Rogerian Argument on The Chinese in all of Us by Richard Rodriguez - Article Example

?Rogerian Argument on ‘The Chinese in all of Us’ By Richard Rodriguez The Chinese in all of Us by Richard Rodriguez is an article about the perspective on multiculturalism. He puts forward a different argument as opposed to the mainstream view. He thinks that there is no such thing as multiculturalism, there is only a melting pot and all the cultures go in and a different culture(s) emerges. The theme is relevant to all, as everyone supposedly belongs to some culture or race. If the only constant is change then what is a culture anyway? If certain tradition, style of speaking, food and dress remains specific to a place for a certain amount of time, does it mean it will always stay that way, if this is not true then what happened to the Stone Age culture and hunting with spears made of bone and wood? Shouldn’t we all hold on to our ‘true culture’? Rodriguez is right in his reasoning because he grew up in America, born to a Mexican family. He lived through all of the cultural amalgamation in the US. There are no hard and fast rules to cultures anymore. Probably there is no culture after all, but the culture of change and evolution. Rodriguez is right in arguing that there is no multiculturalism, it is just a haze. He astoundingly explains this to an interviewer who asks him if he considers himself as Hispanic or American, and he replies, Chinese. That is what he grew up with; a little bit of this and a little bit of that. He is born to Mexican parents and goes to an American school (where he’s shown to speak ‘proper’ English) and has Chinese neighbors. The ‘proper’ English even teaches him how to say his own name as the school teacher writes his name on the board and reads it out loud and asks him to follow along, so that the whole class gets familiar with his name and he gets to say his name in a certain accent; the ‘proper’ accent, this is what the culture (or multiculture) is all about. However, certain things remain specific to certain cultures, for instance Asian culture is very different from the Western culture; “Many Asian cultures have distinct conceptions of individuality that insist on the fundamental relatedness of individuals to each other. The emphasis is on attending to others, fitting in, and harmonious interdependence with them.” (Markus and Kitayama, 1991) But there is something in the world that brings together different cultures, the melting pot. The author frequently uses the term melting pot and prefers it over common culture or multiculture. The term melting pot represents the trend in culture in a better way. The author has introduced two different views about the ‘melting pot theory’, one is positive while the other has some negativity attached to it. The author says that the melting pot has changes people. When someone goes into it, their identity is lost. An African will not remain African after the melting pot treatment. The loss of identity or separation from the origin is what he refers to as something which he doesn’t look forward to. He accepts it only because of its inevitability. The inevitable side of the ‘identity loss’ makes sense. This world belongs to everyone; it would be ridiculous to think that certain race will remain in a certain piece of land for all eternity; an impossibility. They will eventually travel to some other part of this world. And when they live with the other ‘cultures’ they will take some part of it and will give some of theirs; “Even while America changes the immigrants, the immigrants are changing us” (Rodriguez) The other way Rodriguez sees the melting pot is somewhat of a miracle pot. A person goes in it and comes out as something different. The pot has magical powers, but he question is; does it bring people closer or pushes them away? Clearly it brings them closer at the cost of the so called ‘identity’. The only thing wrong with this approach is when people are forced to adapt to certain norms. They have their own culture and lifestyle, why would the dominant culture suppress it and kick it out? Probably the answer lies in the lame but true fact that it is dominant. The other thing that the author points it is the dilemma that people face when they come across conflicting values. Cultures that live on the other end of the traditional pole suffer the most, like the Chinese families living in the US. Their children go to school where the teacher would yell at the boy to ‘speak up’ and express what is on his mind and he should look the professor in the eye. But at home, with his family, the boy will probably get a beating from his dad if he practices the teaching of school at the dinner table. Coming back to the great aspect of the melting pot, it is for the best. If there was no melting pot, probably we as people would never have been able to interact as freely as we do today. Culture, traditions and values are good but they are also constantly changing, evolving, blooming. There shouldn’t be any dam to hurdle the flow of this mighty river, it needs to flow freely and should fall in the sea with all of its synergies where the sea receives it with open arms and they become one. I agree with the author that America exists as a culture. Despite the fact that all ethnicities, races, colors, creeds and religions live here, however there are certain traits that tell Americans apart from other people. Whether an American is staying in Cairo or in Ireland, the table guys, hotel receptionists would tell them apart by the way they talk, walk, pay bills, give tips and the subjects they talk in their conversations. This is inevitable; no matter how much change people go through, there are always some traits and some scents that cling to people and personalities. They are recognized by their uniqueness, but as the Rogerian argument finds the common chord to strike, this uniqueness should only be refrained to individuality and not domination or submission. Respecting individuality is what the world should strive for, but being intimidated by certain cultures or feeling hate towards them is absurd. But the question is why culture (even only time specific) is important? People are recognized by their cultures. Educationists especially keep this in mind when setting up educational standards. Anywhere in the world, social research cannot be successfully completed if cultural norms are not taken into account. For conducting researches, Eurocentric and Afrocentric approaches already exist (Banks 129). This by no means discrimination; it only serves as an objective measure towards a successful research. There is another issue that the author raises to devalue the argument of conservative people, the argument that kills the hypothesis question of this paper. However, as Rogerian argument finds common grounds, there is a way to bend both the hypothesis question and the issue raised by conservative people. He says that the nativist politicians are against people migrating to the US. They propose that only Europeans should be allowed into America because she can’t handle such ‘diversity’ of culture. The author slants them and says, then why do they even use the term common culture? Why not go back to the old routes where people had strict walls in between them and preach only separate culture? The Nativist politicians do feel like their culture is evaporating on the whole. Their own identity is in danger of becoming extinct. Previously, this argumentative paper did propose that amalgamation of cultures is a great thing, and it should be promoted as it breaks down the walls between races however if everything of a culture vanishes into thin air, then the people would be wondering who are they? What is their identity? If evolving culture is their identity then what about their ancestors? Wasn’t there one single thing they could have carried own of their aboriginality to the modern melting pot of a culture? This is the turning point I don’t agree with the author. Those nativist politicians are right to some extent. The American aboriginals (Red Indians) are almost lost in the amalgamation. They can be seen in cartoons and movies only, but in real life they are considered backward and somewhat of uneducated trace of people. In fact the reality is quite the opposite; they are as intelligent as any other race on this planet. If there is no solution of preserving cultures and tradition then I’m afraid I will have to agree with the nativist politicians. There is a common ground that exists between the author’s point of view and my line of reasoning. The author himself isn’t all happy with the way things have unfolded in terms of cultural amalgamation, especially when there are conflicting values between two cultures; the dominant one prevails when it shouldn’t. Similarly the Native Americans should keep their identity and must not be confined to the museums. If both the cultures breathe freely in a liberated environment where they can willfully opt anything they want and ditch anything they don’t like, then it would be an ideal cultural melting pot. The way it should be, where no culture would be left out, and people will no longer have to agree to any norm or tradition. If this perfect amalgamation happens then that professor in the classroom would understand why that Chinese boy isn’t looking him in the eye and his father would understand that the boy has an opinion and he wants to express it regardless of traditional constraints. There is no culture or multiculture, only time specific traditions, habits and traits which constantly evolve. If this were not true then we’d still be speaking the language of the cavemen. Works Cited Markus, Hazel R., and Shinobu Kitayama. "Culture and the Self: Implications for Cognition, Emotion, and Motivation." Psychological Review 98.2 (1991): 224-53. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/rev/98/2/224/ Padilla, Amado M. Handbook of Research on Multicultural Education. 2nd ed. N.p.: Jossey-Bass, 2004. Print. Read More