cosmopolitanism, the kind which seeks to learn beyond what one already knows. He is wise to encourage us to do so in an age in which we are not improving or moving to that tertiary level of multi-culturalism, when we ask difficult questions of one another.
2 comments:
I find it very funny that in fashion, people are willing to put on clothes that combine various elements of the "other." the foreign is somewhat welcomed. however, when we go beyond the surface, culture and elements of culture become protected (or defended) by rigid layers of
prejudice .
two narratives unable to converge. perhaps something more physical has to happen.
this "elite" group(s) seriously need to deconstruct and reconstruct their narrative. they have to realize that their own ideologies are layered by deceptive glamour and elitism. these facades do eventually crumble (mababasag) thus revealing the fragile interior of an insecure foundation.
the immigrants need to redefine their narrative as well. there are new places and people to explore. a lot has to be assimilated and processed. at the same time one has to "fit in" in order to make a living in a strange (yet familiar) land.
for convergence to happen, both narratives must open up. there is a call to de-lineate the structures, the ideologies, to be creative.
creative exploration is the call.
what do you think?
Yellow Vespa,
Ultimately, you are correct. We need creative exploration which for me, means that both sides have to speak with one another so that it does not eventually devolve into gang-warfare or violence. Too often, when warring factions find it too difficult to speak with one another, they remedy the situation by annhilating one another. I am not sure that this (to me) is a real option in an age when we can ask for greater dialogue. The problem is, who is inviting them to speak to one another? It takes a person of considerable leadership to find the fissures in the community and to point out what conversation might need to take place. I am not sure that these "facades" as you put it, are necessarily fragile or insecure. Material culture provides people with a kind of cultural shield. In other words, if they really were as fragile as you suggest, we would have social change sooner when people commit these kinds of acts. As it is, I believe that people are making lives out of their 'deceptions', making great commitments in order to avoid seeing the other and resisting the other as much as possible. In the US, where economic forces reinforce calculated separation, it is possible not to address cultural differences if people choose not to. But I am not sure how much longer we can allow these factions to exist without there being a kind of "crash" as the film suggested a few years ago. What is striking about how people reacted to this movie was how many white people I have spoken to refuse to see what is taking place in that movie. We may not be comfortable with the contents of a film focused on race-collision, but that does not mean it is not happening. It is typical of people who are not honest about the world they live in to bury their heads in the sand and then say: "Oh, I didn't know that sort of thing was going on..." We have lots of work to do. In a recent newspaper article in the SF Chronicle, A "South of Border" theme party ended up in the newspapers when a group of Santa Clara University students showed up dressed as Hispanic janitors, gardeners, and gangbangers. Similarly, females showed up as pregnant teens. These vicious form of racism has gardered a reaction from the community challenging the president to condemn the party. But the question remains, what are they learning at SCU that allows them to think of this kind of party theme in the first place?
Post a Comment