OCR Text |
Show Who We Are: Constructivism and the Dual Personality of American Nationalism Michael A. Thomas Legislative, Adjudicator^ and Electoral Efforts to Impose a Single Language. Attempts to legislate English as America's official language prove pervasive with the debate of "individual rights" and unity. According to Jack Citrin, "although the Framers of the Constitution ultimately decided not to endow English with special legal status, they assumed that a common language would develop in the United States and that it would be English" (1990, 97). Cases in the United States Supreme Court illustrate the depth of linguistic conflict between linguistic assimilationists and multicultural ists. Citrin says that in Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974), the Court ruled Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act as requiring "school districts to take steps to ensure that non-English-speaking children can participate meaningfully in the educational system" (Citrin 1990, 98). Voters in California responded to such efforts in 1986 with passage of Proposition 63, the English-language amendment to the state's Constitution (Citrin 1990, 102). However, only three states, Nebraska, Illinois and Virginia have declared English as their sole official language through legislation, whereas California, Arizona and Florida approved such measures through ballot initiatives (Citrin 1990, 100). Citrin adds that "opponents of 'official English' measures portray them as instruments of exclusion rather than assimilation," and argue further that "the predominance of English usage is not in danger; they cite studies showing that virtually all immigrants want to learn English and do so" (1990, 101). Debates surrounding "official English" and bilingualism "reflect a cultural conflict of the meaning of American identity," in that large majorities believe English necessary to becoming an American while members of the political elite view legislating it as prejudicial (Citrin 1990, 107). "English only" embodies conflict between the civic and individualist traditions. Language and the Debate Between multiculturalism and assimlationism Language, however, comprises one component of the overriding battle between multicultural ism and assimilation. Multicultural ism holds that individuals in American society retain ethnic traditions with loyalty to American ideals. Arguments for Assimilationism. Assimilationism on the other hand, involves belief that full citizenship means adoption of English, American political culture and goals. In other words, questions about individual rights to retain ethnicity conflict with goals of the American "melting pot." Assimilationism poses the view that the process of cultural assimilation that yields a people to whom American has a common meaning-remains an attractive solution. The ethos of the melting pot is universal is tic and inclusive; it produces individuals who are Americans by virtue of their commitment to a democratic national creed (Citrin 1990, 109). Assimilationists maintain that multiculturalism threatens to bring a "disunity of America" because of emphasis on differences "over commonalities," according to Jack David Eller (1997, 250). Assimilationists state further that there is or "should be a common American identity," and often they argue that this identity is based less on cultural particulars than on a few universal convictions, such as the dignity of the individual and the freedom of thought and action.... Americans are a "constituency of conscience" rather than a culture in the traditional sense of the word (Eller 1997, 250). To Eller, the greatest danger raised by the multicultural-ists is "that American culture and the American polity may actually fragment and collapse" (1997, 253-54). Assimilationists view solidarity as necessary for national sovereignty and statehood. Arguments for MulUcidturalism. Multiculturalism becomes an "insistence on the primacy of ethnicity over the individual's shared and equal status as a citizen in shaping his or her identity" (Citrin et al. 1994, 9). The motto of the United States, E pluribus unum means "one out of many." Ethnic groups define "the many" in the sense that "throughout America's history, religious, cultural, and racial differences have shaped the struggle for wealth, prestige and power," and that "on several occasions the clash of ethnic strains broadened to encompass debate over the very meaning of national identity" (Citrin et al. 1990, 1124). Multicultural ists further argue that because of resistance to the "melting pot" certain constituencies are then "excluded from such important cultural domains as knowledge and scholarship, arts and politics" (Eller 1997, 249). Eller acknowledges that "American culture, the American 'master fiction,' is once again and continuously under construction" (1997, 255). "No wonder," he concludes, that assimilationists are "worried, multicultural ists are angry, and we are all a little frazzled" (Eller 1997, 255). Proposition 187 and Contemporary Political Conflict over Ethnicity in America Modern cases of ethnicity debates in America include the 1994 passage of Proposition 187 in California. Concerns about immigration from Mexico spurred an initiative aimed at denying public assistance and education to those living in this country illegally. According to Tara Lennon, the goal of this initiative was to "correct the problems" of illegal immigration (1998, 81). Proposition 187 reads that "'the people of California find and declare: That they have suffered and are suffering economic hardship caused by the presence of illegal aliens in this state"1 (Lennon 1998, 81). Here, California aims to "control identification because its main purpose is seen as the control of illegal immigration, that is, the control of foreigners" (Lennon 1998, 82). Lennon further argues that Proposition 187 plays a unique role in this context of assimilation and racial neutrality. It has a main and a corollary function in achieving these goals. The main and obvious function of the initiative is to limit the flow of illegal aliens to California. By cutting off benefits to illegal aliens, the assump- 86 |