Let’s Create a Sustainable Culture
Through Quotidian Immigrant Acts and Cultural Productions
In my understanding of Immigration, Citizenship, Racialization,
Lowe is making the point that America has created a culture that is
unsustainable in its current state. Citizens are what make up a nation and
those citizens live within a certain culture.
Culture, as discussed in class, is hard to describe but I think Lowe
makes a dent in understanding the complexity of America’s culture in her
statement; “The heroic quest, the triumph over weakness, the promises of
salvation, prosperity, and progress: this is the American feeling, the style of
life the ethos and spirit of being.” (Lowe, 2) I believe people raised in
America cannot escape these notions. Although they might not feel this spirit personally,
they cannot escape hearing about it and seeing it all around them. America’s current culture ignores the past in
order to perpetuate this spirit. By ignoring the past a great number of
America’s marginalized citizens are silenced; citizens who have been oppressed,
tortured, killed, and exploited in the name of salvation, prosperity, and
progress. Ignoring the past does not change it, it just delegitimizes the experiences of a large percentage of the American population, namely immigrants.
America’s flawed culture is what
makes immigrants both subject to and subject of immigrant acts. The treatment
of immigrants illustrates crucial flaws in current American ideals. “If the law is the apparatus that binds and
seals the universality of the political body of the nation, then the
“immigrant,” produced by the law as margin and threat to that symbolic whole,
is precisely a generative site for the critique of that universality.” (Lowe,
9) America founded (or rather conquered) by immigrants and since its creation
has been the destination for generations of immigrants. Each time an exclusionary immigrant act is
passed holes are poked in the America’s cultural fabric, or more accurately the
existing holes are having attention drawn to them. Likewise, quotidian behaviors of immigrants
acknowledging their multiculturalism are turned into immigrant acts.
"Will quotidian immigrant acts eventually become so widespread that the current culture is over-run?"
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, I believe the answer to this question is "no."
Earlier in the course when we attempted to contextualize "race" we referred to the way in which it is influenced and affected by politics. I think quotidian immigrant acts do not have a chance at becoming widespread enough to dominate the current culture. Due to the way in which politics influences race, politics are able to influence culture just as easily. Though immigrant acts are capable of creating strong—and seemingly united—subcultures, they will not be able to overrun the nation's main culture because it is heavily influenced by politics (which seeks to marginalize immigrants and their subsequent acts).
I agree with the initiative to rewrite history books; however, this would require politicized education system to acknowledge the stories and histories of The People. By recognizing these stories the education system—and those who maintain it—would be forced to move away from a system of hyper classification (ie. checking boxes for one's ethnicity). Again I agree, but I feel as though it is a complicated task to conceptualize.
Reconsidering the Lowe quote, “the heroic quest, the triumph over weakness, the promises of salvation, prosperity, and progress: this is the American feeling, the style of life the ethos and spirit of being” (Lowe, 2) it is also possible to see the pursuit of the "heroic quest" as a means of cultural erasure. I agree when you state, "I believe people raised in America cannot escape these notions," and I also think that the "heroic quest" may subliminally counteract immigrant acts. It's pursuit is a form of submission to the larger scale "American Culture," which further reduces immigrant acts and immigrant culture.
Not to just repeat what Willina said, but I am curious about the same question. What’s interesting to me about this question is that it positions “quotidian immigrant acts” and “current culture” as two forces in contest with each other, or at least having the ability to be in contest.
ReplyDeleteIn your second paragraph, you make clear that “quotidian behaviors of immigrants acknowledging their multiculturalism” are politicized by “America’s flawed culture”, which creates “exclusionary immigrant act[s],” into their own “immigrant acts.” In this way, “immigrants are both subject to and subject of immigrant acts.” I agree. I think that in this way, “immigrant acts” and “current culture” are in opposition to each other. In another sense, “current culture” and “quotidian immigrant acts” shape and define each other, since who is and isn’t considered an “immigrant” has not been a historically rigid label.
That being said, I wonder if we can really talk about “quotidian immigrant acts” over-running “current culture” not just in terms of possibility, as I think Willina was getting at, but simply from a theoretical standpoint. As I’m understanding your second paragraph, it sounds as though both “quotidian immigrant acts” and “current culture” are both defined in relation to each other. This is why I’m curious about the idea of one over-running the other when, if I’m understanding what you’re saying, one cannot be defined as it is without the other. I say defined specifically because I do think that “quotidian immigrant acts” can exist without “current culture” there to oppose them, they just would not have the politicized label of “immigrant” attached to them. The other question that bugs me about the “quotidian immigrant acts” v.s. “current culture” framing is whether, if they were in fact to “over-run” current culture, “quotidian immigrant acts” would not simply replace “current culture” and create a new set of “immigrant acts.” I don’t know if there is something inherent about “quotidian immigrant acts” that, should they “over-run” current culture, would make it impossible to reproduce a similar framework of making certain people “both subject to and subject of immigrant acts.”
I’m sorry if that sounded like stupid pseudo-philosophical nit-picking!