What Is “ItalianAmerican” Cinema?[1]

 

To Be or Not To Be (Politically Correct)?

A few years ago, Anthony Tamburri suggested that I propose a paper for a conference entitled, “The Voice of the Voiceless: Non-Canonical Literature and Film and Non-Canonical Approaches to the Canon.”[2] In the spirit of the event, but somewhat tongue-in-cheek, given that over the past several years I have become increasingly irritated by the sanctimoniousness of the self-righ­teously politically correct, not just of the “right” and of the “left,” but of every point of the political compass, I proposed: “The Emarginated Artist as Destroyer of Mainstream Myths: Martin Scorsese.”[3] The paper was accepted based on the title which contained a number of those “politically correct” anti-canonical buzz words that have become mandatory in certain academic circles. I went and, as I had intended, my presentation elicited rather contradictory responses. From the title, those who did not know me expected me to play by the rules and remain within what Pasolini described as the intellectual/avant garde POW camp become ghetto (Pasolini 1970). That, following Paso­lini, I refused to do. I had hoped, instead, once again following Pasolini, to inveigle my audience into following me back to what he described as the firing line of controversy. As predicted, the experience was somewhat sadomasochistic (Pasolini 1970).

This does not, of course, mean that the title I proposed was in­tended to be entirely deceptive. On the contrary, as I shall show, it is abundantly clear that Martin Scorsese perceives himself as emarginated, as an artist, and that he has programmatically set about destroying every mainstream American myth he could find—with one possible exception, which I shall discuss later. In fact, at first blush the title of my proposed paper would appear to have been so accurate as to be somewhat lapalissian. By defi­nition, for at least the last century, any artist who has wanted to be taken seriously, has had to be a destroyer of mainstream lan­guage, ideology, values, etc.[4] Inevitably, this is even more true for any artist who, for whatever reason, operates from the mar­gins, not just by choice, but because s/he has been emarginated be­cause of gender, ethnicity, etc. But, precisely because this is so completely and self-evidently true, any criticism directed at my title in this sense, must also be applicable to the title of that con­ference itself. At the simplest of levels the notion of “the voice of the voiceless” is a bit of an oxymoron. But beyond that, the fact is that these days we, in academia, hear/read/see little other than non-canonical literature and film, and what attention is paid to the canon is almost invariably non canonical. Let’s face it, these days in academia, if you have not embraced a brand of political correctness which can be somehow defined as “leftist,” “feminist,” “pro-choice,” “multiculturalist,” or in favor of “di­versity,” you have as much chance of advancement in the “soft” disciplines (humanities, social sciences) as a Marine marching boldly out of her/his closet (Bernstein, D’Souza, Schlesinger).

So, tongue still firmly in cheek, I decided to be the ne plus ul­tra of political correctness. Having decided to show how rapidly this discourse can degenerate into absurdity, I pulled out my dog-eared copy of The Official Politically Correct Dictionary and Handbook and tried to write the presentation using politically correct language (Beard and Cerf). Begging the reader’s indul­gence, I will reproduce my first paragraph, with translations and explanations in parentheses where I felt they might be helpful.

“It should not be surprising that Martin Scorsese, a vertically challenged (short), melanin enriched (Sicilian), health disad­vantaged (asthma) sun person (Italian American—although some Afrocentrists might argue that Italian Americans do not re­ally qualify as such) would dedicate his considerable talents (actually, the very notion of talent is questionable and probably racist, given that it implies not only that Scorsese exists as sub­ject, but that he has “special” qualities which somehow make him “better” than others [Schlesinger 117]) as filmmaker (again, the term is problematical, given that it implies that Scorsese is the “auteur” of his films, as opposed to being one of a collective through which the films write themselves) to deconstructing (to revealing the intrinsic internal contradictions of) the ethnocen­tric, capitalistic, patriarchal, phallocentric, hegemonic, canoni­cal discourse of the establishment (that is, virtually any belief, myth, text, and ideology that characterizes “whitemale” West­ern culture).”

Granted, the passage is awkward and a bit ludicrous. Still, I am unlikely to be raised to the empyrean of “lit crit,” given that, notwithstanding my best efforts, what I wrote is, alas, somewhat comprehensible.[5] Undeterred by my marginal intelligibility, I persevered. The paper continued in this vein for some 10 single spaced pages. I had fun writing them, but ultimately I did not feel I had the right to impose this text on anyone else.[6] Politi­cally correct language, ludicrous and annoying though it may be, however, is only a symptom of a far more serious and more real problem. This because it has become a tool employed by virtually all special interest groups, in ever shifting, and frequently incon­gruous alliances, to advance the interests of the given group through the suppression of the freedom of speech and of thought of opposing interests. True believers’ politically correct positions are almost invariably predicated on what appear to be plausible arguments or, more frequently, “revealed gospel truths” to their proponents, and absurd, immoral, and even blasphemous lies to their opponents: it is wrong to kill unborn babies; women have the right to control their own reproductive systems; men have no say in the gestation of their children; men are responsible for the support of their children; gays have the right to serve in the military; the military has the duty to reject individuals (homosexuals) who will disrupt military discipline and bonding; hate language—defined as any language deemed subjectively to be offensive by select minorities—must be proscribed; burning the flag is an odious act which must be prosecuted; hostile—i.e., sex­ist/racist—working environments will not be tolerated (unless it is same sex harassment which appears, somehow, to be legal); no blame attaches to selected categories, regardless of behavior or language; welfare—i.e., black and Hispanic—mothers are the major cause of our exorbitant taxes; blacks are more likely to en­gage in violent criminal actions than whites; whites are intrinsi­cally racist; males are intrinsically sexist, etc.

The historical assumption in this country has been that de­bate is healthy, that as a result of conflict in the marketplace of ideas, truth will emerge. More recently, however, we have ob­served an attack on meaning, truth, and reality predicated on the assumption that these concepts cannot be expressed through lan­guage (Derrida, Of Grammatology ; de Man; Johnson; Miller, The Linguistic Moment; etc.). This academic speculation is the philo­sophical equivalent of the discussions on chaos theory in physics. However, while no one in her/his right mind checks on the metaphorical hurricane-generating butterfly in Beijing before taking a trip to New York, increasingly advocates of PC posi­tions, as antipodal as those of the religious right and of ethnic and feminist advocacy groups, are presenting arguments which not only do not attempt to be predicated on anything remotely re­sembling logic (seen either as a manifestation of godless human­ism or of [phal]logocentric fallacy), or science (yet another mani­festation of pagan materialism or of the hegemonic patriarchal conspiracy), they aggressively and shamelessly proselytize in favor of their respective flat-world positions. Their assumption obviously is that, given that meaning is not only irrelevant, it does not exist, there is no reason why they should allow someone whose position is different to speak—much less to be heard. And if someone should be so foolish as to dare to point out, however tentatively and politely, the logical inconsistencies in their po­sitions, that person will immediately be subject to the contempo­rary equivalent of a witch’s trial by fire. If you suggest that the argument that “what the Bible says is true because the Bible says it’s true” appears to be somewhat circular, you are accused of being a communist and a pedophile. If you hint that racially predicated “goals” may in the long run actually harm those they are intended to help, you are berated as a racist. If you hesitate even briefly before agreeing that any male accused of rape is guilty a priori, you are (depending on the race of the perpetrator and of the victim) a sexist, a racist, or you are guilty of the ulti­mate transgression against belief: you are a “liberal,” that fa­vorite object of disdain and disgust of every true believer, right and left. In short, it is your appeal to “reason” that has aroused their ire. You have dared blaspheme against whatever idol of unreason they have raised for themselves. Had you erected a statue to the unknown god, or brought them a couple of tablets, as an alternative to their golden calf, they would have been far more likely to be tolerant because, in the final analysis, in so do­ing you would be presenting another face of the same reliance on transcendental answers. But you have committed the unforgiv­able sin: you have revealed the black hole which their infinite masks desperately attempt to conceal. In other words, you have “dissed” them. You have made a fatal mistake. Having noticed what appear to you to be inconsistencies in a your opponents’ dis­course, you attempted to engage in a dialogue with them, not re­alizing that dialogue with true believers is not possible—as spin doctors of all stripes demonstrate so effectively on television ev­ery day. While true believers may occasionally be forced to pre­tend that they are interested in a two-way communication, the reality is that they see anyone who points out that the emperor is naked as a Salmon Rushdie, a traitor, or, what is worse, as an apostate to be eliminated at all costs.

In other words, the politically correct invariably attempt to limit the freedom of speech of others, when they don’t actually endeavor to deprive them of liberty and life. In this essay, in this journal, I am not particularly concerned about the PC posi­tions of the KKK, the John Birch Society, the National Rifle As­sociation, the various right-to-life organizations, the religious right, Rush Limbaugh, Oliver North, or even the feral children who infest our urban centers, etc., because they are—one would hope—well beyond the pale of the paper bulwarks and, more re­cently, the electronic star war ramparts of academia. I am, how­ever, concerned about those forms of PCness which, with the ex­cuse of combating the alleged barbarians cited above, are en­deavoring to create within the universities entirely new cate­gories of criminality—determined to be such entirely at the whim of the alleged victims—to be patrolled by a newly cre­ated—and very highly remunerated—thought police.

 

“ItalianAmerican” Cinema

What concerns me even more is the fact that I may have been guilty of operating in a politically correct manner. Since the mid-Seventies, I have been working on “ItalianAmerican” film. At the conference on the “Voice of the Voiceless” I spoke about an “ItalianAmerican” filmmaker and his “ItalianAmerican” films. The stress lay then, and to an even greater degree in this essay, now lies on the ethnicity of the director and of his films. Thus, I began to ask myself if I were engaging in precisely the kind of behavior I criticized above. In other words, am I interested in the work of Scorsese because I find it intrinsically interesting (whatever that means), or am I simply “ethnically” interested in his work because he is Italian American, because he frequently deals with “ItalianAmerican” topics?[7] And when I teach/write about Scorsese’s works, am I doing so because they are intrinsi­cally worthy of being studied (again, whatever that means), or am I serving, albeit unwittingly, as a spin doctor for a particular agenda? Some might argue that in the case of Scorsese, given that he is generally acknowledged as one of the dozen best film­makers in the world, and thus his films are part of the canon, the answer is easy. For the very same reason, others might argue that his work should be rejected out of hand. Neither answer sat­isfies me.[8] In the language of “internet,” IMHO[9] his films—their language, actors, imagery, music, attitude towards life—are in­trinsically interesting because they all strike chords which evoke strong resonances, a strong sense that what has been cap­tured on the screen reflects the “truth,” the “reality” of a certain world. I would add that this is particularly true for those who have been raised in an “Italian” culture, be it in New York’s Lit­tle Italy, in Italy itself, and also, perhaps, for those who have acquired an “Italian” culture, not with their mother’s milk, but as a result of other experiences (West). Does this mean that only Italian Americans can appreciate Scorsese’s films? Obviously not, given his national and international critical success. But it does mean that those within the Italian cultural communities and those without will perceive different “truths,” different “realities.” These perceptions may overlap, but there are certain realities, certain truths that can only be perceived and vali­dated by those within.[10]

These, it seems to me, are “facts” which we all accept fairly instinctively. What I find less easy to accept is the fact that, almost inevitably, once one begins to talk about ethnicity, a not so subtle process of discrimination begins. For example, some jour­nals accept creative works written by members of certain ethnic groups. It is not the topic or subject matter which must be ethnic; rather it is the “ethnicity” of the author. What does ethnicity mean? What do any of the terms used in ethnic studies mean? What is an ethnic work? What is an Italian American? What is an “ItalianAmerican” literary work? To paraphrase Bazin, what is “ItalianAmerican” cinema? Is it a cinema made by Ital­ian Americans? And if so, how does one define Italian Ameri­cans? Must the surname end in a vowel? Is it a question of blood? And if so, what is Italian blood? Is there a particular Italian blood which can be found in all Italians, from Gela to Bolzano? Mussolini appeared to think so, but his concept of Italianità would appear to be as dead as he is, deo gratias. To what extent does the immigrant experience count? For one to be Italian Ameri­can, must one’s ancestors have come over in steerage and have suf­fered Ellis Island? How many generations must pass before the immigrant can become a non-hyphenated, “unslashed” American (Tamburri)? Are the descendants of Caboto Italian Americans? Could a Boston Cabot make an “ItalianAmerican” film? Is the successful entrepreneur who emigrated to the United States within the past ten years or so an Italian American? Does Dino De Laurentiis make “ItalianAmerican” films? Conversely, is “ItalianAmerican” cinema a cinema which deals with the “Ital­ianAmerican” experience? If so, what is that experience? The immigrant experience? The Little Italies? The life of Lee Iacoc­ca? Can a non-Italian American make an “ItalianAmerican” film? Is Moonstruck Italian American? Is Prizzi’s Honor? (Russo)[11] What about Jungle Fever? Do the Right Thing? If an Italian American makes a film which does not appear to concern the “ItalianAmerican” experience in any way, is this still an “ItalianAmerican” film? What, for example, can we make of virtually anything by Frank Capra (Casillo)?[12] What about Scorsese’s The Age of Innocence (Giles)? What makes a film Ital­ian American? The director? The producer? An actor or actress, particularly if clearly and famously ethnic? Do Scorsese and Coppola by definition make Italian American films? Do Cimino and De Palma?[13] Does Sylvester Stallone? Frank Sinatra? Vin­cent Minelli? Nancy Savoca? (Nardini, Reich)[14] Marisa Tomei? Isabella Rossellini? Danny De Vito? Quentin Tarentino? And, perhaps finally, how do we relate the Italian to the Amer­ican, by way of a hyphen, or by a slash? Tamburri’s To Hyphen­ate or Not to Hyphenate contributes significantly to this debate, not so much in its endorsement of the slash, as it does by fore­grounding the necessity of studying the relationship between those who are taken to be the “real” Americans and the al­legedly Johnny-come-lately “greenhorns.”[15] Conversely, perhaps we should adopt a variety of signs (or their absence) to indicate varying degrees, percentages, and preferences of ethnicity.

 

Race, Gender, Ethnicity, and Sexual Orientation

These questions constitute a very real difficulty—and not just for me. One might argue that difference—of any kind, but pri­marily of ethnicity, race, gender, and sexual orientation—consti­tutes the single most complex, agonizing problem confronting the United States at this time. Historically, it was this country’s conceit that it was a melting pot of peoples of all countries and all races. While we have fallen short of the mark, as we are con­stantly reminded particularly where people of color, women, and homosexuals are concerned, our failures are foregrounded by our successes. Differences which in the “old world” are still the source of tension, conflict, and even occasional genocide, have largely disappeared here, validating recent scientific studies which argue that there are, in fact, greater genetic differences within “races” than between them.[16] Who, with the exception of the interested parties, can tell the difference between the En­glish, Welsh, Scots, and Irish? Between Southern and Northern Germans? Between Russians, Chechinians, and Ukrainians? Be­tween Serbs, Bosnians, and Croats? Between Yorubas, Hutus, and Tutsis? Between Egyptians, Moroccans, Algerians, and Lebanese? Between Iraqis, Iranians, Kuwaitis, and Saudis? Between Northern and Southern Italians? Between Calabresi, Pugliesi, and Campani? Between Piemontesi, Lombardi, and Veneti?

While American women argue that they have not yet achieved full equality with men, in Italy, the American hus­band, that alleged male chauvinist brute, is perceived as hen­pecked and submissive and is the object of infinite jokes and car­toons.[17] While a majority of Black Americans continue to feel that they are the victims of discrimination, they are “objectively” far better off in this country than in any other coun­try of the world, Africa included (Cose) And while homosexuals may not yet “tell” and serve in the United States armed forces, they are to be found quite openly in Congress, in the Department of Defense, and in virtually every other walk of life—situation which, with the possible exception of Holland, is hardly preva­lent elsewhere—apocryphal tales to the contrary notwithstand­ing. And yet, rather than rejoice because the glass is seven-tenths full, what one hears increasingly are curses directed at the glass because it is three-tenths empty. The missing three tenths, hav­ing cursed the glass because they are not in it, refuse to be inte­grated into the other seven tenths, even when invited. In fact, each fraction of those three tenths, no matter how minute, now demands its own separate thimble in which to reside in solitary and diverse splendor. Still, notwithstanding the fact that virtu­ally every major college and university in this country has estab­lished African-American and/or Hispanic/Latino ethnic studies programs, notwithstanding that representatives of all hyphen­ated-Americans groups are pursuing these issues, no one appears to have found a satisfactory answer to the fundamental, underly­ing question: how can we possibly survive as a country and as a nation if we have to establish special rules and exceptions for every “group” and “category,” be they “special” or “Other.”[18]

Clearly, a house divided against itself cannot stand. This does not mean, however, that we should strive to achieve some kind of bland, homogenized puree. On the contrary, this country has always been characterized and enhanced by the addition and admixture of new ethnic flavors. Each new flavor, no matter how marginal, dilutes to some extent the center, and is diluted in turn. This meshing and dissolving of old and new is inevitable for coexistence and thus historically has been considered a desidera­tum. More recently however, we have come to sense that it also constitutes a loss, not only for that which was, but for each subse­quent arrival. Increasingly, today, we tend to agree that the de­sire to preserve one’s history, one’s traditions, one’s literature, one’s cinema, one’s sense of uniqueness within the maelstrom of American life, is thus both understandable and necessary.

The problem, of course, is that, as always, the devil is in the details.[19] Given my interest in cinema, I will frame my approach to this issue in that context. As I stated earlier, as I began to con­sider these issues, I felt that before we can even begin to attempt to discuss the issue of difference, we must define our terms. What do we mean when we speak of Italians, Italian Americans, and, by extension, of “ItalianAmerican” cinema. We must also deal with concepts that are inevitably implicit in any discussion of “ItalianAmerican” cinema: ethnicity, the Other, gender, system, ideology, “dwems” (dead white European males), paradigm (understood as a way of seeing and thinking of things) and, in­evitably, the mafia.

 

Martin Scorsese

Having spent several months drowning in these immensities, to paraphrase Leopardi,[20] I have decided to leave this task to others and to simplify my task. As I stated at the outset, I will deal with Martin Scorsese: a filmmaker who is avowedly Ital­ian American and many of whose films explicitly concern the “ItalianAmerican” experience. My earlier description of him was, I would argue accurate, albeit somewhat tongue-in-cheek. He is, I said, vertically challenged (short), melanin enriched (Sicilian), health disadvantaged (asthma)—and I should have added, culturally dispossessed (he grew up in a Little Italy). By this I do not mean that there is not an “ItalianAmerican” culture. Clearly there is. What I mean is that, many Italian Americans, like many other ethnics, feel that they are on the margins, that they are not at the center of either culture, Italian or American. Thus, I added, it is not surprising that Scorsese, who is in so many ways the Other, would dedicate his considerable talents as filmmaker to deconstructing the ethnocentric, capitalistic, pa­triarchal, phallocentric, hegemonic discourse of the establish­ment, that is, of the “whitemale” power elite, and of its canoni­cal texts, etc.

An even quick, and regrettably partial and superficial, excur­sion through Scorsese’s films should be sufficient to validate my working hypothesis that he is concerned with and engaged in the destruction of mainstream myths. Scorsese not only attacks our contemporary culture’s notion of success in its various manifesta­tions, he attacks the very way in which the concept is created and reinforced. In Taxi Driver (1976) he attacks not just the con­cept of the hero as avenging bringer of justice through violence, but the very manner in which the media transforms individuals who are ineffectual and immoral (Palantine—the candidate) or psychotic (Travis) into heroes. It also challenges scopophilia and the objects of our “lookism” (Betsy).[21] In New York, New York (1977)—starring not coincidentally, Judy Garland’s daugh­ter, Liza Minelli—he demystifies the notion, glorified through endless Judy Garland/Mickey Rooney 1940s MGM musicals, that stardom can somehow bring happiness.

While in the earlier two films Scorsese had created fictional characters based on cultural and filmic stereotypes, with Raging Bull (1980) he takes the biography and life of a real man, Jake La Motta and deliberately distorts them to effect an indictment of the glorification of the athletic/brute/maschilist/chauvinist pig which is pandemic in our culture and media. Scorsese’s in­dictment of the media (broadcast and print), of the persons who populate it, and of the society which glorifies and rewards such persons, is reiterated in The King of Comedy (1983). He also strips the mask of maudlin charm from an American icon: Jerry Lewis. In The Color of Money (1986) he depicts the vacuity of the American cult of victory, regardless of the nature of the en­deavor, and demystifies another of the great stars of the American screen, Paul Newman. Most recently, The Age of Inno­cence (1993) depicts an era in which the establishment, the canon, the master narrative really did exist. Scorsese depicts it in terms which cannot but make us reflect on our own presumably fallen contemporary condition. And even though critics have, almost without exception, been led astray by the surface of the film, it should be clear to anyone who is the Other—women, mi­norities, the poor—and to anyone who has the sensitivity to em­pathize with that condition, that that allegedly innocent age was in fact guilty of sexism, racism, classism, etc. (Giles).[22]

While Scorsese’s destruction of mainstream myths may come as no surprise, what might come as a surprise is that the film­maker has spent much of his career decentering the language and myth—the master narratives, if you will—of his own “Ital­ianAmerican” heritage.

It is perhaps superfluous to point out how frequently Scorsese’s “ItalianAmerican” heritage is the explicit subject of his films: Who’s That Knocking At My Door (1964); Mean Streets (1972); ItalianAmerican (1974); Raging Bull (1980); Goodfellas (1989). These films depict different, conflicting manifestations of the “ItalianAmerican” heritage. Some aspects—the tightly knit family, food lovingly prepared, the sense of community—are re­membered fondly. Others, particularly those inherited from the Southern Italian, Arabo/Hispanic tradition and culture are con­demned vitriolically. I am, of course, referring to maschilism in all its manifestations: machismo; patriarchism; sexism; dualis­tic vision of woman (saint/whore); conservatism, the obsession with “bella figura”; violence, etc. In targeting certain aspects of “ItalianAmerican” culture, Scorsese is breaking several of the sacraments of politically correct ethnic endeavors: 1) he is de­picting his own ethnic group as less than perfect; 2) he is placing the responsibility for these failings squarely on his own culture; 3) he is not scapegoating some imaginary whitemale European “Ur-Culture.” In this process Scorsese has eschewed the plain­tive victimocratic bleating which has characterized so much of the discourse in favor of affirmative action, diversity, and mul­ticulturalism in this country. Rather, he has remained coherent with the gravitas, the so often misunderstood seriousness and sense of dignity, which has characterized Italian Americans.

This does not mean that Scorsese is blind to the flaws of the “dominant” culture. On the contrary, as I have already suggested above, he has programmatically set about destroying various mainstream American myths from a perspective which, rather clearly, is that of the margin. In other words (returning to my earlier question: “what is “ItalianAmerican” cinema?”), I don’t think one can demonstrate that Taxi Driver or New York, New York, or The Age of Innocence are somehow Italian American. I will contend, however, that it is possible to argue that they were made by a person whose life experiences caused him to question not just the mainstream myths, but the manner of their depiction. Ironically, various “ItalianAmerican” organizations, following on the paranoid ethnocentric footsteps of other “outsiders,” have accused Scorsese, along with Coppola, Puzo and others, of defam­ing Italian Americans by depicting them in a less than flattering manner. In so doing they are reminiscent of those feminists who bash Fellini for his occasionally mildly ironic depiction of women, while they seem to be completely blind to the fact that his depiction of men is always infinitely more harshly critical.

 

Postmodernism, Multiculturalism, Insanity, and Academia

And so I return to another of my earlier questions: is my inter­est in “ItalianAmerican” film “legitimate?” And in broader terms, are ethnic studies legitimate? If the work of Scorsese is to be taken as a model of ethnic art, then I would argue that its le­gitimacy is unquestionable because he has had the intestinal for­titude to go where we, in academia, notwithstanding our tenure, so frequently fear to tiptoe: into the minefield of political cor­rectness. By extension, I hope that my own interest has been le­gitimized because I am not simply pandering to a particular chauvinism, because I am engaged in the study of an aesthetic cultural critique which, within the limits of the possible, at­tempts to be thought-provoking and internally coherent. In the spirit of Scorsese’s critique of his milieu, I can’t help but reflect on our own academic world and in particular on our submission to the politically correct hegemonic discourse. As I have already stated earlier, whenever I think back on the conference on “The Voice of the Voiceless: Non-Canonical Literature and Film and Non-Canonical Approaches to the Canon,” I can’t help but feel somewhat bemused. If there is anyone in this country who hasn’t been voiceless for at least the last three decades, it is those who were speaking there—and those for whom we were presuming to speak.[23]

The problem in this country is not the alleged voicelessness of certain groups that are oppressed to a greater or less extent, nor is it the lack of non-canonical literature and film (cfr. for example most pop music, and in particular rap, grunge, hip hop, etc.; con­sider MTV; consider internet—the most anti-authoritarian, most subversive, most anti-canonical means of communication ever de­vised!) or the lack of non-canonical approaches to the canon (does anything else exist in academia?). The problem is that for the most part we (and by “we” here I am speaking not necessarily of us in academia, but of our culture in general) have completely forgotten—or never learned in the first place—the (alleged) canon in literature, film, and history. My experience, over­whelmingly, is that my students have rarely heard of, much less read Chaucer, Shakespeare, Dante, Boccaccio, Petrarca, Cer­vantes, or the Bible. Well, they have heard of the latter, but, in surprising numbers, they have never read it. Deconstruction is fine, in fact, I would argue, is essential for the arts and for soci­ety. However, when you deconstruct something which doesn’t ex­ist, rather than develop questioning intellectuals, you raise amoral monsters. Those of us who have reached a certain age can remember when the hero of adventure books and films (granted, usually a white male) would never shoot the bad guy (also usu­ally a male, but not necessarily white) in the back. He would always give the bad guy a chance to draw first, or to pick up his gun, knife, sword, before finally being forced to kill him only as a last resort, and frequently then only by accident. And, as the hero dithered, you probably groaned with me and thought: “How stupid. Shoot the bastard!”

Some thirty years ago, filmmakers and novelists began to have their liberated female or male protagonists do precisely that. As a result, in little over three decades, we appear to have undone the gradual struggle to achieve at least the ideal, if not the substance of civility, which began—after an age which was truly dark—with the advent of chivalry. While there are those who argue that you can’t legislate morality, we know, de facto, that you can. Behavior that is no longer socially acceptable will continue to exist, but it will inevitably be hidden and thus less prevalent. While women unquestionably continued to be brutal­ized in reality, at least in literature they became the idealized objects of respect. While men continued to slaughter each other merrily, at least in literature a certain code of ethics and behav­ior was gradually coming into being. Now what do we find throughout this country? Non-stop violence and sex projected non-stop by all media, and by television in particular, directly at the impressionable minds of our youth. The results should not come as a surprise. Our large bi-coastal metropolises and our midwestern small towns are all equally infested by feral children who seem absolutely devoid of any sense of compassion and incapable of re­pentance. This phenomenon seems to cross all class, race, gender, and sexual orientation lines. Recently, in Illinois a white woman shot her brother because she did not like the kind of cheese he was putting on their chili dinner; in Tennessee a white man shot a man five times in a bar because he thought the man had asked “Have you got a light, baby?” when the man actually ended the question with “buddy”; in Indiana several middle class white schoolgirls tortured a classmate to death because she may have had designs on the ring-leader’s boyfriend; in Florida a Black 13-year-old girl shot and killed a cab driver to avoid paying a $6 fare; in Indiana a teenage homosexual killed a child he had mo­lested because he was afraid of being turned in to the authorities. Our country would appear to have gone quite insane. If you doubt me, I can only urge you to look at the ads for the daily talk shows on television. “If your father is molesting your daughter’s boyfriend, call us at 1-900-scum sells ($3.00 per minute).”[24]

How have we come to this pass? Whose fault is it? Quite frankly, I think that in large measure the fault is ours; we in academia are to blame. If anyone is the establishment, if anyone determines the ever changing canon, it is we. If anyone decides what the approaches are and will be, it is we. We the social sci­entists (historians, sociologists, psychologists), we the hu­manists, literary theorists, etc., have replaced overnight soci­etal relations and norms which had evolved into being over cen­turies, if not millennia, with Disney-inspired psychobabble. The results have been even more catastrophic—for the time being—than the games played by our colleagues on the scientific side of campus as they diddled mother nature with atomic and chemical experiments. Our deconstruction of the canons of society and lit­erature has been the amoral equivalent of placing loaded weapons into the hands of children whose tabula would be rasa, except for the steady inscription of violence and envy and irre­sponsibility perpetrated by the media and by special interest groups. Somehow we have come to believe that Disney World is a valid metaphor for reality. We seem to believe that there must be quick and easy solutions, painless cures for all, and com­pensations for every misfortune which befalls us. We want guar­antees against everything, not realizing that everything has a price, that there isn’t enough money in the universe to pay for everything for everyone, and that even if there were, there are contingencies for which money simply isn’t the answer.

1984 arrived eleven years ago. All of Orwell’s prophecies have come to pass, with, perhaps, one exception—foreseen more accurately by Gramsci: we are submitting willingly, in fact we are cooperating actively in our own enslavement to the hegemony of multinational corporations. While we do not have the ubiqui­tous screens peering into our lives, we are just as completely bared to and thus enslaved by information retrieval mechanisms. We have opted, quite programmatically, to trade freedom and dig­nity for comfort and security. Every war, and every “moral equivalent” thereto, is an excuse to further erode our civil liber­ties. Words, in our new world order, mean no more than they did in Huxley’s Brave New World. Language, in government and in academia, on the right and on the left, has become merely an in­strument intended to advance the interests of specific groups, thus fulfilling the credo that there is no center, that there are no valid criteria beyond the parameters of our ideological construc­tion(s) with which to ascertain the validity of any text or any event. We are rapidly descending into the kind of partisan war­fare that Dante condemned as the source of all of Italy’s tragedies, the kind of partisanship which is bringing to our screens and to our consciences—erratically and spasmodically—the genocidal conflicts in the Balkans, in Southwest Asia, and in Africa.

 

Machiavelli, Jesus, and Minestrone

Am I being overly pessimistic? I certainly hope so. In the meantime, however, I will once again join Machiavelli in urging us all to look at things as they really are, and not as we imagine (or wish) them to be. Look at things as they really are, and not through the distorting lenses of true belief and political correct­ness. This, I would argue, is precisely what Scorsese did in his The Last Temptation of Christ, which, ironically, is his most controversial work. In the pursuit of truth as he perceived it, Scorsese fearlessly attacked what is perhaps the most funda­mental—and most misguided—myth of contemporary Christian Western culture: the entirely divine nature of Jesus Christ. What he offered us, instead, much to the dismay of the bigoted and the befuddled, was a protagonist who was both man, with all the re­sultant temptations and weaknesses, and “God.” Ironically, as I said, because this is precisely what we find in the Gospels. Along with Scorsese, I repudiate myths which do not partake of the human condition; I reject the notion of an age of innocence whose repressive master narrative demands universal compliance. I am certainly not calling for a return to the melting pot, but for the acknowledgment that, unless we become a minestrone, a single serving which maintains its distinct smells, flavors, textures, we are little better than tasteless slop, fit only to be fodder for those pigs who are so self-evidently “more equal” than the rest of us pathetic animals in this funny farm we call home.

 

In Conclusion

So, what is “ItalianAmerican” cinema? I don’t know. I do know that it is impossible to establish a theory of “ItalianAmer­ican” cinema which is falsifiable. I have already suggested that, while “ItalianAmerican” cinema frequently re­flects the perspective of the Other, not all films which reflect this perspective are Italian American. While Italian Americans make films which concern the Italian American experience, they don’t necessarily only make films about this experience, nor are Italian Americans the only ones to make films about the “ItalianAmerican” experience. In short, if we attempt to pre­scribe what “ItalianAmerican” cinema must be, we will in­evitably end up being both “racist” and internally contradic­tory. And so, if I can’t be prescriptive, I will attempt to be de­scriptive. As I have read and re-read Bazin’s What is Cinema?, over the years, I have occasionally been tempted to believe that, at bottom, he felt that if a cinema is honest, powerful, subver­sive, and beautiful, if it is the “asymptote of reality,” it must be Italian. If Bazin were writing today, he would employ these same terms to describe “ItalianAmerican” cinema.

 

Ben Lawton

Purdue University

 

Works Consulted

 

Baudrillard, Jean. America. London: Verso, 1988.

Beard, Henry, and Christopher Cerf. The Official Politically Correct Dictionary and Handbook. New York: Villard, 1992.

Bell, Daniel. “The Cultural Wars: American Intellectual Life, 1965–1992.” Wilson Quarterly (Summer 1992): 74–107.

Bernstein, Richard. Dictatorship of Virtue: Multiculturalism and the Battle for America’s Future. New York: Knopf, 1994.

Bliss, Michael. Martin Scorsese and Michael Cimino. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow, 1985.

Carey, John. The Intellectuals and the Masses: Pride and Preju­dice Among the Intelligentia, 1880–1939. New York: St Martin’s, 1993.

Casillo, Robert. “A View from Monte Penseroso.” Italian Ameri­cana (Winter 1995): 19–23.

Cieutat, Michel. Martin Scorsese. Paris: Rivages, 1988.

Cose, Ellis. The Rage of a Privileged Class. New York: Harper, 1993.

D’Souza, Dinesh. Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus. New York: Free P, 1991.

De Amicis, Edmondo. Cuore. Milano: Garzanti, 1964, 1984. Origi­nally published in 1886.

de Man, Paul. Allegories of Reading: Figural Language in Rousseau, Nietzsche, Rilke, and Proust. New Haven: Yale UP, 1979.

___. The Resistance to Theory. Minneapolis: U of Minneapolis P, 1986.

___. Allegories of Reading. New Haven: Yale UP, 1979.

Derrida, Jacques. Of Grammatology. Tans. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1977.

___. Writing and Defference. Trans. Alan Bass. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1978.

Ellis, John M. Against Deconstruction. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1989.

“Forum: A Revolution, or Business as Usual?” Harper’s Maga­zine. Paul Tough, Moderator. With David Frum, William Kristol, Frank Luntz, Micke Murphy, James P. Pinkerton, Ralph Reed. (March 1995): 43–53.

From the Margin: Writings in Italian Americana. Ed. Anthony Julian Tamburri, Paolo A. Giordano, and Fred L. Gardaphé. West Lafayette: Purdue UP, 1991.

Giles, Paul. “Religious Ethnicity and Narrative Structure: The Recent Films of Martin Scorsese.” Italian Americana (Winter 1995): 16–19.

Hancock, LynNell. “A Campus Divided by Three Words.” Newsweek February 20, 1995. 51.

Hartman, Geoffrey, ed. Deconstruction and Criticism. New York: Seabury, 1979.

___. Saving the Text: Literature/Derrida/Philosophy. Balti­more: Johns Hopkins UP, 1986.

Hannaford, Ivan. “The Idiocy of Race.” Wilson Quarterly (Spring 1994): 8–35.

Heckman, James J. “Cracked Bell.” Reason (March 1995): 49–56.

Herrnstein, Richard J., and Charles Murray. The Bell Curve: In­telligence and Class Structure in American Life. New York: Free P, 1994.

Johnson, Barbara. The Critical Difference; Essays in the Contem­porary Rhetoric of Reading. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1981.

Kadar, Andrew G., M.D. “The Sex-Bias Myth in Medicine.” The Atlantic Monthly (Aug. 1994): 66–70.

Kelly, Mary Pat. Martin Scorsese: The First Decade. Pleas­antville, NY: Redgrave, 1980.

___. Martin Scorsese: A Journey. New York: Thunder’s Mouth P, 1991.

Keyser, Les. Martin Scorsese. New York: Twayne, 1992.

Lapham, Lewis H. “Reactionary Chic: How the Nineties Right Recycles the Bombast of the Sixties Left.” Harper’s Maga­zine (March 1995): 31–42.

Lawton, Ben. “The Godfather Part II: A Demythologyzation.” La Parola del Popolo 26 (1976): 359–62.

_____. “Taxi Driver: ‘New Hybrid Film’ or ‘Liberated Cine­ma’?” Italian Americana 5 (1979): 238–48.

_____. “The Italian/American Reinvention of Italy: Michael Cimino’s The Sicilian.” Ed. Paola Sensi Isolani and Anthony Julian Tamburri. Italian Americans Celebrate Life: The Arts and Popular Culture. American Italian Historical Associa­tion, 1990. 59–78.

_____. “America Through Italian/American Eyes: Dream or Nightmare?” From the Margin: Writings in Italian Ameri­cana. Ed. Anthony Tamburri, Paolo Giordano, and Fred Gar­daphé. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue UP, 1991. 397–429.

______. “Impressioni d’America: Italia->America; Italians Americans; ItalianAmericans; Italians>I<Americans: Gia­cosa’s Voyage of Discovery of Self/Other.” Differentia 6/7 (1994): 101–17.

Lipset, Seymour Martin. “Affirmative Action and the American Creed.” Wilson Quarterly (Winter 1992): 52–62.

Lourdeaux, Lee. Italian and Irish Filmmakers in America: Ford, Capra, Coppola, and Scorsese. Philadelphia: Temple UP, 1990.

McConnell, Frank D. “Will Deconstruction Be the Death of Lit­erature?” Wilson Quarterly (Winter 1990): 99–109.

Miller, J. Hillis. Fiction and Repetition: Seven English Novels. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1982.

___. The Linguistic Moment: From Wordsworth to Stevens. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1985.

Mulvey, Laura. “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema.” Femi­nism and Film Theory. Ed. Constance Penley. New York: Routledge, 1988. 57–68.

Nardini, Gloria. “Is It True Love? or Not?: Patterns of Ethnicity and Gender in Nancy Savoca.” Voices in Italian Americana 2.1 (1991): 9–17.

Pasolini, Pier Paolo. “Il cinema impopolare.” Nuovi Argomenti (Oct./Dec. 1970): 166–76.

_____. Heretical Empiricism. Trans. Ben Lawton and Louise Barnett. Ed. Louise Barnett. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1988.

Percy, Walker. “The Divided Creature.” Wilson Quarterly (Summer 1989): 77–87.

Reich, Jacqueline. “Nancy Savoca: An Appreciation.” Italian Americana (Winter 1995): 11–15.

Russo, John Paul. “Italian American Filmmakers: No Deal on Madonna Street.” Italian Americana (Winter 1995): 5–9.

Schrader, Paul. Schrader on Schrader. Ed. Kevin Jackson. Lon­don: Faber, 1990.

___. Taxi Driver. London: Faber, 1990.

Schlesinger, Arthur M. The Disuniting of America: Reflections on a Multicultural Society. New York: Norton, 1992.

Scorsese, Martin. Scorsese on Scorsese. Ed. David Thompson and Ian Christie. Intro. Machael Powell. London: Faber, 1989.

Scorsese, Martin, and Nicholas Pileggi. GoodFellas. Ed. and introd. David Thompson. London: Faber, 1990.

Shaw, Peter. “The Assault on the Canon.” The Sewanee Review (Spring 1994): 257–70.

Sommers, Christina Hoff. Who Stole Feminism?: How Women Have Betrayed Women. New York: Simon, 1994.

Tamburri, Anthony Julian. To Hyphenate or Not To Hyphenate: The Italian/American Writer: An Other American. Mon­treal: Guernica, 1991.

VIA: Voices in Italian Americana: A Literary and Cultural Re­view. Ed. Anthony Julian Tamburri, Paolo A. Giordano, and Fred L. Gardaphé. West Lafayette, IN: Bordighera, 1990-current.

Weiss, Marion. Martin Scorsese: A Guide to Reerences and Re­sources. Boston: Hall, 1987.

West, Rebecca. “Scorsese’s Who’s That Knocking at My Door?: Night Thoughts on Italian Studies in the United States.” Romance Languages Annual 1991. Ed. Jeannette Beer, Charles Ganelin, and Anthony Julian Tamburri. West Lafayette: Pur­due Research Foundation, 1992. 331–38.

 

 

 

 

 


[1]This essay is, in part, a response to and an extension of Tamburri’s eloquent and provocative, To Hyphenate or Not to Hyphenate, in which he argues not for “removing [emphasis in the original] the hyphen but . . . tilting [emphasis in the original]]it on its end by forty-five degrees” (46–47). This, he argues, will, inter alia, have the effect of bridging “the gap between the two terms, thus bringing them closer together . . . [and] should aid in clos­ing the ideological gap” (47) The title of my essay, in Differentia: Review of Italian Thought, attempts to convey at least in part the varying nature of the Italian experience of America as described in “Impressioni d’America: Italia->America; Italians; Americans; ItalianAmericans; Italians<->Americans: Gia­cosa’s Voyage of Discovery of Self/Other.” In this text I have chosen to fol­low Tamburri and eschew the hyphen. However, rather than adopt the “slash,” where I am not editorializing, I have chosen to bring the two terms together and create an orthographically questionable, but, I hope, ethnically neutral neologism: “ItalianAmerican.” I enclose “ItalianAmerican” in quotating marks for reasons I discuss briefly in footnote 3.

[2]I must state at the outset that the conference was, as usual, very well orga­nized and that I thoroughly enjoyed the overwhelming majority of the papers I heard. In other words, I am not criticizing a specific conference, but a trend in our profession.

[3]It should be self-evident that, from a “political” perspective, the terms “right” and “left,” like so many other terms, have broken entirely free from their etymological and semantic moorings and are, if not automatically under erasure, at least capable of “different” interpretations. As a result, they have come to mean whatever the speaker/writer and the reader/listener wish them to mean, however antipodally. I have, therefore, chosen to enclose in quotes such free-floating signifiers to indicate that, while I may presume to ascribe a particular meaning to them, the reader may opt to understand them in their original acception and/or in any more recent permutation.

[4]For an interesting and controversial reevaluation of the birth of the avant garde, see John Carey, The Intellectuals and the Masses: Pride and Prejudice Among the Intelligentia, 1880–1939.

[5]Consider this passage by Geoffrey Hartman of Yale University, cited by both D’Souza (181) and Beard and Cerf (99) as proof that deconstructionists deliberately write badly to undermine language, culture, and meaning: “Because of the equivocal echo-nature of language, even identities or homo­phones sound on: the sound Sa is knotted with that of ça, as if the text were signalling its intention to bring Hegel, Saussurre and Freud together. Ça cor­responds to the Freudian Id (Es); and it may be that our “savoir absolu” is that of a ça structured like the Sa-significant: a bacchic or Lacanian “primal pro­cess” where only signifier-signifying signifiers exist.”

[6]I must confess, however, that I am still entertained by my argument that Scorsese’s The Last Temptation of Christ confirms that the cult of the Black Madonnas is, in reality, a manifestation of the worship of the real Christ, which had been repressed by hegemonic “dwems” (dead white European males), thus reconfirming the Afrocentric thesis that the Bible is a sun people text, appropriated and strumentalized by ice people.

[7]“For whatever it’s worth, I came to the United States when I was seventeen, with $50 safety-pinned to my pants’ pocket. I spoke only rudimentary En­glish and went through an immigrant initiation process which included stoop labor in the tobacco fields of North Carolina, washing dishes, bussing tables, clean-up work in a frozen vegetable plant, driving a taxi, and selling life in­surance door-to-door. I eventually escaped this condition thanks to the educa­tional opportunities offered by the “G.I. Bill of Rights.”

[8]Actually, I am confronted by a conundrum. On the one hand, I do not accept the notion that there is no qualitative difference between texts beyond that which the reader brings to them as a function of cultural construction. On the other I am willing to acknowledge that ultimately there may well be no intrin­sic difference between texts. The fact that I am unable to declare which of these propositions is the truth in no way obligates me to opt for the most ni­hilistic. Given a choice between the two, I will take the former as my working hypothesis, if for no other reason that, to renounce the centuries-old struggle to rise above the dictates of our prejudices signals our surrender to the forces of ignorance, superstition, and things that go bump in the night. In other words, I cannot accept that all cultural constructions are equal. To do so, at a minimum, would suggest that our profession has no reason for being.

[9]In my humble opinion.

[10]This does not mean that I am willing to accept entirely the “multicultural” proposition that everything is relative. It should be fairly clear by now that multiculturalism, as it is advocated on our university campuses, is little more than an attempt to advance the “boomer,” “do-good” leftist agenda through various forms of coercion. I will begin to believe in the sincerity of the vari­ous vice-presidents for multicultural affairs when they quit speaking in gener­alities and explicitly embrace customs of other cultures including slavery, cli­torectomy, and, increasingly, genocide through mass rape and murder. For a trenchant rejection of the notion that somehow the Western tradition is re­sponsible for all the ills which have befallen humankind, see Schlesinger, in particular 126–29.

[11]By and large I find myself agreeing with John Paul Russo brief but impor­tant essay. It is difficult to argue with his contention that, in the final analy­sis, “non-Italian American directors fail lamentably to capture the iconic au­thenticity and ethos of Italian America” (8). I agree completely with his criti­cism of Prizzi’s Honor: This film really is an abomination. If we were to use the the word “race as used in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries [when it] meant what we mean by nationality today” (Schlesinger 12), we would have to conclude that this film is deliberately and insultingly racist. Conversely, I was puzzled by Russo’s reaction to Moonstruck which, according to him, “never rises above mediocrity” (7). Given past exposure to films dealing with the Italian American experience made by non-Italian Americans, I went to see the film prepared to disappointed, and instead came away pleasantly surprised. My response may be a function of my heritages which, if one wants to quib­ble, are Italian and American, rather than Italian American. However, my feel­ings were shared entirely by Anthony Tamburri, a person whose credentials in this sense cannot be vouchsafed. .

[12]Robert Casillo warns that “Another risky critical tendency at the present time is, in interpreting an ethnic artist, to discover traces of ethnicity every­where in his or her corpus, as if it is inescapable, even in the treatment of non-ethnic themes” (21). Casillo’s argument that Lourdeaux is incorrect in assuming that Capra’s films reflect his “Italian heritage and in particular his distinctly Italian social ethic,” (22) because he doesn’t understand the nox­ious impact of the Southern Italian “amoral familism” (22) is convincing. At the same time, I can’t help but feel the inchoate presence, in Capra’s films, of traditional Italian middle class moral values, as expressed in Edmondo De Amicis’s Cuore. These values, which also explicitly dealt with the problems of emigration, were programmatically taught to Italian schoolchildren from the time of its publication in 1886 to the present and helped to shape attitudes which, one might argue, seem reflected in Capra’s movies.

[13]For the most part, I find De Palma’s work fascinating precisely because its perspective is so clearly that of the Other. However, I must confess, I still have not found any key capable of unlocking Wise Guys. Help?

[14]In particular, see Gloria Nardini’s sensitive and perceptive application of Sollors’ descent/consent paradigm.

[15]In addition to the rationales adduced by Tamburri in defense of the slash, we should not forget its conventional usage which indicates uncertainty or the possibility of choice (eg. either/or). One might thus also recommend its adoption to describe those who have not yet opted for a particular national identity. Thus, for example, those Italian-born, raised, and educated academi­cians who teach at American universities, while finding their frame of refer­ence and their spiritual and intellectual homes in Italy, might be defined as Italian/Americans. On the one hand, they are no longer perceived by Italians as being truly “Italian.” On the other, they do not quite perceive themselves to be “Americans,” and, as Italian Americans have had occasion to experience all too often, they certainly do not see themselves as “Italian Americans” (with all that this term implies: the frequently Southern Italian Ellis Island heritage, poverty, illiteracy, etc.).

[16]See Discover: Special Issue: The Science of Race. November 1994. This, of course, is precisely the shoal upon which The Bell Curve founders (Herrnstein and Murray). The fundamental problems are two. 1) Blacks/African Americans are not a race, in a genetic sense, any more than Italians or Americans are. The authors predicated their categories on self-definition. In other words, the sub­jects were considered Black if they described themselves as such on their test forms. This means that, by definition, there is no way of knowing how “Black” a given subject was, particularly in a country where until recent times “one drop of blood” was sufficient to cause one to be described legally as Black. 2) The IQ test used by the authors is the Armed Forces Qualifying Test (AFQT), administered to youths of between 15 and 23 years of age. Self-evi­dently, by this age culture has had the opportunity to play an overwhelming role. For an excellent review of the strengths and weaknesses of the book see Heckman.

[17]The proposition that American women are treated as second-class citizens is becoming less self-evident with each passing day. “The Sex-Bias Myth in Medicine,” by Andrew G. Kadar, M.D., in The Atlantic Monthly (Aug, 1994) argues that there is a medical gender gap, but that it favors women and not men. Alan Wolfe, in his review of Richard Bernstein’s Dictatorship of Virtue: Multiculturalism and the Battle for America’s Future, chides the author for re­iterating information which, according to him, is common knowledge: “How many times do we have to hear that the Wellesley College Center for Reserach on Women distorted statistic on the failure of young girls in school?” Wilson Quarterly, (Autumn 1994): 89. See also Christina Hoff Sommers, Who Stole Feminism?: How Women Have Betrayed Women, which draws a clear distinc­tion between “equity feminism,” and “gender feminism.”

[18]This is probably not the place to ask what one would call the American-born offspring of white parents who emigrated to the United States from South Africa, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, or Kenya. Could they be called “African-Americans?” And if so, would they benefit from the various “goals” and “targets” established for the named catergory in our institutions of higher ed­ucation? Why do peninsular Spaniards not qualify as Hispanics for affirmative action purposes? Conversely, why do the descendants of European aristicrats, born in South America, qualify? Why can a Roman, born in Latium (Italy), not qualify for anything as a Latino? One of my students was born and raised in Cuba. Because she grew up speaking Spanish, her knowledge of that language does not satisfy her foreign language requirement. At the same time, she tells me that in the state of Indiana Cubans do not come under the protection of af­firmative action regulations. In Florida, where they constitute a powerful po­litical block, predictably and ironically, they do. The only state in which Ital­ian Americans are classified as a protected category is New York state, where, until the November 1994 elections, the governor, Mario Cuomo, was, not co­incidentally, an Italian American. Furthermore, the Mayor of New York City, Rudolph Giuliani, is also an Italian American, and so are assorted other polit­ical and business personalities. Do we rejoice because the Italian Americans of one state benefit from affirmative action, or do we lament because those of the remaining forty-nine do not?

[19]The regrettable fact is that our universities, rather than being in the fore­front of the current cultural wars, are actually mired in the past. Affirmative ac­tion has become a daily topic of discussion for politicians, on television, and in so many newspapers and newsmagazines that I will limit myself to men­tioning a couple of prominent instances. Joe Klein. “The End of Affirmative Action.” Newsweek, February 13, 1995. 36–37. Steven V. Roberts. “Affirmative Action on the Edge: A divisive debate begins over whether women and minorities still deserve favored treatment.” U.S. News & World Report. February 13, 1995. 32–38. So long as we refuse to discuss these is­sues, the debate will be dominated by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Pat Buchanan, Phil Gramm, and Newt Gingrich. The Republican strategists who are intent on continuing the Reagan revolution, that is, the transfer of wealth and power to multinational corporations through the pauperization of the American working classes, and the transformation of the United States into something resembling a neo-colonialized third-world country, are implement­ing once again their strategy of divide et impera predicated on racism and sex­ism. To the extent that the entrenched race and gender interest groups respond by continuing to attempt to advance their causes through generic attacks against white males, they are playing into the hands of their worst enemies. Statistics suggest that, for the most part, we Americans feel responsible for those less fortunate than ourselves, and that we agree that affirmative action is one way to help them. However, it it is also clear that the overwhelming majority of people of all races believe that any such preferential treatment must be predicated on need, and not on race and gender. So long as affirmative action is predicated on the latter, it can only contribute to the ongoing dis­uniting of America (Schlesinger). Affirmative action predicated on need, in­stead, particularly if adopted by African Americans, would constitute the sin­gle most powerful refutation of the flawed thesis of The Bell Curve (Herrnstein and Murray) and of Rutgers University President Francis L. Lawrence when he said, “how do we deal with a disdvantaged population that doesn’t have that genetic, hereditary background to have a higher average” (Hancock). On the one hand, an endorsement of affirmative action predicated on need would dispel the notion that, somehow, African Americans themselves feel that their disadvantage is genetic, rather than cultural. On the other, it should, one hopes, help to bind the wounds between people of good will, regardless of race or gender, and help turn the reactionary tide. By extension, it would also help insure that compliance with equal opportunity laws and regulations be enforced meaningfully. Finally, it would insure the continued existence of af­firmative action for those who most need it, those who are represented in greater numbers and percentages among the poor. women, minorities, and immigrants.

[20]Giacomo Leopardi’s “L’infinito” is, arguably, among the most important poems in the history of Italian literature.

[21]For a more detailed analysis of this film see my, “Taxi Driver: ‘New Hybrid Film’ or ‘Liberated Cinema’?” Italian Americana 5 (Spring/Summer 1979): 238–48.

[22]For an intelligent exception, I can’t help but recommend Paul Giles brief but convincing study of Cape Fear and Age of Innocence.

[23]What we in academia seem not to want to acknowledge is that Americans increasingly are not listening to us, they are listening to Rush Limbaugh. Apparently his radio show has a larger audience than all the National Public Radio stations in the nation combined.

[24]For further confirmation, I recommend the “News of the Weird” column, a sampling of recent news items that appears in campus and alternative urban weeklies.