Synthesis of Readings

We will be using Bailey and Gayle’s (2003) exploration of ideology to better understand the experiences of international students, as illustrated through the narratives collected by Garrod and Kilenny (2007), and to unearth “taken-for-granted” American ideologies as they are contrasted with non-dominant perspectives found in the narratives of non-American students.

In trying to find a suitable definition for ideology, Bailey and Gayle (2003) offer many possibilities, but seem to settle on the following: ideology is a system of beliefs, thoughts, or ideas that are used to explain or justify decisions, behaviors, or actions. (p. 5) Ideologies are culturally embedded beliefs that are so connected to who we are and how we think that typically “we are unable to see them” (p. 3). Schooling, enactment of familial traditions, and representations in media socialize us to willingly accept the values, beliefs, and norms of our society. (p. 9) Grounding their understanding of ideology in a Marxist tradition, Bailey and Gayle also borrow from de Tracy’s definition where ideology “serves and shapes the interests of a certain group . . . and has the power to control or influence how people think about, or act in, their social circumstances” (p. 23). In this, we can see how the dominant culture exercises hegemony by making their ideology seem like common sense or the way things have always been. Out of this emerges an additional layer to our discussion where ideology is perceived as distorted or half truths that serve “the interests of powerful advantaged groups in society” (p. 41). But the individual does not emerge from Bailey and Gayle’s conception of ideology as a blank slate waiting to passively receive the cultural code. Rather society and the evolution of its ideologies is a dialectical process where “not only do human beings construct and produce a social world, but they are also shaped and produced by what they and others have built” (p. 64).

Because “taken for granted” ideologies often reside below our conscious awareness, looking at the Other (including their beliefs, values, and worldviews) proves beneficial to (a) gain an understanding of the Other’s lived experience; and (b) gain insight into our own hidden ideologies. We will do this by looking at the narratives provided by two non-American students Fuyuki Hirashima and Aly Rahim and a Chicana student, Marrisa Saldivar, who separates herself from her family of origin and their traditions by moving to New York.

Fuyuki Hirashima’s narrative contrasts American and Japanese ideologies, but also reveals a uniquely Japanese-American experience. Through family, friends, and Japanese school, Fuyuki was socialized to believe that she was born under a “lucky star,” should “control her tongue,” and should respect her elders (all chronologically older individuals). At the heart of the Japanese belief system she describes throughout her narrative resides a metaphor, “bamboo will survive the monsoon because it bends and gives when the wind lashes against it” (Garrod and Kilenny, 2007, p. 96). This culturally embedded value of flexibility (to be like bamboo as opposed to oak), offers an explanation for why Fuyuki refraned resisting her father’s verbal criticisms at home and avoided voicing her opinion both in her Japanese and American schools. Fuyuki’s liminality also reveals major tenants of her socially experienced American ideology, including a belief in individuality, independence, and a belief that romantic love should be connected to marriage. By reading the entirety of Fuyuki’s story it becomes evident that her dual Japanese and American identity create a non-additive, unique identity (Japanese-American) that reflects her constant negotiation between two distinct belief systems.

In Aly Rahim’s story, the hidden conflicts in Muslim and western ideology were revealed by the tragedy of 9/11. For the first time in his life, when investigated at the border between Canada and the U.S., Aly felt insecure and struggled for who he was as a Canadian and a Muslim. The public fear and distrust of Muslims after 9/11 became an invisible force that influenced official procedure such as border check, academic discourse as intellectual discrimination, and a sense of individual segregation determined by appearance (including dress) and outward signs of religion. Aly had been standing fast to who he was and maintaining his confidence, while at the same time he noticed the sad truth that society had changed and his identity would be an “irreconcilable contradiction” to North American society. (Garrod and Killeny, 2007, p.138)

In his narrative, the influence of ideology emerges through Aly’s description of his Ismaili Muslim community and the American mainstream culture. The differences were embedded in the drastically different religious and political views from each culture. For example, his view of life, marriage, and relationships (deeply rooted in religious beliefs and personified by his parent’s marriage) conflicted so severely with American ideology that he felt he had nothing to lend to a class conversation (keeping silent) about dating and relationships. Also, when the former U.S. intelligence officer visited his college and made a scholarly anti-Muslim presentation, it severely frustrated Aly’s passion to reconcile democracy and Muslim. The value of education seems to be embedded in both cultures. Among the smart and successful Ismaili professionals, education is the means to obtain socio-economic stability. People who do not follow the “proven” success formula will be seen as abnormal or a waste of their money and time. Looking at the current colleges in the U.S. and other areas in the world, business and medicine are unexceptionally the most popular majors. Although there are always wise parents who do not squeeze their children into a particular success pattern, this societal influence marked as normal or better choices never cease to exist across various cultures.

A similar perception about better life paths can be found in Marissa Saldivar’s narrative. As a Chicana, Marissa grew up in a Mexican community under the influence of her father who defined himself as Mexican-American rather than Mexican to differentiate himself from the illegals he very much hated. Her father seemed to embrace an American value and working ethos contrasted with some of his peers. Both Marissa’s parents valued family and close familial connection (characterized as a traditional Mexican view) that included her mother’s siblings and extended family. In making her decision about where to go to college, Marissa was confronted with the ideological sense of self in relationship to her family. Ultimately, she followed the more authentic feeling and went away from her family to the east coast, where she met her significant other who persuaded her to take a different appearance becoming someone who had no obvious bond to her origin. New York City and Los Angeles were symbols of different life meanings between an American and Mexican, and different classes between life-struggling immigrants and successful upper class professionals. Her decisions on different locations at times reflected her inner conflict between the two cultures, although she might not notice there was some external power in ideology and just took both of them as essential parts in her life. In her story, she finally chose to connect with her husband and prospective child. Yet she was well aware of what she would lose. She kept struggling with the question “Was it worth it?” when pondering her daughter’s life path. In this account, culture/ideology is not only what externally exists but is a part of the individual existence, part of who we are.

In all three narratives, it becomes clear that the person who regularly navigates between cultures or lives perched between multiple cultures, develops a keen awareness of culturally embedded ideologies. Having to confront the beliefs of the Other (whether in a critical moment like the border crossing or over a lifetime through schooling) sheds light on the “unseen” assumptions and values that motivate our actions. Perhaps in exploring the influence of ideologies and understanding the lived experience of non-American students, we can conclude that to unearth our own assumptions and biases we must meaningfully interact with the Other.