The Strange Life of Assimilation in the National Language Debate

Abstract

INTRODUCTIONInherent within the belief of societal order is the belief in homogeneity. Assumptions that posit unity through sameness are by no means new in the United States. The nineteenth century for example, provides a myriad of illustrations, including exclusionary definitions and articulations of citizenship and participation to name only a few (Lopez, 1996, Sollors, 2000; Lemire, 2002; Ogletree Jr., 2003; Klarman, 2004; Katznelson, 2005; BonillaSilva, 2006; Orozco, 2009).As strivings toward inclusion and equality continue, they oftentimes are thwarted by the emergence of debilitating discursive mechanisms aimed at undercutting these efforts. The deliberative execution of policies with the supposed intent of strengthening national unity, as Herbert Kelman suggests, may - at least in a multiethnic state - have more disruptive than unifying consequences (1971, 21). What remains peculiar about this debate is that nowhere has a single declaration been proven or credited with ameliorating national unity or stability. With this recognition, this essay will devote the following pages to address the Senate 2006 English as the national debate. Steeped in a rigid binary between English as America's language, and all other foreign languages, this debate sparked a national dialogue. To begin, I will discuss the ideological underpinnings coupling linguistic homogeneity and social order by means of a distinct brand of assimilation. Next, I will engage in a close textual analysis of the sentiments offered by proponents, with the intent of underscoring their rhetorical and ideological advocacy of a culturally subtractive policy, before concluding with final remarks.HOMOGENEITY THROUGH ASSIMILATION AND HIERARCHYTracing back to the writing of the Constitution, the framers took no action to promote or protect any No evidence exists to suggest the framers believed a monolingual society or one with an could serve as society's social glue. The speaking and publication of both public and private documents in multiple languages is as old and as the nation itself. Whether it be in reference to the Louisiana constitution, which allowed for laws to be published in French, or California and Texas, which allowed the publication of laws in Spanish, bilingualism has always occupied a heavy presence within American political development. Moreover, it was not until 1906 before there existed an English-speaking, reading and writing requirement for naturalization; instead, it was sufficient to pledge allegiance to the Constitution.Nowhere in American history has the United States had an official language. However, attempts at securing English as the national represent a dated struggle. Attempts to keep America America, at least along linguistic lines, have historically surfaced during debates on immigration, with the nation's first law surfacing in Nebraska in 1921 (Hill, Ross and Serafine, 2009; Zuckerman, 2010). This correlation of language laws, sentiments, and policies have been inextricably bound to immigration patterns and laws since colonial times, notes Bill Piatt (1993, 13). Attempts at establishing a national on the federal level and efforts to increase the number of states with laws continue to involve many political actors and consume much controversy and debate (Brown, 2010).While efforts in both chambers of Congress have sought to pass mandates, none recently has garnered as much attention as that seen in 2006. With the introduction of immigration bills in both the House and Senate, 2006 gave birth to a large body of congressional discourses on a myriad of issues, including an amendment offered by Oklahoma Republican Senator James Inhofe (Barreto, Manzano, Ramirez and Rim, 2009). In supposed efforts toward unifying the nation, Senator Inhofe offered Senate Amendment 4064, the National Language Act of 2006. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 2 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.