Native language is usually taken for granted in most communities; however, the situation changes drastically after changing the scenery to that one of a different country with its own language, traditions, and culture. The challenges of immigration and the struggle to find a voice in a new community while retaining one’s cultural legacy has been represented in multiple works, yet few do a job as good as Rodriguez in his ‘Aria” and Anzaldua in her “How to Tame a Wild tongue.”
Anzaldua’s and Rodriguez’s perspectives vary wildly both in style, from an autobiography chapter to a series of scattered memories, and in tone, one being optimistic and the other setting realistic expectations. However, despite these differences, both stories share the same wistful sentiment of the struggles of acculturation and the threat of assimilation, namely, compromising between a partial loss of identity and becoming a part of a new community.
What strikes first about the two pieces, which tackle similar subjects and, therefore, are expected to introduce similar perspectives, is the presence of stark opposition between their representations of immigration. While Anzaldua represents the experience of being transported from one cultural environment to another as a major personal struggle and an opportunity of adjusting to the new requirements, Rodriguez represents the described change as a continuous struggle tainted by bitterness.
Specifically, Anzaldua outlines the need to reconcile between the two cultures and languages as the matter of the highest priority: “For a people who cannot entirely identify with either standard (formal, Castilian) Spanish nor standard English, what resource is left to them but to create their own language?” (Anzaldua 35). In contrast, Rodriguez outlines the wide extent of losses that one can suffer in a misbalanced cross-cultural context: “I brood over language and intimacy—the great themes of my past” (Rodriguez 33). As a result, the carefully hopeful tone that Anzaldua’s story conveys is juxtaposed to the despair that permeates Rodriguez’s book.
Since each of the authors provides an account of their own childhood and, therefore, conveys the perspective associated with very personal memories and experience, claiming either as right or wrong does not seem reasonable. However, when choosing the one that personally appears to be the closest, one could point to Anzaldua’s experience. The stark sense of alienation and the need to compromise one’s language and culture for the sake of experiencing belonging, which Rodriguez describes so vividly in his chapter, appears to be quite alien. In turn, Anzaldua’s wistful yet hopeful emphasis on the role that language plays in defining one’s cultural belonging changes the pace of the discussion, addressing the problem of communication forma more direct and pragmatic yet nonetheless important perspective.
Although the tone that each of the piece’s carries is unique, the arguments are quite close to each other as well. For instance, Anzaldua emphasizes the linguistic aspect of the issues faced by immigrants, whereas Rodrigues addresses sociocultural concerns as the primary talking point; however, both argue the importance of learning to adjust while keeping one’s culture and identity intact. Particularly, the internalized trivialization of culture-related struggles of one’s community, as well as the attempt at belittling one’s language and culture in an attempt at integrating into the dominant community, are described in both works as the key impediments to reconciling with one’s acculturation process. For instance, Anzaldua mentions that “Chicanas who grew up speaking Chicano Spanish have internalized the belief that we speak poor Spanish” (39).
Marking the promotion of hatred toward one’s native tongue as a form of linguistic terrorism, Anzaldua outlines the detrimental outcomes that the specified phenomenon has on one’s cultural identity. Similarly, Rodriguez describes the struggle of feeling proud for his cultural legacy and, particularly, his language, amidst the culture that prioritizes English and sees the rest of languages as inferior: “Death finally quiets the voice. And there is no way to deny it. No way to stand in the crowd, uttering one’s family language” (Rodriguez 40). Therefore, the arguments that each author pouts forward intersect at some point.
However, for the most part, Rodriguez and Anzaldua introduce different ideas about the nature of the challenges faced by immigrants in the U.S. cultural context. Whereas Anzaldua focuses on the language issues and the resulting lack of understanding combined with misconception, Rodriguez addresses the complexities of sociocultural expectations. as a result, the ideas that both introduce differ substantially. Moreover, Rodriguez and Anzaldua come to different conclusions after considering their cultural experiences.
Namely, Anzaldua points to the opportunity for a new language to develop in place of the misconceptions created by the collision of two cultures: “Something momentous happened to the Chicano soul- we became aware of our reality and acquired a name and a language (Chicano Spanish)” (Anzaldua 43-44). However, Rodriguez offers a different scenario, where members of the less powerful culture have to compromise and adjust, thus, experiencing the gradual dissipation of their cultural norms, traditions, and, ultimately, language.
The observed discrepancy can be seen in both pieces quite clearly. For example, Anzaldua’s active sue of Spanish words in her text is representative of her idea of two cultures merging and contributing to building something new and exciting.: “People who were to amount to something didn’t go to Mexican movies, or bailes, or tune their radios to bolero, rancherita, and corrido music” (Anzaldua 40). However, Rodriguez rarely incorporates Spanish words and expressions in his chapter, and when he does, the specified choice of language does not serve the purpose of bridging two cultures.
At the same time, significant differences in the style, tone, and structure of each writing should be mentioned. Namely, although both pieces are autobiographic, Rodriguez’s account of his life represents a more traditional narrative than the one that Anzaldua offers. In her story, she provides a detailed linguistic analysis of the environment in which she grew up, listing her memories in a curious vignette of events that do not necessarily create logical sequence. Instead, they offer short glimpses at the setting in which she developed her understanding of her culture and the challenges of being a stranger in an environment where the foreign language remains dominant.
Although “Aria: Memoir of a Bilingual Childhood” and “How to Tame a Wild Tongue” show striking difference in their approach to building and structuring the narrative, as well as their choice of expressive means of conveying the key ideas, they convey the same idea of loneliness and cultural struggle. Particularly, both pieces address the problem of integrating into a new community while striving to maintain one’s own cultural identity intact and simultaneously develop a strong sense of connection and belonging.
As a result, even though the tools that Rodriguez and Anzaldua have chosen to express their ideas are quite dissimilar, contributing to the difference in tone and the overall message that each author strives to convey. As a result, while the two pieces cannot be considered standing in direct opposition to each other, they most certainly offer quite polarizing perspectives to consider.
Works Cited
Anzaldúa, Gloria. How to Tame a Wild Tongue. Aunt Lute Books, 1987.
Rodriguez, Richard. “Aria: A Memoir of a Bilingual Childhood.” Hunger of Memory, Bantam Books, 1981.