Race. Ethnicity. Faith. What loaded words these are. And they’re everywhere — in politics, in popular culture, in the academy, and even in the religious realm.
I am writing to address a potentially dangerous assumption about these subjects I’ve encountered more than once on our campus. This past week, I was having a conversation with some friends having to do with the question of whether ethnically/racially organized Bible study groups were a helpful idea. A proponent of such groups (who shall remain nameless, since I never expected to recount this conversation in writing) began by saying, as though this were a universally agreed-upon fact, that students of a particular ethnic/racial minority should have a specific group in which they can be free to express themselves and their faith among others of the same ethnic/racial background. Trying to persuade someone (whom he presumed to be of the same ethnic background) to join such a group, the proponent spoke as though the other person should want, by virtue of her perceived ethnicity, to be a part of the proposed group. She responded somewhat curtly by stating that her true ethnicity was much more complex than a simple one-word identifier and that in fact her ethnicity did not define her identity or her faith. The conversation continued, and it too was much more complex than I’ve described here.
But it occurred to me, as I told them, that this seems to be precisely the problem with how so many of us conceptualize race, ethnicity, and other varieties of inherent or cultural identity. There is sometimes a latent assumption that members of the same race or ethnicity (often merely perceived rather than known certainly) have shared, and do share, in their lives a common experience.
Obviously, this is not a totally unfounded assumption. Definitions of “race” notwithstanding (in the interest of relative brevity), “ethnicity” is typically defined by social scientists as an amalgam of shared traditions and origins (Allison). Can it be said that the newly-arrived Catholic Irish in New York City in the mid-nineteenth century probably shared a more or less common experience? We should resist replying with an automatic yes, but it is probably rather safe to observe that, living in the same place, in the same time, and similarly situated politically, etc., they all did probably share some common experiences. But in a multicultural, multiethnic, multiracial reality such as our own, what is shared and what is unique is anything but cut-and-dry, if it ever really was. Could we say without doubt that every Amherst student of some particular broad ethnic/racial affiliation (probably derived from the short, nonspecific checklist appearing on so many forms and applications) has lived a similar life, shared common experiences? Without hesitation, the answer is a resounding no. The Catholic Irish example has geography and temporal considerations on its side, where the scope of the latter example is very different, unconstrained and global.
I mean to say very little more. I mean only to point out that such an assumption — pervasive and ever-present — is very often blind to the reality of the complexities of issues of race, ethnicity, and culture. If we are to voluntarily separate ourselves into groups for whatever purposes, the categories should not be of such a character as to assume common, shared experience where and when there is little to none.
I’d be very interested to hear from others on this subject. It is a difficult topic to write about and discuss for many of us, I suspect. At least it is for me. I argued with myself back and forth, debating whether I should write anything about the conversation and my realization. I decided to err on the side of candor.
3 responses so far ↓
1 eunicekim (ekim11) // Oct 9, 2008 at 6:18 pm
“Could we say without doubt that every Amherst student of some particular broad ethnic/racial affiliation (probably derived from the short, nonspecific checklist appearing on so many forms and applications) has lived a similar life, shared common experiences? Without hesitation, the answer is a resounding no. ”
I agree with that religious organizations ought not to segregate its members because of race (since the worship of a deity ought to transcend something so human and individual-focused as culture). However, I just want to communicate that there is such a thing as a beneficial shared experience that occurs among people of a particular color or nationality - by this I am referring to the immigrant identity as a way of bonding.
People who have immigrated to the U.S. from a far-away country commonly experience culture shock, and this experience is passed on to the children of immigrants, who are usually raised to speak their parents’ language and adopt their parents’ cultural identity. Therefore, affiliation groups (similar to the ones in the Amherst campus) can aid an individual into adjusting to a place as diverse and “American” as Amherst College. Furthermore, people of non-American backgrounds may have a fear of forgetting the traditions of their “motherland” (an entirely appropriate fear, I believe) and may need companionship and bonding with those who share their first language, tastes in food, etc. Of course, the individual must ultimately appreciate their identity as an American as well, and not simply be an American with their minds trapped in a entirely different country.
Inevitably, these cultural affiliation groups become ethnic affiliation groups and the negative effects you have mentioned will occur. However, these ethnic affiliation groups, despite their overexaggeration of racial differences, can help a person who feels “like a stranger in their own land” gradually overcome the difficulties of being an American and being something else at the same time.
2 Gregory J. Campeau (gcampeau11) // Oct 10, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Fair enough. But I wonder if you could explain the interesting concept of Amherst as “diverse and ‘American.’”
3 eunicekim (ekim11) // Oct 10, 2008 at 3:13 pm
By “diverse,” I speak literally - in Amherst College there are people of many colors, from different parts of the country, and from different parts of the world.
Immigrants to the U.S. normally cluster in large cities and create their own communities in an attempt to replicate the urban environment of their homeland (eg. Little Italy, Chinatown, Little Tokyo, etc.). Many of our American students come from such areas and for them, Amherst (and New England in general - Massachusetts is not called the “Spirit of America” for no reason) is as American as it can get. One can consider this a stereotypical view of what is American and what isn’t, but either way, it’s inevitable for people to feel that way. This is what I mean by very “American.”
What’s more important to my argument is the fact that immigrants and the children of immigrants (and anyone else who feel foreign in any way) naturally need adjusting to any new place (an extreme example would be creating an affinity group for, say, Californians in order to meet their needs).
You must log in to post a comment.