Introduction
American society today is characterized by diversity in terms of race, ethnicity, culture, and language. The multicultural nature of American society was brought about by immigration throughout the country’s history. It is important to understand that the social construction of racial, ethnic, and hierarchical differences, whether physical or cultural, exist as a human experience in the form of D.
Contact zones in this discussion refer to “social spaces where cultures meet and conflict with each other especially because of an imbalance in power distribution” (Pratt, 2009). This paper will analyze how diversity is perceived in American society, how being American is defined as well as its relation to contact zones, dynamics of contact zones, and interpret Prashad’s (2000) “[t]o act upon inequality with equality is to allow un-equalness to persist” (165) in the academic context. It will argue that perceptions about race continue to evolve in the U.S. as people leave behind a past shackled by prejudice.
Discussion
How diversity, in terms of race, ethnicity, and language, is perceived in American society is as varied as the mass media. The election of an African-American as the most powerful man in the world today added to the understanding that there is the increase in positive interaction between different groups recognizing and respecting differences. However, it cannot be denied that some groups vary on the subject of race, ethnicity, and language as some Asian-Americans are perceived by the majority of Caucasians as foreigners. This may be noted in American schools where white students look down and tell Asian-Americans to return to their country. Moreover, Asian communities are often perceived by whites as hardworking (Prashad, 2000) and therefore posing a threat to their jobs and expertise.
Furthermore, whites tend to regard the English language used by Asian-Americans as substandard (Tan, 2009), and therefore Asian-Americans are often required to take English fluency tests despite being honors students for many years and speaking perfect English. Tan (2009), whose mother was an English second language speaker, admitted that when she was growing up, her mother’s “broken” English limited her mother’s capacity to be understood. She further states that she was once ashamed of her mother’s English. Poor language skills compromised the effectiveness of her mother’s communication: Tan’s mother was misunderstood and, at times, ignored in banks, restaurants, and department stores. Moreover, she was frequently looked down upon, not taken seriously, and offered a poor level of service. Tan, in her bid to pursue a writing career, was also negatively perceived and often told to pursue math and sciences, subjects she excelled at.
Asian-Americans, on the other hand, perceive Caucasians as being unwilling to integrate because, however much the Asian-Americans try to do so, they are questioned, challenged, and often prevented from integrating (Prashad, 2000). Likewise, African-Americans are seen as lazy, unwilling to work hard, and confined to a state of poverty. Furthermore, they are viewed as people who like complaining and prefer to depend on welfare checks and handouts. Some white Americans see themselves as the real Americans and perceive African-Americans and Asian-Americans as inferior and therefore not on an equal social footing.
The best progress made in US society is seen through the election of a president and other colored leaders in high offices across the nation. This may not be a general acceptance of colored people by their white counterparts but due to the ever-increasing diverse ethnicities that have chosen the leaders or the president to be precise. Interracial marriages have also increased where racial segregation and discrimination previously existed. However, despite efforts to create a level playing field for all Americans, regardless of race, ethnicity, and language, there remain narrow-minded and short-sighted thinking in American society. Such may be said of previous attempts of the government to brand individuals as “suspected terrorists” due to name sound (Nakashima, 2008). This has led to the technical detention of individuals in airports or even neighborhoods where biased ethnicities reside. The former showed progress while the latter showed digress.
Today, American-ness can be defined as belonging to a diverse multicultural nation beyond the bonds of inclusiveness. The prevailing information and mass media hysteria sometimes influence the thinking for excessive materialism and everything that goes with it including the need to afford physical attribute superiority as well as fame and fortune as the ultimate identification of being an American. If media were to be believed, one needs to be physically perfect with Hollywood celebrity attributes to be acceptable: with the right color coordinates of clothes, hair, make-up, bags, pieces of jewelry, and shoes, with the spacious houses and shopping schedules in department stores. But for those who consider social strata as the criterion for inclusiveness fuel resentment and offer a stumbling block to assimilation (Manore, 2005). While some Americans are very proud to be citizens of the most inclusive country in the world, many still see it as too white, too Christian, and not black nor Hispanic enough.
The people of the US should embrace contact zones, seek harmony and oneness among the diverse groups found within it as well as those outside that influence internal contact zones. American administration tries to strike a balance of power between the groups to decrease the social conflict constructed by differences in hierarchal perceptions, such as the initiation of dialogues where conflicts have arisen (Labott, 2009). This may be said about President Obama insisting on the need to talk and discuss issues instead of hostilities. Vital issues are at stake over contact zones in American society: economic development, education, health, peace, and harmony, suggesting that contact zones should be maximized to the general advantage (Pratt, 2009) of all ethnicities.
The exclusionary concept of contact zones may lead to losses each person or group may contribute to its development. Therefore, when some groups are excluded, their contribution is lost, and animosity between the groups makes the environment non-conducive for development. In my case, the issue of contact zones is easy: interacting with some of my Asian-American and African-American friends. As students, we all face the same challenges and are bound together by our common identity as participants in an academic community. Therefore, when it comes to attending a learning institution, my particular contact zones are compatible. I understand that we are in one country and therefore one person, so I respect my friends’ cultural affiliations and I am proud of them for showing to uphold it.
Prashad’s contention, that “To act upon inequality with equality is to allow unequal-ness to persist” (p 165) suggests that inequality in American society should not be addressed by giving welfare checks to those feeling unequal to others, but rather by empowering them to earn the equality they yearn for. These questions matter within and beyond the academic context because these issues have been unresolved and at most set aside as there remains the default understanding that there are those who are “in charge” over others (Prashad, 2000). One prevailing example of this mentality is the need for the US to provide its opinion on every other issue outside its territory or jurisdiction as well as it is (the US) needs to act: trade embargos, an inspection of suspected nuclear facilities, provision of aid or military support for governments, and other obvious taunts to show “who is boss.”
Conclusion
In reality, there are a lot of positive and negative issues that need to be settled to assimilate, acculturate, prevail equality, and a lot of utopian discourse with the end goal to achieve “the great American dream” of equality in progress, rights, and freedoms. Taking these issues to the enclave of contact zones is localizing them to improve and provide a clear understanding among participants in a given contact zone. This is of course ideal and quite progressive.
However, Prahad’s cynical view could not be ignored altogether. As even Sheckley (1960) noted, there is too much sophistication and “native” myths that will remain innate and inseparable between individuals and groups that are difficult to contest even with actual, factual, and documented experiences.
The issue of contact zones, as Pratt puts it, “is intended in part to contrast with ideas of community that underlie much of the thinking about language, communication, and culture that gets done in the academy” (515). The discourse on assimilation and conflict will continue being addressed at academic institutions as well as on governmental policies and planning. But at individual and group levels, there will always remain differences that maintain walls between them and threaten contact zones. In a nutshell, different groups within American society hold negative perceptions about other groups. What is encouraging is that, as time passes, some of these have changed. Additionally, leaders have made some steps toward encouraging diversity and accept the coexistence of beliefs, practices, and equality. There is still room for more progress but the US is no doubt emerging from a blinkered and prejudiced past. It will no doubt accept that the natives in America with their rights as equal as those who have laid down the grounds for what is right would soon be provided for what is legitimately theirs. So that migrants: Caucasians, Africans, and Asians alike would see their real place under the sun, their participation in “influencing” contact zones, and accept the universality of freedom and equality. And it is not about economic or class standing but an entity as fully empowered as anybody.
Reference
Nylor, Larry. The Problems and Issues of Diversity in the United States. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group. 1999.
Pratt, Marry. Arts of the Contact Zones. Web.
Manora, Jean. (2005). “Professing an interest in First Nations History: Reflections on Teaching Native / settler relations in a Canadian University.” Paper presented at the ‘First Nations, First Thoughts’ Conference Centre for Canadian Studies, University of Edinburgh. web.
Prashad, Vijay. (2000) The Karma of Brown Folk. University of Minnesota Press.
Labott, Elise (2009). “Obama administration opens door for Iran.” CNN, Web.
Sheckely, Robert. Notions: Unlimited. 1960. Bantam.
Tan, Amy. Mother Tongue., Web.
Nakashima, Ellen (2008). “A Good Name Dragged Down.” Washington Post, Wednesday; Page D01.