A few weeks ago, I analyzed Gloria Anzalduas essay How to Tame a Wild Tongue in a

comparative way to another essay that focused on a very similar theme. During that analysis, I
noticed several important facts about Anzalduas writing and style, such as the fact that her
essay seemed to be very emotional-driven as well as the fact of the emphasis on the use of
untranslated (in this case, Spanish) words in her essay. Back then, I found myself not really
agreeing with this style and thinking quite a low opinion of Anzalduas essay. However, after
reading Marry Louise Pratts Art of the Contact Zone, I find myself thinking once again of
Anzaldua's essay, this time in a more different light while comparing it now using evidence and
other items from Pratts contact zone essay.
In reading Pratts essay Arts of the contact zone, it becomes very apparent what the
main point of Pratts narrative can be; that contact zones can be described as social spaces
where cultures meet, clash, and grapple with each other, often in contexts of highly
asymmetrical relations of poweras they are lived out in the world today. (Paragraph 7, Pg.
823) One can see that this sort of definition can easily be applied to Anzalduas writing as
Anzalduas main point can easily fall into the category that Pratt summarized. In analyzing
Anzalduas essay, Anzaldua herself describes the two cultures that are clashing with each other:
her heritage Spanish language and the fact that her mother wanted *her+ to speak English
(paragraph 5, Pg. 497) and not Spanish. She goes on and continues in detail about this point,
describing the Spanish as being Chicano and the fact that she spoke English like a Mexican.
This in itself can be seen to mirror Pratts easy very quickly, as it shows the clash in two
distinctively different, but at the same time very similar backgrounds/experiences coming
together in the words of one single person.
Another major point of analysis in using Pratts contact zone to analyze Anzalduas
essay is the fact that you can distinctively argue that Anzaldua herself fits perfectly into Pratts
definition of the contact zone, which is essence translates out to her work itself as her work is
about her own life experiences and what she has gone through. She herself describes herself in
detail as coming from two similar, but very different cultures, that of from Mexico and that of
from Anglo. She describes herself as using Chicano Spanish, or in other words a border
tongue which developed naturally. (Paragraph 11, Pg. 498) In her essay, it really seems like
Anzaldua sees the version of the contact zone as inseparable in analyzing her essay (my own
opinion, not written within the book), such as linguistic heritage being almost the same as
culture heritage. In her own words: On one side of us, we are constantly exposed to the
Spanish of the Mexicans, on the other side we hear the Anglos incessant clamoring so that we
forget our own languagedeep in our hearts we believe that being Mexican has nothing to do
with which country one lives inbeing Mexican is a state of soulnot one of mind, not one of
citizenship. (Pg. 504)
However, utilizing Pratts essay to analyze Anzalduas work also leads to some contrasts
between the two works (although Im not majority focusing on these contrasts). For example, in
Pratts essay, I seems that Pratt herself seems to take it for granted that so-called safe-houses
(as she describes in her own words and her own writing) exists where those people of a similar
background come together, or in paraphrase, simply that *safe houses+ are needed in places
where cultures come together and are bound to inevitably clash/crash with one another.
Anzaldua states that while she feels such areas such as safe houses (Im paraphrasing her work
here, as she does not explicitly say this out loud or write it in a way that it stick outs and is very
plain to see) ARE important, especially when it comes to her own life (the mix between borders,
cultures, languages, and tongues), but the fact that she is having problems finding areas that
can really classify as safe zones (as per Pratts explanation of them if put to use). Examples
such as Chicana feminists often skirt around each other with suspicion and hesitation and
that even among Chicanas we tend to speak English at parties or conferences to show how
there really is no real safe house per Pratts definition of one in her life; that while she implies
to agree with the idea, the simple fact that its hard to put that idea into reality is standing
completely in the way. She also states that Chicanos and other people of color suffer
economically for not acculturatingthis voluntary (yet forced) alienation makes for
psychological conflict, a kind of dual identitywe dont identify with the Anglo-American
cultural values and we dont totally identify with the Mexican culture valueswe are a synergy
of two cultures with various degrees of Mexicanness or Angloness (Paragraph 39, Pg. 505),
making it even more apparent that she has still yet to find a safe zone where she can truly call
home and find safety and security (as Pratt puts it) anywhere in her current situation.
Furthermore, Anzaldua goes even further to poke holes into Pratts ideal world of
contact zones, utilizing examples from her own life and childhood, such as being punished in
Elementary school for using Spanish at recess (all for the fact that her own language was not
the same as the language spoken at the rest of the school), her own mother wanting her to
speak American or English instead of her own tongue and language, as well as extreme
examples such as being called a cultural traitor by other Spanish-speaking people. In short,
the quote that Chicano Spanish in considered by the purist and by most Latinos deficient, a
mutilation of Spanish, and the fact that because of her heritage and upbrining, as well as the
language that she has grown used to and will take an extreme amount of effort in order to
change, she cannot fit into one area or the other and thus must remain in the middle ground,
thus making there no safe zone (as Pratt describes it) for her to take refuge and find safety
within. Because of this, she feels shame in what she is, in what she does, and in her own
tongue and heritage because of this; because the lack of a safety zone and the rejection of her
own language by her own people (in a sense) is the final nail in the coffin of being rejected
herself in everything that she does. In short, it is her own language and the fact that Anzaldua
lacks a sort of safety zone that her essay seems to take the tone that it does and read out the
way that it seems.
I can kind of interject a similar example from my own life in order to add to the analysis
that Ive provided above. I grew up in Korea as the son of a Korean national and a US military
soldier, which meant that I was not fully integrated in either one of the world fully and I was
only in the middle as a sort of middle-tiered person since I could not claim either country as
my true heritage or birthplace (I usually refer to myself as being a Korean though and tend to
ignore the American side of me). This only became worse and worse as I continued to grow up,
as facts such as I spoke with an American/English accent instead of one from Yongsan (the place
where I grew up) and that my dad was very well known tied into me being identified as being a
child of two cultures, thus not being accepted (at least fully) by either one. At school, I can
remember that I couldnt find any true safe zones for me to be and to be accepted, as I
continuously was identified as a child of two different cultures and not from one single culture
that I could identify with. Although the people were nice and tried to make me feel at home
without making me uncomfortable, I could still see that neither group could fully accept me. By
this, I can side myself with what Anzaldua implies about there not being contact zones
everywhere and I find myself disagreeing with what Pratt says there are contact zones
everywhere as there is no real safe zone where I can truly feel at home and find myself fully
and truly accepted.
When looking at both essays (and especially using Pratts Art of the Contact Zone in
analyzing Anzalduas essay), I feel as if, while both essays do their part in describing aspects of
Pratts contact zone (although Anzaluda only implies and can be inferred to refer to the
contact zone that Pratt speaks vehemently about) and the importantness of said zones,
Pratts essay seems to be more on the optimistic side, the more side that there are contact
zones everywhere in where cultures meet and that these zones are very important in their own
way, while Anzalduas essay seems to be on the more realist side, more of the analysis onto
exactly how a contact zone is made and what is necessary in order to make these contact
zones, as well as all of the difficulty and obstacles that go into making these sort of zones. In
short, the major difference of the two works being that Pratt takes these contact zones for
granted while Anzaldua doesnt seem to have an exact safe zone within her own life and
writing that she can go to and take refuge within. She (Anzaldua) states that, at least for
chicanos, the struggle of identities continues, the struggle of borders is our reality still, while
Pratts essay seems to not acknowledge, or at least not allow for the interpretness and analysis
of the deeper meaning and ideals of a contact zone. In conclusion, I can say that my opinion of
Anzalduas essay How to Tame a Wild Tongue has changed significantly ever since my first
analysis paper on the subject, all thanks to comparing and contrasting the essay with another
work thats similar in form and otherwise, Mary Louise Pratts Arts of the Contact Zone.