Week 3 Lecture 3B
.pdf
School
National University College**We aren't endorsed by this school
Course
SPN 341
Subject
Anthropology
Date
Dec 20, 2024
Pages
2
Uploaded by MajorDanger15933
1 Cultures Within CulturesIn chapters 10 and 11 of Jandt (2016), the author expounds on the individual versus the collective/homogeneity versus diversity by first contrasting various immigration experiences (ch.10), and then examining the active resistance to assimilation or inability to to assimilate by immigrant groups resulting in a separate identity via a perpetuation of unique cultural patterns (ch. 11). The chapters provide a vast arena in which to objectively ponder the question: to assimilate or not to assimilate? In a previous chapter, Jandt discussed that homogeneous cultures often require less spoken language when communicating. People can regularly rely on nonverbal communication because they will often be thinking in similar, even nearly identical terms, thus greatly eliminating the necessity to clarify via verbal communication. By comparison, societies characterized as diverse invest much more time trying to verbally communicate than their homogeneous counterparts. Based on examples such as this, would societies benefit from systematic homogenization (including for immigrant groups) in order to ease communication for example, or should we take the extra time to learn a more expansive vocabulary and potentially encounter cultural misunderstandings in exchange for a higher degree of individuality? To add to this, we can consider the concepts of syncretism and the melting pot. Charles Stewart (1999) thoroughly contrasts both cultural phenomena. Through his work we can conclude that in the US there has historically been much more division between race and culture which, at first, may have created a naturally occurring syncretic (or even separate) society. Over time, however, US culture has been veritably transformed into a melting pot as a result of mainstream efforts to create a national identity. The terms are analogous in many ways, however, they differ with respect to their degrees of assimilation/integration within a given society. The melting pot refers to a higher degree of blending, whereas syncretism would indicate blending on different levels with elements of cultural variance being more visible. This is supported by Jandt's assertion that previous understandings of the melting pot encourage ethnic uniformity (p. 333). We certainly can see this in United States society, as Jandt further points out, when considering that, historically, one's ability to demonstrate patriotism was directly linked to learning "English" and living in an "American" way (2016, p. 333). In more recent years, however, we have seen some immigrant groups "integrate" into US society by adopting "American" customs, yet still retaining aspects of their original culture. In this way, it can be argued that, although the US has the underpinnings of a melting pot, the fact that culture is in a state of constant flux, resulting from both internal as well as external influences, now gives way to a completely different cultural landscape. This is further intensified as we examine groups like the Hmong (Jandt, ch. 11) that are ill-prepared
2 to assimilate, integrate, or actively remain autonomously separate (as have the Amish), and are instead an example of a marginalized subculture. These realities provide a great deal to ponder and beg the question of whether we can really ever truly define our own culture (whether part of the larger or smaller group) since the whole is comprised of so many fluid, ever-evolving pieces. This quandary is further compounded for immigrant groups and individuals who find themselves faced with the task of negotiating the fine line between assimilation and integration in order to (actively or passively) avoid marginalization.