Introduction
The cultural diversity is characteristic for many modern societies. Nevertheless, when within the boundaries of single society people with different cultural traditions coexist, there is a necessity to solve a range of problems, in order to provide clear standards of communal conduct which would be convenient for all. Many countries are already considered diverse culturally, where they are opened to the outer world and their demographics are diverse to the degree where certain attempts for assimilations are made.
In that regard, it can be certainly said that these assimilation processes should be two-directional, where both sides in that process influence each other. Nevertheless, taking as a basis the book “The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down” by Anne Fadiman along with other texts, this paper takes the position that in many multi-cultural societies the process of the assimilation should be more concerned of getting the other culture to raise up to the established standards, of not only communal conduct but also cultural considerations, only in issues that are not private and does not influence the society, in other cases this perspective can take a uni-directional context.
Analysis
In order to address the issue of the direction and the cases of transculturation, the example presented in “”The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down” should point to the role of each side in such dilemmas, i.e. the “native” culture side and the outsider.
In the situation described in the book, the case might be radical, but it enlightens an existent problem and an existent question. Who should have taken the lead role in this assimilation? Is it the family whose believe takes roots in an ancient culture which states that, “diseases are caused by fugitive souls and cured by jugulated chickens”? (Fadiman 61). Or is it the doctors and the representatives of the native culture, whose thoughts that ““Hmong taboos against blood tests, spinal taps, surgery, anesthesia, and autopsies-the basic tools of modern medicine-seemed like self-defeating ignorance” (Fadiman 61), represent the established opinion in that case, i.e. the scientific opinion.
In that sense, it can be argued that the complexity of the aroused situation is caused by the uni-directional approach, where the doctors and the Hmong family were influencing each other. This can be apparent through the description Fadiman gave of the Hmong, writing that:
Hmong do not like to take orders; that they do not like to lose; that they would rather flee, fight, or die than surrender; that they are not intimidated by being outnumbered; that they are rarely persuaded that the customs of other culture, even those more powerful than their own, are superior, and that they are capable of getting very angry. (Fadiman 17).
Thus, this case demonstrates a public issue, where the life of a person was at stake, and in that regard this should be one directional assimilation, where the responsibility of the “native culture” to influence the other side, rather than the other way around.
It should not be understood that the native culture should not be influenced at all by the foreign culture. It is just this assimilation should take place in other areas of social interaction. In the case of the Hmong people, this area can be apparent through the rich cultural traditions of the Hmong people.
Additionally, the uni-directional assimilation could be achieved through “writing stories with new documentation techniques to reflect the artistic soul of the Hmong community.” (Moua 8)
In that regard, this assimilation can be regarded as beneficial for both parties, for Hmong to preserve their traditions which had started slowly to dissolve in the new society, and for the native society by enriching their multi-cultural base through various forms of literary and artistic expression.
On the other hand, when the process of assimilation ignores some vital points of intersections from either side, this can result in a clash. As an example of the native culture influencing private, rather than public issues, the hijab, i.e. the Muslim women scarf, in France can be seen indicative of such approach.
In this case, which represents the political approach that goes beyond any cultural considerations, France, a country with diverse cultural background, banned “conspicuous displays of religious belief in schools – including the Muslim headscarf.” (White).
Another representation of the failure of uni-directional assimilation, this time from the foreign side can be seen through the film “Crash” (2004) by Paul Haggis, where Farhad, a Persian store owner is perceived as an Arab terrorist, and from the other side, he himself failed to adapt to the American multi-cultural society, perceiving Mexicans as thieves who want to rob him.
In that regard, it can be seen that mutual understanding as a process of assimilation should come from both sides of cultures. In this case, the society and the media are responsible for creating stereotypes that put obstacles for a uni-directional assimilation of the cultures. These stereotypes include all middle-eastern immigrants as Arabs and as terrorists, Mexicans as criminals and etc.
In general, it should be noted that in such “contaminated spaces” with diverse cultural backgrounds, it is important that whether it is a one-directional or two-directional approach, there will not be a space for indifference to each other’s cultures and according problems.
In Fadiman’s book, such indifference does not exist, which can be shown in the character of Doctor Roger Fife, ““a family physician who served his residency at MCMC in the early eighties.”(Fadiman 76). He is likable, and the Hmong love him, but as it was stated in the introduction, in the situation where such cultural conflict arises with a life of minor at stake, the position should be based only on his side and on his background, rather than applying to the considerations of their beliefs.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it can be seen that the complexity of analyzing cultural issues might arise through the different approaches that are implemented in different situations. The responsibility of both sides, i.e. the native and the foreign cannot be denied. However, there are situations when the policy of assimilation should limit the influence of the foreign culture if such influence concerns vital issues, such as the life of another person. In another case, mutual influence will only benefit both sides socially, and culturally.
Works Cited
Crash. Dir. Haggis, Paul. Perf. Don Cheadle, et al. DVD. Andrew Reimer, et al. 2005.
Fadiman, Anne. The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down : A Hmong Child, Her American Doctors, and the Collision of Two Cultures. 1st ed. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 1997.
Moua, Mai Neng. Bamboo among the Oaks : Contemporary Writing by Hmong Americans. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 2002.
White, Svend. “Hijab Hysteria: France and Its Muslims“. 2004. Open Democracy. Web.