Katherine Rearick

(Reviewed web material and made notes for about thirty-five minutes; wrote for about thirty-five minutes)

            Over the past several semesters, I have become increasingly interested in the concept of the dominant culture within American society. It is not that I wasn’t always subconsciously aware of its existence; it’s just that my own safe position within it sheltered me from the difficult task of examining the overwhelming and sometimes insidious power it wields over certain groups. It is not surprising, then, that the web passages I found to be most interesting dealt with dominant culture and its effects on the assimilation or resistance of immigrants and minority groups.

            RH (2003) writes, “For those in the dominant culture, the view is great. For those outside looking in, the view is entirely different. The literature of immigrants and minorities brings the pressure of these [dominant culture] ‘norms’ to light. The literature is basically a history of society.” For many years, I never considered that the world was not the same for every person as it is for me. RH seems to be describing my snug former worldview: “For those in the dominant culture who, for the most part, believe that everyone who comes to the United States is doing so in search of the dream, it would seem to be a given that they would all want to assimilate. The study of Immigrant Literature completely debunks that myth. One cannot read Joseph Papaleo’s ‘American Dream: First Report’ without feeling somewhat ashamed of what the dominant culture has become. If the American Dream is to be ‘devoted to the disinfection of our carpets,’ (UA 88) perhaps the dominant culture should consider some resistance of its own.” I cannot agree with this statement enthusiastically enough; in my opinion, one of the greatest powers of immigrant and minority literature is that it provides a window on the world through which the dominant culture can reevaluate itself and its practices. In To Kill a Mockingbird, Atticus says, “You can never truly understand a person until you walk around in his shoes…” and immigrant lit provides that opportunity to the dominant culture.

            In another dominant culture observation, JLS (2006) writes, “The social contracts differ for minority groups because of the fact that they faced exploitation instead of opportunity.  They are not expected to conform and play by the rules as immigrants are.” I do not necessarily agree with this statement. I believe that the dominant culture does expect minorities to play the assimilation game; minorities resist playing the game due to the exploitation they have encountered. The result, then, is exacerbated hostility between the dominant and minority cultures. However, I do agree with JLS’s assertion that minority assimilation often happens in spite of resistance; JLS uses the example of the little girls in Sandra Cisneros’ “Barbie-Q”: “The little girls are assimilating to the dominant culture and they are not even aware of it.  Shopping and living within the confines of people who are like them gives this family traits of a minority culture,” yet their obsession with Barbie aligns them with the dominant culture. I am reminded of Diego Torres, the young Dominican man in Nicholosa Mohr’s “The English Lesson.” Even in the midst of his tirade against America and his insistence that he wants nothing to do with becoming a legal citizen, one cannot miss the irony in the fact that he is making this speech in an English class; and education and English acquisition are two of the fundamental characteristics of the assimilation he is supposedly avoiding.

            Finally, I really liked GH’s (2003) description of the unassimilated immigrant as “marked.” GH writes, “The idea of assimilation through appearance is also seen in Mohr’s ‘The English Lesson’ through Mrs. Hamma the teacher of the Basic English class.  Mrs. Hamma was not only teaching English to the students, but also tried to teach them the ‘correct way’ of speaking – which is an attempt to get rid of their ‘markings’…I believe it is evident that it is very important to separate from such ‘markings’ in order to fit in fully, not be marked as ‘other’, and reach the ‘American Dream.’” This is an idea I had not really considered before, but it fits well, too, with the clean/dirty motif and the concept of The Color Code (white=good/black=bad). The sooner an immigrant can cleanse himself of his metaphorical “marks,” the sooner he will be accepted by the dominant culture and reap the rewards America has to offer.