September 9, 2016 - 13:42
Upon reading my story the author of “Arts of the Contact Zone”, Mary Louise Pratt, would argue that my relationship with Katie would not accurately describe a contact zone. Pratt defines contact zones as “social spaces where cultures meet, clash and grapple with each other, often in contexts of highly asymmetrical relations of power…”(34). Since Katie and I come from the same culture, we hold many of the same values and traditions. Furthermore, we both are from a middle class background and our parents emigrated from China. Because of these similarities there are no “contrast[s] [of] ideas [between Katie and me]… that underlie much of the thinking about language, communication, and culture”(37). The lack of differences between Katie and I do not allow for many debates or revelations to be made. We hold homogenous ideals that neither Katie nor I ever refute. Moreover, there is a balance of power between Katie and me. We treat each other as equals, which allows for a mutual understanding to not take advantage of the other. Our similar point of views never allow us to feel “rage, incomprehension, and pain… [nor] exhilarating moments of wonder and revelation, mutual understanding, and new wisdom”(39) as people usually do in contact zones. Our ideas do not challenge each other and because of that there is no discomfort. The only difference between Katie and me is the fact that our personalities differ which in fact complement each other. While she is more outgoing than me, I am more introverted. From this difference I have learned to be more open but have not gained much wisdom beyond that. In a contact zone there are people of different cultures such as in the classroom in which people may use words that one may find offensive. In this zone, ideas that people grow up believing are challenged and as a result make people feel uncomfortable. There is never discomfort when discussing ideas between Katie and me but it is only when people are uncomfortable they will be able to grow.
In response to Pratt’s argument that the friendship Katie and I have is not a contact zone, I would instead describe this relationship as a safe house in which Pratt describes as a places of “…social and intellectual spaces where groups can constitute themselves as horizontal, homogeneous, sovereign communities with high degrees of trust, shared understandings, temporary protection from legacies of oppression”(40). Katie and I are comfortable expressing ourselves with each other and feel as if we belong. There is no fear of being cast out or sense of vulnerability. There is no standing out and therefore only conformity, which can be comforting. There is also a sense of trust between Katie and me, which has only grown within the past seven years. Safe houses aim to provide “places for healing and mutual recognition… to construct shared understandings, knowledges, claims on the world that they can then bring into the contact zone”(40). From my experiences with Katie about our shared traditions and values I can then bring these different ideas into conversations with diverse people of different backgrounds and as a result, we can enlighten each other. Although I do not learn much from my friendship with Katie, our discussions allow for other people of different cultures to learn more about our culture and what it is like to be an Asian American.
Despite the fact that the relationship between Katie and me is more of a safe house, Pratt would still agree with the idea that “[l]anguages were seen as living in speech communities”(37) is proven through our relationship. From my experience with Katie along with many other people I have learned that a language barrier separates people and therefore divides them into divided communities. When conversing with Katie there are no obstacles between us. We can communicate with ease and therefore share ideas without difficulty. This shapes the idea that people who speak the same languages seem more intimate and as if there is a closer bond between them than those who do not. Pratt also points out that many people seem to think that “modern views of language as code and competence assume a unified and homogeneous social world in which language exists as a shared patrimony…”(38). When only select people understand something, especially a language, it feels as if the bond between these people is more intimate since it feels as if these people are sharing a secret. This is something that I agree with and have experienced throughout my friendship with Katie. We both share the same sense of humor that most other people do not understand. Therefore, the joke seems as if it is only between us. This seems to create a sense of secrecy and inclusiveness, therefore strengthening our bond but at the same time blocking others out. Similarly, a shared language makes it easier to connect. This sense of unity brings people closer together but unfortunately segregates people of different cultures who are unable to communicate due to a language barrier. This is why it so important to have contact zones so that people can learn from one another. If people keep segregating themselves they will never learn and never open their minds to new things.
Although it is important to still have safe houses in which people can go to a space in which they are comfortable in, it is even more important to congregate with other people who do not share the same values so that people can better the world by becoming more understanding people and celebrate diversity instead of shun away from it. Ultimately, Pratt would encourage Katie and me to approach different people so that we can learn from one another instead of staying holed up in our comfort zones and familiar ways of life.