From the Melting Pot Metaphor: Why Coercive Assimilation ...

;

This criticism that the melting pot produces a society assimilation theories often take on a decidedly
that primarily reßects the dominant culture instead racist overtone (Laubeov‡), with many assimilation
of fusing into a completely new entity is reiterated proponents urging Americentric policies such as
by other sociologists, anthropologists, and cultural English-only education, strict immigration policies,
geographers as ÒAnglo-conformityÓ (Kivisto 151). stipulations of nationalistic criteria for citizenship,
This type of assimilation was seen as working like and eliminating programs aimed at helping minorities
a one-way street and it was viewed as something (Booth; Hayworth). This issue over terminology
that depended primarily on the cooperativeness of and social metaphors is vitally important because
immigrants to be reoriented towards the dominant America stands at a critical ideological turning point.
culture. The idea that the dominant culture would Cultural geographers describe our current society
be infused with new energy through the inßuences as experiencing a Òmulticultural backlashÓ that
of ethnic groups retaining their distinctive cultural will drastically affect immigration legislation and
attributes and thereby forging a new, stronger ethnic studies and possibly lead us towards a more
America due to their divergent cultural contributions restrictive and intolerant nation (Mitchell 641). The
was not given much weight by early researchers current discourse about cultural assimilation seeks
(Kivisto 152-154). to relegate incongruent cultural attributes to the
private arena so as not to disturb the dominant society
It should be noted in this discussion that earlier (Mitchell 642), and instead of promoting a tolerance
in American sociology history, some of these terms of diversity, we see the modern-day assimilation
took on distinctly different ßavours. This ambiguity proponents urging strict deportation and increasingly
of terminology contributes to confusion in the current restrictive immigration policies in order to protect so-
discourse. For instance, in 1901, Sarah Simons is called American values (Hayworth).
quoted as making this conclusion with regards to
assimilation: Some proponents, such as Arizona Congressman
J.D. Hayworth, are calling for a return of the same
In brief, the function of assimilation is type of assimilation policies that others refer to as
the establishment of homogeneity within the Òhumiliating Americanization programs of the
the group; but this does not mean that 1910Õs and 1920ÕsÓ (Rodriguez). Those programs
all variation shall be crushed out. In occurred during another time of heightened national
vital matters, such as language, ideals of concern, namely WWI and the subsequent ÒRed
government, law, and education, uniformity Scare,Ó where coercive education and employment
shall prevail; in personal matters of religion policies were enacted that compelled immigrants
and habits of life, however, individuality to assimilate. This assimilation process was
shall be allowed free play. Thus, the structured to produce citizens that conformed,
spread of Òconsciousness of kindÓ must be not just to American democratic ideals, but also to
accompanied by the spread of consciousness Americanized private habits, American English,
of individuality (qtd. in Kivsito 153). and basic political and social ideologies intended to
Furthermore, according to Peter KivistoÕs create a pliable work force and ensure certain political
interpretation of Chicago School sociologist Robert E. leanings (ÒAmericanizationÓ [1]). During the war,
ParkÕs writings on the subject, theories on assimilation immigrants experienced oppression, xenophobia, and
originally differed from the melting pot fusion theory propaganda designed to strip them of their native
in that assimilation Òsignals the proliferation of cultures and loyalties. The public school system
diversity. Rather than enforced conformity, it makes Òinstructed the children of immigrants in ÒproperÓ
possible a greater degree of individual autonomyÓ Anglo-Saxon values and traditions and strongly
and creates Òa cultural climate that is predicated encouraged them to take their lessons home to their
by pluralismÓ whereby this Òcultural pluralism (or families (ÒAmericanizationÓ [2]) Meanwhile, ethnic
multiculturalism) can coexist with assimilationÓ presses were scrutinized and inspected by the U.S.
(156-157). The idea that a multiethnic society could government and higher Þnancial burdens were
attain an interdependent cohesion based on national place upon them from the U.S. Postal Service, who
solidarity while maintaining distinct cultural histories demanded to analyze translations, effectively limiting
not dependent on like-minded homogeneity was thus their freedom of speech and eventually resulting in
proposed back in the early 1900Õs (Kivisto 161). many presses closing (ÒAmericanizationÓ [2]).
However, it is vital to recognize that coercive
assimilation theorists often do not support the idea After the war, the leftover social strains and
that immigrants should maintain distinct cultural extreme patriotism gave vent for new obsessions,
attributes. In the modern-day discussion, coercive including the Red Scare over suspected communists,

30

resurgence in the white supremacist organizations On the other hand, multiculturalism has its
such as the Ku Klux Klan, religiously based own set of weak points that need further evaluation
fundamentalism, labor strikes, and the prohibition and revision. The melting pot and the tossed salad
of alcohol (ÒAmericanizationÓ [2]). Certainly, civil metaphors are both inherently ßawed, at least so-
liberties were being cast aside, and minority groups far in their practical application. On this, there
bore the brunt of this assault under the guise of are many social theorists who are writing about a
becoming more ÒAmericanÓ and less Òforeign.Ó Now compromise between the melting pot approach and
we are seeing a similar leaning towards coercive the tossed salad analogy. One such new theory is the
assimilation spreading across America due to the aforementioned Òethnic stewÓ from Laura Laubeov‡,
heightened concern over terrorism and the cultural/ who hopes that such an analogy can help bridge the
religious differences that are perceived to be behind gap between the two concepts to create Òa sort of
that ideological discord. If this assimilation thinking pan-Hungarian goulash where the pieces of different
proceeds toward its logical conclusion, America will kinds of meat still keep their solid structure.Ó Indeed,
move backwards socially and become a truly bland some sort of compromise between full assimilation
melted pot of cultures that is willing to sacriÞce and multiculturalism will be necessary to retain our
everything under a misplaced paradigm of patriotism. multiethnic ßavour while building a cohesive society.

The stance of many coercive assimilation The bottom line is that people are people, not
proponents smacks of racist overtones and is based on food. Despite the variety of food metaphors at our
apprehension of ÒothersÓ and exclusionary thinking disposal, the power of this rhetoric is limited and
more than it is based on preservation of core values. wears thin during pragmatic application. Food
For example, in the case of the political debate over metaphors can be useful, but we do not need more
designating English as AmericaÕs ofÞcial language, vague metaphors that lead to interpretive disparities.
Thomas Ricento makes this point: What we need is an entirely new dialogue on the
subject, one that completely and clearly redeÞnes
The English language has often been used as AmericaÕs objective for a multiethnic society that
a marker of oneÕs ÒAmerican-nessÓ, and the allows for diversity, not just in the private realm, but
use of non-English languages as a marker to also in the public sphere. We do not need a coercive
oneÕs Òforeign-ness.Ó Penalizing non-English assimilation program that reverts back to outdated
speakers by limiting their access to public nationalistic paranoia. We need an inclusive working
services, voting and education is illogical, social theory that unites the disparate enclaves of
for it would further stigmatize non-English this society into a manageable entity moving in
speakers, rather than help them acquire the the same collective direction. Whether Americans
language. . . Restricting access of citizens and will ever eventually be reformed into what Israel
non-citizens alike because of a language Zangwill called Òa fusion of all racesÓ remains to be
barrier is not only bad public policy, but an seen (Zangwill). Right now, what America needs
insult and a calculated provocation, the initial is a deÞnitive social direction that leans away from
step would certainly be a pro-tracted conßict coercive assimilation dogma and towards a truly
between English and non-English speakers inclusive national identity. True American dreamers
(7). should not settle for anything less.
The implications of this type of proposed legislation
drives fear into minority groups seeking to preserve
their cultural heritage against a tide of Americentric
propaganda. Ultimately, those seeking to enact
coercive assimilation policies threaten to fracture the
common ground of the American dream that they
claim to be focused on protecting. Minority groups
are nearing such numbers in this country that it is
projected that the word ÒminorityÓ will soon become
obsolete. Enacting exclusionary policies will only
fracture an already delicate social framework and
potentially further disenfranchise the very groups
America needs for inclusive unity.

31

WORKS CITED Kivisto, Peter. ÒWhat is the Canonical Theory of
ÒAmericanization.Ó 25 February 2006. <http:// Assimilation?Ó Journal of the History of the
Behavioral Sciences 40.2. (2004): 149-163.
migration.ucdavis.edu/mn/cir/95Report7/
pages175 200/pages175.htm>. Laubeov‡, Laura. ÒMelting Pot vs. Ethnic Stew.Ó
ÒAmericanizationÓ [2]. American History Study Encyclopedia of the WorldÕs Minorities.
Guide. 6 February 2006. <http://www. 2000. http://www.tolerance.cz/courses/
book-rags.com/history/americanhistory/ texts/melting.htm.
americanization-aaw-03/>.
Booth, William. ÒOne Nation, Indivisible: Is Mitchell, Katharyne. ÒGeographies of Identity:
It History?Ó Washingtonpost com. 22 Multiculturalism Unplugged.Ó Progress in
February 1998. 23 February 2006. <www. Human Geography 28.5 (2004): 641-651.
washingtonpost.com Myth of the Melting Pot
AmericaÕs Racial and Ethnic Divides.htm>. Ricento, Thomas. ÒA Brief History of Language
ÒMelting Pot.Ó Wikipedia. Feb. 20, 2006. http:// Restrictionism in the United States.Ó
en.wikipidea.org/wiki/Melting_pot. OfÞcial English? No! A Brief History of
Language Restrictionism. 27 November
Frey, Bill. ÒA Closer Look at the Melting-Pot Myth.Ó 2002. 5 March 2006. <http://www.usc.
Editorial. Newsday. 16 March 01. <http:// edu/dept/education/CMMR/PolicyPDF/
www.milkeninstitute.org/publications/ OfÞcialEnglish-Ricento.pdf>.
publications.taf?function=detail&ID=110&
cat=Arts>. Rodriguez, Gregory. ÒAssimilation Happens ÐDeal
With ItÓ Los Angeles Times 10 Oct. 2004. 1
Hayworth, J.D. ÒImmigrants Need to Embrace U.S. February 2006 <http://www.newamerica.
Culture.Ó 1 February 2006. <http://www. net/index.cfm?pg=article&DocID=2003>.
azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/viewpoints/
articles/0129hayworth0129html>. Zangwill, Israel. 26 February 2006. <http://
en.thinkexist.com/quotes/israel_zangwill>.

32