Benedict Anderson posits that the “contemporary national
imagination” began in the 19th century with the novel. Readers who
were geographically apart could relate to one another, developing a common
socio-political consciousness. This idea of a shared worldview has been spread
through mass media systems that have “emphasized the concept of the
nation-state as the primary and natural form of polity” (Karim, Reviewing the “National” in “International
Communication” Through the Lens of Diaspora). Through this enforcement, a
nation “becomes a naturalized political, geographic and ethno-cultural entity
which is distinct from all other nations in the imagination of not only its own
residents but those of others”.
However, with the advent of new media and communications between
countries, the nation-state can no longer enforce a single imagination onto its
people in the same manner.
In
the 20th century, multiculturalism has emerged to redefine the nation
“as moving from comprising an ethnically pluralist populace to one united with
core civic values” (Karim). These values have been enforced in the same way as during
the time of colonialism. Silvio Waisbord explains that we are all swimming in a
symbolic environment in the U.S. with constant reminders of our national
identity, terming it “banal nationalism” in Media
and the Reinvention of a Nation. The media, educational systems, and daily
life routines of all citizens are saturated with American values. This explains
the civic core values that are enforced to everyone in a nation, a patriotism
that unites them all.
Those
who are not originally born into the imagined community of a particular nation
do not assimilate as such. Karim explains how many Diaspora, with their strong
ties to their homelands, experience nationalism as a separate idea than
patriotism. While nationalism has been seen in a negative light with bigotry
and fascism, expressing pride for one’s homeland can also be done without
enforcing it upon others. This act of pride has affected assimilation of Diaspora
into the United States. New technologies allow them to have constant
communication with those at home so they can “exchange symbolic goods and
services” (Karim). With this combination of both nationalism in terms of
connection to the homeland and patriotism as enforced through banal
nationalism, the Diaspora have a new cultural identity in the U.S.
A
different framework to consider is Stuart Hall’s explanation of the Caribbean
in Karim’s article, how its population is made up of immigrants from different
parts of the world. He “emphasizes that the heterogeneity expressed here speaks
not only against colonialism’s hierarchical and essentialist human geography
but also stands in contrast to that notion of Diaspora which necessarily
includes a return to the ‘original’ homeland” (Karim 24). It is interesting to
see how nationalism and patriotism are expressed in nations with different
ratios of immigrants to natives.
If multicultural societies are “moving from...ethnically pluralist populace[s] to one united with core civic values” as Karim states in his piece, than one might interpret that Karim is in agreeance with George W. Musambira's, [author of "A Comparison of Modernist and Postmodernist Accounts of Cross-Cultural Communication between African Societies and the United States"] idea of a "superculture", which is based on the integration of cultures into a larger system (152). This hypothetical 'larger system' masked within multiculturalism is actually taking place within many societies.
ReplyDeleteBut, I agree with your comment on the Waisbord reading, and I would also like to add that we are not only surrounded by "American culture" and symbols. Nowadays, the U.S. has become more entrenched by outside cultures than ever before. For example, in the recent upsurge of international news being broadcasted within local news, the rise in foreign language schools such as Chinese Confucius schools, and the growth of international markets that greatly effects our economy, both locally & nationally. These examples listed above highlight positive and negative aspects of globalizations effect on a nation.
In my opinion, globalization is positive in opening up peoples' perceptions and awareness of the plurality/ diverseness of the world. However, it is also negative due to its impact on cultures that feel threatened by outside influences eroding that cultures ancient traditions. That being said, diasporas are actually cultural preservers. Personally, my family on my mother's side are apart of the Haitian diaspora in the U.S. Having lived in the U.S. for over three decades, never once returning to her homeland, my mother's cultural practices (now considered old Haitian traditions) remain a strong part of her life, and my own. While, I can not vouch for the Haitian diaspora as a whole, I do believe that it does possess its own distinct cultural identity.
Additionally, though non-U.S. citizens, my family (on my mother & father's side) do feel a closeness to the U.S. because it is the country that they have lived half their lives in, and their children were born and raised in. Whether or not this entails some form of patriotism, I am not so sure. However, when considering one's homeland, I am sure that my family takes pride in acknowledging not only their native-born homeland, but also their new homeland, the U.S.
Citations:
George W. Musambira (2000): A Comparison of Modernist and Postmodernist Accounts of Cross-Cultural Communication between African Societies and the United States, Howard Journal of Communications, 11:2, 145-161.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/106461700246670.