Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Activists such as the Iraq-born Ella Shohat that an 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-
elite which developed in the early 20th Century, out 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.,
of the earlier-arrived Zionist Pioneers of the Sec- founding years, while others claim that it amounted been a spectrum of responses to the presence of pharmacists, lawyers, firemen, doctors, police-
ond and Third Aliyas, immigration waves, and who to cultural oppression. Others argue that the melt- Russians in the Newly Independent States of Eur- men and elected politicians are no longer careers
gained a dominant position in the Yishuv, pre-state ing pot policy did not achieve its declared target: asia, from polite disinterest to seething animosity. open to non-citizens regardless of talent or experi-
community, since the 1930s, had formulated a new for example, the persons born in Israel are more In the Baltics, Estonia and Latvia in particular, na- ence), complications traveling abroad, attempts at
Hebrew culture, based on the values of Socialist similar from an economic point of view to their par- tionalizing states disenfranchised a large number forcible assimilation and other calculated policies
Zionism, and imposed it on all later arrivals, at the ents than to the rest of the population. The policy of Russians and other non-indigenous nationali- intended to provoke people into emigrating. Thus
cost of suporessing and erasing these later immi- is generally not practised today though as there is ties. In order to meet the stringent citizenship re- many Russians, who form majorities in many ar-
grants’ original culture. less need for that - the mass immigration waves at quirements, Russians and other non-titulars had eas of these states (upwards of 95 percent in some
Israel’s founding have declined. Nevertheless, one to meet historical residency requirements (typi- localities), are now stateless people without the
Proponents of the Melting Pot policy asserted that fifth of current Israel’s Jewish population have im- cally requiring an individual or his or her forebears ability to vote for their leaders or run for office, and
it applied to all newcomers to Israel equally; specif- migrated from former Soviet Union in the last two to have been living in the state prior to Soviet an- whose guarantee of basic human rights within their
ically, that Eastern European Jews were pressured decades; The Jewish population includes other mi- nexation in 1940), prove language proficiency, make state of residence remain tenuous. Latvia and Esto-
to discard their Yiddish-based culture as ruthlessly norities such as Haredi Jews; Furthermore, 20% of loyalty oaths, and satisfy other benchmarks. Many nia defend the actions taken against their minority
as Mizrahi Jews were pressured to give up the cul- Israel’s population is Arab. These factors as well as have been unable or unwilling to meet these met- communities as an appropriate response to illegal
ture which they developed during centuries of life in others contribute to the rise of pluralism as a com- rics (which are not required of titulars). In the case migration conducted under the aegis of the occupy-
Arab and Muslim countries. Critics respond, how- mon principle in the last years. of Estonia, the Law on Aliens (1993) went beyond ing Soviet Army.
ever, that a cultural change effected by a struggle simple disenfranchisement and implied that Rus-
within the Ashkenazi-East European community, sians and other non-citizens (Jews, Tatars, etc.)
with younger people voluntarily discarding their may be subject to expulsion in the future.
ancestral culture and formulating a new one, is not
parallel to the subsequent exporting and imposing
of this new culture on others, who had no part in
formulating it. Also, it was asserted that extirpat-
ing the Yiddish culture had been in itself an act of
oppression only compounding what was done to the
Mizrahi immigrants.
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- The history of the melting pot theory can be traced back to 1782 The melting pot reality was limited only to intermixing between Eu- Since the Second World War, the idea of the melting pot has become
grant culture. Assimilation, American style has always been much when J. Hector de Crevecoeur, a French settler in New York, envi- ropeans with a strong emphasis on the Anglo-Saxon culture while racially inclusive in the United States, gradually extending also to
more flexible and accommodating and, consequently, much more sioned the United States not only as land of opportunity but as a the input of minority cultures was only minor. Non-white Americans acceptance of marriage between whites and non-whites. This trend
effective in achieving its purpose—to allow the United States to society where individuals of all nations are melted into a new race were for centuries not regarded by most white Americans as equal towards greater acceptance of ethnic and racial “minorities” by
preserve its “national unity in the face of the influx of hordes of per- of men, whose labours and posterity will one day cause changes citizens and suitable marriage partners. “WASPs” (Anglo-Americans and other, mainly Protestant Americans
sons of scores of different nationalities,” in the words of the soci- in the world (Parrillo, 1997). The new nation welcomed virtually all The mixing of whites and blacks, resulting in multiracial children, for of Northern European descent) was first evident in popular culture.
ologist Henry Fairchild. immigrants from Europe in the belief that the United States would which the term “miscegenation” was coined in 1863, was a taboo,
become, at least for whites, the “melting pot” of the world. This idea and most whites opposed marriages between whites and blacks. In Since the successes of the American Civil Rights Movement and the
A popular way of getting hold of the assimilation idea has been to was adopted by the historian Frederick Jackson Turner (1893) who many states, marriage between whites and non-whites was even enactment of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which
use a metaphor, and by far the most popular metaphor has been updated it with the frontier thesis. Turner believed that the chal- prohibited by state law through anti-miscegenation laws. allowed for a massive increase in immigration from Latin America
that of the “melting pot,” a term introduced in Israel Zangwill’s 1908 lenge of frontier life was the country´s most crucial force, allowing and Asia, intermarriage between white and non-white Americans
play of that name: “There she lies, the great Melting-Pot—Listen! Europeans to be “Americanised” by the wilderness (Takaki, 1993). A Did therefore Non-white Americans not fit into melting pot dis- has been increasing. The taboo on marriage between whites and
Can’t you hear the roaring and the bubbling?...Ah, what a stirring major influx of immigrants occurred mainly after the 1830s, when courses at all. Intermarriage between Anglo-Americans and white African Americans also appears to be fading. In 2000, the rate of
and a seething! Celt and Latin, Slav and Teuton, Greek and Syrian, large numbers of British, Irish, and Germans began entering, to be immigrant groups was acceptable as part of the melting pot narra- black-white marriage was greater than the rate of Jewish-Gentile
black and yellow...Jew and Gentile....East and West, and North and joined after the Civil War by streams of Scandinavians and then tive. But when the term was first popularized in the early twentieth marriage (between Jewish Americans and other whites) in 1940.
South, the palm and the pine, the pole and the equator, the crescent groups from eastern and southern Europe as well as small num- century, most whites did not want to accept non-whites, and espe-
and the cross—how the great Alchemist melts and fuses them with bers from the Middle East, China, and Japan. Before the outbreak of cially African-Americans, as equal citizens in America’s melting pot
his purifying flame! Here shall they all unite to build the Republic of World War I in 1914, the American public generally took it for grant- society. Native Americans in the United States enrolled in tribes did
Man and the Kingdom of God.” ed that the constant flow of newcomers from abroad, mainly Eu- not have US citizenship until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, and
rope, brought strength and prosperity to the country. The metaphor were subjected to government policies of enforced cultural assimi-
The term melting pot refers to the idea that societies formed by of the “melting pot” symbolized the mystical potency of the great lation, which was termed “Americanization”.
immigrant cultures, religions, end ethnic groups, will produce new democracy, whereby people from every corner of the earth were
hybrid social and cultural forms. The notion comes from the pot in fused into a harmonious and admirable blend. A decline in immigra-
which metals are melted at great heat, melding together into new tion from northwestern Europe and concerns over the problems of
compound, with great strength and other combined advantages. In assimilating so many people from other areas prompted the pas-
comparison with assimilation, it implies the ability of new or sub- sage in the 1920s of legislation restricting immigration, one of the
ordinate groups to affect the values of the dominant group. Some- measures reflecting official racism.
times it is referred to as amalgamation, in the opposition to both
assimilation and pluralism.
One of the early critiques of the melting pot idea was Louis Adamic,
novelist and journalist who wrote about the experience of American
immigrants in the early 1900s and about what he called the failure
of the American melting pot in Laughing in the Jungle (1932). Both
the frontier thesis and the melting pot concept have been criticised
as idealistic and racist as they completely excluded non-European
immigrants, often also East and South Europeans. The melting pot
reality was limited only to intermixing between Europeans with a
strong emphasis on the Anglo-Saxon culture while the input of mi-
nority cultures was only minor. Some theorists developed a theory
of the triple melting pot arguing that intermarriage was occurring
between various nationalities but only within the three major reli-
gious groupings: Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish. Milton Gordon
and Henry Pratt Fairchild proposed the assimilation theory as an
alternative to the melting pot one (Parrillo, 1997).
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 appropriate
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
CULTURAL
PLURA L I SM
Immigrants to the U.S. should not
“melt” into a common
national ethnic alloy.
“Life can be seen through
many windows, none of them
Cultural pluralism rejects melting-pot assimilationism not Kallen’s views, however, stop significantly short of con- necessarily clear or opaque, During the second half of the twentieth century, cultural
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
IDEOLOGI CAL
melting pot? What force tosses the salad or pieces together
the mosaic? By picturing assimilation as an impersonal, au-
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
SPECTRUM
natives. Assimilation is a human accommodation, not a me-
chanical production.
too idealistic,
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
paradigm it was meant to celebrate. On the other hand, behind their unexceptionable blandness,
the antithetical cultural pluralist metaphors are profoundly
insidious. By suggesting that the product of assimilation is
mere ethnic coexistence without integration, they under-
mine the objectives of assimilation, even if they appear more
realistic. Is assimilation only about diverse ethnic groups
sharing the same national space? That much can be said
for any multiethnic society. If the ethnic greens of the salad
or the fragments of the mosaic do not interact and identify
with each other, no meaningful assimilation is taking place.
Melting Pot came under fire when it became apparent that the This criticism that the melting pot produces a society that primar- However, it is vital to recognize that coercive assimilation theorists On the other hand, multiculturalism has its own set of weak points
mainstream public had no intention of “melting” with certain “other” ily reflects the dominant culture instead of fusing into a completely often do not support the idea that immigrants should maintain dis- that need further evaluation and revision. The melting pot and the
races and cultures. Subsequently, American immigration policies new entity is reiterated by other sociologists, anthropologists, and tinct cultural attributes. In the modern-day discussion, coercive tossed salad metaphors are both inherently flawed, at least sofar
became restrictive based on race, an example of state sponsored cultural geographers as “Anglo-conformity” (Kivisto 151). This type assimilation theories often take on a decidedly racist overtone in their practical application. On this, there are many social theo-
racism intended towards reducing the diversity of the melting pot of assimilation was seen as working like a one-way street and it was (Laubeova), with many assimilation proponents urging Americentric rists who are writing about a compromise between the melting pot
(Laubeová). Much has been written about the so-called “myth” of viewed as something that depended primarily on the cooperative- policies such as English-only education, strict immigration policies, approach and the tossed salad analogy. One such new theory is the
the melting pot theory (Frey; Booth). However, the metaphor has ness of immigrants to be reoriented towards the dominant culture. stipulations of nationalistic criteria for citizenship, and eliminating aforementioned “ethnic stew” from Laura Laubeova, who hopes
persisted and epitomizes what some Americans see as an ideal The idea that the dominant culture would be infused with new en- programs aimed at helping minorities (Booth; Hayworth). This issue that such an analogy can help bridge the gap between the two con-
model for this country. ergy through the influences of ethnic groups retaining their distinc- over terminology and social metaphors is vitally important because cepts to create “a sort of pan-Hungarian goulash where the pieces
tive cultural attributes and thereby forging a new, stronger America America stands at a critical ideological turning point. Cultural ge- of different kinds of meat still keep their solid structure.” Indeed,
The melting pot theory, also referred to as cultural assimilation, re- due to their divergent cultural contributions was not given much ographers describe our current society as experiencing a “multicul- some sort of compromise between full assimilation and multicul-
volves around the analogy that “the ingredients in the pot (people weight by early researchers (Kivisto 152-154). tural backlash” that will drastically affect immigration legislation turalism will be necessary to retain our multiethnic flavour while
of different cultures and religions) are combined so as to lose their and ethnic studies and possibly lead us towards a more restrictive building a cohesive society.
discrete identities and yield a final product of uniform consistency It should be noted in this discussion that earlier in American soci- and intolerant nation (Mitchell 641). The current discourse about
and flavor, which is quite different from the original inputs.” This ology history, some of these terms took on distinctly different fla- cultural assimilation seeks to relegate incongruent cultural attri-
idea differs from other analogies, particularly the salad bowl anal- vours. This ambiguity of terminology contributes to confusion in the butes to the private arena so as not to disturb the dominant society
ogy where the ingredients are encouraged to retain their cultural current discourse. For instance, in 1901, Sarah Simons is quoted as (Mitchell 642), and instead of promoting a tolerance of diversity, we
identities, thus retaining their “integrity and flavor” while contrib- making this conclusion with regards to assimilation: see the modern-day assimilation proponents urging strict depor-
uting to a tasty and nutritious salad. Yet another food analogy is In brief, the function of assimilation is the establishment of homo- tation and increasingly restrictive immigration policies in order to
that of the ethnic stew, where there is a level of compromise be- geneity within the group; but this does not mean that all variation protect socalled American values (Hayworth). The stance of many
tween integration and cultural distinctiveness. shall be crushed out. In vital matters, such as language, ideals of coercive assimilation proponents smacks of racist overtones and is
government, law, and education, uniformity shall prevail; in per- based on apprehension of “others” and exclusionary thinking more
What these food analogies have in common is an appreciation that sonal matters of religion and habits of life, however, individuality than it is based on preservation of core values.
each of these ethnicities has something to contribute to the society shall be allowed free play. Thus, the spread of “consciousness of
as a whole. By comparing ethnic and/or cultural groups to ingredi- kind” must be accompanied by the spread of consciousness of indi- The implications of this type of proposed legislation drives fear into
ents in a recipe, we start with the assumption that each ingredient viduality (qtd. in Kivsito 153). minority groups seeking to preserve their cultural heritage against
is important and the final product would not be the same if some a tide of Americentric propaganda. Ultimately, those seeking to en-
distinct ingredient were missing. However, in the melting pot anal- Furthermore, according to Peter Kivisto’s interpretation of Chicago act coercive assimilation policies threaten to fracture the common
ogy, this premise is the least apparent and can be criticized for its School sociologist Robert E. Park’s writings on the subject, theories ground of the American dream that they claim to be focused on pro-
dismissively simplistic social theories. This is one appropriate eval- on assimilation originally differed from the melting pot fusion theo- tecting. Minority groups are nearing such numbers in this country
uation of the weaknesses of the melting pot and the tossed salad ry in that assimilation “signals the proliferation of diversity. Rather that it is projected that the word “minority” will soon become ob-
analogies: than enforced conformity, it makes possible a greater degree of solete. Enacting exclusionary policies will only fracture an already
In the case of the melting pot the aim is that all cultures become re- individual autonomy” and creates “a cultural climate that is predi- delicate social framework and potentially further disenfranchise
flected in one common culture, however this is generally the culture cated by pluralism” whereby this “cultural pluralism (or multicultur- the very groups America needs for inclusive unity.
of the dominant group - I thought this was mixed vegetable soup alism) can coexist with assimilation” (156-157). The idea that a mul-
but I can only taste tomato. In the case of the salad bowl, cultural tiethnic society could attain an interdependent cohesion based on
groups should exist separately and maintain their practices and in- national solidarity while maintaining distinct cultural histories not
stitutions, however, Where is the dressing to cover it all? dependent on like-minded homogeneity was thus proposed back in
the early 1900’s (Kivisto 161).
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—
one that depends not on a mechanical process like the melting
pot but on human dynamics. Assimilation might be viewed as
more akin to religious conversion than anything else. In the terms
“long-term processes
of this metaphor, the immigrant is the convert, American society
is the religious order being joined, and assimilation is the process
ethnic distinctions.”
conversion usually involves the consistent application of certain
principles. Conversion is a mutual decision requiring affirma-
tion by both the convert and the religious order he or she wishes
to join. Converts are expected in most (but not all) cases to re-
nounce their old religions. But converts do not have to change
their behavior in any respects other than those that relate to the
new religion. They are expected only to believe in its theological
principles, observe its rituals and holidays, and live by its moral
precepts. Beyond that, they can be rich or poor, practice any
trade, pursue any avocational interests, and have any racial or
other personal attributes. Once they undergo conversion, they
are eagerly welcomed into the fellowship of believers. They have
become part of “us” rather than “them.” This is undoubtedly what
writer G.K. Chesterton had in mind when he said: “America is a
nation with the soul of a church.”
In the end, however, no metaphor can do justice to the achieve-
ments and principles of assimilation, American style. As numerous
sociologists have shown, assimilation is not a single event, but a
process. In 1930 Robert Park observed, “Assimilation is the name
given to the process or processes by which peoples of diverse racial
origins and different cultural heritages, occupying a common ter-
ritory, achieve a cultural solidarity sufficient at least to sustain a
national existence.” More recently, Richard Alba defined assimila-
tion as “long-term processes that have whittled away at the social
foundations of ethnic distinctions.” But assimilation is more com-
plex than that because it is a process of numerous dimensions. Not
all immigrants and ethnic groups assimilate in exactly the same way
or at the same speed.