A. U.S ENGLISH OR A NEW FORM OF NATIVISM?
1. The Promotion of the Melting-pot as a 'National Ideal'
In this part, the focus of our analysis will be on American
national identity and our task will be to determine to what extent U.S ENGLISH
re-imagined American identity in the light of their different publications. To
do so, we will first consider why the melting-pot has been presented as a
national ideal?, and then we will explain to what extent U.S ENGLISH can be
considered a new form of nativism called symbol nativism?. Finally, we will
account for the way they have been playing with different conceptions of
American identity in order to re-imagine American national identity before
trying to decode what the support for this movement tells us about American
national identity.
We understood in part two that U.S ENGLISH presented
themselves as pro-immigrant but evidence have shown that it was only a cover
hiding more extreme views on immigration. At this point of our analysis, it is
necessary to ask why they have been elevating the concept of the melting-pot as
a national ideal? even though this concept has been strongly criticized since
the 1960s(Annex IV , l. 191).
First of all, before explaining the different criticisms that
aroused from the concept of the melting-pot, one needs to define it and trace
its origins in the U.S history. The melting-pot was a concept of assimilation
in the United States first defined by Hector St. Jean Crèvecoeur in
1782. The melting-pot consisted in the melting? of immigrants into the American
mold?. Acculturation was then seen as the only way to turn immigrants into
nationals. Acculturation implied the renunciation of one's ethnic culture and
language in order to embrace the American culture. When J. Crevecoeur first
defined the concept of the melting-pot, immigrants to the United States were
mainly Europeans who crossed the Pacific Ocean to reach the American coast. On
this point, J. Crevecoeur wrote:
What, then, is the American, this new man? He is neither an
European nor the descendant of an European; hence that strange mixture of
blood, which you will find in no other country. I could point out to you a
family whose grandfather was an Englishman, whose wife was Dutch, whose son
married a French woman, and whose present four sons have now four wives of
different nations. He is an American... leaving behind him all his ancient
prejudices and manners, receives new ones from the new mode of life he has
embraced, [the new government he obeys, and the new rank he
holds. He becomes an American by being received in the broad lap of our great
Alma Mater. Here individuals of all nations are melted into a new race of men,
whose labors and posterity will one day cause great changes in the world]...
(Annex IV, l.141-149).
The first illustration of this concept can be found in the
famous play of 1908 from Israel Zangwill called The Melting-Pot. In
his play, one can read:
Understand that America is God's Crucible, the great
Melting-Pot where all the races of Europe are melting and reforming! A fig for
your feuds and vendettas! Germans and Frenchmen, Irishmen and Englishmen, Jews
and Russians -- into the Crucible with you all! God is making the American
(Annex IV, l.160-165).
Both I. Zangwill and J. Crévecoeur considered that
acculturation was at the heart of the concept of the melting-pot and that it
was the only way to turn European immigrants into nationals. In America this
concept is still ringing strong as the inscription on coins is still E Pluribus
Unum?, meaning out of many, one?.
Criticisms of this concept appeared with the second and third
wave of immigration to the United States. The nation had to incorporate more
culturally heterogeneous people than in the past when this concept emerged for
the first time and the melting-pot was then considered a myth and obsolete.
In the 1910s, Horace Kallen, wanting to promote cultural
diversity and the right to be different, invented the concept of the
salad-bowl. This concept consisted in thinking of America as a bowl? in which
immigrants, the ingredients? are mixed but not melted? so that they keep their
particular taste?, that is to say their culture, language, values, and
customs107. For H. Kallen, unity did not have to be synonymous with
homogeneity. Contrary to the melting-pot that promoted assimilation through
acculturation, the salad-bowl promoted diversity and considered that
integration was not incompatible with the preservation of immigrants' cultural
heritage and values. The salad-bowl is a two-way process: on the one hand,
immigrants integrate the American culture and on the other hand, the American
culture is influenced and strengthened by the culture brought by the different
immigrant groups. This concept gave rise to other similar concepts like the
mosaic and the kaleidoscope in the late 1960s.
The melting-pot was strongly criticized in the 1960s by ethnic
leaders who complained that it was the result of an Anglo-American? conspiracy
to destroy their
107 CHAMETZKY, Jules. Beyond Melting Pots, Cultural Pluralism,
Ethnicity: Or, Déjà Vu All over Again?, Vol. 16, No. 4, Winter
1989 - Winter 1990, pp. 3- 17, The Society for the Study of the Multi-Ethnic
Literature of the United States (MELUS), JSTOR. Web. 4 March 2010. p.
6.
culture108. For instance, Antonia Hermandez,
President and General Counsel of the Mexican American Legal Fund considered
that:
Unity is the completed puzzle, diversity the pieces of the
puzzle. And until we recognize every piece, we cannot have true unity. That's
the debate that is going on today, or that is where the debate should be aimed.
By acknowledging the contributions made to our country by Native Americans and
by Hispanics, and Blacks and Asians, we're really strengthening our
unity(Chandler and Ledru 114).
In this speech, A. Hermandez indirectly denounced old concepts
such as the melting-pot considering that it failed to acknowledge immigrants'
contribution to the American nation. Instead, she supported the view that each
immigrant was a piece of the big puzzle? that was America and that immigrants
made America rather than America turned immigrants into nationals.
Contrary to A. Hermandez, in their different publications U.S
ENGLISH has always presented the melting-pot as a national ideal and considered
that the melting-pot is still a valid concept allowing to justify for the way
immigrants became Americans. Their constant use of the word assimilation? and
the way they have been elevating the concept of the melting-pot referring to it
with the use of positive adjectives such as great, as well as their appeal to
the protection of this concept when they say that the whole notion of a
melting-pot is threatened? (Annex XIX) and our melting-pot society is in danger
of boiling over?(Annex XIV), reveal something about their conception of the
American culture and history.
A reference to the myth of the melting-pot in publications to
promote national language legislation is not surprising because assimilation
consists in achieving unity through uniformity. An analysis of the role of
myths in society is necessary to reveal the implications of the elevation of
the melting-pot as a national ideal? by U.S ENGLISH.
According to the French philosopher, Roland Barthes, a myth is
a culture's way of thinking about something, a way of conceptualizing or
understanding the world around us. He argued that the main way myths work is to
naturalize history?(Fiske 88-89). In other words, for Barthes, myth is not a
false idea, it allows the understanding of some aspects of reality: it is a way
of accounting for the history of a nation. For the French anthropologist Claude
Levi-Strauss, myths act as anxiety reducers? (Fiske 121). In this light, the
myth of the melting-pot can be considered the human justification of the way
immigrants were incorporated into the American nation. It was a way to reassure
people that immigrants were actually assimilating the American culture.
108 CHAMETZKY, Jules. Op. Cit. p.14.
Roland Barthes added that myths are the product of a social
class that has achieved dominance by a particular history?(Fiske 121). In other
words, it is to justify the hegemony of English and the British influence on
the American culture that the myth of the melting-pot was first invented.
Furthermore, the questioning of this myth caused by the rise of new concepts
such as the salad-bowl can be considered a reconsideration of U.S history
itself thus a reconsideration of the justification of the hegemony of English
and British culture in the U.S.
We can consider that it was to protect the hegemony of the
English language in the United States that in their different publications U.S
ENGLISH has been elevating the melting-pot as a national ideal?. The promotion
of the melting-pot as a valid and efficient way to integrate newcomers is a way
to manipulate history. As for U.S ENGLISH, it was the English language that has
made this great melting-pot work?, it seems natural to protect the unifying
role of the historic language for the nation. It is important to note that U.S
ENGLISH did not reject ethnic but cultural diversity. Their concern was not
about the color or the race but really about the culture brought by the
different immigrant groups to the American nation. As the study of their bumper
sticker highlighted, U.S ENGLISH acknowledged the role played by immigrants in
the building of the nation but refused to acknowledge the role played by
non-English speaking immigrants.
By doing so, U.S ENGLISH re-imagined the history of the
nation. On this point, we previously saw that U.S ENGLISH tended to manipulate
history when they pretended that it was the first time in history that the
nation suffered a linguistic division. Similarly, when retracing the history of
the nation, Hayakawa overemphasized the tolerance and the inclusive character
of the American nation. By explaining that despite the exclusion of the Chinese
after 1882, the idea of immigration as a thousand noble currents all pouring
into one? continued to haunt the American imagination?, once again Hayakawa was
being historically inaccurate(Annex IV, l. 64-67). In this monograph, he has
overemphasized the inclusive character of the nation towards Asian immigrants
in order to show that things have changed and that the U.S is now a more
tolerant and inclusive nation than it ever was. He tried to prove that as an
immigrant from Japan, he himself was welcome and integrated into the American
nation because the nation reconsidered its views on people of Asian origins. He
wrote:
Despite the almost hundred years of anti-Oriental fervor that
has marked the history of
California, despite the heightened distrust of the Japanese
after Pearl Harbor that resulted
in their removal from the West Coast to desert camps for the
duration of the war, despite
the agonies of the Pacific War that had left thousands upon
thousands of California
families bereft of sons, brothers and husbands, it seemed that by
1976 anti-Japanese hostility had all but disappeared (Annex IV, L.100-105).
It is true that what characterized the United States since its
creation is this gradual shift from exclusion to inclusion but in U.S history
not only Chinese were once rejected. As we have seen, U.S ENGLISH tends to
present itself as pro-American by always recalling American myths and symbols
to promote their cause. Having succeeded in establishing a link between the
nation and the movement in the public opinion, U.S ENGLISH reinterpreted U.S
history. Downplaying some important aspects of U.S history was a strategy to
give a tolerant and inclusive character to U.S ENGLISH. Similarly,
overemphasizing immigrants' rejection of the American culture while presenting
America as an inclusive and tolerant nation was part of their strategy to
justify their cause and create fears of an immigrant political takeover in the
nation.
Promoting the melting-pot as a national ideal? was the only
way to promote the enactment of official language legislation without showing
any anti-immigrant feelings. The melting-pot is the sole concept that implies
acculturation of the immigrant through the loss of his native language and
culture. U.S ENGLISH presented the melting-pot as the only way to forge unity
from diversity? and this is how they justify their rejection of other concepts
such as the salad-bowl (Annex I and IV). The melting-pot is then very useful
when trying to make the immigrants transfer to the language of the majority,
because contrary to the concept of the salad-bowl that allows immigrants to
maintain and promote their ethnic identity, the melting-pot makes one's native
tongue sinking into oblivion a condition for citizenship.
U.S ENGLISH justified the setting up of an official language
in the U.S because immigrants were said to not assimilate American culture
anymore. As we have seen, U.S ENGLISH has manipulated the past in order to
justify their cause and in this light, one may then wonder whether the real
question is on some immigrant's incapacity to assimilate the mainstream culture
or on the unwillingness of some nationalists representing the dominant group,
such as U.S ENGLISH, to enable assimilation. We may wonder if the protection of
American culture was not a pretence to limit and control immigration in the
U.S.
Despite the several critics that aroused from the concept of
the melting-pot, U.S ENGLISH still uses it as a communication strategy to
justify their cause and by doing so expose themselves to criticism. One may
wonder if by rejecting new concepts like the salad-bowl and promoting the role
of language in the nation, U.S ENGLISH did not seek to protect and preserve the
hegemonic order of the nation.
In the next part, we will consider the proposal made in 1985 by
Hayakawa to set up a
National English Language Foundation in the light of the
identity-forming and identity-providing function of the school system in the
American nation.
2. A 'National English Language Foundation' and the
Role of School in the Identity-forming Process
As we studied in part one, U.S ENGLISH strongly rejects
bilingual education on the basis that it does not encourage non-English
speakers to learn the language of the majority. In this part we now will
consider that schools may be the target of political campaigns such as the
lobbying organization U.S ENGLISH. On this point, Diana Ravitch, historian of
Education, explained that:
In our history, schools have been not only an institution in
which to teach young people skills and knowledge, but an arena where interest
groups fight to preserve their values, or to revise the judgment of history, or
to bring fundamental social change109.
We will see that more than just declaring English the official
language of the United States, U.S ENGLISH has been trying to dramatically
change American identity by attempting to make the speaking of the English
language indispensable in American identity in particular through the
manipulation of school programs and the setting up of a National English
Language Foundation in the nation.
In order to grasp the full implications of an English Language
Amendment as proposed by U.S ENGLISH, we need to go back to their rejection of
bilingual programs in schools in the light of the role of the school system in
the identity-building process.
Schools can be said to have a huge integrative power in the
United States. In his book, American Nationalism: An interpretative
Essay, Hans Kohn who considered the American nation both a nation of
nations and a nation among nations, quoted William Yandell Elliott. Elliott
wrote about the strong unifying force of schools in America stating that this
cohesion of a nation of many nations is largely due to the educational system
of the US which has succeeded in integrating the produce of many lands into a
basic sense of 'belonging'(Khon 168). For W. Y Elliott, it was the school
system that inculcated a sense of belonging? to the children of immigrants as
well as nationals. For sure, this sense of belonging has been inculcated by the
teaching of the English language to the non-English speaking pupils. The
English language being shared by all school children, it allows them to
recognize each other
109 STEINBERG, Stephen, Race and Ethnicity in the US: issues
and debates, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd ,2000. Print. p.267.
as being part of the wider community that is the American
nation.
Similarly, in his book Nation and Nationalism, E.
Gellner asserted that school through the transmission of a universal high
culture? was an indispensable element to national integration and cohesion. He
distinguished between two types of cultures: the school-transmitted and the
folk-transmitted culture. For E. Gellner, the educational system guarantees
social achievement because of the shared and standardized linguistic and
cultural medium that it provides.
Furthermore, school is also a provider of civic identity as it
is mainly there that children learn the rules and values of the society they
live in. On this point, J.J Smolicz and M.J Secombe considered that school is
the most effective instrument of achieving the cultural assimilation of ethnic
children?(Smolicz & Secombe 52).
Joshua Fishman, American linguist who specialized in the
sociology of language, said about American schools that they must be recognized
as filling an important identity-forming and identity-providing function for
millions of Americans?(Baker, Prys-Jones 562) . For instance, at school in the
United States, every morning children pledge allegiance to the flag of the
United States. This act imposed by the American school system is one among
other compulsory civic duties that may function as an identity-provider for
children. In other words, in America the school system plays an important role
in the identity-forming process. On this point, H. Kohn considered that America
had become almost a school of [foreign] nationality?(Kohn 161)
But the school-transmitted culture should not be incompatible
with the folk-transmitted culture of children. As we saw in part one, ethnic
minorities should have the right to maintain and promote their ethnic identity
and language is a salient element when defining one's ethnicity. On this point,
Samuel Betances wrote:
Not only these newcomers learn English, it might be good if we
didn't move in too quickly and tell them to forget Spanish or Vietnamese or
Chamorro, or Togalo. Maybe we can come of age and realize that we cannot, in
the name of turning out good Americans limit the freedom of speech of those new
to our shores and or tell people to forget what they know. In the name of
education we cannot argue that it is better to know less than more. Bilingual
eduction enriches our best hopes for a democratic society, making it safe for
differences as well -powerful, practical reasons why we need it today even
though such programs did not exist for yesterday's arrival (Baker, Prys-Jones
514).
By elevating the melting-pot as a national ideal?, it seems
that in addition to what we demonstrated in part one, U.S ENGLISH has been
rejecting bilingual education on the basis
that it challenges the hegemony of English and thus American
identity which they consider being reliant on it. It then seems that their
denunciation of the cost and pretended inefficiency of those programs was only
a pretence to protect the hegemony of the English language in the United
States.
U.S ENGLISH has then diverted language from its instrumental
to its symbolic use. They have been trying to present their amendment as an
empowerment of immigrants pretending that the learning of the English language
would allow them to fulfill the American dream when in fact this was only a
cover. In this part we will consider to what extent presenting language as a
civic duty can be considered a diverted way to impose restrictions in
immigration.
At this point of our analysis, we need to consider Hayakawa's
proposal for a National English Language Foundation in the mid 1980s compared
with our analysis of the American school system as an identity-provider.
First of all, we have to consider the reasons that drove
Hayakawa in the late 1980s to make this proposal. In his monograph written in
support for an English Language Amendment to the Constitution, he proposed a
National English Language Amendment in reaction to the aggressive movement on
the part of Hispanics to reject assimilation and to seek to maintain ... a
foreign language within our borders? and also because of the energetic lobbying
of the National Association for Bilingual Education and the congressional
Hispanic Caucus? which was said to have diverted from its original purpose? the
directives of the Lau decision(Annex IV, l.396; 401).
A parallel can be drawn between the reasons enunciated by
Hayakawa in order to justify his proposal and the arguments used during the
1900s to impose the learning of the English language to all non-English
speaking immigrants, also known as Americanization educational programs?. It
seems that Hayakawa recreated the same conditions than those that led to the
nativist impulse of the 1900s as he tried to create a widespread indignation
over the fact that immigrants were rejecting assimilation. As we studied in
part one, Theodore Roosevelt was worrying about the size of the German speaking
community in the American nation when in 1917 he said that we have room for but
one language and that is the English language?. As Hayakawa put the emphasis on
the fact that what is at stake is our unity as a nation?, it seems that
similarly to the Americanization? campaigns of 1900s, Hayakawa considered
language ability a proof of one's commitment and loyalty to the American nation
like Roosevelt did in 1917. Furthermore, U.S ENGLISH have always worried about
the record immigration? or the unprecedented immigration? in the United States
since the 1960s.
Similarly, the solution proposed by Hayakawa was not so
different from the educational programs created in the 1900s to transfer
immigrants into the English language as quickly as possible. At first glance, a
National English Language Foundation as proposed by Hayakawa would not be
entirely similar to the educational programs of the huge Americanization
campaign of the 1900s. By making the instruction in the English language more
available to all who need it?(Annex IV, l. 411). Haykawa presented this
foundation as an option for those who want to learn English, not as the
compulsory requirement of the 1900s. But a well-documented analysis of this
proposal tends to prove otherwise. In fact in this monograph, Hayakawa
explained that the pupils will have to pass a final English-language competency
test? that will allow them to have a diploma certifying their ability to speak
English(Annex IV, l.430). By stating that it would ease up the learning of the
English language for those who need it?, Hayakawa indirectly imposed on all
non-English speakers to take lessons from the National English Language
Foundation? he was actually proposing. Indeed, as we saw in part one, Hayakawa
wanted to make the speaking, writing and understanding of the English language
compulsory to naturalization in the U.S. It was not without significance that
Hayakawa proposed such English classes. In fact, as shown in our analysis, it
is very likely that the diploma that immigrants would be given at the end of
their curriculum would replace the English-requirement test of the
naturalization process. In this light, this proposal would definitely not ease
the assimilation of immigrants into the mainstream language but indirectly
force them to do so.
Furthermore, Hayakawa explained that successful students would
see their tuition fees refunded with their diploma. It implies that those who
would not manage to pass the test would not get their money back and this might
be a way to keep the poorest applicants from becoming naturalized U.S Citizens.
Up to now, taking lessons in community colleges or school districts when
wanting to learn English has always been free for immigrants. The Foundation
proposed by Hayakawa would certainly make immigrants feel disheartened to learn
English. The proposal is therefore completely opposed to U.S ENGLISH motto The
Language of Equal Opportunity?. If immigrants would be charged to access the
classes proposed by the Foundation, it is very likely that some would not have
enough money to participate in the national program. The fact that the
conditions of access to classes might be based on the financial situation of
the applicant makes it unequal and arbitrary. Instead of encouraging immigrants
to learn the language of the majority, this proposal would force them to
transfer as soon as possible into English, and only the most fortunate would
have the
possibility to take lessons and hopefully succeed in this new
test.
In this light, we can conclude that similarly to the
Americanization? campaign of the 1900s, Hayakawa has been trying to make the
learning of the English language compulsory for any immigrant who wants to
become an American even though he took great care in presenting things this
way. It is very likely that the enactment of the English Language Amendment to
the Constitution as proposed by Hayakawa would lead to selected immigration
based on the language ability of the applicants. Their proposal for a National
English Language Foundation is an element among others accounting for their
anti-immigration feelings. By making the learning of the English language a
civic duty, U.S ENGLISH has been diverting from the original aim of this
amendment.
At this point of our analysis and in the light of the elements
explained in part one and two as well as what we have just demonstrated, we
will see to what extent U.S ENGLISH can be considered a new form of
nativism.
| 
