complete sample answer for Essay 1 (example b)

The Changing of the Guard Revisited: The Immigrant Narrative and the Extension of Critical Concepts

            After five weeks of reading engaging literature and analyzing interesting cultural dichotomies (assimilation vs. resistance, the American Dream vs. the “new” Dream/the American Nightmare) and the slippages thereof (ambivalent minority), I am pleased that the students and professor in this class approached such sensitive material from more than a “tolerant” standpoint. We sought to truly understand our cultural differences thereby engaging in such expansive discourse while expanding our cultural lenses.  Although the class discussions became disputatious at times, we—as current educators or future educators—rightfully stood in the cultural trenches and refused to tiptoe around the pertinent issues: social contracts, the motivation of the immigrant and minority communities, and the elusiveness of the dominant culture.  By exploring the immigrant narratives and organizing discourse around those points in which these narratives conjoin and collide, imperative literary objectives (1a, 1b, and 1c) and cultural objectives (1, 1b, 1c, and 2) were successfully met.  Yet, none of this is possible without the intermeshing of text, theory, and praxis.   While the text provided the voice of the immigrant, the critical frameworks/working model incorporated and substantiated the social contracts that arguably affect the immigrants’ lives; likewise, as Dr. White served as the “coach” or facilitator in the classroom, the commitment to teach literature from a multicultural stance assisted the class in understanding the need to apply the practicalities and accessibility of multicultural literature in our classrooms.  Essentially, this class has proven that change is evolutionary, and educators need to concern themselves with preparing for change within the academy and society at large.

            In my midterm exam, I overtly expressed my gratitude with the working model (in relation to the immigrant narrative).  This model works because it speaks of the immigrants’ motivations as well as the social contracts (socio-political, historical, and economic orders in the host society) that they inherit.  Perhaps I am premature in my observation, but it is my belief that the social contracts are of the utmost importance when teaching multicultural literature.  I can recall taking Lit 5730 (Race in American Writing) last semester and wondering how individuals from a variety of ethnic backgrounds would ever reconcile the histories amongst them, for these histories ultimately mandate social contracts, and these social contracts are the underpinnings of strife.  I am now convinced that these social contracts are more powerful than I had originally suspected.  Because the theory used to examine the texts in this course take the social contracts into consideration, teaching multicultural literature suddenly becomes authentic, which allows the instructor/professor to move beyond the mere teaching of tolerance towards a goal of understanding and acceptance.  Since education has been given a charge to “level the playing field,” I find it befitting that a multitude of the class texts discussed education in some form or fashion    

            In my midterm exam, I explored power and personal responsibility in a variety of narratives, and the majority of these narratives addressed education or the educative process in America.  I argued that Nicholas Mohr’s The English Lesson could justifiably be juxtaposed with Toni Cade Bambara’s The Lesson.  Both texts easily represent different categories within the critical frameworks: The English Lesson reads as a traditional immigrant narrative advocating rapid assimilation while The Lesson reads as a minority narrative emphasizing resistance to the American dream.  When referencing these texts, a former student explains, “The backbone of the struggle is the conflict between resistance and assimilation.”  This student’s observation is only partially correct however, as there are larger struggles occurring within these compositions.  First, in The Lesson, Bambara introduces the reader to the ill effects of segregation and exclusion.  Since these children lack exposure to the dominant culture, they are able to perpetuate stereotypes about the dominant culture, which is evidenced in Rosie Giraffe’s comment, “’White folks crazy’” (IA 145).  After rereading this narrative, I agree that Bambara suggests an affinity for a new American dream (economic equity), but I argue that the students have not resisted the dominant culture at all.  Instead, the dominant culture has resisted them inasmuch as they are disallowed the opportunity to interact with children of the dominant culture because they live on the margins (economic and social) of life.  Contrary to popular belief (as indicated in previous students’ responses to this text), Bambara is not fully promoting a socialist agenda.  She is, instead, suggesting that true liberation in the African American community will not be determined by economic movements.  True liberation is obtained through literacy and the power to become self-directed thinkers.  I think the frameworks should be extended to show that African Americans use literacy as a means of resisting some of the dominant culture’s values while achieving a freedom that has always prevailed in the dominant society: the ability to make choices.  It could then be argued that they—African Americans—are ambivalent minorities because they assimilate educationally for personal advancement (unlike the Mexican Americans who tend to assimilate primarily for financial gain); yet the African Americans resist some of the dominant culture’s values.

            Another extension of the working model should address the language void of those immigrants who establish ethnic enclaves and present with no desire to learn the language of the host country.  Even though this individual has bought into the prosperity component of the American dream, he/she has not fully assimilated because he/she has no grasp of the language of the dominant culture.  Specifically, I am alluding to Lali’s husband in The English Lesson.  As Lali becomes more fluent in English, total dependence on her husband will likely decrease.  Towards the end of the story, Rudi begins to lament his decision to marry Lali (IA 32).  For, as she steadies herself to climb the American social ladder by assimilating into the mainstream American society and ridding herself of undesirable cultural markers, Rudi will remain marginalized by his lack of English speaking skills (a marker of inferiority by the dominant culture’s standards).  The question is to what extent will Rudi have assimilated?

            Finally, Gish Jen’s The American Society explores the representation of a race and/or ethnic group.  In Jen’s narrative, the reader is introduced to a second-generation immigrant who displays the usual feelings of ambiguity and shock (stages three and four of the immigration model), as she tries to navigate between two cultures.  Callie’s father is clearly still loyal to his native country, China.  Callie’s mother (who desires rapid assimilation into the dominant culture) explains, “‘Your father think this is China.’”  “‘He doesn’t believe in joining the American society’” (IA 155).   Though most critics tend to focus on the climax of this narrative, because the Asian American family boldly resists a yearning to gain acceptance by the neighbors, I assert that the preeminence of this narrative is illuminated in the immigrant’s marriage.  As the wife becomes more independent in America, and her yearning for acceptance grows, she will prove to be an upwardly mobile citizen while the husband will remain marginalized because he does not want to fit into the American society.  Moreover, I wonder how this ambivalence fits into the “model minority” myth.  To be specific, as the husband gains economic freedom, he seems to not be modeling the stereotype of the quiet, voiceless Asian who longs to assimilate into the dominant culture.  Instead, his financial gain allows him to gain the supreme right to choose to separate/limit contact with the dominant culture.  It’s as if the father is interested in profiting from the dominant culture via his restaurant, but he adamantly opposes incorporation into the very culture that he profits from.

            Despite the fact that many opponents of multicultural literature will argue that “we”—the proponents and educators who believe in multicultural education—are doing more harm than good, I contend that we are boldly standing in the cultural trenches and attempting to move beyond a scanty tolerant viewpoint.  This class has proven that there are educators who are truly interested in acceptance. [nj]