Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
UP OR OUT
Most Americans, both those who favor and those
who oppose assimilation, believe that for immi-
grants to assimilate, they must abandon their origi-
nal cultural attributes and conform entirely to the
behaviors and customs of the majority of the native-
born population. In the terminology of the armed
forces, this represents a model of “up or out”: Either
immigrants bring themselves “up” to native cultural
standards, or they are doomed to live “out” of the
charmed circle of the national culture.
Here is the example of Israel on that kind of as- Proponents of the Melting Pot policy asserted Today the reaction to this doctrine is ambivalent; And here is also an interesting case of the politics As a result of this denial of citizenship, the Rus-
similation. In the early years of the state of Israel that it applied to all newcomers to Israel equally; some say that it was a necessary measure in the of identity in post-independence Latvia. There has sian community complains of loss of jobs (e.g.,
the term melting pot, also known as “Ingathering specifically, that Eastern European Jews were founding years, while others claim that it amount- been a spectrum of responses to the presence of pharmacists, lawyers, firemen, doctors, police-
of the Exiles”, was not a description of a process, pressured to discard their Yiddish culture as ruth- ed to cultural oppression. Others argue that the Russians in the Newly Independent States of Eur- men and elected politicians are no longer careers
but an official governmental doctrine of assimi- lessly as Mizrahi Jews were pressured to give up melting pot policy did not achieve its declared asia, from polite disinterest to seething animos- open to non-citizens regardless of talent or expe-
lating the Jewish immigrants that originally came the culture which they developed during centuries target: for example, the persons born in Israel ity. In the Baltics, Estonia and Latvia in particu- rience), complications traveling abroad, attempts
from varying cultures. This was performed on of life in Muslim countries. Critics respond, how- are more similar from an economic point of view lar, nationalizing states disenfranchised a large at forcible assimilation and other calculated
several levels, such as educating the younger ever, that a cultural change effected by a struggle to their parents than to the rest of the population. number of Russians and other non-indigenous policies intended to provoke people into emigrat-
generation, with the parents not having the final within the Ashkenazi-East European community, The policy is generally not practised today though nationalities. In order to meet the stringent citi- ing. Thus many Russians, who form majorities in
say, and, to mention an anecdotal one, encour- with younger people voluntarily discarding their as there is less need for that - the mass immi- zenship requirements, Russians and other non- many areas of these states (upwards of 95 per-
aging and sometimes forcing the new citizens to ancestral culture and formulating a new one, is gration waves at Israel’s founding have declined. titulars had to meet historical residency require- cent in some localities), are now stateless people
adopt a Hebrew name. not parallel to the subsequent exporting and im- Nevertheless, one fifth of current Israel’s Jewish ments (typically requiring an individual or his or without the ability to vote for their leaders or run
posing of this new culture on others, who had no population have immigrated from former Soviet her forebears to have been living in the state prior for office, and whose guarantee of basic human
part in formulating it. Also, it was proven to truth Union in the last two decades; The Jewish popu- to Soviet annexation in 1940), prove language rights within their state of residence remain tenu-
Activists such as the Iraq-born Ella Shohat that
that extirpating the Yiddish culture had been in it- lation includes other minorities such as Haredi proficiency, make loyalty oaths, and satisfy other ous. Latvia and Estonia defend the actions taken
an elite which developed in the early 20th Cen-
self an act of oppression only compounding what Jews; Furthermore, 20% of Israel’s population is benchmarks. Many have been unable or unwilling against their minority communities as an appro-
tury, out of the earlier-arrived Zionist Pioneers of
was done to the Mizrahi immigrants. Arab. These factors as well as others contribute to meet these metrics (which are not required of priate response to illegal migration conducted
the Second and Third Aliyas, immigration waves,
to the rise of pluralism as a common principle in titulars). In the case of Estonia, the Law on Aliens under the aegis of the occupying Soviet Army.
and who gained a dominant position in the Yi-
the last years. (1993) went beyond simple disenfranchisement
shuv, pre-state community, since the 1930s, had
formulated a new Hebrew culture, based on the and implied that Russians and other non-citizens
values of Socialist Zionism, and imposed it on all (Jews, Ukrainians, Tatars, etc.) may be subject to
later arrivals, at the cost of suporessing and eras- expulsion in the future.
ing these later immigrants’ original culture.
MELTI NG POT
“Here shall they all unite to build
the Republic of Man and
the Kingdom of God.”
In America, however, assimilation has not meant repudiating immi-
grant culture. Assimilation, American style has always been much
more flexible and accommodating and, consequently, much more
effective in achieving its purpose—to allow the United States to
preserve its “national unity in the face of the influx of hordes of
persons of scores of different nationalities,” in the words of the
sociologist Henry Fairchild.
Ideally the concept of melting pot should also entail mixing of vari-
ous “races”, not only “cultures”. While promoting the mixing of cul-
tures the ultimate result of the American variant of melting pot hap-
pened to be the culture of white Anglo Saxon men with minimum
impact of other minority cultures. Moreover, the assumption that
culture is a fixed construct is flawed. Culture should be defined
more broadly as the way one approaches life and makes sense of
it. Group’s beliefs are determined by conditions and so culture is
a continuous process of change and its boundaries are always po-
rous. In a racist discourse, however the culture needs to be seen
as a predetermined and rigid phenomenon that would be appropri-
ate for replacing the no longer acceptable concept of race in order
to perpetuate inequalities. Many multicultural initiatives aiming at
integration/ inclusion of minorities, while following the melting pot
ideal, often result in assimilationist and racist outcomes. Melting
pot would assume learning about other cultures in order to enhance
understanding, mixing, and mutual enrichment; in practice it often
tends to ignore similarities of different “races” as it does not allow
to include them.
CULTURAL
PLURA L I SM
Cultural pluralism rejects melting-pot assimilationism not on em-
pirical grounds, but on ideological ones. Kallen and his followers
believed that immigrants to the United States should not “melt”
into a common national ethnic alloy but, rather, should steadfastly
hang on to their cultural ethnicity and band together for social and
political purposes even after generations of residence in the United
States. As such, cultural pluralism is not an alternative theory of
assimilation; it is a theory opposed to assimilation.
BEYOND THE
be viewed as a vast ethnic federation—Canada’s Anglo-French
arrangement, raised to the nth power. Viewing ethnic Americans
as members of a federation rather than a union, ethnic federal-
ism, a.k.a. multiculturalism, asserts that ethnic Americans have
the right to proportional representation in matters of power and
privilege, the right to demand that their “native” culture and puta-
tive ethnic ancestors be accorded recognition and respect, and the
right to function in their “native” language (even if it is not the lan-
guage of their birth or they never learned to speak it), not just at
home but in the public realm.
A CROS S THE
colorful ways of representing assimilation, they don’t go far
in giving one an accurate understanding of what assimila-
tion is really about. For example, across the ideological
spectrum, they all invoke some external, impersonal as-
similating agent. Who, exactly, is the “great alchemist” of the
melting pot? What force tosses the salad or pieces together
the mosaic? By picturing assimilation as an impersonal, au-
IDEOLOGI CAL
tomatic process and thus placing it beyond analysis, the
metaphors fail to illuminate its most important secrets. As-
similation, if it is to succeed, must be a voluntary process,
by both the assimilating immigrants and the assimilated-to
natives. Assimilation is a human accommodation, not a me-
chanical production.
SPECTRUM
lation. The melting pot is supposed to turn out an undif-
ferentiated alloy—a uniform, ethnically neutral, American
protoperson. Critics have long pointed out that this idea is
far-fetched. But is it even desirable? And if it is desirable,
does it really foster a shared national identity? The greatest
failing of the melting-pot metaphor is that it overreaches.
It exaggerates the degree to which immigrants’ ethnicity is
too idealistic,
vertently helped to discredit the very assimilation paradigm
it was meant to celebrate.
the melting-pot idea has inadvertently On the other hand, behind their unexceptionable blandness,
the antithetical cultural pluralist metaphors are profoundly
The bottom line is that people are people, not food. Despite the va-
riety of food metaphors at our disposal, the power of this rhetoric is
limited and wears thin during pragmatic application. Food meta-
phors can be useful, but we do not need more vague metaphors that
lead to interpretive disparities. What we need is an entirely new
dialogue on the subject, one that completely and clearly redefines
America’s objective for a multiethnic society that allows for diver-
sity, not just in the private realm, but also in the public sphere. We
do not need a coercive assimilation program that reverts back to
outdated nationalistic paranoia. We need an inclusive working so-
cial theory that unites the disparate enclaves of this society into a
manageable entity moving in the same collective direction. Whether
Americans will ever eventually be reformed into what Israel Zang-
will called “a fusion of all races” remains to be seen (Zangwill). Right
now, what America needs is a definitive social direction that leans
away from coercive assimilation dogma and towards a truly inclu-
sive national identity. True American dreamers should not settle for
anything less.
NOT A SINGLE EVENT
EVENT BUT
A PROCESS
Perhaps a new assimilation metaphor should be introduced— In the end, however, no metaphor can do justice to the achieve-
one that depends not on a mechanical process like the melting ments and principles of assimilation, American style. As numer-
pot but on human dynamics. Assimilation might be viewed as ous sociologists have shown, assimilation is not a single event,
more akin to religious conversion than anything else. In the terms but a process. In 1930 Robert Park observed, “Assimilation is the
of this metaphor, the immigrant is the convert, American society name given to the process or processes by which peoples of di-