On the De-Integration of Second Generation Kids (+ class privilege)
-
Sara Ahmed’s ideas surrounding letting go, integration, and melancholy migrants remind me of the conversations we had in class last week, where many of us said we developed an interest in ISLA studies out of a desire to connect with our roots and learn where we come from, or where our parents come from. If our parents had to let go of their customs and traditions that impeded their attempts at successful integration, how come we find ourselves doing the opposite? Ahmed invokes second generation characters that want to distance themselves from their cultures and their families’ practices and provides a sound explanation, but I can’t help but wonder about the opposite phenomenon. So many of us, clearly, despite being integrated into a Western society, go out of our way to connect with our customs and traditions that our parents had to let go of. Their ‘happy objects’ are the same as my ‘happy objects’, from music, film, culture, literature, language, cuisine, but they had to let go of these things, while I reach for them time and time again and build an identity that outwardly shows the same elements that impeded my parents integration…
Also, I’d like to bring into the discussion the topic of class and how this might intersect with melancholy/non-melancholy. I am of the opinion that the wealthier you are, the easier it is for you to integrate (this has also been brought up in class). If a wealthy family immigrates, despite the fact that they are foreign, the society they choose to integrate welcomes them much more smoothly than it would welcome a working-class family. A family of educated parents, who speak multiple languages, have access to resources and a network of people that can aid their transition, will have a much easier time immigrating and will have to let go of much less than the working-class family, which has to prove that they can integrate into a host society. A wealthier family is allowed to keep its attachment to their culture much more than a working-class family, because the host society has judged these attachments as not threatening their integration. The working-class family’s attachment, however, represents an obstacle in their integration.