Laura, Laubeová (2000)
Encyclopedia of The World’s Minorities,
Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers
Melting Pot vs. Ethnic Stew
The term melting pot refers to the idea that societies
formed by immigrant cultures, religions, end ethnic groups, will produce new
hybrid social and cultural forms. The notion comes from the pot in which metals
are melted at great heat, melding together into new compound, with great
strength and other combined advantages. In comparison with assimilation,
it implies the ability of new or subordinate groups to affect the values of the
dominant group. Sometimes it is referred to as amalgamation, in the opposition
to both assimilation and pluralism.
The
concept of ethnic stew is similar to that of melting pot, though the degree of
cultural distinctiveness is higher in the former, however not reaching the level
of the “salad bowl” thesis (different groups keep their differences, while
maintaining relations among each other).
Although the term melting pot may be applied to many
countries in the world, such as Brazil, Bangladesh or even France, mostly
referring to increased level of mixed race and culture, it is predominantly used
with reference to USA and creation of the American nation, as a distinct “new
breed of people” amalgamated from many various groups of immigrants. As such
it is closely linked to the process of Americanisation. The theory of
melting pot has been criticised both as unrealistic and racist, because it
focused on the Western heritage and excluded non-European immigrants. Also,
despite its proclaimed “melting” character its results have been
assimilationist.
The
history of the melting pot theory can be traced back to 1782 when J. Hector de
Crevecoeur, a French settler in New York, envisioned the United States not only
as land of opportunity but as a society where individuals of all nations are
melted into a new race of men, whose labours and posterity will one day cause
changes in the world (Parrillo, 1997). The new nation welcomed virtually all
immigrants from Europe in the belief that the United States would become, at
least for whites, the "melting pot" of the world. This idea was
adopted by the historian Frederick Jackson Turner (1893) who updated it with the
frontier thesis. Turner believed that the challenge of frontier life was the
country´s most crucial force, allowing Europeans to be “Americanised” by
the wilderness (Takaki, 1993). A
major influx of immigrants occurred mainly after the 1830s, when large numbers
of British, Irish, and Germans began entering, to be joined after the Civil War
by streams of Scandinavians and then groups from eastern and southern Europe as
well as small numbers from the Middle East, China, and Japan. Before the
outbreak of World War I in 1914, the American public generally took it for
granted that the constant flow of newcomers from abroad, mainly Europe,
brought strength and prosperity to the country. The metaphor of the
"melting pot" symbolized the mystical potency of the great democracy,
whereby people from every corner of the earth were fused into a harmonious and
admirable blend. A decline in immigration from northwestern Europe and concerns
over the problems of assimilating so many people from other areas prompted the
passage in the 1920s of legislation restricting immigration, one of the measures
reflecting official racism.
One
of the early critiques of the melting pot idea was Louis Adamic, novelist and
journalist who wrote about the experience of American immigrants in the early
1900s and about what he called the failure of the American melting pot in
Laughing in the Jungle (1932). Both the frontier thesis and the melting pot
concept have been criticised as idealistic and racist as they completely
excluded non-European immigrants, often also East and South Europeans. The
melting pot reality was limited only to intermixing between Europeans with a
strong emphasis on the Anglo-Saxon culture while the input of minority cultures
was only minor. Some theorists
developed a theory of the triple melting pot arguing that intermarriage was
occurring between various nationalities but only within the three major
religious groupings: Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish. Milton Gordon and Henry
Pratt Fairchild proposed the assimilation theory as an alternative to the
melting pot one (Parrillo, 1997).
Many
current proponents of the melting pot are inspired by the
“English only” movement with exclusive emphasis on Western heritage
and argument against pluralism and accommodation and related policies, such as
bilingual education.
Ideally
the concept of melting pot should also entail mixing of various “races”,
not only “cultures”. While promoting the mixing of cultures the ultimate
result of the American variant of melting pot happened to be the culture of
white Anglo Saxon men with minimum impact of other minority cultures. Moreover,
the assumption that culture is a fixed construct is flawed. Culture should be
defined more broadly as the way one approaches life and makes sense of it. Group’s
beliefs are determined by conditions and so culture is a continuous process of
change and its boundaries are always porous. In a racist discourse, however the
culture needs to be seen as a predetermined and rigid phenomenon that would be
appropriate for replacing the no longer acceptable concept of race in order to
perpetuate inequalities. Many multicultural initiatives aiming at integration/
inclusion of minorities, while following the melting pot ideal, often result
in assimilationist and racist outcomes. Melting pot would assume learning about
other cultures in order to enhance understanding, mixing, and mutual enrichment;
in practice it often tends to ignore similarities of different
“races” as it does not allow to include them.
The
shortages of the melting pot and salad bowl paradigms can be expressed in the
following summarising parables: In the case of the melting pot the aim is
that all cultures become reflected in one common culture, however this is
generally the culture of the dominant group - I thought this was mixed
vegetable soup but I can only taste tomato. In the case of the salad bowl,
cultural groups should exist separately and maintain their practices and
institutions, however, Where is the dressing to cover it all? Hopefully
the solution may be offered by the concept of the ethnic stew where all
the ingredients are mixed in a sort of pan-Hungarian goulash where the pieces
of different kinds of meat still keep their solid
structure.
Further
reading:
Parrilo,
Vincent, Strangers to These Shores.
Race and Ethnic Relations in the United States. Boston - London: Allyn and
Bacon, 1997
Gazer,
Nathan, Moynihan, Daniel Patrick, Beyond the Melting Pot,
Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2nd edition, 1970.
Gordon,
Milton M., Assimilation in American Life, New York: Oxford University
Press, 1964
Yankelowich,
Daniel, New rules, New York: Random House, 1981
Takaki,
Ronald, A Different Mirror. A history of Multicultural America, Boston-Toronto-London:
Little, Brown and Company, 1993
Parrilo,
Vincent, Diversity in America, Pine
Forge Press/ A Sage Publications Company, 1996
Parekh, Bhikhu, Rethinking Multiculturalism.
Cultural Diversity and Political Theory, London: Macmillan Press, 2000
Willet, Cynthia,
editor, Theorizing Multiculturalism: a guide to current
debate, Basil Blackwell Press, 1998
© Laubeová, 2000