Language Question in Hunger of Memory by Richard Rodriguez - Book Report/Review Example

In his book en d “Hunger of Memory” Rodriguez expresses his objection with the policy of Affirmative Action which is based on the principle that;discrimination is the key to social oppression. He states, “Americans learnt to look beyond class in considering social oppression…..it became easy to underestimate, even to ignore altogether, the importance of class.” (Rodriguez 149). Therefore, he believes differences in class are the primary reason for oppression in society. Rodriguez refers to the policy of assimilation and suggests that; the racial divide can be bridged only by true and complete assimilation. However, critics have noted that, it is only by allowing ethnicity to thrive and be respected, that some measure of equality can be achieved – since it is difficult for people to completely separate themselves from their ethnic roots and take to a foreign culture (Salvidar 27). Furthermore, Rodriguez links his views of the Affirmative Action Program to a critique of bilingual education, claiming that “all children must abandon the[ir] language of origin in order to enter public society.” (Rodriguez 27). In this essay I will firstly outline the difficulties of integration faced by ethnic minority groups, in addition to taking into account the complexities of learning English as a second language. Secondly I will consider Rodriguez’s justification for assimilation, before assessing critiques of his work, which simultaneously serve to support the rationale on which approaches to combat racial discrimination, such as the Affirmative Action Program, are based. As a Korean bilingual student, learning English as a second language, to me Rodriguez’s views appear unrealistic and impractical for everyone to achieve. The difficulties that second language students face in learning English are a function of the differences in their own native tongues. There may be three major aspects that affect a student’s ability to learn English : (a) their low level of understanding and self esteem, (b) the different systems of sounds in different languages and (c) differences in grammar. When a student has continuously spoken and studied one language before trying to learn English, the native language tends to interfere with the learning of English. However, this cannot form the basis for completely rejecting the native tongue and bilingual education, as Rodriguez suggests. Instead, there may be a need to reform teaching and learning methods. Similarly, when taking into account the Affirmative Action Program, it is only by allowing diversity to thrive and cultural and ethnic differences to be recognized and celebrated that there can be some measure of equality in society. However, achieving assimilation is a difficult, if not downright impossible task. For example, while it may have been easier for European races to assimilate, feelings of low self esteem and cultural problems remain for Asians and Chicanos that make assimilation into American society difficult. Rodriguez notes, “I do not think that all blacks are equally black…all Mexican Americans are not equally Mexican-Americans and the dividing line is class.” (Rodriguez 150). This is not to imply that blacks do not face racism at all; rather, in his view, the racism experienced by the working class is much worse than what is experienced by the middle class. In describing his upbringing, he concludes that it requires “a radical self reformation” (Rodriguez 67). Rodriguez expresses the view that his education in an elite college separates him from his parents as he has been socialized into a different class group - “because of my school I had grown culturally separated from my parents…” (Rodriguez 72). Rodriguez faced a great deal of difficulty learning English in addition to the fact that, for him, the process of education also involved indoctrination into the culture and value systems of the upper-middle class. Rodriguez has argued strongly for assimilation in contrast to the approach taken by the Affirmative Action Program, which aims to celebrate diversity and consequently highlight and honor the differences between racial and cultural groups. In his book, Rodriguez declares that he is fully assimilated “middle class American man” and that it is time the middle class set aside its “pastoral” impulse and to “deny its difference from the lower class.” (Rodriguez 6). By this, he is referring to Mexican American people and therefore he seems to be stating that middle class Mexicans should not ally themselves with lower class Mexicans, solely on the basis of their shared race, as class has contributed to cultural divisions amongst them. Consequently, Rodriguez argues that Left political parties should not support the policy of Affirmative Action; firstly as it is not a revolutionary policy and secondly as it ignores the impact of class in achieving true societal equality. The program seeks to affirm racial differences rather than ignoring them and allows people to push towards the assimilation of all races into society. Therefore, by developing policy and remedial measures which address purely racial factors and ignore class factors, Rodriguez believes that Affirmative Action programs are not revolutionary enough. He suggests that, along racial lines there has already been assimilation within society. However, what needs to be addressed is the class distinctions that divide those belonging to a homogenous ethnic group, it is on this basis that he argues against diversity. Having outlined the problems which Rodriguez attributes to Affirmative Action programs, particularly the way in which it overlooks the concept of class division, the section that follows will consider contrasting opinions to those already put forward. Firstly, Sanchez disagrees with Rodriguez and his views on Affirmative Action. In particular, Sanchez is skeptical of the way Rodriguez downplays the issues of ethnicity and race as factors in affecting social prejudice. In fact, she has concluded that Rodriguez’s book is not so much a “disingenuous, cliché ridden, hodge podge of clever sounding, self reflective, self absorbed musings as it is a calculated compendium of manipulations geared, on the one hand, to assuage mainstream fears of diversity and, on the other, to set down directions for a more “effective” incorporation of minority discourses in what promises to be a time of increasing upheaval” (Sanchez 171). Consequently, here, Sanchez goes directly to the root of the weakness she perceives in Rodriguez’s argument. She implies that he has eschewed his Mexican heritage and his roots in favor of allying himself more closely with the upper class and with their perspective on the race issue. Therefore, he offers a false assurance that Affirmative Action programs do not really need to address the factor of race, rather that they need to address more readily the factor of class, which is an integral part of society. Sanchez however, argues that there is a deep seated racial bias that exists in society and that this is the reason why the diversity that is advocated through Affirmative Action programs is so disturbing to the ethnic minorities who are in a superior class position. Equally, Sanchez argues that such disturbances along racial lines are likely to be a prominent feature in society, demanding a resolution through programs such as Affirmative Action, in order to address the injustice meted out to the minority races. Furthermore, even when importance is attributed to class division, race as a dividing factor cannot be ignored, as it by Rodriguez who states that; the Affirmative Action program is not revolutionary. Therefore, Sanchez is of the view that Rodriguez is merely trying to pander to the hegemonic race and that assuring them diversity through Affirmative Action is not something to be feared, as in his view; the real division lies along class rather than racial lines. Salvidar also offers criticism of the views offered by Rodriguez and according to him, the author has sought to distance himself from the ethnic bonds that tie him to his family and race. In his book, Rodriguez writes about those of his own race who assume that he remains socially unchanged, despite his education and reformation - "Perhaps because I am marked by indelible color they easily suppose that I am unchanged by social mobility, that I can claim unbroken ties with my past. The possibility!" (Rodriguez 4). However, as Saldivar puts it, Rodriguez feels “himself capable of functioning only as an isolated and private individual, deprived of any organic connection with his ethnic group, his social class and finally even his own family.” (Salvidar 27). Salvidar reflects many of the Chicano criticisms on Rodriguez’s work as well as his arguments on the Affirmative Action programs. Most of such criticisms take a stronger stand on the issue of ethnicity, arguing that; any move to bring about a measure of equality in society must address the issue of race. Therefore, it is only ethnicity that can form a viable focus point for discussions on identity, while in reality the existence of class is not a significant factor that can be incorporated into diversity programs. Consequently, Rodriguez’ attempt to ignore race and focus upon class in Affirmative Action Programs is an ill advised and wrongly directed policy. In particular, he has argued against bilingual education on the basis that; it equally perpetuates divisions in society which encourage the native language to be given up by students, should they wish to enter public society. However, not all Chicano authors support the notion of giving up one’s own language, even those who are willing to criticize certain elements of their native culture. For example, Anzaldua (1987) criticizes the patriarchal nature of Chicano society, but this does not become a basis for her to allege that the culture must be abandoned. Instead, she tries to find redeeming elements within it. Likewise, bilingual education addresses the need for students to learn English while also maintaining contact with their native language. Affirmative Action programs that focus on diversity show a respect for national cultures, which cannot be reached by demanding that total assimilation take place. In conclusion, on the one hand I agree with Rodriguez, for example with the manner in which he demonstrates the difficulties that arise in learning English and understanding the culture that goes with it. In particular I agree with his consideration that; International students tend to think in their native language before translating into English and that this is one of the reasons attributed to the difficulties they face. Furthermore, he notes that in order to learn other subjects in English efficiently, ESL students need to develop fluency in English to save time translating in the long run. Finally, I agree with the contention that low self esteem of ESL students hampers their efforts in learning English. However this cannot support the position put forward by Rodriguez that the native language must be given up altogether. Whilst it is necessary for an ESL student to work extra hard and do practice exercises to develop fluency in English, bilingual education preserves native culture and ethnicity, issues which are also aims of the Affirmative Action Program. These programs allow individuals from minority cultures, who suffer from low self esteem, to also advance and progress in society, just as Rodriguez himself benefited from such a program as a scholarship student. On this basis therefore, I believe that Rodriguez’s criticism of Affirmative Action programs and bilingual education appear unjustified as has been reflected by academics such as Sanchez and Salvidar. Read More