Wayne Reed

Exclusivity as the Dominant Culture’s Way to Thrive

            Though times are always changing and modern day culture looks quite different from cultures in the near and distant past, American culture has continued to thrive on principles held over from the beginning.  From the story of Exodus to the Pilgrims in William Bradford’s Of Plymouth Plantation to the present day the dominant culture has not only survived by maintaining its exclusivity, it has thrived on it.

            By referring to the story of the Jews’ exodus from Egypt as a model for the Puritans, a number of important factors are revealed that give insight into how a dominant culture is formed.  Under Moses’ leadership, the Jews were a people determined to escape oppression and find a place where they could live freely according to the customs and religion devised by God.  These customs and laws written down by Moses created a strong foundation for the way of life they chose, and, since breaking with these newly formed traditions might invite the notorious wrath of God, the Jews had a strong motive for strict adherence to these customs.  Of course, another reason they had to hold tightly to these customs was because, according to the writings of Moses, they were God’s chosen people: “The LORD your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the earth to be his people, his treasured possession” (Deuteronomy 7:6).  Being a people chosen by God carries with it an obligation to abide by what is set forth, and a unique right (as perceived by them) to insist upon this way of life wherever they go, despite the customs of the people around them.

            More straightforwardly, God simply told them, without exception, that they were not to conform in anyway to the people they encountered.  According to Leviticus,

 “You shall not do as they do in the land of Cannaan, to which I am bringing you. You shall not follow their statutes.  My ordinances you shall observe and my statutes you shall keep, following them: I am the LORD your God.”

These unequivocal remarks, presumably spoken by God, were taken seriously enough that when they arrived at the Promised Land, they asserted themselves tenaciously, refusing to adopt the customs of the inhabitants of the land. 

            In the same way, the Puritans held on to their beliefs and customs to establish a dominant culture in a different land.  A very idealistic people, the Puritans suffered their share of persecution in England in an effort to have a pure Christianity.  This kind of hardship sometimes has a way of strengthening the resolve of the people who suffer it, which probably enabled the Puritans to stick to their beliefs more strongly when they encountered new lands.  They adhered to a strong conviction to live a life of God as they saw fit.  Though Bradford did not see his people as the same kind of chosen people as the Hebrews did, there was the idea of “the elect” from the Calvinist theology from which the Pilgrims drew.  This idea of a finite group of the elect creates a strong sense of identity not easily challenged by outside groups, and it creates a superiority of belief in a culture.  The strength of this belief serves to bind them together as a solid community (an institution that was crucial to the survival of the Puritans in the land they were to encounter but no more beneficial than it may have been to assimilate with the Indians.)

            However, this land was not the Promised Land of the Hebrews.  What made the Promised Land so enticing to the Jews was the fact that it was a land already developed:

 “I gave you a land on which you had not labored, and towns that you had not built, and you live in them; you eat the fruit of vineyards and oliveyards that you did not plant.”  (Joshua 24:13)

Bradford’s pilgrims did not inherit a land that was ripe for the picking, with the exception of some leftover corn from the Indians (74).  Instead, they had to rely on hard work, and despite their efforts to hearken back to the simpler times of the first generations of Christians, the Pilgrims had to adapt.  

            The first generations of Christians, according to the book of Acts, lived communally, pooling their wealth together and sharing it equally among them.  In an effort to follow this pure example, Bradford’s group attempted this to no avail.  He found that

“the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense” (133)

As a result, they designated a piece of land for each family and increased production.  Interestingly enough, though they had to change an ideal – in essence a way of life – Bradford attributes this to the fallibility of man, not the fallibility of the ideas of God or the Bible.  In referring to Richard Knolles (from the footnote) he essentially justifies the change biblically, saying that it was wrong in the first place.  However, the Pilgrims learned it from experience, and it turn learned how to adapt or change with the times.  Yet, all the while he attributes everything to God who “in His wisdom saw another course fitter for them” (134).  Though they learned to adapt, they never strayed from their system of belief.

            This course has evolved into a dominant culture that looks to the simplicity of the past amid a rapidly changing society.  Bradford introduces his Of Plymouth Plantation with a declaration that he will tell it in a “plain style,” putting forth the “simple truth in all things” (1).  The Puritans’ distaste for the Catholic Church’s penchant for the ornate, and Europe’s culture of complex theological debate taking place as a result of the Reformation, attracted them to a sole reliance on the Bible for inspiration and guidance and a plainer way of speaking of things.  In the New World they used the early Christians as a simple model instead of the complexly ritualistic Catholic Church.  The course of adaptation and affinity for the past has been a foundation for what the dominant culture in America has become.

            This plainness of style took on new form in later generations, yet the idea of a separate people with a superior way of life did not.  In one way cleanliness has been both a sign of plainness and a superiority.  In “Soap and Water” the idea of cleanliness is closely associated with the dominant culture and their virtually unattainable standards.  The narrator is unable to enter in to a society and be successful without first developing habits of cleanliness and criteria for dress. 

            The effects of this unattainable standard on a larger scale is shown in the excerpt from Hunting Mister Heartbreak when he distinguishes the “street people” from the “air people.”  The street people lack the quality of cleanliness and flawless exterior with “their skin eruptions, their wasted figures, poor hair and bony faces” (349).  These people have not conformed themselves, for whatever reason, to the standards of the dominant culture and are unfavorably distinct from them.  They are so appalling to the “air people” that the “air people” associate them with crime and become afraid of them. 

            Indeed the narrator becomes afraid of himself when he realizes he does not meet this standard.  While in Macy’s he notices the mirrors and describes them as the “innocuous part of the display” (349).  Far from innocuous, the mirrors are the most effective part of the display “making you feel rotten about yourself” (347).  While looking at the mirrors in the store he recognizes all of his flaws, especially in light of the displays that advertise the impeccability of the dominant culture.  In an effort to comfort himself by fitting in, he gets a haircut and buys new shoes because the mirrors were so effective in making “shame… a central part of the deal in this show”(347).

            The economics of America’s dominant culture plays a crucial role in explaining its fluctuation and elusiveness.  The standards must change constantly lest the people of lesser means come to resemble the people of wealth, having had enough time to save money to clean themselves up and fit in.  Yet it is also dependent on the insecurities of the people.  Advertising and displays in stores, such as Macy’s in Hunting Mister Heartbreak, thrive on making people feel as if they are not matching up to the styles of the day.  Without the widespread desire to blend in, stores would not be able to grow rich.  If these standards and styles do not change then people will have no need to buy new things since they will already fit in.  As a result the dominant culture is always altering.

            The dominant culture is easily recognizable, yet as soon as it can be grasped it will have changed.  In the same way the Puritans had to adapt to thrive, yet still maintained the separateness, so the dominant culture has continued to thrive on exclusivity as a way to continue to thrive.