Complete answer to Essay 2

The Dominant Culture: the phrase suggests conquest, power, and influence.  Yet defining the DC proves to be more than simply an exercise in etymology or sociology as the process becomes fraught with contradictions: the DC is at once pervasive yet elusive, dominant yet subtle.  Perhaps, as Thomas Parker notes, its most prevailing form derives from negation, what it is not rather than what it is.  Nonetheless, in order to analyze the evolution and development of American society and its narrative(s), recognition of the DC – how it evolves, how it manifests itself - becomes essential.

            The idea of the dominant culture suggests a legacy of tradition and power, a system of rules recognized and reinforced by the establishment.  In part, this system derives from the Puritans, whose Mayflower Compact may be perceived as a model for the American Constitution, and subsequently a foundation for the American social contract (Dr. White).  In their utopian vision, however, the Puritans envisioned a covenant with God, while forming a community that pioneered the protestant work ethic and advocated literacy and education – attributes that would work their way into the characteristics of the DC and become the necessary requirements for successful assimilation.

In other respects, in their preference for the “plain style,” Bradford’s Pilgrims set the tone of simplicity and understatement that eventually became associated with the DC and its unmarked blandness.  It is this image of “plain beautifulness” that later distinguishes the DC from struggling outsiders such as Sara Smolinsky, whose impoverished circumstances and ethnicity bear the stains of “the dirty battle of life” (BG 212-213). For Sara, the quiet dignity and the “no show-off” appearance of the college freshmen prove alluring and irresistible.  It is no coincidence that during the course of her education and in her desire to fit in, she acquires the no frills style of the DC from the neatly groomed appearance to the light and airy living quarters.  Beyond appearance, though, the DC remains an amorphous entity, blending in, creating trends, colluding in the whitewashing of America while remaining essentially detached and impersonal.

Stemming from this detachment are the ideas of exclusivity and separateness.  Much like the Hebrews in Exodus, the Pilgrims originally conceived their exclusivity as means to perpetuate their ideology and reinforce their faith through monotheism, the discouragement of intermarriage, and an emphasis on the nuclear family. However, over time the concept developed to create a social hierarchy, which at its most corrupt materializes as a dominant elite.  In Raban’s story, for instance, plain has become pristine, and the ascent above the firmament takes on material rather than spiritual connotations.  In effect, the “air people”- the haves, and the “street people” – the have nots, exist in parallel universes, and somewhere in between the vast majority ekes out a living in a system far removed from the ideals of the pilgrims’ collective altruism (CR 2002).  In the “high-altitude” society of Raban’s story, the DC has become an aberration of itself, a perversion of the American Dream, the domain of the rich and the powerful to which only the select minority can assimilate.

Perhaps one of the DC’s most definable characteristics is its ability to remain neutral and detached.  It simply exists.  People can assimilate to it, or not.  In The Lesson, Mrs. Jones chooses to remain outside the DC, returning to her neighborhood to teach the children what she has learned: that the system is inherently corrupt and fraught with inequality and injustice.  Moreover, adapting to the DC inevitably involves the surrendering of personal and cultural identity to a homogeneous norm, reinforcing the notion that the essential self is never quite good enough.  Even with compliance, there is no guarantee of success or acceptance.  As both Raban and Mora note, an “insidious coda” exists to undermine the security of those who fear not belonging, not fitting in.  In counterpoint, for others who enter the social contract voluntarily, frequently a sense of inclusion, of making it, persists as a psychological benefit. For this group, paradoxically, the illusion becomes the reality.

Ultimately, the Dominant Culture resists definition and analysis, remaining elusive and, therefore, all the more intriguing.  And therein lies its power: as long as it retains the luster of mystery, it retains control, the ability to dominate.  As humans we are driven to understand, to seek power over that which controls us.  The urge is fundamental, instinctive.  In trying to define and understand the DC, perhaps we seek to diminish its power, to create, as did the Pilgrims and the many immigrants that followed, a greater sense of validation and autonomy for ourselves. [YH]