Tag: Berkeley

Questions of Identity: What defines our nation?

Posted on by fqzhang

While having dinner at Berkeley’s dining commons, I was talking with an international student from South Korea. We were discussing our respective backgrounds. He was telling about how in South Korea, everyone identifies with one another, mostly in the form of culture and a similar language. He also mentioned an identifying factor that is hard to imagine in the US: race and ethnicity. In Korea, everyone belongs to the Korean “race” and this ethnic identifying factor is important in how Koreans see themselves as a nation. Then he asked me about something that he is confused about: What defines America? What is it that makes America stick together as a nation? Taken aback by this question, I couldn’t come up with a response. Then I stated that in the US, we do not value race, ethnicity, or even culture or language as much; rather, we as Americans share a certain set of values such individualism, respect for the law and democracy. However, as soon as I uttered those words, I realized how textbook like I sound, for these are the responses a course of American politics would probably gave. While he nodded in assent, I myself wasn’t entirely satisfied my response.

I have always enjoyed talking with international students, they often offers a fresh perspective on things that some of us born in the US or living in the US have taken for granted. Take the question of what defines the US for example, I have never thought about how bewildering the American Identity must have seemed to others. We are a nation that is multi-race, multi-religion, multi-cultural, and even multi-lingual (even though English is the de facto language of communication); indeed how is it that the American nation can stay together for so long?

After careful thought, I came to the conclusion our national identity is defined by several values. Most importantly, I believe that the US is defined by our inclusiveness to people of all different background, at the same time, we helped to foster immigrants and native-born citizens with a certain set of values that define America. And I believe the acquisition of an American identity happened in several stages. Firstly, those who immigrated to the United States are already breaking the bound with their old home country for political, religious, economic, and a variety of other regions that causes them to be no longer attached to their old identity. This is important because by forming a new blank slate (a table rasa if you will), a new identity can be imprinted upon them. Secondly, the gradually process of assimilation, or at least acceptance of American culture and the American way of life happens gradually. Through working, interacting with others, watching TV and accessing the internet, individuals can acquire a new perspective on things, a perspective that respects the diversity of American society. One key aspect of this acculturation to the US lies in the learning of the English language. This is not necessary merely for the cultural sense, but also to facilitate the understanding of what the larger society is about. Finally, the acquisition of an American identities is completed when citizens began to appreciate the political institutions of the United States, possess an understanding of the American political culture, and appreciate the nation for what it is. The acquisition of citizenship status is merely a formalization of the process of becoming an American. Throughout this process, a person began to identify more and more closely with the identity of an American.

However, this process of becoming an American is not without its challenges. At each stage of the process, a person may fail to progress to the next stage. For example, a person may remain so attached to their home country that they refuses to accept anything else even though they physically had come to America. Moreover, a person may refuse to learn the English language, or work, or interact with anyone else in the US. Or they may choose to fill their living rooms with foreign media and essentially recreating their home country in America, and isolate themselves from their surroundings. Under these circumstances, a person cannot become an “American” in the cultural sense of the word. And even when they chose to became a citizen, they did not truly complete the process of becoming an American in their heart and mind.

But what about remaining American after we began to identify with each other in a community? I believe that the decision of remaining American is an expression of our personal choice. We take pride in the community in which we belong in. Here, I draw upon the ideas of the famous French theorist, Ernest Renan, who argued that choosing to belong to a nation is a daily process of affirmation in a community. A nation is not a concrete concept that is defined by its borders, institutions, or other perceived similarities. Here in the United States, we are not defined by the 49th parallel North or the Rio Grande, but rather by a set of values and shared experiences that all of us treasure. The fact that we are living together and form a community is a testament to our continual will to be American; for if not, we can easily move away from this country, or “vote with our feet”. Each day, while we might not think of it as such, we are constantly reaffirming our desire to remain American by exercising our right to work, to express our opinions, and paying attention to the things going on around us.

However, this is not without its challenges as well. For the values that define us need to be constantly reinforced through more direct actions such as engagement with the political process by the simple act of voting. As Americans, we not only have rights but also responsibilities and if we neglected some of these simple acts, in a way, we forfeit our right to remain in the American community. If a nation is indeed a larger community of people that chose to remain together, then it is the duty for every member of that nation to constantly reaffirm their commitment to that community through their engagement with the nation and other members of the community. If the members of a nation cease to become engaged with one another, then the nation and the force that is binding it together will cease to function as a cohesive force.

This issue of what defines America affects me personally, for not too long ago, I became a citizen of the United States. As I was sworn in to become an American, I was overcame by a sense of apprehension. For what it is that I need to do, now that I am a member of the American “nation”. Should I behave in a different manner? Are my loyalties completely transferred over to this new nation? After the sworn-in ceremony, I did not feel any different than before, does this mean that I have failed in this transformative process?

Later, I recognized that the best way to feel at ease in this nation is to engage with its nation- and community-building process. By that I am suggesting that I will go out and vote and encourage others to engage in the political process as well, and volunteer my time and efforts and engage with the community around me. To appreciate on a daily basis what we do in this nation and to cherish the social, political, and cultural institutions that define the United States. But I above, I will continue to value and uphold the bonds that unites Americans together and to encourage others to do the same, making us stronger than ever before. A nation at its core is a community and it is the duty of each member of this community to develop a strong bond with one another, so that together we may progress into the future.

The changing social climate of UC Berkeley: activists or those who need to be activated?

Posted on by fqzhang

Recently, in Berkeley, we celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Free Speech Movement that took place during the 1960s, with campus-wide events hosted by a variety of clubs and organizations. It happens that while walking with a friend out on Sproul Plaza (the center of UC Berkeley’s political and social life, where much picketing and demonstration happens), I asked her if she is doing anything in relation to this event. I wasn’t expecting an affirmative response, for most people don’t really care too much; but to my astonishment, she does not even know what Free Speech Movement was! After talking with her further, I realized that she does not know anything about the history of the University, and especially the activism of the early 60s and the Vietnam era, or even Berkeley’s reputation as one of the most liberal colleges in the US. However, soon I remembered that she is an international student who did not care to do the research on the social aspects of this university and instead applied simply for the university’s reputation as a center of research.

Later, after I came back into my room, I began to ponder about how Berkeley has changed since the 60s. The students are simply no longer the same. Traditionally, those students who are most actively have come from the American middle or lower-middle class, those who have received an excellent education, but also who has an extensive amount of interactions with the socially disadvantaged. The hippies and the liberal atheistic type that abounded during that time no longer exists. (Well, not if you count the large homeless population in the city of Berkeley, many of whom holds liberal views. The student population as a whole do not regard them as a source of enlightenment, but rather as a nuisance with ideas of a bygone era.)

The changing demographic of Berkeley has changed what it means for Berkeley as a left-leaning or liberal university. Increasingly, the student composition of UC Berkeley have come from outside the state and outside the country. Based on the 2014 admission statistics, we see that around 25% are out-of-state students and 10% are international. The differing academic acceptance rates are partially political in nature: since traditionally the UC system depends upon state funding to continue its operations, and therefore accepting an overwhelming amount of in-state students; but now with the continual low amount of state funding, the school depends on out of state tuition fees to cover some of its expenses.  These changes have profoundly changed the view Berkeley students viewed themselves and the world. The background of these students are often upper middle class or even from the very top echelons of their respective countries. This resulted in them being less interested in social issues and more interested in their education or their enjoyment of college, in more extreme cases, they are treating the college experience almost as a 4-year vacation. As a Berkeley student, I note with interest the difference between those who are born in the state of California and those who are from other parts of the US or around the world, who in general are wealthier: students from affluent overseas families would often prominently display their Coach bags or Prada shoes, while those of us of middle or lower class background in California walks around in our simple clothing, with nothing flashy to show.

This changing demographics are partly to blame for an increasing amount of apathy in political and social affairs. Here in UC Berkeley, many of students (from a different location or background) do not know of anything important that’s going on around them, and display no interests whatsoever in local or community issues. On national issues, their awareness is just as low. This results in an interesting situation on campus, where the professors are often far more liberal – being from a different era – and more caring about issues around them than the students themselves, despite the great age differences.

This is a disturbing trend for many reasons. Firstly, college is not simply a place where we learn in a classroom, despite the importance of it. Most of us learn through interactions with others and caring about the community is the first step in learning what it means to be a member of it. Caring about issues at hand – whether it is immigration reform or the Keystone pipeline – should still interest us. And interests frequently lead to social change. Moreover, Berkeley is a place where we prepare future leaders who have ideas on how they want to change the world. How can we accomplish this without have an activist student body? Student activism is not limited to picketing and sit-ins, but also in talking with those in a position of authority, writing about issues they care about, make their voices heard on social media and so much more. Every student should have an activist part within them, and college is the best time to discover themselves and act on their activism.

What should we do to change this? By no means do I suggest that Berkeley stop accepting students from other locations or those above a certain level of income; the diversity is what made us who we are, and we should keep it that way. But I do think that we should encourage activism among the students by offering more selections of classes or programs whereby we can learn about contemporary issues and provide forums in which students can explore more. Perhaps, even in the college admission processes, we can weigh more portions on the activism aspects and look for students who demonstrated potential for activist changes. This way, we can ensure that our University continues to be not only the top school for education, but also continue as a place of student activism.