Polycultural Identity in Kelle's The People in Me - Book Report/Review Example

Polycultural Identity in Kelley’s “The People in Me” “What are you?” is a question that asks about race and ethnicity, the kind of question that, if it comes from strangers, can either break the ice, or introduce it. In “The People in Me,” Robin D.G. Kelley argues that identity is a complex individual and environmental product and process, a product of the intersection of political, social, and economic forces, and a fluid process affected continuously by globalization and personal decisions. He assumes that by the history of globalization and multicultural interactions, people are generally polyculturals. Kelley effectively uses ethos through expressing a credible polycultural image, pathos through engaging emotional reactions through mentioning race, family, and culture, and logos through providing historical evidence and logic, even though he commits hasty generalization when he asserts that everyone is polycultural because some groups have preserved or desires monoculturalism. Kelley effectively uses ethos because he has a polycultural image which means that he personally understands the complexity of defining and explaining his identity. Kelley convinces the audience of his credibility by underscoring his own polycultural identity. The author gets frequent questions of “What are you?” (474) because he looks and talks somewhat black and white. His physical appearance and language are good evidence of the outward effects of polyculturalism. In addition, Kelley influences his audience to accept his integrity because even his family is polycultural. His brother looks white because he has a white father, although his mother is black, but who is more Eastern than American in her beliefs and practices because she is a “vegetarian” and speaks “softly with textbook diction” (475). By providing these examples, Kelley strengthens his argument on identity because he shows that his family background is as complex as his identity too. Kelley makes use of his and his family’s life to demonstrate his knowledge of polycultural experiences. Apart from using ethos, Kelley makes good use of pathos through engaging emotional reactions through mentioning family, race, and culture. People tend to have strong emotional attachments to their family, and Kelley uses these emotions to invite them to think about their polycultural identity too. An example is when he describes where his parents are from and talks about his family’s racial and ethnic orientation, where his mother is “from Jamaica but grew up in New York, and [his] father was from North Carolina but grew up in Boston. Both black” (474). By mentioning the mixed ancestry of his parents, which makes him a mixed-blood too, he wants to have an effect on people by helping them realize that they too are either asked the same question about their ancestry or are interested in the same questions or both. Furthermore, Kelley knows how to trigger racial reactions through mentioning racial stereotypes that people can either identify with or challenge. When he mentions the “black momma image” and follows it up with the words of “didn’t drink, smoke, curse or say things like ‘Lawd Jesus’ or ‘hallelujah,’ nor did she cook chitlins or humbo,” (475) he is using racial stereotypes about black mothers. He can evoke a strong response from black women who would assert that they do not have these characteristics, or maybe they do, but some only. Finally, Kelley uses cultural images to trigger emotional involvement. He gives the example of a Sikh cab driver who treats his sister like a “scoundrel from Sri Lanka,” until he discovers that she is a “common black American” (475). Mentioning multicultural interactions is a way to ignite cultural reactions. Kelley exploits emotions connected to family, race, and culture to get interest and response, which shows effective use of pathos. In conclusion, Kelley uses logos through providing historical evidence and logic. He uses historical examples to show polyculturalism’s web. An example is asserting that blacks are not entirely just African, but specifically coming from different tribes in Africa, such as “Ibo” and “Yoruba”, or other communities in Europe or Asia (475). This example effectively shows that Africans are already polyculturals, so when they marry interracially in the U.S., they become even more polycultural. Another example is the “zoot suit” which is culturally prominent to both African Americans and Mexicans (475-476). This example underscores that people who have “different” cultures share the same cultural objects because they are polycultural. In addition, Kelley expands his polycultural examples to include the rest of the world. He mentions the “Rastafarians” who “drew many from South Asians, from vegetarianism to marijuana, which was introduced into Jamaica by Indians” (476). This illustrates how global interactions shape identities. Moreover, Kelley uses logic to explain the oneness of humanity. He asserts that all people are polyculturals because they are “inheritors of European, African, Native American, and Asian pasts” (476). He starts from the specific (his experiences) and expands his argument to include the rest of the globe to generalize the meaning of polyculturalism as a process and product that is still undergoing changes and development. Hence, Kelley makes good use of history and logic to show that he has concrete evidence to back up his argument. Though Kelley has strong appeals to logic, his claims are not strong enough because he commits hasty generalization when he asserts that all people are polycultural because some groups have maintained or desires monoculturalism. Kelley asserts that mixed children are not the only ones with multiple heritages because “[a]ll of us are inheritors of European, African, Native American, and Asian pasts, even if we can’t exactly trace our bloodlines to these continents” (476). He cannot say “all of us” are inheritors, if some people think they have “pure” heritage, or at least, want to stay culturally pure. Monoculturalism is alive in tribes in countries where intercultural marriage are either not accessible or widely practiced or accepted. Some people also desire monoculturalism, although they may be polyculturals by blood. An example is an extremist Islamist family who rejects Western ideas, attitudes and practices and anything foreign. These are all people who oppose the argument that polyculturalism is something that can be generalized across the globe. In order for Kelley to strengthen his arguments, he should avoid using “all” or similar words. Instead, he should categorize and include other people who do not feel that being part of the plural or mixed society is good for their culture or society. By including these non-polyculturalism-embracing groups, Kelley avoids hasty generalization and enhances the validity of his claims. Kelley uses sufficient evidence from his life, history, and logic to argue that polyculturalism exists through polycultural identities in the past and the present. Nevertheless, he assumes that polyculturalism is applicable for all people, which is a hasty generalization. Still, Kelley reminds the audience of the people in them, so they would not forget that every person is a member of a global family with intertwined histories and destinies. Work Cited Kelley, Robin D.G. “The People in Me.” Reading Literature and Writing Argument. 5th ed. Missy James, and Alan P. Merickel. 474-476. Print. Read More