Modernism meets Theory Class: Similar Ideas 80 Years Later

Oddly, I seem to constantly find connections between the material we’re reading in Modernism and the articles we read for Theory. While I still haven’t figured out exactly what Modernism is, I do know that one of the most common themes in modern literature is alienation.

My connection this week comes from the following two authors:

Theory: Victor Villanueva’s  “On the Rhetoric and Precedents of Racism” (1999)

Modernism: Randolph Bourne’s “Trans-National America” (1916)

Some background on Bourne:

Bourne was a social critic who analyzed American culture and life. Deformed at birth, he was always an outsider. Bourne was opposed to the forced assimilation under the guise of patriotism during WWI. He wrote “Trans-National America” as a rejection of this “war fever” (Molesworth 1956). This piece criticizes the melting pot metaphor and suggests that immigrants should define what “American” means, not the government.

Below are some of the concepts I connected to the two authors.

(Although Villanueva discusses the danger of confusing the terms ethnicity and race, Bourne seems to treat them interchangeably. I, therefore, am going to treat my mentioning of the “other” as both the racial and the ethnic other.)

On colonization:

·      Bourne suggests Americans cannot let go of their homeland: “The truth is that no more tenacious cultural allegiance to the mother country has been shown by any alien nation than by the ruling class of Anglo-Saxon descendants in these American States. English snobberies, English religion, English literacy styles, English literacy reverences and cannons, English ethics, English superiorities, have been the cultural food that we have drunk in from our mothers’ breasts” (1959).

·      Villanueva questions why academics and scholars value European philosophies but fail to acknowledge (or study or teach or even know about) other voices. He says “we must break from the colonial mindset and learn from thinkers from our own hemisphere as well” (659).

On what the “other” offers:

·      Bourne on native cultures: “They are more valuable and interesting to each other for being different…” (1965).

·      Villanueva suggests more journal publications should publish people of color, suggesting that if these people write about racism, it will encourage more “others” to join in both the conversation and our field.

Call to action:

·      Bourne

o   States multiple times that the younger generation needs to carry the idea

o   An intellectual sympathy could embrace cultural expression

o   Accept dual citizenship

o   Give voice to the other

o   “It must be a future America, on which all can unite, which pulls us irresistibly toward it, as we understand each other more warmly” (1968).

·      Villanueva

o   More than giving voice to the “other” in publications

o   “I remain tied to the belief that we must break from the colonial discourse that binds us all” (656).

Obviously this is a conversation that I cannot fully tackle, nor can I offer groundbreaking ideas. I do have a few comments though:

I believe both authors would hate that I reference the “other” so frequently, but I also think both understand that it is part of the problem they present: the other is alienated because there is a white ruling class that extends from the country’s founding (or, I should say, the whites who drove away and killed the “others” that already lived here.) The problem seems to have changed very little in one hundred years—the others are still a different group of people than the rest of the country. We need to assimilate as one—not as one “American” ideal—but as one group of people without the stigma of the “other.”

Despite Bourne’s disgust with the concept, I believe patriotism is an important bond for the country’s citizens who must appreciate their freedoms and ability to suggest change. So how can the concept of “American” be changed to embrace these freedoms while valuing individual histories?

Perhaps changing the concept of patriotism to actually embrace the “melting pot” is a start. On a professional level, what is valued in the academy and what is canonized would also need to change. This, of course, would then alter educational practices.

If Bourne thinks the younger generations can start this change, what practices can instructors adopt in order to inspire this change? How is this concept problematized when (1) looking at the rhetorical competencies composition classes require or aim to achieve and (2) preparing students for other writing experiences in the university? 

Works Cited

Bourne. Photograph. Today’s Autonomedia Jubilee Saint—RANDOLPH BOURNE. Arthur Magazine Archive. Web. 7 May 2012.

Bourne, Randolph. "Trans-National America." The Heath Anthology of American Literature. Ed. Paul Lauter. 6th ed. Vol. D. Boston: Wadsworth, 2010. 1957-68. Print. 

Molesworth, Charles. "Randolph Bourne 1886-1918." The Heath Anthology of American Literature. Ed. Paul Lauter. 6th ed. Vol. D. Boston: Wadsworth, 2010. 1955-57. Print. 

Villanueva, Victor. "On the Rhetoric and Precedents of Racism." College Composition and Communication 50.4 (1999): 654-61. Print.