Ryan Smith

Final Exam Essay: Flexibility

            Before taking the course, I had never thought much about the dominant culture; I certainly had never heard, or remembered, the term. I was, of course, aware of the dominant culture in one way another. Vaguely, I knew that the dominant culture was: pilgrims, colonial Americans and the Founding Fathers, WASPs (White Anglo-Saxon Protest), people with excessive amounts of money or involved in government (or both). Actively learning about immigration and the dominant culture has clarified just what and who the culture is. In its simplest form, the dominant culture is the culture which is being assimilated to, those in the dominant culture make few, if any, cultural concessions. Now that I’ve realized this, the name has started appearing everywhere – in magazine articles, on political networks, in books. To have and understand the term is a useful tool for both political studies and, more to the point, multicultural issues. With the basic, but thorough in its focus, history afforded by the class, it would appear that the dominant culture of America has had two essential forms, that of a unique version of the immigrant narrative (objective 1), and the establishment of the culture that exists, still dominating, today (objective 4).

In certain respects, the beginnings of the American Dominant culture are identical to the traditional immigrant story of escaping the old world to make a new home in a new one. The Pilgrims, when they were simply Protestants trying to worship without persecution, moved first to Holland, then to the “new world” for reasons similar to many American immigrants – they wanted to escape persecution and secure better lives for themselves for themselves and their children. Two important factors, however, make the story of the Pilgrim’s immigration, almost, unique. One factor is that they moved as one group, from place to place; related, is the fact that instead of assimilating to the cultures they came upon, they remained separate and distinct. Both of these traits are shared by the ancient and modern Jews, whose story links closely with that of the Pilgrim’s and the eventual establishment of the dominant culture.

As the struggle of the Pilgrims was mainly religious, it is no wonder that they would look to the Bible for inspiration and guidance. What they discovered was the hope that God might, like the ancient Jews in bondage, deliver them from their troubles into a new land of plenty. The basic story of the Israelites, and God’s promise therein, was certainly a great encouragement for them: “Now therefore, behold, the cry of the children of Israel is come unto me: and I have also seen the oppression wherewith the Egyptians oppress them. Come now therefore, and I will send thee unto Pharaoh, that thou mayest bring forth my people the children of Israel out of Egypt” (Exodus 3: 9-10). And as the Jews – the entire race of people, a homeless nation - escaped Egypt, moving from place to place until final reaching the Promised Land, so did the Pilgrim’s journey, as a politically and religiously unified, to their eventual home in what would eventually be called America.

Also similar to the Jews, the Pilgrims were led primarily by religious motives – perhaps even more so, as the Jews had more practical reasons for wanting to escape Egypt. Under the rein of England’s dominant culture at the time, Anglo-Catholicism, the Protestant Puritans were convinced that they were suffering Satanic attacks and injustice on account of their belief (the second being undeniably so). Early in William Bradford’s historical piece, Of Plymouth Plantation, the author describes the religious and social structure of the Puritans: “They shook off this yoke of antichristian bondage, and as the Lord’s free people, joined themselves (by a covenant of the Lord) into a church estate, in the fellowship of the gospel, to walk in all his ways, made known, or to be made known unto them, according to their best endeavors” (1.10c). This congregation made it possible the Puritans to move in the pattern of national immigration, in which an entire people immigrate together.

The other defining trait of the dominant culture, and one that is more obvious today, is that of a resistance to assimilation, as opposed to the traditional immigrant story of assimilating upon reaching the destination. Again, this trait is shared by the ancient and modern Jews, who the Pilgrims had strong connections with. In Holland, for example, instead of becoming part of the culture there, the Pilgrims remained in their own social networks, and when the children began to pick up non-Puritan ways from the local culture, the congregation collectively decided that they must leave rather than assimilate. This attitude is similar to Sara’s father, and many of the other local Jews, in Anzia Yezierska’s Bread Givers, who refuses to let his family, specifically his daughters, assimilate to the new ways of life in America. He, like the Puritans, maintains that though they are in a new place, they must maintain the old ways, remaining separate and distinct from the majority. The Puritans truly became the dominant culture when the arrived in America and applied this principle to the Native Americans. Instead of absorbing from the local culture, the now dominant culture barricaded themselves, ultimately ignoring or mistreating the natives.

            America’s dominant culture established, other cultures, races, etc. were made to comply. Those viewed as inferior – Native Americans, Africans – were used as needed and rejected from the culture entirely; others, like the Scots-Irish, who came early enough to have some part in the founding of the nation, were allowed to remain, but made to assimilate or stay mostly separate. As the country grew and was flooded with immigrants, it became increasingly multicultural, though the newcomers had little choice, if they wanted economic and educational success, but to adapt their ways to the culture in which they now lived. Some groups like modern African-Americans mostly chose, and for the longest time were not allowed, not to completely assimilate to the dominant culture, many retaining traditional identities. Others, such as South and East Asians adapted quickly, succeeding in education and professional careers; such “good” immigrant groups have been labeled “Model Minorities” for their willingness to assimilate to the dominant culture. An example of this can be found in Chitra Divakaruni’s “Silver Pavement, Golden Roofs.” In this story a young Indian immigrant attends college, despite her cultural differences, which she mostly keeps at home. She describes a fantasy in which she impresses those from the dominant culture in her college classes, and even has romantic thoughts about her professor (education and intermixing with the dominant culture are both signals of model minorities): “I spiritedly argue against the handsome professor’s interpretation of Dreiser’s philosophy. I discourse brilliantly on the character of Sister Carrie until he is convinced, and later we go out for dinner at a quiet little French restaurant” (76). Not only is the narrator succeeding educationally and fantasizing about her white professor, she thinks about going to a French restaurant, which is a both multicultural and a trait of the dominant culture at the same time. She has succeeded, in the dominant culture’s eyes anyhow, because she has let herself assimilate and take part in the habits of the majority of people around her.

            As model minorities continue to climb the ladder of American success, one wonders just how malleable he dominant culture is. Will these people, qualifies and competent, be allowed to replace those who have held positions of control and power for most of America’s history? The dominant culture changes, but slowly, and usually with little input from outsiders. To be able to identify dominant culture, model minorities and various immigrant groups is useful for historical purposes and knowing who’s who – the real challenge, though, is to discard the melting-pot idea of a perfect “race” of Americans and embrace the reality of distinctions and the dominant culture’s need to do some assimilating itself.