Excerpts from other sample essays for Essay 2 assignment

In class Thomas mentioned the concept of “identification through negation” and this is seen throughout the narratives that we have read this semester, particularly in Bread Givers, Exodus and Of Plymouth Plantation.

In Bread Givers Mr. Smolinksy is scornful of the men in his daughters’ lives because they are “low” in a sense to him. They are pursuing earthly riches while he believes he is firmly entrenched in higher, more worthy goals. He is able to pursue his dreams because he is more than willing to use his daughters as wage earners. He sees people around them who are successful because they have started assimilating and he identifies himself as a last bastion of righteousness and purity. He is what they are not. In Exodus the Jews too can be defined as not Canaanites. The Jews were monotheistic while the Canaanites had many gods, women had different roles in the two cultures, the Jews considered themselves chosen people while the Canaanites were ungodly, etc. In Plymouth Plantation Bradford’s regard, representatives of the Puritans, towards the Native Americans is that they are “savage and brutish men”  and go so far as to declare America an “unpeopled country” that is “devoid of all civil inhabitants.” . . .

            In Of Plymouth Plantation there is a passage regarding the Indians and their rumored ferocity. They are described as being “merciless where they overcome” and that they “[flay] some alive with the shells of fishes, cutting off the members and joints of others by piecemeal and broiling on the coals, eat the collops of their flesh in their sight whilst they live. . .” and it struck me that this is what the dominant culture does to an immigrant or minority, at least metaphorically. If the differences between the dominant culture and the immigrant or minority is a kind of “cold” or “mechanistic” style versus one that is “organic” then maybe this can be construed as slightly prophetic. . . .           

            It’s hard to get a handle on the dominant culture because it isn’t one size fits all. Fellow students have made the argument in class that they don’t believe poor southerners are members of the dominant culture. And if I keep whittling away at the American population this way (minorities, gays, those in poverty, etc) then the people standing on the other side of the line rapidly diminish. I think perhaps that dominant culture is difficult to pin down because it isn’t necessarily embodied in a person so much as an idea. A person is a member of the dominant culture depending on who is looking at him or her. If the whole thing is a spectrum than anyone closer to the WASP end of things is going to appear to be a part of the dominant culture to those further away.  I think we need to consider the dominant culture as not really two-dimensional, but more in a three-dimensional light. Consider the way dimension (height) is discussed in Jonathan Raban’s Hunting Mister Heartbreak. . . .

            The most characteristic qualities of the dominant culture are those that have been around the longest-- resistance to intermarriage, high value placed on education, the ability to reap the direct rewards for personal labor, plainness and simplicity. The Puritans as well as the Jews exhibited these cultural traits. The Puritans tried early on to do communal labor so that everyone was assured food, clothing, and shelter, but it didn’t take long before there was dissent among them. They chafed under the unfair division of labor and produce. Bradford concluded that it was simply a fundamental flaw in human beings. The similar work ethic, willingness to keep private their religion, and resistance to intermarriage seems to be a large part of the Jewish success in America. Berel Bernstein in Bread Givers tries to convince Bessie of the value of benefiting directly from your own labor, “This is America where everybody got to look out for themselves.” Because she is unwilling to risk letting her father starve, she loses Berel.

Immigrants unwilling to let go of traditional ways do lose, often. In Dr. White’s lecture notes he explains that “Americans descended from immigrants have “bought in” to social contract written by dominant culture; dissent may appear unpatriotic, shrill, hysterical.” The people who are in a position to comment on the dominant culture are constrained against it. How much impulse can a person have to analyze something that can only yield unpleasant results? . . .. [LE]

 . . . A close investigation of a dominant culture is not often applied; however, there can be a great amount of knowledge and understanding gained from this. Dominancy often consists of power and privilege, which has a lot to do with the tendency to not analyze its existence. It is part of a privilege to not be exposed or discussed. One of the repulsions or deterrents is that it can lead to a moral criticism of the behavior of the dominant culture and a negative self-reflection that is unwelcome by those that are a part of it. On the other hand it can also help to expose bias and fears on the part of dominant cultures and those who are excluded, and it can help those in the dominant culture appreciate the struggles and sacrifices of those who try and assimilate into their culture. . . . [RS]

 . . . As discussed in class, one of the most notable features of the dominant culture is its “unmarked” condition. Because dominant culture is pervasive, ubiquitous and in the majority, it becomes background noise, something unnoticed by members of the dominant culture. It takes someone outside to call to our attention the qualities of dominance. Crevecouer, a Frenchman, described the beginnings of the dominant culture in American as industrious for the purpose of individual gain, educated, free from the restraint of their previous country’s dominance and unmixed, or unwilling to intermarry.

… no great refinements of luxury …We are all animated with the spirit of an industry which is unfettered and unrestrained, because each person works for himself. … I respect them for what they have done; for the accuracy and wisdom with which they have settled their territory; for the decency of their manners; for their early love of letters; their ancient college, the first in this hemisphere; for their industry…

One could argue that dominant culture will be displaced by immigrant culture since the tapestry of culture continues to grow over time. Every year brings a fresh batch of immigrants to add to the tapestry. The contrast of Air People and Ground People in “Mr. Heartbreak” makes me wonder if the tapestry whose center is the dominant culture will begin to be shaped like a cone. The tapestry stretches from new strands of immigrants to the apex of dominant culture/air people. Strands added to the bottom of the tapestry cone remain loosely woven. Then as each immigrant strand experiences each stage of the American dream or immigrant narrative, it becomes increasingly taut, tightly woven and rises to the top. In that way, the immigrant culture becomes the same with dominant culture over a time. American is so very new as a country; speculation about its cultural future is both exciting and problematic. [SC]

 . . . [Native-born] Americans also buy into the American Dream as much as immigrants do.  Young people in America typically expect to graduate from college, get a great job, get married, and enjoy a delightful suburban life.  Besides the differences in the visions of a family life, (Americans typically think of their “family” as their spouse and children, while many immigrant groups picture the large extended family) this defines the American Dream.

            The difference comes in with how Americans and immigrants go about attaining the American Dream.  For Americans, it is easier to attain the things associated with the American Dream, because they are at home in the culture, they do not have to learn a new language in order to attend school, and they may be better equipped financially in order to get their life on track.  On the other hand, immigrants must learn the culture first, adjust to the culture, and secure a place in the culture before beginning where the American would.  This is the reason that most of the time, immigrants see hard work as a necessary component of the American Dream. . . . [EI]

Any examination of one’s own dominant culture is difficult.  Even if one does not consider oneself a member of the dominant culture, it is a challenging thing to analyze.  Part of the reason for this elusiveness, in the case of the dominant American culture, may be it’s “unmarked” nature.  Perhaps Americans simply don’t stand out.  However, there is another reason at work.  If a person were to visit a gas station, they would no doubt notice a strong smell of gasoline.  However, if that same person were to remain at that gas station for a prolonged period, they might find that they soon wouldn’t smell the gasoline any longer.  This is not because there is no longer a smell present in the air; it is because the smell is everywhere in the air.  When something is inescapable, when something surrounds us and inundates us with it’s ubiquity, we soon cease to perceive it.  This ubiquity is a significant stumbling block for anyone wishing to study their own culture, but there are a number of ways to overcome it: by seeing it through the eyes of one to whom it is new or unusual; by studying alternative cultures; and by distancing ourselves. . . . [BS]

 . . . The dominant culture is oblivious to what the dominant culture is because it is so engrained in us that we are not aware of it. I think another reason is that sometimes when you analyze something you come up with something so much deeper or a historical fact that you do not want to be associated with. The fear of being accountable or being held accountable creates an uneasy feeling and this is why the dominant culture feel that if it is not necessary. Necessary brings me to need. Dominant culture, in my opinion does not see the need for self-analysis. After all, everyone is trying to become it, so why question or analyze anything? . . .

It was very interesting to me to see how actually the starting point for both the dominant and immigrant narratives was very similar the dream of “The Promise Land”. I think what creates the current examination is that there is still major immigration to the United States which makes the Immigrant Narrative visible and vivid and this immigration forces or demands an analysis of the dominant culture in order to find meaning and identity in their new land. [DY]