Carrie Arnett

Invisible Markings of the Dominant Culture

            If something is said to be unmarked and elusive, how is it identified?  Over the past five weeks, this course has attempted to identify the dominant culture.  And even though the dominant culture is described as powerful, its mysterious invisibility can make it nearly impossible to identify.  So how can one recognize the dominant culture?  By looking for certain characteristics, clues, and styles in the immigrant and minority narratives, the outlining of an answer begins to form.  This outlining can then serve as a foundation for the first inklings of the dominant culture in American history.  Therefore, it becomes essential to examine how the dominant culture has historically evolved, in order to understand its complexity. 

            Historically, the Exodus narrative is a logical place to begin an examination of the dominant culture.  In the Bible, the Book of Exodus tells the story of the ancient Jews’ migration from Egypt to Canaan.  Unlike other narratives that we have read in class, the great migration of the Jews was an entire society that emigrated from Egypt, rather than an individual person or family.  As the “chosen race” God had spoken to Moses, telling him that His people would be returned to their homeland.  As a religious society, the Jews had no intention of assimilating into the culture of the Canaanites; this would include intermarriage (Deuteronomy 7: 2-3).   This seriously contrasts the more modern immigrant, who might consider intermarriage to be the ultimate step to assimilation into the dominant culture.    

God's covenant or social contract with the Jews, not only kept the Jewish culture separate and pure from the culture of the Canaanites, but also had the intention of destroying the Canaan culture itself.  For God told them to “drive out all the people living there” (Numbers 33: 52).  Perhaps this same notion is what fuels the American dominant culture today.  Many Americans feel as if they are the “chosen” culture, resulting in fumes of arrogance forced upon immigrants and minorities.  All Americans do not believe in this ideology; however, many within the dominant culture express their superiority attitude toward immigrants.  What I am trying to point out is that this ideology exists in the beliefs of some Americans.  This could perhaps be one way to explain why the assimilation of many immigrants into the United States is an idea rejected by others.  Detached, separate, private, and intolerant of other cultures, are all characteristics exemplified by the dominant culture. 

Bradford’s Of Plymouth Plantation, gives the narrative account of the pilgrims’ voyage to America.  This story parallels the Exodus story in that the pilgrims, like the Jews, sought religious freedom.  The Puritans wanted to separate themselves religiously; therefore, they journeyed to America in hopes of finding their own “promise land” to worship God. 

In Bradford’s narrative, Stages I and II are exemplified in the pilgrims’ journey from the Old World to the New World.  However, from this point on, the immigrant narrative stages are put to a halt.  In my opinion, Bradford’s pilgrims were faced with a different type of situation compared to modern immigrants.  The only other inhabitants on American soil were “savage and brutish men,” the Native Americans.  As a religious community, the pilgrims believed in living life by the scriptures.  While the pilgrims may have feared the Native Americans physically, they did not fear them religiously.  The pilgrims were literate and could read the Bible.  This was the one weapon they armed themselves with, and lived their lives in accordance to Gods plain, simple words. 

The pilgrims thus evolved into the first dominant culture.  Their culture emphasized strong morals and created a new civilization in America.  In class we have discussed a strong connection between economics and social class in regards to the dominant culture.  In Bradford’s account of the pilgrims, we see as described in objective seven, a utopian view of commonwealth.  The pilgrims worked together and shared in land, profits, and food.  This “plain style” which is motivated by religious identity, limited their economic opportunity.  Thus, as time passed, the puritans shifted to a capitalist ideology; which is exemplified by the current dominant culture.  Bradford noticed this, and recognized this transition as demoralizing, for it shifted away from the common good of the community and focused more on the nuclear family. 

This same aspect of the dominant culture is illustrated in the excerpt from Jonathan Raban’s Hunting Mister Heartbreak: A Discovery of America.  After reading Raban’s story, one sees the end product of what began with the pilgrims’ first steps towards capitalism.  Bradford was no doubt on to something when he saw this transition, though a necessity, as a loss of innocence.  Instead of being identified by nationality, people are identified based upon economics and technology.  For instance, the street people are seen as dirty beggars, who could not meet the “appallingly high standards that Manhattan set for the staying properly housed and fed” aka the air people (349).   After reading this excerpt, the dominant culture becomes the rich-elite who live in a world of their own.  As the wealthy alienate themselves for materialistic reasons, instead of religious ones, the dominant culture becomes what Bradford feared the most, separated from God. 

Since the national migration of the pilgrims, the dominant culture has gradually become unmarked and hard to define.  So what makes the dominant culture difficult to identify?  As we have discussed in class, the dominant culture is continuously changing.  This aspect alone makes it difficult to pinpoint a specific definition for the dominant culture.  Since its traits are not constant, recognizing the dominant culture can be like trying to pick up a wet fish: it’s slippery and tricky to do.

In class one dominant culture moment focused on was Eva Hoffman’s Lost in Translation: A Life in a New Language.  In this story, Hoffman relates to the reader a discussion she has with a friend.  During the conversation, the friend describes America as the dominant culture.  She states, “Being American means that you feel like you’re the norm…and the Northeast is the norm that sets the norm” (220).  This statement highlights how influential and obtuse the dominant culture is.  According to this ideology, if one is not Americanized, one is not normal.  Instead of being “normal’ one becomes alienated, a social outcast, and disconnected.  This warped philosophy illustrates how in order to assimilate, one must be accepted into the dominant culture.  The invisible force of the dominant culture is also given a geographical location: the Northeast.  Much of the literature we read in class identified New England as the location of elite trend starters and a place where things are constantly changing.  This assertion towards the Northeast seems logical since this was the location of the first American Colonies. 

            The dominant culture is an elusive, invisible force that may resist others’ attempts at assimilation.  This indistinguishable, blank, colorless force evokes a question of uncertainty.  Can we as a society clearly define something that is unmarked?  I believe it is possible.  However, the dominant culture is constantly changing and evolving into something new.  For the American dominant culture attempts to maintain stability and, as Bradford illustrates to his readers, always move forward.