A new vocabulary for Asian American studies Born out of the Civil Rights and Third World Liberation movements of the 19
365 99 4MB
English Pages [325] Year 2015
Keywords for Asian American Studies
This page intentionally left blank
Keywords for Asian American Studies Edited by Cathy J. Schlund-Vials, Linda Trinh Võ, and K. Scott Wong
new york university press
New York and London
new york university press New York and London www.nyupress.org © 2015 by New York University All rights reserved References to Internet websites (URLs) were accurate at the time of writing. Neither the author nor New York University Press is responsible for URLs that may have expired or changed since the manuscript was prepared. ISBN: 978-1-4798-7453-8 (hardback) ISBN: 978-1-4798-0328-6 (paperback) For Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication data, please contact the Library of Congress. New York University Press books are printed on acid-free paper, and their binding materials are chosen for strength and durability. We strive to use environmentally responsible suppliers and materials to the greatest extent possible in publishing our books. Manufactured in the United States of America 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Also available as an ebook
Contents
27 Fusion Mari Matsuda 101
Acknowledgments vii
28 Gender Judy Tzu-Chun Wu 105 Introduction Cathy J. Schlund-Vials, Linda Trinh Võ, and K. Scott Wong 1
29 Generation Andrea Louie 110 30 Genocide Khatharya Um 115
1 Adoption Catherine Ceniza Choy 7
31 Globalization Robyn Magalit Rodriguez 119
2 Art Margo Machida 9
32 Health Grace J. Yoo 121
3 Assimilation Lisa Sun-Hee Park 14
33 Identity Jennifer Ho 125
4 Brown Nitasha Tamar Sharma 18
34 Immigration Shelley Sang-Hee Lee 128
5 Citizenship Helen Heran Jun 20
35 Incarceration Lane Ryo Hirabayashi
6 Class Min Hyoung Song 25
36 Labor Sucheng Chan 139
7 Commodification Nhi T. Lieu 29
37 Law Neil Gotanda 144
8 Community Linda Trinh Võ 31
38 Media Shilpa Davé 149
9 Coolie Kornel Chang 37
133
39 Memory Viet Thanh Nguyen 153
10 Cosmopolitanism Lucy Mae San Pablo Burns 39
40 Militarism Vernadette Vicuña Gonzalez 157
11 Culture Robert G. Lee 41
41 Minority Crystal Parikh
12 Deportation Bill Ong Hing 44
42 Movement Daryl Joji Maeda 165
13 Diaspora Evelyn Hu-DeHart 49
43 Multiculturalism James Kyung-Jin Lee 169
14 Disability Cynthia Wu
44 Multiracial Rebecca Chiyoko King-O’Riain 174
55
161
15 Discrimination John S. W. Park 57
45 Nationalism Richard S. Kim 178
16 Education Shirley Hune
46 Orientalism Sylvia Shin Huey Chong 182
62
17 Empire Moon-Ho Jung 67
47 Performance Josephine Lee 185
18 Enclave Yoonmee Chang 71
48 Politics Janelle Wong 189
19 Entrepreneur Pawan Dhingra
73
20 Environment Robert T. Hayashi 76
49 Postcolonialism Allan Punzalan Isaac 195 50 Queer Martin F. Manalansan IV 197
21 Ethnicity Rick Bonus 78
51 Race Junaid Rana 202
22 Exclusion Greg Robinson 82
52 Refugee Yến Lê Espiritu 208
23 Family Evelyn Nakano Glenn
87
53 Religion David Kyuman Kim
211
24 Film Jigna Desai 92
54 Resistance Monisha Das Gupta 216
25 Food Anita Mannur 95
55 Riot Edward J. W. Park
26 Foreign Karen Leong 98
56 Sexuality Martin Joseph Ponce 224
220
v
57 Terrorism Rajini Srikanth
228
58 Transnationalism Lan P. Duong 232 59 Trauma Cathy J. Schlund-Vials 235 60 War K. Scott Wong 238 61 Yellow Robert Ji-Song Ku 244 Bibliography 247 About the Contributors 285
vi
contents
Acknowledgments
First and foremost, we want to publicly thank all the
certainly not least, we want to acknowledge those who
contributors to this Keywords for Asian American Studies
make what we do possible via their hourly and daily
volume, whose work renders visible the capaciousness,
support:
strength, and growth of the field. They patiently worked
Cathy is thankful to her parents, Charles and Ginko
with us through our requests for revisions to make this
Schlund, along with her twin brother, Charles; they
a cohesive project and it is through their immense
have offered unfaltering support and guidance. She is
scholarly contributions to the field that we are able to
forever indebted to Christopher Vials, who is a true part-
produce this collection.
ner in all respects.
We likewise owe much to Eric Zinner, who had the
Linda appreciates her parents, Thuy and Bob, and
foresight to envision the need for such a volume; with-
sister, Christine, and her family for their constant suste-
out hesitation and with considerable consistency, he
nance and encouragement. She is thankful for her chil-
provided indefatigable support and offered invaluable
dren, Aisha and Kian, and partner, John, and his chil-
advice from the planning stage to the production phase.
dren, Bronson and Carly, who bring her immeasurable
Alicia Nadkarni at NYU Press in comparative fashion
enjoyment and fulfillment.
ushered us through all facets of the process. This vol-
Scott is grateful for the wonderful support he has re-
ume benefits greatly from anonymous readers, who
ceived over the years from his parents, Henry and Mary
productively pushed us to reconsider and reevaluate the
Wong, his brothers, Kenny, Keith, and Christopher,
overall scope of the project.
and his wife, Carrie, and daughter, Sarah, as well as his
In a more local vein, Keywords for Asian American Studies would not be possible without the careful eyes of
friends and colleagues who sustain him with love, companionship, good food, and music.
Laura A. Wright, who vetted citations and kept the proj-
Finally, it is to our students, mentors, and colleagues
ect on track in its first phase; we are also appreciative
that we dedicate this collection for enriching our peda-
of Patrick S. Lawrence, who made sure the manuscript
gogical capacities and reminding us of the vitality of
was thoroughly prepared for final submission. Last, but
Asian American studies.
vii
This page intentionally left blank
Introduction Cathy J. Schlund-Vials, Linda Trinh Võ, and K. Scott Wong
Born out of the civil rights and Third World liberation
sections—“Identity,” “History,” and “Community”—
movements of the 1960s and 1970s, Asian American
focusing on the “imperative that their voices be heard
studies has grown considerably over the past four
in all their anger, anguish, resolve and inspiration” (vii).
decades, both as a distinct field of inquiry and as a potent
Counterpoint: Perspectives on Asian America (Gee 1976)
site of critique. In the late nineteenth century, most of
questioned the “self-image of America as a harmonious,
what was written about the Asian presence in America
democratic, and open society,” calling for a reexamina-
was by those who sought to impede the immigration of
tion of the mistreatment of Asian Americans to deepen
Asians or to curtail the social mobility of Asians already
“their understanding of their own past and present polit-
in the country. This tendency in the literature of the
ical, economic, and social position in American society”
time, and subsequent scholarship on Asians and Asian
(xiii). While some of the authors in these two collec-
Americans that appeared into the late 1960s, led Roger
tions, published by the Asian American Studies Center
Daniels to observe, “Other immigrant groups were
at the University of California, Los Angeles, had estab-
celebrated for what they had accomplished, Orientals
lished careers, many of them were emerging community
were important for what had been done to them” (1966,
activists, writers, and academics who would become the
375). As the field developed starting in the late 1960s,
important first generation of noted Asian Americanists.
more emphasis was placed upon the lived experiences
Although they came from different backgrounds, they
of Asian Americans, in terms of what they have endured,
were committed to bringing the Asian American experi-
accomplished, and transformed. In the early stages
ence to the foreground, in order to stress how they had
of the development of Asian American studies as an
been marginalized in the dominant narrative of our
academic field of inquiry, more attention was paid to
nation’s history, society, and culture. The articles and
the history and experiences of Chinese, Japanese, and
essays in these two publications represent themes that
to some extent, Filipinos in the United States.
would dominate the field for years: labor exploitation,
Among the first foundational texts in Asian Ameri-
immigration policies, racial stereotypes and oppression,
can studies were edited collections that included contri-
community development, gender inequalities, social in-
butions by an eclectic group of Asian American activists,
justices, U.S. imperialism in Asia, struggles of resistance,
artists, and academics. Roots: An Asian American Reader
and the formation of Asian American identities. The
(Tachiki et al. 1971) was intent on going to the “root” of
Immigration Act of 1965 and the end of the Vietnam
the issues facing Asians in America and included three
War in 1975 drastically changed the demographics of 1
the Asian American population, bringing ethnic Chinese from the diaspora as well as expanding the num-
ality, and class. On the one hand, the pervasiveness of
ber of Filipinos, Koreans, and Asian Indians and adding
“trans” as a legible methodological prefix highlights the
refugees from Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam, and these
ways in which scholars in the field divergently evaluate
ongoing shifts have created new scholarly directions for
the intersections between politics, histories, and sub-
the field.
jectivities. On the other hand, such interdisciplinary
In private and public institutions across the country,
approaches, ever attentive to past/present histories of
Asian American studies courses, emanating from these
racialization, social formation, imperialism, capitalism,
tumultuous histories of struggles, are now an identifi-
empire, and commodification, engage a now-familiar
able and often integral part of university and college
set of what cultural critic Raymond Williams famously
curricula. Most notable was the creation of the only
defined as “keywords.” These terms, which constitute
College of Ethnic Studies at San Francisco State College
“the vocabulary of a crucial area of social and cultural
(now San Francisco State University) in 1969, which
discussion” (1976, 24), serve as a foundation for Key-
incorporated Asian American studies. Currently, some
words for Asian American Studies.
courses in Asian American studies are offered by tradi-
Some of the essays included in Keywords for Asian
tional departments, while others are in American stud-
American Studies demarcate the origins of the field as
ies or ethnic studies, with some campuses creating Asian
well as critique its scholarly development. Certainly es-
American programs or centers and others establishing
says on “education” and “incarceration” speak to what
Asian American studies departments. The expansion of
has happened to Asian Americans as well as address
the field led to the creation of the Association for Asian
critical transformations in the field. Essays on “diaspora”
American Studies in 1979, whose first conference was
and “community” examine how Asian Americans have
held the following year. Faculty and scholarship that fo-
navigated their way around the world and established
cus on Asian Americans are found in a range of fields in-
themselves in the United States, indirectly reshaping
cluding anthropology, art, communications, economics,
the field in the process. As significant, essays about
education, history, literature, political science, psychol-
“memory,” “terrorism,” and “postcolonialism” signal
ogy, law, public health, public policy, religion, sociology,
the field’s intimate yet nevertheless expansive engage-
theater, urban studies, and women’s and gender studies.
ment with U.S. imperialism and American war making.
This has created a robust discipline that has broadened
Like Keywords for American Cultural Studies (edited
its scope in ways that were unimaginable when the field
by Bruce Burgett and Glenn Hendler) and the other
first began to take form, but it has also generated vary-
volumes in the series, Keywords for Asian American Stud-
ing pedagogical directions and competing theoretical
ies is not an encyclopedia. Instead, Keywords for Asian
frameworks. The nature and tenor of Asian American
American Studies is repeatedly guided by Williams’s pro-
studies have shifted dramatically since student strikes
vocative assertion that such a vocabulary “has been in-
and undergraduate demand instigated its formation.
herited within precise historical and social conditions”
As recent scholarship underscores, Asian Ameri-
2
race, ethnicity, migration, immigration, gender, sexu-
that nevertheless must “be made at once conscious and
can studies is presently characterized by transnational,
critical” (1985, 24). Expressly, the keywords included in
transpacific, and trans-hemispheric considerations of
this collection—central to social sciences, humanities,
introduction
schlund-vials, võ, and wong
and cultural studies—reflect the ways in which Asian
develop their keywords unencumbered, although as edi-
American studies has, in multidisciplinary fashion,
tors we suggested revisions so that the collection would
been “shap[ed] and reshap[ed], in real circumstances
be comparative in scope and tangentially cohere.
and from profoundly different and important points of
Additionally, we were interested in exploring core
view” (1985, 25). Attentive to the multiple methodolo-
terms that suggestively demarcated distinctive Asian
gies and approaches that characterize a dynamic field,
American histories, curricula, and pedagogies. While
Keywords for Asian American Studies contains established
some of these keywords, such as “assimilation,” “citizen-
and emergent terms, categories, and themes that un-
ship,” and “trauma,” may be universal terms applied to
dergird Asian American studies and delineate the con-
immigrants in general, our contributors were observant
tours of Asian America as an imagined and experienced
to their specific application in Asian American studies,
site. On one level, such “imagined” and “experienced”
and mindful of the need to shift dominant paradigms
frames highlight what Sucheng Chan evocatively char-
that have been exclusionary. As the project moved from
acterized in Asian Americans: An Interpretive History (1991)
proposal to completed manuscript, our original purview
as distinctly racialized modes of hostility via “prejudice,
grew to encapsulate divergent approaches, nomencla-
economic discrimination, political disenfranchisement,
tural shifts, and disciplinary variations. For example,
physical violence immigration exclusion, social segrega-
while “internment” remains a recognizable term within
tion, and incarceration” (45). On another level, Chan’s
the field, it nevertheless fails to contain (as Lane Ryo
use of “interpretive” as a disciplinary modifier functions
Hirabayashi productively notes) the racial, gendered,
as a theoretical touchstone and methodological founda-
and classed dimensions analogously associated with
tion for Keywords for Asian American Studies. As field interpreters, the collection’s contributors
present-day understandings of “incarceration.” Armed with the editorial desire to represent spheres of knowl-
contextualized and situated their keywords according
edge and diverse methodologies, we deliberated over
to their disciplines, points of entry, and critical en-
terms such as “capitalism,” “democracy,” and “prosti-
gagement, while being simultaneously attuned to the
tution,” which are fundamentally subsumed or embed-
fluidity and trajectories of the field. Determining the
ded within other terms (hence, their omission in this
selection of keywords has been an organic progression.
iteration). We were similarly attentive to parsing out
In terms of structuring the collection, we initially envi-
keywords that are often considered synonymous (for ex-
sioned and prioritized keywords that capture the con-
ample, “gender,” “sexuality,” and “queer”). At the same
tours of multiple scholarly disciplines and that resonate
time, we recognized the need to include terms that are
with our pedagogical methodologies. As editors, we es-
foundational to the field, such as “labor,” “exclusion,”
tablished few parameters for the contributors; however,
“identity,” “ethnicity,” “immigration,” and “war.” Last,
we had the difficult task of assigning varying lengths
but certainly not least, we encouraged contributors to
to each keyword, recognizing that spatial limitations
engage the heterogeneity of Asian Americans in their
would be the major challenge for all authors, most of
respective essays, so analyses were not limited to one
whom have written books related to their respective key-
ethnicity or a singular historical moment.
words. Strategically, we did not inform the contributors
This capaciousness frames the overall collection,
of the other entries, with the intent of allowing them to
which features interconnected references between
introduction
schlund-vials, võ, and wong
3
keywords, includes overlapping examples, and involves reiterated events (such as the Chinese Exclusion Act, the
to terminology and emphasis. Rather than serve as a
incarceration of Japanese Americans, the civil rights
limitation, these disciplinary linkages make visible new
movement, the Vietnam War, and the ongoing War on
ways not only of seeing established fields but also of re-
Terror). The derived meaning or relevance and justifica-
thinking seemingly familiar topics.
tions or reasons for these events have transformed over
Set adjacent to this editorial context, two terms
time for both the populations they have impacted as
that admittedly do not appear as specific entries in this
well as for the critical scholarship they have generated.
collection serve as an implicit point of entry for each
Although there may be repetitions of some concepts or
contributor: “Asian” and “American.” Encompassing
events in these essays, they are illuminated by differing
geographical sites, political affiliations, and ethnora-
perspectives and contextualized through varying lenses.
cial categories, both “Asian” and “American” are incon-
The transforming demographics of the involved popu-
trovertibly qualified terms that syntactically operate
lations continue to contribute to fundamental debates
as modifiers (e.g., adjectives) and subjects (specifically,
regarding the racial positioning of Asian Americans and
nouns). As John Kuo Wei Tchen previously argued in
this has impacted the crucial terms and concepts in the
Keywords for American Cultural Studies, “Asian” (along
field. In some instances, the emergence of a particular
with “Asia” and—more problematically—“Asiatic”) is
keyword within the field (e.g., “genocide” and “refu-
necessarily “loaded with particular spatial orientations
gee”) is due to history and policy more closely tied to
rooted in temporal relationships” that are anthropolog-
a specific ethnic group (for example, Southeast Asian
ical, geopolitical, and cartographic in scope (2007, 22).
Americans). Yet we encouraged authors to move beyond
These concepts have been constructed as antagonistic
the expected boundaries of ethnic containment and ad-
to or in competition with one another, evidenced by
dress how their keywords are historically, ideologically,
the political conflicts in the Pacific, or in the cultural
or empirically interconnected to various groupings. Fol-
juxtapositions of the oppositional identifiers “tradi-
lowing suit, the collection’s contributors demonstrate
tional” and “modern” associated with each. Concomi-
the ways these diverse groups, in the face of colonial his-
tantly, “American,” as an analogously overburdened
tories and imperial structures, have resisted cumulative
concept, encompasses cultural, social, and political
pressures by creating their own dynamic identifications.
understandings of citizenship. Within the dominant
Although directed to consider the field’s expansive-
U.S. imagination, these senses of belonging—fixed to
ness, contributors were purposely provided latitude in
characterizations of the United States as a “nation of
analyzing the formulation and tone of their keywords
immigrants”—correspond to assimilative and euphe-
to more aptly represent the genealogies in which ideas
mistic claims of e pluribus unum (“out of many, one”)
and ideologies traverse theoretical and disciplinary in-
selfhood. Notwithstanding the encumbered nature of
sularities. Even with these intentional coherences, each
each word, the term “Asian American” (which pairs
essay illustrates variations in approach and relevancy in
continent and country) upholds Yuji Ichioka’s intent
articulating the significance or utilization of a keyword.
when he coined it to replace such derogatory labels as
Correspondingly, while Asian American studies remains
“Asiatic” and “Oriental” and envisioned its politicized
an interdisciplinary field, its practitioners nevertheless 4
bear the mark of their respective disciplines with regard
introduction
possibilities. On one level, the adjectival use of “Asian” schlund-vials, võ, and wong
as a descriptor for “American” accentuates the degree to which the field reflects multiple coordinates (in East, South, and Southeast Asia, and the United States). On another level, “Asian American” as an identifiable ethnoracial category underscores the migration histories of variegated peoples whose experiences divergently involve overt exclusion, aversive discrimination, and paradoxical incorporation. In sum, this collection is a gathering of scholarship by those who have dedicated their careers to creating what is now an established field of knowledge, which has been remarkably dialogic in nature and fostered meaningful collaborations. The field emerged under conditions of contestation and resistance and it has generated controversies regarding its epistemological legitimacy, direction, and purpose. The essays are not intended to be definitive, but to encourage readers to creatively engage with the multilayered historical and contemporary debates and the vexing contradictions that reflect the shifting and evolving terrain of Asian American studies. Our expectation is that this collection will provide intellectual stimulation for the seasoned scholar and activist as well as a critical tool for those initially encountering the field to further their inquiry and research.
introduction
schlund-vials, võ, and wong
5
This page intentionally left blank
from Asia. The phenomenon of “transethnic” and
1
“multiethnic” adoption (wherein one or both of the parents is Asian American) thus deserves further study.
Adoption Catherine Ceniza Choy
American adoptive parents and adult Asian American adoptees have made a mark on American national culture by spearheading organizations, such as Families with Children from China and Also- Known-As, that expand the traditional boundaries of kinship and
In Asian American studies, the word “adoption” is
community. They have created specialized virtual net-
increasingly significant for elucidating the breadth
works, print media, and heritage camps, which provide
and depth of Asian American demographics, cultural
resources and support to other adoptive families and
expression, contemporary issues, and history. In the
potential adoptive parents. In doing so, they participate
late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, the sight
in “global family making,” the process through which
of an Asian child with white American parents has
people create and sustain a family by consciously cross-
become a new social norm. Between 1971 and 2001, U.S.
ing national and often racial borders (Choy 2013). These
citizens adopted 265,677 children from other countries,
“global families” are well known to the general public
and over half of those were from Asian countries. In
through mainstream news stories about celebrities as
2000 and 2001, China was the leading sending country
well as ordinary Americans adopting children from Asia.
of adoptive children to the United States. South Korea,
These narratives typically portray the phenomenon as
Vietnam, India, Cambodia, and the Philippines were
a virtuous example of contemporary U.S. multicultural-
among the top twenty sending countries (Evan B.
ism and a desirable way to create a family.
Donaldson Adoption Institute 2013). Thus, the terms
The international and transracial adoption of Asian
“international adoption,” “intercountry adoption,” and
children is also highly controversial. Since the late
“transnational adoption” are used to describe the global
1990s, anthologies, documentary films, and memoirs by
dimensions of Asian adoption in the United States
Korean American adoptees about their upbringing em-
(Volkman 2005; Eleana Kim 2010).
phasize the themes of American racism and alienation
A related keyword is “diaspora,” which acknowledges
(Bishoff and Rankin 1997; Borshay Liem 2000; Borshay
the broader histories of Asian international adoption
Liem 2010; Trenka 2003; Trenka 2009). The popularity
across time and space. Since the end of the Korean War,
of the seemingly positive stereotype of Asian Americans
approximately two hundred thousand Korean children
as “model minorities” in relation to negative “less than
have been sent to the United States for adoption and an
model” stereotypes of African Americans adds further
additional fifty thousand have been sent to Europe (Yuh
complexity to issues of race in Asian international adop-
2005). Because white Americans predominantly adopt
tion. Some scholars have argued that these stereotypes
these children, the words “transracial” and “cross-
undergird a racial preference for Asian children over Af-
cultural” are additional key modifying terms for de-
rican American children (Dorow 2006).
scribing this phenomenon (A. Louie 2009; Davis 2012).
Furthermore, the decreasing supply of white babies
However, Asian Americans have also adopted children
in the United States that began in the second half of 7
the twentieth century—a result of factors including
1960s under the auspices of the “Hong Kong Project,”
the creation of the birth control pill, the legalization
through which Chinese American and white American
of abortion, and the increasing social legitimacy of
families adopted hundreds of Chinese boys and girls
single parenting—contributes to the commodification
who had been relinquished by refugee families fleeing
of Asian children for an international adoption market.
communist mainland China.
Charges of “baby selling” and child abduction have re-
Individual advocates who had themselves adopted
sulted in suspensions of international adoptions from
children internationally—most notably Oregon farmer
Vietnam and Cambodia. Some scholars have strongly
Harry Holt, Pulitzer Prize–winning writer Pearl S. Buck,
criticized international adoption, characterizing it as
and Hollywood actress Jane Russell—and international
a global market that transports babies from poorer to
social service agencies, such as the International So-
richer nations and likening it to a form of forced migra-
cial Service–United States of America (ISS-USA) branch,
tion and human trafficking (Hubinette 2006).
tion in the United States. While Russell’s WAIF (World
the post–World War II and Cold War presence of the
Adoption International Fund) worked with the ISS-USA,
U.S. military in Asia. Americans adopted Japanese and
Harry Holt organized the Holt Adoption Program (now
Korean war orphans, but their adoption of mixed-race
known as Holt International) and Pearl S. Buck founded
Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese children (popularly
Welcome House, which continues to facilitate interna-
known as Amerasians), a population fathered by U.S.
tional adoptions. In the 1950s and 1960s, competition
servicemen with Asian women, captured the hearts
between social service agencies and individuals over
and minds of the general public. The distinctive racial
who should oversee international adoption processes,
features of these mixed Asian-and-American children
and the controversy over proxy adoptions—through
made them visible targets for abuse. And the lack of U.S.
which adoptive parents adopted a child “sight unseen”
and Asian governmental support, and desertion by their
through a third party abroad—dominated their interac-
American fathers, influenced their mothers’ decisions
tions. In later years, more cooperative relations would
to abandon them, creating a group of children available
prevail.
for adoption.
8
popularized and facilitated Asian international adop-
These controversies have a longer history rooted in
Until recently, the history of Asian international
International adoption from China is popularly con-
adoption was a topic markedly absent from Asian Amer-
ceived as a recent history, beginning in the late 1980s
ican studies. In the past decade, however, a critical mass
and early 1990s with the emergence of China’s “one-
of scholarship has emerged. The leadership of Korean
child policy” and its increasing standardization of in-
adoptee artists and scholars has been pivotal in mak-
ternational adoption. While the policy may have eased
ing Asian adoptee concerns integral to the field. Under
the pressure of rapid population growth on Chinese
the executive directorship of filmmaker and producer
communities, it has been widely criticized for motivat-
Deann Borshay Liem, NAATA (National Asian Ameri-
ing Chinese families, living in a patriarchal society with
can Telecommunications Association, now the Cen-
a marked cultural preference for boys, to relinquish baby
ter for Asian American Media) showcased films about
girls for adoption. However, an earlier period of Chinese
Asian international adoption. The Association for Asian
international adoption took place in the 1950s and
American Studies (AAAS) features an Asian Adoptee
adoption
catherine ceniza choy
section, which Kim Park Nelson founded in 2007. At the groups’s annual meetings, scholarly panels regularly feature recent research on Asian international adoption. Finally, the keyword “adoption” has enabled political as well as scholarly projects that are critical of the
2 Art Margo Machida
dominant narrative about Asian international adoption, which casts the phenomenon as the humanitarian rescue of Asian children by white American families. Scholars and activists have called attention to the global
Whereas all human societies have developed visual
inequities that persist in Asian international adoption,
idioms, the idea of Art (with a capital “A”) is elusive,
the significance of birth families, the social reality of
much debated, and often closely entwined with
adult adoptees, and the historical and political ties that
social and class hierarchies, and subjective matters of
bind international adoptees to immigrants. They em-
value, taste, and sensibility. Its historic application as
phasize that Asian international adoption is a unique
a cultural category and definitions of what constitutes
phenomenon deserving of scholarly attention on its
visual art have varied significantly from culture to
own terms as well as a generative lens through which
culture, across different historic periods, and according
we can view our increasingly global society.
to the background, position, and perception of the viewer. Especially in the modern West, distinctions have typically been drawn between “high” or “fine” art, and crafts or applied arts. “Fine” art has been conceived as a specialized, elevated focus of aesthetic activity with its own intellectual history, professional principles, standards of judgment, and notions of individual “genius.” By contrast, crafts, design, and vernacular practices deemed as “tribal,” “primitive,” “folk,” or “outsider” art were often treated as lesser. While the Western tradition of visual art once referred mainly to painting, sculpture, drawing, and graphics, the invention of groundbreaking technologies— photography, film, television, the computer—and the appearance of new practices including video, digital, mixed media, web- based, conceptual, installation, performance, body, land, and earth art have repeatedly enlarged and complicated the ways in which visual artistic activity is understood and utilized. Moreover, as distinctions continue to erode between the realms of the “fine” arts, visual and material culture, and 9
section, which Kim Park Nelson founded in 2007. At the groups’s annual meetings, scholarly panels regularly feature recent research on Asian international adoption. Finally, the keyword “adoption” has enabled political as well as scholarly projects that are critical of the
2 Art Margo Machida
dominant narrative about Asian international adoption, which casts the phenomenon as the humanitarian rescue of Asian children by white American families. Scholars and activists have called attention to the global
Whereas all human societies have developed visual
inequities that persist in Asian international adoption,
idioms, the idea of Art (with a capital “A”) is elusive,
the significance of birth families, the social reality of
much debated, and often closely entwined with
adult adoptees, and the historical and political ties that
social and class hierarchies, and subjective matters of
bind international adoptees to immigrants. They em-
value, taste, and sensibility. Its historic application as
phasize that Asian international adoption is a unique
a cultural category and definitions of what constitutes
phenomenon deserving of scholarly attention on its
visual art have varied significantly from culture to
own terms as well as a generative lens through which
culture, across different historic periods, and according
we can view our increasingly global society.
to the background, position, and perception of the viewer. Especially in the modern West, distinctions have typically been drawn between “high” or “fine” art, and crafts or applied arts. “Fine” art has been conceived as a specialized, elevated focus of aesthetic activity with its own intellectual history, professional principles, standards of judgment, and notions of individual “genius.” By contrast, crafts, design, and vernacular practices deemed as “tribal,” “primitive,” “folk,” or “outsider” art were often treated as lesser. While the Western tradition of visual art once referred mainly to painting, sculpture, drawing, and graphics, the invention of groundbreaking technologies— photography, film, television, the computer—and the appearance of new practices including video, digital, mixed media, web- based, conceptual, installation, performance, body, land, and earth art have repeatedly enlarged and complicated the ways in which visual artistic activity is understood and utilized. Moreover, as distinctions continue to erode between the realms of the “fine” arts, visual and material culture, and 9
everyday life, it is more commonplace for artists to draw
that could be apprehended by the broadest possible
upon and integrate methods and materials from a range
audience (Cockcroft, Weber, and Cockcroft 1977). Cu-
of sources, including craft, commercial, and industrial
ban graphics, Cultural Revolution–era Chinese politi-
processes.
cal posters, the Chicano art movement, and Mexican
The term “Asian American art,” like “Asian Ameri-
10
murals influenced these efforts as expressions of soli-
can,” first came into general usage as a discrete subject
darity with liberatory struggles against racism and im-
of interest in the late 1960s and 1970s with the contem-
perialism in the U.S. and the Third World (Machida
poraneous rise of the Asian American movement and
2008). Similarly, in the early 1970s, visual art regularly
establishment of ethnic studies as an academic field,
appeared in the Asian American alternative press—
beginning on the West Coast. Fueled by broad-based
including periodicals such as Aion and Gidra in Califor-
protest, identity, and counterculture movements, this
nia, and Bridge magazine in New York—as illustrations,
turbulent moment witnessed the potent convergence
comics, photography, and portraits of people and com-
of heightened ethnic awareness, cultural activism, and
munity life.
politically inspired cultural production. Activist schol-
During the early years of the Asian American move-
ars and writers published the first critical writings that
ment, a highly politicized approach to cultural devel-
sought to frame constituent elements of a distinct Asian
opment influenced by writings such as Mao Zedong’s
American identity and culture. This emergent paneth-
1942 “Talks at the Yan’an Forum on Literature and Art”
nic formulation was premised on the belief that despite
prevailed. Its advocates conceived of art as a force for
their many differences and longstanding antagonisms,
revolutionary transformation and emphasized the art-
Asian groups shared common struggles and aspirations
ist’s social and political responsibility to produce work
to establish themselves in the face of a difficult domes-
of relevance to a community identified chiefly with the
tic history marked by racism, discrimination, exclusion,
Asian American working class and immigrants. In con-
and economic exploitation.
junction with highlighting social problems, and craft-
Exposure to ethnic studies programs also galvanized
ing empowering images to counter distortive represen-
members of this generation to use art to promote so-
tations imposed by the dominant culture, activist artists
cial change. Consequently, the 1970s witnessed the
sought to envision a distinctive Asian American culture.
nationwide formation of grassroots organizations by
However, their efforts to articulate a definitive aesthetic
loose groupings of artists, writers, scholars, college stu-
and, by extension, something that could legitimately be
dents, and cultural activists that played a foundational
called “Asian American art” proved problematic. The is-
role in the Asian American community arts movement
sue would lead to perennial debates over whether the
(Wei 1993; Louie and Omatsu 2001). Pioneering or-
term “Asian American art” refers to the background of
ganizations were established with a strong visual arts
the maker or to a particular subject matter—that is, work
component like Basement Workshop in New York, and
that directly addresses some historic, social, or political
Kearny Street Workshop and Japantown Art and Media
aspect of Asian American experience. With conceptions
Workshop in San Francisco. Activist artists produced
of Asian American art shifting substantially after the
large-scale public murals, silk-screened posters, prints,
1970s, a wide spectrum of opinion subsequently arose
and illustrations intended to impart clear messages
about how, or if, an Asian American visual aesthetic
art
margo machida
should be defined (A. Tam 2000). Reflective of a variety
Yet by the late 1970s, conceptions of Asian Ameri-
of ideological and intellectual orientations, these views
can art were ripe for a radical realignment due to the
have ranged from prescriptive formulations inflected
demographic transformation of the U.S. Asian popu-
by political doctrines to deconstructive critiques of the
lation, resulting from changes in inequitable federal
term itself.
immigration laws, and an expanding backlash against
The intensifying interest in Asian American artists
multiculturalism and identity politics. Due to the 1965
likewise led to the emergence of Asian American arts
abolition of restrictions that severely limited Asian im-
writing, critical discourse, curatorial projects, and archi-
migration to the U.S., along with refugee statutes en-
val efforts in the 1970s. Such developments converged
acted after the Vietnam War, new entrants had begun to
with wider efforts by activist scholars and critics, under
outstrip the U.S.-born generations whose forebears had
the umbrella term “multiculturalism,” to challenge the
mostly settled by the early twentieth century. Beyond
strictures of Eurocentric art historical and aesthetic can-
the profound impact of this new wave of immigration
ons and bring forward art by nonwhite groups in U.S.
and transnational circulation on the internal landscape
society (Lippard 1990). These allied practices would
of Asian America, the so-called “culture wars” were also
contribute to the gradual formation of Asian American
rapidly gaining momentum. Not only was ethnoracial
art history over the ensuing decades. Such ventures, in
difference as a defining concept under widespread at-
which seminal community-based Asian American arts
tack in America by the 1980s, but also due to parallel in-
organizations played a generative role, understand-
tellectual challenges to discourses of identification and
ably associated Asian American art with the groups
strategies of representation, categories such as nation,
that comprised the largest domestic Asian populations
race, ethnicity, and gender, and even unitary concep-
of the period: peoples of East, Southeast, and South
tions of the self were being reconceived as multidimen-
Asian descent. The imprint of that era, as manifested in
sional, shifting, contingent, and discontinuous (Trinh
many exhibitions throughout the 1980s, would exert a
1992).
significant influence on extant discourses about what
Ever more resistant to being labeled as Asian Ameri-
constitutes Asian American art. The 1990s witnessed an
cans, by the 1990s younger artists, curators, critics, and
unprecedented number of museum and gallery exhibi-
scholars perceived that identity, especially when filtered
tions organized under either an Asian American frame
through the lens of race and autobiography, had virtu-
or ethnic-specific rubrics such as Japanese American,
ally become a new delimiting canon for minoritized
Chinese American, Korean American, Filipino Ameri-
artists. In this move away from rhetorics of race and
can, and Vietnamese American art. Many of these shows
identity politics, formulations like “post-racial” and
centered on identity, sociopolitical, and historic issues
“post-identity” art gained increasing currency. As any
related to the transpacific trajectory of U.S. involvement
interest in cultural specificity and affiliation risked be-
in Asia, including the pervasive, multigenerational ef-
ing associated with a confining essentialism, those who
fects on U.S. Asian communities of war in Korea and
continued to characterize their subject as “Asian Ameri-
Southeast Asia, the colonization of the Philippines, and
can” art inevitably found themselves treading through
the World War II internment of Japanese Americans
a dense political and intellectual minefield. Moreover
(Machida 2009).
Asian American art, unlike other disciplines in ethnic art
margo machida
11
studies that were firmly established before the 1980s,
notions of domestic identity (DeSouza 1997). By utiliz-
was still a subject-in-formation when it ran afoul of this
ing a diasporic lens, and by positing an “aesthetics of
polarizing climate (Elaine Kim 2003).
diaspora,” visual art by Asians in the U.S. was recon-
Visual art, moreover, was largely overlooked as a re-
ceived as part of a broad continuum of Asian and Asian
search priority in Asian American studies, unlike other
diasporic artistic production. These included interstitial
aspects of visual culture such as film, television, and
frames like “transexperience” and “intersecting com-
print media. The paucity of serious and sustained Asian
munities of affinities” that were respectively applied to
Americanist scholarly writing on the subject is attrib-
jointly position work by overseas Chinese artists resid-
uted to conditions specific to the genesis and ideologi-
ing in three Western nations (the United States, Austra-
cal roots of a field concerned with ongoing struggles
lia, and France) (M. Chiu 2006), and to trace the forma-
with racism and marginalization (G. Chang 2008). The
tion and artistic production of mixed Asian American
role of visual art in the everyday lives of Asian com-
and Asian artist collectives in New York and Tokyo (A.
munities was seldom mentioned until the 1990s, given
Chang 2008). More recent pandiasporic exhibitions or-
Asian American scholarship’s emphasis on bottom-up
ganized both domestically and abroad would similarly
approaches to social history and labor studies. Indeed
emphasize international connections by juxtaposing
the subject was often viewed with ambivalence, due
artists in Asia with their ethnic counterparts in Asian
to its presumptive links to elite and elitist interests
diasporas, among them a Korean biennial that brought
with no relevance to the lives and circumstances of
together works by Korean and Korean diasporic artists
the Asian American masses. Visual representation was
from the U.S., Kazakhstan, China, Brazil, and Japan (Y.
also scrutinized for its function in providing dominant
S. Min 2002).
culture with a means to negatively stereotype and sup-
12
Overall, the past two decades have proved to be an
press Asian efforts to claim a place for themselves in this
especially fertile period, distinguished by an upsurge of
nation.
publications, research initiatives, and thematic and sur-
Another powerful influence in repositioning Asian
vey exhibitions on and of Asian American art, includ-
American art and cultural criticism—as framed through
ing projects by scholars in Asia and the Pacific. Much
an array of scholarly and curatorial projects—has come
as the foundational work in this field has simultane-
via the accelerating influx of Asian artists and intellec-
ously proceeded inside and outside the academy, it is
tuals to the U.S. during the post-1965 era, which has in-
due to the combined efforts of curators, critics, artists,
creasingly placed Asian American art and artists in dy-
academics, art museums, alternative spaces, commu-
namic conversation with art and ideas emerging from
nity arts and artist-run groups, and historical societ-
Asian nations and global overseas Asian communities
ies that the scope of the contemporary discourse on
(A. Yang 1998). As identity- and nation-based rhetorics
Asian American art continues to expand. Tracing indi-
are relativized by discourses of diaspora, transnational-
vidual artists’ creative and personal trajectories, these
ity, and globalization, the idea of diaspora, while some-
projects variously reveal intricately configured cir-
times criticized for its links to nationalism, provides
cuits of cultural production and differing contexts in
a basis for the comparative study of distinct yet mul-
which artistic work is produced, displayed, interpreted,
tivalent identifications that transcend dichotomous
and marketed. Amid these expansive conceptions of
art
margo machida
contemporary Asian American participation in ongo-
the use of the umbrella term “Asian American art”—like
ing flows of artists, ideas, and cultural influences be-
the heterogeneous construct of Asian America itself—
tween Asia, Oceania, the Americas, Europe, Africa, and
maintains its utility as an angle of view that allows for
the Caribbean, there is rising interest in artists of mixed
the work of artists of diverse Asian heritages to be situ-
ancestry (Kina and Dariotis 2013), and in artistic efforts
ated and compared, irrespective of visual idiom, formal
that occurred prior to the 1960s (Chang, Johnson, and
approach, or subject matter.
Karlstrom 2008; Johnson 2013). Recent publications shed fresh light on works by Yun Gee, Miné Okubo, and Yasuo Kuniyoshi (A. Lee 2003; Robinson and Tajima Creef 2008; S. Wang 2011). These explorations allow for a clearer understanding of the continuum of concerns and standpoints that have engaged visual artists of Asian heritages working in the U.S., including their historic contributions to the development of an internationalized modernism. As this area of inquiry continues to evolve, some cultural critics are also revisiting the value of framing and promoting art as “Asian American.” While they may harbor reservations about “bounded” notions of identity associated with such a term, they also acknowledge the potential elasticity of the rubric in broadly delineating positions that arise from a common presence in this nation. Moreover, they continue to grapple with how to account for the significance of conceptions of race and the particular effects of domestic racialized exclusion on Asians and other nonwhite groups. To the extent, they argue, that the experiences, histories, and cultural contributions by Asian groups in the U.S. society remain obscured, neglected, or even actively denied, platforms for collective representation remain strategically necessary (S. Min 2006). With contemporary Asian American visual artists embracing virtually every medium, stylistic exploration, and intellectual current, and drawing upon the full range of representational and critical strategies, no single discourse, critical perspective, ideological stance, or theme can be taken as definitive. Approached this way, art
margo machida
13
already an American, then assimilation efforts are nor-
3
mative measures to center whiteness as the national identity during a historic era of transnational migration
Assimilation
that brought significant racial and national challenges.
Lisa Sun-Hee Park
With substantial agreement in political ideals and social engagement, Du Bois saw no need for assimilation: “there is no reason why, in the same country and on the same street, two or three great national ideals might not
The definition of “assimilation” and its subsequent
thrive and develop, that men of different races might
usage has long been a contentious issue in American
not strive together for their race ideals as well, perhaps
scholarship. Fundamentally, assimilation raises difficult
even better, than in isolation” (1897, 13). In other words,
questions about the social composition of a society
racial difference was not the problem; it was the racism,
or culture. More specifically, the debates around the
or the assumption of racial inferiority, that marginalizes
term address the adaptation of those populations or
African Americans which was the problem.
individuals understood as outside or different from
14
Later, Robert E. Park further solidified the connection
mainstream society. The New Oxford American Dictionary
between racial anxiety and assimilation. However, un-
defines “assimilate” as a verb meaning to “take in
like Du Bois, Park viewed assimilation as a solution to ra-
(information, ideas, or culture) and understand fully”
cial difference, which he understood as a social problem.
and “absorb and integrate.”
Park’s views were more in line with those of another im-
The dispute over the meaning of assimilation follows
portant African American figure of the time, Booker T.
the intertwined history of racial formation, immigra-
Washington, for whom Park worked as press secretary
tion politics, and national identity in the United States.
for seven years at the Tuskegee Institute in Alabama
In 1897, W.E.B. Du Bois published “The Conservation of
(see H. Yu 2001, 38). Park would later become the most
Races,” in which he argued against assimilation. Du Bois
prominent member of the Chicago School of sociology
pushed for the substantive retention of racial difference,
and the influence of his time with Washington and their
beyond that of physical difference, in acknowledg-
framing of assimilation as a solution is evident within
ment of distinct, racial experiences and their particular
sociology generally. Park and Ernest Burgess’s canonical
contributions to society. In this way, to assimilate was
1921 work, Introduction to the Science of Sociology, estab-
understood as meaning to absorb into white America,
lished Park’s theory of interaction, according to which
which requires the negation of black experience and
two different social groups follow a cycle of progressive
knowledge. He asked, “Have we in America a distinct
stages of interaction. This was understood as a universal,
mission as a race—a distinct sphere of action and an op-
natural process that begins with competition and ends
portunity for race development, or is self-obliteration
with assimilation. Assimilation, then, was understood
the highest end to which Negro blood dare aspire?”
as inevitable, though there were significant barriers to
(1897, 12). Du Bois’s argument rests on the assertion that
achieving this outcome. Park and his protégés went on
African Americans were already Americans; thereby rais-
to produce studies of these barriers—prejudice and iso-
ing the question of “assimilation into what?” If one is
lation in particular—that would define the foundations
of U.S. sociology in general and research on immigrants
program aimed at eradicating minority cultures” can
specifically.
come in multiple forms in the age of hegemonic gov-
Since then, sociology has fluctuated in its usage
ernmentality, in which the domination and subordina-
and acceptance of the term. More recently, Richard
tion of particular classes take place on a “multiplicity
Alba and Victor Nee have argued for the continued le-
of fronts” (Gramsci 1971, 247) and bureaucratic forms
gitimacy of assimilation as a social scientific concept
of recognition and identification enforce “the way in
by “reformulating” the term apart from some of the
which the conduct of individuals or groups might be
most disagreeable elements of the past. They write, “As
directed” (Foucault 1982, 21).
a state-imposed normative program aimed at eradicat-
This is particularly so within neoliberal conditions
ing minority cultures, assimilation has been justifiably
in which the state maintains both a fluid and pervasive
repudiated” (1997, 827). In addition, they acknowledge
presence. And while Alba and Nee are careful to note
the limitation of this concept as a universal outcome
that their definition “does not assume that one group
measure but contend that assimilation remains the sin-
must be the ethnic majority; assimilation can involve
gle best theoretical framework from which “to under-
minority groups only, in which case the ethnic bound-
stand and describe the integration into the mainstream
ary between the majority and the merged minority
experienced across generations by many individuals
groups presumably remains intact” (1997, 863), their
and ethnic groups” (1997, 827).
analysis lacks an understanding of multiple forms of
Parallel to this social scientific progression, the con-
power. Assimilation is not a haphazard event. Govern-
cept of assimilation has been interrogated in other ways.
mental programs, with the enforcement of controlling
Building upon new knowledge of power and the role of
images, are structured in specific ways to promote assim-
the state, scholars have criticized the continued assump-
ilation into a particular citizen subject (see L. Park 2011).
tion of assimilation as a taken-for-granted process of im-
It is an aspirational process and, as such, the point
migrant incorporation in which the state holds a uni-
or value of assimilation is not necessarily to achieve it.
versal and implicitly benign presence. As DeWind and
Its usefulness resides in its nebulous state as a distant
Kasinitz note in their review of immigrant adaptation,
goal rather than as a reality. In this regard, the main is-
whether this concept of assimilation is “segmented”
sue of contention with respect to assimilation is not its
(see Portes and Zhou 1993) or encounters other “bumps
definition but its intention. A critical perspective, de-
in the road,” “[t]he world may well be more complicated
rived from an interdisciplinary analysis that combines
than the straight line model of assimilation implies”
the theoretical and methodological tools of feminist/
(1997, 1099). Alba and Nee and others continue to treat
queer, ethnic, transnational, and postcolonial studies,
assimilation as a natural (meaning spontaneous and
approaches assimilation or, more to the point, the wish
unintentional) occurrence derived from interpersonal
to assimilate as a powerful normative, disciplinary tool.
interaction, largely devoid of state interference. Implicit
This perspective is based in an analysis of power that
in this assumption is an understanding of the state as a
moves away from a state-centric approach. It is an effort
top-down, readily observable social force. But, as schol-
to decenter normative or dominant understandings of
arship on power has shown, the state has multiple faces,
migration, which often unquestioningly mimic the
many of them hidden. A “state- imposed normative
goals of national economic and political rationalities.
assimilation
lisa sun-hee park
15
A case in point is the model minority myth, which is assimilation exemplified. The idea of Asian Americans
this assimilationist narrative focuses on just six of the
as the “model minority” is a myth—meaning, untrue.
largest and wealthiest subgroups (Chinese, Filipino,
However, the myth remains strongly entrenched in the
Indian, Vietnamese, Korean, and Japanese Americans),
U.S. narrative of its national origins as a liberal democ-
which obscures not only the composition of the poverty
racy with equal opportunity. It holds up Asian Ameri-
that exists within Asian American communities but the
cans as models for other minorities based on measures
history of Asian migration to the United States. The
of income, education, and public benefit utilization
privileged Asian Americans of today are not the same
rates (see Cheng and Yang 2000; L. Park 2008). Just re-
Asian Americans of a century ago. They are not the
cently, the myth was promoted in a Pew Research Center
generations descended from the low-wage laborers, in
publication (P. Taylor et al. 2012). Disregarding data that
keeping with a simplistic individual progress narrative
shows vast variations in income and employment expe-
of assimilation. Instead, today’s Asian Americans repre-
riences across Asian immigrant groups in the U.S., the
sent a dramatically bifurcated immigration system that
Pew report in question states that Asian Americans have
separates the “high skilled” from the “low,” and success
made tremendous progress from a century ago, when
or lack thereof in the U.S. is, in no small part, indicative
most were “low-skilled, low-wage laborers crowded into
of one’s access to Western education and other forms
ethnic enclaves and targets of official discrimination”
of human capital prior to migration (see Park and Park
(P. Taylor et al. 2012, 1). And, now, these same immi-
2005 and Hing 1993 for detailed discussions of immigra-
grants are “the most likely of any major racial or ethnic
tion policy). However, the significant role of the state
group in America to live in mixed neighborhoods and
in structurally determining who gets ahead remains
to marry across racial lines.” As an example, the report
hidden within a linear, ahistorical progression toward
states, “When newly minted medical school graduate
cultural assimilation.
Priscilla Chan married Facebook founder Mark Zucker-
A critical assessment, then, brings the state to the fore
berg last month, she joined the 37% of all recent Asian-
by asking, “assimilation into what?” Similar to “capital-
American brides who wed a non-Asian groom” (P. Taylor
ist discipline” as defined by Aihwa Ong, assimilationist
et al. 2012, 1).
narratives promote the “enforced and induced compli-
According to this report, Asian Americans are mod-
16
publication is just one graphic reminder. In addition,
ance” of Asian Americans with specific political, social,
els of assimilation, enjoying high educational achieve-
and economic objectives (1987, 5). According to Yến Es-
ment, good (white) neighborhoods, and interracial
piritu, the objective is a well-rehearsed patriotic drama
marriages to whites. On its face, the model minority
of American rescue, cleansed from the messy realities
myth is a seemingly positive image of personal success
of conquest and colonization (2003, 208). These narra-
and social integration that promotes a moral narrative
tives represent a double-edged sword for Asian Ameri-
of “pull yourself up by your bootstraps.” Absent from
cans. Lisa Lowe explains that Asians in the U.S. hold an
this progress narrative are the many Asian Americans
impossible position in which they are simultaneously
who live in poverty and experience intense and di-
projects of inclusion and exclusion (1996, 4). She ar-
rect racism. The murder of six Sikhs in Milwaukee by a
gues that this contradiction is rooted in the paradoxi-
white supremacist two months after the Pew report’s
cal nature of American citizenship, in which the state
assimilation
lisa sun-hee park
presents itself as a democratic, unified body where all
scholarly contestations regarding assimilation as a mea-
subjects are granted equal access, while it also demands
surement of Americanization conveyed the fluctuating
that differences—of race, class, gender, and locality—be
composition of social citizenship and its deeply inter-
subordinated in order for those subjects to qualify for
twined connection to historical formations of racial
membership (1996, 162). Assimilation, then, is required
difference. It remains to be seen whether assimilation
for inclusion. But assimilation into what? For Asian
as a concept can be convincingly recuperated from its
Americans, it is the position of the perpetual foreigner/
imperial tendencies. As Iris Marion Young has argued,
victim who must be rescued, welcomed, and domesti-
this would require the transformation of institutions
cated (i.e., assimilated) again and again (see Tuan 1999).
and norms to no longer express dominant interests but
The logic is paradoxical by design. Asian Americans, as
function according to neutral rules that do not disad-
a marginalized racial minority, are compelled to adapt
vantage those deemed “different” (1990, 266). What is
their history to fit into an Orientalist drama that re-
clear, however, from these many years of contemplation
quires they play the outsiders repeatedly, all in an effort
is that assimilation is neither simple nor “natural.”
to establish their legitimate role as insiders. In essence, Asian Americans must be foreign in order to fit into the United States (see L. Park 2005). Some of the most influential work on Asian America illustrates how the notion of a model minority does not imply full citizenship rights but, rather, a secondary set of rights reserved for particular minorities who “behave” appropriately and stay in their designated subsidiary space without complaint (see Y. Espiritu 2003; L. Lowe 1996; Glenn 2004; Ong 1999; Palumbo-Liu 1999). This subsidiary space is a socially marginal one in which Asian Americans despite their legal citizenship continue to hold foreigner status (see C. Kim 2000). In this way, assimilation actually reinforces established racial inequalities and imposes on even subsequent generations of Asian Americans born in the U.S. a precarious defensive dilemma in which they must constantly prove their worth as “real” Americans. The foundational disputes regarding racial formation, immigration politics, and national identity associated with assimilation continue. For example, Nadia Kim’s (2007) contemporary critique of assimilation as a form of racialization into whiteness is strongly reminiscent of Du Bois’s more than a century ago. Over the years, assimilation
lisa sun-hee park
17
Pakistanis) arrived with distinct colonial and military
4
histories and cultures that shaped their ethnic politics
Brown
Prashad highlights how Orientalists developed a domi-
Nitasha Tamar Sharma
nant conception of South Asians, or desis—the “Brown”
and experiences in the United States. For instance, Vijay
in his title The Karma of Brown Folk—as neither White nor Black others who are viewed by Americans through the lenses of spirituality and culture vis-à-vis British “Brown” is a term from 11th- century Old English
18
colonization. The direct colonial and military history
(brun) and Middle English (broun) referring to a color,
of U.S.-Philippine relations, on the other hand, shaped
meaning “duskiness, gloom.” With regard to people,
Filipinos’ distinct earlier legal status as U.S. nationals
the Oxford English Dictionary describes a brown person
(rather than as aliens ineligible for citizenship) who
as “having the skin of a brown or dusky colour: as a
were viewed as a sexual-economic threat. Brown and
racial characteristic.” “Brown”’s work as an adjective
Yellow Asians, therefore, have been racialized as per-
(“brown bird”), verb (“to brown”), and noun parallels
petual foreigners, outsiders to the nation. Their social
its references to multiple groups of people, including
locations are to be understood in relation to the founda-
those from Africa, Asia, Europe, the Pacific, and Latin
tional Black-White binary rooted in U.S. slavery and to
America. Given that many people have “brown” skin,
indigeneity. As a racial category forged through racialist
“Brown” of course refers to much more than skin color
ideologies and colonization, Brown often reflects the in-
and phenotype: like the terms “Black” (used to refer to
termediary hierarchal position of those who are neither
people of African descent), “Yellow” (often referring
Black nor (fully) White.
to East Asians), and “Red” (indigenous peoples of the
The institutions of science and law have defined
Americas), it refers not to a thing or person as much
who and what is Brown through categorizing and fix-
as to the processes through which these are given
ing populations to justify colonialism abroad and ex-
meaning.
clusion at home. At the turn of the 19th century, race
The unsettled and untethered uses of “Brown” illus-
scientists such as Johann Friedrich Blumenbach referred
trate the ambiguity and contestation that define its his-
to people from Southeast Asia and the Pacific, includ-
tory. “Yellow” is often the expected terminology with
ing Filipinos, as belonging to the “Malay” or “Brown”
which to discuss Asian Americans, as it has long been
race. During the 1900s, White colonialists distinguished
the American referent for the “Yellow peril” formerly
themselves from their Filipino and Indian subjects. Fili-
known as “Orientals.” The U.S. conflation of Asia with
pinos in the Philippines and the U.S. were bestialized as
East Asia arises from immigration histories and geopo-
“Brown monkeys” and South Asians were patronized, as
litical relations. The Chinese and Japanese were the first
they were by the British, as “little Brown brothers” and
to arrive in substantial numbers, followed by Filipinos
“Brown cousins.” U.S. courts used Blumenbach’s tax-
and South Asians, who were also considered “Asiat-
onomy of five races when they added “Malay” to the
ics,” albeit Brown ones. Under the umbrella of “Brown,”
list of races prohibited from marrying Whites, further
members of various ethnicities (e.g., Filipinos, Indians,
distinguishing Brown Malays from Yellow Mongolians.
Yet law and science have often disregarded one another.
deeply local yet diasporic formations of Brownness and
The Supreme Court case United States v. Thind (1923)
the relational dynamics among communities of color
shifted the categorization of South Asians from “Cau-
across territorial boundaries. Events since the millen-
casian” (and therefore legally “White”) to non-White
nium have encouraged these scholars to consider the
(and thus Brown), upon which they became “aliens in-
locations and intersections of Asian Americans with
eligible for citizenship.”
Arab and Muslim Americans as fellow subjects of U.S.
The ambiguous and shifting nature of this term con-
empire and militarization (Maira and Shihade 2006).
tinues to reveal tensions and alliances across groups.
Other scholars have drawn intellectual and ethno-
Some populations that fall within the umbrella of
graphic links between Brown and Black populations
“Asian American” identify with “Brown” to distinguish
that illustrate models of interminority solidarity. Schol-
themselves from Whites as well as East Asians and yet
ars in Asian American studies have expanded upon Paul
they may be misrecognized as Latino or assumed to be
Gilroy’s (1993) diasporic notion of the Black Atlantic in
Muslims. In late-20th-century U.S. popular representa-
their attention to queer and female subjectivity forma-
tions, “Brown” referred to Latinos and more specifically
tion (Gopinath 2005) and racio-religious terror (Rana
to Mexicans in the Southwest. Hernandez (2010) pro-
2002) within South Asian diaporas. Critical histories
poses “Mexican Brown” as a conceptual and rhetorical
(Fujino 2005; Fujino 2012) have articulated the impacts
tool that reflects the racial lumping of a denigrated caste
of Black struggles (e.g., Brown v. BOE, 1954) and racial
of Mexican migrants who have been constructed as “il-
models of Blackness upon Asian American identity and
legal” noncitizens. Since 9/11, both the Wars on Terror
political formation (Wang 2006).
and the Arab Spring have shifted yet again the always-
“Brown” at the turn of the 21st century is not simply
under-construction lines of “Brown,” so that it now
an imposed identity; it also reflects the racial conscious-
refers to people from the Middle East and North Africa
ness of those who self-identify with the term. Various
and more broadly to the religion of Islam. That these
groups in the U.S. have taken to claiming “Brown pride”
multiple populations representing transnational geog-
as a politicized expression of non-Whiteness, akin to
raphies identify with the same word does not mean they
Black pride. Post-9/11, “Brown” (Sharma forthcoming)
identify with each other as belonging to a single “race.”
operates as a political and diasporic identity among
Thus, “Brown” as a reference to a people’s phenotype,
people across the globe in response to the Wars on Ter-
like “Black,” is not merely descriptive or U.S. based—it
ror and changing U.S.–Middle East relations. This ex-
is political and global.
pression of Brownness as a political concept and iden-
The rise of subfields in Asian American studies has
tity in the 21st century is evidenced in communities
led to an interrogation of the heterogeneity and hier-
that have arisen through global social networks and in
archies of knowledge production within the field. Since
hip hop music that discusses surveillance and oppres-
the 1990s, Filipino American (Tiongson et al. 2006),
sion that links Arabs, South Asians, North Africans,
Southeast Asian (Schlund-Vials 2012a), South Asian
and Muslims—and those mistaken for them—in their
American (Prashad 2000; Prashad 2002), and Pacific
homelands and across diasporas.
Island studies (Camacho 2011) scholars have expanded
“Brown” is both part of and expands beyond Asian
Asian American studies. These subfields highlight the
America. Referring to Latinos, Filipinos, South and
brown
nitasha tamar sharma
19
Southeast Asians, Arabs, “Muslim-looking” people, and fixed boundaries of all racial categories. Racial forma-
5
tion is an always incomplete process of contestation
Citizenship
and negotiation, of hegemony and resistance, and of
Helen Heran Jun
others, its flux reminds us to question the seemingly
imposition and adoption. This category, crafted by racial scientists to impose (their) order upon the world has also been a self-selected identity. The identifications of people around the world as Brown—whether racially,
“Citizenship” has been a key foundational term within
politically, or religiously—demonstrate that Brown will
modern liberal definitions of rights since the 18th
“stick around” as an expansive and global category in-
century. In the most basic sense, citizenship is a legal
fused with power relations.
status accorded to subjects of a nation that confers to its members a host of rights, protections, and obligations. Citizenship is the institution through which states may grant or deny such rights and duties to the inhabitants of a national territory, and thereby positions the state as the ultimate arbiter and guarantor of equality and justice. With the rise of the nationstate form, citizenship became a necessity for realizing what had been imagined as inalienable human rights, insofar as these rights could be practically claimed and administered only if recognized by a nation-state entity (Arendt 1968). At the very heart of the modern idea of citizenship is a universality that is both its emancipatory promise and limit. For example, all subjects who have secured U.S. citizenship status, regardless of the specific particulars of their economic standing, gender, race, religion, national origin, etc., have equal standing before the law and are formally equivalent to one another. Hence, all U.S. citizens can participate in electoral politics, operating as if they were equivalent to one another. Critiques of citizenship maintain that this universalism is a false abstraction since citizens participate in an imaginary political sphere of equality and formal equivalence, while their material lives are in fact constituted by substantive inequalities that define the economic and
20
social spheres. In other words, political emancipation
might seem a familiar one for students of Asian Ameri-
via citizenship replaces and displaces possibilities for
can studies, but it is crucial to contextualize the stakes
actual emancipation. Marx noted how the elimination
of this intervention, which is not a simple negation of
of religion and property ownership as preconditions for
the Marxist critique of citizenship but rather a deepen-
citizenship did not eliminate the power of these institu-
ing of that critique through an understanding of how
tions over people’s everyday conditions, but rather, in-
racialization can produce a productively antagonistic
tensified the reach of religion and class position, which
contradiction to the institution of citizenship.
were now falsely bracketed as private matters so that the
Citizenship has been a primary analytic of Asian
citizen-subject can emerge as an imaginary “universal.”
American discourse (and within ethnic studies, gener-
While the liberal position maintains that this abstract
ally), with an emphasis on both its denial and negation.
equality is the grand substance of citizenship, critics
The early history of Asian American racial formation has
maintain that this imaginary universalism is designed
been a history of the incorporation of Asian labor in the
to offer merely abstract equality—the law will treat you
West while those workers were rendered more exploit-
as if you were all equal to one another—to ensure the
able through the systematic denial of citizenship status
reproduction of vast existing inequality.
through legislation that deemed Asian immigrants in-
Ethnic studies scholars have observed that the Marx-
eligible for citizenship. From the 1790 Naturalization
ist critique of citizenship as abstract and illusory does
Act, which deemed only “free white persons” eligible
not adequately account for the contradictions that
for naturalized citizenship, to the systematic exclusion
inhere to racialized citizenship. For nonwhites in the
of new Asian emigrants (Chinese in 1882, Asian Indians
United States, historical processes of racialization are
in 1917, Japanese and Koreans in 1924, and Filipinos in
not easily confined to the privatized domain of an indi-
1934), and finally to Alien Land laws that prohibited
vidual “particular” and racial difference institutionally
Asians already in the United States from owning prop-
emerges in contradiction to the universality promised
erty, these acts of legislation are concrete manifestations
by political emancipation through citizenship. Lisa
of how Asians were constituted as not only nonwhite
Lowe notes that while Marx regarded abstract labor in
but as antithetical to the U.S. citizen. The history of
the economic sphere as underwriting abstract citizen-
Asian Americans is indeed, generally narrated as the de-
ship, “capital has maximized its profits not through ren-
nied access to U.S. citizenship. For those born to Asian
dering labor ‘abstract,’ but precisely through the social
immigrants in the United States and therefore U.S. citi-
production of ‘difference,’ marked by race, nation, geo-
zens by birth (what Mai Ngai [2000] refers to as “alien
graphical origins, and gender” (1996, 27–28). In other
citizenship”), we can observe the practical irrelevance
words, the classical Marxist critique has not accounted
and disregard of that legal status, such as in the mass
for modalities of differentiation as being crucial to the
internment of Japanese American citizens.
development of capitalism. Like other racialized minor-
We understand this history of exclusion from citi-
ities within the United States, Asians have neither been
zenship as the product of competing interests and in-
abstract labor nor abstract citizens, “but have been his-
stitutions, including capital (which has historically
torically formed in contradiction to both the economic
embraced Asian immigrant labor), white labor inter-
and the political spheres” (L. Lowe 1996, 28). This point
ests (which has historically organized to prohibit Asian
citizenship
helen heran jun
21
immigrant labor), Asian nation-states with varying degrees of geopolitical influence, and the U.S. state, which
citizenship in the United States, it also simultaneously
both passes and reverses exclusionary legislation in the
recognizes that citizenship and the achievement of
effort to manage the political crises that have arisen due
rights can never abolish the exploitative systems that
to the threat (or alternately, the “promise”) of Asian la-
they were in fact designed to protect and reify. Rather,
bor in the United States. In many ways, the 19th-century
the charge for a critical ethnic studies analytic has been
exclusion of Asian immigrant workers from citizenship
to better understand how the imbrication of race and
was also a reaction to the formal inclusion of African
class yields an entire range of contradictions for racial-
Americans into citizenship in 1868 following the aboli-
ized subjects who can be situated in contradictory an-
tion of slavery, a political concession that capital, labor,
tagonism to the mandates of both the state and capital.
and the U.S. state were not eager to repeat (Saxton 1975;
For Asian Americans who have been racialized as
Du Bois 2008).
alien to the national body, but who have been other-
After World War II, however, the needs of the U.S. la-
wise incorporable as exploited workers, as bourgeois
bor market, geopolitical ideological demands, and mass
professionals, and as capitalists, it is crucial to clarify
civil rights mobilization led by African Americans and
the multiple implications of how Asian American racial
others brought an eventual end to exclusionary legisla-
difference emerges in contradiction to citizenship. Bear-
tion directed against Asian immigrants (Melamed 2011;
ing out the materialist critique, we can see, since 1965,
L. Lowe 1996; S. Chan 1991). One feature of the post–
that securing civil rights instantiated racial equality in
civil rights era has been Asian American incorporation
the United States, but only in the legal realm of abstract
into U.S. citizenship via liberalized immigration policies
formal equivalence. While such legal equality enabled
resulting from the Immigration and Naturalization Act,
partial socioeconomic mobility on the part of U.S. racial
or Hart-Celler Act, of 1965 (Ngai 2000). Indeed, with the
minorities, institutionalized racial exploitation contin-
passage of civil rights legislation that same year, African
ues to materialize in racialized ghettoization, uneven
Americans (who were formally granted U.S. citizenship
mortality rates and unequal access to functioning pub-
via the 14th Amendment almost a century earlier) and
lic education, a racialized, gendered labor market, and
all other racialized groups also finally experienced full
subjection to state violence and detention.
formal equality and equal rights, that is, full equality in
22
of citizenship recognizes the historical racialization of
One aspect of contradiction that has been familiar
the realm of the law. However, as the Marxist critique
terrain within Asian American discourse underscores
of citizenship underscores, legal equality and political
how, despite access to citizenship, Asian Americans
emancipation (as if we were equal) will necessarily fail
continue to signify within the national imaginary as
to resolve the brutal racialized inequality that consti-
racially particular and as foreign to the national cul-
tutes our social formation. The ethnic studies critique
ture. We can see how Asian American racial difference
of Marx’s inability to account for the imbrication of race
is a particularity that does not simply dissolve into
and class retains this crucial understanding that under
the universality promised by political representation
liberal capitalism, citizenship is constituted in relation
through the institution of citizenship. Hence, even
to the sanctity of property rights that the political state
economically privileged Asian Americans are read not
is founded to protect. While an ethnic studies critique
as “universal” U.S. citizens, but regarded through the
citizenship
helen heran jun
laudatory terms of their racial difference as model mi-
imperialist wars waged in Asia (and beyond), or waging
norities. While members of the educated Asian Ameri-
antieviction campaigns on the behalf of the Asian Amer-
can professional class may continue to signify as cul-
ican elderly, there is strong reason to believe that despite
turally foreign despite their citizenship and economic
the institutionalization of Asian American studies, it is
status, such examples of exclusion do not negate or dis-
possible that in the distance or disruption produced by
place the vast differences in life opportunities that radi-
Asian American racialization, something other than the
cally distinguish the lives of the Asian American poor
lamenting desire for inclusion into existing institutions
from those of their economically mobile professional
might emerge to interrupt the endless loop of denial and
counterparts.
desire constituted by citizenship. In other words, even
Therefore, what is often referred to as the construc-
middle-class or elite Asian American disaffection/alien-
tion of the Asian as the “forever foreigner”—the de-
ation can potentially be the basis for a critique of citi-
ferred promise of full inclusion into the national body
zenship with different political horizons that would be
that Asian Americans are yet to enjoy—cannot be inter-
transformative of the brutal conditions endured by the
preted as the ultimate crisis and horizon of what Asian
racialized poor in this country and beyond. Race is the
Americans must both claim and aspire to. Such a posi-
locus in which multiple contradictions—economic, gen-
tioning situates the Asian American critique as a perpet-
der, sexual—variously cohere and assemble in specific
ual lament of never being recognized as a “true” Ameri-
contexts, and hence it is a locus of myriad tensions that
can, a grievance that one is continually (mis)recognized
must be kept in productive relation with a critical under-
as a foreigner rather than citizen. For the Asian Ameri-
standing of global capitalism (Hall 1980; L. Lowe 1996).
can poor, the consequences of such Othering can mean
As with other racialized immigrants, citizenship is
the naturalization of violence and exploitation of, say,
one of the most crucial mediating institutions in the
immigrant garment workers or the lack of resources for
formation of Asian Americans, irrespective of specific
displaced Southeast Asian refugees after Katrina, while
legal statuses. Whether as U.S.-born citizens, green-card
for the Asian American elite, it can manifest as a bitter-
holders, H-1B workers, or those granted refugee status,
sweet night of winning the Miss America pageant or the
the institution of citizenship dictates the terms of access
difficulty of securing political office in a non-Asian dis-
to the labor market and to a host of state-regulated re-
trict. While all of these instances can be taken up as yet
sources, including housing, healthcare, and education.
another sign of the enduring “disenfranchisement” of
In this context, we can recognize the clear importance
Asian Americans, there is much at stake for Asian Ameri-
of pressuring the state to make good on its promises of
can studies in recognizing that full inclusion for the lat-
abstract rights, whether in the instance of challenging
ter group—that is, when professional Asian Americans
state surveillance of U.S. Muslim communities, seeking
can unquestionably be regarded as representative of
benefits for Filipino World War II veterans, or securing
America—will not resolve the violent material depriva-
safer housing for Southeast Asian refugees. At the same
tion of the Asian American poor.
time, it is critical to simultaneously recognize how a
Given the history of Asian American studies and
rights-based discourse narrows the parameters and
its commitment to critiquing the exploitation of 19th-
terms of what can be claimed and imagined as politi-
or 21st- century Asian/American workers, opposing
cally possible.
citizenship
helen heran jun
23
Predictably for the most privileged under globalized
competition in the free market and diminished state ca-
capitalism, Asian American displacement from national
pacity (with the exception of policing and the military).
culture may cease to even resonate as crisis, particularly
In other words, in the post–civil rights era, discourses
for the members of a bourgeois Asian cosmopolitan
of Asian American racial difference are consistently in
class less invested in signifying as “American” so long
the service of constituting a new conception of citizen-
as they have the access secured by multiple passports
ship defined through both normativity and individual
and dual citizenship (Ong 1999; Appadurai 2000; Miyo-
competition, while explicitly undermining and eroding
shi 1993). The globalization of capital has significantly
principles of reciprocity, obligation, and social contract
altered the meaning of citizenship as neoliberal rheto-
that have constituted the most compelling social di-
ric and economic policies have dismantled the welfare
mensions of citizenship.
state and the very notion that citizenship entails “entitlements”; there is, instead, an obsessive trumpeting of a discourse of “individual responsibility” that works to displace any traditional notion of the social. Stuart Hall and David Held contend that, while traditional critics might have regarded citizenship rights as a kind of “bourgeois fraud” in the post-Thatcher/Reagan era, there are renewed stakes to working out “the individual vs. the social dimensions of citizenship rights,” the latter of which is negated by a neoliberal rhetoric that asserts that the common good can be realized only by private individuals engaging in a capitalist free market, unencumbered by state intervention (Hall and Held 1989). As Thatcher famously declared, “there is no such thing as society, only individual men and women and their families,” an extraordinary call that seeks to obliterate the very notion of a larger social good or collective beyond the heteronormative nuclear family. This neoliberal emphasis and recognition of the normative “family” as the only legible social unit also suggests that the dominant construction of Asian Americans since 1965 as hardworking, self-reliant, and family-oriented subjects is part of a neoliberal rhetoric that has refashioned the modern discourse of citizenship of entitlements and state obligations—to provide access to housing, public education, health care, and employment—into an individuated narrative of private 24
citizenship
helen heran jun
a claim has been significantly supplemented by an
6
acknowledgement of the importance of race, as well as gender, sexuality, and other markers of difference, in
Class
sustaining unequal access to wealth, and indeed to the
Min Hyoung Song
very means of sustaining life itself. As Marx was quite aware, history does not unfold with the dialectical neatness that his insistence on the primacy of capital and labor suggests. Moments of revo-
The meaning of “class” in Asian American studies
lutionary possibility do not always, or often, lead to
formed in conversation with Marxism, with the former
changes that directly benefit workers. The outcome of
building on the latter’s insights while seeking to find
any struggle is intrinsically unpredictable. There are at
ways to exceed its perceived limitations. For instance,
least two major ways in which the capitalist class can
Lisa Lowe starts her groundbreaking book Immigrant
keep the working class in check regardless of the historic
Acts: On Asian American Cultural Politics by insisting,
circumstances, frustrating or even foiling what might
“Understanding Asian immigration to the United
have turned into a revolution. First, it can deploy what
States is fundamental to understanding the racialized
Louis Althusser calls—in an essay that has been widely
foundations of both the emergence of the United
quoted and critiqued in Asian American studies circles
States as a nation and the development of American
(J. Ling 1998, 159–60; V. Nguyen 2002, 144; M. Chiang
capitalism” (1996, ix). In the equally groundbreaking
2009, 27)—a “repressive state apparatus,” which is a
Everybody Was Kung Fu Fighting: Afro-Asian Connections
combination of laws, courts, police, and military that
and the Myth of Racial Purity, Vijay Prashad observes,
work more or less in concert against the interests of the
“White supremacy emerged in the throes of capitalism’s
working class. Unfortunately for the capitalist class, re-
planetary birth to justify the expropriation of people
lying on repression alone is expensive and inefficient.
off their lands and the exploitation of people for
Being nakedly repressive also leaves capitalists unable
their labor” (2001, x–xi). In both these examples, race
to keep workers, such as individual police officers, serv-
plays a larger role in the development of capitalism
ing in roles that require them to inflict physical harm on
than Marx himself ever considered. This is so because,
others of the same class. Before long, such workers can
for Marx, capitalism could best be explained as a
begin to think of themselves openly as part of the work-
process of valorization produced by the inequality
ing class and join the very people they are supposed
between those who own the means of production
to keep in line. Under such circumstances, capitalists
and those who own only their ability to work. To
have no choice but to employ the lumpenproletariat, a
keep this discussion as simple as possible, we can refer
subclass of loafers who neither have any access to the
to these two fundamental socioeconomic classes as
means of production nor care to use their labor to per-
capitalists and workers. While other classes did exist
form any useful work. They are as a result more inclined
for Marx, he understood them as having become less
to crime and other unproductive behavior than anyone
relevant as capitalism replaced preexisting economic
else. Employing the lumpenproletariat as hired thugs is
arrangements. For scholars like Lowe and Prashad, such
a dangerous move, however, because by definition they 25
are untrustworthy and might easily decide to turn their
26
would fall apart. Overlaid on top of this all-important
weapons of repression on their employers with the hope
structure of inequality are the efforts capitalists employ
that they can usurp their position.
to confuse workers and make them unable to band to-
Hence, finding an alternative way to prevent workers
gether into a revolutionary force. We can call this layer
from engaging in revolutionary activity is of paramount
of misinformation, deception, and trickery the “super-
importance if the capitalist class wants to maintain its
structure,” an epiphenomenon of ideological manipu-
dominance. The most significant method involves con-
lation that actively frustrates workers’ attempt to make
fusion, via what Althusser called the “ideological state
sense of their real interests even as it may also act as a
apparatus.” For instance, workers may be convinced by
crucial domain for these same workers to grasp intellec-
various means that what truly ails them are undocu-
tually changes occurring to the base that can lead them
mented workers whose illegal presence in their country
to revolt. The fact that the superstructure can simul-
steals jobs away from those like themselves, who are law
taneously obfuscate and provide insight suggests that
abiding. In this way, such workers may be convinced
while the base is ultimately what drives history forward,
that their real enemies are not the owners of the means
there remains a fluid and heuristic relationship between
of production but a subgrouping within their own
the two. Despite Marx’s tacit recognition that the base
class who reap unmerited rewards, who unfairly hog
is not always and only determinant, many leftists have
resources, and who are somehow a threat to their way
conceived of the cultural work they should engage in as
of life. As this example suggests, the task of confusion
tantamount to showing how what we believe to be im-
is easier to accomplish if workers are divided along ra-
portant is an illusion, a part of the superstructure, that
cial, ethnic, gendered, and national lines, and taught to
inhibits us from firmly making sense of what is actually
feel superior because they are not the Other. Hence, for
important, the base.
those who study Asian Americans, a keen awareness of
As Asian American studies scholars have pointed out,
how race coincides with the interests of capital might
many of the activists who first considered themselves
stress, as Mae Ngai does, how this concept “is always
Asian Americans in the early 1970s modeled their strug-
historically specific. At times, a confluence of economic,
gles on black power (Maeda 1999; Omatsu 2000; Fujino
social, cultural, and political factors has impelled major
2005). This means that while they often employed the
shifts in society’s understanding (and construction) of
language of Marxism, they were also engaged in a sharp
race and its constitutive role in national identity forma-
departure from its preoccupation with class, especially
tion” (2004a, 7).
when it privileges this category of analysis over all oth-
Given how essential this second method of social
ers. There were of course several prominent activists
control is, we might say that there are two levels of rela-
who maintained the centrality of class in their think-
tionships that organize capitalist societies. There is the
ing, such as Grace Lee Boggs (although she did so specif-
“base” or “infrastructure,” which refers specifically to
ically with an attention to the experiences of an African
the relationship between capital and labor that forms
American working class), but others who turned explic-
“the economic conditions of production” (Marx 1978, 5).
itly to race as a basis of organizing tended to be skep-
It is necessarily structured by inequality, without which
tical of such privileging. Some, for instance, turned to
wealth would not be possible and capitalist societies
the Black Panther Party for inspiration, and in doing so
class
min hyoung song
adopted the very un-Marxist view that the lumpenpro-
primacy to class at the expense of attention to these
letariat was revolution’s “vanguard” (Pulido 2006, 142).
other forms is likely to stir suspicion, as such an ap-
In general, most early self-conscious Asian Ameri-
proach is a sure sign that one is not taking the struggles
cans understood revolution less as the overturning of
of racial minorities, women, queers, and the disabled
a class relation and more as a struggle against inequali-
seriously enough. This view also conjures past working-
ties of many kinds. It was only by coordinating such
class movements that have defined the worker explicitly
struggles, they reasoned, that a broad coalition could
as white, male, heteronormative, and able-bodied.
be built to help upset the status quo into social forms
One consequence of this consensus is the discomfort
more respectful of the complexities of peoples’ actual
it has generated for those who insist that class must re-
lives. This kind of thinking had little room to grant class
main at the center of all socially responsible thought.
the kind of primacy it once enjoyed, and has instead led
The prominent American literature scholar Walter Benn
to understandings of class and race, alongside gender,
Michaels exemplifies this discomfort when he writes,
sexuality, and increasingly disability, as dynamically
“we like the difference between black people and white
intersectional concepts (Hong 2006, xxvi). In their
people or between whites and Asians much more than
foundational book Racial Formation in the United States:
we like the difference between the rich kids and the poor
From the 1960s to the 1990s, Michael Omi and Howard
ones” (2011, 1023). As this quotation suggests, when
Winant state this view with unequivocal clarity: “Racial
class is understood as the primary social relationship
dynamics must be understood as determinants of class
around which all others are of secondary importance,
relationships and indeed class identities, not as mere
attention to racial difference, gender, sexual orientation,
consequences of these relationships” (1994, 34). Other
the disabled, or the nation can be easily understood as
thinkers such as Chandan Reddy (2011, 33–34), Junaid
a sideshow. Worse, becoming fixated on anything other
Rana (2011, 157), and Lisa Marie Cacho (2012, 99–100)
than class can mean that one has become a counter-
have since turned to Foucault, who in “Society Must Be
revolutionary, someone so blinded by the buzz of the
Defended” suggests that class may be an epiphenome-
superstructure that one ends up preventing others from
non of race: “After all, it should not be forgotten that to-
engaging in meaningful political struggle. Indeed, so
ward the end of his life, Marx told Engels in a letter writ-
blind has Asian American studies been in its commit-
ten in 1882 that ‘[y]ou know very well where we found
ment to everything but class, it has, according to Mi-
our idea of class struggle; we found it in the work of the
chaels, become focused on fostering “a world in which
French historians who talked about the race struggle’”
the fundamental conflicts have less to do with wealth
(2003, 79).
than with race, space, gender, and sexuality. . . . This is
For the most part, debate about the importance of class has largely been settled in Asian American studies in favor of intersectional thinking. Class is now widely
the world of neoliberalism, the world in which identity and inequality have both flourished” (2011, 1029). For many in the field of Asian American studies, the
understood to be one of several important forms of in-
demand that scholars must choose between paying
equality around which we understand how modern
attention to race or class can feel impossible to satisfy.
American society, as well as societies in general, are
As Sunaina Maira reports, for instance: “an African
structured. Indeed, anyone who advocates for giving
American woman who lived in the North Wellford
class
min hyoung song
27
[pseudonym] apartments once told me that all the
relatively large numbers of materially well-off college-
South Asian families were middle class, if not well off,
educated professionals and skilled international workers
and she observed that they were quick to move out of
on specialized visas who are gaining a lot of attention,
the high-rise apartments and buy their own houses.
and setting the pace for what is popularly understood as
What she did not see was that many of these family
Asian American. While few in this group can be said to
members worked, possibly even without wages, in fam-
own the means of production, and many may lead mod-
ily businesses and so did not earn much individually
estly precarious lives (in the sense that should they ever
and that several family units were crowded into small
lose their jobs, they could quickly fall into economic
apartments where they shared one or two bedrooms”
and other kinds of trouble), they do enjoy an impressive
(2009, 141). Being Asian American in the mind of this
access to wealth and the kind of pleasures such access
African American woman, as in Michaels’s article, has
can afford. At the bottom, there are an equally large, if
become synonymous with upward mobility, mysteri-
not larger, number of working poor, the undocumented,
ous access to wealth, and social distance. At the same
refugees, and so forth who struggle everyday with little
time, Maira’s explanation of the invisible struggles
wealth to sustain themselves at a high level of precarity.
South Asian American family members endure reveals
Now, more than ever, “Asian America” names a paradox
how tirelessly working class they are and how within the
of “class” that makes the latter term resonate with ur-
family unit class cleavages emerge. Some members are
gent meaning.
workers whose exploitation is nearly total, so that they work only for the cost of their basic physical maintenance, while other members reap the benefits of their labor to concentrate wealth and invest in schemes for more accumulation. In this example, Asian immigrants become both capital and labor, and as a result capable of economic mobility while simultaneously remaining workers with only their ability to work to sell. Because of this apparent class paradox, they also seem racially different from their African American neighbors, who somehow can’t—and wouldn’t want to?—achieve the same feat. Clearly, more attention to the way class entangles ideas of race, and the way race does the same to class, is needed. One approach that many scholars have already taken (Parreñas 2001; Park and Park 2005; Zhou and Gatewood 2007) is to consider how successive immigration laws have given birth to an hourglass, and often transnational, class structure within Asian America itself that is also often ethnically marked. At the top, there are 28
class
min hyoung song
In addressing the historical commodification of race,
7
Mae Ngai considers the enterprising ways in which Chinese merchants acted as social agents who capitalized
Commodification
on the exoticism of racial difference in world’s fairs and
Nhi T. Lieu
insists that we examine such interactions as “products of translation and negotiation” (2004a, 61). Likewise, Sabina Haenni notes in her close readings of commercial leisure in Chinatowns that Chinese immigrants played
In Capital, Volume One, Marx was highly critical of commodification, a process that occurs under
an active role in “self-Orientalization” as a way to seek “cultural legitimation” (2008, 146).
capitalism whereby things are assigned an exchange
As did the early immigrants who vied for cultural le-
value in the marketplace. He observed that when
gitimacy, Asian immigrants who arrived later invested in
the use-value of commodities are given economic or
cultural commodification for different purposes, trans-
exchange values, these commodities subsequently
forming meanings of cultural nationalism and cultural
modify social relationships. Building upon these ideas,
practice as well as ethnic identity. One of the most public
Marxist scholars such as Arjun Appadurai (1986), Stuart
displays of culture is embodied through dress, but cloth-
Hall (1992), and Donald Lowe (1995) have complicated
ing and fashion are contested terrains of commodifica-
the studies of commodification to argue that the social
tion. For example, adorning women in traditional ethnic
values of commodities are highly contested and firmly
dress such as the ao dai, cheongsam, hambok, kimono,
immersed in their cultural, social, and political contexts.
and sari visually renders them as cultural bearers of dif-
In her thought-provoking article “Eating the Other,” bell
ferent Asian nations. Vietnamese refugees commodified
hooks (1992) contends that racial and ethnic expressions
the national dress, the ao dai, to consolidate an identity
of difference by minoritized groups can be co-opted,
of exile by claiming it as an authentic piece of Vietnamese
sold, and consumed in the dominant marketplace. In
culture (Lieu 2001). The maintenance of exclusive claim
this essay, I explore the various ways in which capitalism
to a commodified object is however elusive, particularly
makes commodification practices manifest through
as traditional material objects become highly desirable
culture, ethnicity, and the racialized body. I suggest that
fashion pieces that reinterpret meanings of class, ethnic-
histories of colonialism and Orientalism shape various
ity, and gender. Thuy Linh Tu’s evocative study of Asian
forms of commodification as it pertains to Asians and
American fashion designers “threads” together “design
Asian Americans. Following complex human migratory
as an Asian American practice and Asianness as a fashion-
paths, the social lives of objects, bodies, cultural
able commodity” (2010, 6). Tu troubles the complex web
forms, and practices are animated by transnational
of intimacies between Asian immigrant labor and Asian
market exchanges. Commodification thus occurs as a
American fashion designers who are defined by their po-
dynamic process in the service of capitalist expansion.
sitioning as a racialized creative class. Tu’s work illumi-
It functions to transform racial and ethnic difference by
nates the trend in late capitalist globalization in which
repackaging, exoticizing, and making cultural forms and
commodification frequently erupts in popular culture
practices more palatable for mainstream consumption.
and Orientalist tropes still resonate in fashion and design. 29
Advances in technology from the 1990s onward
to contribute to the discourse of American exception-
in media such as satellite television and digital video
alism. As such, embodied racial hybridity has become
have facilitated this circulation of Orientalist images
valuable in the marketplace, particularly in a society
in contemporary popular culture. In her work on the
that claims to value diversity but is slow to respond to
emergence of “Indo-chic” and “Asian cool,” Sunaina
social policies that promote it.
Maira argues that the popularization of Asian cultural
With the expansion of global capitalism, the domi-
practices such as the application of henna by American
nance of new media, and the advancement in digital
models, actress, and celebrities including Madonna and
technology, we are witnessing not only the commodi-
Gwen Stefani commercializes and evacuates them of
fication of ethnicity, but of bodies, food, music, and
their specific cultural meanings. More specifically, her
anything that can be marketed, made available for eco-
studies of the mainstream embrace and cooptation of
nomic exchange, and consumed by those with access
mehndi, bindis, yoga, and belly dancing (2007; 2008)
to capital. Ethnic immigrant communities have partici-
demonstrate the fluidity of these cultural forms as
pated in self-commodification as a strategy to assuage
they become palatable to and commodified by middle-
the social fears of alien others. While this introduced
class women. She writes, “Indo-chic does the political
the mainstream to “foreign cultures,” the drawback to
and symbolic work of domesticating difference, ex-
commodification remains that it renders humans as ob-
tracting not just profit but the very signs of difference
jects to be desired. Moreover, the racial structure does
from South Asian immigrant workers and South Asian
not allow for Asians and Asian Americans to have con-
Americans at large. This commodification of the threat
trol over consumption. It is important to note what bell
of difference is even more apparent as the ‘war on im-
hooks reminds us, that the consumption of the other
migrants’ of the 1980s and 1990s has extended into the
is legitimated by a racial structure that positions others
‘war on terror,’ affecting Muslim, Arab, and South Asian
to be consumed. The danger lies not in commodifica-
immigrants, as well as undocumented immigrants more
tion itself but, as Marx would caution, in the fetishism
generally” (2007, 237). Confronted with cultural and ra-
of commodities.
cial difference, dominant groups thus commodify “others” to manage what is deemed as unfamiliar. While the commodification of cultural practices renders ethnic and immigrant communities subject to other forms of commodification, Marilyn Halter (2000) has demonstrated that immigrant groups have the power to gain economic security when they reinforce their ethnic identities. This was most pertinent between the 1990s and early 2000s, when multiculturalism flourished as a profitable marketplace phenomenon. Today, in an era perceived as “post-racial,” there remains a profitable “ethnicity” enterprise that seeks to tweak and refashion old products and invent new ones 30
commodification
nhi t. lieu
segregation. They were unwelcomed in an American re-
8
public that espoused a fervent nationalism and nation-
Community
tion Act bestowed citizenship on “free white persons,”
Linda Trinh Võ
thereby excluding Asians, who were classified as “aliens
state based on white supremacy. The 1790 Naturaliza-
ineligible for citizenship,” from the body politic, which relegated them to the status of perpetual foreigners. U.S. colonial projects in Asia and domestic policies based on “Community,” or “communities,” is an amorphous
ideologies of Manifest Destiny reified their subordinate
keyword in Asian American studies that has evolved
position in the racial hierarchy. Cultural stereotypes
along with societal transformations, and its meaning
and pseudo-scientific constructions of them as inferior,
is highly contested. The Oxford English Dictionary
uncivilized, and inassimilable affirmed that they were a
defines “community” as a “body of people organized
peril to national unity. Xenophobia and fears of Asian
into a political, municipal, or social unity”; it can be
laborers as economic competitors created exclusionary
characterized as those “who have certain circumstances
immigration policies, particularly concerning women,
of nativity, religion, or pursuit, common to them, but
and repatriation programs, which were implemented to
not shared by those among whom they live.” In Asian
prevent the formation of permanent geographic settle-
American studies, the term is most often associated
ments. The ethnic spaces they managed to form were
with bounded, geographic localities that incorporate
alleged to be sites of contagious diseases and aberrant
people, places, and institutions that have an affinity
sexuality, “vice-filled opium dens,” and as such, threats
to one another or intricate connections. Additionally,
to public health and Protestant morality (N. Shah 2001).
communities are interpreted as non-territorial spaces,
They endured mob violence and massacres as well as the
formed by individuals residing in various locations
arson of their residences and neighborhoods.
who share similar interests or objectives. They can be
Scholars have also recouped a celebratory history of
created as a result of people being excluded or treated
Asian American pioneers who contributed to the nation,
interchangeably, thereby compelling them to come
capturing the materialization of their communities and
together, or they can be forged by internal notions
their engagement in acts of resistance. Ostracized from
of sameness, as a result of which aggregates cohere
mainstream America, early immigrants forged their
and differentiate themselves from those outside
own economic and cultural spaces in both rural and ur-
certain territorial or ideological boundaries. For Asian
ban areas (Takaki 1989; S. Chan 1991; Matsumoto 1993).
Americans, these collectivities are often projected
Attracted by economic opportunities, they labored in
as welcoming and unified; however, they also can be
agricultural production, railroad construction, fishing
exclusionary and divided, so in certain contexts the term
industries, service sector economies, and light manu-
has a beneficial and affirming connotation, while in
facturing, with some owning small farms or businesses.
other cases it is perceived as oppressive and constrictive.
In their pocket areas, they managed to create economic
Studies of Asian Americans have focused on them
niches for survival, devoid of interracial competition
as victims of racial discrimination and involuntary
and governmental interference. They relied on kin and 31
non-kin networks with those who shared the same dialect, home village, region, and religion to find housing
been identified with terms such as “barrio,” “colonia,”
and employment. As a result of legislation, such as the
“enclave,” “ghetto,” “inner city,” and “slums,” which
Alien Land Laws, and later racially restrictive covenants,
can have negative or positive connotations depending
Asian immigrants were prohibited from purchasing
on the context (Y. Chang 2010). Ethnic succession or
land or property, but they managed to establish roots
ecological models developed by Chicago School soci-
by registering property in their U.S.- born children’s
ologists theorized that ethnic concentrations are gate-
names, signing long-term leases, or finding neighbor-
way spaces for first-generation immigrants to transition
hoods willing to accommodate their presence (Brooks
and eventually assimilate into American society (H. Yu
2012). The Asian women who were permitted entry,
2002). Although other terms have been employed, “eth-
such as merchant’s wives and picture brides, contrib-
nic enclave” is typically associated with Asian American
uted to the family labor and the formation of perma-
community formation and many scholars depict such
nent settlements.
ethnic concentrations as places that provide opportuni-
In these positive references to community, cluster
ties for immigrants to find employment, build networks,
spaces are narrativized as safe havens where Asians
become incorporated, and ultimately, be socioeconomi-
found a refuge from mistreatment. Scholars analyzed
cally mobile (Zhou 1995). In contrast, other scholars ar-
how members created their own associations and in-
gue that enclaves are isolating and counterproductive
stitutions, some of which paralleled mainstream ones.
to assimilating immigrants or enhancing their civic
As a form of resistance to their exclusion, they demar-
engagement (Peter Kwong 1996). Additionally, critics
cated their communities by establishing markets, stores,
of neoliberalism argue that ethnic enclaves reproduce
restaurants, pool halls, schools, and religious sites that
conditions of inequality and poverty, and that their in-
served co-ethnics. For residents and migratory laborers,
sularity allows the state to relinquish its social and fiscal
these ethnic hubs allowed those who were homesick to
obligations. Immigrant enclaves are reliant on an infor-
absorb the sights, sounds, and smells of their homeland.
mal economy characterized by fierce competition, slim
In the earlier historical period, the predominantly male
profit margins, and a flexible labor pool (Hum 2014). As
population created a bachelor subculture and engaged
such, they produce labor market segmentation in the
in leisure activities in these shared homosocial spaces.
light manufacturing industries, retail and service sec-
With the arrival of a diverse range of immigrants follow-
tors, and small businesses, which can lead to unemploy-
ing the 1965 Immigration Act and refugees at the end
ment and underemployment as well as co-ethnic labor
of the Viet Nam War in the post-1975 era, ethnic sites
exploitation that is often unmonitored or unregulated.
provide opportunities for newcomers to participate in
32
In addition to “community,” ethnic districts have
The concept of community is not only used synony-
communal activities and construct a collective ethnic
mously to reference an ethnic group, such as Filipino
identity (Bonus 2000; Rudruppa 2004). This perspec-
American or Korean American, it is also substituted for
tive conceives of community as a favorable place for
the broader label “Asian American.” In the late 1960s,
ethnic solidarity, since it promotes ethnic retention and
the term “Asian American,” coined by Yuji Ichioka, was
the transmission of traditional cultural practices (Wong
adopted by activists who articulated their shared inter-
and Chan 1998; L. Kurashige 2002).
ests, in parallel with the formation of Asian American community
linda trinh võ
studies (Y. Espiritu 1992). Benedict Anderson observes
order to understand the distinct educational, health-
that nations are imagined communities in which mem-
care, and socioeconomic needs of each population. For
bers “will never know most of their fellow-members,
example, Southeast Asian refugee groups tend to have
meet them or even hear of them, yet in the mind of each
more English-language learners and lower socioeco-
lives the image of their communion,” so this usage of
nomic status and educational achievement than other
“community” is symbolic and instrumental (2006, 6).
Asian Americans. Internal debates continue about the
Given that they were externally lumped together, ac-
practicality or political efficacy of mobilizing under a
tivists during the Yellow Power movement embraced
collective rubric when the community is so divergent,
this racialized identity and intentionally constructed a
with emergent ethnicities—such as Bhutanese, Bur-
collective history that focused on their commonalties
mese, Indonesian, Nepalese, and Thai—adding new
in terms of the discrimination they encountered do-
complexity to the grouping, and there are also diver-
mestically and the oppression they faced as colonized
gencies within each subgroup. Some aver that regard-
subjects from “Third World” nations (Maeda 2011). By
less of how individuals or groups identify themselves, if
masking their cultural, ethnic, historical, linguistic, and
outsiders continually perceive them as interchangeable,
ideological variances to outsiders and forming a coali-
then it is beneficial for them to forge multiethnic and
tion or community of interest, Asian American activ-
multiracial alliances to effectively protect the interest
ists continue to enlarge their numerical representation
of their collectivity (F. Wu 2003). These contentious de-
in their struggle for scarce resources. Using a strategic
bates mirror ongoing discursive and programmatic ne-
essentialism model, advocates often use broad gener-
gotiations within the academy regarding the structure
alizations or summative statements about the state or
of Asian Americans as a field of study, since it requires
condition of this population to impact public policies
articulating the interconnections between and conver-
(Spivak 1996). For example, using the latest U.S. Census
gences of multiple groupings, disciplines, theories, and
reports that Asian Americans have surpassed Latinos as
methods.
the fastest-growing minority group, increasing by over
The meaning of the word “community” often mini-
43 percent in the last decade to more than 17 million,
mizes dissimilarities and accentuates cohesiveness,
analysts attempt to tactically parlay this demographic
when de facto, communities are fragile and fractured
growth into political power.
collectivities (Võ and Bonus 2002). Its usage is modified
Critics note that the deployment of an imagined
from Raymond Williams’s definition in his Keywords:
homogeneity to garner resources or political clout can
A Vocabulary of Culture and Society, in which he states,
reinforce a precarious interchangeability. The model
“What is most important, perhaps, is that unlike all
minority label, which stereotypes Asian Americans as
other terms of social organization (state, nation, society,
hardworking, highly educated, successful, and lacking
etc.) it [community] seems never to be used unfavour-
social problems, has been utilized to deny them public
ably” (1983, 76). Ideological differences were evident
services as well as to exclude them from remedial pro-
during World War II when Japanese Americans were di-
grams. Activists attempting to counter this myth have
vided on how to respond to their forced relocation from
continually pushed for the collection of disaggregated
the West Coast and incarceration as well as whether
data, broken down particularly by ethnic groups, in
they should agree to serve in the U.S. military after
community
linda trinh võ
33
34
their imprisonment. Those who served were praised for
community (Williams-León and Nakashima 2001). As
displaying Japanese American patriotism, while those
generations move away from ethnic neighborhoods, do
who refused to enlist in U.S. military service were de-
not maintain traditional cultural practices, and can-
nounced as disloyal and shunned by co-ethnics. In ret-
not speak the heritage language, vexing questions arise
rospect, those who challenged the incarceration orders
about their authenticity as ethnics as well as their mem-
and rejected enlistment are applauded for standing up
bership in the collectivity (Portes and Rumbaut 2001).
for their civil rights and upholding the tenets of Ameri-
The assumption is that ethnic identity will disappear
can democratic ideals. Allegiances to a racialized group-
if individuals intermarry or are socioeconomically in-
ing were enforced during the turbulent 1960s and 1970s
corporated. However, this ethnic-option or dissipation
when Asian American activists were asked to choose
model is more applicable to white immigrants who can
their political allegiances along binaries, such as women
blend more easily into the mainstream; it is not so facile
being encouraged to join their Asian American brothers
for individuals who are racialized.
to fight racial discrimination over aligning with their
During the late 1960 and early 1970s, urban renewal
feminist sisters in the struggle against gender oppres-
projects were initiated to redevelop areas that were des-
sion (Maeda 2009). Some ethnics prefer to hide their so-
ignated as blighted, which often included ethnic con-
cial problems, such as domestic violence, arguing that
centrations in inner cities. These targeted areas of gen-
publicizing them disrupts community harmony and re-
trification became contested terrain between residents,
inforces negative perceptions of the community among
public and private investors, urban planners, and civic
outsiders (Abraham 2000). Additionally, scholars have
and political leaders. Since the 1970s, there have been
examined urban struggles that have strained interethnic
concerted efforts to preserve and reinvent areas iden-
relations and impacted solidarities or antagonisms with
tified as historic Chinatown, Japantown/Little Tokyo,
other racialized communities (Abelman and Lie 1997; S.
and Filipinotown/Manilatown (Laguerre 2000; Maba-
Kurashige 2008).
lon 2013). In other cases, contemporary immigrants
As the population became more diverse, disagree-
and refugees have rejuvenated established neighbor-
ments over inclusion in this assemblage or “commu-
hoods, but they also have created new distinctive areas,
nity” became more pronounced, and scholars increas-
such as Cambodia Town, Koreatown, Thai Town, Little
ingly focused on affective ties or feelings of belonging
Bangladesh, Little India, Little Saigon, and Little Taipei
and the elasticity of boundaries. For example, studies
(Khandelwal 2002; A. Chung 2007; Aguilar-San Juan
have examined how Asian Americans who are gay, les-
2009; Vergara 2009). These efforts at place making at-
bian, bisexual, queer, and transgender have subverted
tempt to designate an ethnic space by preserving land-
and countered their marginalization and created alter-
mark buildings, establishing festivals or other cultural
native, politicized spaces (Manalansan 2003). Other
events, and reviving the space with ethnic residents and
studies have critiqued the monoracial constructions
businesses (Habal 2007; J. Lin 2011). However, there are
of Asian America, delineating the saliency of inter-
controversies over appropriation and representation in
racial sexual contact and relations in Asia as well as in
demarcating and claiming geographic spaces.
America and the existence of multiracial or mixed-race
Efforts to revitalize ethnic concentrations reflect the
children, which necessitates shifting the definitions of
debates over what constitutes a community and whom
community
linda trinh võ
it should benefit (Võ 2004). While some ethnic concen-
and revamping once bland spaces into destinations for
trations cater almost exclusively to co-ethnics, others
co-ethnics. This commodification has lead to more ex-
focus on finding a balance between serving residents
pansive notions of ethnic communities and the creation
and nonresidents, as well as marketing themselves to
of new terms such as “satellite communities” and “eth-
tourists. A designation as a tourist site brings voyeuris-
noburbs” to describe these ethnic spaces (W. Li 2009).
tic elements and involves catering to customers seeking
As immigrant populations expand their commercial or
exotic eateries and curio shops, making ethnic residents
residential presence, even in areas that they regener-
uncomfortable. Ethnic entrepreneurs maintain that
ate, these newcomers often face accusations that they
tourism supports small business owners and creates em-
are displacing or encroaching on established neighbor-
ployment opportunities for new immigrants or refugees,
hoods and attracting excessive numbers of “foreigners,”
which infuses more revenue into the local economy.
which has fueled antigrowth movements and English-
With empty storefronts, some ethnic areas adapt by at-
only campaigns (Saito 1998). In the post-9/11 era, with
tracting Asians from various ethnicities and non-Asians
the War on Terror campaign, religious and racial intol-
who open up music venues, art galleries, and specialty
erance in the U.S. has led to protests against the build-
shops, catering to a bohemian crowd seeking enter-
ing of Muslim mosques and Sikh gurdwaras or temples,
tainment in alternative spaces. Other ethnic areas have
which are intended to prevent the establishment of
been abandoned by the younger generation and it is
South Asian communities.
the ethnic elders that remain, so the fundamental ques-
The circulation of transnational capital and people
tion arises as to the necessity of preserving these areas
is transforming once racially segregated spaces and
and the value of refabricating them into commercially
reimagining them as alluring, international spaces (J.
driven, “Orientalized” attractions merely for the tour-
Lin 1998). Local ethnic leaders as well as city planners
ism trade.
and politicians are turning to foreign financiers, real
The suburbanization process has led to the abandon-
estate developers, and corporations to invest in urban
ment of ethnic concentrations in the urban core and to
residential, commercial, and entertainment projects.
the establishment of ethnic neighborhoods and com-
Historically, as a result of restrictive immigration poli-
mercial centers in the suburbs, redefining perceptions of
cies, immigrants from Asia maintained homeland con-
ethnic communities. In recent decades, socioeconomi-
nections and split-family households. The majority of
cally mobile Asian Americans and affluent immigrants
Asians in America are first-generation immigrants and
began relocating to once predominantly wealthier,
refugees, some of whom continue to maintain close
white suburbs, which were established in the post–
contacts and networks with co-ethnics in their home-
World War II years. Earlier theories of cultural assimila-
land and throughout the diaspora, and local leaders
tion applied to European immigrants are not applicable,
want to capitalize on their potentially lucrative overseas
since these Asian suburbanites began recreating ethnic
connections. Asian American community networks are
communities with clusters of ethnic businesses and in-
envisioned as key assets for economic recovery and ur-
stitutions. Some engaged in dramatic reconfigurations
ban modernization, but this is tempered by U.S. fears of
of the suburban landscape by remodeling mini-malls
increasing economic dominance by China and other
or building shopping centers, erecting religious centers,
Asian nations.
community
linda trinh võ
35
The tensions between capitalism and community are
maintain familial and social ties to their homeland as
manifested in ethnic localities. In the postindustrial city,
well as facilitate their transnational business ventures
international financial investments can be disruptive,
and cultural exchanges. Scholars are examining the
bankrupting small ethnic businesses that cannot com-
ways communication devices such as cell phones and
pete with transnational corporate enterprises and dis-
various forms of social media, such as Skype, Facebook,
placing low-income ethnic residents who are unable to
YouTube, Twitter, and blogs, create new virtual com-
afford rising housing costs. In addition, these spaces are
munities (Davé, Nishime, and Oren 2005; Nakamura
conceived of as having fluid and flexible borders that al-
2008). For example, YouTube has allowed Asian Ameri-
low for “postcolonial transnational subjects” with dual
can artists who have been bypassed by traditional and
citizenship to freely navigate between the domestic and
even alternative marketing venues to create virtual fan
international spheres (Ong 1999). However, in contrast
bases, domestically and internationally (Schlund-Vials
to the cosmopolitan jetsetters, who are binational or
2012b). These interactive platforms facilitate the shar-
multinational entrepreneurial and professional elites
ing of gossip, information, and news, enabling Asians
opting to venture abroad to enrich their opportunities,
and Asians Americans to forge instantaneous relations
are transmigrant laborers forced to leave their home-
and connections that were once unimaginable. The In-
lands under conditions of poverty to find employment
ternet has been instrumental in mobilizing geographi-
in the service sector or industrial production and send
cally dispersed Asians around political interests and
their modest remittances to support relatives who re-
social justice causes. Future modernizations will alter
main behind. These socioeconomic contrasts speak to
the economic, cultural, and political linkages between
the heterogeneity of the community and are evident
individuals, groups, and institutions, which will have
when Asian owners of garment factories, supermar-
profound effects on conceptualizations of community.
kets, restaurants, hotels, and other businesses in ethnic districts clash with the local workforce, which is often comprised of Asian and Latino immigrants, over unfair wages or exploitative labor practices. Although it fosters global interconnections, capitalism with its inherent competition-and-profit model produces fragmentation and polarization within communities. This process has led community scholars to reconsider what compelling factors continue to bond seemingly disparate groups. In the contemporary period, innovations in communication and travel affect time-space compression and facilitate transformative kinds of social networks and affinity groups (D. Harvey 1989), stretching the boundaries of nonspatial or deterritorialized communities (Y. Espiritu 2003; Valverde 2012). Technological advances provide opportunities for immigrants to 36
community
linda trinh võ
labor in the mid-nineteenth century (M. Jung 2006).
9
Prior to emancipation, pro- and antislavery ideologues both considered the Chinese coolie a coerced and de-
Coolie
graded figure, but they mobilized this knowledge to ad-
Kornel Chang
vocate diametrically opposed positions on the slavery question, with southern slaveholders citing the evils of the Chinese coolie system to uphold the moral superiority of slavery while abolitionists conflated the Chi-
The etymology of the word “coolie” was for a long
nese “coolie” with slavery. This consensus around what
time thought to have Tamil—kuli (wages)—Urdu—quli
and who constituted a “coolie” produced a national
(hireling)—or Chinese—kuli (bitter strength)—origins
agreement—the 1862 act to prohibit the coolie trade—
(Tinker 1974; Tsai 1976; Irick 1982; M. Jung 2006). More
that suppressed the importation of Chinese coolie la-
recently, Mae Ngai (2015) has traced the word’s origins
bor. Carrying the law’s premise to its logical conclusion,
to a European neologism that was first employed by
white labor restrictionists on the West Coast pushed for
sixteenth-century Portuguese to describe common
Chinese exclusion a decade and a half later, insisting
native workers on the Indian subcontinent. By the
that all Chinese, as living embodiments of the coolie,
mid-nineteenth century, “coolie” came to be applied
should be excluded (Saxton 1971; Chang 2012).
specifically to indentured laborers from China and India
Advocates for Chinese immigration challenged the
who were being contracted out to colonial plantations
reasoning that made the Chinese synonymous with ser-
in Southeast Asia and the Americas (Hu-DeHart 1992;
vitude. In his 1889 essay “The Chinese Must Stay,” Chi-
W. Lai 1993; Yun 2008). This shift in meaning was
nese American intellectual and activist Yan Phou Lee
inextricably bound up with the abolition of slavery
declared the Chinese in the United States definitively
and deepening Euro-American imperial incursions
“not coolies.” Emphasizing their volition and agency, he
into the Asia-Pacific world. Intensifying Euro-American
insisted Chinese migrants “all came voluntarily . . . and
encroachments in the region generated widening
their purpose in leaving their homes and friends was to
imperial networks through which people from China
get honest work” (476). In taking this line of argument,
and South Asia were forcibly transported across the
Lee sought to counter the dominant image of the Chi-
Atlantic to constitute a new colonial labor force in the
nese as slavish laborers who worked and lived cheaply,
Americas. As Lisa Lowe has noted, the introduction of
which justified their exclusion from the body politic.
the coolie trade in the nineteenth century “marked
But if the Chinese were not coolies, the question of what
a significant . . . shift in the management of race and
or who was a coolie remained unanswered in Lee’s spir-
labor in the colonies” (2005, 193).
ited defense, thus leaving the terms of the debate intact.
In the United States, charges of coolieism mainly
Early scholarly writings on Chinese immigration re-
fixated on Chinese laborers who were being imported
produced this binary framing of the “coolie” question.
to the Americas to take the place of formerly enslaved
The publication of Gunther Barth’s Bitter Strength reig-
Africans. The coolie entered the American mainstream
nited the debate about whether or not Chinese immi-
vernacular by way of political debates over free and slave
grants in the United States were in fact “coolies” (Barth 37
1964). Operating from sociologist Robert Park’s concept
Asian workers were surely racialized as coolies across
of the race relations cycle, Barth concluded that Chi-
the world, including the United States” (2006, 6). By
nese immigrants experienced greater difficulty integrat-
maintaining that the Chinese in the United States were
ing into American society because they had migrated to
immigrants, and not coolies, Asian American scholars,
the United States under coercion, and thus, unlike Eu-
Jung argued, unwittingly reified coolies and reproduced
ropeans, did not possess a self that was capable of be-
U.S. exceptionalism by giving credence to the myth of
ing free. This condition of servitude, along with their
an immigrant nation. Contrasting labor relations in the
perpetual sojourning, accounted for their marginaliza-
United States to the coolie system in the Caribbean and
tion and exclusion from mainstream (white) American
Latin America gave the illusion that the management
society.
of the North American capitalist economy was enlight-
By the 1980s, scholars, especially in the emerging field of Asian American studies, contested Barth’s characterization of the Chinese and his implication that
ened and its system of wage labor was based on voluntary exchange, free from coercion. To get beyond the stalled and stale debate on whether
they were responsible (at least in part) for their isolation
or not Chinese were coolies in the United States, Moon-
and alienation. They identified both structural and pop-
Ho Jung, Lisa Lowe, and Mae Ngai have attended to the
ular forms of white racism that segregated Chinese im-
varied and contradictory work an imagined “coolie”
migrants into ethnic ghettos, relegated them to the bot-
performed in service to nation and empire, showing
tom of a racially stratified labor market, and excluded
how it was generative of universalist liberal thought,
them socially and culturally from white American soci-
from the “rights of man” to ideas of free labor, trade,
ety. Like earlier advocates of the Chinese, these scholars
and mobility. From their perspective, the “coolie” was
also challenged Barth’s thesis by insisting that Chinese
not so much a person or thing as an ideational construct
migrants were not coolies. In attempting to establish
that simultaneously expressed and projected Euro-
the voluntary nature of Chinese immigration to the
American imperial visions, myths, and fantasies. This
United States, they drew a sharp distinction between
was not to deny that many Chinese (and other Asian)
labor systems in North America and those in Latin
laborers were exploited for their labor and held in con-
America and the Caribbean. On colonial plantations in
ditions of bondage, but so were other groups who yet
Cuba and Peru, they argued, the Chinese were formally
were never identified as coolies. Recognizing the term
indentured laborers and thus endured slavelike condi-
as more of a “product of the imaginers rather than the
tions; in the industrial wage-system of the United States
imagined,” as Jung exhorts (2006, 6), allows us see the
and Canada, on the other hand, the Chinese may have
“coolie” as an artifice of nation and empire that helped
been lowly workers but they were “free” immigrant la-
to produce American exceptionalism and sanitize U.S.
borers. In this way, scholars in U.S. immigration history
imperial ventures in the Americas and across the Pacific
and Asian American studies debated the issue almost ex-
as “humanitarian” projects.
actly along the same lines as their historical actors. Critiquing the terms of the debate, Moon-Ho Jung, in Coolies and Cane, forcefully asserted: “No one, in the United States or the Caribbean, was really a coolie, but 38
coolie
kornel chang
What, then, does it mean to have world citizenship, to
10
be a citizen of the world? Frequently, invocations of cosmopolitanism are
Cosmopolitanism
ahistorical, and it becomes a free-floating word used
Lucy Mae San Pablo Burns
to advocate benevolent pro-world citizenship, a word with which to rally around a post- or even antinational identity. To challenge the dominant reference of the term beyond its Greek and Western roots,
From its inception, Asian American studies has
scholars such as Vinay Dharwadker (2001) and Rajini
struggled with its ability to attend to, describe, and
Srikanth (2004) trace Buddhist and Hindus worldviews,
theorize experiences and ideas that exceed single-
arguing that such religions are inherently cosmopoli-
nation identification, fixed territorial boundaries,
tan. Walter Mignolo (2000) further complicates these
and conditions produced by globalization. Various
approaches as he staunchly situates the emergence of
terms such as “internationalism,” “transnationalism,”
cosmopolitanism within the project of the twinned
“diaspora,” “exile,” “flexible citizens,” and “extra-
formation of modernity and colonialism. Pheah Cheng
nationals” have been mobilized in the field to indicate
(1998), in his introduction to the collection Cosmopoli-
an Asian American imaginary, identification, and
tics, grounds the often-invoked genealogy of Greek cos-
everyday practice that signal more than just Asia and
mopolitanism and its development by Immanuel Kant
America, more than just Asia, more than just America.
(in relation to his idea of “perpetual peace” among na-
This list of terms suggests an embodied and discursive
tions) within the history of the politics that produced
mobility that refuses to settle along distinct and firm
the condition of its emergence as a political thought
borders, particularly national ones. “Cosmopolitanism”
and practice.
belongs to this list of terms.
Cosmopolitanism, as it appears in Asian American
Cosmopolitanism as an idea, a political philosophy,
studies scholarship, variously (and in some vaguely)
an identity, and a practice is often attributed in Western
invokes citizenship as linked and formed through the
political and philosophical discourse to the Greek Stoics
nation-state. In this sense, Asian American theoriza-
and later Immanuel Kant. Its meaning has been equated
tions of cosmopolitanism reformulate citizenship and
with world citizenship and world belonging, and with
belonging, attending to the experiences and imagina-
universalism. In this sense, the term always already
tions of migrants of every status, including dual citi-
summons a relationship to the nation, boundaries, ver-
zens, refugees, and transnational laborers of all classes.
nacularism, and localism, notions against which cos-
Cosmopolitanism in the writings of literary scholars
mopolitanism is often defined. The word is mobilized
Rajini Srikanth and Viet Nguyen (2009) takes on an
against the constrictions of national boundary, national
aspirational quality. By aspirational, I mean to sug-
citizenship, and nationalism. Citizenship construction
gest that Srikanth and Nguyen theorize cosmopolitan-
is imagined through the nation- state—thus to be a
ism as a quality and an identity to strive toward; that
citizen entails loyalty and duty to the nation-state, and
is, cosmopolitanism is desirable, something to want,
the nation-state is the primary protector of citizenship.
something to become. Cosmopolitanism gains some 39
traction in the works of these literary scholars as they
40
as East/West, center/margins, global/local, as well as
attach it to the possibilities and the labor of literature
text/performance and page/stage (2001, 173). Theater,
in the making of a sympathetic and empathetic sub-
Chaudhuri argues, is not just a place for “accurate and
ject, qualities needed, they argue, to make a subject
responsible representations of ethnic diversity”; it is
that cares beyond oneself (the self as racialized, gen-
equally a site of intervention for discourses on race
dered, national, and so on). Srikanth’s focus on South
and ethnicity (2001, 174).
Asian American writers emphasizes acknowledging
Rather than approach cosmopolitanism as some-
difference and “hard work” to arrive at cosmopolitan-
thing to aspire to, the collection New Cosmopolitan-
ism (2004, 23). Nguyen, in discussing the Vietnam
isms: South Asians in the U.S., edited by Gita Rajan
War and American literature, echoes Srikanth as he
and Shailja Sharma (2006), expands the term to “new
theorizes cosmopolitanism as an endeavor to “imag-
cosmopolitanism,” which is configured at the “in-
ine peace and cope with war’s enduring aftermath”
tersections of travel, technology, and labor.” Rajan
(2009, 151).
and Sharma render differently what has become a
Some concerns, however, do remain: Does cosmo-
dominant image of a cosmopolite—highly educated,
politanism have anything to say about Asian Ameri-
techno-driven, upper-management class—to include
can racialization? Conversely, in what ways does
figures such as nannies from the Philippines or Sri
Asian American racialization prompt a rethinking of
Lanka who care for the children of rich Arab families
cosmopolitanism? Playwright Velina Hasu Houston’s
or aging Israelis. They address the limits of the word’s
(2002) and scholar Una Chaudhuri’s (2001) discus-
class bias, offering the phrase “new cosmopolitanism”
sion of theater, racism, and racial formation provide
as a means to consider a “fluid subject position,” one
insights to these questions. Houston sets up her cos-
that moves laterally and horizontally across national
mopolitan point of view against U.S. monoracialism,
and class lines. This collection theorizes South Asian
ethnocentricity, and racism as she experiences them
diasporic cosmopolitanism through ethnography, lit-
in theater practice. Making a distinction between
erary analysis, psychology, and a range of subjects
her political identity and her identity as an artist,
including eating disorders in the context of global-
Houston claims theater as a site for cosmopolitanism
ization, Bollywood cinema, religions, and museum
where she can travel imaginatively, inhabiting vari-
displays.
ous cultures and other identity categories. Houston
“Cosmopolitanism” is a word that has certainly ap-
charges both American mainstream institutions and
peared in Asian American studies scholarship, though
ethnic-specific theaters with limited vision based on
its significance in the field is not nearly that of such
“tribalism and neat categories.” She claims to have
terms as “transnationalism” or “diaspora.” Academic
intimate exposure to diversity because she is a mul-
majors, programs, and departments are in the process
tiracial, multinational artist. Chaudhuri, too, theo-
of redefining Asian American studies as a transna-
rizes theater as an observation ground for “the new
tional project, changing names from “Asian Ameri-
dynamics of identity-formation, . . . of the ambiva-
can Studies” to “Asian American and Asian Diaspora
lences of the new cosmopolitanisms.” Cosmopolitan-
Studies.” In 2010, UC Berkeley announced that its de-
ism, in Chaudhuri’s essay, challenges binaries such
partment would be renamed Asian American Studies
cosmopolitanism
lucy mae san pablo burns
and Asian Diaspora Studies, underscoring the field’s long-standing themes that “have become increasingly visible in recent decades as a result of forces of glo-
11
balization” (Elaine Kim 2010). In 2012, The Journal of
Culture
Transnational American Studies released a special issue
Robert G. Lee
titled “Redefining the American in Asian American Studies: Transnationalism, Diaspora and Representation.” No sustained and passionate calls have inspired a “cosmopolitanism turn” in Asian American scholarship, activist, and artistic projects.
Asian American studies began as the intellectual expression of a political and social movement mobilized to answer questions long suppressed, suspended, or foreclosed in a national imaginary shaped by race and empire. The twin tasks of Asian American studies with regard to culture have been to critique the changing cultural formation of empire and to recuperate critical agency for Asian American cultural production. This essay argues that such a critical approach to culture depends on the recognition of the connection between local cultures and the global historical terrain on which they are produced. This is not to claim that the conditions of material life determine each instance of cultural production but rather to simply acknowledge Karl Marx’s caution that “men make their own history but they do not make it as just as they please” (1951, 103). “Culture” is a shape-shifting word that can signify the whole range of human activity in general, the particular way of life of a group of people, the expression of intellectual and aesthetic sensibilities, or the production of goods, tastes, and meaning itself (Eagleton 2000). For an Asian American studies committed to a recuperation of history and agency, culture must be understood as both the expressive production of everyday life and the central site of struggle over the meaning of social identities (Hall 1980; Robert Lee 1999). The Asian American cultural imaginary becomes a terrain on which to interrogate and critique discourses of social practice and politics that construct systems of dominance (L. Lowe 1996). 41
and Asian Diaspora Studies, underscoring the field’s long-standing themes that “have become increasingly visible in recent decades as a result of forces of glo-
11
balization” (Elaine Kim 2010). In 2012, The Journal of
Culture
Transnational American Studies released a special issue
Robert G. Lee
titled “Redefining the American in Asian American Studies: Transnationalism, Diaspora and Representation.” No sustained and passionate calls have inspired a “cosmopolitanism turn” in Asian American scholarship, activist, and artistic projects.
Asian American studies began as the intellectual expression of a political and social movement mobilized to answer questions long suppressed, suspended, or foreclosed in a national imaginary shaped by race and empire. The twin tasks of Asian American studies with regard to culture have been to critique the changing cultural formation of empire and to recuperate critical agency for Asian American cultural production. This essay argues that such a critical approach to culture depends on the recognition of the connection between local cultures and the global historical terrain on which they are produced. This is not to claim that the conditions of material life determine each instance of cultural production but rather to simply acknowledge Karl Marx’s caution that “men make their own history but they do not make it as just as they please” (1951, 103). “Culture” is a shape-shifting word that can signify the whole range of human activity in general, the particular way of life of a group of people, the expression of intellectual and aesthetic sensibilities, or the production of goods, tastes, and meaning itself (Eagleton 2000). For an Asian American studies committed to a recuperation of history and agency, culture must be understood as both the expressive production of everyday life and the central site of struggle over the meaning of social identities (Hall 1980; Robert Lee 1999). The Asian American cultural imaginary becomes a terrain on which to interrogate and critique discourses of social practice and politics that construct systems of dominance (L. Lowe 1996). 41
Since the nineteenth century one common defini-
empire- and nation-building projects in varying roles as
tion of culture has been “the particular way of life of a
agent, victim, and participant-observer, adding to the
people living together in a particular place” (Williams
deep complications of the ethnic identities and solidari-
1958, 234). However the very term “Asian America,”
ties that are produced in the United States. What kind
coined in resistance to imposed Oriental descriptors,
of Asian American politics might be shared between an-
gestures toward the hybridity, heterogeneity, and multi-
ticommunist Vietnamese shopkeepers and Bangladeshi
plicity that mark continuous circuits of movement and
labor activists? Do Spanish-speaking Koreans arriving
disrupt reassuring narratives of a grounded national
from Mexico or Honduras become Asian American or
culture (L. Lowe 1996). The effort to mark the Oriental
Latino in the racial landscapes of New York or Los An-
as a singular identity of difference continues to operate
geles (Ropp 2000)?
powerfully within the nation’s taxonomy of race. This
42
Early attempts to situate Asian American history and
ideological construction obscures the vast range of his-
culture as an epiphenomenon of proletarianization or
torically specific Asian American trajectories and subjec-
to locate an Asian American authenticity in an uncon-
tivities (Y. Espiritu 1992).
taminated self collapsed in the face of this demographic
Asian America is a social formation produced in the
diversity (Chin et al. 1974; Chan et al. 1991; Bonacich
confluence of colonialisms, racialized national for-
and Cheng 1984). Neither model could long contain the
mations, and local resistances (Bonacich and Cheng
class contradictions and different lived experiences be-
1984). The cultural heterogeneities and hybridities
tween for example, the offspring of Sansei-White fami-
that characterize Asian America are produced across
lies who attend Brown University and mobilize as Hapas
shifting economic, political, and social geographies
and Cambodian-Black families who live in inner-city
that have crosscut on global, national, and local scales
Providence and call themselves Blasians.
for four centuries. On the global scale, the circuits
Powerful new migration flows, new ethnicities, and
of goods, money, and people across and around the
class formations have reshaped the Asian American ur-
Pacific long predate the presence of a sizable popula-
ban landscape with both middle-class ethno-burbs and
tion of Asian people in North America (A. Frank 1998;
new ghettos, a result of the penetration of capitalism,
C. Frank 2011; Tchen 2001). Setting aside for the mo-
the dismantling of socialist and social welfare systems,
ment that “Asia” and “Asians” are themselves cultural
and the imposition of the neoliberal regimes of accu-
geographic terms with contested histories, it should be
mulation throughout Asia (Ong, Bonacich, and Chang
recalled that over the past two centuries Asians have ar-
1994; W. Li 2009; Paul Kwong 1991). The regime of racial
rived in North America from many places other than
exclusion based on the doctrine of indelible cultural dif-
Asia itself—Vietnamese from Germany, Chinese from
ference has been replaced by new, more refined Orien-
Peru, Japanese from Brazil, Koreans from Mexico, and
talist discourses and new systems of control and domi-
Indians from Uganda are only a few of the most recent
nation. The bio-political power of the state to manage
associations that add to the heterogeneities and hetero-
difference is daily enforced through the police, welfare
glossias of the many communities gathered under the
agency, hospital, school, church, and home. These new
sign of Asian America. In these spaces of transit as well
geographies of power have become the terrain for new
as in Asia itself, “the Asian” has been imbricated in both
modes of resistance and solidarities for Asian garment
culture
robert g. lee
workers, South Asian feminists, Filipino/a queers, Cam-
intensified radical inequalities both between and within
bodian refugee families, and Muslim teenagers, among
nations. These worldwide flows of capital, technology,
a host of others (M. Louie 2001; Das Gupta 2006; Mana-
and people have challenged the autonomy of national
lansan 2003; Ong 2003; Maira 2009). The search for an
sovereignty, territory, and identity. Mediating between
Asian American cultural authenticity must now attend
the global and the local, Asian Americans are transna-
to the quotidian mobilizations around the intersec-
tionals in a moment when, in response to globalization,
tions of immigration, labor, gender, and sexuality. It
national identity has rebounded as a privileged axis
is on these historically specific terrains that multiple
of identification. The Taiwan-born businessmen who
and sometimes contradictory imaginaries are produced
commutes from his home in Silicon Valley to factories
and articulate new Asian American identities, critiques,
scattered across the Pearl River delta, the Cambodian
and resistances. While such identities may be newly
OG threatened with forced “return” to a country he has
expressed, they are not without their own histories. A
never seen, and the Filipina mothers whose own chil-
critical Asian Americanist approach to culture must
dren grow up in the Philippines while they care for the
therefore read across the whole history of transpacific
children of the wealthy in San Francisco, Hong Kong, or
colonial and racial formations to account for the dif-
Dubai have radically different access to power, but each
ferent and intersecting trajectories that condition lo-
occupies a liminal and precarious position in the cul-
cal struggles over meaning (Palumbo-Liu 1999). Such
tural landscape shaped by national identity and struc-
an approach necessarily challenges what Vijay Prashad
tured around citizenship (Ong 1999; Ong 2003; Parreñas
(2002) has called the “myth of cultural purity” to find
2008). The perennial questions asked of all are, “where
authenticity in the actual struggles through which local
are you from, how long are you going to stay, when are
identities are transformed in relation to each other and
you going back?”
enables a self-reflexive Asian American studies that can
The current reassertion of borders and the rise of
critique not only European, American, and Asian colo-
nationalisms in response to globalization reminds us
nialisms but can equally and comfortably interrogate
that contemporary Asian American cultural produc-
Asian American sub-colonialisms as well (Azuma 2005;
tions, however distant in time and space from the age
Fujikane and Okamura 2008).
of exclusion, cannot be adequately addressed without
The twenty-first-century transpacific is the new glo-
accounting for the long shadows of empire and race.
balized terrain of cultural production, markets, and cul-
The popular and legal discourses of the excludable
tural forms radically restructured by the triumph and
Oriental may no longer be hegemonic, but it is impor-
hypermobility of financial capital, the rapid growth
tant nonetheless to remember that American national
of Asian capitalisms, and the emergence of a transpa-
identity has historically been constituted against the
cific mass culture. In the neoliberal world market, Asian
contradictory narratives of Asian material productiv-
Americans are everywhere along the globalized chain
ity and moral poverty (Tchen 2001; Robert Lee 1999).
of production and consumption of culture (Ong, Bo-
In the American imaginary, Asia has been identified as
nacich, and Chang 1994; Ong 1999).
the exceptional cultural space of wealth and power, the
In the current stage of globalization, unfettered capi-
idée fixe of imperial desire, while Asians have been imag-
talisms generate new neocolonial projects that have
ined as morally disordered, invasive, and Oriental aliens.
culture
robert g. lee
43
This historically specific imaginary can no longer be directly mapped onto Asian America under the current conditions of globalism, but under the twin signs of the
12
global War on Terror and the global financial crisis new
Deportation
representations of the Oriental alien, as tiger mother or
Bill Ong Hing
Islamic terrorist, continue to do the ideological work of policing crisis (Chua 2011; Puar 2007). This underscores the continuing need to map the cultural discourses of domination as the terrain on which the politics of Asian
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, “deportation”
American accommodation, imagining, and cultural re-
(noun) refers to “the action of carrying away; forcible
sistances are fought.
removal, esp. into exile; transportation.” Connotative
Twenty years ago, lamenting the receding of the
of an involuntary relocation and exilic subjectivity,
Asian American movement some asked where all the
“deportation” as a state policy and legislative practice
Asian American activists had gone. The simple and cor-
is by no means limited to Asian immigrants. The very
rect answer was “everywhere” (Aguilar-San Juan 1994b;
condition of deportation—wherein individuals are,
Liu, Geron, and Lai 2008). Today we can witness Asian
due to shifting politics, contested demographics, and
American critiques in the most mundane to the most
changing cultural dynamics, compulsorily moved
esoteric, in the most ubiquitous to the most unexpected
out of country—is at the forefront of the expulsion
spaces in American culture. In New York, Chinese Amer-
of Spanish Jews in 1492; it is apparent in the forced
icans participate in a Puerto Rican–led multiracial coali-
removal of Native peoples during the seventeenth,
tion against the toxic pollution of their neighborhoods
eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries per a larger U.S.
(Sze 2007). In New Jersey, South Asian women organize
imperial project. Deportation in the frame of twentieth-
against domestic violence (Das Gupta 2006). Over the
century human rights violations is at once manifest in
internet, in magazines, and on TV, “outlaw” Asian
the mandated relocation of European Jews to segregated
American celebrity chefs self-consciously challenge the
ghettos and concentration camps during World War
accepted canons of authenticity and stereotyped mascu-
II; one could also extend this frame to encompass the
linity (Huang 2013; Ying 2012). An accounting of these
contemporaneous evacuation, incarceration, and
diversities and their global and local trajectories neces-
internment of Japanese Americans. Last, but certainly
sarily refuses an easy triumphalism with regard to the
not least, the post- 9/11 deportation of multiple
“model minority” and opens Asian American culture as
populations (particularly from Muslim and Arab lands,
a space for the interrogation and critique of the political
Southeast Asia, and Latin America) underscores the
economy of everyday transnational social practice.
term’s present-day resonance. Set within a U.S. context, deportation— as state practice—coincides with the “discovery” of America by Columbus in 1492; as Native American history underscores, it is a policy that likewise corresponds to the expansion of the United States from colony to colonizing
44
This historically specific imaginary can no longer be directly mapped onto Asian America under the current conditions of globalism, but under the twin signs of the
12
global War on Terror and the global financial crisis new
Deportation
representations of the Oriental alien, as tiger mother or
Bill Ong Hing
Islamic terrorist, continue to do the ideological work of policing crisis (Chua 2011; Puar 2007). This underscores the continuing need to map the cultural discourses of domination as the terrain on which the politics of Asian
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, “deportation”
American accommodation, imagining, and cultural re-
(noun) refers to “the action of carrying away; forcible
sistances are fought.
removal, esp. into exile; transportation.” Connotative
Twenty years ago, lamenting the receding of the
of an involuntary relocation and exilic subjectivity,
Asian American movement some asked where all the
“deportation” as a state policy and legislative practice
Asian American activists had gone. The simple and cor-
is by no means limited to Asian immigrants. The very
rect answer was “everywhere” (Aguilar-San Juan 1994b;
condition of deportation—wherein individuals are,
Liu, Geron, and Lai 2008). Today we can witness Asian
due to shifting politics, contested demographics, and
American critiques in the most mundane to the most
changing cultural dynamics, compulsorily moved
esoteric, in the most ubiquitous to the most unexpected
out of country—is at the forefront of the expulsion
spaces in American culture. In New York, Chinese Amer-
of Spanish Jews in 1492; it is apparent in the forced
icans participate in a Puerto Rican–led multiracial coali-
removal of Native peoples during the seventeenth,
tion against the toxic pollution of their neighborhoods
eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries per a larger U.S.
(Sze 2007). In New Jersey, South Asian women organize
imperial project. Deportation in the frame of twentieth-
against domestic violence (Das Gupta 2006). Over the
century human rights violations is at once manifest in
internet, in magazines, and on TV, “outlaw” Asian
the mandated relocation of European Jews to segregated
American celebrity chefs self-consciously challenge the
ghettos and concentration camps during World War
accepted canons of authenticity and stereotyped mascu-
II; one could also extend this frame to encompass the
linity (Huang 2013; Ying 2012). An accounting of these
contemporaneous evacuation, incarceration, and
diversities and their global and local trajectories neces-
internment of Japanese Americans. Last, but certainly
sarily refuses an easy triumphalism with regard to the
not least, the post- 9/11 deportation of multiple
“model minority” and opens Asian American culture as
populations (particularly from Muslim and Arab lands,
a space for the interrogation and critique of the political
Southeast Asia, and Latin America) underscores the
economy of everyday transnational social practice.
term’s present-day resonance. Set within a U.S. context, deportation— as state practice—coincides with the “discovery” of America by Columbus in 1492; as Native American history underscores, it is a policy that likewise corresponds to the expansion of the United States from colony to colonizing
44
entity. With regard to Asian American history, the war-
from Japan and India. For instance, many Japanese
time experiences of Japanese Americans were necessar-
evaded Japanese regulations on emigration, which
ily haunted by the threat of deportation under the guise
were precursors to the Gentlemen’s Agreement of 1907,
of national security. For Asian American studies then,
by traveling to Hawai‘i and then on to the mainland. As
deportation becomes a primary analytic through which
early as 1900, labor brokers in Japan claimed that they
to consider and map coherences between and among
procured the entry of as many as four thousand labor-
diverse groups. Notwithstanding the presence of Asian
ers by falsifying passports and other public documents.
immigrants prior to the en masse arrival of Chinese mi-
While the Asian Indian population was declining be-
grants in the mid-nineteenth century, the issue of de-
tween 1920 and 1940, an estimated three thousand
portation as integral to the Asian American experience
Sikhs and Hindus crossed the Mexican border to work
is arguably first evident in the prohibitions embedded
as farm laborers. At the same time, many Sikhs from
in the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act, under which Chi-
Punjab and Muslims from Bengal working as crewmen
nese laborers were barred from entering for ten years;
jumped ship on the Eastern seaboard, although most
anyone apprehended in violation of the law was sub-
were apprehended and deported.
ject to removal. As is well documented, leaders of the
Because of their relatively larger numbers, longer
anti-Chinese movement succeeded, over the next dozen
stays in the United States, and the hardship of family
years, in promoting a series of treaties and new laws that
separation and antimiscegenation laws, Chinese were
led to an indefinite ban on Chinese labor immigration
given to undocumented migration more than any
in 1904 (S. Chan 1994; Shah 2001). Most notable among
other group. Their gambits were many, and a legion en-
them for their increasingly clever techniques and ratio-
tered after the enactment of exclusion laws under false
nales for control and deportation were the Scott Act of
citizenship claims. A Chinese laborer might assert, for
1888 and the Geary Act of 1892. According to the for-
example, that he had been born in San Francisco and
mer, Chinese laborers who left the United States could
that his birth certificate had been destroyed in the 1906
not return; with regard to the latter, Chinese laborers
earthquake. Then he would claim, after various trips to
were required to register with immigration officials—
China, that his wife there had given birth to children
those who failed to do so within a year were deportable.
(usually sons) who automatically derived citizenship. In
Chinese were denied bail and, prior to deportation, any
fact, the children were often fictitious, and the few im-
Chinese person not lawfully entitled to be in the United
migration slots were given or sold to others in China;
States was imprisoned at hard labor for up to a year.
those claiming such fabricated genealogies were not
As many scholars have noted, these prohibitions and
surprisingly known as “paper sons.” Some who had
limitations—which rendered immigrants deportable—
valid claims of entry would simply sell their identity to
were applied to subsequent Asian subjects, inclusive of
another. Since merchants, students, and teachers were
those migrating from Japan, Korea, India, and the Phil-
exempted from the first exclusion laws, laborers entered
ippines. Significantly, Asians did not dutifully accede to
with falsified evidence of membership in one of those
the systematic efforts to control their presence in the
classes. Thousands of others, including wives, sneaked
United States; as a result some were undocumented. Re-
across the Canadian or Mexican border. In fact, the Bor-
sistance to restrictions was common among immigrants
der Patrol that today conjures up images of deportation
deportation
bill ong hing
45
of Mexicans or the incarceration of unaccompanied
deportation enforcement directed at them, many Chi-
children from Central America was established in re-
nese Americans lived in constant fear of immigration
sponse to unauthorized entries of Chinese. Any esti-
authorities. Even those with nothing to hide were
mate of how many Chinese entered through any of
forced to constantly look over their shoulder. A “con-
these means would be speculative, but the practice was
fession program” offered by immigration authorities
undoubtedly widespread at one time.
in the late 1950s for those Chinese desirous of clearing
Immigration inspectors grew to distrust Chinese
up their immigration histories (since names and fam-
Americans. Consequently, besides the Border Patrol,
ily trees had been confused by earlier false claims) made
the government used other enforcement tools against
matters worse. The program was purportedly a trade-off
alleged offenders, such as inspection at the notorious
for the raids during the Red Scare and was promoted in
detention camp on Angel Island in San Francisco Bay;
some quarters as an amnesty program. In fact, it offered
in addition to Chinese immigrants who arrived at the
only a weak assurance that if a confessed Chinese was
holding center on ship, Japanese, Indians, and Mexi-
eligible for an existing statutory remedy, the paperwork
cans were also processed there. Between 1910 and 1940,
would be processed. Some might now be married to a
about fifty thousand Chinese were confined—often for
citizen through whom immigration was possible, oth-
months and years at a time—in Angel Island’s bleak
ers who had entered illegally prior to June 28, 1940,
wooden barracks, where inspectors would conduct
could be eligible for a relief termed “registry,” and still
grueling interrogations. Those who did not pass scru-
others could apply for suspension of deportation if ex-
tiny were deported back to China. Across the country,
treme hardship and good moral character could be dem-
raids on private homes, restaurants, and other busi-
onstrated. Because they feared immigration authorities,
nesses were also favored by authorities. Initiated at the
relatively few Chinese went through the confession pro-
turn of the century, raids were revived in the 1950s to
gram. In San Francisco, the principal residence for Chi-
capture and deport supporters of the new Communist
nese Americans at the time, only about ten thousand
regime in mainland China. It should be noted that such
Chinese came forward. Many of those actually were de-
detentions and deportations were by no means limited
ported because they were not eligible for any immigra-
to the West Coast; indeed, the most famous of U.S. im-
tion benefit.
migration centers—Ellis Island—was dramatically trans-
46
Since the mid-twentieth century, deportation en-
formed from immigration station to deportation hold-
forcement efforts have been manifested in operations
ing center after the passage of the 1924 Johnson-Reed
that continue to prey heavily on Asian immigrants. For
Act, which impacted immigrants from Asia, Eastern Eu-
example, in the summer of 1978, immigration inspec-
rope, and Southern Europe. The expansiveness of such
tors in Honolulu began a systematic interrogation of
deportation policies makes visible a wide-ranging xeno-
elderly Asians who were lawful permanent residents
phobia that corresponds to what Matthew Frye Jacob-
of the United States. They were returning from visits
son (1999) maintains represents the realities of racial-
abroad that were generally no more than thirty days.
ized difference and the perils of probationary whiteness.
The interrogation went beyond the customary question-
Nevertheless, many Chinese did have something
ing as to purpose and length of stay, focusing, rather, on
to hide; moreover, because of the intense level of
whether the travelers were or had been recipients of
deportation
bill ong hing
supplemental security income (SSI) public assistance
Such policies underscore not only the consistency
benefits. (SSI is a subsistence program for elderly and
of anti-Asian exclusion; they also highlight the ongo-
disabled poor made available to citizens and lawful resi-
ing racialization of Asian immigrants notwithstanding
dent aliens.) If SSI had been previously received, immi-
their status (as permanent residents). This deportative
gration inspectors took possession of the person’s alien
reading of Asian American history is even more ap-
card and passport and instructed the person to report
parent in the case of Filipino migrants who—due to
for further inspection and interrogation in the district
colonization—were U.S. subjects; even with this sta-
of residence, e.g., Los Angeles, San Diego, Seattle, or
tus, they were targeted by migration restriction (via
San Francisco. At the subsequent inspection these el-
the Tydings-McDuffie Act of 1934) and repatriation
derly Filipinos, Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese were
(in 1935). As immigration rates from the Philippines
informed that they were excludable from the United
began to increase significantly in the 1970s, a notice-
States as public charges. They were given three alterna-
ably distrustful attitude emerged at the INS toward
tives: go back to their native country, request an exclu-
Filipinos as it had historically toward Chinese. Fueled
sion hearing, or terminate SSI benefits and post a public
by allegations of visa fraud in Manila, local INS in-
charge bond of several thousand dollars.
vestigators, examiners, and clerical staff developed a
The authority for the INS to reimpose the public
demeaning and insensitive attitude toward Filipinos.
charge ground for exclusion each and every time an
As a group, natives of the Philippines continue to be
alien reentered the United States stemmed from the
distrusted and interrogated more intensively by im-
“reentry doctrine” concept. However, the reentry doc-
migration inspectors at international airports. In visa
trine had traditionally been used to exclude returning
cases involving marriage, when one party is from the
criminals, subversives, and other undesirables, and had
Philippines, both are subjected to exhaustive ques-
not been used to exclude returning lawful residents who
tioning far beyond the already humiliating examina-
had received public assistance. There was no question
tions conducted in most marriage cases. Often, as a
that the person had a right to apply for and to receive
matter of discretion in visa and citizenship cases, fur-
SSI. There were not allegations of fraud. If the individu-
ther investigation is requested by the U.S. Consulate
als had not proceeded abroad, the standard deportation
in Manila, forcing delays. As a general rule, the valid-
laws would not be triggered. Under SSI regulations, they
ity of documents is questioned, and many deporta-
were permitted to leave the country for periods up to
tion hearings demand corroborating evidence beyond
thirty days without affecting their SSI eligibility, and
that required of non-Filipinos. This is most succinctly
in many cases they were informed by SSI representa-
captured by a federal immigration judge who stated
tives prior to departure that there was nothing to worry
on the record: “By now, everyone dealing with such
about. However, they unwittingly walked into the trap
matters is well aware that aliens from the Philippines
of the reentry doctrine. The practice was not stopped
will engage in any fraud to get here and will do any-
until the INS changed the exclusion policy after months
thing to stay” (quoted in Hing 1993, 113). As a result
of lobbying by community activists. By then, dozens
of this approach and attitude, Filipinos remain the
of lawful resident Asian residents were barred from
target for deportation when it comes to alleged visa
returning.
and marriage fraud. deportation
bill ong hing
47
These frames of fraud and criminality circumscribe
48
As most would expect, aggravated felonies include mur-
and influence the current state of deportation affairs
der, rape, other crimes of violence, drug trafficking, and
vis-à-vis Asian American communities. The deporta-
money laundering. However, some minor crimes such
tion of Chinese gang members (mostly back to Hong
as selling $10 worth of marijuana or “smuggling” one’s
Kong) has been going on for decades, and eventually
little sister across the border also are aggravated felonies.
(per the tenets of racialized immigration policy) similar
And being convicted of a misdemeanor as opposed to
focus was placed on Koreans and Filipinos. In 2002, the
a felony does not automatically preclude aggravated-
United States began deporting Cambodian refugees con-
felon status. For example, several offenses are classified
victed of crimes back to Cambodia, even though many
as aggravated felonies once a one-year sentence is im-
of the deportees could not speak Khmer, were originally
posed. These include theft, burglary, perjury, and ob-
refugees, and had entered the United States as infants
struction of justice, even though the criminal court may
and toddlers. Some had never before set foot on Cam-
classify such a crime as a misdemeanor.
bodian soil, having been born in Thai refugee camps.
The causes of criminality in refugee communities are
Similarly, in 2008, the deportation of Vietnamese immi-
well documented. Refugees’ experiences at the camps
grants and refugees convicted of crimes commenced, at
prior to their entering the United States are challeng-
least for those who entered after 1995. As of this writing,
ing. Many parents who survive the trauma of fleeing
thousands of Cambodians and Vietnamese have faced
persecution are in shock and continue to suffer from
the prospect of deportation.
post-traumatic stress disorder. The rates at which differ-
While these deportations are seemingly fixed to post-
ent family members adapt may be poles apart, straining
9/11 anxieties (particularly with regard to the post-2001
relationships and producing discord. The new environ-
deportations of Southeast Asians and the detention/
ment into which refugees to the United States are thrust
deportation of South Asians, Arabs, and Muslims), it is
could not be more different than those from where
important to note that immigration reforms passed in
they came; gender roles, relationship with elders, and
1996 contained several categories of crimes that place
culture are upended. As refugees, many newcomers are
lawful permanent residents and refugees at risk of de-
poor, which affects, among other things, quality of life,
portation, including aggravated felonies and crimes in-
residential neighborhood, and access to good schools.
volving moral turpitude. Anyone convicted of an aggra-
Often the camaraderie of gangs offers a surrogate family
vated felony can be deported without the opportunity
for refugee youngsters. They search for acceptance and
to demonstrate rehabilitation and hardship to relatives.
often find a sense of common understanding with their
Prior to 1996, an immigration judge could give these
peers who are experiencing similar feelings of ostracism
individuals a second chance, but that authority was re-
from the mainstream and adults. Many also join gangs
voked under the auspices of the Illegal Immigration Re-
for protection. As a youngster gets picked on, he wel-
form and Immigrant Responsibility Act. As significant,
comes the help that others similarly situated can offer.
the use of deportation as a means of criminal sentenc-
Unfortunately, their activities often become criminal,
ing accesses past characterizations of Asian Americans
resulting in deportable convictions. As a result, they fall
and Latinos as “perpetual foreigners” who threaten the
squarely into enforcement priorities that rank criminal
nation as purveyors of vice, disorder, and lawlessness.
aliens at the top of the list.
deportation
bill ong hing
In the face of local dynamics, within the context of national politics, and set against a larger global imaginary marked by “War on Terror” anxieties, deportation
13
remains a significant term through which to map not
Diaspora
only a racialized history of exclusion and expulsion; it
Evelyn Hu-DeHart
also affords the possibility—as antideportation activists make clear—of cross-ethnic, cross-racial solidarity and resistance (Reddy 2011; Cacho 2012; Kwon 2013). Expressly, Unidad Latina en Accion, an organization
“Diaspora” is now a word in the popular domain, but
focused on workers’ and immigration rights, has con-
its popularization presents challenges to the field of
sistently appealed to the Barack Obama administra-
diaspora studies, namely how to regain some control
tion to halt further deportations; analogously, the West
over its meaning and parameters before it is totally
Coast–based Asian Pacific Islander Youth Promoting
reduced to a simple and simplistic essentialism denoting
Advocacy and Leadership (AYPAL) has staged protests
any kind of human mobility and scattering, or any kind
to raise awareness about and engender action against
of sentimental yearning by upper-class exiles. World
deportation. Such potential coalitions, predicated on
history has been replete with diasporas, starting with
the dismantling of the systemic oppression faced by
the ancient Greeks who gave us the word “diaspora”
immigrants of color, correspond in many ways to the
(to sow or scatter) with their practice of intentionally
early history of Asian American studies and ethnic stud-
planting colonies in other lands for cultural propagation
ies, which were formed in solidarity with Third World
and to advance trade. New ones continuously arise from
liberation movements (abroad) and civil rights move-
different corners of the world, or emerge reshaped from
ments (at home).
the bowels of existing diasporas. From the ancient to the modern world, diaspora has been most frequently associated with the traumatic forced expulsion of Jews from their ancestral homeland of Israel and subsequent worldwide dissemination over the course of centuries (Safran 1991). In the modern world, accompanying the rise of capitalism and its corollary, the colonial reach of Europe to Asia, Africa, and Latin America for markets and raw materials, is the great and terrible African diaspora, created by the traumatic forced removal of tens of millions of men and women of many ethnic groups out of Africa over four centuries, to be dispersed throughout the Americas as chattel slaves. Unified initially by the dehumanizing regime of slavery and later reinforced by the demeaning regime of racism, descendants of slaves identify with each other through race, as “black people,” 49
In the face of local dynamics, within the context of national politics, and set against a larger global imaginary marked by “War on Terror” anxieties, deportation
13
remains a significant term through which to map not
Diaspora
only a racialized history of exclusion and expulsion; it
Evelyn Hu-DeHart
also affords the possibility—as antideportation activists make clear—of cross-ethnic, cross-racial solidarity and resistance (Reddy 2011; Cacho 2012; Kwon 2013). Expressly, Unidad Latina en Accion, an organization
“Diaspora” is now a word in the popular domain, but
focused on workers’ and immigration rights, has con-
its popularization presents challenges to the field of
sistently appealed to the Barack Obama administra-
diaspora studies, namely how to regain some control
tion to halt further deportations; analogously, the West
over its meaning and parameters before it is totally
Coast–based Asian Pacific Islander Youth Promoting
reduced to a simple and simplistic essentialism denoting
Advocacy and Leadership (AYPAL) has staged protests
any kind of human mobility and scattering, or any kind
to raise awareness about and engender action against
of sentimental yearning by upper-class exiles. World
deportation. Such potential coalitions, predicated on
history has been replete with diasporas, starting with
the dismantling of the systemic oppression faced by
the ancient Greeks who gave us the word “diaspora”
immigrants of color, correspond in many ways to the
(to sow or scatter) with their practice of intentionally
early history of Asian American studies and ethnic stud-
planting colonies in other lands for cultural propagation
ies, which were formed in solidarity with Third World
and to advance trade. New ones continuously arise from
liberation movements (abroad) and civil rights move-
different corners of the world, or emerge reshaped from
ments (at home).
the bowels of existing diasporas. From the ancient to the modern world, diaspora has been most frequently associated with the traumatic forced expulsion of Jews from their ancestral homeland of Israel and subsequent worldwide dissemination over the course of centuries (Safran 1991). In the modern world, accompanying the rise of capitalism and its corollary, the colonial reach of Europe to Asia, Africa, and Latin America for markets and raw materials, is the great and terrible African diaspora, created by the traumatic forced removal of tens of millions of men and women of many ethnic groups out of Africa over four centuries, to be dispersed throughout the Americas as chattel slaves. Unified initially by the dehumanizing regime of slavery and later reinforced by the demeaning regime of racism, descendants of slaves identify with each other through race, as “black people,” 49
and have created multiple, dynamic expressions and
50
way to civil wars, world wars, anticolonial armed strug-
meanings of blackness through culture—music, dance,
gles and guerrilla movements (“wars of national libera-
art, literature—throughout the diaspora.
tion”), old empires falling, and new imperial regimes
Next to the African and almost contemporaneously,
rising have complicated out-migration from homelands,
another great modern diaspora evolved from China, be-
which has manifested in new forms, such as exile, ban-
ginning in the mid-sixteenth century of the late Ming.
ishment, expulsion, expatriation, and, notably, refugee
In mapping this diaspora, we see that it shares some of
flows and asylum seeking. In other words, with many
the central characteristics of other large diasporas, but
and varied reasons for leaving home and staying away
also differs in notable ways. If not among the oldest, it
for long periods eventually extending into generations,
is certainly one of the longest, most persistent, and on-
these global migrations have given rise to a “range of
going mass migrations from one central location, today
phenomenon” that can be said to constitute diasporas
represented by the estimated twenty-five to fifty mil-
(Clifford 1997).
lion peoples of Chinese descent living outside China.
Diasporas are most often defined in terms of race
They and their ancestors cannot be said to have been
(black), ethnicity (Jewish, Chinese, Lebanese, Viet-
traumatically expelled from China en masse, although
namese), nation (Japanese, Indian, Cuban, Mexican),
severe hardships, violent conflicts, and natural disasters
and also religion (Hindu, Muslim, Tibetan Buddhist),
played their role in impelling so many to leave home
region (South Asian, Caribbean), and other categories.
and seek new livelihoods far away in alien lands. To be
Incorporating all these mass human migrations and
sure, when out-migration greatly accelerated around
resettlements over space and time under the expand-
the mid-nineteenth century, the Opium Wars, the
ing rubric of diaspora has given rise to the fast growing
Taiping Rebellion, and other local and regional peasant
academic project of diaspora studies. Precisely because
uprisings acted as push factors that induced many to
so many of the world’s human experiences now qualify
leave China. Many more were forced to leave by floods,
as diaspora, it is imperative that diasporas be studied re-
famines, and the oft-cited demographic growth and
spectively and in their distinct and particular historical
subsequent pressure on arable land; still others not nec-
contexts in order for this common experience to be ap-
essarily in dire straits left China in search of trade and
preciated comparatively. The following synopsis of the
business opportunities. Their reasons for leaving home
Chinese experience with migration over time and space
were not materially different from those of the Irish, the
illustrates how one might go about studying this ever-
Lebanese, the Japanese, the Italians, and South Asians of
growing phenomenon of diaspora.
many different ethnicities and religions (R. Cohen 1997).
Since at least the sixteenth century, southern Chi-
Following China, Asia has spawned many other dia-
nese (from Guangdong and Fujian provinces) had been
sporas: Japanese, Indian, and South Asian, Hindu, Sikh,
leaving home to trade, and later, to settle, through-
Tamil, Muslim, Vietnamese, Filipino, and Southeast
out Southeast Asia— today’s Philippines, Indone-
Asian, most recently Korean, the proliferation occurring
sia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand. Migration to the
from the late nineteenth, throughout the twentieth,
Americas—North to South and including the Caribbean
and into the present moment of the twenty-first cen-
islands—took off in the nineteenth and early twentieth
tury. During this tumultuous period, revolutions giving
centuries, consisting overwhelmingly of working-age
diaspora
evelyn hu-dehart
men, although not necessarily unmarried and without
elements of the receiving society with whom migrants
families (Mazumdar 2003). Wives and children were
interact and compete. When faced with these chal-
often initially left behind (Qing policy actually prohib-
lenges, Chinese migrant communities have developed
ited out-migration of Chinese women and children),
ways of overt resistance as well as accommodationist
then later beckoned to join husbands and fathers. Mi-
practices, all for the purpose of self-defense, preserva-
grants also formed first or secondary families with lo-
tion, and survival. This common experience of rejec-
cal women. Furthermore, Chinese men were attracted
tion, marginalization, discrimination, and oppression
to a range of frontier and newly developing economic
by host societies encourage diasporic Chinese commu-
regions of Southeast Asia, the Pacific (the small islands
nities to forge a strong sense of identification and em-
as well as Australia and New Zealand), California and
pathy for each other’s common plight, and develop
the American West, the borderlands between the U.S.
mechanisms for quick mobilization in mutual support
and Mexico, and plantation societies of the Caribbean
when one of them comes under vicious nativist attack.
and Latin America. In all these vibrant spaces, both la-
For all of the nineteenth and much of the twentieth
bor and business opportunities abounded. Whether the
centuries, their inability to fully penetrate host societ-
places of settlement were still European colonies or re-
ies for social acceptance and political integration has
cently decolonized, Chinese migrants were introduced
trumped whatever aspiration diasporic Chinese might
as a deterritorialized intermediate sector between na-
have harbored to assimilate into another cultural and
tives bound to their land and villages, and colonial and
national identity, ironically the only way they could
neocolonial masters and administrators determined
have ended their sense of displacement and exile. In
to extract wealth and maintain social control. Encour-
this diasporic condition, the final reference for home
aged by the white masters to feel superior by race and
remained their native village and region, the guxiang
civilization to the subjugated and darker-skinned native
(Sinn 1997), and eventually China itself, which inci-
populations, they were nevertheless denied acceptance
dentally has never been occupied or destroyed. So for
as social equals and were rarely accorded metropolitan
diasporic Chinese, the return-to-homeland yearning
citizenship no matter how successful or prosperous they
and practices unfold in a different context than for Jews,
may have become.
Africans, Palestinians, and Armenians, who must first
In European settler societies—the United States, Can-
reconquer and reestablish a home before they can re-
ada, Australia—which upon shedding their colonized
turn to one. Instead, Chinese desire to return in order
status installed white supremacist social structures, Chi-
to compensate for their deterrorialization abroad by re-
nese and other Asian immigrants were denied the politi-
territorializing at home, that is, by strengthening their
cal right to citizenship as well as most of the important
roots to village and nation.
economic and social rights, such as landownership,
Chinese diasporics reconnect with home in another
interracial marriages, access to education, well-paying
significant and now increasingly problematic way: when
jobs, and the professions. The sum of these deprivations
shut out of citizenship and political participation, they
sheds light on one of the most common reasons why
become susceptible to the siren calls of homeland poli-
migrations become diasporas: a tense, troubled, tenu-
tics. In the case of the U.S., beginning with the fiercely
ous, and tortuous relationship with the state and key
competitive factions of reformers and revolutionaries
diaspora
evelyn hu-dehart
51
of the turn-of-the-century plotting to overthrow the
it becomes citizen and government. At this moment,
Manchu rulers of the Qing dynasty, followed by the bit-
we also ask of the Chinese diaspora, is it drawing to a
ter and protracted political rivalry between the Kuom-
close? It seems that, like diasporic Jews, Chinese over-
ingtang regime under Chiang Kai-shek in Taiwan and
seas are becoming ever more transnational, even as they
the Communist regime in China, Chinese in America
become more rooted and integrated into host societies.
have found it difficult to distance themselves from such
If diaspora is—as Khachig Tölölyan argues in the inau-
politics (Ma 1990; Tsai 1983). But identification and in-
gural issue of Diaspora: A Journal of Transnational Stud-
volvement with homeland politics have come at a costly
ies, which he founded and edits—the classic exemplar
price for many Chinese communities in the diaspora,
of transnationalism (Tölölyan 1991), I would add that
for these practices often clashed with other imperatives,
transnational practices did not just give rise and shape
fears, and anxieties of the larger societies, notably rising
to diasporas at the point of their formation, but new
new nationalisms in postcolonial societies such as Indo-
transnational practices are invented to help them at
nesia, Malaya (before the split into Chinese-dominated
their points of expiration or transition to a new era.
Singapore and Malay-dominated Malaysia), and the
In the present moment, when most diasporic Chi-
Philippines, where even well-established Chinese com-
nese are no longer marginalized outsiders but active
munities are seen as untrustworthy, undependable al-
citizens and aggressive businessmen of multiple nation-
lies of the nationalist project.
states around the world, their traditional voluntary as-
Because China itself was not lost, diasporic Chinese
sociations (huiguan), which had once helped migrants
were always able to make home visits if they had the fi-
become localized, turned into global instruments of
nancial means. For several decades, however, after the
networking, drawing upon deeply seated sub-ethnic
Communists took power in 1949, the doors were closed
identities. For example, Hakka (kejia) around the world
to movements of people and capital in and out of the
organize international reunions, Teochow (Chaozhou)
country, and were not reopened until later in the twen-
people hold international conventions, and not to be
tieth century. During this period, the world changed
outdone, Fujian associations have their own world
dramatically, highlighted by further decolonization in
meetings. The same is true of surname associations such
the Western empires; the challenge of socialism in the
as the Guan clan, which has held its own World Guan
Third World and the rise and fall of the Cold War; the
Association meeting. These global networks facilitate
triumph of liberal democracies worldwide, accompa-
transnational practices of postcolonial, postmodern
nied by the dismantling of legal racial segregation and
Chinese capitalists of the Asia Pacific (Nonini 2001; Hu-
racially exclusive policies in white supremacist societies
DeHart 1999).
such as the U.S., Canada, and Australia; and the advent
52
Meanwhile, China itself is generating another dia-
of late-capitalist globalization. These worldwide social
sporic spurt, once again sending out migrants in large
transformations brought about conditions in which, for
numbers, and to places where they had not been promi-
the first time in history, diasporic Chinese everywhere
nent before, such as Eastern Europe. Not only China,
are finally accorded the rights of citizenship and belong-
but parts of the original diaspora itself—Taiwan, Hong
ing where they have settled. In so doing, the dynamics
Kong, Singapore, Indonesia, Vietnam, and Thailand, as
of their relationship change: instead of guest and host,
well as Cuba and Peru, Jamaica and Guyana—have been
diaspora
evelyn hu-dehart
leaking ethnic Chinese migrants to other parts of the
world slavery and plantation, free market capitalism
world, complicating the pattern of migration and dis-
and imperialism, state and monopoly capitalism, and
rupting a common association of place of origin with
currently, late capitalist or neoliberal globalization. For
ethnicity. A new immigrant to the U.S. self-identified
this reason, state actions and policies on both the send-
as “Chinese” may originate from any of a multiplicity
ing and receiving ends of migration play crucial roles in
of places in addition to China itself, and speak primar-
diaspora formations.
ily English or Spanish rather than Mandarin, Cantonese,
One notable example of a new kind of Asian diaspora
or Fujianese. For their part, much as in the case of most
is the massive, state-sponsored, and state-directed out-
Jews in the world, who have elected not to return to the
migration of Filipino workers, predominately women,
re-created Israel, the longtime imagined homeland of
to Europe, Asia, and America, a migration, it can be
diasporic desire, so most Chinese are happy only to visit
argued, that resembles a guest worker program more
China from many points in the diaspora, and not to stay
than a diaspora. Children remain behind to be raised
forever. Diasporic Chinese today are self-identified as
by grandparents while occasional fathers and many
such ethnically and maybe culturally as well, but not na-
mothers depart under contract to work as maids, nurses,
tionalistically. And the Chinese identities and cultures
nannies, and other gendered forms of labor (Parreñas
they have invented in the diaspora are as varied and di-
2001). The billions of dollars remitted back to villages
verse as the places they have settled; multiple, creolized,
and towns in the Philippines sustain entire communi-
flexible, contingent, situational, adaptable, changeable,
ties. Because workers often remain overseas on multiple
malleable, these diasporic Chinese identities have been
renewed contracts for ten or more years cumulatively,
the subject of numerous studies (Ang 2001; Ho 1989;
their regular remittances become dependable and con-
Ong 1999 are three good examples among many).
crete links to home; moreover, modern technology such
In the same inaugural issue of Diaspora, Tölölyan also
as phone cards and the internet provide additional ways
proposes that “[w]e use ‘diaspora’ provisionally to indi-
to connect. The Filipino model has motivated Thai, In-
cate our belief that the term that once described Jewish,
donesian, and Bangladeshi women to follow their sis-
Greek, and Armenian dispersion now shares meanings
ters into overseas contract work. While their work stints
with a larger semantic domain that includes words like
are supposedly temporary, marriage with foreign men
immigrant, expatriate, refugee, guest workers, exile
can make their overseas sojourns permanent.
community, overseas community, ethnic community.
The explosive breakup of empires has often resulted
This is the vocabulary of transnationalism” (1991, 4–5).
in voluntary and involuntary departures from unstable,
Old diasporas fade while new ones arise, because more
violent, and often corrupt postcolonial societies. Thus
than anything, diasporas describe relationships and hu-
we can speak of the out-migration of Caribbean peo-
man drama across time and space, that is, history itself.
ples of African and Asian descent (Chinese and South
Nor surprisingly, diasporas reflect and display usual con-
Asians) to Canada, the United States, France, and Spain
flicts along class, gender, and generational lines. More-
(Humanities Institute 1987). We can point to the forced
over, modern diasporas seem to emerge, unfold, move,
removal of South Asians from Idi Amin’s Uganda almost
change, recede, or come alive within successive modes
half a century ago, only to find them returning decades
of capitalist production, be they colonialism, new
later, picking up businesses they had once lost, and
diaspora
evelyn hu-dehart
53
thriving again. Most diasporic Chinese today, especially
Mauritian writer of Hakka descent, Joseph Tsang Mang
those in officially recognized multicultural, pluralistic
Kin. The poem was appropriately entitled “Le grand
liberal democracies, assertively exercise their coequal
chant Hakka” (“The Great Hakka Song”). Officially
citizenship and political rights alongside other groups,
opening the ceremony in English was Canadian senator
including privileged whites in the U.S., Canada, and
Vivienne Poy, whose Hakka sister-in-law, the Canadian
Australia, where whites constitute the majority and con-
television personality Adrienne Poy Clarkson, was even
tinue to monopolize wealth and power.
more prominent in her role as the governor-general of
In the case of Singapore with its majority Chinese pop-
Canada, appointed by the prime minister to be the face
ulation and Chinese-controlled government, diasporic
of Canada to the queen of England and to the vast Brit-
Chinese have created an ethnic Chinese nation not
ish Commonwealth that stretches from Canada to the
controlled by the motherland. Taiwan Chinese would
Caribbean, to Asia, and to Africa. These transnational
like to achieve the same autonomy, while the moment
Hakkas are easing effortlessly into the post-diasporic
for Hong Kong Chinese might have passed. In all these
moment in numerous multicultural societies while cel-
places, can we now speak of the Chinese as entering the
ebrating their global diasporic ties (Toronto Hakka Heri-
post-diasporic era, in which they can avail themselves of
tage and Cultural Conference 2000).
social capital accumulated in the diaspora to strengthen
As more and more diasporas come into academic fo-
guanxi (connections) and xinyong (trust) in order to gain
cus, we can begin to identify a growing list of tensions
business advantages over competitors under globaliza-
between sets of, if not opposing, then at least contest-
tion (Nonini 2001; Kiong and Kee 1998), or to reinforce a
ing forces or tendencies. These tensions define diasporic
distinctive Chinese ethnic identity in avowedly multicul-
subjectivity; explain decisions made by individuals,
tural and pluralistic democracies that no longer, at least
communities, and the state, or delineate their options;
officially, demand assimilation to a dominant majority
and maintain the diasporic condition while also de-
culture? At the same time, in these various postcolonial
stabilizing diasporas. In random order, some of these
and postmodern environments, are diasporic Chinese
tensions can be framed as: tradition and modernity;
not also motivated to engage in a larger dialogue about
localization and globalization; territorialization and
building civil society along with other ethnic groups?
deterritorialization; belonging and leaving; integration
A notable kind of post-diasporic practice is embracing
and separation; exile and return; sojourner and citizen;
official multiculturalism. It is telling that when Hakkas
national and transnational; nation-bound and border-
gather, for example, the lingua franca is more likely to be
crossing; purity and hybridity; ethnicization and as-
English (or French) than any of the several Hakka lan-
similation; localism and nationalism; parochialism and
guages, for participants consist of many second and third
cosmopolitanism; displacement and integration; co-
generations born in the diaspora to societies that have
operation and competition; rigidity and flexibility. No
fully integrated them. For example, at Canada’s First An-
doubt, students of diasporas will add to this list.
nual Conference on Hakka Heritage and Culture, held in Toronto in December 2000, York University Professor of Chinese Studies Pietro Giordan (who is obviously not Hakka) read a poem written in French by a contemporary 54
diaspora
evelyn hu-dehart
accommodations in education, employment, public
14
facilities, and commercial services for disabled people— actualized a long effort on the part of activists that be-
Disability
gan during the civil rights era. Disability studies, as a
Cynthia Wu
discipline in the humanities, differentiates itself from the fields of rehabilitation medicine (such as physical therapy or occupational therapy) by locating its critique within the social and built environments that create in-
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the first
capacitating barriers for disabled people. Instead of de-
appearance of “disability” occurred in the mid-
veloping therapies to normalize people, the field focuses
sixteenth century. Its adjectival form, “disabled,”
on the social justice implications of unequal access.
follows shortly thereafter in the linguistic record. It
Consequently, it adopts a methodology that privileges
appears that from the beginning, the three definitions
the cultural meanings of physical, sensory, and neural
of disability that persist today—“a lack of ability (to
difference rather than treatment and cure.
discharge any office or function),” “a physical or mental
Despite the presence of disability—as evidenced in
condition that limits a person’s movements, senses, or
the linguistic record—as a social and cultural entity
activities,” and “a restriction framed to prevent any
from the mid-1500s onward, it was not until the advent
person or class of persons from sharing in duties and
of modernity that differences marked by ability status
privileges which would otherwise be open to them”—
were regarded and handled in the manner that is famil-
coexisted with one another. A now-obsolete meaning,
iar to us now. The standardizing discourses and practices
disability as financial hardship, disappeared from use in
associated with empiricism, urbanization, and industri-
the nineteenth century. The field of Asian American studies has seen a recent
alization occasioned a shift from a society where human variation was integrated into everyday life to one where
surge of scholarship that addresses disability. A Mod-
forms of intervention and control—linguistic, educa-
ern Language Association convention panel, a special
tional, spatial, medical, and legal—were leveled upon
issue of Amerasia Journal, and several monographs—all
disabled people (Bogdan 1990; Davis 1995; Trent 1995;
appearing in the past few years—together mark this ac-
Baynton 1996; Reiss 2008; Schweik 2010; Rembis 2011;
celeration of interest. Although ethnic studies was, at
Nielsen 2012). The historical effects of this segregation,
first, somewhat slow to initiate dialogue with disability
forced or coerced therapy, juridical abuse, and cultural
studies, the conversations that scholars have generated
erasure are what activists and scholars are still attempt-
of late speaks to the shared intellectual and political
ing to expose and redress today.
commitments of these fields. Disability studies was founded in the 1990s in
This framework— which posits disability as difference that demands accommodation in the form
ways that reflected the cultural changes in the wake
of institutional change rather than assimilation and
of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The
integration—would be familiar to scholars of race. The
legislation— which prohibited discr imination
emergence of ethnic studies as an academic discipline in
based on ability status and mandated reasonable
the late 1960s and early 1970s took place in tandem with 55
concurrent social movements outside of the academy
of political difference as particular to social minorities
that challenged racism, class inequality, and militaristic
and seeing difference as integrated into the universality
imperialism. The various racial liberatory movements
of human experience (Sedgwick 1990) or the proposi-
and the opposition to the Vietnam War marked a de-
tion that we evacuate the subject of analysis altogether
parture from the Cold War conformity of the previous
and define our field by mode of critique (Chuh 2003).
generation.
Examples of recent work that performs these analyti-
The rise of a sustained panethnic and cross-racial
cal maneuvers include a literary critical examination of
Asian American movement during this era privileged a
fiction responding to the neocolonial ties between the
heteropatriarchal—and, by extension, a nondisabled—
United States and India that were exposed after the 1984
subject. The early activists attempted to generate their
Union Carbide gas leak in Bhopal (Jina Kim 2014). The
critiques of social inequality by appealing to standards
workings of multinational corporations, which cheapen
of normative masculinity. The disavowal of gender and
some lives in return for the comfort of others, force a
sexual difference in cultural nationalist politics has
reconsideration of the logic of disability activism and
been well documented in Asian American studies. How-
disability studies in the global North. Also notable is
ever, the lack of a corresponding body of work that un-
a study of how contemporary concepts of toxicity are
packs ableism in Asian American cultural nationalism
transposed onto historically sedimented anxieties about
is striking, given how closely the discourses of gender,
a transnational Asia (M. Chen 2012). Fears about racial-
sexuality, and disability are intertwined.
ized contaminants arise out of the ambivalence that
Correspondingly, disability studies has faced cri-
North Americans hold about the movement of bodies,
tiques of its white normativity (Bell 2006). Its areas of
objects, and capital alike across national borders. These
inquiry and the demographic composition of its prac-
are some of the possibilities that future work on disabil-
titioners have assumed a whiteness that marginalized
ity may conjure in the field of Asian American studies.
scholars who maintained intellectual commitments to race. Nevertheless, there are a few seminal texts where we can see the earliest examples of disability and race/ ethnicity overlapping and/or mutually constituting each another (Gilman 1985; Gilman 1996; Kraut 1995; Garland-Thomson 1997). This methodology extends itself more explicitly in the work that follows (James and Wu 2006; James 2007; C. Wu 2012; Ho, Lee, and Pan 2013; Minich 2013). The challenge for scholars as this line of inquiry moves forward, especially in the field of Asian American studies, is to explore how these interpretive lenses can be repurposed to go beyond— but not transcend—a predictable archive. Such an approach might follow the dictum that we acknowledge but not hierarchize the tension between seeing matters 56
disability
cynthia wu
The first clause of Article IV, Section 2, of the United
15
States Constitution declares, “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citi-
Discrimination
zens in the several States,” and early litigants said that
John S. W. Park
this clause forbade the states from “discriminations” against citizens of other states. In the Federalist Papers and elsewhere, some of the Constitution’s framers claimed they had supported this article to prevent citi-
“Discrimination” comes from the Latin prefix “dis-,”
zens in the more powerful states from discriminating
meaning “apart from” or “away from.” Its root,
against citizens of less powerful states, thus providing a
“crimen,” denoting “blame” or “judgment,” gives us
legal basis for equality among all citizens of the United
“crime” and all of its variants. Carrying negative and
States. Nevertheless, discrimination against nonciti-
positive connotations, to discriminate is to come to a
zens, along with taking their property, was deemed less
judgment about something or someone or to set it apart
problematic. Although some Native Americans had
from something else with similar characteristics. To be
converted to Christianity, exercised property rights,
“discriminating” suggests a finer taste and sensibility,
and even “passed into” American citizenship, those liv-
the ability to distinguish good from bad, and the
ing as members of “sovereign tribes” were not counted
capacity to discern desirable from undesirable. It can
in the census for purposes of apportioning seats in
indicate good judgment, a kind of refinement, and even
Congress.
snobbery. In the context of public law, “discrimination”
As non-American citizens, these “Indians not taxed”
most often refers to a formal declaration to treat two
and their sovereign tribes could not expect protection
groups differently; such a collective decision can imply
from the federal courts either, as they had no rights,
a majority’s desire to elevate some and to denigrate
privileges, or immunities under the constitution. They
others, even though they may otherwise share similar
were, in the words of the United States Supreme Court,
attributes. White supremacists in the United States
“domestic dependent nations” and “the relationship of
have long insisted that racial discrimination is based
the tribes to the United States [resembled] that of a ‘ward
on notions of “good taste” or “common sense” that
to its guardian.’” In other cases, the court stressed that
distinguish “good people” (whites) from “other people”
Congress and the president had “plenary power” over
(nonwhites, beings who may not be fully human and
Native Americans and their tribes; such power could not
thus not entitled to the same treatment as whites).
be checked by the federal courts under the United States
While there are many forms of discrimination in the
Constitution. As numerous state governments and then
world—based on gender, age, sexual orientation, and
the federal government coordinated military efforts to
class, among dozens of others—this essay focuses on
remove Native Americans from their lands, the federal
the relationship between race-based discriminations
courts occasionally expressed sympathy, but otherwise
(particularly in American constitutional law and
did nothing (Deloria 1983). Similarly, African Ameri-
in federal and state statutes) and their multifaceted
cans were regarded as beyond constitutional protection.
impacts on Asian Americans and Asian immigrants.
African slaves were property; even free blacks were not 57
considered citizens in the same way as “free white per-
immigrants (Wong and Chan 1998; John Park 2004;
sons.” Under law, slave owners were entitled to recover
Erika Lee 2004).
their slaves with the assistance of state officials, even in states where slavery was unlawful. This understanding,
of the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, which
reinforced through several constitutional provisions
promised constitutional protections to all “persons” as
and subsequent federal statutes, envisioned formal,
well as citizens: “No State shall make or enforce any law
discriminatory treatment against black slaves; such
which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citi-
treatment assumed that they were people governed by
zens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any
constitutional rules, but not protected under the Con-
person of life, liberty, or property, without due process
stitution (Higginbotham 1980; Morgan 2003).
58
Such racialized restrictions occurred after the passage
of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction
By analogy, Asian immigrants were characterized
the equal protection of the laws.” In the aftermath of
as outside the nation when they arrived in large num-
Reconstruction, however, white supremacists rejected
bers by the mid-nineteenth century. In early California
political and social equality with African Americans. As
history, Asian immigrants were excluded from juries
newly emancipated slaves left the South, racial segrega-
(1854) and barred from attaining naturalized citizen-
tion became more pervasive and codified at the state
ship (1879). Racial discrimination against the Chinese
level via Jim Crow laws. For about one hundred years
began in 1852, when California approved the Foreign
after the Civil War, white American majorities legally
Miners’ Tax. While the tax carried no specific ethnic or
discriminated against people of color, even though the
racial designation, it was exclusively applied to Chinese
federal government had to acknowledge that African
immigrants. Over the next three decades, such discrimi-
Americans, Native Americans, Asian Americans, and
natory measures would increase as state legislators de-
other racial minorities were both “persons” and citizens
manded state and federal action against the further mi-
of the United States (Woodward 1966).
gration of the Chinese. For example, the Page Act of 1875
Legalized racial segregation required novel justifica-
prohibited the arrival of “lewd and debauched women”;
tions. In Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the Supreme Court
in California, the rule was used against Chinese women.
upheld that “separate but equal” accommodations and
Seven years later, the U.S. Congress passed the Chinese
services for racial others were constitutional. Over the
Exclusion Act, which curtailed Chinese immigration
next six decades, white majorities supported segrega-
by prohibiting Chinese laborers. In Chae Chan Ping
tion; in public school systems, for example, African
v. United States (1889), the Supreme Court upheld such
American, Mexican American, Asian American, and
forms of racial discrimination and exclusion, averring:
Native American children were to be segregated (if such
“These laborers are not citizens of the United States; they
schools were established for them at all). For example,
are aliens. That the government of the United States,
because they were deemed “yellow” and not white by
through the action of the legislative department, can
the Supreme Court, Asian and Asian American children
exclude aliens from its territory is a proposition which
were to attend schools for “colored children” in Missis-
we do not think open to controversy.” In other words,
sippi (Gong Lum v. Rice 1927). This systemic segregation
national majorities had the right to discriminate on
against people of color was extended into other places
the basis of race to keep out undesirable, “inassimilable”
and spaces, such as hospitals, military units, and labor
discrimination
john s. w. park
unions. And, with regard to Asian immigrants and Asia
endorsed eugenics—the selective breeding of “higher
Americans, such discriminations were applied to di-
races” and the destruction or culling of “lower types,”
vergent ethnic groups. South Asian immigrants could
including people with mental and physical disabilities.
not pass into American citizenship, Korean immigrants
Following British and American practices, Nazi officials
could not own land in states like California, nor could
used concentration camps to detain political prisoners,
Filipino or Japanese immigrants get commercial fish-
homosexuals, and other “undesirables.” In the first half
ing licenses or government jobs. Various state rules said
of the twentieth century, horrifying forms of race-based
that “Mongolians,” “Orientals,” and “Malays” could
discrimination and apartheid were basic aspects of pub-
not marry “white” or “Caucasian” people (Chan 1991).
lic law and policy in the “civilized” world. As Steven
Throughout this period, if regular political power
Casey (2001) and others have argued, American politi-
proved ineffective, whites used other methods to en-
cians had to persuade the American public that Nazis
force segregation. At the turn of the twentieth century,
and other racists were indeed enemies and threats and
membership in white supremacist organizations num-
not allies.
bered in the hundreds of thousands as legislators, Su-
Even so, before the end of World War II, the Ameri-
preme Court justices, police officers, and other officials
cans had evinced a self-consciousness and a sense of
joined groups like the Ku Klux Klan to secure white
embarrassment about race-based discrimination as they
voting blocs. There was regional variety: James Phelan,
tried to lead the struggle against fascism and commu-
the former mayor of San Francisco, promised to keep
nism. The Supreme Court insisted that Japanese Ameri-
California free of Japanese immigrants when he ran
can internment camps were not like Nazi concentration
for a United States Senate seat; in North Carolina, Fur-
camps. The court likewise asserted that popular racial
nifold Simmons claimed to be the “Chieftain of White
prejudices alone should never be used to justify racial
Supremacy” and the “Great White Father” when he ran
discrimination, and that (from now on) American leg-
for his own seat. Both men won. During the first half of
islatures had to have “compelling state interests” and
the twentieth century, legislators like these would block
“narrowly tailored” methods whenever they used race-
the passage of several antilynching bills in Congress.
based discriminations. Such statements arose in Kore-
White supremacy was so common that many Ameri-
matsu v. United States (1944), where the court rendered
cans encouraged their representatives to seek alliances
legal the indiscriminate internment of immigrants and
with the Nazi Party in Germany, as the racial attitudes
American citizens of Japanese ancestry. Even though
of the Nazis were similar to their own. Before World
Fred Korematsu and Japanese Americans lost their fight
War II, when Franklin Roosevelt complained that Ad-
against mass incarceration, the case marked a turning
olf Hitler had no right to infringe upon the sovereignty
point in American public law, as the federal courts used
of his neighbors— France, Czechoslovakia, Poland,
it as a precedent to undo race-based discriminations in
Hungary—Hitler’s reply was that the United States had
education, housing, voting, and other areas of public
no moral right to complain about such things, as white
life (Klarman 2006).
Americans had already done to Native Americans what
As Mary Dudzuiak (2000) and other historians have
the Nazis were hoping to try in Europe. Influenced by
noted, in the postwar world, U.S. domestic law changed
counterparts in the United States, Nazi scientists also
in response to the Holocaust and within the context of
discrimination
john s. w. park
59
Cold War foreign policy. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics joined with the People’s Republic of China
resistance to racial integration was often violent, yet by
in a communist bloc to oppose the United States,
1970, in an amazing turn, formal race-based rules de-
Great Britain, Japan, and their allies. The communist
signed to discriminate and to disable people of color in
world and the “free world” fought one another for the
the United States were either repealed or struck down.
Third World—the so-called nonaligned nations—with
In law and policy at least, racial discriminations—those
each side trying to persuade these countries to follow
based on notions that some people were racially inferior
its example and to reject the other side. In places like
or subhuman—were no longer legal.
Vietnam and Korea, the communists quickly reminded
Formal white supremacy has been illegal now for
everyone of past racism and anti-Asian discrimination
about four or five decades, or rather, for only four or five
in the United States (Borstelmann 2003). Communist
decades. Americans of all races have struggled with how
sympathizers likewise stressed that Soviet and the Chi-
or whether to “undo” the previous three and a half cen-
nese Communist constitutions and laws promised poli-
turies of legalized white supremacy. President Lyndon
cies and practices of equality that seemed more robust
Johnson used a popular metaphor to argue for “affirma-
than the American versions. Although both commu-
tive actions” to remedy past harms: “You do not take a
nist states practiced one-party rule, and despite the
man who for years has been hobbled by chains, liber-
fact that some communists enjoyed secret privileges
ate him, bring him to the starting line of a race, saying,
that made them more equal than their comrades, their
‘You are free to compete with all the others,’ and still
public rejections of race-based discrimination proved
justly believe you have been completely fair.” Johnson,
effective against a segregationist American adversary,
and his successors (Nixon, Ford, and Carter) approved
a nation that retained racist laws. Racial segregation
federal laws and policies intended to expand opportuni-
had the quality of absurdity, too; after the war, for ex-
ties for people of color once excluded from mainstream
ample, a heroic Japanese American soldier was denied
American institutions. Some of their appointees to the
a proper burial in a cemetery in California, as the cus-
Supreme Court ruled that accounting for race to undo
tom there was to reserve spots for whites only. It was
past harm was either “benign” or “remedial,” and not
hard to justify such a thing to his survivors, the Ma-
at all like the accounting for race to further white su-
suda family of Orange County, or to anyone for that
premacy (Spann 2000).
matter (Takaki 1989).
Other presidents and Supreme Court justices have
Within this postwar context, and within twenty
60
racial integration. During the 1950s and 1960s, white
not been so sure. In contrast, they advocated a “color-
years of the landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Edu-
blind” approach to race-based discrimination. From
cation (1954), the states had abolished formal segrega-
this other perspective, government cannot be trusted
tion in their public institutions, and Congress had ap-
to parse which racial discriminations are remedial and
proved significant new civil rights legislation, including
which are “invidious.” Legally, “invidious” carries two
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of
broad meanings: it means “unjust” or “unfair,” and it
1965, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968. Moreover, ev-
also means “likely to arouse resentment in others.” For
ery president since Eisenhower was willing to use fed-
example, some white legislators, judges, and litigants
eral power to coerce white Americans into accepting
have alleged that policies such as affirmative action are
discrimination
john s. w. park
unfair to white people, and thus arouse their resent-
with the number of Asians on their campuses, and some
ment. In the Bakke case (1978), the white plaintiff said
had favored changes in policy to limit their enrollment.
that affirmative action policies at the UC Davis School
In other areas of public law, there were charges of
of Medicine were unfair to white applicants, and about
“reverse discrimination,” counterclaims of “unlawful
half of the United States Supreme Court agreed. This
discrimination,” appeals for “colorblindness,” and con-
inspired other litigants—Hopwood, Ho, Gratz, Grutter,
tinuing diatribes against “affirmative action”—all of
and Fisher. The persistent discomfort with any race-
these conflicts suggested a nation and a law still obsessed
conscious law or policy also undergirded broader po-
with issues of race, identity, privilege, and discrimina-
litical changes, such as California’s Proposition 209 in
tion. Although some have said that the early twenty-first
1996. Proposition 209 amended the state’s constitution
century is “post-racial,” claims of racial discrimination
to prohibit all of its institutions from considering race,
in a variety of contexts still exist and involve just about
sex, or ethnicity in decisions about public employment,
every racial group in America. Moreover, the civil rights
public contracting, and public education.
revolution of the 1950s and 1960s did not undermine
Also, by the 1990s, in cases like Ho v. San Francisco
or undo lawful discriminations against noncitizens and
Unified School District, many nonwhites, including
nonmembers: it is still quite legal, and sometimes even
Asian immigrants and Asian Americans, were challeng-
required, to discriminate against noncitizens, including
ing practices designed to increase the representation
new immigrants of one kind or another. Many schol-
of “underrepresented minorities,” a term that in some
ars and activists have questioned the morality of these
settings—like at elite colleges and universities—did not
discriminations, chiefly because they so resemble the
include Asians. As a result of this lawsuit, the school dis-
distasteful discriminations that used to be so pervasive
trict was forced to abandon race-conscious policies that
in American law. In the midst of so much racial tension,
had limited the number of Asian students in order to
with recurring concerns about “profiling” and “uncon-
increase the percentage of African American and Latino
scious bias,” discrimination resembles a bad taste that
students within the city’s most highly ranked schools.
never seems to go away.
In other disputes, progressive Asian Americans have warned against “negative action,” which referred to policies that limited the number of Asian Americans at some colleges and universities. Too many Asian kids at Brown University would make Brown, well, less like “traditional” Brown, and some were suspicious that places like Brown had maintained a constant percentage of Asian and Asian American students even while their enrollments have grown tremendously at the major state universities. In the 1980s and 1990s, as Dana Takagi (1993) and others scholars had shown, administrators at many colleges and universities—including state institutions like UCLA and UC Berkeley—seemed obsessed discrimination
john s. w. park
61
to transform elitist, Western-focused, and biased curric-
16
ulum (conventional knowledge), and to recover, reclaim, and advance a knowledge base that was more inclusive
Education
of the local and the global and incorporated multiple
Shirley Hune
racial, ethnic, class, and other social experiences from their own viewpoints (Okihiro et al. 1988). Being able to attend college and complete a degree is not the same as being educated. Fundamentally, what kind of training,
In the founding era of Asian American studies, the
knowledge, ability development, or schooling were col-
College Edition of Webster’s New World Dictionary of
lege students receiving when Asian American histories,
the American Language provided four explanations
cultures, and communities were omitted, disparaged,
of the term “education”: (1) “the process of training
or distorted in the curriculum and Asian American stu-
and developing the knowledge, skill, mind, character,
dents’ scholarly interests were unsupported and even
etc.”; (2) “knowledge, ability, etc. thus developed”;
disdained?
(3) “formal schooling” or “a kind of stage of this,” for example, higher education; and (4) “systemic study
sought reforms in the hierarchical organization and
of the problems, methods, and theories of teaching
practice of higher education. Advocates challenged
and learning” (Guralnik and Friend 1968, 461). The
traditional criteria for faculty hiring, retention, and ad-
first three features were given serious attention in the
vancement and called for more faculty of color. Many of
formation of Asian American studies, but only a few
them valued grassroots activities as well as practitioners
instructors took the fourth feature into account and
and community activists as teachers. They promoted
experimented with teaching and learning methods.
a mission of serving Asian American communities by
Does any of this matter in the ongoing development of
linking theory and practice to address their needs and
Asian American studies?
62
The initiating demands for Asian American studies
concerns, for example, using research to improve the
What is the how, when, where, and why of “educa-
lives of disadvantaged Asian Americans (Okihiro et al.
tion” as a keyword in Asian American studies? Educa-
1988). Hence Asian American studies supporters pro-
tion is a foundational theme in the field. Constant refer-
posed the recognition of community work in academe.
ence is made to the origins of Asian American studies in
This notion of broadening the definition of service as
the late 1960s and early 1970s as a protest movement in
one of the criteria for tenure and promotion contrib-
higher education that was part of a larger social move-
uted to the greatest pushback from those who wanted
ment to change the power structure and racialized cul-
to preserve the traditional rewards system of publica-
ture of U.S. society, its institutions, and international
tions and grants. In addition, advocates sought a more
relations. When a panethnic group of Asian American
democratic educational experience involving elements
college students, community activists, and other sup-
such as student-centered classrooms and critical peda-
porters demanded ethnic studies programs, they sought
gogy and having students serve on standing committees
also to increase access and equitable treatment for stu-
and search committees as part of the higher education
dents of color and for those from low-income families,
decision-making process. In short, it came to be seen
that an education that excluded Asian American studies
Japanese immigrants from the mid-nineteenth through
was a disservice to the education of all students, not just
early twentieth centuries were first denied access to pub-
Asian American students, and one that included Asian
lic schools and then attended racially segregated ones
American studies was more democratic, participatory,
even after parents had petitioned school boards and
and transformative of the status quo.
the courts for the right of their American-born chil-
In the decades that followed, the founding fo-
dren to be educated with whites. Two landmark cases
cus of Asian American studies as a social justice and
reached the U.S. Supreme Court but their decisions
community-based agent in higher education continued
were sidestepped locally. After Tape v. Hurley in 1885, the
to be widely acknowledged, but is seen today as severely
San Francisco School Board created a separate school
weakened (Furumoto 2003). A few have called for reen-
for Asians rather than allow Chinese American Mamie
visioning U.S. campuses as community sites whereby
Tape to attend public school. Decades later, Gong Lum
Asian American studies can redefine its role as an edu-
v. Rice in 1927 reaffirmed separate but equal schooling
cational tool for faculty who seek to combine academic
for Martha Lum in Mississippi based on the 1896 Plessy
and community interests (K. Chan 2000). Still others
v. Ferguson Supreme Court decision by finding that Mar-
have deemed Asian American studies a largely ineffec-
tha was not being denied an education because she
tive project, notably in changing public understanding
could attend a “colored school.” This unequal treat-
about race and of Asian American populations (Jour-
ment reflected the dominant society’s view of Asians as
nal of Asian American Studies 2012). Nonetheless, new
racially inferior and as aliens unsuitable for citizenship.
groups of students have emerged from time to time to
As an alternative, many Chinese sent their children to
stage protests and even hunger strikes demanding Asian
mission schools organized by church groups in China-
American studies on campuses that lack such programs.
towns. Likewise, Japanese Americans developed mission
Crises over faculty tenure cases also remind us of the fra-
and language schools for cultural preservation. Early on
gility of faculty gains despite the continuing growth of
Asian American struggles for educational access and
Asian American studies across the nation and the high
equality and to maintain their heritage were clearly pro-
quality of the faculty and Ph.D. pool (Chen and Hune
active, intentional, multipronged, and predate the civil
2011). I return to the question of the core value of educa-
rights era and the founding of Asian American studies.
tion within Asian American studies in the twenty-first century at the end of this essay.
Contemporary analyses of Asian American education pursue similar themes. These include studies on
Education also appears frequently as a topic in Asian
language discrimination, parental and community in-
American studies. As a multidisciplinary, interdisci-
volvement in schools, biases in college admissions, and
plinary, and transnational field, education issues are
public policy debates, for example, concerning affirma-
covered in history, the social sciences, cultural studies,
tive action and undocumented students. Two studies on
and other disciplines. In the space of this essay, I can
student access, in particular, position Asian Americans
provide only a few examples. A common theme has
at the center of educational racial politics in the nation
been the struggle of Asian Americans to be educated.
within the context of an outmoded black/white para-
In writings on the early history of Asian Americans, for
digm. In her analysis of the ways in which elite U.S. uni-
example, scholars have documented how Chinese and
versities were limiting Asian American enrollment in
education
shirley hune
63
the 1980s, Dana Takagi (1992) argued that these institu-
64
mentality and identity issues as part of the challenges
tions were shifting admissions criteria from race to class,
encountered by some Asian Americans that can ad-
thus discounting the continuing prevalence of racism
vance, hinder, or simply complicate their educational
as a barrier for students of color. Here institutions used
experiences as they negotiate their attachment to two
the model minority stereotype against Asian Americans
or more homelands.
to restrict their admissions rate. In another situation,
Despite the overarching framework of Asian Ameri-
Rowena Robles (2006) detailed how a lawsuit initiated
can studies, education as a field, its theories, method-
by a few Chinese Americans, who promoted the model
ologies, research findings, and its own multidisciplinary
minority stereotype to enhance their acceptance rate
and comparative lens, is largely missing from Asian
against blacks and Latinos, resulted in the dismantling
American studies. Stated another way, education as a
of affirmative action at a premier high school in Califor-
field is narrowly incorporated, some would say mar-
nia. Here Asian Americans were first agents for and then
ginalized and neglected, within Asian American stud-
victims of educational policy change as it contributed
ies. Others have noted the limited presence of Asian
to an unintended consequence that disadvantaged all
American education scholars attending Association for
students of color, including Asian Americans.
Asian American Studies conferences, at a time of grow-
Many Asian American studies specialists in examin-
ing numbers of new doctorates and faculty in the edu-
ing Asian immigrant adaptation have given attention to
cation field. If we consider the two major journals of
family and generational strains over educational goals.
Asian American studies, Amerasia Journal and the Jour-
They also emphasize the opportunity of an American ed-
nal of Asian American Studies, research findings on Asian
ucation as a motivating factor in immigration. Through
American education are sparse. An exception is aapi
the twentieth century and up to the present day, Asian
nexus, a journal devoted to Asian American and Pacific
Americans have continued to invest their own resources
Islander policy, practice, and community. To date, it has
in education. For example, Japanese Americans orga-
produced four volumes on Asian American and Pacific
nized their own schools in the internment camps dur-
Islander education (aapi nexus 2009a; aapi nexus 2009b;
ing World War II. Asian American ethnic groups offer
aapi nexus 2010; aapi nexus 2011).
heritage language and cultural activities for their youth
Likewise, mainstream schools of education have
in after-school and weekend programs. Some parents,
given little attention to how ethnic studies perspectives
especially those with means, enroll their children in
and findings, and specifically those of Asian Ameri-
tutoring classes and cram schools to supplement their
can studies, could enhance their research and praxis.
formal education and augment academic achievement,
This is evident in their general lack of consideration
and in some cases, simply to keep their adolescents oc-
for Asian American and Pacific Islander faculty hires
cupied (Zhou and Kim 2006). The research on stereo-
and the absence of Asian American studies materials
types and related cultural identity and identity politics
in program offerings and academic and professional
of Asian Americans is typically grounded in studies of
preparation. Moreover, in the public discourse on clos-
Asian American youth and their academic and personal
ing the achievement/opportunity gap for minority
development and well-being. Likewise, transnational
students, Asian American and Pacific Islander scholars
scholars often highlight colonial and postcolonial
who have raised their voices on behalf of the needs of
education
shirley hune
their communities and student populations too often
Education specialists have examined intersections
find their concerns ignored in the mainstream educa-
of family, language, the cultural competency of teach-
tion field.
ers, and other factors on Asian American K–12 success
Not all disciplines participate or seek to participate
(Park, Goodwin, and Lee 2003; Race Ethnicity and Edu-
in Asian American studies. Every field is preoccupied
cation 2006); analyzed the effects of class disparities on
with its own professional organizations and scholarly
the achievements of specific Asian American groups
arenas. Nonetheless as a multidisciplinary field, Asian
(Lew 2006; V. Louie 2004); provided case studies of
American studies can be more inclusive and find more
the challenges encountered by Asian American and
balance and opportunities for intellectual exchanges
Pacific Islander communities with lower levels of col-
among scholars who conduct evidence-based, social
lege attainment, such as Cambodians, Samoans, and
action, and policy-focused research, and scholars who
Filipinos (see Chuuon and Hudley 2008; Hune and Yeo
focus on the humanities, including cultural studies. In
2010; Maramba and Bonus 2013, respectively); and ap-
addressing the specific theme of education, I return to
plied critical theory and praxis to combat racism in the
my earlier question: “Does any of this matter in the on-
classroom, promote student resistance to injustices, and
going development of Asian American studies?”
enhance the leadership development of Asian American
It matters because Asian American scholars in edu-
students (Osajima 2007; Poon 2013). Higher education
cation are making significant contributions to research
institutions are being viewed as worksites to consider
and knowledge on Asian American and Pacific Islander
student incivility, gender, agency, and other influences
communities and to the preparation of academics and
on the status of Asian American and Pacific Islander fac-
practitioners, but their work generally is not made use
ulty and administrators and their challenges (Chen and
of or necessarily recognized within the field of Asian
Hune 2011; Hune 2011). Finally, specialists are address-
American studies. They have played a critical role in
ing policy challenges for Asian Americans and Pacific
demythologizing and problematizing the model mi-
Islanders that include increasing both the input of their
nority stereotype, for example, by providing classroom
communities and the accountability of federal, state,
and campus evidence of the multiple ways in which
and local agencies toward them (Kiang 2006; CARE
a racialized climate of inequality is harmful to Asian
2010; CARE 2011; CARE 2013). These studies are only a
American students (S. Lee 1996; S. Lee 2005; Osajima
few examples of recent work.
1993; Teranishi 2010). Many in education use qualita-
Two new initiatives, in particular, driven in large
tive research methods, notably ethnography and mixed
part by Asian American and Pacific Islander education
methods, and comparative studies of groups and differ-
specialists in conjunction with key Asian American and
ent contexts in order to incorporate the wide range of
Pacific Islander legislators, research institutes, and com-
Asian American and Pacific Islander perspectives, voices,
munity groups, are changing the landscape of Asian
and experiences, such as their identity construction and
American and Pacific Islander education with implica-
development, understandings that are rendered invis-
tions for Asian American studies. One initiative is out-
ible by the dominant culture’s use of stereotypes and its
reach and advocacy to state and federal legislators and
overreliance on quantitative data (Museus 2009; Mu-
agencies for the collection and reporting of disaggre-
seus, Maramba, and Teranishi 2013).
gated data on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders to education
shirley hune
65
better serve their diversity as individuals and commu-
origination of Asian American studies has long been
nities and to end their misrepresentation through be-
replaced by a more conservative, individualistic, and
ing treated as a homogenous group. Disaggregated data
neoliberal political climate that is promoting anti-
will allow for more nuanced analyses of Asian American
immigration policies and practices and race blind be-
and Pacific Islanders’ experiences in all aspects of their
liefs. Asian American communities are also different.
lives, including civil rights, employment, community
There is a continuing flow of new groups of immigrants
development, and health as well as education, and im-
and refugees who are more likely to seek security and
prove appropriate allocation of resources and services to
stability at first, not social change. In the twenty-first
specific communities and subgroups (aapi nexus 2011;
century, Asian Americans now engage in a broader ter-
CARE 2013; Hune and Takeuchi 2008).
rain of political interests, economic opportunities, and
The second initiative is the federal government’s
social lives that contribute to a greater heterogeneity of
creation of a new minority-serving institution program
locations and interactions as well as identities. National
in 2007—the Asian American and Native American Pa-
origin, gender, sexuality, religion, and generation foci,
cific Islander–Serving Institution (AANAPISI) program.
for example, and being multiracial, multiethnic, and/
AANAPISI-designated campuses each serve a sizeable
or transnational are other dynamics. Moreover, the ma-
proportion of low-income Asian American and Pacific
jority of Asian Americans today are foreign born, their
Islander students and they can compete for grants to
education and class differences have widened, and often
improve college access and success programs. At pres-
their political gaze and interests are focused away from
ent grant-funded AANAPISIs include a large number
the U.S. and its continuing battles over race and global
of community colleges, a sector generally absent from
domination.
Asian American studies and that for more than a decade
66
Most importantly, the arena in which Asian Ameri-
has consistently enrolled approximately 47 percent of
can studies operates has changed. Higher education in
all Asian American and Pacific Islander college students,
the U.S. has shifted from an era of expansion during a
many of whom are from low-income households and
time of economic growth and broad support for pub-
underserved communities. Both initiatives offer rich
lic institutions to one where public higher education,
opportunities for Asian American studies to enlarge
which has provided opportunities for the poor, new im-
its umbrella and engage outside its current venues and
migrants, and people of color and houses many Asian
frameworks through collaborative research and affilia-
American studies programs, is being diminished by the
tions with other sectors of academe and disciplines, in-
wealth of private colleges and universities, the growth
cluding education. Likewise, education specialists have
of for-profit institutions, and the need to compete with
much to gain from the approaches and findings of Asian
reduced funding. We are in a new global information so-
American studies and other ethnic studies fields in con-
ciety of academic capitalism where knowledge is more
ducting their work.
a commodity for profit than a common good, a college
In closing, what will “education” as a keyword in
degree is a credential for an entry-level job and not nec-
Asian American studies look like in the next decades
essarily evidence of an education, and academic fields
of the twenty-first century? Much has changed. The
must demonstrate their worth in the entrepreneurial
social movement and anti-imperialist context of the
market place to obtain faculty positions (Slaughter and
education
shirley hune
Rhoades 2004). New technologies and models of education, for example, long-distance learning and MOOCs (mass open online courses), are challenging traditional
17
teaching and learning. And, in the internationaliza-
Empire
tion of higher education, undergraduate students from
Moon-Ho Jung
China and other nations are becoming the new source of diversity on U.S. campuses. What then are the mission, role, and place of Asian American studies in this new context? There is no dis-
Empire never went away in U.S. history, but it has
pute about how Asian American studies has changed
been making a comeback in recent years. Likening
what we know, but where does Asian American studies
the United States of the twenty-first century to the
fit in the new models of knowledge development and
British empire of the nineteenth century, right-wing
transmission and the competition for shrinking re-
scholars and pundits have enthusiastically extolled
sources on campuses? What is the impact of an evolv-
empire to justify and glorify colonial misdeeds of the
ing U.S. higher education system that is increasingly
past and the present. “In deploying American power,
entrepreneurial and whose institutions now compete in
decisionmakers should be less apologetic, less hesitant,
global rankings on a field such as Asian American stud-
less humble,” Max Boot declared in 2002 with no
ies? How is Asian American Studies making a difference
sense of irony. “America should not be afraid to fight
in the education of students and preparing them for the
‘the savage wars of peace’ if necessary to enlarge the
twenty-first century, if any? What do students need to
‘empire of liberty,’” he concluded. “It has done it
know today to be productive and contributing world cit-
before” (352). Indeed, it has. Along with Niall Ferguson
izens? Who will benefit from the knowledge production
and others, Boot’s unabashed embrace of the word
and skill development of faculty and students in Asian
empire is refreshing—they saw no need for disavowal
American studies? Is Asian American studies to be only
or subterfuge—but equating empire with “democracy,
a campus-based enterprise? In summary, how can Asian
capitalism, and freedom” served only to underscore
American studies remain relevant and meaningful as an
their longing for a bygone era, when white men like
educational endeavor today and for the near future?
Rudyard Kipling and William McKinley could speak openly of empire’s burdens and benefits (Boot 2002, 349; N. Ferguson 2003). Empire likewise never went away in Asian American studies, but it deserves a greater comeback. I, of course, am not suggesting that we follow Boot’s prescriptions. We, however, should embrace and grapple with the term empire, for it strikes at the heart of our field’s founding mission. Asian American studies, as an intellectual and political project, emerged out of the struggles of student and community activists of the late 1960s. At 67
Rhoades 2004). New technologies and models of education, for example, long-distance learning and MOOCs (mass open online courses), are challenging traditional
17
teaching and learning. And, in the internationaliza-
Empire
tion of higher education, undergraduate students from
Moon-Ho Jung
China and other nations are becoming the new source of diversity on U.S. campuses. What then are the mission, role, and place of Asian American studies in this new context? There is no dis-
Empire never went away in U.S. history, but it has
pute about how Asian American studies has changed
been making a comeback in recent years. Likening
what we know, but where does Asian American studies
the United States of the twenty-first century to the
fit in the new models of knowledge development and
British empire of the nineteenth century, right-wing
transmission and the competition for shrinking re-
scholars and pundits have enthusiastically extolled
sources on campuses? What is the impact of an evolv-
empire to justify and glorify colonial misdeeds of the
ing U.S. higher education system that is increasingly
past and the present. “In deploying American power,
entrepreneurial and whose institutions now compete in
decisionmakers should be less apologetic, less hesitant,
global rankings on a field such as Asian American stud-
less humble,” Max Boot declared in 2002 with no
ies? How is Asian American Studies making a difference
sense of irony. “America should not be afraid to fight
in the education of students and preparing them for the
‘the savage wars of peace’ if necessary to enlarge the
twenty-first century, if any? What do students need to
‘empire of liberty,’” he concluded. “It has done it
know today to be productive and contributing world cit-
before” (352). Indeed, it has. Along with Niall Ferguson
izens? Who will benefit from the knowledge production
and others, Boot’s unabashed embrace of the word
and skill development of faculty and students in Asian
empire is refreshing—they saw no need for disavowal
American studies? Is Asian American studies to be only
or subterfuge—but equating empire with “democracy,
a campus-based enterprise? In summary, how can Asian
capitalism, and freedom” served only to underscore
American studies remain relevant and meaningful as an
their longing for a bygone era, when white men like
educational endeavor today and for the near future?
Rudyard Kipling and William McKinley could speak openly of empire’s burdens and benefits (Boot 2002, 349; N. Ferguson 2003). Empire likewise never went away in Asian American studies, but it deserves a greater comeback. I, of course, am not suggesting that we follow Boot’s prescriptions. We, however, should embrace and grapple with the term empire, for it strikes at the heart of our field’s founding mission. Asian American studies, as an intellectual and political project, emerged out of the struggles of student and community activists of the late 1960s. At 67
68
least in most articulations, it was a radical project, com-
To many of Park’s contemporaries on the left, there
mitted to democratizing higher education, to producing
was no more pressing matter in the world than empire
new forms of knowledge, and to critiquing the U.S. em-
to frame a different understanding of migrations and
pire, particularly its war in Southeast Asia. That critique
social relations. In his influential treatise Imperialism,
of empire has often faded to the background over the
written in 1916 and originally published in 1917, V. I.
past four decades, as the political urgency to struggle as
Lenin theorized that imperialism was “the monopoly
and with Third World peoples competed with the se-
stage of capitalism,” a stage marked by the global con-
ductive appeal to reclaim and proclaim our “American”
centration and domination of “finance capital” and
roots. As a result, the field’s practitioners have clarified
“the territorial division of the whole world among the
and obscured empire’s meanings and relevance to Asian
greatest capitalist powers” (1939, 88–89). Purposely
American studies, in ways that disabled a vigorous rejec-
limiting his definition of imperialism to the economic
tion of “American power” that Boot and his ilk celebrate
realm, Lenin sought to identify a critical shift in capi-
and promote.
talist development in the late nineteenth century, in
The problem lies in part in the liberal genesis of
which colonialism emerged as a central feature. “To the
scholarly work on Asian Americans, many decades be-
numerous ‘old’ motives of colonial policy,” he argued,
fore the 1960s. Following the tradition of Protestant
“finance capital has added the struggle for the sources
missionaries who had defended the Chinese against the
of raw materials, for the export of capital, for ‘spheres of
exclusion movement in the nineteenth century, Mary
influence,’ . . . in fine, for economic territory in general”
Roberts Coolidge, Robert Ezra Park, and other social sci-
(1939, 124). Although Lenin did not address race or the
entists strove to demonstrate the inevitability and uni-
United States at length, he notably observed “another
versality of immigration and assimilation. Although
special feature of imperialism” of particular significance
Park, for his part, at times acknowledged European ex-
to Asian American studies: “the decline in emigration
pansion and conquest as the root causes of modern-day
from imperialist countries, and the increase in immigra-
race relations, he simultaneously attributed the move-
tion into these countries from the backward countries
ments of goods and peoples to “a general tendency to
where lower wages are paid” (1939, 106).
redress the economic balance and to restore the equi-
In terms of writings on Asian Americans, though,
librium between population and food supply, labor and
the Chicago School’s fixation on “immigration,” “as-
capital, in a world economy” (1950, 143). For Park and
similation,” and “race prejudice” held sway through the
his students, Asian migrations and anti-Asian racism
1960s (and beyond), generating waves of studies on gen-
along the Pacific Coast of the United States in the 1910s
erational and cultural conflicts and interpersonal rela-
and 1920s—the “Oriental Problem”—were not excep-
tions (H. Yu 2001). Aiming to reconstitute the field fun-
tional but emblematic of a universal race relations cycle
damentally, an interdisciplinary corps of Marxists and
of contact, competition, accommodation, and assimi-
self-trained Asian Americanists boldly charted a new
lation. If not a self-conscious apologist of empire, Park
direction for the field in the 1980s. Lucie Cheng, Edna
and his Chicago School nonetheless shifted attention
Bonacich, and a cadre of UCLA graduate students drew
away from the global forces wreaking havoc on different
on and applied a growing body of scholarship on world-
peoples of the world.
systems and dependency— pioneered by Immanuel empire
moon-ho jung
Wallerstein, Andre Gunder Frank, Walter Rodney, and
“pro-Asian” by Coolidge and others, shaped and profited
others in the 1970s—that had elaborated on Lenin’s in-
from white supremacy and imperial expansion (1979, x).
sights on imperialism. The motive forces behind Asian
If these studies challenged Asian Americanists to
migrations to the United States, they argued, emanated
think beyond liberal narratives of the nation—indeed
not from discrete “push” and “pull” factors but from un-
to explore how conceptions of the United States and
even world capitalist development. A system of migrant
“Americans” were rooted in race and empire—the field
labor extended across the Pacific, Labor Immigration un-
concomitantly has elided empire in U.S. history. When
der Capitalism suggested, facilitated essentially by Eu-
Takaki, for example, turned to Asian American history
ropean and American imperialism in Asia and capital’s
in the 1980s, first in Pau Hana (1983) and then in Strang-
demand for cheap labor in the U.S. West and Hawai‘i
ers from a Different Shore (1989), the immigrant saga took
(Bonacich and Cheng 1984). Driven by the politics of
center stage. Highlighting individual stories, he pre-
the Asian American movement, Cheng, Bonacich, et al.
sented Asian Americans as quintessential Americans—
placed empire very much at the center of Asian Ameri-
immigrants “overblown with hope” but struggling to
can studies.
overcome racial oppression and generational and cul-
Around the same time, Ronald Takaki offered a
tural divides to join a wider community of national
sweeping history of the development of the United
belonging. Perhaps overwhelmed by his own hope for
States into an independent republic and an industrial
historical salvation, Takaki concluded: “The history
and imperial power over the course of the nineteenth
of America is essentially the story of immigrants, and
century. Racial imaginings of American Indians, Afri-
many of them, coming from a ‘different shore’ than
can Americans, Mexicans, and Asians, he argued, lay
their European brethren, had sailed east to this new
at the heart of republicanism, corporate capitalism,
world. . . . Their dreams and hopes unfurled here before
and imperial wars. White conceptions of self-control
the wind, all of them—from the first Chinese miners
and self-regulation through metaphorical “iron cages,”
sailing through the Golden Gate to the last Vietnam-
Takaki argued, rested on the political exclusion, eco-
ese boat people flying into Los Angeles International
nomic superexploitation, and military conquest of
Airport—have been making history in America” (1989,
nonwhites. As a result, he concluded, American workers
491). Takaki was by no means alone.
“were denied the class consciousness, the feeling of com-
To propose that the United States has been, at root, a
munity, and the power of collective action they needed
“nation of immigrants,” upon which Asian Americans
in order to respond effectively to . . . the hegemony of
could stake their equal claim, if not in the past then
a powerful capitalist bureaucracy” (1979, vii). Takaki
through interpretations of the past, feeds into a teleol-
not only drew historically obvious (but previously un-
ogy that posits nation against empire. Like the original
seen) connections—between the enslavement of Afri-
thirteen colonies, modern nations seemingly liberate
can Americans, the dispossession of American Indian
themselves from tyrannical empires, across time and
and Mexican lands, America’s ambitions in China and
space. Although terms like Thomas Jefferson’s “empire
the Philippines, and Chinese migrations to the United
of liberty” and U.S. declarations and policies since, from
States—but also highlighted how “white men in posi-
the Monroe Doctrine to the Bush Doctrine, muddied
tions of influence and power,” those previously cast as
such dichotomous formulations, the idea of individuals
empire
moon-ho jung
69
joining the nation—gaining the rights of immigration
field must embrace empire as an analytic and overcome
and naturalization, for instance—implies, in the least,
nationalist impulses to reproduce a typical “American”
their liberation from exclusion and oppression. And per-
story. Studies on World War II, for instance, generally
haps no word captures the essence of exclusion, of injus-
have fixated on proving Japanese American “loyalty” to
tices of the past, more than empire (alongside slavery). In
the United States, an understandable response to war-
such usage, empire evokes its predominant meaning of
time vilification and incarceration. Takashi Fujitani has
“imperial rule or dignity,” as in its lead definition in the
recently traced the deeper logic behind that framing by
Oxford English Dictionary: “Supreme and extensive po-
exploring empire across the Pacific. The total war re-
litical dominion; esp. that exercised by an ‘emperor’ . . .
gimes of Japan and the United States, he argues, marked
or by a sovereign state over its dependencies.” The pro-
a pivotal shift from “vulgar racism” to “polite racism.”
jection of Asian Americans as liberal citizen-subjects in
Even as both states continued to practice widespread
the making appears to contradict that historical and
violence on racial grounds, according to Fujitani, they
cultural image of empire.
both commonly also began disavowing racism, a shift
But there is another way to approach empire and
that hinged on the production of liberal, national sub-
Asian American studies, rooted in the OED’s second-
jects. Japanese and U.S. states, in turn, projected onto
ary definition, which harkens back to its original us-
Koreans and Japanese Americans the right to choose to
age in the English language more than seven centuries
serve the benevolent, inclusive nation (Japan and the
ago, “that which is subject to imperial rule.” Based on
United States), a putative choice that marked some as
that notion, we would focus not on trying to identify
“loyal” citizens enlisted as soldiers, workers, and “com-
the specific qualities or discrete boundaries of distinct
fort women” to advance empire and others as “disloyal”
empires—an exercise which, in past and current politi-
subjects targeted for renewed acts of state violence. Both
cal debates, has usually led to a most misleading ques-
“loyal” and “disloyal” subjects fell under the power of
tion, “Is the United States an empire?”—but on study-
70
imperial rule (Fujitani 2011).
ing the historical and cultural processes through which
Asian Americans, however, have cultivated other
different peoples, including Asian Americans, have
ways of seeing and being that revealed the limitations
become subjects of imperial rule. It is a process that
and contradictions of nation and empire. When con-
Arundhati Roy has explained eloquently over the past
fronted with “loyalty” questionnaires in America’s con-
decade. Dismissing the notion that she speaks as an “In-
centration camps, Fujitani notes, Japanese Americans
dian citizen,” she has insisted that she is “a subject of
raised a lot of their own questions. “If you were evacu-
the American empire” (2004, 42). And empire, for Roy,
ated from your home and brought out to a concentra-
has meant “this obscene accumulation of power, this
tion camp like this,” an internee asked, “would you still
greatly increased distance between those who make the
feel loyal to U.S. . . . ?” “What have we got to fight for—
decisions and those who have to suffer them” (2003, 2).
especially now that we are in a camp like this?” asked
The contradiction is not between empire and nation; it
another (2011, 167, 168). Perhaps not self-consciously,
is between empire and democracy.
these responses nonetheless pointed to acts of resisting
It is that contradiction that Asian American stud-
empire, its logic of discipline and punish. And as much
ies is especially poised to expose and explain, but the
as Asian Americanists should strive to uncover the
empire
moon-ho jung
intricate and violent processes of imperial rule, we must also shed light on its ruptures and limits. Racialized subjects of the U.S. empire, including Asian Americans,
18
have always fought back. “Our strategy should be not
Enclave
only to confront empire,” Roy advises for our current
Yoonmee Chang
moment, “but to lay siege to it. . . . To shame it. To mock it. With our art, our music, our literature, our stubbornness, our joy, our brilliance, our sheer relentlessness: and our ability to tell our own stories. Stories that are
“Enclave” when used in the context of Asian American
different from the ones we’re being brainwashed to be-
studies is shorthand for “ethnic enclave.” The enclave as
lieve” (2003, 3). That should define the mission of Asian
such is, broadly, a geographically distinct cluster point
American studies.
for a racial or ethnic group. The enclave’s political and economic structures become associated with ethnicity. In some cases, they can be accurately characterized as indigenous to, or at least historically embedded within, an ethnic group. In other cases, political and economic practices that look ethnicity based are adaptations with no inherent relationship to race and culture. Vis-à-vis Asian America, places that are categorized as “enclaves” are known as Chinatown, Koreatown, Little Tokyo, Little Saigon, Manilatown, Little India, and so forth. Each of these enclaves has a distinct history as well as varying, ever-changing systems of social, cultural, political, and economic organization. Even within a monoethnic rubric, enclaves are heterogeneous. For instance, “Chinatown” is an umbrella term for many different spaces, the most iconic being in San Francisco and New York. But it also refers to lesser-known communities, such as in Philadelphia or Chicago, where geographical boundaries are blurrier and the majority Asian ethnic group might not be Chinese. “Enclave” thereby refers to a variety of spaces that do not adhere to a single or stable model. Moreover, though enclaves could once be assumed to be urban, they are now increasingly suburban. The criteria for categorizing a space as an ethnic enclave have been under longstanding contention. What makes the enclave 71
intricate and violent processes of imperial rule, we must also shed light on its ruptures and limits. Racialized subjects of the U.S. empire, including Asian Americans,
18
have always fought back. “Our strategy should be not
Enclave
only to confront empire,” Roy advises for our current
Yoonmee Chang
moment, “but to lay siege to it. . . . To shame it. To mock it. With our art, our music, our literature, our stubbornness, our joy, our brilliance, our sheer relentlessness: and our ability to tell our own stories. Stories that are
“Enclave” when used in the context of Asian American
different from the ones we’re being brainwashed to be-
studies is shorthand for “ethnic enclave.” The enclave as
lieve” (2003, 3). That should define the mission of Asian
such is, broadly, a geographically distinct cluster point
American studies.
for a racial or ethnic group. The enclave’s political and economic structures become associated with ethnicity. In some cases, they can be accurately characterized as indigenous to, or at least historically embedded within, an ethnic group. In other cases, political and economic practices that look ethnicity based are adaptations with no inherent relationship to race and culture. Vis-à-vis Asian America, places that are categorized as “enclaves” are known as Chinatown, Koreatown, Little Tokyo, Little Saigon, Manilatown, Little India, and so forth. Each of these enclaves has a distinct history as well as varying, ever-changing systems of social, cultural, political, and economic organization. Even within a monoethnic rubric, enclaves are heterogeneous. For instance, “Chinatown” is an umbrella term for many different spaces, the most iconic being in San Francisco and New York. But it also refers to lesser-known communities, such as in Philadelphia or Chicago, where geographical boundaries are blurrier and the majority Asian ethnic group might not be Chinese. “Enclave” thereby refers to a variety of spaces that do not adhere to a single or stable model. Moreover, though enclaves could once be assumed to be urban, they are now increasingly suburban. The criteria for categorizing a space as an ethnic enclave have been under longstanding contention. What makes the enclave 71
ethnic—the ethnicity of the residents or the ethnicity of the business community? Both? Why does this mat-
self-destructive deviants. “Ghetto” strips its residents of
ter? Does the enclave take on its ethnic cast by popu-
agency.
lation count or by social imprint and power? Why are
So it is easy to see why the term “ghetto” would be es-
these not always equivalent? (W. Li 2009; Sanders and
chewed in favor of the agency-endowing “enclave.” This
Nee 1992; Zhou 1992; Peter Kwong 1996).
substitution is strikingly specific to Asian Americans. A
These questions are underwritten by an instructive,
survey of the relevant interdisciplinary literature shows
but false binary: the understanding of the enclave as a
a mindful disavowal of “ghetto” in favor of “enclave” in
community, on the one hand, and as a ghetto, on the
studies of Asian American segregation (Y. Chang 2010).
other. The enclave is defined as a community insofar
But “enclave” as a metonym or equivalent of “commu-
as community denotes structures and practices of co-
nity” is not innocent. Its use performs a paradigm shift,
operation based on a sense of ethnic kinship. Race and
in which racial-ethnic segregation is relieved of being
culture are most saliently shared in the enclave, but so
a structural, social liability, and privatized as a cultural
are political and economic interests. This characteriza-
expression of a self-segregated community.
tion of the enclave suggests that it is a voluntary, self-
“Ghetto” is not so readily dispatched in regard to
segregated formation whose residents are empowered
other racial-ethnic groups, namely African Americans.
and cooperate for the community good (Zhou 1992; Jan
In this multiracial context, the use of “enclave” for
Lin 1998). The linkage between “enclave” and “com-
Asian Americans put them in antagonistic relationship
munity” is at times so reflexive that the terms are used
to blacks. As is well known, the model minority myth
interchangeably.
pits Asian Americans against African Americans, charac-
The characterization of the enclave as a community
72
“ghetto” imply that its residents are powerless victims or
terizing the former as hardworking, thrifty, and family
is in direct opposition to earlier depictions of spaces like
and education oriented, in opposition to the malinger-
Chinatown as sites of impoverishment, filth, and intrac-
ing, sexually promiscuous criminality that stereotypes
table crime—in short, as ghettos. But it is worthwhile
the latter. Like the model minority myth, “enclave”
to ask what gets lost when this more negative construc-
overstates and oversimplifies the socioeconomic success
tion of the enclave is minimized or erased. “Ghetto”
of Asian Americans. A central form of agency encoded
has typically been used to denote spaces of racial-ethnic
in “enclave” is economic agency, namely the drawing
segregation in which residents are disempowered, due
upon racial-cultural bonds for economic advancement
to unproductive, implicitly pathological structures of
(Zhou 1992). But this arrangement has its winners and
social, political, and economic organization. The dam-
losers—business owners enrich themselves by exploit-
aged and damaging conditions of the ghetto are some-
ing workers under the banner of co-ethnic cooperation.
times rightly identified as structural, results of formal
Weighted toward such positive but unbalanced effects
laws and entrenched social practices; and other times
of cultural agency, “enclave” does not account well for
are identified as cultural, the result of ghetto residents’
the class divides within it (Peter Kwong 1996). In addi-
behavioral inability to transcend, or cultural proclivity
tion, “enclave” obscures the fact that Asian American
to create, their distressed conditions (Massey and Den-
segregation results from structural class inequity. Asian
ton 1993’ Wilson 1987). These conceptualizations of
American segregation might result from voluntary
enclave
yoonmee chang
interests, but also does so from de jure and de facto discrimination. “Enclave” brings us to the unwieldy concepts of cul-
19
ture and class. I suggest that a major drawback of using
Entrepreneur
“enclave” is that it privileges cultural agency, and thereby
Pawan Dhingra
obscures racialized class inequity (Y. Chang 2010). This epistemological tension between culture and class is not only germane to defining the meaning of enclave, but is also a core problematic in Asian American studies
Ethnic entrepreneurship supposedly symbolizes
overall. Overdetermined as the model minority, Asian
minority uplift based on principles of free choice, free
Americans are cast as immune from, or at least eas-
markets, and limited government support. Within
ily transcending, poverty. This diverts attention from
this neoliberal framework Asian American business
those who do not rise out of poverty, and enlists Asian
owners have become yet another version of the “model
Americans as testimony to American exceptionalism;
minority,” a population other minorities should
Asian Americans are used as the metric of America’s so-
emulate for their hard work and resourcefulness and
called classlessness. Though class inequality during the
whose achievements indicate a meritocratic United
administration of President Barack Obama has strongly
States. Ethnic niches, that is industry- or product-
entered mainstream sociopolitical discourse, Americans’
specific stores commonly associated with an ethnic
more recognizable exceptionalism has been their alac-
group, have been heralded by politicians and minority
rity in avoiding the topic of class. Vis-à-vis Asian Ameri-
communities themselves. So, more than simply an
cans, “enclave” feeds the obfuscation of class inequity.
economic term, the entrepreneur (i.e., one who finds or
Certain usages of the term turn attention away to class
creates opportunities and products, often through self-
configurations that are inequitable because they are, for
employment) is an ideological construct.
that very reason, unpalatable.
In truth, Asian Americans’ entrepreneurship often results from their discriminatory treatment as unwanted foreigners within a capitalist system exploitative of minorities. Early Asian immigrants entered selfemployment in response to the low wages and harsh conditions of paid labor and punitive immigration laws. By the late 1880s, Chinese Americans had subservient jobs as domestic servants, cooks, and gardeners due to forced residential segregation and job discrimination (Takaki 1989). In response they opened up restaurants, laundries, and other stores, labor considered too effeminate or cheap for whites to do. Japanese immigrants worked as farmhands, eventually earning enough to become independent farmers (Bonacich and Modell 1980). In cities 73
such as Seattle, Los Angeles, and San Francisco, they also opened hotels, gardening services, grocery stores, and
cans [Dhingra 2012]) Asian American businesses did not
other establishments. These businesses were available
grow in the 1940s through the 1960s, partly due to the
for newcomers because they were labor intensive, did
internment of Japanese Americans and later due to the
not require much capital to start, and relied on the entire
postwar economy that provided outside job opportuni-
family as unpaid laborers. By the late 1920s, Chinese and
ties. Following the Immigration and Naturalization Act
Japanese immigrants owned businesses at a higher rate
of 1965, and later the arrival of Southeast Asian refugees,
than did white Americans (Bonacich and Modell 1980). These groups had success at small business because of
74
With few exceptions (e.g., motels for Indian Ameri-
entrepreneurship today has increased. Among racialized groups, non-Hispanic whites recently have had
community support. They used rotating credit systems,
the highest rates of self-employment, at 11.8 percent
that is informal, monitored networks among co-ethnics
(between 2005 and 2007), almost 4 percent more than
to borrow money (Light 1972). Still common among
Latinos and over twice that of blacks (Poon, Tran, and
entrepreneurial communities, these systems compen-
Ong 2009). Vietnamese, Japanese, Indian, and Chinese
sate for the lack of formal loans available to immigrants
Americans have self-employment rates similar to whites,
without many assets who enter low-profit, high-risk in-
while Korean Americans have a much higher rate, at
dustries. Also, owners employ unpaid family members
21.4 percent (Poon, Tran, and Ong 2009). Korean Ameri-
and co-ethnics willing to accept low wages. In contrast,
cans started businesses because language barriers, non-
Filipino Americans’ small business enterprise was lim-
transferrable educational degrees, and discrimination in
ited, mostly in restaurants, barber shops, and pool halls
hiring practices blocked white-collar job opportunities
near major Filipino settlements (Y. Espiritu 2003). As
(P. Min 1996).
primarily bachelors who traveled during the Great De-
Once in business, immigrant entrepreneurs face
pression in search of farm jobs, there was little opportu-
multiple types of subjugation that further belie a model
nity or community resources for Filipinos to start busi-
minority existence. Interracial tensions are common,
nesses. Yet, the usefulness of community resources does
especially for middleman minorities (Bonacich 1972).
not mean that they should be uniformly applauded. Ro-
Middleman minorities purchase goods from big capital
tating credit and co-ethnic labor systems shift the bur-
enterprises and sell them to poor, often minority resi-
den of ensuring economic development from the state
dents in segregated, low-income neighborhoods. Due
or entrepreneur to the community at large, while profits
to racist development practices in U.S. inner cities, resi-
stay with the owner.
dents lack convenient access to large grocery stores and
Even with community support, strong financial re-
indoor shopping malls. Korean Americans filled that re-
turns were not guaranteed. Racist retaliations threat-
tail gap with small grocery, clothing, and liquor stores (P.
ened to stifle profits, such as ordinances in San Fran-
Min 1996). Residents can resent the middleman minori-
cisco that taxed Chinese laundries more than others
ties who, in order to make a profit, must charge more
and alien land laws barring Issei from owning land
money for the same products sold in larger chain stores.
(Morrison Wong 2006). Many Chinese and Japanese
Adding frustration are redlining policies that deny or
American owners left their businesses once viable paid
overcharge minority residents for loans, coupled with
labor options arose.
the mistaken assumption that Korean Americans have entrepreneur
pawan dhingra
received preferential treatment for loans. Cultural dif-
minorities is increasingly common, owners frequently
ferences with merchants fuel tensions, such as language
employ co- ethnics, including those brought over
differences and Korean norms of not touching custom-
through transnational ties and desperate for work.
ers’ hands or smiling at them. For their part, owners
Working for co-ethnics offers some advantages, such
may arrive in the United States with racialized stereo-
as speaking one’s native language on the job, flexible
types of African Americans already in mind and not
schedules, and access to training for one’s own even-
trust customers. While the state should take the lead in
tual small business (Portes and Zhou 1992). Cambodian
investing in cities, ethnic owners bear the brunt if seen
immigrants in California have become prolific within
as not investing private money. Boycotts, protests, and
donut shops because co-ethnics are hired for little or
even violence have garnered much media attention,
no pay until they can borrow enough money (again us-
such as the Red Apple boycott in New York City in 1990
ing some version of a rotating credit system) to buy a
and the Los Angeles riots of 1992 (C. Kim 2000). Given
store (Ong 2003). At times they buy the store that they
that tensions simmer, owners and customers work to
are working in, which allows the previous Cambodian
create smooth relations. For instance, owners hire Afri-
American owner to buy a larger business. Yet, exploita-
can Americans to serve as intermediaries with custom-
tion of workers is always at play. Owners can pay lower
ers, and customers frequent stores they consider more
wages or less overtime to co-ethnics than to U.S.-born
courteous (Jennifer Lee 2002).
employees, especially if workers are undocumented. An
Gender segregation further disrupts an idealized
extreme case of abuse was the prisonlike mistreatment
notion of small business. In the motel business, for in-
of Thai immigrant garment workers in the El Monte
stance, husbands run the “entrepreneurial” side of the
sweatshop in Southern California, owned by a Thai
business, engaging with the public and making deci-
American (Su and Martorell 2001). When possible, em-
sions on business direction, upgrades, hiring, and so
ployees prefer working in mainstream businesses for the
forth. Behind the scenes, wives engage in manual labor,
higher wages and better working conditions.
such as ironing, cleaning, and monitoring other women
As families work long hours in businesses together,
(Dhingra 2012). Lacking a pay check and engaged in do-
they might save enough to eventually turn a profit and
mestic work, women receive too little credit for their
attain a middle-class income. Yet what is less discussed
contributions. Women pursue their own, low-capital
are the rates of failure within immigrant businesses.
entrepreneurial niches, such as Korean American and
Rather than file for bankruptcy, owners sell their busi-
Vietnamese American nail salons, due to a lack of op-
nesses at a loss. Businesses’ success and failure often de-
portunities in the workplace and as a hopeful way to
pend on macro changes in the economy, putting own-
juggle childcare and work responsibilities (M. Kang
ers and ethnic communities at risk of economic distress.
2010). These popular businesses still are defined by race, for nail salon work suits dominant stereotypes of Asian women: subservient, attentive to detail, and with nimble fingers. Owner-labor tensions also are endemic within immigrant small businesses. While employing other entrepreneur
pawan dhingra
75
sites of the Asian American experience—Chinatowns,
20
ples, suburbs—have been richly detailed by scholars
Environment
working in a range of disciplines. The related discovery
Robert T. Hayashi
and recovery of these places and of primary materials by
relocation camps, immigration detention centers, tem-
scholars in Asian American studies have offered a heterogeneous chronicle of responses to and experiences of the American social and physical worlds. Yet, although
76
Considering the term “environment” in relation to
scholars in Asian American studies routinely write about
Asian American studies is like staring at one of those
and teach such histories, their work remains mostly dis-
optical illusions full of dots that make up a face or
connected from the scholarship in environmental stud-
figure that one at first cannot discern. In both instances,
ies and related fields, and this has much to do with what
the modalities of viewing provide one a limited field
the term “environment” has come to mean.
of vision. In the case of the optical illusion, we rely
From the onset of European exploration of the Amer-
on studying a static, one-dimensional image. When
icas, the physical surroundings, the most expansive def-
discussing the relation of Asian American studies to
inition of environment, were replete with signs of indig-
the term “environment,” our perception is similarly
enous habitation, and the environs—both natural and
restricted by the narrow meaning this term conveys
manmade—were repositories of cultural meaning. The
since the mid-twentieth century—the natural world.
physical removal and extirpation of indigenous peoples
Until the late twentieth century, historians paid little
that accompanied European settlement erased much of
attention to the environment, treating it as no more
this native presence in the environment, but does not
than the stage for human events, and while the fields
fully explain the term’s evolution from an “action of
of environmental history and environmental studies
circumnavigating, encompassing, or surrounding some-
are now well established, they have traditionally failed
thing” to its present equivalence with only the natural
to consider the experiences of Asian Americans who
world (OED). By writ, sonnet, and landscape painting,
have seemed outside these lines of inquiry. Similarly,
Euro-Americans converted native places into vacant
although Asian Americans have dramatically shaped
spaces, terra nullius. They established a historical per-
the American environment, scholars in Asian Ameri-
spective with the European discovery of a primitive land
can studies have eschewed the term, even as they have
as the starting point, and the English language charts
recorded the significant impact of Asians upon the
this process. Divergent and already culturally rich
American environment—notably their contributions
places, including native ones, became the raw stuff of a
to agricultural development (S. Chan 1989; Iwata, 1992;
process in making civilization, one that would later feed
Matsumoto 1993). The role of Asian labor and Asian land
a national obsession with that base material: wilderness.
use practices in shaping the American landscape—as
Whereas early European responses to the Americas
farmers, railroad workers, and miners—is an important
were a mix of wonder and dread, the increasing indus-
corrective to the historical tendency in environmental
trialization of the nineteenth century catalyzed Ameri-
studies to overlook not only race, but labor. In addition,
cans’ desire to protect natural resources. A growing
middle class viewed the natural environment as a site of
Asian America have been expanding both the lines of in-
salubrious recreation and among urbanites there existed
quiry in their work and the geographic focus of the field,
an ongoing concern for clean air and water. During the
shifting attention to the American South, New England,
Progressive Era, a potent combination of wealthy indus-
Canada, South America, and beyond. The greater lati-
trialists and influential politicians helped establish laws
tude provided by the term “place” complements the in-
to protect and conserve natural resources—men like Gif-
creasingly transnational character of research in Asian
ford Pinchot and Theodore Roosevelt, who instituted a
American studies, a field that has often used spatial
tradition of government stewardship of nature as a pro-
metaphors to define its project: margins, displacements,
tection of national heritage. As society shifted to give
and frontiers—as opposed to “the Frontier” (Okihiro
greater emphasis on preservation over conservation, a
1994; Anderson and Lee 2005; Nomura, Sumida, Leong,
slew of landmark events—the founding of Earth Day,
and Endo, 1989). This emerging scholarship details the
the passage of the Clean Water and Wilderness Acts—
range of social, political, and material layers of meaning
helped cement the equation of the environment with
attached to American sites.
a new definition, that of “the natural world or physical surroundings” (OED).
More recently, scholars in fields such as ecocriticism and environmental history have turned a critical lens on
At roughly the same time as these landmark mo-
how the study of Asian Americans relates to dominant
ments in American environmental history, the term
notions of the natural world (Hayashi 2007a; Hayashi
“Asian American” emerged from an intellectual revolu-
2007b; C. Chiang 2010; C. Chiang 2008). Scholars and
tion led by scholars exploring the social, political, and
activists working in environmental justice have articu-
cultural worlds inhabited by Asian Americans—their en-
lated the interrelatedness of social and natural worlds as
vironment. Yet deploying the now narrowed term “envi-
it relates to the experience of racial and ethnic minori-
ronment” to the study of this racial group long defined
ties, including Asian Americans (Pellow and Park 2002;
by its exclusion from American identity seemed akin to
Shah 2011; Sze 2011; Sze 2007; UCLA Asian American
seeking out a face hidden in one of those patches of dots.
Studies Center 2013). This work has helped deconstruct
The perspectives, experiences, and narratives of those
the received cultural legacy of the term “environment,”
who entered the continental United States from Africa,
revealing how notions of the natural world have func-
Canada, or Mexico, let alone Hawai‘i or Asia, remained
tioned to racialize and disenfranchise Asians via the law
outside a metanarrative of exploration. Where did
and social practice.
Asians, literally and figuratively excluded from Ameri-
Asian American studies thus holds the potential to
can identity, fit within a national narrative of westward-
reformulate the definition of environment, to echo
moving pioneers settling a pristine land? What did they
the word’s long obsolete definition of “encompassing,
have to do with pristine nature and its protection?
surrounding” (OED). Such work may provide a means
The growing influence of place as a conceptual frame,
both to encompass the slippery term “Asian American”
first articulated in cultural geography, now offers a more
and ground it in the material and cultural conditions of
expansive vehicle for analysis in several fields, including
individual and collective experience, so that like those
Asian American studies: one that circumvents the trou-
hidden faces, those whom it defines will readily emerge
bling limitations of environment. As a result, scholars of
when we deploy the term “environment.”
environment
robert t. hayashi
77
major significance of ethnicity lies in its reference to
21
the potentials and powers of political mobilization for a multiplicity of diverse groups whose affinities with
Ethnicity
each other were galvanized by the events surrounding
Rick Bonus
the opposition to the Vietnam War and the struggles for Third World liberation, civil rights, and academic institutionalization (Wei 1993). As noted above, this malleable capacity of ethnic group formation, otherwise
78
Ethnicity appears prominently among Asian Americans
legible in the language and practice of panethnicity,
and in Asian American studies as a basis for the group’s
was especially important in the founding moments of a
and field’s inaugural formation in the 1960s, when
movement for Asian American studies (Y. Espiritu 1992).
participants in the later period of the civil rights
The force and durability of such a capacity to organize
movement advocated for the coherence of several
by classification and to enable constructions of com-
Asian-descent and historically affiliated populations
monalities that move toward consensus is, neverthe-
into one coalition. Even though one may argue that
less, situation-dependent, impermanent, and unstable.
“Asian American” itself is mostly thought of as a race-
These are the reasons why ethnicity in Asian American
based designation, people with different ethnic origins
studies continues to be a provocative subject of inquiry,
comprise this category, thereby making ethnicity
debate, and discussion.
undisputedly a marker that is racialized in the same
One primary focus in the study of ethnicity in Asian
fashion as other ethnicities within certain racialized
American studies constitutes the historicizing of ethnic
categories are collectively configured. Examples of
categories within it to account for not only the pro-
ethnic groups within the classification Asian American
cesses by which a category is invented and naturalized
include Japanese American, Filipino American, Chinese
within time and space, but to mark as well the particu-
American, Vietnamese American, and South Asian
lar motivations, expressions, and effects that constitute
American.
their formation and transformation. Ethnicity, in this
Ethnicity, in general, refers to a kind of group for-
way, is understood as having a genealogical trace, in
mation on the basis of one or several attributes that
opposition to the assumption that it is timeless, natu-
subjects of such a group may hold in common: reli-
rally occurring, and unchanging. To wit, ethnicity is
gion, language, or any number of social, political, or
understood not as having an a priori or self-evident
cultural features and traits that they may possess, in-
manifestation. It is, rather, constructed or invented by
cluding, but not limited to, racial characteristics, geo-
individuals, collectives, and institutions (Sollors 1988).
graphical origin, and national identification. It is both
It is constituted by the workings of alliance building,
a product and an ongoing process of determining who
imagined community formation, and deep or broad as-
or what gets included and excluded in a group, making
cription (Anderson 1991). And, as in every homogeniz-
ethnicity, therefore, an endless construction of similar-
ing and instrumentalist-driven process, it is also fraught
ity and difference that marks and limits the boundar-
with opposition, deliberation, and practices of certain
ies of a community. Specific to Asian Americans, the
forms of violence. From the creation and endurance of
stereotypes attached to an ethnic group, to the ways
sameness may simply be derived from understandings
in which such stereotypes are resisted or replaced, and
of “what we hold in common” but that may be different
from the intricacies of political coalition building
from, though related to, practices of assigning value and
through identification of common interests to their
imputing hierarchical arrangements within an ascribed
downfall or subsequent contraction and expansion,
category and in comparison with other groups outside
studies of ethnicity bring to light deep and broad appli-
of or larger than that category. In Asian American stud-
cations and limitations of group identity consciousness
ies, these get played out in historical and contemporary
and calculation.
forms of exclusion, disenfranchisement, and discrimi-
The question of ethnicity as it is defined in connec-
nation of Cambodian American women, for example,
tion to origin, ancestry, parentage, or nationality looms
both as a marginalized population within the category
large in ethnic studies. Because the U.S. Census has had
Cambodian American and as a nondominant group un-
a strong hand in determining a particular definition of
der the category Asian American (Schlund-Vials 2012b).
Asian American as a category populated by those whose
In cases like this, ethnicity gets to be understood, more
origins are from Asia and the Indian subcontinent, there
than anything else, as a process of exercising and disput-
is a resilient tendency to naturalize ethnicity as first and
ing power within and across intersecting, multiple, and
foremost a category that is putatively geographical and
heterogeneous identities and locations. How does one
contingent upon birth. That is, one can quickly and eas-
account for the qualitative difference in the experiences
ily presume one’s ethnicity as primarily grounded on
of non-Asians, women, nonheterosexuals, upper- and
one’s connection to a birthplace, giving it primordial
lower-class members, multiracials, non-Christians, and
status (the location of the beginning and perpetuation
non-Muslim people subsumed under the specific eth-
of one’s existence) in the constitution of one’s ethnic
nic categories within Asian America? What about those
understanding. But there are several limitations to this
with limited schooling experience or restricted profi-
particular bloodline formulation, notwithstanding its
ciency in the dominant languages? Why are their expe-
utility to policymakers, demographers, and commu-
riences different, and how are the oppressive conditions
nity activists in acting upon patterns of socioeconomic
to which they are subjected propped up and resisted?
phenomena occurring within and across origin-based
If identities within ethnicities are heterogeneous and
classifications. What about those who are racially differ-
intersecting, so are their attendant histories. In U.S. his-
ent from the majority of those within the same ethnic
toriography, law, popular culture, and school curricula,
group? What about those who move to one or multiple
there is a robust tendency to equate American ethnic-
locations after birth (or then go back and forth)? How do
ity with U.S. immigration history, primarily associat-
we deal with those who are socialized differently from or
ing American ethnic groups with their social standing
socialized in opposition to the dominant culture of that
as “Americans” in proximity to their adopted country
ethnicity? And how do we equitably account for sub-
and against their relationship to their original or for-
ethnic, language, and religious micro groups that are
mer homeland (for example, Dinnerstein and Reimers
internally subsumed under a larger category of affinity?
1999). Thus, each ethnic group’s history is usually nar-
Questions like these are oftentimes provoked and
rated as the travails of being and becoming Americans, a
motivated by conditions of inequality. Consciousness of
journey to assimilation (or not) in which tales of group
ethnicity
rick bonus
79
membership are told according to the ways in which
in Asian America are not only internal and multistep
their distance to dominant culture is approximated
migrants; they are also transnational subjects of a global
across time and place, and their contributions and rates
economy whose identification with and loyalty to one
of acculturation are calculated, more often than not,
homeland that is the U.S. are multistranded, complex,
to determine their worth in society. Thus, all ethnic
and contradictory. Their stories of assimilation also
groups in Asian America are fundamentally considered
constitute struggles of resisting assimilation (or practic-
as immigrant groups, once figuratively denoted by their
ing alternatives to it), their relationship to U.S. culture
nominal assignation as “hyphenated Americans.” And
and society is not unidirectional, and their collective
although this may not be in vogue now, with the hy-
accounts of mobility and transformation—the so-called
phen commonly erased, each ethnic group in general
push and pull of immigrant struggle—are all embedded
continues to be named as the signifier that comes be-
within the larger histories and changing configurations
fore the “American” sign. But this proposition becomes
of colonization, globalization, and transnationalism.
untenable to the degree that it is inaccurate when those
Nevertheless, the force of ethnic identification is
who are native born (or already far removed from older
laden with dynamic practices of representation and
immigrant generations) are assumed to be included in
recognition. Who gets to belong and who gets to be
the ethnic category, and when certain populations’ re-
excluded? With what criteria and under what means of
lationship to U.S. history cannot be registered within
control, accommodation, and negotiation? Who will
the tradition of an immigrant chronicle. Filipino labor-
police its boundaries and who will refuse or resist its sur-
ers who were moving to many parts of the U.S. during
veillance? In what ways? These are questions that point
the early part of the 20th century, for example, were
to both the power and perils of consensus building, in-
colonized subjects and, therefore, migrants in techni-
cluding the mechanisms that aim to promote solidarity,
cal terms, not immigrants (Bonus 2000). And the ten-
community, and connectedness as they are utilized by
dency to conflate refugee status with immigrant status
governing states, institutions, groups, and individuals
does not do justice for many Southeast Asian and South
internal or external (or both) to the membership of the
Asian groups’ differential incorporation into or resis-
constructed label (Võ 2004). Social scientists, historians,
tance against U.S. society.
and cultural analysts frequently refer to this process as
Persisting in the narration of ethnicity for Asian
80
ethnicization to highlight the invention, maintenance,
American people as a saga of immigration to a new na-
and transformation of group identification. Struggles
tion is oftentimes a product, as much as it is productive,
to keep alive social customs and traditions, or anything
of a contributionist ideology and a U.S.-centric perspec-
that enables members to bond with each other, whether
tive. It misses out on the manners by which different
in the form of linguistic preservation, borrowing, or
populations are coerced to move elsewhere by labor re-
replacement, or through creative expressions in art,
cruiters, make individual and collective decisions to set-
music, literature, and drama to represent and change
tle within and outside of the U.S., and create networks of
group consciousness, are all indications of the energy
political, economic, and social interactions that are not
and seduction of ethnicity as an ongoing process of af-
easily circumscribed by the physical boundaries of their
finity creation and transformation. Hence, references to
multiple homelands. Many members of ethnic groups
ethnic clothing, ethnic languages, and ethnic cultural
ethnicity
rick bonus
centers, to name a few, are rife among ethnic groups within and outside Asian America.
groups within their own ethnic label, as well as the removal of certain groups that are frequently thought
Ethnicity, on the other hand, has also been used to
to be part of Asian America. Criticisms regarding the
discriminate against and circumscribe the existence
inclusion or separation of Pacific Islander population
and actions of specific groups. For example, the Page
groups in or from Asian/Pacific Islander combined
Act of 1875 and the Chinese Exclusion Acts beginning in
designations, as well as questions regarding the fate of
1882 targeted women and men by restricting their entry
some Native American and Middle Eastern communi-
into the U.S. as juridically determined by their Chinese
ties in relationship to the broadening or contraction of
ethnic ancestry. Ethnocentric practices of dominat-
the meanings of “Asian” in state and society are but two
ing groups can amount to violent acts of devaluation,
of the most challenging areas of contestation and ne-
deracination, and atrocious forms of ethnic cleans-
gotiation. And finally, coming from a more critical vein
ing. Asian American history is replete with exclusion-
of ethnic studies are the breadth of alternative histories
ary laws, mandated quotas, and restrictive policies that
and epistemologies of ethnicity that radiate from the
controlled the entry and naturalization of Asian people
engaged political work of queers of color, Third World
as defined by their race, ethnicity, social status, sex, and
feminists, anti-imperialism activists, and transnational
sexuality. The Naturalization Act of 1790, the Gentle-
scholars (Manalansan 2003; Reddy 2011). These dem-
men’s Agreement of 1907–1908, and the Asiatic Barred
onstrate the realities and complexities of ethnicity as it
Zone Act of 1917 are but a few examples. These promul-
is constantly invented and transformed in the name of
gations have produced a cumulative effect of legitimiz-
power.
ing the construction of ethnic groups imagined as Asian by race, and occurring in different intensities over time and space, as subjects who are undesirable, foreign (or forever immigrants), unassimilable, and exotic or mysterious (Ancheta 2006). Currently, the vitality of ethnicity in Asian American studies is evidenced by the ongoing transformations of each heterogeneous group within its purview and their evolving relationships with each other, the larger Asian rubric, the rest of the U.S. population and community groups, and the interconnected societies and governments within and outside of the United States. The rise of the “model minority” status that became associated with the category “Asian” instantiated, among many, calls for the disaggregation of the “Asian American” classification (in view of its internal hierarchies) and even prompted many ethnic groups to seriously consider the dominance and marginalization of sub-ethnic ethnicity
rick bonus
81
drawn. The heterogamous nature of American life
22
people was an even more logically absurd process there
Exclusion
than elsewhere.
Greg Robinson
meant that drawing biological distinctions among its
In the course of the 19th century, a complex racial regime was established. Jews and other non-Nordic European immigrants were at times subjected to hostility and unofficial bias as “lesser races,” and ultimately
Within the field of Asian American studies, exclusion is a leitmotif that brings together collective histories of
semi-European or non- European groups (Hispanics,
immigration restriction, detention, mass confinement,
Cape Verdeans, native Hawai‘ians, Armenians) were
and citizenship denial. It expresses the organized
arbitrarily characterized as white or subjected to infe-
forces, based in both state and private action, that have
rior status. Only native peoples and those of African or
marginalized Asian Americans, and against which they
Asian descent were subjected to legal exclusion, a status
have had to struggle, first to be permitted to enter the
that remained predominant in the United States, with
United States at all, and then to become accepted within
minor exceptions, until the late 20th century.
the larger society.
82
restricted in their immigration. Members of liminal
Yet within this exclusionary regime, Asian exclu-
To understand Asian exclusion, it is necessary to
sion had a particular nature and operation, one that
look at the larger history of ethnic stratification in the
stemmed from both the timing of large-scale Asian im-
United States. From the time of their first settlement,
migration and the particular region of their settlement.
Euro-Americans determined that America was theirs by
Again, to understand this, we must look at the repub-
right, an ever-expanding “white man’s country” that
lic’s first nationality law, enacted by Congress in 1790. It
they did not mean to share with other inhabitants. De-
enshrined racial caste in the United States by restricting
spite the vital role of African Americans and native peo-
naturalization to “free white” immigrants. What was
ples in building the common society, members of those
unclear from the start was whether that term meant
groups were excluded by both law and custom from full
“Caucasian” or simply “not black,” a matter not resolved
citizenship in the nation. Instead, members of groups
when Asians started to arrive. The first individuals of
not deemed “white” were at different times enslaved,
East Asian ancestry who came to antebellum America,
segregated, expelled, or massacred with impunity.
including the (ethnic Chinese) “Siamese twins” Chang
In defining the boundaries of whiteness, social and
and Eng Bunker, the Chinese student Yung Wing, and
political elites initially drew on geographical origin,
the Japanese Joseph Heco, did not trouble the existing
skin color, and religious faith as prime markers. As time
color line. All settled in the East, were received on equal
passed, they increasingly deployed the artificial concept
terms, and were ultimately granted citizenship.
of “race” and referred to innate biological characteris-
However, the arrival of masses of Chinese immi-
tics (largely borrowed or adapted from their European
grants during and after the 1849 California Gold Rush,
counterparts), a move that mostly acted to reinscribe
the first large group of East Asian ancestry in the United
and codify the same distinctions that had already been
States, triggered widespread hostility in California. The
Gold Rush inspired the migration of waves of Euro-
ultimately upheld the principle of birthright citizen-
pean and American prospectors hoping to make their
ship in the 1898 Wong Kim Ark case.
fortunes. Having left their lives behind to come to the
But there was a catch. Ensuring equal rights and
new U.S. possessions (war booty seized from Mexico),
(future) voting to a then-tiny number of American-
and traveling long distances overland or by sea around
born Asian infants was a small sacrifice for principle,
South America, they felt entitled to superior status
more symbolic than real. Meaningful exclusion instead
and full benefits, and resented their hardworking Chi-
became concentrated at the level of the immigrants
nese counterparts. After attempting vainly to legislate
themselves—if they could be kept out, no citizens
against all aliens to eliminate the competition, the
would be born. When Congress voted in 1870 a sym-
all-white legislatures seized on racial bias (mixed with
bolic amendment to the original 1790 immigration act
bigotry over “heathen” religions) as a tool to discour-
allowing “free Africans” to naturalize, Californian rep-
age Chinese settlement, and enacted legal disabilities
resentatives blocked a proposal to abolish all the other
such as barring Chinese from testifying against whites
racial restrictions (even if these bars had been erected
in court. The clear purpose of the law was to make it
as adjuncts to that of Africans), to avoid naturalizing
impossible for Chinese prospectors to win in cases of
Chinese aliens who could then vote. Instead, Asians
contested claims. The precedent was thereby created for
would be fixed legally as foreigners, and even their U.S.-
viewing Asians as “colored.”
born descendants would share that image in the public
Following the Civil War, the “white or black” ques-
consciousness.
tion was answered for Asians at a national level, but in
Meanwhile, coalitions of nativist political leaders
contradictory terms. On the one hand, in early 1866
and labor unionists, many of them immigrants them-
Congress passed a bill to protect the civil rights of the
selves, began organizing boycotts of Chinese-produced
newly emancipated freedmen. Its first section provided
goods and calling for outright exclusion of Chinese
that all those born in the United States, apart from un-
laborers. It was not simply a question of undercutting
taxed Indians, were citizens with the right to “full and
competition—they saw agitating against the Chinese
equal benefit of all laws.” In his veto message of March
(“the indispensable enemy” in the piquant phrase of
27, 1866, President Andrew Johnson objected, among
Alexander Saxton [1975]) as a tool for winning political
other things, that the bill would grant birthright citi-
power. Building on established stereotypes, they con-
zenship to ethnic Chinese as well as Gypsies, Indians,
structed a threat out of a combination of biological, cul-
and African Americans. Following the message, there
tural, and religious elements. The result was a violent
was extensive debate in Congress over whether these
exclusionist push by white settlers against the Chinese
groups actually deserved citizenship. In voting to over-
presence (and subsequently against other Asians, as
ride Johnson’s veto and enact the bill, Congress effec-
they arrived). White terrorists in the West, abetted by
tively determined native-born Chinese and other Asians
local authorities, launched over a hundred anti-Chinese
admissible for citizenship on the coattails of blacks—a
pogroms in the following years to drive out Chinese
provision that the same lawmakers then made funda-
communities, with the goal of eliminating Chinese
mental law by enshrining similar provisions in the 14th
totally from the region. State and local lawmakers in
Amendment, adopted weeks later. The Supreme Court
California enacted racist legislation limiting Chinese
exclusion
greg robinson
83
employment, barring interracial marriage, and excluding (later segregating) ethnic Chinese public school stu-
nese, existing residents were barred from bringing over
dents. To be sure, this color bar formed part of a larger
their spouses.
nationwide, indeed international, movement of viru-
The one partial exception was Japan. Following cam-
lent white supremacist sentiment against all nonwhite
paigns by West Coast nativists, President Theodore Roo-
groups. Yet the concentrated presence of Asians in the
sevelt (who had his own racial prejudices) moved to cut
West, a frontier area newly “won” to white domination
off Japanese immigration in 1907–1908. Though the
which featured an unbalanced gender ratio, stoked “yel-
threat of war with the powerful Japanese empire staved
low peril” fears among whites of an Asian takeover and
off unilateral exclusion of Japanese immigrants until
aroused sexual jealousy and anxieties about masculinity,
1924, Washington and Tokyo worked out a so-called
which contributed to its particularly violent character
Gentleman’s Agreement that achieved the same ends by
(Pfaelzer 2005).
informal means (by executive order, Roosevelt also ex-
Congress, incited by the Californians and their allies,
cluded Japanese immigrants in Hawai‘i from resettling
meanwhile became a center of action. The legislative
on the mainland, thereby restricting half the nation’s
dimension of exclusion is well known. The first victory
ethnic Japanese population to the territory). Japanese
of nativist agitators was the 1875 Page Law. It barred en-
immigrants retained the right to bring over wives and
try into the country of “undesirable immigrants,” in-
children. The result was that sex ratios were more equal
cluding Asian women suspected of being prostitutes (a
in Japanese than other Asian communities, though
provision soon stretched to include nearly all Chinese
still majority male. Although the Cable Act (1922–1931)
women, who had the burden of proving their inno-
singled out American-born Japanese and other Asian
cence). Seven years later, Congress enacted the first Chi-
women for loss of citizenship if they married Asian im-
nese Exclusion Act. This legislation barred all “skilled
migrant males, thereby restricting the marriage market,
and unskilled [Chinese] laborers and Chinese employed
by the time of World War II the numbers of American-
in mining” for ten years. In order to prevent the estab-
born children in the Japanese community largely sur-
lishment of ethnic communities (and hence the birth
passed that of the adult alien population.
of children with citizenship rights), Congress barred
Once exclusion was enacted, it defined Asian
even established residents from bringing in wives. Sub-
Americans— first Chinese, and by extension other
sequent laws—the Scott Act in 1888 and the Geary Act in
Asians, who were popularly identified with Chinese—as
1892—extended the initial exclusion and added further
officially undesirable. Immigration inspectors respon-
restrictions. In 1898, following the U.S. annexation, ex-
sive to anti-Asian popular opinion, especially on the
clusion was extended to Hawai‘i. In 1904 the exclusion
West Coast, followed their self-interest in interpreting
law was made permanent.
their power to exclude as broadly as possible. Chinese
The exclusion of Chinese served as a template for
84
nevertheless denied equal citizenship). Like the Chi-
and later other Asians who arrived at the Angel Island
nativists to agitate for the successive exclusion of other
immigration station (including American residents re-
Asian immigrant groups: Koreans, East Indians, and
turning from trips abroad) were routinely harassed by
Filipinos (who were not immigrants, strictly speaking,
immigration officials. They were grilled thoroughly by
once the U.S. colonized the Philippines, but who were
interviewers, who presumed them to be untruthful.
exclusion
greg robinson
Even those finally admitted were frequently forced to
Moreover, once the genie of anti-Asian racism loosed
wait, sometimes for weeks or months, to obtain per-
by the Chinese exclusion movement had been let out of
mission to enter or reenter the country. While initially
the bottle, the marginalization of all Asians continued
courts stepped in to redress abusive rulings by immigra-
to spread. Even after the cutoff of Asian immigration—
tion authorities, the federal government ultimately re-
the ostensible goal of exclusion—had been achieved,
jected judicial oversight under the doctrine of plenary
the immigrants continued to face segregation and
powers.
episodes of mob violence. White agitators organized
As part of the exclusion law, those Chinese Ameri-
pogroms against Japanese Americans in places such as
cans already resident were subjected to a regime of sur-
Toledo, Oregon, in 1925 and Maricopa County, Arizona
veillance. In order to establish their right to be in the
(future center of anti-Mexican agitation), in 1934. Fili-
U.S., unlike all other immigrants, they were forced to
pino Americans were attacked by mobs in Watsonville,
obtain passes (“certificates of residence,” later renamed
California, in 1930 and Hood River, Oregon, in 1932.
“certificates of identity”) including descriptions and
Legal discrimination expanded as well. Long after
photographs, and find two white witnesses to vouch for
the Supreme Court’s 1886 Yick Wo v. Hopkins decision
them. Even established Asian American residents were
formally barred laws with “disparate impact” on specific
denied due process against unfavorable deportation
groups, Chinese operating restaurants and laundries
rulings. Similarly, because of the near-total exclusion of
continued to be handicapped by special legislation and
Asian women (apart from Japanese), ethnic communi-
licensing initiatives. The most significant example of
ties were largely composed of aging bachelors, with rela-
anti-Asian legislation was alien land laws, enacted by
tively few nuclear family groups and U.S.-born children.
California in 1913 and copied by nearly half the United
Exclusion pushed Chinese Americans into clan-
States after World War I. These laws prevented “aliens
destinity and deception as a way of life. In order to be
ineligible to citizenship”—a transparent euphemism
permitted entry, “paper son” immigrants posed as the
for Asian immigrants—from purchasing or owning ag-
children of existing Chinese American residents who
ricultural land. As a result, Asian aliens (predominantly
granted or sold such sponsorship to outsiders. Alter-
Japanese) were forced to rely on white associates to hold
natively, immigrants pretended to be American born,
the land for them or place title in the names of their
asserting that their birth records had been destroyed
American-born Nisei children, who were citizens (Dan-
in the great San Francisco earthquake of 1906. Numer-
iels 1962).
ous Chinese traveled to Canada or Mexico and then
Asian American citizens were likewise targeted by le-
were smuggled into the United States. In the end, a
gal discrimination. In a third of the states of the union,
larger number of Chinese first entered the United States
Asians were barred from marrying whites (Filipinos and
during the exclusion period, generally under false pre-
East Indians were sometimes singled out separately for
tenses, than during the entire generation preceding it.
restriction). Chinese schoolchildren on the West Coast
The long-term result was that many Chinese Americans
and in Mississippi were relegated to black schools, while
grew up uncertain of their true origins or families, and
California permitted local school districts to segregate
biological kin relationships were replaced by others (Er-
“Mongolians” (i.e., Asians). Even in the supposed inter-
ika Lee 2004).
racial paradise of Hawai‘i, the establishment of “English exclusion
greg robinson
85
86
standard schools” in the 1920s, open only to pupils
Japanese population. On February 19, 1942, President
whose English was acceptable to authorities, effectively
Franklin Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, which
excluded the mass of Asian Americans from equal edu-
authorized the Army to set up an “excluded zone” that
cational opportunity (Asato 2005). West Coast Nisei,
ultimately covered the entire Pacific Coast. Japanese
meanwhile, faced widespread Jim Crow exclusion in
Americans were taken from their homes without due
the shape of restrictive housing covenants—some 80%
process and forcibly transported, first to holding centers
of Los Angeles housing was off-limits to nonwhites in
and then to a network of camps outside the Pacific Coast
1940—plus exclusion from parks, swimming pools, and
(G. Robinson 2001). Even after Japanese Americans ob-
theaters.
tained “leave clearance” and were paroled from camp,
One perverse shadow of Asian American exclusion
they remained barred from their home region. The ex-
by the outside society was forms of exclusion practiced
clusion would be progressively relaxed during 1943 and
among and between Asian groups. Masses of Nisei were
1944 to accommodate certain groups, notably Nisei
exposed to their parents’ prejudices against ethnic Ko-
soldiers, but would not be lifted until after the U.S. Su-
reans and Filipinos, while those descended from bura-
preme Court’s ruling in Ex parte Endo in December 1944.
kumin remained marginalized within Japanese popu-
Despite the endemic anti-Asian prejudice and discrimi-
lations (Geiger 2011). In both Chinese and Japanese
natory legislation, a majority of Japanese Americans
communities, Christian ministers joined at times in
chose to return to the Pacific Coast in the years after the
movements to oppose and suppress Buddhism as a hea-
war (G. Robinson 2009).
then and backward religion. Mixed-race couples, and es-
Ironically, World War II also set into motion a dy-
pecially their biracial offspring, occupied an uncertain
namic that ended the legal exclusion of Asian Ameri-
position within Asian communities, and sometimes
cans. Motivated by the desire to propitiate China,
were shunned altogether (Spickard 2001).
America’s wartime ally, the Roosevelt administration
This heritage of exclusion helped lead to the mass
campaigned successfully in Congress to remove the
confinement of West Coast Japanese Americans during
insult of total exclusion and replace it with the insult
World War II. Although Japanese immigration was cut
of near-total exclusion (China’s annual immigration
off after 1908 and completely halted in 1924, white na-
quota was set at 105). Yet, by the same act, immigrants
tivists maintained a propaganda campaign against eth-
of the “Chinese race” were finally declared eligible for
nic Japanese in California throughout the entire prewar
naturalization. Three years later, East Indians and Filipi-
period. Using the technique of the big lie, they repeat-
nos were likewise rendered admissible in tiny numbers
edly charged falsely that the Issei were agents of Tokyo,
and authorized to naturalize, and in 1952 the McCarran-
and Nisei were foreigners due to their (purely nominal
Walter Act ended absolute exclusion of immigrants
and increasingly rare) status as dual citizens. In the
from Japan and all other Asian countries. By that time,
months following the Japanese military attack on Pearl
the U.S. Supreme Court had already struck down state
Harbor in December 1941, craven and careerist Army
laws directed against “aliens ineligible to citizenship,”
officials, supported by opportunistic political lead-
while California had repealed its school segregation
ers, newspaper editors, and commercial group leaders,
laws and been forced to abandon its laws barring inter-
pressed for wholesale exclusion of the region’s entire
racial marriage. In the succeeding years, the Japanese
exclusion
greg robinson
American Citizens League helped lead movements for states. The Supreme Court’s 1948 Shelley v. Kraemer deci-
23
sion, which struck down legal enforcement of restrictive
Family
covenants, led to an easing of housing discrimination
Evelyn Nakano Glenn
repeal of interracial marriage laws in other Western
against Asians. Even a half-century after the end of state-sponsored discrimination, exclusion and its legacy remain vital factors in Asian American life. Integration into Ameri-
In popular usage, the ideal family unit is a nuclear
can society remains a challenge for many Asians, espe-
household consisting of a mother, father, and children
cially refugees and other new immigrants. Exclusion
residing together. However, the U.S. Census Bureau
manifests itself in such areas as media stereotyping,
defines the family more broadly as “two or more people
the glass ceiling at the workplace, housing bias, and
(one of whom is the householder) related by birth,
hate crimes on the street. Within Asian communities,
marriage, or adoption residing in the same housing
various subgroups remain marginalized. Most notably,
unit.” In other contexts, “family” may refer to (all) those
LGBT Asian Americans must often fight a dual burden
related by blood or marriage, regardless of whether or
of invisibility, and justify their presence within the
not they live under the same roof. Societies differ in how
larger community. We may hope that the success of
they reckon blood relationships. They may recognize
Asian Americans in breaking through barriers of exclu-
kinship through only the male line (patrilineal), only
sion from mainstream American society will translate
the female line (matrilineal), or both male and female
into further visibility and integration for gays and lesbi-
lines (bilateral). Moreover, the question of “what is
ans within Asian communities.
family?” can be considered via its functions, namely, producing and reproducing persons as biological and social beings. These functions are accomplished through a gender and generational division of labor. Alternatively, family relations can be imagined; sociologists and anthropologists have used the term “fictive kin” to refer to those who are considered to be family members even if they are not formally related. As Alvin Gouldner (1960) observes, families also encompass “status obligations”—duties that are attached to one’s kinship position in the family. For example, in many cultures, mothers are expected to care for young children; fathers to contribute economically; and children to obey parents. Importantly, status obligations have moral relevance. Others (both within the family and in the larger community) may judge whether a 87
American Citizens League helped lead movements for states. The Supreme Court’s 1948 Shelley v. Kraemer deci-
23
sion, which struck down legal enforcement of restrictive
Family
covenants, led to an easing of housing discrimination
Evelyn Nakano Glenn
repeal of interracial marriage laws in other Western
against Asians. Even a half-century after the end of state-sponsored discrimination, exclusion and its legacy remain vital factors in Asian American life. Integration into Ameri-
In popular usage, the ideal family unit is a nuclear
can society remains a challenge for many Asians, espe-
household consisting of a mother, father, and children
cially refugees and other new immigrants. Exclusion
residing together. However, the U.S. Census Bureau
manifests itself in such areas as media stereotyping,
defines the family more broadly as “two or more people
the glass ceiling at the workplace, housing bias, and
(one of whom is the householder) related by birth,
hate crimes on the street. Within Asian communities,
marriage, or adoption residing in the same housing
various subgroups remain marginalized. Most notably,
unit.” In other contexts, “family” may refer to (all) those
LGBT Asian Americans must often fight a dual burden
related by blood or marriage, regardless of whether or
of invisibility, and justify their presence within the
not they live under the same roof. Societies differ in how
larger community. We may hope that the success of
they reckon blood relationships. They may recognize
Asian Americans in breaking through barriers of exclu-
kinship through only the male line (patrilineal), only
sion from mainstream American society will translate
the female line (matrilineal), or both male and female
into further visibility and integration for gays and lesbi-
lines (bilateral). Moreover, the question of “what is
ans within Asian communities.
family?” can be considered via its functions, namely, producing and reproducing persons as biological and social beings. These functions are accomplished through a gender and generational division of labor. Alternatively, family relations can be imagined; sociologists and anthropologists have used the term “fictive kin” to refer to those who are considered to be family members even if they are not formally related. As Alvin Gouldner (1960) observes, families also encompass “status obligations”—duties that are attached to one’s kinship position in the family. For example, in many cultures, mothers are expected to care for young children; fathers to contribute economically; and children to obey parents. Importantly, status obligations have moral relevance. Others (both within the family and in the larger community) may judge whether a 87
woman is a “good” or “bad” mother/daughter/wife/ etc. based on whether or not she performs her familial
antimiscegenation statutes ensured that Chinese Amer-
duties. Status obligations are also internalized in that
ica remained a “bachelor” society. As Nayan Shah (2001)
members feel that they should perform them, and if
documents, the prevalence of homosociality and the
they do not, they feel guilty.
paucity of families fueled white imaginings of Chinese
This brief review highlights the socially constructed nature of the family and its malleability while pursuing
88
(Glenn 1983). Restrictive U.S. immigration policies and
as inassimilable aliens and Chinatowns as disease- and vice-ridden slums.
a two-pronged inquiry into the Asian American family.
The next major wave of Asian labor migration (1890–
On the one hand, given the socially constructed nature
1907) consisted of single young men from Japan. Unlike
of the family, we can ask, what are the cultural, politi-
the Chinese, Issei men were eventually allowed to bring
cal, and economic factors that have influenced Asian
or send for spouses. Under the terms of the Gentle-
American family formation? On the other hand, given
men’s Agreement of 1907, Japan halted the emigration
the family’s malleability, what strategies have Asian
of laborers and in exchange the U.S. issued passports to
Americans pursued to maximize family survival and
wives and children of Issei already in the United States.
well-being? Integral to understanding the function of
Thousands of Issei men took advantage of the opportu-
“family” within Asian American studies is an analysis
nity to go to Japan to marry or to send for picture brides.
of how successive histories of immigration prohibition,
The Issei population remained gender skewed, but by
state segregation, and socioeconomic exclusion con-
the time the Immigration Act of 1924 cut off all immi-
tributed to the development of particular family units
gration from the Asian subcontinent, there was a sig-
in the United States.
nificant presence of Japanese American families. These
In particular, Asian immigrants confronted laws and
families were heavily concentrated in agricultural pur-
policies designed to prevent them from establishing
suits, particularly truck farming, plant nurseries, gar-
conventional families. From 1850 to 1882, Chinese men
dening, and produce marketing. Wives worked along-
were recruited to fill the demand for labor in agriculture,
side husbands in field and shop, and children helped
mining, and railroad construction in the American West.
after school and during summers.
The few men of the merchant class who immigrated
The Philippines became the next major source of
during this era were allowed to bring wives or concu-
Asian labor migrants (1924–1934) after the 1924 Immi-
bines, but the vast majority of Chinese men lacked le-
gration Act cut off immigration from other parts of Asia.
gal and economic means to do so. The Page Act of 1875
As residents of a U.S. colony, Filipinos were deemed to
effectively barred Chinese women, while the Chinese
be U.S. subjects and therefore eligible for entry. As with
Exclusion Act of 1882 cut off all legal entry for Chinese
the Chinese and Japanese, Filipino migrants were over-
laborers. Unable to attain the ideal of a coresident fam-
whelmingly male and single; they were employed pri-
ily, the estimated half of Chinese immigrants who had
marily as migratory laborers in farm fields and canner-
left spouses in China developed “split household fami-
ies. This migratory flow ended with the passage of the
lies” in which one member worked abroad and sent re-
Tydings-McDuffie Act of 1934. Filipino men were more
mittances while the rest of the household remained in
inclined than other Asians to transgress color lines by
the country of origin and engaged in reproductive labor
forming relationships with and even marrying white
family
evelyn nakano glenn
women and establishing mixed-race families. Yet formal
Snow Wong’s best-selling memoir, Fifth Chinese Daugh-
and informal barriers to “miscegenation” ensured that
ter (1945), focused on cultural differences between im-
the number of Filipino families remained small.
migrant parents and their children.
The situation for Chinese and Japanese families di-
These developments were dwarfed by major changes
verged with the outbreak of World War II. Japanese re-
that started with passage of the 1965 Immigration
siding in the Pacific Coast states were forcibly removed
Act. This act removed national quotas and restrictions
and interned. In addition to destroying communities,
against immigrants from Asia, specified occupational
internment place undue stress on family relations and
preferences, and prioritized family reunification. In
sometimes broke up families. Among the impacts of the
practice, three-quarters of visas for new immigrants
internment were the Issei generation’s loss of author-
were allotted to relatives of citizens and permanent resi-
ity due to their enemy alien status and lack of English-
dent aliens. In addition to large-scale immigration from
language fluency; the premature responsibility assumed
China and Taiwan, sizable numbers came from Korea,
by young Nisei who became mediators between the
the Philippines, and India. Compared to earlier im-
family and U.S. authorities; and family conflict gener-
migrant cohorts, post-1965 immigrants were relatively
ated by the federal government decision to separate out
well educated; indeed they had higher average years of
“disloyal” internees by administering loyalty tests. In
schooling than the U.S. population as a whole.
the postwar years, family relations were haunted by the
The passage of refugee acts in 1975 and 1980 enabled
losses and traumas internees had suffered. The 1980s
the entry of large cohorts of Southeast Asians. Under
Redress Movement that sought an official apology and
the 1975 Indochina Migration and Refugee Assistance
token payment for losses proved to be cathartic as fam-
Act, the U.S. accepted 130,000 refugees from South
ily members finally openly talked about the internment.
Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. This cohort consisted of
Meanwhile, opportunities for Chinese to form families
mostly skilled and educated asylees who had had close
expanded at long last. In 1943, in recognition of China’s
ties with the U.S. or South Vietnamese governments.
role as a U.S. ally, the U.S. Congress repealed the Chi-
Later, between 1981 and 2000, the U.S. accepted 531,310
nese Exclusion Act and extended the right to become
Vietnamese who had fled Vietnam in small boats and
naturalized citizens to resident Chinese. The latter pro-
found temporary sanctuary in asylum camps in South-
vision opened up non-quota slots to relatives of natural-
east Asia. Generally poorer and less educated than the
ized Chinese Americans. Special legislation at the end of
first cohort, many of the “boat people” endured pro-
the war allowed Chinese American service members to
longed hardship, displacement, and separation before
bring wives and fiancées. Augmented by a small num-
they could reconstitute families in America. Still, refu-
ber of Chinese professionals and intellectuals, the 1950s
gees from asylum camps were dispersed among many
saw growing numbers of Chinese Americans who lived
different nations for permanent settlement, so most
and worked outside the confines of Chinatowns. This
Vietnamese refugees in the U.S. had relatives living in
period of pro-Chinese sentiment saw the publication
other countries. Given the loss of family members as a
of popular memoirs that portrayed Chinese American
result of the war and during their escape, Vietnamese
family life for mainstream American readers. Pardee
refugees value extended kin ties, so they make special
Lowe’s Father and Glorious Descendent (1943) and Jade
efforts to maintain contact across national borders.
family
evelyn nakano glenn
89
These post-1965 immigrants and refugees entered
is considered essential for both men and women, and
an economy undergoing transformation by globaliza-
parents are responsible for arranging appropriate mar-
tion, deindustrialization, information technology, and
riages for their sons and daughters. Sons and daughters
neoliberal economic policies. By the late 20th century,
are afforded some power to accept or reject a match, but
the American labor market had become almost bimodal,
they also often recognize their parents’ authority and
with high demand for educated professionals in such
plan to live with them until they marry.
fields as medicine, high technology, and engineering and for low-wage workers in domestic services, elderly care,
families, especially refugee families, tend to be concen-
janitorial, and food services. Civil rights struggles had
trated in economically disadvantaged communities
weakened, if not dismantled, racial exclusion in employ-
plagued by failing schools, poor resources, and high
ment. Consequently, Asian immigrants who had degrees
crime rates. Among working-class and refugee Asian
from U.S. institutions or whose training was easily trans-
families, two incomes are needed to support the fam-
ferable could enter the market for skilled professionals.
ily. The growth of low-wage, female-intensive industries
However, those lacking requisite education, language, or
in services and some light manufacturing provide op-
transferable skills were relegated to the low-wage sector
portunities for women to find paying jobs fairly quickly.
or self-employment in small family businesses.
Immigrant men reportedly have a harder time, because
Educated Asian professional families are able to settle
90
At the other end of the spectrum, less advantaged
their inability to speak English and their lack of U.S. cre-
in suburban locations characterized by high perform-
dentials shut them out of jobs that are commensurate
ing public schools and excellent public services. For
with their training and experience. Men may also be
example, families of South Asian (primarily Indian)
loath to take up “feminized” or devalued work. In this
doctors, engineers, and high-tech professionals enjoy
sense Asian women’s “disadvantage” (being small, for-
some of the highest family incomes of all Asian Ameri-
eign, female) becomes an advantage, at least in the low-
cans and their high-achieving children are viewed as
wage labor market. Regarding Vietnamese immigrant
models of success. However, South Asian Americans are
families, Nazli Kibria (1995) and Yến Lê Espiritu (1999)
socioeconomically diverse and, like other Asian Ameri-
have each reported that gender relations may become
can families, are not without their problems. Margaret
more egalitarian, but also more conflicted as a result of
Abraham (2000), Shamita Das Dasgupta (2007), and
shifts in men’s and women’s economic roles. As in other
other social scientists have exposed domestic violence
immigrant communities, a plethora of organizations
as a social problem facing South Asian families. South
supports ethnic cultural values, including the central-
Asian women activists have organized shelters and sup-
ity of family, status obligation, and respect for parents
port services for survivors of abuse. Such “self-help” ef-
and elders. Zhou and Bankston (2006) have found that
forts reflect the high degree of organization of South
youth who are more actively engaged in ethnic orga-
Asian communities, which are knit together by cultural,
nizations are more likely to do well in school and less
political, and business organizations. The ethnic com-
likely to become involved in alienated youth cultures.
munity encourages adherence to “traditional” cultural
The presumed role played by Asian American fami-
and religious beliefs, including the ideal of the patriar-
lies and ethnic cultural values in children’s school
chal joint family system. Under this system, marriage
success raises the related issue of the model minority
family
evelyn nakano glenn
trope. The model minority image was first popularized
Paradoxically, the post-1965 period also witnessed
in the 1960s when the focus was on explaining Asian
the reappearance of split household families. The eco-
American assimilation and success in contrast to the
nomic and legal regime that enabled Asian immigrants
downward assimilation and lack of mobility of other
to establish conventional families also facilitated the
racialized minorities. Explanations honed in on the
formation of transnational households. Family sepa-
supposed strengths of Japanese American and Chinese
ration is perhaps most common among Filipinos, as
American families in contrast to the “pathologies” of
adults migrate abroad to work. Unlike earlier cohorts,
single headed black families and authoritarian Latino
dominated by men, the majority of contemporary Fili-
families. By the 1990s and 2000s, the focus had shifted
pino labor migrants are women, many of whom leave
from lauding Asian Americans for their success to anxi-
children and husbands behind in the Philippines. Most
ety about their competitive advantage over native-born
are relatively well educated, but were unable to earn
whites. The pot boiled over with the appearance of
enough as professionals or small business owners to
Amy Chua’s 2011 best-selling quasi-humorous memoir,
pay for children’s education and accumulate a nest egg.
Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother. Her account suggested
English speaking and skilled, they are in great demand
that Asian American parents stressed high standards,
as housekeepers, nannies, and care workers. Their re-
achievement, and parental authority while white Amer-
mittances constitute a significant share of the Philip-
ican parents were more concerned with nurturing indi-
pine economy. Some migrants plan to return eventu-
vidualism, self-esteem, and emotional well-being. The
ally to the Philippines, but many hope to sponsor their
anxieties expressed in public debate reflected declining
children and other relatives to join them in the United
confidence in American exceptionalism and middle-
States. In the meantime, female relatives take responsi-
class fears that America had become “too permissive,”
bility for childcare and housework in the country of ori-
“too soft,” “too complacent.”
gin. Parreñas (2005) and others have found that the do-
While it appears that Asian immigrant parents do
mestic burden does not fall on fathers, thus preserving
indeed stress dedication and hard work, the reasons are
the gender division of labor and the ideal of “mother
not altogether cultural in origin. Vivian Louie (2004)
care.”
points out that their orientation stems from historical
Another type of transnational family arrangement is
and social circumstances. Parents have experienced re-
found among some affluent Taiwanese, Chinese from
stricted opportunity for higher education in their home
Hong Kong, and South Koreans. Under current immi-
countries, and they anticipate greater opportunity for
gration law, migrants who invest significant resources
education in the U.S., where there are more universities
in the U.S. or Canada can gain entry and legal residence.
and less rigorous competition. They are also aware of
However, male heads of household may find it advanta-
U.S. racism and believe that their children have to try
geous to retain their businesses or occupations in Asia.
harder and do better than whites to overcome their dis-
At the same time, parents calculate that their children
advantage. For their part, children see their parents as
will have better futures with an American education.
having sacrificed much to give them a chance. They feel
Thus, school- and college-age children are sent abroad
the sacrifice as a debt that must be repaid, which they
for schooling to establish a beachhead in America.
can do by studying hard and succeeding.
Mothers may live full time with junior high–and high family
evelyn nakano glenn
91
school–age children, while fathers live and work in or friends or in boarding facilities run by co-ethnics, or
24
they may live on their own with older siblings in charge,
Film
while the mother and father visit for varying periods of
Jigna Desai
Asia. Alternately, children may be placed with relatives
time. Amid these developments, conceptions of family continue to be challenged by formations that deviate from the heteropatriarchal ideal. Even in earlier peri-
Asian American studies has long engaged with how
ods, some Asian Americans engaged in homosocial liv-
films constitute and contribute to the formation
ing arrangements, same-sex intimacy, interracial rela-
of public cultures (zones of cultural debate). More
tionships, and transnational households to meet their
specifically, scholars have turned to films to examine
needs and desires. In the current period, such practices
public culture as a “space between domestic life and
as same-sex marriage, childrearing by same-sex couples,
the projects of the nation-state—where different social
interracial marriages, and transnational and transracial
groups . . . constitute their identities by their experience
adoption have become increasingly visible in the Asian
of mass-mediated forms in relation to the practices of
American community. These historical and contempo-
everyday life” (Appadurai and Breckenridge 1995, 4–
rary snapshots of gender, sexual, and generational dy-
5). Film is recognized as a significant institution for
namics capture only selected aspects of the panoply of
establishing and maintaining a racial order within the
issues and topics that can be considered under the ru-
American nation and empire. Asian American cultural
bric of family. They also reveal the flexibility of the fam-
criticism elaborates upon the significance of film and
ily and the creativity of Asian Americans in fashioning
the cinematic apparatus to the interrelated formations
their relationships and households to help them navi-
of race, nation, and citizenship. In addition to legal
gate their lives in America.
rights and political participation, Asian American claims to social belonging and cultural representation as components of citizenship have flourished since the Asian American and Third World movements. Hence understanding, interrogating, and claiming political citizenship has been accompanied by attempts at seeking self- representation in film and video as a modality of cultural citizenship. While some scholarship turns to Asian American filmmaking institutionalized under the rubric of Asian American cinema, nascent scholarship looked to a broader range of films that involve representations of Asia and Asian America. Focusing on questions of stereotypical and “negative” representations, the goals of
92
school–age children, while fathers live and work in or friends or in boarding facilities run by co-ethnics, or
24
they may live on their own with older siblings in charge,
Film
while the mother and father visit for varying periods of
Jigna Desai
Asia. Alternately, children may be placed with relatives
time. Amid these developments, conceptions of family continue to be challenged by formations that deviate from the heteropatriarchal ideal. Even in earlier peri-
Asian American studies has long engaged with how
ods, some Asian Americans engaged in homosocial liv-
films constitute and contribute to the formation
ing arrangements, same-sex intimacy, interracial rela-
of public cultures (zones of cultural debate). More
tionships, and transnational households to meet their
specifically, scholars have turned to films to examine
needs and desires. In the current period, such practices
public culture as a “space between domestic life and
as same-sex marriage, childrearing by same-sex couples,
the projects of the nation-state—where different social
interracial marriages, and transnational and transracial
groups . . . constitute their identities by their experience
adoption have become increasingly visible in the Asian
of mass-mediated forms in relation to the practices of
American community. These historical and contempo-
everyday life” (Appadurai and Breckenridge 1995, 4–
rary snapshots of gender, sexual, and generational dy-
5). Film is recognized as a significant institution for
namics capture only selected aspects of the panoply of
establishing and maintaining a racial order within the
issues and topics that can be considered under the ru-
American nation and empire. Asian American cultural
bric of family. They also reveal the flexibility of the fam-
criticism elaborates upon the significance of film and
ily and the creativity of Asian Americans in fashioning
the cinematic apparatus to the interrelated formations
their relationships and households to help them navi-
of race, nation, and citizenship. In addition to legal
gate their lives in America.
rights and political participation, Asian American claims to social belonging and cultural representation as components of citizenship have flourished since the Asian American and Third World movements. Hence understanding, interrogating, and claiming political citizenship has been accompanied by attempts at seeking self- representation in film and video as a modality of cultural citizenship. While some scholarship turns to Asian American filmmaking institutionalized under the rubric of Asian American cinema, nascent scholarship looked to a broader range of films that involve representations of Asia and Asian America. Focusing on questions of stereotypical and “negative” representations, the goals of
92
this strand of Asian American film studies (Chong 2012;
(Desai 2004; Feng 2002; Hamamoto and Liu 2000; R.
Klein 2003; Robert Lee 1999; Marchetti 1993; Palumbo-
Leong 1991; Mimura 2009). While the social move-
Liu 1999; Park 2010) are to interrogate film’s histori-
ments around race and civil rights in the 1970s created
cal and contemporary role in ideologies of racism,
a transformation in political citizenship, cultural citi-
war, and imperialism. These analyses attend to what
zenship too was seen as necessary for transformation
we might call racial formation and colonial discourse
and enfranchisement. In response to the “negative
analysis by concentrating on how Asian Americans
representations” many artists, activists, and scholars
are visually framed within the American imaginary,
called for the formation and development of Asian
identifying stereotypes and “negative” representations.
American filmmaking and cinema to correct invisibil-
Broadly, they show how the cultural apparatus of cin-
ity and misrepresentations. For them, the response is
ema constructs American identity and citizenship in
two-pronged—we must be represented and we must
relation to the figure of the Asian American as the ra-
represent ourselves, implicitly linking structure and
cial Other. Scholarly essays and documentaries have
representation in their claims to political and cultural
created genealogies excavating the figure of the Asian/
citizenship. Accessing the means of production, Asian
American in American cinema as the site of racialized
Americans filmmakers focused on various forms (docu-
and sexualized abjection, fear, anxiety, and desire.
mentary, storytelling, autoethnography, narrative fea-
Harnessing the medium themselves, Asian Americans
tures) to convey subjugated knowledges, alternative
engage the power of film to articulate their own rep-
historiographies, and tell racialized and ethnic stories.
resentations through analyses, reframings, and claim-
Asserting the right of cultural difference and national
ing a “voice”; documentaries like Slanted Screen (2006)
belonging through filmic representation, Asian Ameri-
and Slaying the Dragon (1988) argue that Hollywood has
can filmmaking seeks to establish itself through the
proliferated derogatory and discriminatory figures such
structures of independent cinema (e.g., Better Luck To-
as the Dragon Lady, Lotus Blosson, Fu Manchu, and
morrow [2002] and The Namesake [2007]) and through
“gook,” sometimes using technologies such as yellow-
nonprofits such as Women Make Movies (e.g., The
face. More recently, Asian American studies scholars,
Grace Lee Project [2005] and Surname Viet Given Name
especially feminists, have insisted that we revisit these
Nam [2005]). Independent Asian American filmmak-
films and representations, questioning the blanket as-
ing has flourished without the support of Hollywood,
sertion that they are simply racist and sexist. Citing the
often assisted by the formation of Asian American
agency of the actors in portraying these figures and the
nonprofit organizations, training workshops, inde-
pleasure of Asian American viewers in watching these
pendent programming, and festivals. In the name of
films, these scholars insist that performances by Asian
community empowerment and self-representation,
American actors from Sessue Hayakawa and Bruce Lee
activist-artists have formed community and collective
to Anna May Wong and Nancy Kwan deserve to be con-
organizations that support film production, distribution, and exhibition, thereby producing and collating
sidered more carefully. Another strand of Asian American cultural criticism
Asian American identities and audiences. Hence, Asian
attends to Asian American filmmaking as a site of ra-
American cinema actively constitutes and shapes Asian
cialized storytelling and moving-image representation
American identities, communities, and culture.
film
jigna desai
93
Nevertheless, filmmaking, like literature, had to
accessible) domain of the marketplace that all good
contend with the insistence that its purpose was to
and proper citizens, including minoritized subjects,
“correct” and replace racist and Orientalist representa-
are responsible for accessing through their media acts.
tions of dominant cinema with “accurate” representa-
This form of privatized citizenship and corporatization
tions of Asian American communities. The demand
of culture is characteristic of minoritized cultural citi-
for political and “positive” representations has been
zenship within media capitalism. Hence, assertions of
understood to be a manifestation of cultural national-
legibility and belonging within film and media are not
ism and has been the site of feminist, queer, and post-
only fundamental to claims of belonging, but film and
colonial critique. Scholars point out that filmmakers
media also marks and determines those who deserve
have developed and deployed a variety of strategies
access to citizenship.
and styles, such as documentary realism and experimental memoir, to respond to the politics of representation and assert alternative theoretical and methodological ways of understanding Asian American filmmaking. Asian American studies scholars too have sought a broader approach to media culture, race, and citizenship without eschewing the significance of representation (Davé et al. 2005; Desai 2004; M. Nguyen and T. Nguyen 2007; Nakamura 2007; Ono and Pham 2009; Shimizu 2007). They argue that all representations are made, manufactured, and mutable. Representation itself is neither positive nor negative, but is always produced through and in relation to power. Moreover, representation, like race, has very real effects within social hierarchies of power. The approach avoids pitting popular culture against authentic ethnic and alternative cultural production to look at how media, including digital technologies, film, and television, participate in the subjectification and administering of citizens within the nation. More wary about citizenship projects, some scholars also note that it is important to interrogate a compulsion to integrate and be recognized within dominant institutions such as media that promise access to citizenship for Asian American subjects who seek security in the very institutions that predicate their exclusion. Neoliberalism locates media and culture within the (supposedly 94
film
jigna desai
brown on the outside, black on the inside connotes
25
positive identification with whiteness. Among queer
Food
and “sticky rice” serve as a shorthand to describe ethnic
Anita Mannur
desires. Food is part of the everyday language of race in
communities terms like “rice queen,” “curry queen,”
Asian America, but it is only within the last few years that critical discussions about food in Asian American studies have begun to take place. Indeed, Chin’s disIn The Year of the Dragon Asian American playwright
missal of the place of the culinary in Asian American
Frank Chin narrates the story of Fred Eng, a Chinese
culture speaks to a marked discomfort that has sur-
American tour guide who makes his living by taking
rounded discussions about food in Asian American
white American tourists through the crowded streets
studies. With the exception of Sau-Ling Wong’s founda-
of San Francisco’s Chinatown. Fred is continually
tional essay and Jennifer Ho’s Consumption and Identity
frustrated by his job, which requires him to pander to
in Asian American Coming-of-Age Novels (the first mono-
Orientalist fantasies about Chinese Americans that lead
graph to examine food in Asian American cultural pro-
to easy conflations of Chinatown with China, eliding
ductions) few Asian Americanists tackled the ubiquitous
the racial histories that mark Chinese Americans as
role of food within the mainstream imagining of Asian
Americans. To be heard, he must speak in terms that the
Americans with any seriousness before the 2000s. Why
mainstream understands. For Eng this means talking
the discomfort with food in Asian American studies? In
about food. “Food’s our only common language,”
part one can associate this with the startling paradox in
becomes his refrain through the play. He castigates his
which Asian food finds itself in American culture. It is
sister, a cookbook author, for inventing a “new literary
at once the most accessible, and, as I have argued else-
form” that Chin names “food pornography.” Sau-Ling
where, the most “palatable” index of otherness. Food
Wong describes this as the deliberate self-promotion
seemingly offers an instant and easy access to otherness.
of one’s ethnic heritage, particularly in the culinary
From the early 19th century, Asian Americans have
realm, within a capitalist exploitative framework
been inextricably linked with their foodways in popu-
(1993, 58–62). For Chin, writing about food can only
lar discourse—literary, cultural, and political. Filipinos,
be pornographic—it exoticizes Asian cultures for an
Vietnamese, and Koreans are routinely depicted as in-
American audience eager to consume the palatable
discriminate consumers of disease-ridden animals, of-
elements of multiculturalist difference (Mannur 2005).
fal, and other unmentionables. Chinese Americans are
Outside of the frame of the literary and theatrical,
unflatteringly portrayed as bucktoothed delivery boys,
food is used in colloquial contexts to denigrate per-
waiters, and cooks, and Indian Americans are depicted
ceived forms of racial identification across the black-
as individuals drawn to unpalatably fiery tastes.
white binary. “Banana” and “coconut” reference white
Even as food structures the lives of Asian Ameri-
on the inside and yellow (East and Southeast Asian),
cans, Asian American studies has only recently made
brown (South Asian and Southeast Asian) on the outside.
the culinary turn, centering how food organizes the
Rotten coconut, as Nitasha Sharma argues, referencing
racial lives—discursive and material—of Americans 95
of Asian descent. Historical studies of early Asian immigrant labor suggest that employment within res-
describes how Chinese immigrants were routinely
taurants, as tenant farmers, and migrant workers link
imagined as rat eaters. Advertisements for rat poison
Asian American livelihood to food. Whether it is the
were promoted with anti-Chinese sentiments, often
Chinese waiters, cooks, or busboys; Vietnamese shrimp
depicting a purported Chinese predilection for vermin
boat operators in Texas; Hmong meatpackers in north-
as the best way to eliminate rats (2001, 273). In one un-
ern Minnesota; Filipino and Japanese laborers in the
derstanding of Asian American culinary practices what
plantation economies of Hawai‘i; Chinese laborers in
Asian immigrants have historically chosen to eat or
Alaskan salmon canneries; or Bangladeshi and Punjabi
been forced to eat has also served to characterize Asian
seamen in Indian restaurants in New York City, Asian
Americans as abject, excessive, and alien.
American laborers have played a pivotal role in agribusi-
In another critical reading of this, taking its cue from
ness, food service, and the food and beverage industry.
literary representations by authors like Maxine Hong
Wenying Xu puts it succinctly: “there is nothing natu-
Kingston, Bienvenido Santos, and other pioneering
ral or culturally predetermined about Asian Americans’
Asian American writers, this willingness to expand pal-
vital relationship with food. Harsh circumstances made
atal preferences leads Sau-Ling Wong to describe Asian
such work one of the few options available . . . they did
Americans as “big eaters.” For immigrants to survive,
what others wouldn’t, and did it with pride and dig-
it is often necessary for them to make do with what is
nity” (2008, 12).
available, whether it is in the form of accepting low-
The willingness of Chinese workers to do “what oth-
income jobs or eating the discarded parts of animals and
ers wouldn’t” paradoxically fed into the anti-Chinese
leftovers. “Finicky palates,” she argues, have no place in
rhetoric of labor activist Samuel Gompers. In 1908, as
lives circumscribed by hard physical labor (1993, 26).
president of the American Federation of Labor (AFL),
Asian American cuisines are often derided for ap-
Gompers published his well-known treatise on the prob-
pearing to be excessive. They are often seen as too dif-
lems affecting the American laboring classes of white
ferent, too spicy, too sour, too pungent, too malodorous.
men titled “Meat vs. Rice: American Manhood against
Among the best-known examples of “excessive” eating
Asiatic Coolieism.” Endorsed by the Asiatic Exclusion
in an Asian American context is dog eating. As Frank
League, Gompers’s dictum anchors its anti-Asian xeno-
Wu and Robert Ku suggest, dog eating in the context of
phobia in terms of food, applying the language of “you
Asian American foodways is crucial because it emerges
are what you eat” to differentiate between white and
at the point where eating practices seem too different
Chinese immigrant labor. The oppositional placement
to engage critically (F. Wu 2002; Ku 2014). The taboo
of rice and meat suggests that food is more than a lin-
against dog eating is one site where principles concern-
guistic coding for ethnic difference. “Americans” are
ing diversity conflict with practices of tolerating diver-
not just beef and bread eaters, any more than Asians are
sity. Tastes for what may otherwise be celebrated by the
merely rice eaters (Mannur 2006, 1–5).
multiculturalist fetish for difference are condemned be-
Yet such linguistic codings of Asianness are not exclu-
96
cultural and literary discourse. John Kuo-Wei Tchen
cause of their aberrant excesses.
sive to Gompers, nor has the passage of time dissipated
Excessiveness, as Martin Manalansan notes, racializes
the frequent appearance of such metaphors within
bodies through nonvisual senses. Smell is a powerful
food
anita mannur
way in which Asian Americans experience racism. Food
Kristen Kish—who join established chefs including Mar-
odors stigmatize the Asian American body, leaving be-
tin Yan, the long-time host of the pioneering cooking
hind a lingering trace of olfactory otherness. Through
show Yan Can Cook, and Iron Chef Masaharu Morimoto
interviews with immigrants in Queens he describes the
to embody the public face of Asian American cooking in
phenomenon of the “smelly immigrant” concerned
visual culture. The rise of the cosmopolitan Asian Amer-
about how to “contain the smell of kimchi to the do-
ican chef signals a superficial form of acceptance. The
mestic space” (2006a, 46). A telling interview with one
nouvelle cuisine vogue of the late 1990s represented an
individual reveals the anxiety about food smells remain-
important cultural moment in which Asian spices and
ing on the body: “I want people to smell Calvin Klein
ingredients were privileged in fusion cuisine, a kind of
and not my wife’s curries!” (2006a, 46). Food as a topic
hybrid cooking that is at once reminiscent of model mi-
in Asian American studies, then, can move beyond the
nority discourse—Asian ingredients assimilate quietly
visual to examinations of how visceral responses to ra-
into the culinary scape of American cuisine creating a
cial difference are often anchored in the realm of taste
newer and better but “unobtrusive” blend of flavors— all the while subduing the brash excessiveness of what
and smell. The past few years have seen an upturn in Asian
is unpalatable and inedible (Manalansan 2007; Mannur
American critical studies of food. While critics are just
2010; August 2012). The turn of the century has wit-
beginning to formulate a critical vocabulary to think
nessed the explosion of new forms of fusion occupying
through the multiple significations of food, several
new spaces in the U.S. landscape. Though food trucks
Asian American writers have published novels explicitly
have traditionally served immigrant working-class com-
about the topic. These include Linda Furiya’s Bento Box
munities, the emergence of food trucks like Roy Choi’s
in the Heartland (2006), SunHee Kim’s Trail of Crumbs
Kogi or Chi’lantro that serve Korean style tacos in L.A.
(2008), Don Lee’s Wrack and Roll (2008), Amulya Mal-
and Austin suggest new ways of mapping comparative
ladi’s Serving Crazy with Curry (2004), David Mas Masu-
ethnic affinities—a form of minor to minor culinary
moto’s Epitaph for a Peach (1995), Bich Minh Nguyen’s
transaction—that move beyond a white-Asian binary
Stealing Buddha’s Dinner (2007), Ruth Ozeki’s My Year of
(O. Wang 2013; L. Siu 2013).
Meats (1998) and All Over Creation (2003), Monique Tru-
Embedded in interdisciplinary formations, food
ong’s Book of Salt (2003) and Bitter in the Mouth (2010),
scholarship has expanded beyond an assimilation/ex-
and David Wong Louie’s The Barbarians Are Coming
clusion narrative. No longer is the study of food ban-
(2000). These foodie novels do not shy away from the
ished as a form of producing academic scholarship lite
culinary but boldly position food as a lens through
divorced from the questions of race and class that have
which to examine racialization and Asian American
structured the field of Asian American studies. Instead
cultural and ethnic formation.
food studies scholars are using food to establish new
In more public circuits of popular culture, there is
questions and critical methodologies for Asian Ameri-
a new generation of Asian American celebrity chefs
can studies. As we move forward and develop ever more
including Ming Tsai, Padma Lakshmi, and Top Chef
thoughtful ways to explore the myriad meanings of
winners— Vietnamese American Hung Huynh, Fili-
food, conversations about class, ethnicity, and race in
pino American Paul Qui, and Korean American adoptee
an Asian American context will likely respond in kind.
food
anita mannur
97
eligible for citizenship.” The Alien Land Laws passed by several states beginning in 1913—primarily a response to
26
the success of Japanese immigrant farmers—expanded
Foreign
the material consequences of involuntarily having to
Karen Leong
maintain a foreign status for immigrants from China, Korea, Japan, and India. The definition of foreign was informed by United States’ cultural definitions of what was different and
A word already in use in Europe from at least the 14th century with multiple meanings related to the status of
ally is part of the process by which a community estab-
being outside, not familiar, or different (OED), “foreign”
lishes its social and cultural borders by naming what
likewise has multiple meanings within the field of
belongs and what does not. For example, anti-Asian
Asian American studies, including “not American,”
nativist movements in beginning in the 1870s mobi-
“outsider,” “noncitizen,” or “alien.” The term is deeply
lized “native-born” Americans—angry over competing
embedded in U.S. racial formations specifically relating
for employment with clearly inassimilable foreigners—
to Asian Americans, and as such often slips between
against Asian immigrants. Nativism motivated mob vio-
connotations of nation, citizenship status, race, and
lence against the occupants of Los Angeles’s Chinatown
cultural difference.
in 1871, against Chinese miners at Rock Springs, Wyo-
“Foreign” may more generally refer to that which is
ming, in 1885, and against Punjabi lumber mill workers
outside the borders of a nation. In the United States, the
in Bellingham, Washington, in 1907. Lucy Salyer sug-
word “foreign” was written into the Articles of Confed-
gests that nativism contributed to Chinese exclusion
eration (ratified 1781) to indicate countries outside the
and a more active federal role in regulating immigration
states’ established borders. While the Revolutionary
(1995, 6).
War was still being fought, the United States established an Office of Foreign Affairs in 1780.
98
nonnormative. Defining what is foreign more gener-
The notion of who could qualify to become American thus was based in ideas of foreign status as defined by
The word “foreign” in the United States also indicates
racial identity and cultural practices. The U.S. Supreme
the status of not having birthright or naturalized citi-
Court demonstrated this with its 1922 Takao Ozawa v.
zenship. Thus, the first Foreign Miners Tax enacted by
United States and 1923 United States v. Bhaghat Singh Th-
the state of California in 1850 was directed at non–U.S.
ind decisions, both brought before the 9th Circuit Court
citizens, which included Europeans, Latinos, Kanaka
of Appeals. Takao Ozawa, a Japanese-born man, argued
Maoli (native Hawai‘ians), and Asians, and charged
for his right to become a naturalized citizen based on
them a monthly fee to mine for gold. An additional For-
evidence of his cultural assimilation: he had lived in the
eign Miners Tax in 1852 focused on nonwhites who were
United States for 20 years, he had attended UC Berkeley
ineligible for citizenship under the Naturalization Law
for three years, his children were all educated in Ameri-
of 1790, charging an additional $3 per month. With the
can schools, and his family spoke English at home and
first Chinese Exclusion Law in 1882, the United States
attended Christian churches. Justice George Sutherland
named immigrants of Asians descent as “aliens not
acknowledged in his decision that Ozawa “was well
qualified by character and education for citizenship.”
thesis, first articulated in relation to Jews as immigrants.
However, based on his reading of the Naturalization Act
Unable to fully discard his traditional culture, the Jew-
of 1790 and the extension of naturalized citizenship to
ish immigrant would always be “living in two worlds,
Africans in 1870, Sutherland concluded that “the inten-
in both of which he is more or less a stranger,” due to
tion was to confer the privilege of citizenship upon that
continual exclusion (Ng 1987, 55). Asian immigrants,
class of persons whom the fathers knew as white, and
likewise, were assumed to also face this instability of
to deny it to all who could not be so classified.” Because
identity. Paul Siu’s The Chinese Laundryman: A Study in
Asians were not racially white, Ozawa was not qualified
Social Isolation posited that the Chinese laundrymen he
for citizenship (Takao Ozawa v. United States).
studied were not strangers (a specific sociological defi-
Following Ozawa’s case, Bhaghat Singh Thind, a Pun-
nition authored by Georg Simmel in 1908) due to ex-
jabi man, sued for citizenship in 1923 based upon con-
clusion, but were a type of sojourner—“a stranger who
temporary biological/geographic definitions of white
spends many years of his lifetime in a foreign country
racial identity. South Asians were classified not as Mon-
without being assimilated by it” (quoted in P. Siu 1987,
goloids but as Caucasoids. A World War I veteran, Th-
299). Noting that racial discrimination contributed
ind argued that he should have the same access to U.S.
to this isolation, Siu’s thesis nonetheless was cited by
citizenship as other white veterans who served in the
scholars to justify American anti-Chinese hostilities in
U.S. military. Despite the fact that several Punjabis had
early histories about Chinese Americans (Ng 1987, 54–
received citizenship from several states, Justice George
58). As Franklin Ng notes, at issue was the attachment
Ferguson rejected Thind’s petition by dismissing scien-
of sojourner status solely to Chinese immigrants when,
tific evidence of racial difference and privileging popu-
based in the new immigration history of the 1980s, Siu’s
lar understandings of whiteness, stating, “The children
analysis actually could describe the reality for many im-
of English, French, German, Italian, Scandinavian, and
migrants to the United States, including those from Eu-
other European parentage quickly merge into the mass
rope (1987, 66).
of our population and lose the distinctive hallmarks of
The influence of the sojourner theory may even have
their European origin. On the other hand, it cannot be
impacted political scientists’ assumptions that the non-
doubted that the children born in this country of Hindu
native-born status of Asian Americans discourages them
parents would retain indefinitely the clear evidence of
from actively participating in electoral politics. Yet
their ancestry” (United States v. Bhaghat Singh Thind).
newer research suggests that foreign-born Asian Ameri-
Here, “foreign” identifies how people embody and dis-
cans are actually the reason for the increased presence
play what is not normative to American society. Accord-
of Asian Americans as political candidates. In fact, their
ing to Ferguson’s interpretation, European immigrants
success often takes place in suburbs with a strong pres-
were domesticated—or assimilated—into U.S. society
ence of Asian immigrants (J. Lai 2011, 7–8). This further
and culture by virtue of not looking or acting foreign.
complicates assumptions about what it means to be for-
Social scientists from the 1930s through the 1960s also believed that the transition of Asian immigrants
eign and to become American. A common phrase in Asian American studies that
from foreign to assimilated Americans would be diffi-
refers to the continued exclusion of Asian Americans—
cult. This was influenced by Robert Park’s marginal man
whether American- born or naturalized— as fully
foreign
karen leong
99
accepted members of the national community is “perpetual foreigner.” Significantly, the development of
Punjabi Sikhs and other Asians were targeted by some
Asian American studies as a valid field of research came
Americans who assumed that certain foreign styles of
out of the Asian American Movement, in which Asian
dress (turbans, for example) invariably indicated that a
American college students participated in the Third
person was Muslim.
World Liberation Front with blacks and Latinos to de-
At the same time, greater attention to U.S. imperi-
mand curriculum reform that included the histories of
alism and the colonization of indigenous lands in the
nonwhite communities and their contributions to the
past two decades further complicates what is foreign
United States; this movement also recognized how U.S.
and domestic for Asian Americans, and undermines a
imperialism in foreign countries was linked to the mar-
simply nationalist framework for Asian American stud-
ginalization of ethnic minorities in the United States
ies (Chuh 2003, 136–39). From this perspective, the Chi-
(Maeda 2011). The use of the term “Third World” for
nese, Japanese, and Filipino laborers who migrated to
the student movement and the proposed naming of the
Hawai‘i, for example, can be understood as participants
new college demanded by the students as the “Third
in and beneficiaries of U.S. settler colonialism that dis-
World College” articulate the extent to which Asian
possessed Kanaka Maoli of their lands and contributed
Americans, along with other ethnic minority American
to the growth of the sugar plantations. Some scholars
students, felt like foreigners in their U.S. homeland.
suggest that the hierarchy of race and wages that were
This embodiment of the foreign has continued to
used to separate and turn plantation workers from and
define Asian Americans, and the consequences have
against each other, with Asian workers disadvantaged
not been insignificant. Mae Ngai defines this status of
in relation to European workers and advantaged in re-
possessing U.S. citizenship yet being perceived as alien,
lation to the native Hawai‘ians, complicates the role of
“alien citizenship” (2003, 8). Japanese Americans were
Asian immigrants in a settler colonialism that primarily
suspected of maintaining foreign loyalties to the em-
benefited white American plantation owners. Nonethe-
peror during World War II, which contributed to public
less, recruited by colonial business interests to Hawai‘i
demands for their imprisonment and relocation from
and seeking themselves to acquire private property,
the West Coast after Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor. Dr.
most Asian immigrants supported Hawai‘ian statehood
Wen Ho Lee, a naturalized U.S. citizen who worked at
and contributed to the erosion of native Hawai‘ian sov-
Los Alamos, was held in solitary confinement for sell-
ereignty (Fujikane and Okamura 2008).
ing information about nuclear warheads to the Chinese
100
After the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, some
As the demography of Asian America today has
government, while the federal government attempted
shifted to a majority-non-U.S.-born population, the
to collect evidence. He was released in 2003 after a plea
word “foreign” is now part of an internal debate within
bargain in which he pled guilty to mishandling classi-
the field of Asian American studies. In its first three
fied documents. The FBI justified focusing on Chinese
decades as a field of study, Asian American studies em-
Americans as potential spies because ethnic Americans
phasized its distinction from Asian studies, seeking to
with ties to their lands of ancestry often are targeted for
demarcate a focus on U.S.-based racial formations for
recruitment by the intelligence services of those foreign
Asian immigrants and their struggles for civil rights
countries (Hsien and Hwang 2000; Thomas Lee 2000).
within the U.S. polity. After the immigration reforms
foreign
karen leong
of 1965, however, and the rapid increase in immigrants panded to include recognition of Asian American com-
27
munities as part of larger Asian diasporas. Asian Ameri-
Fusion
can studies increasingly has emphasized transnational
Mari Matsuda
from Asia, the focus in Asian American studies has ex-
Asian American communities that sustain ties and relations in both the United States, homelands, and other diasporic communities. In the early 1990s some scholars challenged the dominant East Asian orientation of
In physics, fusion is the collision of nuclei generating
Asian American studies, which overlooked the history
the power of the stars. The term “fusion” is used
and experiences of South Asians Americans and Filipino
generally to mean “combination.” In the surface realms
Americans, even though both communities historically
of culture, “fusion” is pabulum jazz, celebrity chefs
have been part of Asian America from its very begin-
dabbling in “Pacific Rim” seasoning, or an Univision
nings (Rondilla 2002, 58–59; Davé et. al. 2000).
media venture. It is described in a brand launch as “fun,
Moreover, improved technology of travel and com-
fresh, and even irreverent,” as though “irreverent” is the
munication, the development of certain Asian econo-
outer edge of what one might do with fusion. Applied
mies, the globalization of labor, and the dominance of
to Asian Americans, however, “fusion” retrieves the
transnational economic structures have blurred what
usage from physics. It is about the creation of radical
exactly is foreign and what is domestic in Asian Ameri-
change through the politics of coalition, wherein each
can studies. While the nation-state still manifests its
part brings the strength of its identity, simultaneously
weight upon peoples’ lives and choices, the increasingly
creating new energy in actions around specific goals that
rapid circulation of culture, ideas, social interactions,
will forever alter relationships of power. Professional
and capital across national boundaries challenges any
activists might recognize this as the definition of
bordered notion of what it means to be Asian American.
organizing (Bobo, Kendall, and Max 2010). For critical
This complex demography has presented a continued
race theorists, fusion’s political potential is a reason to
challenge and opportunity for Asian American studies
retain racialized identity, even as the racist structures
as scholars seek to address both the U.S. and transna-
that generated that identity are the target. Critical race
tional contexts of Asian American experiences.
theory has always done at least two things at once with regard to race: deconstruct it while working its politics. Yellow Power— a fusion of Asian Americans into a political force—is an attack on racist messages using a political construction of race. Michael Omi and Howard Winant have dissected the concept of race generally, illuminating the regressive lumping and objectification that serve existing power structures (1994). The Asian American movement began in a moment of rising nationalist resistance 101
of 1965, however, and the rapid increase in immigrants panded to include recognition of Asian American com-
27
munities as part of larger Asian diasporas. Asian Ameri-
Fusion
can studies increasingly has emphasized transnational
Mari Matsuda
from Asia, the focus in Asian American studies has ex-
Asian American communities that sustain ties and relations in both the United States, homelands, and other diasporic communities. In the early 1990s some scholars challenged the dominant East Asian orientation of
In physics, fusion is the collision of nuclei generating
Asian American studies, which overlooked the history
the power of the stars. The term “fusion” is used
and experiences of South Asians Americans and Filipino
generally to mean “combination.” In the surface realms
Americans, even though both communities historically
of culture, “fusion” is pabulum jazz, celebrity chefs
have been part of Asian America from its very begin-
dabbling in “Pacific Rim” seasoning, or an Univision
nings (Rondilla 2002, 58–59; Davé et. al. 2000).
media venture. It is described in a brand launch as “fun,
Moreover, improved technology of travel and com-
fresh, and even irreverent,” as though “irreverent” is the
munication, the development of certain Asian econo-
outer edge of what one might do with fusion. Applied
mies, the globalization of labor, and the dominance of
to Asian Americans, however, “fusion” retrieves the
transnational economic structures have blurred what
usage from physics. It is about the creation of radical
exactly is foreign and what is domestic in Asian Ameri-
change through the politics of coalition, wherein each
can studies. While the nation-state still manifests its
part brings the strength of its identity, simultaneously
weight upon peoples’ lives and choices, the increasingly
creating new energy in actions around specific goals that
rapid circulation of culture, ideas, social interactions,
will forever alter relationships of power. Professional
and capital across national boundaries challenges any
activists might recognize this as the definition of
bordered notion of what it means to be Asian American.
organizing (Bobo, Kendall, and Max 2010). For critical
This complex demography has presented a continued
race theorists, fusion’s political potential is a reason to
challenge and opportunity for Asian American studies
retain racialized identity, even as the racist structures
as scholars seek to address both the U.S. and transna-
that generated that identity are the target. Critical race
tional contexts of Asian American experiences.
theory has always done at least two things at once with regard to race: deconstruct it while working its politics. Yellow Power— a fusion of Asian Americans into a political force—is an attack on racist messages using a political construction of race. Michael Omi and Howard Winant have dissected the concept of race generally, illuminating the regressive lumping and objectification that serve existing power structures (1994). The Asian American movement began in a moment of rising nationalist resistance 101
to white supremacy, embodied in Black Power (Omatsu
shame your family), and that generosity at a potluck
1994). Note that urban Black, rural Black, immigrant
was a basic signifier of good character. More significant
Black, and AfroLatino were all present in the Black
than a cultural home, however, was the movement
Power movement, and comprised a realm of difference
built from it, which fought for access to basic material
united to reclaim Blackness as a source of both pride
goods—housing, education, jobs, and political repre-
and political leverage. The Black Power political proj-
sentation. Connection to the civil rights and antiwar
ect included critiques of imperialism, colonialism, and
movements, and the street battle to remake the acad-
militarism, an analysis attractive to Asian Americans in
emy to reflect “our history our way” (Umemoto 1989),
the Vietnam era. “Asian American”—which in the 1970s
required an analysis of race and political economy, and
comprised significant contingents of Japanese, Chinese,
the creation of a shared utopian vision. Out of a visceral
Filipino, Korean Americans, and sometimes (problemat-
reaction to napalmed babies came a commitment to
ically and not always unsuccessfully) Pacific Islanders—
read, study, theorize, and name—of which this book is
was a coalition designed to reclaim pride and power
a manifestation. Thus fusion—a historical collision of
within a context of xenophobia, nativism, and racism
oppression of Asians as Asians, the inspiration of Black
in which Asians were called the “yellow peril” (Matsuda
nationalism, and a practice of group solidarity toward
2001). This fusion was both historically logical and
progressive ends—created the Asian American political
culturally comfortable. Asian Americans as diasporic
formation (Iijima 1997). An alliance bent on changing
people faced common struggle, often in common loci:
power relationships requires some delineation. Fusion
the plantation, the sweatshop, the cannery, the factory,
as used here is a progressive political practice, as dis-
the field. Because early immigration patterns had drawn
tinguished from more politically ambiguous forms of
more workingclass than elite Asian immigrants, there
hybridity. Forms of panAsian chic are a real part of life
was a class bond among many Asian Americans, who
on Planet Asian America, but they are not the fusion re-
took pride in the labor struggles of the generations be-
ferred to here.
fore. Out of this shared class experience, it made sense
Fusion among Asian subcultures is not the same as
to claim iconic historical moments, such as the World
erasure. If a sentence begins with “All Asians . . .” a racist
War II internment of Japanese Americans, as represen-
assumption often follows. The vast differences between
tative of the group experience. If the internment hap-
a Hmong immigrant in Milwaukee and a seventh-gen-
pened because of racist nativism and fear of economic
eration Chinese American in Honolulu require care to
competition it was not merely a Japanese American ex-
avoid subsuming the experience of one into the dreaded
perience; it was an Asian American experience, reaching
melting pot. The more marginalized a particular group,
back to the massacre of Chinese miners in the century
the more important it is to retrieve its story and advo-
before, and forward to the urban “redevelopment” evic-
cate from its particularity.
tions of Filipino pensioners in Chinatowns.
102
Hence, fusion is not appropriation, assimilation, es-
Culturally, fusion made sense for Asian Americans,
sentialism, or multiculturalism. It does not make Asian-
most of whom were raised with some sense that false
ness a cloak anyone can wear. It does not say the cat-
pride would result in cosmic retribution, that the ex-
egory Asian must be or do any one thing, and it does not
tended family was the unit of accountability (do not
reduce a movement for change into a mutual aid society.
fusion
mari matsuda
Fusion is about power relationships and the choice to
and William “Charlie” Chin), whose record A Grain of
deploy an Asian American identity to confront history
Sand: Music for the Struggle by Asians in America became
and change its course. Fusion among Asian subcultures
the soundtrack of the Asian American Movement (Na-
is not the same as appropriation. Avoiding appropria-
kamura 2009).
tion and commodification of our various cultures re-
Widely acknowledged as the first album of Asian
quires a distinction between honoring cultures and
American music, A Grain of Sand deliberately reached
stealing them. For instance, it is good to love Okinawan
across Asian cultures, deployed history, and presented
sanshin. Selling it as “world music” without attribution
an explicit challenge to racism and imperialism. Yellow
and divorced from cultural context, however, is theft.
Pearl’s explicit goal was to “serve the people,” and the
Fusion recognizes multiple oppressions. Asian Amer-
band’s use of fused aesthetics (e.g., soul, jazz, and folk)
ican identity requires intersectional analysis (Crenshaw
mirrored the tactical deployment of a pan–Asian Amer-
1989). The majority of Asian Americans— including
ican identity; this identity was used as a united front
LGBT, immigrant, workingclass, and female Asian
against attacks on Asian Americans and Asians through-
Americans—experience subordination on more than
out the colonized world. As Yellow Pearl’s cultural/so-
one axis; therefore intersectional analysis is required
cial/political project illustrates, fusion is required for an
in Asian American political practice. It is just and it is
effective response to imperialism/colonialism interna-
strategic to understand the operation of multiple op-
tionally and xenophobia/nativism domestically. Asian
pressions (Matsuda 2002, 393–98). The disjuncture be-
Americans as a fused political force is a strategic way to
tween the heteronormative value system undergirding
fight Asian-specific forms of subordination, including
the mainstream early 21st century’s robust marriage
but not limited to exclusion from cultural production,
equality movement and the progressive possibilities at
racist stereotyping, Asianspecific impacts of immigra-
the forefront of a stillmarginal LGBT immigrant rights
tion laws such as family reunification, bullying of Asian
movement is one example of the problems lurking in
children, hate crimes against people who “look Asian,”
unilateral approaches to oppression. Marriage equality,
police harassment of people who “look like Asian gang
a supremely important goal, draws upon reactionary
members,” hidden antiAsian quotas in hiring and col-
notions of liberal individualism and heteronormativity
lege admissions, and the gaping absence of Asian Ameri-
in ways that a truly inclusive gay rights struggle—one
can studies in most university curricula.
that included the undocumented—could not.
Fusion follows self-determination: no one is part of
Fusion includes cultural exchange, pride, and iden-
the movement who does not want to be, but we do not
tity, but it is not a cultural formation. The lovely home
ignore our obligations and connections. Some Asian
feeling of a riceeating tribe that values humility is a
American subgroups are so large that they may come to
good thing, but it is not politics. Failure to go beyond
seek power under their own identities. Others question
drumming and grilling our way to racial identity allows
why they are lumped with Asians to begin with. For in-
forces of reaction to grow without opposition. Culture
digenous Pacific Islanders, the historical and political
is not politics, but culture can and should act politically.
issues of indigeneity are a more logical place of unity.
The iconic example is the Asian American band Yellow
Pacific Islanders are sometimes included with Asian
Pearl (Chris Kando Iijima, Nobuko JoAnne Miyamoto,
Americans for purposes of advocacy and political access,
fusion
mari matsuda
103
invited to the White House, for example, at Asian
minority myth is no myth. It is a check to cash. For oth-
American events. The delicate balance between sharing
ers, rejection of fusion, categorization, and assimilation
resources and access while a sister community builds
are acts of resistance. For some Asian activists, carving
its own political power, without erasing distinctions,
out a space separate from Blackness—as in “Beyond
requires care. The Asian Law Caucus, for example, rep-
Black and White” (Matsuda 2002, 393–98)—is impor-
resents Pacific Islanders in the Bay Area, bringing im-
tant for Asian identity. Finally, for postmodern theo-
portant public interest litigation when no one else will.
rists, categorization itself is problematic, and pointing
This is invited by the Pacific Islander community. At the
out the possibility of performative identities with fluid
same time, that community should have its own legal
boundaries and surprising incarnations is the ultimate
resources and Asian Americans should support that goal.
antiracist move. It is increasingly common to describe
The harder and more important challenge is acknowl-
a focus on ethnicity as in itself dehumanizing. The uto-
edging the role of Asian immigration in furthering the
pian side of postracialism is the premise that we are all
subordination and colonization of native people while
equally human, and adopting Asian American fusion is
simultaneously appreciating our moments of solidarity,
seen as a barrier to realization of that equality. To these
cultural blending, and mutual politics. This is a work in
potentially antifusion positions, the challenge critical
progress (Matsuda 2010).
race theory suggests is the test of liberation: whatever
Fusion always exists in coalition. Asian Americans
stance Asian Americans choose should contribute to-
are internally a coalition, and externally in a coalition.
ward the realization of the end of degradation and sub-
Asian Americans standing proudly beside native people,
ordination of Asians in particular, and of all humans
African Americans, Latino/as, workers, and antiwar
and all living and nonliving vital planetary things—
demonstrators is definitional of the Asian American
mountain, river, air—in the grand utopian future.
movement. This has meant conflict, misunderstanding, and reinscribed racism, because that is what coalition looks like (Matsuda 1991). The wonderful amalgamation that is Asian America makes no sense without a broader purpose of liberation. Meaning comes when real change happens. The point of fusion—of comparing and joining multiple experience—is to see oppression in structural terms and to end it through political practice, thus informed. This quite didactic explication of fusion, derived from looking at the history of Asian American consciousness and political action, is subject to critique. It is arguably a historical artifact particular to a circa 1975 experience, the deployment of which makes less sense given contemporary immigration patterns and politics (Y. Espiritu 1992). For some new immigrants, the model 104
fusion
mari matsuda
they identify with a gender that is not normatively
28
gender and sexuality have conceptually delineated
Gender
these categories. Individuals who transgress gender
Judy Tzu-Chun Wu
norms are frequently perceived as transgressing sexual
associated with their physical sex. Also, scholars of
norms in their desires, behaviors, and identifications. However, gender and sexuality do not necessarily align in expected ways with one another. The term “gender” has multiple meanings and
Asian American studies scholars have utilized these
intellectual usages. Gender generally refers to
multiple conceptions of gender to offer an intersec-
the socially constructed nature of sex roles. The
tional analysis of Asian American racialization. As Syl-
concept of gender challenges biologically essentialist
via Yanagisako (1995) has argued, the early scholarship
understandings of maleness and femaleness, asserting
in and teaching of Asian American studies tended to
instead that normative understandings of masculinity
foreground immigrant, working-class, male subjects
and femininity are socially defined ideas projected
without an awareness of how this focus produced a
onto biological differences. Because women’s studies
masculinist Asian American nationalism. The gender
scholars have had a vested interest in challenging
wars between the writers Frank Chin and Maxine Hong
naturalized and hierarchical differences between men
Kingston that emerged in the mid-1970s could be un-
and women, gender is sometimes used interchangeably
derstood as an attempt by Asian American men to as-
with the category of woman. That is, studies of gender
sert their working-class and racialized experiences as the
are at times primarily focused on women. However,
central basis for Asian American identity. Chin did so by
scholars have also used gender to argue for the need
critiquing Asian American women as feminist sellouts
to understand how masculinity and femininity are
who cater to the Orientalist fantasies of white audiences.
relationally defined as well as how gender hierarchies
Asian American scholars have responded by producing
serve as a constitutive basis for power and underlie other
creative and scholarly work that demonstrates how race,
forms of social inequalities (Scott 1986). Furthermore,
gender, sexuality, and class are mutually constitutive
the interpretation of gender as a form of performativity
categories of difference and hierarchy. These intersec-
argues that there are no stable categories of sex
tional formations shape the lives of Asian American
differences (Butler 1990). Instead, gender is enacted
women and men in the realms of economics, law, kin-
through repeated and oftentimes unconscious patterns
ship, and sexuality, as well as cultural representations.
of behaviors or gender scripts that create a fiction of
A race- and gender-stratified economy differentially
a cohesive and preexisting identity of manhood or
positions men and women of Asian ancestry both in the
womanhood. In addition, scholars of gender note that
U.S. and globally (Y. Espiritu 2008; Glenn 1988; Glenn
physiological differences do not necessarily divide
2004; Parreñas 2001). During the first wave of immi-
neatly into two sexes, as some individuals are intersexed.
gration in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Asian
Similarly, some societies recognize more than two
laborers, an overwhelmingly male population, were
genders, and some individuals are transgendered, i.e.,
deemed “cheap labor” by their American employers 105
not only due to their racial otherness. Asian male laborers were less expensive partly because the costs of
as non-Asian American) to be relieved of their family
social reproduction were born by their female partners
responsibilities and to enter the paid work force (Boris
and extended-family members in Asia (Okihiro 1994).
and Parreñas 2010). Even when Asian women migrate as
The small numbers of Asian women who migrated to
the primary breadwinners and are separated from their
the U.S. during the first wave and the larger numbers
children and partners in Asia, these female-led split
in subsequent waves of migration contributed in terms
households elicit gendered recriminations and feelings
of their productive, reproductive, and sexual labor
of guilt as women are charged with “abandoning” their
to maintain the overall Asian American community
mothering responsibilities in order to financially sus-
(Cheng Hirata 1979).
tain their families (Parreñas 2001; Parreñas 2005).
The American labor force during the second half of
Race, gender, and sexuality shape the law as well as
the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st cen-
the workforce. Policies regarding immigration, natural-
tury continues to be stratified in terms of race, gender,
ization, land ownership, taxation, and miscegenation
and immigration/citizenship status. On the one hand,
combined to exclude, marginalize, and segregate Asian
Asian American men and women have greater access
Americans from the U.S. polity (S. Chan 1991; Erika
to the primary economy (i.e., stable jobs with benefits
Lee 2004; Ngai 2005; Salyer 2005; Takaki 1989). Anti-
and higher pay and prestige) and even gain entry to the
immigrant sentiment in the late 19th and early 20th
U.S. because of their professional skills, financial assets,
centuries tended to target Asian male laborers for exclu-
and educational background (Choy 2003). On the other
sion and expulsion, but eventually almost all Asian im-
hand, the racial and gender glass ceiling continues to
migrants, regardless of class, were designated aliens in-
exist. Asian Americans also are heavily concentrated
eligible for citizenship. Filipinos were “nationals” rather
in the service industry and the secondary economy
than “aliens” due to American colonization of the Phil-
(M. Kang 2010). Asian American men and women with
ippines, but they, too, were not full-fledged citizens.
limited English skills and uncertain immigration or citi-
In addition to these racialized exclusions, Asian
zenship status are particularly vulnerable to economic
American women faced additional legal challenges.
exploitation, sometimes by their own family members
Their sexuality or perceived sexuality became the basis
and co-ethnics (Zhao 2010).
for immigration exclusion or admission (S. Chan 1994;
In these settings, gender matters as Asian American
Gardner 2009; J. Gee 2003; Peffer 1999; Yung 1995).
women are perceived to be particularly suited to certain
Also, following the principle of femme covert, Asian im-
forms of manufacturing or care work. In some cases,
migrants and even American-born Asian women were
their economic exploitation allows for the financial
defined by their relationship to their husbands or fa-
survival of a business or company in an ultracompeti-
thers. The class and citizenship status of Asian American
tive and increasingly globalized economy. In addition,
men largely defined the legal identities of Asian Ameri-
domestic care, paid or unpaid, continues to be regarded
can women.
as female work. The reproductive work that some Asian
106
other individuals (men as well as women, Asian as well
The gender makeup of the Asian American com-
American women perform for pay, such as domestic,
munity has been transformed in the post–World War
childcare, elderly care, and health care work, allows
II period, particularly after the passage of the 1965
gender
judy tzu-chun wu
Immigration Act. Asian women are entering in equal
Karen Leong (2001) describe as a perception of deviant
and even greater numbers due to laws that privilege
heterosexuality among Asian Americans. Due to im-
family reunification and certain categories of labor mi-
migration exclusion as well as antimiscegenation laws,
gration, as well as adoption and refugee migration.
Asian American communities were disproportionately
However, gender and sexuality scholars point out
male and sustained an extensive and exploitative econ-
that the principle of family reunification is defined via
omy of prostitution. This lack of nuclear families among
heteronormative understandings of kinship (Luibheid
Asian Americans, along with their perceived gender de-
2002; Luibheid and Cantu 2005). Heteronormativity
viance due to their dress, living arrangements, and oc-
assumes the naturalness of a gender binary as well as
cupations, contributed to their racialization and mar-
the belief that male-female marital and sexual unions
ginalization. As Nayan Shah (2001) points out, Asian
are the normative units of kinship and should form the
Americans seeking civic inclusion to the U.S. polity un-
basis of social organization. As an indication of the het-
derstood that non-heteronormativity reinforced their
eronormative basis of immigration law, Asian women
racial exclusion. Consequently, the campaign for Asian
who enter through their marital relationship to Ameri-
American civil rights included the assertion of gender
can men continue to be legally dependent on their male
and sexual normativity.
partners for their immigration and citizenship status.
Asian American historians have responded in vari-
These women consequently are vulnerable in cases of
ous ways to the concerns about heterosexual deviancy.
domestic violence, because state authority reinforces
Evelyn Nakano Glenn (1983) and Madeline Hsu (2000)
male power within the family.
point to the existence of “split households” or transna-
In the era of neoliberalism and post- 9/11, Asian
tional families in the late 19th and early 20th centuries
American men and women face racialized as well as gen-
with male producers in the U.S. and female reproducers
dered suspicions about their eligibility for immigration
in Asia. Nayan Shah extends this analysis to posit that
entry and national belonging. Asian men, particularly
Asian American men and women during the late 19th
South Asian, West Asian, and Muslim men, become
and early 20th centuries practiced a form of “queer do-
likely terrorism suspects (Puar 2007). Asian women, in
mesticity.” Male workers and female prostitutes some-
contrast, are perceived as likely welfare and immigration
times shared housing with each other as well as with
cheats through their capacity to give birth to anchor ba-
boarders, acquaintances, and occasionally children,
bies (L. Park 2011).
not always born within wedlock. In other words, they
In addition to analyzing the gendered dimensions of
resided in households that challenged the normative
the economy and the law, Asian American studies schol-
concept of an American family. In addition, the mem-
ars also offer a critique of kinship and sexuality. A recur-
bers of the predominantly male immigrant community
rent historical narrative of Asian America presents its
at times formed erotic and sexual relationships with
transformation from an immigrant “bachelor” society
one another and with men of other racial backgrounds,
to an American-centered family society (Nee and Nee
a form of “stranger intimacy” (Shah 2012). Rather than
1986). This teleological conception of historical progress
regarding the disproportionate gender ratio as a form
celebrates heternormative co-ethnic family formations.
of racialized oppression, it is possible to understand
This narrative responds to what Jennifer Ting (1995) and
the predominantly male homosocial environment
gender
judy tzu-chun wu
107
of the U.S. West as an arena of sexual possibility and
diaspora (Eng and Hom 1998; Gopinath 2005; Leong
experimentation.
1995; Manalansan 2003).
Women within Asian American communities also
In addition to uncovering these queer formations of
engaged in gender and romantic transgression. The het-
Asian America, scholars also have paid increasing atten-
eronormative narrative from bachelor to family society
tion to interracial and adoptive families. Asian Ameri-
equates the presence of Asian women with the forma-
can women have one of the highest rates of interracial
tion of heterosexual families and the naturalness of intr-
marriage, particularly with white men. These romantic
aracial sexuality and procreation. Margaret Chung’s life
pairings increased in the aftermath of World War II and
illustrates instead how an Asian American woman could
the Cold War, which led to an increased American mili-
transgress gender and sexual expectations in her profes-
tary presence in Asia and a proliferation of Hollywood
sional as well as her personal life. During the early 20th
cultural representations of Asian women (Marchetti
century, Chung became a physician, a male-dominated
1993). Asian and Asian American women in interracial
occupation. She also adopted a male nickname, “Mike,”
relationships helped to challenge and overturn anti-
and partially cross-dressed; she was known as a woman,
miscegenation laws (Pascoe 2009). However, these in-
but she dressed like a man, wearing dark suits, rimmed
terracial marriages were not purely symbols of a color
glasses, and slicked- back hair. Chung chose not to
blind America. Instead, scholars note how racialized,
marry and secretly engaged in erotic relationships with
gendered, and classed understandings of Asian woman-
women, particularly white ethnic women. In addition,
hood and white manhood channel sexual desire and
she adopted nearly a thousand offspring, mostly white
marital partner choice toward particular types of bodies
American military personnel and politicians, during
(Koshy 2004). As Ji-Yeon Yuh (2004) points out, Korean
the Sino-Japanese War and World War II. Their family
women during the U.S. occupation in South Korea may
symbolized China-U.S. unity. Over the course of her life,
be looking for “Prince Charmings” among white Ameri-
Chung experimented with her gender presentation and
can military personnel, but their partners may be seek-
roles, adopting more glamorous and highly feminine
ing Asian “lotus blossoms.”
attire as she publicly became known as a mother of an interracial, adopted family (J. Wu 2005).
108
The rise of Asian transnational adoption during and after the Cold War also reveals gender and racial hierar-
Scholars interested in studying more contemporary
chies. Christina Klein (2003) argues that transnational
Asian American GLBTQ issues, individuals, and com-
adoption represented a domesticated version of Ameri-
munities also offer complicated analyses of gender.
can imperial ambitions in Asia. Adoption allowed (pre-
Individuals who identify with nonnormative sexual
dominantly white) American families to embrace Asia.
identities or who are invested in challenging hetero-
However, there were clear power differentials (among
normativity sometimes also adopt transgressive gender
nations and within families) between those giving hu-
roles. And, at times, they also perform hyperfeminine or
manitarian aid and those receiving assistance. The hier-
hypermasculine scripts. These studies also examine how
archy between white parents and Asian children also has
GLBTQ individuals and social networks simultaneously
a gender dimension. More Asian girls compared to boys
claim Asian/American identity and foster alternative
are adopted by American families. These girls are viewed
understandings of kinship, lineage, community, and
in the U.S. as unwanted in Asia, due to the presumed
gender
judy tzu-chun wu
patriarchal and antifemale values of these Asian coun-
ability to transmit cultural capital. At the same time,
tries. In contrast, Asian girls are desired in American so-
this model minority image reinforces emasculating per-
ciety for their presumed docility and adaptability.
ceptions of Asian American men and docile images of
Similar cultural, generational and gender dynam-
Asian American women. The more recent furor over Ti-
ics also exist within same-race, co-ethnic families. One
ger Moms revives a cultural anxiety among many Amer-
of the persistent tropes in Asian American literature
icans regarding Asian economic and resource competi-
focuses on intergenerational conflict, particularly be-
tion. Not surprisingly, this racialized discourse, which
tween immigrant parents and their American-born
emerges in an era of intense globalization, is expressed
children. Tensions regarding gender roles are a primary
through a gendered debate. Asian American mothers
way in which these intergenerational and cross-cultural
are perceived as excessively focused on discipline and
dynamics are represented and experienced. While im-
achievement, an excess that marks them as cultural and
migrant parents are commonly depicted as seeking to
gender deviants, i.e., as not proper American mothers.
reinstate gender norms from their home countries, their
Applying a gender lens to Asian American racializa-
American-born children assert their desires to adopt the
tion has generated complex and intersectional analyses
gender roles of their peers. The cultural war between the
of social oppression and social power. Early scholars
generations is often problematically caricatured and
have tended to focus on Asian American women’s expe-
understood as an Orientalist binary between the gender
riences and representations, although there is increas-
conformity and hierarchy of Asian society versus the
ing attention to masculinity as well as sexuality. In ad-
gender freedoms of American society.
dition to focusing on gendered and sexualized groups,
The racialized and gendered dynamics of the econ-
identities, and constructs, the scholarship also reveals
omy, law, and family are profoundly shaped by cultural
how gender hierarchies are embedded in the economy,
representations. These “controling images” or domi-
the state, the family and in cultural representations. In
nant representations of Asian Americans tend to accen-
contrast to earlier debates that pitted gender against
tuate nonnormative gender roles. Asian American men
race, Asian American studies scholars are increasingly
and women have been depicted as hypersexual as well
invested in understanding how gender, race, sexuality,
as asexual (Y. Espiritu 2008; Robert Lee 1999; Okihiro
class, and other forms of social difference and hierarchy
1994). During the late 19th and early 20th centuries,
are mutually inflected and intertwined.
Asians men were characterized as sexual predators and economic competitors, i.e., yellow peril who were alien to and also threatened the United States. Throughout most of the 20th century, Asian and Asian American women were portrayed as prostitutes, geishas, and porn stars, alternately excluded and desired for their exotic sexual deviancy (Shimizu 2007). Since the mid-1960s, Asian Americans are frequently depicted as model minorities. This image celebrates Asian American heteronormative families for their stability, work ethic, and gender
judy tzu-chun wu
109
and unassimilability. On the other hand, patterns of re-
29
turn migration make visible a continued investment in
Generation
shaped in large part by such mainstream forms of ex-
Andrea Louie
clusion, discrimination, and disenfranchisement in the
and connection to the homeland that may have been
United States. Because of the way that they are shaped in relation to policy, politics, and a myriad of other factors, it is “Generation” is often defined as the time span between birth cohorts. Correspondingly, generational divisions
experiences vary according to group and time period.
may be spaced according to age differences between
Processes of racialization and “othering” are key factors
grandparents, their children, and their grandchildren.
here, as Asian Americans frequently are targeted be-
In this sense, the length of a “generation” is determined
cause of their “perpetual foreigner” status. Generational
by the age mothers give birth to their children. However,
identities are also delimited by specific historical events.
“generation” also invokes shared experiences and
For instance, during World War II, in the case of Issei,
identities that define birth cohorts. In the context of
Nisei, and Sansei (first, second, and third generation),
immigration, “generation” encompasses differences
Japanese Americans were categorized according to their
between the experiences and relationships of
generation standing. Issei, the immigrant generation,
immigrants born abroad and those born in the country
were denied naturalization rights and were therefore left
of settlement.
in a precarious position when they were interned. Tech-
Economic, political, and legal factors shape immi-
110
important to note that second-generation immigrant
nically enemy aliens, Issei men, when forced to sign the
gration patterns and the experiences of various gen-
Loyalty Oath, were left without protection from Japan.
erations. These factors are necessarily the products of
Alternatively, American-born Nisei were imprisoned
different historical contexts. In the case of minority
in the camps despite their status as American citizens,
immigrants and their children, racism, discrimination,
and those of fighting age were impelled to fight for the
and exclusion—along with other forms of adjustment
U.S. in the war. Still, most Nisei soldiers fought for the
and incorporation—shape generational identities. Lim-
U.S. willingly to prove their loyalty to their country of
ited economic and social niches circumscribed options
birth. Sansei, many of whom were born in the camps,
for early generations of Asian immigrants in the United
were also clearly shaped by internment and its legacy.
States. In addition, laws such as the Page Act (1875) re-
Another group that illustrates the numerous factors
stricted the entry of Chinese women and therefore the
that shape generational identities is the Kibei, second-
ability of the Chinese to form families in the United
generation Japanese Americans (American born, or
States. On the one hand, Chinese exclusion laws and
Nisei) who were sent to Japan as children to receive an
the extension of these restrictions to other Asian im-
education. This singular example highlights the great
migrants (e.g., the 1924 Johnson-Reed Act) reflect the
variation that exists in the experiences of a particular
extent to which the experiences of early Asian immi-
generation and destabilizes dominant teleological char-
grants were shaped by perceptions of labor competition
acterizations of assimilation over time and generation.
The passage of the Immigration and Naturalization
the sense that Asian Americans are bound by traditional
Act (the Hart-Cellar Act) in 1965 abolished national
cultural beliefs. Thus, as younger generations adopt new
quotas set back in 1924. The act also allowed for family
cultural ways, priorities, and values, conflict with their
reunification, enabling Asian Americans to sponsor ad-
more traditional elders arises out of incompatibility.
ditional relatives, and the Asian American population
For example, younger generations may have ideas
grew dramatically. As Pyong Gap Min notes, between
about educational priorities, marriage (who to marry
1965 and 2002, 8.3 million Asian Americans became
and when), and career choices that diverge from paren-
permanent residents, comprising 34% of immigrants
tal and grandparental expectations. However, it also be-
during this period (2006, 26). As a result of these new
comes clear that to fully understand intergenerational
policies, multiple generations were able to immigrate
conflict, it is necessary to view it as more than a matter
at the same time, allowing for the formation of vibrant
of contrasting cultural beliefs. Rather, a nuanced ap-
ethnic enclaves. Such simultaneous migration often
proach, which takes into account economic stresses,
placed great stress on families at they endeavored to ad-
ethnoracial discrimination, and dominant assimilative
just to U.S. life. Children, who often were able to learn
discourses, recognizes a set of conditions that more
English more quickly than their parents, occupied a
broadly frame immigration and shape family dynam-
translational position. It should be noted that the ex-
ics. These issues have become particularly visible in the
periences of second-generation Asian Americans in the
aftermath of the 1965 Immigration Act and the Viet-
post-WWII era differs in important ways from those of
nam War, responsible for the largest second genera-
second-generation immigrants post-1965 or post-9/11.
tion in U.S. history. At the end of the Vietnam War in
To be sure, the theme of generational or intergen-
1975, waves of Southeast Asian refugees from Vietnam,
erational conflict remains a common one that shapes
Laos, and Cambodia also made their way to the United
scholarship about Asian Americans and the policies
States. Alongside the trauma of having left their home-
affecting them. Models of generational conflict as ap-
lands against their will, refugees faced resettlement
plied to Asian American families and communities of-
obstacles. Notwithstanding the passage of refugee acts
ten assume that conflict between generations is due to
(in 1975 and 1980) intended to facilitate their resettle-
later generations assimilating to U.S. culture, and thus
ment, they nevertheless faced racism and discrimina-
deviating from the ways of their elders. While different
tion. Many arrived during a time of economic reces-
generations may adapt to U.S. culture in varying ways,
sion, and were resented for the government assistance
with younger generations often more rapidly integrat-
that they received.
ing themselves into a broader youth culture, it is also
The events of September 11, 2001, marked a dramatic
true that a number of discourses problematically frame
shift in the ways that some first- and second-generation
Asian Americans as having strong cultural values. Such
immigrants experienced cultural citizenship in the
discourses operate in contrast to those concerning other
United States. As numerous scholars have noted, cul-
groups such as African Americans, whose lack of cul-
tural citizenship extends beyond legal definitions of citi-
ture is seen to lead to social problems (Ebron and Tsing
zenship and speaks to broader issues of inclusion and
1995; Fong 2006). The emphasis on the richness of an
belonging in relation to state power and empire (Maira
oft-merged Asian and Asian American culture leads to
2009; Ong 2003; Rosaldo 1994). Whether Muslim or
generation
andrea louie
111
not, Arab Americans, South Asian Americans, and others perceived to look like the “enemy” have faced
and academic descriptions about processes of integra-
daily discrimination due to their perceived foreignness.
tion that occur over time, continued transnational rela-
While Junaid Rana (2011) notes that “Islamophobia” has
tionships between migrants and the homeland (which
deep roots and has been crafted through various means
extend beyond the first generation) prompt alternative
throughout Western/U.S. history, growing up post-9/11
readings of both assimilation and generation. These
has directly affected the ability of first-generation Mus-
homeland ties, apparent in regular physical returns and
lim immigrants to gain legal citizenship. It has likewise
involvement in homeland institutions, are evident in
impeded access to the homeland (for both first and sec-
Peggy Levitt’s (2009) research about transnationalism
ond generations) and instantiated vexed senses of be-
and second-generation Pakistani Muslims and Indian
longing to the United States (Maira 2010; Prashad 2009).
Gujaratis, who maintain ties rooted in religious beliefs
Within a post-9/11 context, many second-generation
and practices.
immigrant Muslims of South Asian American descent
These transnational considerations foment broader
struggle to create a sense of belonging and cultural citi-
questions about how and why the designation of gener-
zenship. As Sunaina Maira (2009) notes, this has some-
ational cohorts is important in both academic and non-
times involved an emphasis on homeland ties, an inter-
academic contexts, given that such labels are at times
rogation of the promise on the U.S. as a multicultural
ambiguous. While the first immigrant generation is usu-
society, or a critique of U.S. racial structures based on
ally defined as the first members of a family to emigrate
alliances with other people of color. Analogously, schol-
to another country and gain citizenship, this definition
ars such as Nitasha Sharma (2010) have examined the
is complicated by scholarship on transnational migra-
identification of second-generation South Asian Ameri-
tion. This work underscores that migration is seldom
cans with African Americans.
marked by a one-way, permanent movement to a new
A rich body of literature about second-generation
112
While narratives of assimilation are prominent in folk
location, but rather is sustained by multistranded con-
Asian American issues exists, including Mia Tuan’s work
nections between locations that often extend beyond
(1999) on the ethnic identities of later-generation Chi-
the first immigrant generation (Basch, Glick Schiller,
nese and Japanese Americans, Nazli Kibria’s (2003) re-
and Blanc 1993). Second-generation immigrants may
search on second-generation Chinese and Korean Amer-
continue to be engaged in activities in the homeland,
icans who grew up in Boston in the 1980s and 1990s,
including long-term visits, the sending of remittances,
and Sucheng Chan’s (2006) work on 1.5-generation
or even finding a spouse (Waters and Levitt 2002). For
Vietnamese Americans that focuses on personal narra-
example, it was common for immigrants to the U.S. in
tives of their refugee experiences. Such works necessar-
the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries from
ily complicate characterizations of gradual assimilation
varied backgrounds to return to their homelands after
over time to mainstream culture (Park and Burgess 1925).
spending time living and working in the United States
This model of assimilation is problematic in that it as-
(Basch, Glick Schiller, and Blanc 1993; Hsu 2000). Such
sumes a uniform mainstream culture, privileges con-
patterns continue today and complicate renderings of
formity as a desired outcome, and stresses gradual and
monolithic generational designations that focus on ei-
even mixing of cultural traditions à la the “melting pot.”
ther initial migration to the United States, citizenship
generation
andrea louie
acquisition, or time away from the nation of origin (Rouse 1994; Smith 2005).
versions of bhangra music that originated in clubs in Great Britain as the basis for their own youth culture.
Correspondingly, the use of the generational des-
This youth culture is often global in scope, while at
ignation “1.5” has become increasingly common in
the same time allowing for local variations and expres-
both folk and academic works to describe the distinct
sions. For example, the fact that one can watch Hmong
identities of those who immigrate as children (before
breakdancers from France on YouTube illustrates not
adolescence). An in-between category, such a term illus-
only the global resettlement of Hmong refugees, but
trates the limitations of more traditional generational
also the spread of a youth popular culture form that
labels. Originally discussed by sociologists Alejandro
originated in the United States. Asian American youths
Portes and Rubén Rumbaut (2001), the partitioning of
have opened up new spaces of cultural production that
generations in this way signals a post-1965 designation
can be shared over the internet in ways to which pre-
and is apparent in Asian American and Latino/a stud-
ceding generations did have not access. Older Hmong
ies. Inclusive of immigrant families, the experiences of
may engage in different uses of transnational media,
adult parents differed greatly from those of their chil-
such as in the watching of homeland videos made in
dren, who migrated at a young age. The term “1.5 gen-
Laos, Thailand, or even among their co-ethnic Miao
eration” captures the particularities of having grown up
in China (Schein 2008). This mode of participation is
for the majority of one’s life in the U.S., but with strong
based less on self-expression and more in the desire
ties to the homeland. Members of this generation are
of diasporic Hmong to maintain a connection to the
usually described as bicultural, often proficient in both
imaginary of a homeland. As more elders migrate to
English and their mother tongues. While technically
the U.S. to be cared for by their adult children and
immigrants, people in this category do not necessar-
sometimes to help out with grandchildren, new issues
ily share the same perspectives as their first-generation
are raised regarding this new group of immigrants who
immigrant parents, or their second-generation siblings
are migrating at a much older age and are less able to
or friends. Similarly, adoptees, particularly those from
negotiate U.S. daily life.
Asia adopted into non-Asian families, may technically
Second- generation Korean Americans also find
be first generation, but may not share the language
themselves caught between the promise of American
abilities or other orientations characteristic of this
liberalism in the form of a U.S. university education, pa-
generation.
rental pressures and models of success, and structures
Second-generation South Asian Americans have
of racism and discrimination. As Nancy Abelmann’s
formed a distinctive desi subculture (Maira 2002; Shan-
(2009) work shows, many turn to evangelical Protes-
kar 2008; Purkayastha 2005) that is characterized by
tantism as a means to distinguish themselves from both
a degree of identification with their culture of origin,
their peers and their parents. Another interpretation
but that is expressed in a manner that is a hybrid-
of generation is also closely tied to changing economic
ized representation of this ethnic pride, usually dis-
conditions and how they shape the paths of particu-
tinct from the traditions of their parents. Maira’s work
lar generations. As Thuy Linh Nguyen Tu notes in The
on hip hop and bhangra youth culture, for example,
Beautiful Generation (2010), the specific experiences of
emphasizes the ways that desis appropriate remixed
second-generation children of Asian immigrants who
generation
andrea louie
113
made a living working in garment factories shaped their
(2010). Thus, in understanding the concept of genera-
entry into the field of design.
tion, it is essential to consider both structural factors
It should also be noted that the field of Asian Amer-
that shape immigration and economic adaption, as
ican studies itself has produced what can be seen as
well as more subjective experiences that go into the
numerous generations of scholars and scholarship,
choices that individuals within these generations make.
defined not only by time period, but also key issues,
Transnational flows have complicated the rendering of
political concerns, and theoretical perspectives that
“generation,” as well as the ways that immigrants and
sometimes conflict with those of other generations. For
later generations maintain contact with the homeland
many Asian Americans, a politicized identification as
in a variety of capacities, including economic, political,
an Asian American also signifies a generational identity
social, and cultural realms.
that is rooted in the U.S. but also characterized by continued (but changed) relationships with the homeland. As a panethnic (Y. Espiritu 1992) category, “Asian American” reflects an acknowledgement of shared experiences as people racialized as “Asian,” a category that did not exist traditionally in Asia. While not confined solely to second- and later-generation immigrants, this form of identification is marked by an increased awareness of the experiences of racism and marginalization that forms the basis for new forms of community building, including the creation of a sense of historical memory for later generations based on the narration of these stories. Terese Monberg’s work (2008) examines the role of alternative institutions such as FAHNS (Filipino American National Historical Society) and the work that the “Bridge Generation” (post-WWII second generation) plays in creating a sense of shared history through the retelling of stories of “Growing Up Brown.” Cathy Schlund-Vials’s (2012b) work on 1.5-generation Cambodian Americans illustrates the variability in the strength of ties to the homeland, depending on immigrants’ age of arrival and place of residency. There are also numerous ways of being connected to the homeland, for example, through participation in transnational social justice movements such as the Cambodian American “memory work” discussed by Schlund-Vials or the Korean adoptee activism analyzed by Eleana Kim 114
generation
andrea louie
Since its initial articulation, “genocide” has engen-
30
largely on concerns over definitional and conceptual
Genocide
limitations that reflect its genealogy. That the term was
Khatharya Um
born, at the dawn of the Cold War, of the push for ac-
dered political, legal, and theoretical debates, centering
countability for Nazi crimes against Jews shaped the Convention definition of what constitutes “genocide.” Despite the fact that Lemkin himself recognized other Writing about genocide, Leo Kuper noted: “the word
genocidal precedence, scholarship and public discourse
is new, the crime ancient” (1981, 9). While the annals
have long privileged ethnically and racially motivated
of history are replete with mass killings and the
mass atrocities, and in particular the uniqueness and ex-
deliberate, virtual decimation of communities, the
ceptionalism of the Jewish experience. Genocide stud-
term “genocide,” which is derived from the Greek word
ies thus were confined essentially to Jewish studies and
genos, meaning “race” or “people,” and the Latin word
outside the intellectual scope of ethnic and American
cīdere, “to kill,” was first articulated by Raphael Lemkin
studies. While the ratification of the CPPCG did pro-
in 1944. In Axis Rule in Occupied Europe he defined
voke an immediate response from African Americans,
genocide as “a coordinated plan of different actions
genocide did not become part of the Asian American
aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of
lexicon or politico-intellectual concerns until the 1960s
the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating
with the strengthening of the civil rights movement in
the groups themselves” (1944, 79). Later adopted in the
the U.S. and escalation of the war in Vietnam. It gained
1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention
new centrality in the 1990s and 2000s following the re-
and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG),
settlement of refugees from Southeast Asia, particularly
the definition was modified to include an intent to
from Cambodia, and subsequent emergence of scholars
destroy “in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial,
of Southeast Asian ancestry in academe.
or religious group,” involving either actual physical
From its genesis, the term “genocide” was highly
destruction or the creation of conditions that would
politicized as evidenced by the limited categories cov-
ultimately undermine the viability of the group’s
ered under the Convention. In the face of political ob-
continued existence, such as preventing reproduction
jections, principally by the then Soviet Union, mass
or forcible transfer of children of one group to another
killing of social and political groups was eliminated
(U.N. General Assembly 1948, 174). The CPPCG has
from the categories of genocidal acts. The conceptual
since spawned new statutes and protocols to account
omission of co-ethnic violence compelled Jean Lacou-
for additional forms of mass atrocities and crimes not
ture (1977) to coin the term “auto-genocide” to char-
covered by the 1948 Convention, such as war crimes
acterize the Cambodian genocidal experience under
and crimes against humanity. Under the Rome Statute
the Khmer Rouge (1975–1979), where both perpetra-
of the International Criminal Court adopted in 1998,
tors and victims were mostly Khmer, and where most
genocide was recognized as one of four international
of the atrocities were politically rather than racially,
crimes prosecutable in the international criminal court.
ethnically, or religiously motivated crimes committed 115
against soldiers, government officials, and class “enemies” (Kiernan 1996).
dan genocide. In Cambodia, surviving Khmer Rouge
The simultaneously restrictive and imprecise lan-
leaders were finally brought to trial three decades after
guage adopted by the Convention further limits the use-
the collapse of the genocidal regime. Even then, the
fulness of the CPPCG. An inadequate guideline for mea-
charge of genocide was applied only to atrocities com-
suring “genocidal” scale of destruction, the phrase “in
mitted in select instances, such as against ethnic mi-
whole or in part” provokes a critical question about the
norities, though co-ethnic killings and brutalization ac-
genocidal process itself and the point at which extrem-
counted for the vastly greater part of the Khmer Rouge’s
ism, in acts or ideology, makes external intervention
crimes (“Cambodia Tribunal Monitor” 2011).
imperative. Similarly, the emphasis on intentionality
Almost from its inception, the limitations of CPPCG
inhibits intervention and prosecution, and undermines
have compelled scholars and advocates to push for in-
accountability. Unlike the Nazis, most genocidal re-
clusion of other forms of state-sanctioned violence that
gimes do not leave copious records, making it difficult
engender multifaceted destruction of a group, and for
to prove intent. This challenge led the Yugoslavia and
recognition of other genocidal moments in history. In
Rwanda war crime tribunals recently to decree that, in
the U.S., the Civil Rights Congress advocated for the
the absence of incontestable evidence, intentionality
application of the term to discriminatory practices di-
can be inferred from “the scale of atrocities committed”
rected principally at African Americans but also other
and the “systematic targeting” of victims on account
racial and linguistic minorities, with specific references
of their “membership in a particular group” (Orentli-
to Puerto Rican and Asian Americans. In 1951, the Con-
cher 2007). In the Bosnian case, the court linked intent
gress submitted a petition to the United Nations detail-
to knowledge of the impact of the act on the targeted
ing the “record of mass slayings on the basis of race, of
group. Though significant, these judicial interventions
lives deliberately warped and distorted by the willful
remain insufficient in setting definitive guidelines for
creation of conditions making for premature death,
defining and responding to genocidal occurrences. These legal and political constraints, including states’
poverty and disease” committed or sanctioned by the U.S. government “with intent to destroy, in whole or in
fear of being implicated in their own genocidal histories,
part, the 15,000,000 Negro people of the United States”
undercut the efficacy of the Convention in preventing
(Civil Rights Congress 1951, 4). Genocide, the petition
or arresting genocidal developments. In various histori-
argued, was committed against blacks in the U.S. as the
cal instances, the international community has been
“consistent, conscious, unified policies of every branch
reluctant to even evoke the term “genocide,” let alone
116
this case for Jean-Paul Akayesu’s role in the 1994 Rwan-
of government” (1951, xiv).
intervene to thwart or stop genocidal developments
Scholars and rights activists have since not only ex-
once they have begun. If interventionist acts have been
tended the argument to other racialized communities
rare, prosecution of perpetrators is even more so. It took
in the U.S., namely Native Americans and Latino Ameri-
forty-five years before the first international tribunal
cans, but also highlighted other forms of genocide, such
was established, here to adjudicate genocidal crimes
as economic and cultural genocide, that result from
committed in Yugoslavia, and it was almost half a cen-
deliberate state actions directed at a group. Though
tury before the first conviction was handed down, in
the Convention had gestured to the notion of cultural
genocide
khatharya um
genocide in its reference to the forcible removal of chil-
the consequences of U.S. militarism and imperialism
dren, theorists such as Robert Blauner (1975) expanded
in other parts of Asia. This is especially evident in the
the concept beyond the threat of physical extinction of
literature on U.S.-Philippines but also on U.S.-Japan
a people to include language and educational policies
histories (Yoneyama 1999). Scholars such as Luzvim-
and practices, religious conversion, and other acts that
inda Francisco, Howard Zinn, and Gabriel Kolko docu-
result in cultural invalidation and loss for marginalized
mented the atrocities committed by the U.S. during the
communities, particularly in the United States.
Filipino-American War, that sanguinary encounter that
In its petition, the Civil Rights Congress not only
Francisco (1973) referred to as “the first Vietnam.” Oth-
documented U.S. genocidal policies at home, but also
ers, such as E. San Juan Jr. (2005), the title of whose ar-
pointed to the U.S. exportation of its racialized geno-
ticle exhibited a direct and deliberate link to the works
cidal creed overseas. Arguing that the usage of jellied
of the Civil Rights Congress, and Dylan Rodríguez
gasoline in Korea and the atom bomb in Japan mani-
(2010), further argued that the policies and practices of
fested the same “contempt for human life in a colored
the U.S. government, implemented with the deliberate
skin” as in the “lynchers’ faggot at home,” they pro-
intent to destroy Filipino sovereignty and cultural con-
claimed these issues to be “the concern of mankind
tinuity, amounted to genocide. Second, it forced schol-
everywhere” (1951, 7). The transnational connections
arly attention onto genocidal acts committed by other
made between developments in Asia and the struggles
imperialist powers in Asia, such as during the Japanese
in the U.S. were amplified for Asian American activists
occupation of China and Korea that catalyzed the early
during the politically turbulent 1960s by the brutal-
instances of Asian American diasporic activism. Com-
izing U.S. military campaigns in Southeast Asia. With
bined, this analytic expansion decentered Asian Ameri-
U.S. clandestine wars in Cambodia and Laos essentially
can studies from its earlier U.S. focus, a shift made more
shrouded from the American public, it was Vietnam
emphatic by the emergence of the refugee communities
that brought these issues home. The Mai Lai massacre
from Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, whose experiences
and other widely publicized crimes committed by the
with political trauma and concomitant preoccupation
U.S. military against civilian populations as well as high
with the “homeland” register a different tenor than that
profiled court martial cases such as that of Lt. Calley
of many Asian immigrant communities.
underscored the connections between U.S. racist and
The concept of genocide took on another and differ-
imperialist policies. The Asian American struggle for
ent significance in Asian American studies in the post-
visibility and selfhood thus came to resonate with the
Vietnam era. Under the Khmer Rouge regime, Cambo-
Vietnamese people’s struggle for national liberation and
dia spiraled into one of the twentieth century’s darkest
self-determination. What was viewed as the integral
moments; in less than four years, almost one-third of
link between antiracist resistance at home and antimili-
the population perished from starvation, disease, ex-
tarist stance against U.S. wars overseas came to define
ecutions, and “disappearances” (Um 2012). Virtually
the Asian American movement of the 1960s.
no Cambodian is left untouched by loss in one form or
The heightened transnational political conscious-
another. While scholars and jurists debate the applica-
ness that converged on Vietnam had a twofold impact.
bility of the term “genocide” to the Cambodian expe-
First, it engendered new and additional scholarship on
rience, most Cambodians and Cambodian Americans,
genocide
khatharya um
117
over 50% of whom are refugee-survivors, have no doubt that what transpired was a holocaust. The legacies of
dropped over both Europe and the Pacific during World
this historical trauma are multidimensional and trans-
War II (Fadiman 1997, 132), killing or wounding some
generational. They are reflected in the demographics of
30% of the population and uprooting another 50%
the refugee community and in the relational dynamics
from their native villages (C. Robinson 1998, 13). As in
within the family. They bleed through temporalities and
Cambodia, while academic discourse may focus on the
inform the identity construction of the post-genocide
“genocidal” losses and dislocations engendered during
generation (Um 2006; Ung 2012; Schlund-Vials 2012a)
the war, community discourse is equally, if not more,
and the ambivalence that diasporas harbor toward the
oriented toward mass atrocities committed by the com-
homeland (Um 2007).
munist regimes, both Laotian and Vietnamese, against
The post-Vietnam and post-genocide resettlement of
Hmong resistance after the war (Hamilton- Merritt
Southeast Asian refugees, as such, created new points
2008). The framing of genocidal experiences beyond
of departure in Asian American studies. The nature
the context of U.S. imperialism to include persecution,
and scale of the Cambodian experience reinvigorates
subjugation, conquest, and imperialism at large moves
the debate about the analytic importance of a geno-
the discourse of human rights in Asian American stud-
cide definition that is expansive but not diluted. The
ies toward new horizons.
refugee presence, at once a product of the war in which
The presence and increased visibility of Southeast
the U.S. was implicated and a beneficiary of perceived
Asian Americans, in essence, dislocates Asian American
American altruism, also complicates and destabilizes
studies from its earlier political and intellectual moor-
critical assumptions that have been the cornerstones of
ings, shifting the field toward greater and new intel-
the movement’s political agenda. Whereas previously
lectual synergy with other fields of inquiry. Given the
Asian American movement could coalesce around an-
centrality of genocide to the Cambodian American
tiracist and anti-imperialist agendas, left-wing dicta-
identity and politics, memory, commemoration, and
torship disrupts the political imaginary. Some scholars
trauma engendered by politically induced rupture as
and activists, particularly in the West, continue to em-
well as by migration-related dislocations, previously
phasize U.S. complicity in the genocidal destruction of
kept in the domain of psychology, sociology, and geno-
Cambodia, both in radicalizing the Khmer Rouge and
cide and cultural studies, have become important areas
later in supporting them in the Third Indochina War.
of inquiry in Asian American studies. The analytic at-
While many Cambodians do recall the devastation en-
tention placed on culture and race as mediating factors
gendered by U.S. bombing campaigns and even hold
in post-trauma coping and healing also provides critical
America responsible for the tragedies that befell their
intervention against the eurocentricity of trauma stud-
country, the magnitude and self-implicating nature of
ies. Similarly, attention paid to the transnational activi-
the Khmer Rouge genocide overshadow all other suffer-
ties and activism of Southeast Asian diasporas locates
ings in their preoccupation.
immigrant agency and resilience in new contexts, en-
Similarly, postwar resettlement of Laotian refugees
118
between 1969 and 1972 exceeded the total tonnage
gendering new possibilities for deepening connections
further exposed the U.S. “secret” war in Laos, where
between Asian American, diaspora, transnational, and
the tonnage of bombs dropped over the Plain of Jars
area studies.
genocide
khatharya um
lessen its role in the provision of education, health, and
31
argue that neoliberalism exacerbates inequality within
Globalization
and between countries. Other critics see globalization
Robyn Magalit Rodriguez
as symptomatic of the decline of sovereignty and think
other social goods. Critics of neoliberalism, however,
of the proliferation of capital, goods, media, and people from other countries as threatening to the nation-state. Alternatively, proponents of globalization see it as pro“Globalization” is a term used by academics, political
ducing new forms of interconnectedness across national
figures, and activists to describe changes in economic,
borders that decrease social distance between people and
political, and cultural life due to accelerated flows
foster more cosmopolitan perspectives.
of capital, goods, media, and people across borders
Globalization and transnationalism has given rise to
(Appadurai 2000; D. Harvey 2007; Lowe and Lloyd
more interdisciplinary approaches in Asian American
1997). Another term used to describe these changes
studies (L. Lowe 1998; K. Scott Wong 2009). Notably,
is “transnationalism” (Basch et al. 1994; Ong 1999).
scholars based in Asia have become more engaged in
“Transnationalism” is sometimes used to identify
Asian American studies (Huang and Bing 2008). Top-
processes and practices engaged in by ordinary people
ics that have long been of central importance to Asian
or social movements, whereas “globalization” is
American studies are being studied in new ways. For ex-
used to identify processes and practices engaged in
ample, while much immigration scholarship focused on
by more powerful world actors like governments or
how U.S. immigration law either prohibits or allows dif-
multinational corporations (Guarnizo and Smith 1998).
ferent Asian groups entry, a globalization approach in-
Globalization is often ascribed to social transforma-
corporates more attention to the dynamics in Asian im-
tions since the 1970s due to deindustrialization (i.e., the
migrants’ countries of origin. Scholars have found that
relocation of factory production to Third World coun-
countries of origin actively produce and shape migration
tries) in advanced capitalist countries like the United
flows to the United States as “labor brokerage states” (Par-
States. Many scholars note, however, that global inter-
reñas 2000; R. Rodriguez 2010; Guevarra 2010). Others
actions and interconnections predate the 1970s. Colo-
have found that some even introduce “return migration”
nialism is an early form of globalization from this view.
and other policies aimed at enticing their former emi-
Most people who use the term agree, nevertheless, that
grants to return “home” (L. Liu 2012; Ong 1999; Skrentny
there is something qualitatively different about the fre-
et al. 2007). A globalization approach reveals how migra-
quency and kinds of border crossings taking place today.
tion between the United States and different Asian coun-
Globalization is appraised both positively and nega-
tries no longer takes place in only one direction.
tively. For critics, globalization is synonymous with neo-
Asian American studies scholars who take a globaliza-
liberalism, an economic philosophy that privileges the
tion approach, moreover, track new and emergent social
market and capitalist logics in regulating all aspects of so-
and cultural formations. They find that Asian Americans’
cial life. From a neoliberal perspective, the government
families are increasingly spread across two (or more) coun-
is an inefficient and intrusive institution that should
tries. Transnational families are partly a consequence of 119
the restrictiveness of U.S. immigration policy since 9/11.
live, and frequent these kinds of spaces (Zhou 2004).
New “homeland security” laws have made the process
At the same time, the Internet has become a key source
of applying for family reunification, a mechanism that
of Asian popular culture and explains, for instance, the
many Asian Americans have used since the 1965 Immi-
widespread popularity of K-pop (or Korean pop music)
gration Act to have their relatives join them, much more
among Asian Americans more broadly as well as among
difficult. This creates a backlog that has petitioners in the
Korean Americans (Shin 2009).
U.S. waiting for decades before family members can join
The transnationalism of many Asian Americans’
them (Hing 2006; Park and Park 2005). Even though it
lives has given rise to complex ethnic and racial iden-
may be cheaper and more convenient to travel, border
tities and politics among both immigrants and their
enforcement policies limits the kinds of travel people can
U.S.-born children. Asian Americans become natural-
participate in. The families of class-privileged “flexible
ized U.S. citizens and participate in American political
citizens,” however, can be transnational by choice (Ong
life, but they remain interested and participate as well
1999). Some opt to have their children raised and edu-
in “homeland” politics (Lien 2008). Asian American
cated in the U.S. (with or without one of the parents liv-
panethnic collective identity, therefore, may seem less
ing with them). “Parachute children” is a term used to de-
salient as a consequence of recent forms of transnation-
scribe this phenomenon (Zhou 1998; Orellana et al. 2001).
alism (Spickard 2007). Yet even panethnic movements,
Even if they are not “parachute children,” members of the
which trace their beginnings to the late 1960s, have
second generation often have transnational upbringings
always had transnational aspects (Fujino 2008). Mean-
that involve direct or indirect exposure to their parents’
while, second-generation Asian Americans’ racial iden-
countries of origin. Moreover, their definitions of who
tities may actually be shaped not by their experiences in
constitutes “family” are often quite expansive. Despite
the U.S. but through travels to their parents’ (or ances-
growing up in two-parent nuclear families in the U.S. they
tors’) erstwhile “homelands” (Yamashiro 2011). Indeed,
may think of “family” in transnational terms (Purkayas-
Asian Americans may acquire some understanding of
tha 2010). Finally, they may even choose partners from
U.S. racial politics even before they ever get to American
Asia (Thai 2008).
shores as they are exposed to U.S. global institutions like
The globalization of media facilitates Asian Americans’, including the second generation’s, familial and
120
the military overseas (N. Kim 2008). Though globalization is a late-twentieth-century
cultural ties to Asia. Film, television, fashion, music,
phenomenon, scholars have been challenged to revisit
and food from different Asian countries can be easily ac-
historical scholarship that might have been overly U.S.-
cessed in the United States (Liu and Lin 2009; K. Wang
centric. Historians who study early Asian American
2006). These cultural products, in fact, are actively
migration, for example, have begun to broaden their
marketed to Asian Americans. For example, “ethnic
analyses by paying closer attention to the context of
enclaves” or areas with high concentrations of Asian-
Asia and drawing out parallels and connections between
owned businesses like “Chinatowns” that can be found
Asians in the Americas more broadly (i.e., Canada, Latin
throughout the U.S. are important hubs for the produc-
America, and the Caribbean), thereby taking a “hemi-
tion, distribution, and consumption of Asian goods.
spheric approach” (Hu-DeHart 2006; Erika Lee 2005;
Asian immigrants and their U.S.-born children work,
Lee and Shibusawa 2005; Ngai 2006).
globalization
robyn magalit rodriguez
syphilis germs. These constructions were used to justify
32
as well as to exclude Chinese immigrants (Molina 2006;
Health
N. Shah 2001). Moreover, these constructions contrib-
Grace J. Yoo
uted to the notion of Asians as the “yellow peril,” which
segregation and unfair and discriminatory treatment,
constituted Asian bodies as a threat to the health and civilization of white Americans. Although Asian immigrants were constructed as inherently embodying these Health is defined as the absence of injury or illness.
diseases, it was actually unsanitary conditions resulting
This definition incorporates multiple spheres of
from racist neglect of segregated areas that contributed
wellness including the physical, mental, spiritual, and
to their spread among early Asian immigrant communi-
social. To understand wellness of Asian Americans
ties (Hom 2013). Barriers that Asian immigrants faced in
and within Asian American studies, the multiple
their attempts to receive health care—including racial
dimensions of well-being, recovery, and healing need
discrimination and harassment—only magnified these
to be considered. Of utmost importance is to hear the
issues. Solutions for healthcare and well-being for many
voices of diverse Asian American communities in the
communities came from within. For example, in 1900,
process of comprehending the true meaning of wellness
Chinese immigrants worked on the building of the San
and health for Asian Americans. Although scholars in
Francisco Chinese Hospital, one of the earliest mobiliz-
various disciplines have argued that race is not a valid
ing moments in the history of Chinese American com-
biological or scientific concept, “race” and racialization
munities (Hom 2013).
continue to act as important social determinants of
The San Francisco State strike of 1968–1969 and the
quality of life, health status, health care access, and
eventual establishment of the College of Ethnic Studies
quality of care for Asian Americans. In recent times,
were prompted in part by the need to continually voice
a growing number of public health scholars have
concerns over community health and social problems—
documented and examined health issues that are
including gangs, crowded schools, housing shortages,
critical in the Asian American community (Yoo, Le, and
and the displacement of the aged—that had gone long
Oda 2013).
unrecognized in San Francisco’s Chinatown, Japantown,
Historically, well-being has been studied by Asian
and Manilatown (Collier and Gonzales 2009). Exist-
American studies scholars in terms of how outsiders
ing institutions—including higher education but also
have depicted and viewed Asian immigrant bodies. Con-
health care institutions—had ignored the histories and
cerns regarding biological determinism and the nega-
the wellness of Asian Americans. This need for a voice
tive uses of science against Asian Americans are founded
was in part due to the context of the post–1965 Immi-
in the history of public health science and public health
gration Act era, including the arrival of new immigrants
policies. Influenced by the political and the social con-
who faced health issues compounded by anticommu-
texts of the time, public health science and policies
nist harassment in Chinatown, the pressures of rede-
were based on earlier racialized constructions of Asian
velopment in San Francisco’s Manilatown community,
bodies as carriers of smallpox, bubonic plague, and
and the lingering effects of wartime incarceration and 121
forced relocation of Japanese Americans. Through the
groups. The report used aggregated data of Asian Ameri-
passage of the 1964 War on Poverty Act and through the
cans and failed to examine subgroup differences. How-
work of college-educated Asian Americans, the strike at
ever, it also demonstrated to advocates and to health
San Francisco State College was intricately linked to the
professionals the need for data collection and for an in-
increasing agitation occurring within health and social
crease in research funding for the study of Asian Ameri-
services contexts in the San Francisco Bay Area. Asian
cans and health. In response to this need, two national
American Movement activists were voicing inequities
organizations formed: the Asian American Health Fo-
and the lack of availability of culturally and linguisti-
rum and the Asian Pacific American Community of
cally appropriate services in a variety of Asian American
Health Organizations (Jang and Tran 2009). In 1988,
communities. Many of these activists would later go on
the Asian Pacific Islander American Health Forum spon-
to establish Asian American health and social service or-
sored a national conference to address the health prob-
ganizations and programs to addresses these inequities,
lems impacting Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders.
including the Northeast Medical Services Center in San
This conference convened community leaders to discuss
Francisco (1968), Charles B. Wang Community Health
health issues and matters of access, research, and policy.
Center in New York City (1971), Asian Health Services in
Subsequently, Confronting Critical Health Issues of Asian
Oakland (1973), and Asian Community Health Clinic in
and Pacific Islander Americans, edited by Nolan Zane, Da-
Seattle (1973).
vid Takeuchi, and Kathleen Young, was published in
The actions of these activists, like those of Asian Americans who had done similar work for a hundred years before, filled a gap in healthcare for Asian Ameri-
Medline and PubMed searches of published research
cans who were underserved by traditional healthcare
on six major health disparity areas revealed that from
institutions. Although services began to be developed,
1986 to 2000 only 0.01% of articles included any Asian
research data on the inequities that Asian Americans
Americans in the study sample (Ghosh 2003). More-
experienced were still nonexistent. Because of limited
over, the research that does exist shows that dispari-
research, Asian Americans were easily stereotyped as
ties between Asian American subgroups are significant.
the “healthy minority,” a view similar to the “model
For example, in a 2008 study, compared to other Asian
minority”—in this case referring to a uniformly simi-
American subgroups, Vietnamese Americans were least
lar group with very few health problems. The healthy
likely to have a college education and most likely to
minority stereotype, like the model minority one, fails
be in only fair or poor health. Korean Americans were
to account for socioeconomic disparities that impact
most likely to be uninsured, be current smokers, and
health status and quality of life among diverse Asian
be without a usual place for health care as compared to
Americans. These assumptions are also based on lim-
other Asian American subgroups. Additionally, Filipino
ited research within and across various Asian American
Americans were most likely to be obese (Barnes, Adams,
subgroups.
and Powell-Griner 2008). Adding complexity, gender
The 1982 Report of the Secretary’s Task Force on Black
122
1993 to discuss the pressing health issues in the Asian American community.
differences by disease and by subgroup also exist. For
and Minority Health documented that Asian Americans
example, prostate cancer is the most diagnosed cancer
were healthier than whites and other racial/ethnic
for Asian American men and breast cancer is the most
health
grace j. yoo
diagnosed cancer for Asian American women. Also un-
morbidity, body mass index, obesity, and substance-use
derscoring subgroup and gender differences, the inci-
disorders.
dence of lung cancer has been increasing among Asian/
The second comprehensive data set is the Cali-
Pakistani American men and Korean American and
fornia Health Interview Survey (CHIS), a California
Filipino American women, while colorectal cancer has
population-based survey study administered in Can-
been increasing among Kampuchean American, Korean
tonese, English, Korean, Mandarin, Spanish, and Viet-
American, and Laotian American men and women (Go-
namese. One of the largest health surveys in the United
mez et al. 2013).
States, the CHIS is conducted on a continuous basis and
A number of issues continue to be limiting factors
provides data on Asian American subgroups. In 2009,
in health and well-being research for Asian Americans.
the CHIS surveyed 47,614 adults, 3,379 adolescents, and
These include funding, the challenges of aggregat-
8,945 children. The Asian American sample consisted
ing data in diverse populations, and methodological
of 958 Koreans, 1,065 Chinese, 1,453 Vietnamese, 500
problems. Research on Asian Americans has been un-
Filipinos, 428 Japanese, and 400 South Asians. Follow-
derfunded. More research is needed to elucidate the
ing the first survey in 2001, the CHIS has conducted
diversity of the health experiences among numerous
ongoing telephone surveys with adults, adolescents,
diverse Asian American populations. In doing data col-
and parents of young children. Telephone survey topics
lection with Asian American populations, methodologi-
have focused on health status; health behaviors includ-
cal issues also need to be addressed, including conduct-
ing diet, nutrition, physical activity, and tobacco and al-
ing data collection in Asian languages and among less
cohol use; chronic illnesses; insurance coverage; mental
visible subgroups. There is also a need to oversample
health services utilization and access; dental care; and
and conduct research in locations with high numbers
neighborhoods and well-being. Through the use of the
of Asian Americans (Islam et al. 2010).
CHIS dataset, researchers have published peer-reviewed
Responding to this need for better data, two stud-
journal articles on an array of issues, examining sub-
ies have provided scholars the opportunity to explore
group differences among Asian Americans includ-
health disparities among Asian Americans in a more
ing limited English proficiency, racial discrimination,
comprehensive way. Conducted in 2002–2003, the Na-
health care access, nutrition, risk behaviors, socioeco-
tional Latino and Asian American Study (NLAAS) was a
nomic status, cancer screenings, and obesity. Because of
national probability sample of 2,095 Asian Americans
these data sets, research is emerging that is providing a
administered in Cantonese, English, Mandarin, Span-
more complete picture of the health disparities impact-
ish, Tagalog, and Vietnamese. The survey oversampled
ing Asian Americans.
Chinese, Vietnamese, and Filipinos and focused on
Scholars across various disciplines within Asian
social position, psychosocial factors, psychiatric disor-
American studies are also recognizing the importance
ders, and utilization of mental health services. Since its
of documenting and giving voice to the responses to
completion, it has been used by various researchers ex-
and meanings of well-being, illness, recovery, and heal-
amining Asian American health issues, including those
ing among Asian Americans. Scholars Jennifer Ho and
looking at the relationships between mental health uti-
James Kyung-Jin Lee (2013) were leaders in initiating
lization, racial discrimination, immigration, psychiatric
and editing an issue of Amerasia Journal—the premier
health
grace j. yoo
123
journal in Asian American studies—on “The State of
there is a movement among public health researchers
Illness and Disability in Asian America.” This issue in-
who are exploring the role of CAM in conjunction with
cludes first-person accounts of living with breast cancer,
biomedical approaches to promote wellness. For exam-
autism, and caring at end of life. Moreover, this issue
ple, San Francisco Bay Area research on Chinese Ameri-
also explores poetry and the politics and the way dis-
cans and tobacco cessation found relatively high rates
ability and illness has traditionally been considered
of success when individuals used both acupuncture and
within Asian American communities. As co- editor
nicotine replacement therapy (E. Chang et al. 2013).
James Lee states:
Since the inception of the Third World Strike at San Francisco State College, the community, as a partner,
Asian Americans are not more or less disabled or
has been central to the development of scholarship in
ill than any other peoples in the U.S. And yet the
the San Francisco State Asian American Studies Depart-
prevailing image of Asian American reticence, an
ment (Asian American Studies Department 2009). In
ostensible silence around our wounded bodies, is
recent years, community-based participatory research
affirmed over and over by the vociferous speech
(CBPR) methods have become nationally recognized
that gives our approach to woundedness a relentless,
by public health researchers as the best approach to bring viable presence and solutions to racial/ethnic
specific name: shame. (xvi)
minority communities. In dealing with the lack of visThe editors state that the silences and the lack of voices
ibility of the experience of Asian Americans and well-
among Asian Americans on disability and illness
ness, this methodological approach has allowed local
ultimately lead to the shame and isolation that many
community-based organizations in the Asian American
feel.
community across the country a chance to partner with
Although biomedical approaches to healing have
larger institutions. Moreover, it has been a mechanism
been particularly espoused by researchers, traditional
to document key health issues through various needs
and indigenous approaches to wellness have often been
assessments; it has also contributed to the creation of
part of both old and new healthcare practices among
community-based interventions in various Asian Amer-
Asian American communities. Almost half of Asian
ican communities. CBPR, CHIS, and NLAAS all contrib-
Americans still engage in such health practices. These
ute to a voice that has been missing in years past. With
traditional approaches include practices that are mind-
these new forms of data and data collection methods,
body (e.g., meditation), biologically based (e.g., herbs),
there is a chance for a more effective voice and the rep-
body based (e.g., acupuncture), and energy medicine
resentation of a more comprehensive picture of wellness
(e.g. Qi Gong) (Mehta et al. 2007). These constructs and
and Asian America.
therapies for healing are also called complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). The first health care clinic created by Chinese immigrants in San Francisco was the Tung War Dispensary (1899), which included traditional Chinese medicine but quickly evolved into approaching wellness from a biomedical approach (Hom 2013). Now, 124
health
grace j. yoo
religious identity, national identity, cultural identity,
33
etc. As Carla Kaplan notes in her own entry on “identity” for Keywords for American Cultural Studies, “[o]ne of our
Identity
most common terms, ‘identity’ is rarely defined” (2007,
Jennifer Ho
123). Indeed, trying to define “identity” seems akin to nailing jelly on a wall. Yet this word is, perhaps, not just a keyword but the keyword that undergirds the field of Asian American studies.
“Identity” is a term that simultaneously unites and
The term’s meaning, within an Asian American stud-
divides Asian Americans. Those with Asian ancestry in
ies perspective, was born out of the modern civil rights
the United States are united in this demographic label
movement of the 1960s and 1970s, a time when people
through the political reality of the history of racialization
were fighting for enfranchisement over and against a
(exclusionary immigration and naturalization laws,
white supremacist society that took whiteness as a uni-
restrictive marriage laws, mass xenophobic incarceration)
versal norm and that relegated all nonwhites to margin-
that Asians in America have been subjected to (and
alized, second-class status. Asian American studies was
continue to be subjected to) and by activist and academic
galvanized by other identitarian movements—black
beliefs in making visible the experiences and histories
civil rights, the American Indian movement, La Raza/
of Asian Americans within the larger U.S. society. Asian
Chicano pride, queer and women’s rights movements.
Americans are divided by the different types of identities
Recalling the work of scholar-activists from this period,
that exceed this singular racial label—by differences of
Gary Okihiro observes that “like many of my generation
ethnicity, heritage, national origin, religion, race, class,
involved in the struggle for ethnic studies and for a Third
immigration status, citizenship, able bodiness, sexuality,
World identity, that insofar as Asians occupy the racial
gender, region, education, language, age, and a host of
margins of ‘nonwhite’ with blacks, yellow is a shade
other identitarian markers. Both the original (1976) and
of black, and black, of yellow” (1994, xii). What these
revised (1983) versions of Raymond Williams’s Keywords:
causes all had in common was a desire to proclaim one’s
A Vocabulary of Culture and Society do not include the term
identity as valid and valued, different and distinct, from
“identity,” which is telling for all the ways in which this
a universalizing normativity that made those who did
word has evolved in meaning and importance in both
not conform to a heterosexual, white, male identity as
popular discourse and academic scholarship. Where once
unequal “others” in U.S. society. As the second defini-
a word like “identity” may have strictly been understood
tion of “identity” in the Oxford English Dictionary states,
to describe psycho- social development, nowadays
“identity” is “a set of characteristics or a description that
the word “identity” brings to mind phrases that have
distinguishes a person or thing from others.” An Asian
currency in our 21st-century lives: identity fraud (or
American identity is distinguished from other racialized
theft), identity crisis, identity politics. We now apply
identities within the United States through the idea that
adjectives to this term that reflect our understanding
as different as the ethnic groups that comprise Asian
of the broadening of subjectivities in U.S. society: racial
America are, they all share common goals. “Despite their
identity, ethnic identity, gender identity, sexual identity,
distinctive histories and separate identities,” writes Yến 125
126
Lê Espiritu, “these ethnic groups have united to protect
strengths and most profound challenges, since there
and promote their collective interests” (1992, 2–3). Fur-
is little commonality that these disparate people share,
thermore, the concept of an Asian American identity is
except for the racial identity of being Asians in America.
rooted in U.S. soil; it is an identity that does not travel
Which thus begs the question: Who is Asian American?
well, since the nature of aligning oneself with others of
As noted above, the field of Asian American studies
Asian descent has the most value within a U.S. context (S.
was founded on a desire to claim a political and ideo-
Wong 1995). Claiming Asian American as a political and
logical identity for people of Asian ancestry residing in
ideological identity and asserting the epistemological
the United States as Asian American in opposition to
and pedagogical value of Asian Americans, Asian Ameri-
the manner in which Asians in America had become ra-
can studies affirms the culture, history, and set of expe-
cialized and subject to the defining power of racist state
riences for Asian Americans as Asian Americans, recog-
apparatuses. However, there is no set agreement on who
nizing the process of racialization in the United States
is Asian American, who identifies as Asian American,
that has created the conditions for a disparate group of
or what it means to claim an Asian American identity,
people with ancestry in various Asian nations to be la-
particularly since the majority of people who would
beled, marked, and identified as Asian American.
mark “Asian” on a census form do not self-identify as
The editors of the earliest assemblage of Asian Amer-
Asian American in their everyday lives but “instead link
ican creative writing, Aiiieeeee! An Anthology of Asian-
their identities to specific countries of origin” (Zhou
American Writers (and the first to use the phrase “Asian
2007, 355), a fact confirmed by the controversial Pew
American” in the title of their book to consolidate an
Report “The Rise of Asian Americans,” in which only
Asian American collective identity), begin their preface
19% of the polled respondents identified themselves
by stating: “Asian-Americans are not one people but sev-
as Asian American (Taylor et al. 2012, 25). One could
eral” (Chin et al. 1974, vii). While the communities they
add that a term like “identity” has different valences
subsequently list include only Chinese Americans, Jap-
and connotations for someone working in psychology
anese Americans, and Filipino Americans (presumably
or anthropology than for someone working in history
these were the three Asian ethnic groups with the great-
or cultural studies. Central to this point are the con-
est numbers living in the United States at the time of
tested meanings inherent in the term “identity” and
their writing), their understanding of Asian Americans
the ways in which Asian Americans both surpass and
as multiple rather than singular is a truism within the
are circumscribed by this term of common affiliation,
field of Asian American studies, since the people found
as Lisa Lowe notes: “the profile of traits that character-
under the umbrella term “Asian American”—who can
ize Asian American ‘identity’ is as much in flux as the
be identified as Asian American—include people from
orthodoxy of which constituencies make up and define
a multiplicity of nations, ethnicities, and regions: Viet
Asian American ‘culture’” (1996, 53). People of Asian an-
Nam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Cambodia, Taiwan,
cestry in the U.S. are interpellated as Asian American by
Pakistan, Burma, Korea, India, Thailand, Syria, and the
scholars wishing to study this particular demographic
list goes on and on. The very vastness and diversity of
and by U.S. culture and society, yet how they are inter-
people that comprise an Asian American identity is si-
pellated varies according to other factors (age, educa-
multaneously one of Asian American studies’ greatest
tion, sex, socioeconomic status, etc.) contingent upon
identity
jennifer ho
their subjectivities. For example, Southeast Asian Amer-
and totalizing definitions in favor of an Asian American
icans are often divergently interpellated from their East,
epistemology that questions essentialist notions of singu-
South, and West Asian American peers, which suggests
larity. One of the most significant contributions that the
that there is a multiplicity to a term like “identity” that
field of Asian American studies has produced is the exami-
a singular racial label often belies (Schlund-Vials 2012b).
nation of intersectionality—the ways in which scholars
Moreover, Asian Americans often refuse the hail of oth-
have recognized the multitude of identities inherent
ers who would seek to limit and stereotype them as Ori-
within the individuals that constitute the collectivity of
ental, as alien, as model minorities. Therefore “identity,”
Asian Americans and the ways that these various identi-
as a keyword in Asian American studies, exists as a set
ties are not simply additive but comprise overlapping
of contradictions, balances, and contestations that can
and sometimes contradictory statuses of oppression and
often vacillate between opposite poles of meaning.
privilege. Asian American studies scholars analyze queer-
Indeed, embedded in the term “identity” is a series
ness (Eng and Hom 1998; Manalansan 2003), gender (Y.
of binaries: self-other, choice-imposition, individual-
Espiritu 1999; Y. Espiritu 2008; Eng 2001; Parreñas 2008),
society, sameness-difference, essential-mutable. How we
class (Prashad 2013; Y. Chang 2010), disability (C. Wu
understand the tensions within these binaries is crucial to
2012), region (Joshi and Desai 2013; Bow 2010), multira-
understanding the pervasiveness and complexity of how
ciality (Spickard 1997; Root 2001; Williams-León and Na-
the term “identity” informs the central intellectual ques-
kashima 2001a), and the intertwined nature of all these
tions raised within the field of Asian American studies.
intersectionalities (and many others) within the context
The tension of being unique, singular, and exceptional
of various Asian American identities.
versus universal, collective, communal. The tension of
“Identity” continues to underpin so much of the
similar experiences and histories versus the differences
work that Asian American studies scholars produce. The
within experiences and histories. The tension of that
power of this keyword is evident when we recognize that
which is inherent and immutable versus that which is
people are both individual and unique entities but ones
changeable and variable. The tension of choosing which
who share a collective social identity with others and
identities, forms of affiliation, and membership in vari-
who gain political enfranchisement through coalitional
ous collectivities one wishes to demonstrate at any given
networks and group identification. Thus, the great-
time versus the ways in which others try to constrain that
est strength of “identity” is also the greatest strength
choice and impose ideas of their own onto one’s sense of
within the field of Asian American studies: the fluidity
selfhood. Yet despite these various tensions found within
and flexibility of this keyword allows for an antiracist
the term “identity” and the impossibility of stability and
activism that guides the discipline of Asian American
fixity, it is, in Kandice Chuh’s words, “the undecidability
studies. Asian American studies was born in the cru-
of identity” that “contributes to the construction of an
cible of social justice activism. It has grown, expanded,
Asian American studies geared specifically toward un-
and changed along with the various constituencies
dermining racial essentialism” (2003, 14; emphasis in
that find themselves grouped under the umbrella of
the original). The term “identity,” with its inherent in-
an Asian American political collectivity, but at its core
determinacy, allows for a generative ambiguity within
Asian American studies remains committed to equality
Asian American studies, one that opposes concretized
and an end to oppression for all people of all identities.
identity
jennifer ho
127
criteria for admission and potential citizenship, and can
34
ing. While immigration as an administrative process
Immigration
has long been understood as explaining how one enters
Shelley Sang-Hee Lee
the United States and becomes American, recent schol-
claim a set of rights and a measure of national belong-
arship taking a critical approach has uncovered some of the ways that immigration policy has historically shaped an exclusionary ideal of citizenship that favors In Asian American studies and other academic fields,
Europeans, men, the able-bodied, and heteronormativ-
“immigration” describes a process of movement
ity (Ngai 2004a; Luibheid 2002; Canaday 2009).
across national borders, long an important part of
128
Historical narratives about the place of immigration
our understanding of U.S. social experience. The early
in U.S. history have also been influential. The historian
twentieth century saw the emergence of immigration as
Oscar Handlin, who viewed immigration as central to
a field of study, as scholars sought to explain large-scale
the American experience, described it as a process of
movements and adaptations involved in the peopling of
rupture and discontinuity, in which people went from
the United States. In recent decades, inquiries extended
the old world to the new, from ethnic to American,
beyond people’s journeys to and initial encounters in
and from static to dynamic lives (Handlin 1951). Being
America to also examine issues of ethnicity, community,
an immigrant was to be disoriented, although it was
and processes of “becoming American.” In legal
ultimately a temporary station en route to becoming
discussion, immigration concerns a related yet different
American. Existing in tandem—and tension—with this
set of matters, specifically those involving citizenship
image of immigration as disruptive was the idea that it
and rights as defined by the state. While Asian American
was nonetheless a defining and proud aspect of Ameri-
studies scholars have drawn on and engaged all of these
can history and character, reflecting a multicultural
approaches to immigration, they have also enriched the
orthodoxy that emerged after World War II. This was
field through new paradigms and conceptual terrain
illustrated, for instance, in Americans’ growing interest
that include diasporic and transnational perspectives.
in their ethnic and immigrant origins, whereas earlier
The legal construction of immigration and the role of
such things would be downplayed (Jacobson 2006).
states in regulating it have informed scholarly and pop-
Although these understandings of the significance of
ular understandings of the term. In the United States an
immigration were deeply social and cultural, they re-
immigrant, by definition, is an individual who has been
mained tied to the state; for example, the celebrated El-
granted permission by a state to enter or remain in its
lis Island in New York harbor was, after all, a federal im-
borders for permanent settlement, and since 1875 im-
migration station, and the achievement of citizenship
migration has been the purview of the federal govern-
fundamentally underscored an individual’s changed re-
ment, under which it has become a process subject to
lationship to the U.S. state. While often presented as a
thorough controls and regulation. A person who holds
universal experience, immigration as it was commonly
the status of immigrant, then, has passed through a re-
understood through much of the twentieth century
gime of papers and examinations, met the United States’
was anything but; it was Eurocentric, transatlantic, and
ignored exceptions to the dominant experience, such as
terms of the discussion. They have not only expanded
the forced migration of Africans across the Atlantic and
our view of immigration, but have also injected criti-
the transpacific journeys of Asians who were processed
cal perspectives on its legal and social dimensions via
at San Francisco’s Angel Island, the less-storied counter-
attention to policy exclusion and racial and ethnic in-
part to Ellis Island.
tolerance, highlighting the underlying white privilege
The late 1900s saw major shifts in the meanings of
that has informed understandings of immigration.
immigration. One of these was increased attention to
More recent developments in immigration studies have
individual agency, a development informed by the rise
moved even further from the kinds of universal, celebra-
of the new social history. Rather than explain immi-
tory, U.S.-centric narratives described earlier. As schol-
gration in purely structural or macroeconomic terms,
ars have confronted the limitations of understanding
scholars such as John Bodnar argued for the centrality
population movements according to Eurocentric, U.S.-
of immigrants’ will and decision making in shaping
focused, and unidirectional models and increasingly
their day-to-day lives (Bodnar 1987). Immigration, then,
acknowledged the complexity and multidirectionality
was not just about broad, large-scale economic and po-
of migration, terms such as “transnationalism” and
litical developments triggering movements of people
“diaspora” have come into greater use. Scholarship on
around the globe; it was also about the minds and inner
the American borderlands, for instance, has highlighted
lives of those individuals who undertook the journeys.
the necessity for models and terminology that account
This emphasis on agency has, furthermore, shed light
for spaces in which state power is muted or contested
on how immigration was marked by continuity as well
and multidirectional movement is the norm. Recent
as discontinuity, particularly with regard to ethnic tra-
studies on Asians have also shown how migration was
ditions transplanted in the United States. Also having
frequently temporary, went back and forth, and en-
a transformative impact was the work of ethnic studies
compassed destinations other than the United States.
scholars who considered the experiences of nonwhite
This includes historical scholarship about nineteenth-
immigrants and subsequently redefined the paradigms
century working-class Chinese immigrants who main-
of immigration. Historian George Sanchez, for instance,
tained communities in the U.S. and China to contem-
studied Mexicans in America, whose experiences some-
porary middle- and upper-class “parachute kids” and
times resembled those of Europeans, but also departed
“flexible citizens” whose translocal lives defy nationally
markedly, as they crossed a land border that was un-
discrete and bounded approaches to understanding the
clearly demarcated, frequently traveled back and forth,
lives and identities of immigrants (Hsu 2000; Ong 1999;
and faced hostility in the United States (Sanchez 1993).
Zhou 1998; Y. Chen 2000).
With regard to Asians, Ronald Takaki and Sucheng Chan
To give a brief overview of Asian immigration to
were among those who challenged entrenched assump-
the United States, this has occurred in four overlap-
tions about immigration, focusing on people who
ping stages structured by economic, social, and politi-
crossed the Pacific, faced persistent discrimination, and
cal factors as well as U.S. policies: pre-exclusion, exclu-
were eventually denied entry via exclusion laws. While
sion, the postwar years, and post- exclusion. During
still arguing for the centrality of immigration in Ameri-
pre-exclusion (mid-1800s through early 1900s), Asian
can life and history, these scholars have changed the
immigration—from China, Japan, Korea, India, and
immigration
shelley sang-hee lee
129
the Philippines—stemmed from disruptions and op-
and were predominantly sojourner male laborers. Chi-
portunities attending the spread of global capitalism
nese began arriving in large numbers in Hawai‘i in the
and imperialism. In China, the “opening” of the coun-
mid-1800s, before the islands became a U.S. territory
try after Britain’s victory in the Opium War (1840–1842)
in 1898. They started to go to North America following
was pivotal. After being forced to open ports to foreign
the discovery of gold in California in 1848, and after
commerce and other forms of Western domination,
mining declined, they continued to immigrate, as de-
China endured depressions and civil conflict, which
velopment in the American West sustained labor needs
displaced people from their land and jobs and enlarged
in various industries. Japanese migration to Hawai‘i
the overseas emigrant pool (Chan 1986; Hsu 2000). In
emerged on the heels of Chinese recruitment (Azuma
Japan, although a modernization program followed the
2005, 27), and their numbers on the mainland under-
country’s “opening” in 1854 by the United States, the
went rapid growth between 1890 and 1910. With regard
toll of rapid transformation and relative underdevelop-
to Koreans, who came during the early twentieth cen-
ment was harsh, particularly for farmers (Ichioka 1988).
tury in much smaller numbers than the two aforemen-
Meanwhile, colonialism shaped emigration from Korea,
tioned groups, the influence of American missionaries
India, and the Philippines. Long closed off from foreign
and officials with ties to Hawai‘i planters was pivotal.
powers, Korea endured a period of outside domination,
Koreans had an even smaller presence on the mainland.
dependency, and instability after Japan foisted upon it
The first group of Filipinos, who could travel to the U.S.
an unequal treaty in 1876 and then annexed it in 1910.
and its territories without restriction under the status
In India, a British colony from 1857, one of the areas
of nationals, arrived in Hawai‘i in 1906 after shortages
especially affected was the state of Punjab, where resi-
of other Asian laborers developed (Melendy 1977; M.
dents reeled from policies resulting in land shortages,
Sharma 1984), and their mainland migration increased
underdevelopment, and high taxes as well as natural ca-
over the 1920s. Asian Indians primarily went to the
tastrophes (Jensen 1988). In the Philippines—a Spanish
mainland, where they found work in Canada and the
colony since the 1500s—the Spanish–American War of
United States. Across all groups, migrants found they
1898 resulted in Spain’s surrender of the territory to the
could earn more in Hawai‘i and the United States than
United States, but that conflict led to a more prolonged
they would as common laborers in their home coun-
one (the Philippine–American War) that brought great
tries, and with their earnings, they helped their fami-
devastation, and in its aftermath, economic depen-
lies and villages. In turn, encouraging stories made
dence and underdevelopment (Fujita-Rony 2003).
it back home via letters and returnees and triggered
This first wave of Asian overseas migrants was diverse and geographically extensive—including Chinese
130
“chain migrations.” While the dynamics of global capitalism and U.S.
and Indian coolies in near-slavery conditions, Japanese
expansion inform much of our understanding of
merchants, Filipino students, and Korean political
why Asians left their homes for the United States and
exiles—but generally speaking, those who went to the
Hawai‘i, exclusion is a critical theme for understanding
United States and Hawai‘i were driven by factors such as
how they were received in America. An early indication
wages (in agriculture, fisheries, manufacturing, services,
of things to come was the Page Act of 1875. The first re-
etc.), educational opportunities, and religious freedom,
strictive federal immigration legislation, it banned the
immigration
shelley sang-hee lee
entry of forced laborers, convicts, and women for the
The postwar period (1943–1965) saw key reforms
purpose of prostitution, but the latter provision was
that paralleled changing perceptions of Asia and Asian
used to effectively exclude Asian (at this time mostly
people during and after World War II. Proscriptions on
Chinese) women and constrain an already small female
Asian immigration and naturalization were repealed
Asian population. From 1882 to 1934, with the rise of
in 1943, 1946, and 1952, but because token quotas for
anti-Asian movements driven by economic and racial
Asian nations were small (one hundred for most), most
anxieties, a series of laws ended the first period of Asian
new immigration occurred via non-quota categories
immigration and began the era of exclusion. The anti-
for spouses, children, and others. Several Asian com-
Chinese movement culminated with the passage of the
munities, however, were transformed. In 1940 the
1882 Chinese Exclusion Act, which banned the immi-
Korean population was about 1,700 on the mainland
gration of Chinese laborers and proscribed foreign-born
and 6,850 in Hawai‘i, but over the 1950s to early 1960s,
Chinese from naturalized citizenship. Japanese exclu-
about 14,000 students, military brides, orphans, and
sion was enacted through diplomatic agreements and
professional workers entered (Melendy 1977). Asian
legislation. To save face internationally, Japan halted
Indians, numbering about 1,500 in 1946 added nearly
the emigration of laborers through the Gentlemen’s
6,500 to its population between 1948 and 1965 (Takaki
Agreement of 1907–1908, although it continued to issue
1989). As before, classed, gendered, and heteronorma-
passports to laborers who had previously been in Amer-
tive attitudes informing immigration policy structured
ica as well as the parents, wives, and children of im-
migration in these years, but in different ways. Between
migrants. Indian exclusion was driven by general anti-
1947 and 1964, about 72,700 Asian women—mostly
Asian sentiments as well as pressure from Canada and
Japanese—entered the United States and for the first
Great Britain, which were concerned about the antico-
time, outnumbered men. Most were admitted as “war
lonial activities of Indians abroad. Informal exclusion
brides” under provisions in legislation passed during
was partially achieved by invoking existing bans such as
and after World War II (S. Chan 1991). Also entering in
those on persons likely to become public charges, and
these years in large numbers were adoptees, students,
statutory exclusion was accomplished with the 1917
and professionals. Between 1953 and 1963, 8,812 Asian
Immigration Act through an “Asiatic barred zone” tar-
children joined families in the United States via ad hoc
geting numerous countries, but tacitly intending to bar
measures or new refugee and immigration laws (Eleana
Indians. Although by the 1920s Asian immigration had
Kim 2010; Oh 2012). The immigration of students and
been greatly reduced, the patchwork means by which
professionals was driven by U.S. demands for educated
this occurred bolstered calls for stricter measures. This
and technically skilled human labor, and policies facili-
came with the passage of the Johnson-Reed Act of 1924
tating their entry included reserving half of the quotas
through a provision barring the immigration of “aliens
under the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952 for skilled im-
ineligible to citizenship,” which covered all Asians ex-
migrants (Hsu 2012). Asian governments also encour-
cept for Filipinos. This exception was addressed in 1934
aged student and professional migration, with the idea
with the Tydings-McDuffie Act, which reduced annual
that emigrants would return and apply their expertise
Philippine immigration to fifty and changed Filipinos’
to their home countries’ development. For example,
status from nationals to aliens.
between 1956 and 1969, about 11,000 Filipina nurses immigration
shelley sang-hee lee
131
entered the U.S. under the Exchange Visitor Program
refugees who continued to leave Cambodia, Laos, and
(EVP), which sought to draw international students and
Vietnam made up the much larger “second wave.” One
workers and foster better understandings of the United
of the key policy responses to this development in the
States abroad (Choy 2003).
U.S. was the Refugee Act of 1980, which created a sys-
The last phase of Asian immigration, post-exclusion (1965 to the present), saw comprehensive reform and an
and by 2000, about one million Southeast Asians had
unprecedented volume of newcomers. Criticism of the
gained entry as refugees (Kelly 1986). Although by the
system under the Johnson-Reed Act led to the passage
early 1990s the refugee flow had largely ended, South-
of the Hart-Celler Act of 1965, which raised the immi-
east Asian migration has continued, mainly via family
gration ceiling and allotted Eastern Hemisphere nations
preference categories in the general immigration system
20,000 annual visas distributed according to a system
or humanitarian parolee status. Southeast Asian new-
favoring “family reunification” and professional skills.
comers tended to be young and arrived as family units.
Between 1966 and 2009, about 9.5 million Asians immi-
While their premigration socioeconomic backgrounds
grated to the United States, with China, the Philippines,
were diverse, downward mobility in America has been
and India being the largest sending countries. Among
common. Among first-wave Vietnamese, for instance,
the pre-Hart-Celler Asian sending nations, only Japan
about 38 percent had secondary school training and
declined (S. Chan 1991). From 1960 to 2000, the Asian
20 percent had university training, but few were able
American population grew from less than 1 million to
to transfer their skills to the American economy (Kelly
10.9 million, an increase stemming largely from a multi-
1986). Professionals also faced licensing and other bu-
plier effect in which immigrants used family preferences
reaucratic obstacles to resuming their former occupa-
to bring relatives who subsequently sponsored other rel-
tions. Unskilled and uneducated refugees faced espe-
atives, and so on. Additionally, once residents became
cially challenging adjustments. In 1980, for instance,
citizens, they could bring close relatives (spouses, chil-
the majority of Hmong in America were illiterate, had
dren under twenty-one, and parents) regardless of visa
few employable skills, and lived below the poverty line.
limits.
Most Cambodians were also unemployed and lived in
A final notable post-1965 immigration development, occurring via non-quota categories, was the arrival of
132
tematic process for reviewing and admitting refugees,
poverty (Chan 2004). Immigration, as a material and administrative phe-
refugees from communist nations in Southeast Asia
nomenon, as well as a politicizing rallying point, con-
(Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos) after the Vietnam War.
tinues to loom large in Asian America today. With re-
In 1975, the United States allotted 130,000 slots for the
gard to family-based immigrant visas—still the chief
“first wave” of Vietnamese and Cambodian refugees,
means by which Asians gain admission for permanent
most of whom were educated, urban, and connected to
residency—Asian countries face four out of the five
the U.S. government. These refugees were resettled by
worst backlogs. Sibling sponsorship comes with the
organizations that matched them with sponsors who
longest wait; people from China and India can wait as
helped them secure jobs and necessities. A smaller group
long as twelve years, and those from the Philippines up
of Laotians paroled into the United States was also part
to twenty-three. Meanwhile, the nonimmigrant sys-
of the first wave (Vang 2010). After these initial efforts,
tem, which admits people on a temporary basis—for
immigration
shelley sang-hee lee
purposes like education, tourism, and professional although individuals entering with these visas must ad-
35
just their status if they wish to stay. This system, more-
Incarceration
over, is also riddled with problems. H-1B visas for skilled
Lane Ryo Hirabayashi
training—has increasingly become a channel for entry,
workers, for example, are subject to caps and distributed on a first-come, first-served basis, and in high-demand years, the slots fill up within weeks. Such problems have given rise to an increase in the Asian undocumented
Internment, like incarceration, is a bona fide keyword
population in the United States, which now numbers
insofar as it is still practiced in the twenty-first-century
about 1.3 million. Asian Americans’ concerns about im-
United States. Internment entails the confinement
migration, thus, include backlog relief and fairer visa al-
of members of a politically suspect group without
lotments as well as rights for the undocumented (Kieu
trial in an effort to isolate, contain, regulate, deprive,
2013; Lim 2013; Ruiz and Wilson 2013). Given current
stigmatize, and dehumanize, sometimes reeducate, and
characteristics of the Asian American population, in
possibly deport if not kill them. What most immediately
which most are foreign born (about three in four), and
distinguishes internment from incarceration per se is
Asia is the largest sending region of immigrants to the
that at a technical as well as a legal level, “internment”
United States, immigration will remain a highly impor-
refers specifically to government policies enacted
tant topic in terms of daily life and policy debates for
against foreign nationals. While current research on
the foreseeable future.
populations of color in confinement— specifically African Americans, American Indians, Chicanos/as, and Puerto Ricans, among other groups—suggests that the terms “internment,” “incarceration” (i.e., being jailed), and “imprisonment” actually bleed into one another, there are good reasons to be cautious about using these words as synonyms. As Aiko Herzig-Yoshinaga (2009) notes, terminology can be used to lie or clarify. Care is needed with the terms that we select so that they do not compromise our ability to capture clearly the distinctive dimensions of the processes through which persons are justly (i.e., punished, via a fair trial, for a crime) or falsely imprisoned and their experiences. For the purposes of this entry, I submit that the case of the selective internment, as well as the mass incarceration, of Japanese Americans during World War II provides a useful data set to illustrate the possible relationships, as well as the differences, between distinctive penal methodologies. 133
purposes like education, tourism, and professional although individuals entering with these visas must ad-
35
just their status if they wish to stay. This system, more-
Incarceration
over, is also riddled with problems. H-1B visas for skilled
Lane Ryo Hirabayashi
training—has increasingly become a channel for entry,
workers, for example, are subject to caps and distributed on a first-come, first-served basis, and in high-demand years, the slots fill up within weeks. Such problems have given rise to an increase in the Asian undocumented
Internment, like incarceration, is a bona fide keyword
population in the United States, which now numbers
insofar as it is still practiced in the twenty-first-century
about 1.3 million. Asian Americans’ concerns about im-
United States. Internment entails the confinement
migration, thus, include backlog relief and fairer visa al-
of members of a politically suspect group without
lotments as well as rights for the undocumented (Kieu
trial in an effort to isolate, contain, regulate, deprive,
2013; Lim 2013; Ruiz and Wilson 2013). Given current
stigmatize, and dehumanize, sometimes reeducate, and
characteristics of the Asian American population, in
possibly deport if not kill them. What most immediately
which most are foreign born (about three in four), and
distinguishes internment from incarceration per se is
Asia is the largest sending region of immigrants to the
that at a technical as well as a legal level, “internment”
United States, immigration will remain a highly impor-
refers specifically to government policies enacted
tant topic in terms of daily life and policy debates for
against foreign nationals. While current research on
the foreseeable future.
populations of color in confinement— specifically African Americans, American Indians, Chicanos/as, and Puerto Ricans, among other groups—suggests that the terms “internment,” “incarceration” (i.e., being jailed), and “imprisonment” actually bleed into one another, there are good reasons to be cautious about using these words as synonyms. As Aiko Herzig-Yoshinaga (2009) notes, terminology can be used to lie or clarify. Care is needed with the terms that we select so that they do not compromise our ability to capture clearly the distinctive dimensions of the processes through which persons are justly (i.e., punished, via a fair trial, for a crime) or falsely imprisoned and their experiences. For the purposes of this entry, I submit that the case of the selective internment, as well as the mass incarceration, of Japanese Americans during World War II provides a useful data set to illustrate the possible relationships, as well as the differences, between distinctive penal methodologies. 133
The arrests of Nikkei, or persons of Japanese descent, began immediately after Japan’s attack at Pearl Harbor.
order to ensure national security. The Army’s Wartime
Based on intelligence lists kept by the FBI, the Army, and
Civil Control Authority (WCCA) then supervised the
the Navy, agents of the U.S. Justice Department swept
removal of persons of Japanese ancestry from the West
down on the West Coast Japanese American communi-
Coast into sixteen temporary camps and, within a year’s
ties, executing searches on and arrests of a little under
time, moved everyone again to ten more permanent
two thousand Issei (first-generation immigrants) and
camps that were run by a civilian agency known as the
Kibei (second-generation U.S. citizens raised in Japan)
War Relocation Authority (WRA).
who were suspected of being disloyal to America. Those
134
whether they were U.S. citizens or not, supposedly in
Once a person was confined in a WRA camp, there
who were detained were largely men, and they were
were a number of different paths out. One was release.
held without any specific charges, let alone actual trials.
As early as 1942, if one could get clearance, find a job
Besides their status as foreign nationals—the Issei were
outside of the excluded areas, secure a sponsor, and
prohibited by law from naturalizing as U.S. citizens un-
would sign an oath promising exemplary, assimilatory
til 1952, and the Kibei were often dual citizens—three
behavior, one could garner release back into the larger
other features differentiated their imprisonment. First,
society even while the war was still going on. Among
they were imprisoned by the U.S. Justice Department in
those who left as early as 1942 were agricultural work-
a federally controlled operation. Second, the fourth stat-
ers and students who sought to continue their studies
ute of the Geneva Conventions applied to these prison-
at the college level. Another way out, for eligible young
ers, and they could appeal to a foreign (i.e., the Spanish)
men, was to volunteer in 1943 for the Army, the only
consulate if and when they believed that their rights
branch of the Armed Forces that would accept Japa-
were being violated. Third, their longer-term disposi-
nese Americans. (Later on, in 1944, all Nisei men who
tion, as far as being eligible for repatriation back to Ja-
were deemed fit were subject to the draft into the Army,
pan, was on a different footing than second-generation
only.) Concomitantly, Japanese Americans who were
Jun Nisei, who were sometimes pressured to renounce
branded as resisters, or who wanted to be sent to Japan
their U.S. citizenship as part of the package to enable
as expatriates, were subject to “segregation”—that is,
their deportation. Those prisoners who were eventually
they were sent to the WRA’s Tule Lake camp, where so-
deemed to be loyal, or at least safe enough to be released
called disloyals and “repatriates” were congregated after
before the war was over, were often sent to one of the
1943. After the Ex parte Endo ruling in 1944, the WRA
ten War Relocation Authority camps described below.
camps were closed down, one by one. When a camp
Others remained interned for the duration.
was closed, everyone was first asked to leave, and then
The subsequent removal in 1942 of over 110,000 Nik-
in some instances, forced to depart (Sakoda 1989). Tule
kei from Military Zone No. 1 in California, Washington,
Lake was finally shut down in 1946, although it is worth
Oregon, and Arizona was initially orchestrated by the
noting that a few enlisted men who earned prison sen-
Western Defense Command and Fourth Army following
tences for their resistance to the government’s actions
the issuance by Franklin D. Roosevelt of Executive Order
against Japanese Americans remained in jail until then
9066, which empowered the Army to round up, remove,
president Harry S. Truman pardoned them in December
and confine persons of whole or part Japanese ancestry,
1947 (Castelnuovo 2008).
incarceration
lane ryo hirabayashi
Both the Army and the WRA utilized a deceptive
as the fundamentally unconstitutional violations that
set of descriptors in order to soften the reality of their
forced confinement entailed. An oft-mentioned aspect
actions. Avoiding any implication that the process en-
of these euphemisms is that their use also allowed other
tailed the massive violation of the constitutional rights
citizens to believe that the camps in which Nikkei were
of those subject to their agencies, the Army created spe-
interned were different, quantitatively and qualitatively,
cial zones forbidden to Nikkei, paving the way for mass
from the camps that were set up in various European
removal from West Coast military zones, and described
countries by the Third Reich during the war. As Ray-
mass incarceration as either “evacuation” (implying
mond Okamura noted (1982), both of the latter points
removal for an individual’s own safety) or “reloca-
allowed those implementing the order to feel that their
tion” (implying a temporary process revolving around
actions were justified, even as the same euphemisms
removal from a given point of origin, followed in due
may have lulled Nikkei into accepting their supposed
time by release), assiduously avoiding the cold, hard fact
fate more passively.
that forced incarceration was an inherent stage in the process.
Following the conformist decade of the 1950s, a more critical evaluation of the wartime camps followed
Two characteristics governed the initial use of termi-
the Third World strikes of the late 1960s at campuses on
nology during and immediately after World War II. One,
the West Coast such as San Francisco State, UC Berkeley,
federal agencies like the WRA insisted on using a set of
and UCLA, which resulted in the first and largest Asian
euphemisms such as “exclusion,” “relocation,” “evacu-
American studies programs, including the first classes
ation,” and the like throughout their public relations
on Japanese American history and the Japanese Ameri-
releases and publications. Two, the term “internment”
can experience. In the 1970s, the first collective calls for
was initially and exclusively applied to the arrest and
redress/reparations were closely tied to Asian American
imprisonment of Japanese nationals, including Kibei,
studies programs that, not coincidentally, were proxi-
in Justice Department–run camps like those at Crystal
mate to the largest Japanese American communities on
City, Texas, and Fort Lincoln, North Dakota. Thus, ac-
the coasts as well as in the Midwest.
cording to historian Roger Daniels, the term “intern-
Early on in the redress movement, the main point
ment” was never utilized by any responsible government
of controversy regarding the terminology about mass
or military official to characterize the confinement of
incarceration revolved around what word to use to de-
Japanese Americans, almost two-thirds of whom were
scribe the sites where the majority of Japanese Ameri-
in fact U.S. citizens, held in the ten WRA camps during
cans had been confined. We now know that the term
World War II.
“concentration camp” was used during the war years by
In retrospect, the government had a clear interest
a number of federal officials, including Roosevelt. Inter-
in adapting euphemisms to describe mass incarcera-
estingly enough, three Euro-Americans were among the
tion. Descriptors like “evacuation” and “relocation”
first authors to feature the term “concentration camp”
softened the presentation of the confinement process
in the title of their books: Bosworth (1967), Daniels
and promoted its supposedly provisional and transi-
(1972), and Bailey (1972). Concomitantly, community-
tory nature. These euphemisms also helped to disguise
based activists like Edison Uno (1974) and Raymond
the economic losses entailed in forced removal as well
Okamura (1982) were important and influential
incarceration
lane ryo hirabayashi
135
advocates of accurate terminology. In standard usage,
136
Commission on the Wartime Internment and Reloca-
as Uno pointed out early on, a dictionary definition
tion of Civilians (CWRIC), created by President Jimmy
of “concentration camp” revolves around the confine-
Carter, Herzig-Yoshinaga and her husband, Jack Herzig,
ment of political prisoners (also see Hirabayashi 1994;
also provided a good deal of the research materials for
Daniels 2005; and Kashima 2003 on this point). The
the work of the Commission, as well as the class-action
battle over the term “concentration camp” as an ap-
lawsuit of the National Council for Japanese American
propriate descriptor was largely played out in the 1970s
Redress (NCJAR) and the coram nobis cases of Fred Kore-
and into the 1980s, and Japanese American community
matsu, Min Yasui, and Gordon Hirabayashi during the
organizations won significant battles to have the WRA
1980s. As an integral part of her work on these cam-
camps characterized as such on the plaques at Man-
paigns, Herzig-Yoshinaga generated various iterations
zanar, in the Owens Valley northeast of Los Angeles,
of a glossary, “Words Can Lie or Clarify,” which offers a
and at other WRA camp sites. It is widely understood,
detailed analysis of U.S. government euphemisms and a
as well, that Japanese Americans have insisted on this
list of alternative terms that more accurately reflect the
wording without wanting to lessen the horrors that be-
realities of what happened during the 1940s (Herzig-
fell Jews, leftists, and homosexuals under Nazi rule (see
Yoshinaga 2009).
Ishizuka 2006). While U.S.-style concentration camps
There is now near-unanimity among Japanese Ameri-
were the end of Japanese Americans’ journey of con-
cans concerning the terminology around that history,
finement, concentration camps were often a step on
and a lion’s share of the credit for that has to go to Mako
the path to execution for those whom the Nazis saw
Nakagawa, a retired teacher, who began to champion
as less than human. In this context, it is worth remem-
the “Power of Words” campaign as a community-based
bering what the philosopher Hannah Arendt wrote
movement out of the Seattle Japanese American Citi-
about political imprisonment. As cited by the histo-
zens League (JACL) chapter that she belonged to. Work-
rian Richard Drinnon, Arendt acknowledged that im-
ing painstakingly to express her stand in educational
prisonment of political prisoners may vary in terms of
workshops, forums, and JACL chapter and regional
purpose and intensity. Evoking Dante’s Inferno, Arendt
gatherings, Nakagawa and her JACL colleagues, such
noted that while camps can be classified in terms of
as Stan Shikuma in Seattle and Stanley Kanzaki in New
their perniciousness—“Hades” (e.g., prisons for hold-
York, found that objections to euphemisms, including
ing enemies), “Purgatory” (e.g., forced labor camps), or
the term “internment,” were more widespread than
“Hell” (e.g., death camps)—that does not alter the fact
many had thought. Nakagawa and her supporters iden-
that all three types are still, in the end, concentration
tified strong allies in a range of JACL chapters, most
camps (Drinnon 1989, 6).
notably the one in Florin, near Sacramento, with activ-
From the early contributions authored by historians
ist Andy Noguchi, as well as in community-based orga-
and community activists, the campaign against gov-
nizations like Nikkei for Civil Rights and Reparations
ernment euphemisms was energized during the 1990s
(NCRR), which sponsors Day of Remembrance obser-
and 2000s by the ongoing critique of Aiko Herzig-
vances and pilgrimages to various WRA camps. The Tule
Yoshinaga. Long a legend in the Japanese American
Lake Committee in particular has endorsed the Power
community because of her seminal work on the U.S.
of Words campaign because members such as Barbara
incarceration
lane ryo hirabayashi
Takei want to ensure that what is “cast in bronze” about
behind Barbed Wire (1952), to cite a few prominent ex-
that camp is accurate.
amples, reserve the term “internment” to describe the
Following up on Roger Daniels’s point— that “in-
camps set up by the U.S. Department of Justice. The
ternment” was never used as a synonym for mass incar-
first book I know of that deviates from this pattern,
ceration by U.S. government officials during World War
slightly, is tenBroek et al.’s Prejudice, War, and the Con-
II—it is difficult to discern when, where, and why the
stitution (1954). In that publication, the first words fol-
word emerged in terms of that usage. Perusal of key texts
lowing “Internment” in the book’s index is, “of alien
indicates the following:
enemies,” which is as it should be. Nonetheless, as
The publications of the U.S. Army and the War Re-
Aiko Herzig-Yoshinaga has noted, the general words
location Authority are uniform in their consistent use
“intern” and “internment” slip into the text as a syn-
of “exclusion,” “relocation,” and “evacuation/evacuee”
onym for the term “incarceration” on pages 123, 125,
and their cognates in order to describe what happened.
and 133, to cite three examples.
Moreover, this basic terminological set is consistent
So, adding to Daniels’s point that “internment” was
through the government’s publications. A good ex-
not used by any responsible government agency during
ample of this can be seen in the language used in the
the war, my survey suggests that the word was not in use
original Evacuation Claims Act of 1948, up through the
for the first decade after the war, either. In other words,
reconsideration of that same act in 1954 (see Amend-
there is little historical precedent from the 1940s or the
ment 1954). In point of fact, the word “internment” is
1950s that justifies the use of “internment” as a descrip-
used correctly in official intra-agency correspondence/
tor for the mass incarceration of the Nikkei. Since this
reports/memos; in publications printed by the Govern-
usage as a synonym appears to be a post-1950 construct,
ment Printing Office for federal agencies such as the
I propose that it can now be discarded, as it is a misno-
departments of State, Interior, Justice (including the
mer, and thus another, more subtle, but nonetheless
FBI), and War, and the latter’s many officials and divi-
pernicious euphemism.
sions (secretary of war, general staff, Army commands,
To wit: on July 7, 2012, the governing council of the
provost marshal general, etc.); and in bills debated and
JACL, the largest Japanese and Asian American civil
acts passed by Congress. These documents are found to
rights organization in the U.S., voted unanimously (86
describe accurately the wartime arrests to “intern” Issei
to 0) to reaffirm its 2010 endorsement of the Power
(i.e., Japanese nationals) and their subsequent confine-
of Words Handbook, as well as to redouble its efforts
ment in “internment camps” under the jurisdiction of
to ensure that the use of euphemistic terminology
the Justice Department.
was curtailed. Thus, the JACL joined other influen-
Similarly, the basic terminology deployed by schol-
tial community organizations that have championed
ars in their book-length publications conforms to the
this same position, including the Japanese American
federal government’s usage. Books such as Leighton’s
National Museum, Densho, and the Manzanar Com-
The Governing of Men (1945), Thomas and Nishimo-
mittee. Although controversies and debates remain,
to’s The Spoilage (1946), Grodzins’s Americans Betrayed
the point here is that words are powerful and a broad
(1949), O’Brien’s The College Nisei (1949), Broom and
sector of Japanese Americans have demanded an end
Riemer’s Removal and Return (1949), and Eaton’s Beauty
to euphemistic terminology, including the use of the
incarceration
lane ryo hirabayashi
137
word “internment” as a descriptor for mass incarcera-
and what were then the territories of Alaska and Hawai‘i,
tion. Moreover, those of us who write about the Japa-
experienced during World War II.
nese experience in the Americas during World War II
Second, in order to keep the discussion about Japa-
should give careful consideration to the social move-
nese Americans’ 1940s experience relevant, compara-
ment that led up to the unanimous endorsement of
tive research relating this history to the internment of
the POW Handbook at the Forty-Third JACL National
Middle Eastern and Muslim detainees, and the incar-
Convention.
ceration of militant activists of color and prisoners of
More generally, the debate over terminology—
conscience, is imperative. Such work, however, can be
words, definitions, connotations, and such—is criti-
effectively initiated only if and when the terminologi-
cally important because words convey meaning: thus,
cal foundations of comparison are soundly formulated.
the terms that are selected necessarily shape descriptions and analyses alike in profound ways. The term “incarceration” denotes confinement in prison and, although no trials were held for the population on the U.S. mainland, “incarceration”—along with the more precise term “false imprisonment”—effectively captures how a wide range of Japanese Americans think and feel about what happened to themselves and/or their families. In the court of public opinion, Japanese American were found “guilty by reason of race.” Concomitantly, it is necessary to eschew euphemisms such as “evacuation” and “relocation,” and exercise more precision in using terms such as “internment” in critical, analytical, and scholarly work on the Japanese American experience. To conclude, there are at least two general insights regarding these keywords that are worth reviewing here: first, that in Asian American and ethnic studies, terminology is not static but rather evolves in the context of racialization projects (Winant 1994). For me, personally and as a scholar, it has been a privilege to work in concert with the activists, organizations, and scholars who have all contributed to the Power of Words campaign. More than through my training, reading, or even archival or oral history work, it is in the context of the Asian American movement that I have found keys to understanding what Japanese descendants in the Americas, 138
incarceration
lane ryo hirabayashi
though in terms of lived experience most of the newly
36
lead lives of destitution, particularly after Northern ef-
Labor
forts at Reconstruction in the South were rolled back
Sucheng Chan
and Jim Crow laws sprang up all over the former Con-
freed black men, women, and children continued to
federate states. Beyond the particular circumstances of the Civil War, however, the hostility against immigrant Asian workers can best be understood within The word “labor” is a fraught one in Asian American
the broader contours of and longer-term trends in U.S.
history because it has distilled and encapsulated
history.
complicated and sometimes strident normative
I argue here that labor has been a fulcrum upon
debates over the nature of Asian labor in the United
which American exceptionalism, both in theory and in
States. How Asian labor has been used and treated by
practice, has rested. Much has been written about the
white employers and how that use has been denigrated,
ways in which the U.S. nation-state differed and con-
condemned, and opposed by white workers, their
tinues to differ from European and other Old World
labor union leaders, politicians, and large segments
countries. The late political sociologist Seymour Mar-
of the public have been important issues not only in
tin Lipset identified succinctly the five characteristics—
Asian American history but also in U.S. history more
liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, populism, and
broadly. A central theme in the anti-Asian movements
laissez-faire—that form American exceptionalism’s
that persisted for almost a century was the allegation
core. These, together, make the organizational patterns
that “cheap” and “servile” Asian labor was a new form
of the U.S. economy, polity, society, and cultural insti-
of slavery. Moreover, white workingmen, it was said,
tutions unique (Lipset 1996). As I see it, all five phe-
simply could not compete against people who could
nomena are related to the kind of labor that is deemed
survive on so little sustenance and bodily comfort.
most desirable: free labor. As men and women who can
Asian female labor was likewise castigated: immigrant
act as equal individuals and according to each person’s
Chinese prostitutes were accused of introducing
interpretation of his or her best interests in a state of
venereal diseases and debasing and corrupting white
liberty, Americans, it is believed, can work with dig-
American manhood while immigrant Japanese women
nity in an economy built upon laissez-faire capitalism
who worked alongside their husbands on farms and in
to earn living wages to support families whose mem-
stores and boarding houses, especially if they did so on
bers can aspire to individual and intergenerational up-
Sundays, were said to demean the ideals of domestic
ward mobility regardless of the circumstances of their
nurturance and moral uplift embodied in white
birth. Should unfree labor be allowed into the country
American womanhood.
(after enslaved African Americans had been techni-
In the years during and after the Civil War, the ac-
cally emancipated), the presence of such coerced or
cusations against “cheap” and “servile” Chinese labor
bound labor, which can take many forms—serfs, pe-
had a special resonance once enslaved African Ameri-
ons, Chinese “coolies,” indentured servants (a vast
cans had been emancipated, at least on paper, even
majority of whom were of European origins during 139
the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries), and con-
The tragedy of U.S. history is that in the process of
tract laborers—would threaten the continued existence
trying to establish and preserve such an idealized soci-
of free labor and free enterprise. Free labor took sev-
ety, racism, nativism, classism, sexism, and ideological
eral centuries to evolve in the Anglo-American world
demagoguery have been the weapons of choice against
(Bush 2000; Cooper, Holt, and Scott 2000; Foner 1970;
the nation’s imagined enemies. Those branded as en-
Glickstein 1991; Guterl 2003; Hoefte 1998; Jordan and
emies or potential enemies have included peoples of
Walsh 2007; M. Jung 2006; Kolchin 1987; Northrup
color who supposedly can function only under the con-
1995; Saunders 1982; Steinfeld 1991; Steinfeld 2001).
trol of their masters yet who dare to demand the same
The controversy arising from the presence of allegedly
treatment as white people; foreigners or aliens who
unfree Asian labor was a small but integral part of the
bring in un-American ideologies yet dare to demand
historically complex process through which free labor
some of the same civil and human rights that citizens
came into being and became synonymous with white
of European American ancestry enjoy; workers who, as
labor.
free labor, dare to demand even better wages and work-
In terms of politics, democratic activism in America
ing conditions, as well as more avenues for upward in-
has often taken the form of populism—an ideology
terclass mobility, than employers already grant them;
focused on the well-being of ordinary people. It can
women who dare to demand equal treatment as men;
flourish only when the nation is made up of free men
and political leaders who dare to criticize the flaws they
and women cultivating free soil, working as free labor,
see in American democracy and laissez-faire capitalism
and engaging in free enterprise who can participate in
and to propose alternative models for structuring the
making decisions about the kind of society they want
nation-state. Asian workers in America engendered such
through exercising their right to vote— an equality
vitriolic reactions because their presence exposed deep-
based on the principle of one person, one vote.
seated contradictions in U.S. society—gaps between
To ensure the survival of such an idealized economic,
140
ideal and reality that exist because of that society’s in-
political, social, and cultural system, articulators of anti-
ability to live up to its ideals and to fully conceal, much
Asian sentiments have averred, threats to the system in
less heal, its self-inflicted psychic wounds.
the form of unfree labor must be excluded or deported
When Asian American studies emerged as a new field
should such slavelike persons manage to sneak into or
of academic inquiry and critique in the late 1960s and
be imported into the country. Furthermore, those who
early 1970s, one of the first tasks that historians of Asian
were or are allegedly incapable of embracing, partici-
America undertook was to correct past and present cari-
pating in, and upholding democratic self-governance
catures and debasement of immigrant Asian and Asian
because of their cultural, ethnic, or racial origins must
American labor. They have tried to unearth, recuperate,
also be repelled from America’s shores lest they intro-
and valorize the history of Asian American workers—
duce authoritarian ideas and practices such as socialism,
pioneers from the Old World who helped build the New
communism, and fascism, on the one hand, and anti-
World of North, Central, and South America. However,
statist thinking and behavior such as anarchism and
until quite recently, Asian American scholars have
syndicalism, on the other hand, that would sully the
largely been unaware of the irony that the would-be he-
nation’s chosen ideology and politics.
roic image of Asian pioneering workers they have tried labor
sucheng chan
to craft contains a contradiction of its own: historically
first half of the twentieth, on the U.S. mainland Chinese
Asian workers have served as, albeit unwittingly, what I
mined for gold wherever it was found in the American
call colonial or imperial “accessories” to European con-
and Canadian West; cultivated and harvested many dif-
quest and colonization of the Americas. Europeans who
ferent kinds of crops; fished for a wide variety of seafood;
settled and “developed” these two continents, as well as
helped construct the western segments of five (and not
Australia, did so by fighting against, killing, removing,
just one) transcontinental railroads (four in the United
confining (usually on poor land incapable of producing
States and one in Canada); built roads, bridges, tunnels,
rich harvests), and infecting (with Old World diseases
and other infrastructure; opened and ran stores that
to which New World peoples had no immunity) Native
sold dry goods, groceries, and curios; owned and oper-
Americans, Native Hawai‘ians, and Alaskan Eskimos in
ated restaurants, hand laundries, boarding houses, gam-
the United States; Inuit, First Nations, and Métis in Can-
bling joints, and brothels; served as cooks and domestic
ada; and Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders in Aus-
servants in white households and rural work camps;
tralia. Asian workers who contributed to efforts to turn
manufactured woolen textiles, clothing, footwear, vari-
supposedly “empty” frontiers well endowed with natu-
ous household items, cigars, ethnic foods, and bricks;
ral resources into white-dominated countries were im-
practiced skilled trades as brick masons, carpenters,
plicated in a centuries-long historical process that dis-
plumbers, blacksmiths, and cane and rattan furniture
possessed, subjugated, and caused the demise of huge
weavers; and were expert repairers of all manner of bro-
masses of indigenous peoples. While fighting against
ken things. A small number became well-off as labor
oppression and creating new lives for themselves as
contractors and middlemen. Professionals served as
ethnic minorities, Asian pioneers have unintentionally
herbal doctors, photographers, letter writers, journalists,
helped rob the land and resources of earlier inhabitants
Chinese-language newspaper publishers, and interpret-
in not-so-empty continents. Asian American scholars
ers in courts and immigration hearings (S. Chan 1986; C.
who study Asians in Hawai‘i and their relationship with
Chiang 2008; P. Chiu 1967; S. Chung 2011; Cohen 1984;
Native Hawai‘ians have led the way in highlighting
M. Jung 2006; J. Jung 2007; Peter Kwong 1979; H. Ling
this still-submerged and discomforting aspect of Asian
2012, H. Liu 2005; Loewen 1971; Lydon 1985; Ngai 2010;
American history, which they call “Asian settler colo-
P. Siu 1987; B. Wong 1997; Marie Wong 2004; R. Yu 1992).
nialism” (Fujikane and Okamura 2008).
In Hawai‘i, Chinese worked in sugar cane plantations,
Were Asian workers indeed “cheap” and “servile”
grew rice and vegetables, ran small businesses, worked
labor as their detractors charged? A review of the his-
as artisans, and offered various professional services
torical evidence offers a nuanced answer. Given the
(Char 1975; Dye 1997; Glick 1980).
fact that the Chinese were the first group of Asians who
The extraordinary mobility of immigrant Chinese
migrated to Hawai‘i and the continental United States
workers, both geographically and occupationally, re-
in sizable numbers, much more has been written about
futes the accusation that they embodied unfree labor,
the kinds of work they did than about the occupations
for mobility means freedom in the United States. As for
of later-arriving Asian ethnic groups. The Chinese
being “cheap” labor, it is true that Chinese workers in-
American occupational range was broad indeed. Dur-
deed received lower wages than their European Ameri-
ing the second half of the nineteenth century and the
can peers when they worked for European American
labor
sucheng chan
141
employers, who valued them not just because they were “cheap” but also because they were industrious and re-
by the time that the United States colonized (or euphe-
liable. Whereas white workingmen who opposed them
mistically, “annexed”) the islands in 1898. Congress
attributed negative traits to Chinese workers, they were
passed an Organic Act in 1900 to make Hawai‘ian laws
in fact feared because of their positive qualities that em-
conform to American laws—the latter had made im-
ployers found attractive (S. Chan forthcoming).
ported contract labor illegal almost four decades earlier.
Similarly, European Americans developed an in-
Once they were no longer bound by contracts, Japa-
tense antagonism toward immigrant Japanese work-
nese plantation workers carried out increasingly larger
ers because of their ability to survive economically
and longer strikes (Beechert 1985; Okihiro 1991; Takaki
and, in some instances, to thrive in the face of tre-
1983). Did they have a working class consciousness?
mendous odds. In particular, they were so highly suc-
Definitely, yes.
cessful as tenant farmers, sharecroppers, and farm
In both Hawai‘i and the continental United States,
owner-operators that they dominated the production
immigrant Japanese were accused of something even
of dozens of labor-intensive fruits and vegetables not
more dire than being “cheap” labor: they were charged
only in California but also in other states in the Ameri-
with “invading” U.S. territory in order to build Japanese
can and Canadian West (Iwata 1992; Matsumoto 1993).
colonies that would serve as beachheads for an expand-
The Issei’s occupational range was a bit narrower than
ing Japanese empire on islands in the Pacific Ocean and
that of the Chinese (Ichihashi 1969; Ichioka 1988).
in the Americas (Duus 1999). Whereas Japan indeed had
Relatively little hostile attention was directed against
such expansionist goals, the Issei, in contrast, thought
immigrant Japanese merchants and others plying ur-
of themselves as frontiersmen who, like pioneers of Eu-
ban trades. The attacks against those earning a living in
ropean ancestry, were helping to tame the American
agriculture, however, were sustained and vituperative.
and Canadian West (Azuma 2005).
A dozen Western states passed antialien land laws to
142
the labor force on the islands’ sugar cane plantations
Far less scholarly attention has been paid to Korean,
deprive them of the ability to earn a living as cultiva-
South Asian, and Filipino labor in America for three
tors of the soil, laws that the Issei challenged strenu-
reasons: they came in smaller numbers, arrived when
ously and at great expense. Many land cases made
frontier conditions were vanishing, and had a narrower
their way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Japanese
occupational range. What all three groups actively en-
lost almost all the cases in the high court, lower fed-
gaged in was agriculture—Koreans and South Asians as
eral courts, state courts, and county courts. Only after
tenant farmers (Cha 2010; Leonard 1992) and Filipinos
World War II did public opinion increasingly turn in
as farm laborers on the mainland and in Hawai‘i (Alcan-
their favor, in no small part due to the heroic sacrifices
tara 1981; Takaki 1983). Chinese, Japanese, and Filipino
that Nisei soldiers had made. More often than not, it
workers all went on strike during the 1930s; Filipinos
was the general public, and not legislators, who voted
were the most militant and persistent in forming their
down the discriminatory alien land laws when refer-
own unions and going on strike to better their economic
enda related to them were put on the ballot (Castle-
conditions in agriculture as well as in Alaska’s canned
man 1994; S. Chan 2014; Chuman 1976). In Hawai‘i,
salmon industry (Beechert 1985; De Witt 1978; De Witt
Japanese contract laborers had become 70 percent of
1980; Friday 1994; Kerkvliet 2002; Reinecke 1996). The
labor
sucheng chan
historical record is thus very clear: immigrant Asian,
1960s, the liberalization of U.S. immigration laws al-
particularly Filipino, labor was anything but “docile.”
lowed Asian immigration to resume. The two principles
World War II was an important turning point in
guiding the new immigration were family reunification
Asian American labor history. After war broke out,
and the preferential treatment of aspiring immigrants
Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, and Korean Americans all
with skills needed in the American economy. Among
signed up for military service. Even as their Issei parents
the first family members to arrive were the wives and
were incarcerated, Nisei soldiers fought valiantly in the
children of Asian men who had lived in the United
European theater and did critical work in military intel-
States for several generations but were unable to bring
ligence in the Pacific theater. Chinese Americans with
them to the United States due to the exclusion laws.
college degrees, for the first time, were hired in defense
Some of the post-1965 immigrants who come under the
industries and other economic sectors suffering from a
family reunification provision can find only low-paid
manpower shortage because of the enormous number
manual and menial jobs that do not require proficiency
of Americans at the warfront. Having fought to defend
in English or skills that can be acquired only through
democracy against fascism, second-generation Asian
higher education. Men work in restaurants, factories,
American veterans were no longer willing to continue
and as janitors in large commercial buildings; women
putting up with the pervasive discrimination that their
work in sewing factories and as cleaners in hotels or
people had suffered. With the G.I. Bill, many veterans
other public venues. In contrast, most well-educated
went to college and became professionals. By the 1960s,
immigrants with professional skills and English profi-
the economic profile of U.S.-born and college-educated
ciency find jobs commensurate with their education,
Asian Americans had improved so significantly that
though often at lower pay, or they establish their own
journalists began to dub them a “model minority.” But
businesses. A sizable Asian American middle class has
this was simply a contemporary attempt to use, once
been growing in the last several decades.
again, Asian Americans as “accessories” to pervasive
By 1980, census figures revealed a bimodal Asian
European American domination. Asian Americans
American population clustered in two groups: a large
were contrasted with other minorities who were said
number in well-paid, high-status positions and another
to suffer deprivations because of their own lack of the
large group in low-paid, low-status jobs. More and more
character traits and behavior that lead to “success.”
scholarly studies now examine the former group, which
An Asian American sociologist has sarcastically called
includes both professionals and businesspeople (Xiang
Asian American professionals, especially those in the
Bao 2007; Blendstrup 2007; S. Chang 2006; Chiswick
information technology sector, “high-tech coolies” to
2011; W. Harvey 2008; Light and Bonacich 1988; P. Min
remind those Asian Americans who love their image as
1996; P. Min 2008; K. Park 1997; Saxenian 1990; Varma
a “model minority” of the fact that European American
2006; Marie Wong 2004; Yoon 1997), but relatively lit-
men still control most of the levers of economic and po-
tle work has been done on the latter (Xiaolan Bao 2001;
litical power in the late twentieth and early twenty-first
Chin 2005; M. Louie 2001; Mathews 2005). For this
centuries.
reason, the current picture of Asian American labor is
Just as the socioeconomic status of U.S.-born Asian
a partial one. The corpus of writings on contemporary
Americans began to show notable improvement in the
unionization efforts among Asian American workers
labor
sucheng chan
143
and general studies of poverty among peoples of color, done to ameliorate their conditions is slim indeed. Why
37
is this the case? Has the vision of some Asian American
Law
scholars been influenced by neoliberal ideology that
Neil Gotanda
including lower-class Asian Americans, and what can be
sings the praises of unregulated, unfettered capitalism and small government but shows no concern for those workers whose toil for less than living wages is what enables corporations to make their enormous profits?
The scope, significance, and depth of thinking on the
Where has the materialist critique that underpinned
law is difficult to overstate. Ancient religious traditions,
Asian American studies in its early years gone?
the oldest forms of commerce and contract, the earliest recorded forms of government—all embrace notions of law. In modern society, legal thinking can be seen in virtually every aspect of our lives. Within Asian American studies, there is widespread acceptance and use of legal documents and legal categories. Yet little attention has been paid to studying as well as using these pervasive elements embedded in so many aspects of our discipline. To begin such a study, three themes in modern jurisprudence are helpful to sort the ways that law is used and understood in Asian American studies. First we observe that government power in the form, for example, of federal laws on immigration, exclusion, and citizenship, and state laws on access to courts and land ownership, have directly affected and shaped Asian American communities in the United States. Focus on this dimension of law—direct orders of the state separated from their morality—can be seen as within the tradition of positive law (Bix 2013). A different jurisprudential theme, liberal legalism addresses law and politics, and sees constitutional rights as limiting government. Liberal liberalism defines a broad domain of social, economic, and political activities (Kalman 1998). An examination of this domain helps in the interpretation of an early and sometimes continuing divide in Asian American studies. On one side are
144
and general studies of poverty among peoples of color, done to ameliorate their conditions is slim indeed. Why
37
is this the case? Has the vision of some Asian American
Law
scholars been influenced by neoliberal ideology that
Neil Gotanda
including lower-class Asian Americans, and what can be
sings the praises of unregulated, unfettered capitalism and small government but shows no concern for those workers whose toil for less than living wages is what enables corporations to make their enormous profits?
The scope, significance, and depth of thinking on the
Where has the materialist critique that underpinned
law is difficult to overstate. Ancient religious traditions,
Asian American studies in its early years gone?
the oldest forms of commerce and contract, the earliest recorded forms of government—all embrace notions of law. In modern society, legal thinking can be seen in virtually every aspect of our lives. Within Asian American studies, there is widespread acceptance and use of legal documents and legal categories. Yet little attention has been paid to studying as well as using these pervasive elements embedded in so many aspects of our discipline. To begin such a study, three themes in modern jurisprudence are helpful to sort the ways that law is used and understood in Asian American studies. First we observe that government power in the form, for example, of federal laws on immigration, exclusion, and citizenship, and state laws on access to courts and land ownership, have directly affected and shaped Asian American communities in the United States. Focus on this dimension of law—direct orders of the state separated from their morality—can be seen as within the tradition of positive law (Bix 2013). A different jurisprudential theme, liberal legalism addresses law and politics, and sees constitutional rights as limiting government. Liberal liberalism defines a broad domain of social, economic, and political activities (Kalman 1998). An examination of this domain helps in the interpretation of an early and sometimes continuing divide in Asian American studies. On one side are
144
those disciplines—history, political science, sociology,
Black liberation could not be captured by such a narrow
legal studies—that are framed by legal categories and
methodology. Similarly, the deep history of Latinos,
draw upon positive law materials. Eschewing legal cat-
from pre-Columbian roots and the Spanish Conquest,
egories and legal framing are the aesthetic disciplines—
through independence, the U.S.–Mexican War, the
literature, poetry, art, cinema, music. Their exploration
Spanish–American War, colonialism, and neocolonial-
of the Asian American is not bounded by a legal or even
ism, is also beyond the scope of a description based on
naturalist frame. This distinction within Asian Ameri-
positive law.
can studies is not simply a reflection of a traditional di-
Beyond the central role played by legal enactments,
vision of knowledge within the academy. The division
their documentation has also helped to shape Asian
is between those disciplines bounded by the legal and
American studies. Stated simply: legal research is a read-
those disciplines that do not accept the normative limi-
ily accessible mode of historical investigation. From the
tations imposed by legal thought and categories.
beginnings of the colonial era, laws and their enactment
A more recent school of legal thought—critical legal
were already subject to government-sponsored record
studies—helps describe a third usage of law found in the
keeping. By 1789, there were established practices of
activist tradition of Asian American studies. Critical le-
recording statutes, maintaining court records, and pub-
gal studies emphasizes the indeterminacy of the law and
lishing judicial opinions. As government documents,
focuses on the role of social ideologies in shaping legal
they are more likely to be collected in archives and of-
outcomes (Binder 2010). In Asian American studies, ex-
ficial histories. These practices, including the modern
amination of the activist tradition has often focused
availability of commercial databases and digitized colo-
upon courtroom dramas such as the cases of Vincent
nial records, have meant legal research may be less ex-
Chin and Wen Ho Lee. The study of the social function
pensive than other forms of research. Our American sys-
of such high-profile events, while based upon the trial
tem for the creation of knowledge is built on graduate
of an individual, has gone beyond a focus upon the trial
school studies and academic positions where research
outcome, and emphasizes the ideological meaning of
resources may be limited. When, for economic as well
the trial for Asian American communities.
as cultural reasons, legal records are chosen for source
This essay will review these three dimensions to law
materials, that legal documentation has shaped the in-
and Asian American studies and conclude with a com-
vestigation and the perspectives possible for discussion.
ment on the role of law in future directions for Asian
Positive law has, therefore helped frame the historical
American studies. The central role of government power
dimension of our field.
can be seen by simply listing these enactments at both
Beyond questions of history, as noted earlier, much
the federal and state levels. More than that of other non-
of contemporary thought and action is framed by law,
White groups in America, Asian American history has
legal subjects, and legal relations. Besides immigra-
been structured by direct governmental actions, espe-
tion, citizenship, and family, the groups selected for
cially at the federal level. Any historiography of Black
examination in political, sociological, and economic
and White in the U.S. could not be limited to statutes
analysis—racial, ethnic, voting blocs, income groups,
and court decisions. The scope of slavery, the Civil War,
residential location, employment—are often grounded
reconstruction, and the mass popular movements for
in legal relations. Viewed in this fashion, legal thinking
law
neil gotanda
145
provides the structure and frame for questions to be
legal categories—immigration, race, citizen, nation—in
posed and analyzed.
her investigation. By working with literature and us-
This grounding in the law can be seen as providing
ing methodologies not restrained by the legal, Lowe
an important limitation to Asian American projects.
can imagine goals for her project that go beyond lib-
The earliest narrative project of crafting an Asian Ameri-
eral legalism. In examining the racialization of Asian
can history established straightforward legal objectives
Americans, she does not limit herself to ending “racial
as the conclusion for the histories. Securing entry and
discrimination” with its implicit goal of assimilation
then reentry rights for Chinese was a statutory project
to American society. Rather, she seeks to “open possi-
(see, e.g., S. Chan 1991). Similarly, efforts to secure par-
bilities of cross-race and cross-national projects” (1996,
ticular Asian Americans’ civil rights—voting and access
175). In her comment on American national culture, she
to courts as well as participation in civil society through
notes that racism and barriers to Asian American citi-
employment, business, and education—implicitly ad-
zenship have estranged Asian immigrants. The distance
opted as an endpoint their full participation as Ameri-
created by this estrangement makes possible an “alter-
can citizens (Ichioka 1988). As part of a story of resis-
native cultural site, a site of cultural forms that propose,
tance and struggle against racism and discrimination,
enact and embody subjects and practices not contained
civil rights and full citizenship have been crucial aspi-
by the narrative of American citizenship” (1996, 176).
rational goals. But their legal character also defines the
aesthetic in the structure of Asian American Studies: A
limits of those projects. The citizenship category sought by Takao Ozawa
146
One can see the differentiation of the legal and the Reader, edited by Jean Yu-Wen Shen Wu, in the Ameri-
would have allowed him participation in American
can studies program at Tufts, and Min Song, in the Eng-
civil society, but also reaffirmed the nonparticipation of
lish Department at Boston College. Their book, pub-
noncitizens. The category of citizenship also ignored or
lished in 2000, was intended to be an introduction to
even denied other freedoms outside of then permissible
the field of Asian American studies. Immediately after
boundaries. Overcoming a racial barrier to naturaliza-
their introduction, they present a legal chronology to
tion ignores gender, marriage, or sexuality as they relate
frame the history of Asian Americans. They title the first
to citizenship. Laws by their nature are both inclusive
half of their readings “The Documented Past.” These ar-
and exclusive. By establishing categorical boundaries,
ticles have a strong legal history flavor. The second half
there is the explicit establishment of norms that limit
of their readings is titled “Social Issues and Literatures.”
other human potentials.
Organized around topical concerns, the articles include
If we view the history and literature divide of the
more literary comment and end with four stories col-
early years of Asian American studies through a filter of
lected under “Representations and Identities.” In their
legal thought, we can interpret some of the contours of
separation of the historical from the literary, there is
the separation. Helpful in this regard is Lisa Lowe’s in-
the suggestion that the implicit legal framing of the his-
fluential 1996 crossover book, Immigrant Acts: On Asian
torical is insufficient to address the issues facing Asian
American Cultural Politics. Lowe explicitly builds upon
Americans and our aspirations for the future. That sug-
the same documentary materials as lawyers, histori-
gestion is explicit in their closing readings. Wu and Song
ans, and political scientists and uses many of the same
state that the last section “gives space to experimental,
law
neil gotanda
exploratory and contemporary creative voices that are
indeterminacy of law. Rather than focusing upon “cor-
in the process of redefining what it means to write Asian
rect” outcomes, CLS argues that specific legal outcomes
American literature” (2000, xxiii).
can be the product of social and ideological forces. The
A third dimension to the law can be seen in the fa-
treatment of law by community activists in political tri-
miliar link in Asian American studies to social activism.
als should be seen as reflective of a CLS view of the law.
One well-known example of such a campaign was the
In the Vincent Chin case, the atmosphere of indiffer-
one that led to a series of trials around the 1982 murder
ence to anti-Asian violence, reinforced by local media
of Vincent Chin in Detroit, Michigan. The incident and
and the state trial court, became an important theme of
its political aftermath are regarded as an important mo-
the publicity. Demands for “justice” in the face of the
ment in the politicization of Asian Americans identify-
lenient sentence were aimed at the judicial system itself.
ing as Asian Americans. Chin was a 27-year-old Chinese
Similarly, activist publicity around the trial of Wen Ho
American who was beaten to death by two white, un-
Lee emphasized that there was no actual evidence that
employed auto workers. They apparently believed Chin
he had committed espionage. Rather, his greatest of-
to be Japanese and blamed him for their being out of
fense was to be of Chinese ancestry at a moment when
work. In the subsequent state trial, they were convicted
international tension between the United States and
but sentenced to three years’ probation and a small fine.
China was running high (Shelley Lee 2013).
Journalist Helen Zia and lawyer Liza Cheuk May Chan
These three different understandings of law—
played important roles in developing broad Asian Amer-
positive law, normative jurisprudence, and critical legal
ican support for pursuing the case. Publicity and com-
studies—offer important insights into Asian American
munity pressure led to a federal civil rights trial, appeals,
studies. At the level of the subject matter for examina-
and a civil lawsuit (Shelley Lee 2013).
tion, and at the level of the methodologies of our dis-
In high-profile trials such as those growing out of
ciplines, we can see law as formative and providing
the Vincent Chin case or the “espionage” trial of Wen
unintended direction. To transform this nonconscious
Ho Lee, there is a different sense of the law from our
framing of our work, the study of law needs greater at-
earlier characterizations of positive law and normative
tention on its own terms. This is especially true for legal
jurisprudence. In cases such as these, the search for in-
studies at law schools where there continues deep resis-
dividual justice is important but not necessarily the sole
tance to “outsider jurisprudence,” including feminist
or even the most important objective. To complement
studies, queer theory, critical race theory, LatCrit stud-
the trial outcome—the usual centerpiece of litigation
ies, and Asian American jurisprudence. Within Asian
or prosecution—the broader ideological implications
American studies, there is the need for recognition that
for society and here, for Asian Americans, becomes an
lawyering includes these academic investigations into
essential aspect of the case. This shift to the ideologi-
the jurisprudential as a complement to the lawyering
cal suggests an alternative legal philosophy that better
linked to community activism that has played such an
describes the law in political trials.
important role for the field.
Critical legal studies (CLS) was a legal and political
It is on the terrain of the aspirational that we can
movement that began in the early 1970s as a radical ex-
see the depth of the influence of the legal on Asian
tension of 1930s “legal realism.” CLS emphasizes the
American studies. Law at its most abstract level can
law
neil gotanda
147
offer universal possibilities. But the visions of Ameri-
we can see the potential for new directions alongside
can liberal legalism are bounded by the terms of liberal
deeply troubling complexities. Like law, religion can of-
democracy—individual human rights, democracy in
fer a dimension of the universal. But unlike law, religion
government through voting, and restraints on arbitrary
and the sacred are unbounded by the secular limitations
government power through the rule of law. Important
of the legal. The comments of Pope Francis, speaking in
as these are, their limits can be seen when compared
a transnational context, hint at these possibilities. Simi-
with the aspirations of utopian socialism articulated
larly, the religious teachings of the Dalai Lama have illu-
in the Marxist and Maoist influences seen in the early
minated spiritual dimensions beyond narrow ethnicity
years of Asian American studies. Beyond rights, utopian
or human rights. Religion and the sacred can be open to
socialism envisioned universal human liberation. Eco-
all, not simply citizens.
nomic want and existing social norms were to be super-
Yet the diasporic religious vision can also be clouded
seded in a limitless and unbounded future. Today, these
by deep currents of violence. At worst, international re-
objectives sound dated and politically naïve. In their ab-
ligiously inspired violence has merged in Asian Ameri-
sence, we can aspire to international human rights en-
can stereotyping with a vicious new version of the Asian
forced by the law of nations and an international court
spy and saboteur— the Islamic terrorist (Leti Volpp
of justice. These are noble goals but not the older visions
2002). While an example of American racial stereotyp-
that fired the imagination.
ing, this terrorist stereotype can be extended to the sce-
Consider two trends within Asian American studies that have sought to transcend some of these limitations:
narios of violence in Sri Lanka and other parts of South and Southeast Asia.
the recognition of diasporic formations and the growth
This conclusion is mixed. Law as a framing for the as-
of Asian American religious studies. At the UC Berkeley
pirational in Asian American studies retains an impor-
Asian American Studies Program, scholars have sought
tant place. Racism against Asian Americans in the forms
to extend our ethnicity into a global diasporic frame. A
of discrimination, violence, stereotyping, and interna-
transnational and diasporic network can offer a basis
tional scapegoating can and should be addressed using
for far-reaching goals. Yet the foundational category of
legal norms and standards. At the same time, we should
the Asian American is itself either a particularity within
seek to develop new aspirational goals. Only by recog-
American society and part of a transnational formation.
nizing the limitations of legal norms and the law can
If the objectives crafted within Asian American studies
we move beyond the legal to recognize new possibilities.
focus upon an end to racial and ethnic discrimination, then the legal goal of universal citizen rights is genuinely important. Yet the limitations of the legal remain. International human rights offer full participation in civil society—an inherently partial vision of our human future. Within Asian American studies, one of the few disciplines in which aspirations to the universal are part of the discipline is Asian American religious studies. Here, 148
law
neil gotanda
aspects of race and culture in comparison to a norma-
38
tive white middle-class American identity. Asians (and
Media
Orientals, a racial group that is defined in opposition
Shilpa Davé
to whiteness, and more generally as the opposite of the
more specifically Chinese) were initially referred to as
Occident or West (Robert Lee 1999). Edward Said’s Orientalism (1978) revised traditional dichotomies between Eastern and Western definitions of culture, exposed
The word “media” is fundamentally about the power
the constructed nature of the East as an exotic foil to
and control over the dissemination of information
a Western norm, and provided an analytical tool with
in mass culture. The intersections between Asian
which to reexamine how imperialism and colonialism
American studies and media explore Asian American
shape historical and cultural perceptions of Asians in
cultural production and representation from the joint
American culture across multiple disciplines, includ-
perspective of global culture and American cultural
ing anthropology, history, literature, and media studies.
trends. The term “media” first appeared in the mid-
The introduction of a cultural studies methodology to
nineteenth century, but the word takes its roots from
media studies in the 1980s and 1990s opened up new
the Greek language, where it is related to aspects of
areas of research and analysis that utilized critical theo-
performance and literally means “voiced stop” (OED).
ries of ethnicity, nationality, colonialism, gender, race,
The more common usage of “media,” related to
and class, and paved the way for Asian American media
communicating with the masses, developed in the
studies.
1920s. “The media” was associated with reporters,
While drawing from communications methodol-
journalists, and people working for organizations
ogy, it is the melding of a cultural studies approach
devoted to mass communication in print, radio,
with comparative ethnic studies that forms the foun-
and film, and eventually television. While early
dation for current discussions of Asian Americans and
media studies examined the types and influences of
the media. In the field of communications, the study
communications on the population that included
of mass media often focuses on the technological and
the effects of advertising, consumerism, and audience
production aspects of media. Critical theorists such as
response, contemporary discussion, research, and
Marshall McLuhan (1963) argued that “the medium is
scholarship in Asian American studies address the
the message,” emphasizing that the format or deliv-
types of messages created, consumed, propagated, and
ery system of communications can trump the content,
repeated about Asian Americans in American culture.
whereas others in the field such as Neil Postman (1985)
In addition, scholars discuss how different mediums
worried that the format of television, for example, pre-
(digital, electronic, film, print, radio, and television)
vented complex discussions about issues and promoted
are used to communicate, influence, and challenge
entertainment that tended to oversimplify and present
perceptions of Asian American identity and culture.
repeatable and superficial images. The roots and study
Historically, the media tends to elide Asian and Asian
of cultural theory were heavily influenced by two Eu-
Americans into one group that emphasizes the foreign
ropean schools of thought: the Frankfurt School (with 149
key figures such as Theodor Adorno), in which studies
mainstream stereotypes, historically, the dominant
of mass culture are examined with respect to class, la-
representations and news of Asian Americans in main-
bor, and economics, and the Birmingham School (led
stream media derive from U.S. immigration and natu-
by theorists such as Stuart Hall 1973), which argues that
ralization laws and labor policies. These representations
popular culture is a part of interactive everyday culture
carry over into the contemporary culture of images
that is constantly evolving and, significantly, is where
that often exaggerate physical differences from a white
consumers can act and make their own meanings in
American mainstream identity and dwell on alterna-
subcultures that are often resistant to mainstream pro-
tive cultural values and behaviors that include accent
ductions. Asian American media studies combines as-
and language, religion, food, and marriage practices
pects of both these approaches and also engages with
(Robert Lee 1999; Davé, Nishime, and Oren 2005; Davé
topics of gender and sexuality.
2013; Nguyen and Tu 2007; Tu 2010). In the late nine-
Among the different types of media, “old” media re-
teenth and early twentieth centuries, stereotypes were
fers to print, film, television, and radio that is primarily
advanced by white or other ethnic actors in “yellow-
controlled by network and industry corporations but
face” or “brownface” roles in part because of interracial
also includes independent productions, and “new” me-
casting restrictions in Hollywood. Despite the easing
dia refers to electronic means of communications begin-
of race-based censorship after World War II, yellowface
ning with technology from the 1960s that leads to more
and brownface performances continued, such as those
individual uses of media. In the twenty-first century,
by Mickey Rooney as Mr. Yunioshi in Breakfast at Tif-
the term “social media” has emerged to describe the
fany’s (1961), David Carradine as Cain in the television
participatory culture of the masses in online communi-
show Kung Fu (1972–1975), Jonathan Pryce as the mul-
ties and communication available via the Internet and
tiracial Engineer in Broadway’s Miss Saigon (1990), and
accessible through new technological devices and in-
Hank Azaria as the voice of Apu on the animated series
novations. Interactions occur on a variety of platforms
The Simpsons (1990–).
including Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, online news sites,
Ongoing stereotypes that are repeated in popular cul-
and blogs and range from dating to political protests to
ture depict Asians as a foreign and alien (and sometimes
organizing social movements to corporate advertising
threatening) race, model minorities who assimilate
and newsfeeds. The advent of digital media and mul-
into American culture, and transnational and global
tiple ways to access it has led to a “convergence culture”
citizens associated with trade and world economics.
that allows for selective means to engage with media
The reappearance and revisions of stereotypes often are
depending on interest (Jenkins 2006) and an evolving
influenced by U.S. foreign policy or economic factors in-
engagement with media, i.e., “spreadable media,” (Jen-
cluding wars, military engagements, and news related
kins, Ford, and Green 2013) that includes audience par-
to competitions in manufacturing and technological
ticipation, corporate interests, individual innovations,
innovation. The negative representation of the Chinese and other Asian American groups, sometimes called
and transnational flows.
150
While much of the research focuses on popular im-
the “yellow peril” discourse, particularly references
ages and representations of Asian and Asian Ameri-
U.S. military and economic clashes with China, Japan,
cans in mass culture and Asian American responses to
Korea, and Southeast Asia (Klein 2003; Ono and Pham
media
shilpa davé
2008). According to this narrative, Asians threaten to
and popular culture, and the Alexandra Wallace anti-
take over or invade the U.S. either as an undifferenti-
Asian rant on YouTube (2011).
ated national group or as individuals dominating an
The model minority image appeared as a staple in
area of expertise or industry. In opposition to the yellow
media portrayals after the 1965 Immigration Act, when
peril discourse is the model minority discourse, which
changes in U.S. policies resulted in the immigration
appears to be positive but instead is divisive, isolating
of large numbers of professionals and students from
Asian Americans from other U.S. racial minorities (i.e.,
China, Taiwan, Korea, the Philippines, and South Asia.
African Americans and Latino/as) by defining them as
The model minority stereotype in the media presents all
hard-working or extremely smart overachievers. In this
Asians as immigrant success stories who assimilate into
case they are framed as both a model of assimilation to
U.S. society but are not necessarily aligned with civil
American culture and a potential threat to both other
rights or activist movements in the United States. In-
minority and majority populations.
stead, the characters or narratives promote mainstream
Historians have linked the origin of the yellow peril
middle-class values that do not often challenge gender
narrative in the U.S. to perceptions of the Chinese de-
or racial hierarchies. In general, many of the early repre-
rived from nineteenth-century political cartoons and
sentations of Chinese men and women carried over and
popular songs in which they were depicted as foreign,
were mapped onto other Asian groups such as Japanese,
racially alien “coolie” labor that threatened white op-
Koreans, Indians, South Asians, Filipino/as, and South-
portunities and/or white moral standards in the West;
east Asians despite the historical, cultural, and linguistic
such depictions shored up support for anti-immigration
differences between these groups. Immigrants and na-
legislation directed against the Chinese (the 1875 Page
tives from South Asia and the Philippines have been de-
Act and 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act) (Robert Lee 1999).
picted as both model minorities and threats in the world
Chinese men were portrayed as desexualized, with
labor market. After the attack on the World Trade Center
buck teeth, slanted eyes, long ponytails (queues), and
and Pentagon, South Asians and South Asian Americans
rice paddy hats, wearing long robes and speaking in ac-
have also been associated with terrorism as well as labor
cented, broken English. While men were represented as
and economic competitors with the United States.
subservient, asexual, or villainous—such as the crimi-
In the twenty-first century, Asian American charac-
nal mastermind Fu Manchu in the 1920s pulp fiction
ters are sidekicks to white protagonists or part of racially
of Sax Rohmer—Asian American women were shown
diverse ensemble casts on several successful network
as hypersexualized. Their portrayals vacillate between
programs. Asian Americans have also become the cen-
unscrupulous, disloyal, and fallen “dragon ladies” and
ter of their own films and television shows following
innocent, exotic “lotus blossoms” (D. Gee 1988; Elaine
groundbreakers such as Margaret Cho in All-American
Kim 2011; Marchetti 1993; Shimizu 2007). These images
Girl (1994–1995) and feature films such as The Joy Luck
have been resurrected and repeated in film, television,
Club (1993). John Cho and Kal Penn have starred in
print, radio, and new media from Long Duk Dong in
three Harold & Kumar films (2004–2011) and actress
Sixteen Candles (1984) to Ling Woo in Ally McBeal (1997–
Mindy Kaling produces her television vehicle, The
2002), from the caricatures on Abercrombie and Fitch
Mindy Project (2012–). These narratives challenge the
T-shirts (2002) to the “tiger mom” furor (2010) in print
yellow peril discourse and the model minority narrative
media
shilpa davé
151
by creating characters whose “Asianness” does not de-
152
(2002). The career of acclaimed Asian American film
fine their identity but is part of their everyday existence.
director Ang Lee started with independent productions
These narratives help to redefine how we think about
such as The Wedding Banquet (1993). The celebrated
Asian American identity and culture outside of the ste-
director Mira Nair has focused on how migration and
reotypes we have been accustomed to seeing and lead to
immigration influences South Asian community iden-
increasingly diverse representations of Asian Americans.
tity in the U.S. and abroad in such films as Mississippi
Although representations of Asian Americans are
Masala (1991), Monsoon Wedding (2001), and The Name-
dominated by mainstream representations, there have
sake (2006). Works such as these have inspired younger
been counters to these images in independent media.
Asian American directors including Kayo Hatta, Justin
Independent media allows for the exploration of Asian
Lin, and Eric Byler to make breakout films of their own.
American history and experience outside of the main-
The availability and widespread use of new forms of
stream and opportunities to showcase the diversity of
digital technologies and cross-media convergence have
Asian American identities, identities that are evolving
produced new ways of interacting with and consuming
rather than fixed stereotypes (Feng 2002). “Old media”
media. In addition, the reach of transnational media
outlets produce bilingual and in-language newspapers
culture and growing production of global popular cul-
for Asian American communities and U.S. radio stations
ture in Asia has influenced how we understand Asian
from Washington, D.C., to Dallas, Chicago, and Los An-
American identity. Sharing between cultures grows as
geles feature Korean, Vietnamese, Indian, Pakistani, and
satellite television and YouTube can deliver Bollywood
Chinese programming. VC (Visual Communications),
films, Korean serials, or Filipina beauty pageants right
a community- based funding organization for Asian
to our screen. In addition, popular television formats
American productions, and the Center for Asian Ameri-
such as the Japanese cooking show Iron Chef have been
can Media (formerly known as the National Asian Amer-
revamped for American television and American shows
ican Telecommunication Association) are important
such as America’s Next Top Model have licenses across
distributors of documentaries and independent films
the globe, including programs such as China’s Next Top
that feature Asian American histories and experiences
Model, India’s Next Top Model, and Vietnam’s Next Top
that challenge mainstream stereotypes (R. Leong 1992).
Model. Cross-media migrations such as Japanese anime
Asian American film festivals on college campuses and in
influencing U.S. illustrators or joint-financed projects
cities ranging from New York to Toronto to San Francisco
with Hollywood and Bollywood producers are also a
and Seattle also provide vital outlets for Asian American
result of converging media culture. These transnational
filmmakers and stories. In Asian American studies and
interactions have created new opportunities for under-
ethnic studies classrooms from primary and secondary
standing how media works to produce, represent, and
schools to university and community settings, indepen-
articulate Asian American identity beyond the narra-
dent Asian American films are screened, including the
tive tropes of the immigrant, migrant, and native in the
Academy Award–nominated documentary Who Killed
changing world of global communications and cross
Vincent Chin? (1981); public television channels have
media exchange.
aired documentaries such as My America . . . or Honk
Scholars argue that new media offers a different kind
If You Love Buddha (1997) and Daughter from Danang
of access for Asian Americans to organize and interact
media
shilpa davé
with each other as well as create alternative media representations of Asian Americans (Nakamura 2002). Asian Americans are a dominant presence online and use the
39
Internet more than any other racial or ethnic group in
Memory
the United States (Considine 2011). Additionally, Asian
Viet Thanh Nguyen
Americans are no longer only subjects of mainstream discussion and representation, they are also the producers and innovators in online narratives. Individuals, groups, small business, and advertisers are actively en-
Memory is fundamental to Asian American studies and
gaged in creating and producing blogs, commentaries,
cultures, even though as a keyword or term it has not
and YouTube videos that appeal to the Asian American
been significant in the academic realm. Its importance
consumer market. Asian American musicians can fea-
holds true whether one speaks of Asian American
ture their music and entrepreneurs can market their
culture as a self-identified panethnic whole, or Asian
products with increasing efficiency. The challenge is de-
American cultures in their various ethnic parts. In either
termining how online popularity influences and crosses
the panethnic or ethnic case, memory enables the
over to mainstream narratives. Asian American studies
formation of an Asian American “imagined community”
research in social media questions how we interpret and
(B. Anderson 1991). The Asian American panethnic
utilize trends online and explores how online popular-
community (Y. Espiritu 1992), the one that names
ity influences mainstream depictions. Even with the
itself as Asian American, is in particular an imagined
advent of YouTube and the rapid growth in online pro-
community dependent on strategies of remembering
ductions, traditional media formats such as television,
and forgetting to forge a shared past. This shared past is a
film, print, and radio remain influential and popular.
collective memory built from individual memories, and
The central questions and concerns in Asian American
the search for that past is an active act of remembering.
studies and media continue to revolve around popular
These two senses of memory—as a body of memories
trends and narratives, community engagement with
and as willful recollection—cannot be separated from
culture, historical and social representations, and trans-
each other. The dynamic interaction between the two
national cultural exchanges.
constitutes “Asian American memory.” The beginning of Asian American memory can be located in 1968, when activists coined the term “Asian American.” While Chinese American and Japanese American ethnic collective memories existed before 1968, a panethic Asian American collective memory did not, given that the term “Asian American” did not even exist. What the term signified was the assembling and recasting of fragmented ethnic histories and memories into a collective Asian American history and memory. This invention of a tradition (Hobsbawm 153
with each other as well as create alternative media representations of Asian Americans (Nakamura 2002). Asian Americans are a dominant presence online and use the
39
Internet more than any other racial or ethnic group in
Memory
the United States (Considine 2011). Additionally, Asian
Viet Thanh Nguyen
Americans are no longer only subjects of mainstream discussion and representation, they are also the producers and innovators in online narratives. Individuals, groups, small business, and advertisers are actively en-
Memory is fundamental to Asian American studies and
gaged in creating and producing blogs, commentaries,
cultures, even though as a keyword or term it has not
and YouTube videos that appeal to the Asian American
been significant in the academic realm. Its importance
consumer market. Asian American musicians can fea-
holds true whether one speaks of Asian American
ture their music and entrepreneurs can market their
culture as a self-identified panethnic whole, or Asian
products with increasing efficiency. The challenge is de-
American cultures in their various ethnic parts. In either
termining how online popularity influences and crosses
the panethnic or ethnic case, memory enables the
over to mainstream narratives. Asian American studies
formation of an Asian American “imagined community”
research in social media questions how we interpret and
(B. Anderson 1991). The Asian American panethnic
utilize trends online and explores how online popular-
community (Y. Espiritu 1992), the one that names
ity influences mainstream depictions. Even with the
itself as Asian American, is in particular an imagined
advent of YouTube and the rapid growth in online pro-
community dependent on strategies of remembering
ductions, traditional media formats such as television,
and forgetting to forge a shared past. This shared past is a
film, print, and radio remain influential and popular.
collective memory built from individual memories, and
The central questions and concerns in Asian American
the search for that past is an active act of remembering.
studies and media continue to revolve around popular
These two senses of memory—as a body of memories
trends and narratives, community engagement with
and as willful recollection—cannot be separated from
culture, historical and social representations, and trans-
each other. The dynamic interaction between the two
national cultural exchanges.
constitutes “Asian American memory.” The beginning of Asian American memory can be located in 1968, when activists coined the term “Asian American.” While Chinese American and Japanese American ethnic collective memories existed before 1968, a panethic Asian American collective memory did not, given that the term “Asian American” did not even exist. What the term signified was the assembling and recasting of fragmented ethnic histories and memories into a collective Asian American history and memory. This invention of a tradition (Hobsbawm 153
1992) could not have happened without both these
States and their nations of origin or ancestry. Where
preexisting memories and an active remembering
Asian Americans differed from these national commu-
of them under an Asian American rubric that could
nities was in what they chose to remember and forget,
serve as a guide for further remembering. Under this
which was frequently at odds with American and Asian
new rubric, historians, literary critics, and writers be-
nationalisms. Most obviously, while many who live in
gan demonstrating that Asian Americans had existed
Asia would not primarily see themselves as “Asian” or
in the United States in large numbers for more than a
find “Asia” to be a unifying concept, Asian Americans
century and had produced a viable culture. This search
accepted the existence of “Asia,” even though that con-
for the shared past is not neutral, but is instead value
cept is European (Spivak 2008).
driven, usually predicated on the need for resistance
The most crucial antagonism, however, was between
to domination and the call for a more just present and
the memories of Asian Americans and the memories
future. These values are hallmarks of Asian American
of other Americans. Since Asian immigrants began
collective memory, with one exemplary case for the
arriving in large numbers in the 19th century, other
1960s generation being Japanese American internment,
Americans had not seen them as part of an American
whose history would be recovered in subsequent de-
imagined community. Americans excluded Asian im-
cades. While American collective memory had silenced,
migrants from American memory, rendered symboli-
erased, or distorted the history of internment, Asian
cally, for example, in photographs of the completion of
American collective memory would foreground it and
the Transcontinental Railroad that did not include any
give Japanese Americans voice, to use a common trope
of the thousands of Chinese workers who were crucial
in Asian American culture.
in building it. Against this exclusion and erasure from
Central to the willful recollection that drives and
dominant memory, Asian Americans engaged in prac-
forms Asian American collective memory is an ironic
tices of countermemory (Foucault 1977). Countermem-
forgetting. Memory and forgetting are inseparable, and
ory is oppositional memory, the memory of the sub-
in order to remember their shared bonds as Asian Ameri-
ordinated and the marginalized, memory from below
cans, Asian Americans also had to forget, to some degree,
versus memory from above. Much of Asian American
their differences. Chinese Americans, Japanese Ameri-
memory is an exercise of countermemory, one engaged
cans, and Korean Americans, for example, had to forget
in recovering what has been forgotten about and forgot-
the historical animosities between Chinese, Japanese,
ten by Asian Americans.
and Koreans, fueled by events such as the Japanese col-
154
Countermemorial work has been both individual
onization of Korea and the Japanese invasion of China.
and collective. The words and deeds of activists, his-
These national feelings of resentment that many Asian
torians, writers, and critics have been individual acts
populations felt toward each other in Asia, which Asian
of memory and recollection that sought first to build
immigrants often carried to the United States, were im-
collective memory and then to negotiate with it. Al-
pediments to imagining an Asian American community.
though some would argue that memory can only truly
In choosing both to remember bonds and also to forget
be individual, Asian American efforts to excavate,
differences, Asian Americans did not differ from other
write, and rewrite the past are based on the supposi-
imagined communities, including those of the United
tion that collective memory does exist. According to
memory
viet thanh nguyen
Maurice Halbwachs, the pioneering theorist of collec-
Americans as a whole and Asian Americans in particular
tive memory, we remember in groups, with preexisting
saw their past.
social memories shaping what the individual recalls.
What is evident in the activist, historical, and literary
Asian American cultural and political efforts show that
examples is the present’s interaction with the past and
through individual and collective efforts of counter-
vice versa. This dynamic between present and past, be-
memory, dominant collective memory can be changed
tween a contemporary worldview and the way it shapes
and new social memories created for minorities. Sup-
a willful search for particular kinds of memories, is cen-
pressed minorities transmit memories orally, struggle
tral to collective and countermemory. But as the search
politically to create movements that can be recalled
for the Asian American past has grown steadily over
later, write stories in minority languages as well as the
the last few decades, as evidenced by ever-increasing
majority language, and leave behind traces in archives.
numbers of historical accounts, memoirs, museums,
An activist countermemorial work begins from these
commemorative events, and fictions, one consequence
memories, actions, stories, and archives.
has been the contestation of the relative homogeneity
The prototypical Asian American activist of memory
of the Asian American past, as imagined in the 1960s.
was Frank Chin, who explored the legacy of the rail-
James Young’s notion of collected memories is useful
road for Chinese Americans as a writer, helped begin
here in discussing how any society is a collection of
the redress and reparations movement for Japanese
group memories, rather than a collective of one group’s
American survivors of the internment as an activist,
memory. Under the rubric of Asian American memory,
and established a tradition of Asian American literature
for example, Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Laotian
as a co-editor of the groundbreaking literary anthology
American collective memories exist alongside Chinese,
Aiiieeeeee! (1974). Elaine Kim’s Asian American Literature
Japanese, and Korean American collective memories.
(1982) continued in establishing the history of an Asian
While these ethnic collective memories may be recon-
American literature, which has been a key element of
ciled with an Asian American collective memory, they
propagating Asian American memory. Literary critics
may also conflict with it and with each other, perhaps
like Chin and Kim looked for the Asian surnames of
primarily around that aspect of Asian American collec-
forgotten American writers, reread their out-of-print
tive memory as countermemory to dominant society.
works, and discussed them under the rubric of Asian
Thus, in a parallel fashion to how Asian American col-
American literature. In this framework, anomalous
lective memory exists in a sometimes tense relation-
writers who wrote about Chinese immigrant women at
ship with American collective memory, so too can the
the turn of the century (Sui Sin Far), Japanese farmers
memories of particular Asian American groups lead to
in California (Toshio Mori), or Filipino union activists
friction with Asian American collective memory. In the
(Carlos Bulosan) became reclassified as forebears of an
example above, Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians
Asian American literary tradition. In a parallel fashion,
have often expressed anticommunist and patriotic, pro-
Ronald Takaki wrote the first Asian American history by
war sentiments born from their memories of the Viet-
assembling the stories of disparate Asian ethnic com-
nam War (V. Nguyen 2013; Schlund-Vials 2012b). These
munities who did not, for the most part, see themselves
memories exist in distinct conflict with the implic-
as Asian Americans. In so doing he reshaped how both
itly and explicitly Marxist inclinations of many Asian
memory
viet thanh nguyen
155
156
American artists, scholars, writers, and activists who
Whether one speaks of collective and collected
played important roles in shaping Asian American col-
memories as being composed of texts or of spaces, what
lective memory, most of whom were and are Chinese,
becomes visible is how Asian American memory has
Japanese, and Korean Americans.
undergone tremendous growth since the 1960s. The
Although these differences within Asian American
so-called “memory boom,” of which Asian American
collective memory and between Asian American col-
memory is a part, is at least partially an outcome of the
lected memories can lead to conflicting versions of the
failure of 20th-century grand narratives like capitalism,
past and present, they also generate a continual stream
communism, and nationalism to remain persuasive
of stories about the past. The archives and histories of
(Olick et al. 2011). In their place come the micromemo-
many individuals and groups remain to be explored and
ries of divided populations who fetishize their own vic-
to be told, and the literary possibilities for writers are
timization, trauma, regret, and identity, or so the argu-
seemingly endless. The publishing industry has been
ment against memory goes by those critics who stress
happy to publish Asian American stories out of the be-
the need to look to the future, or to return to grand
lief that Asian immigrants and Asian Americans have in-
narratives. What these critics overlook is that the coun-
teresting personal experiences due to the trauma of war,
termemories of groups like Asian Americans are not
revolution, immigration, and Asian patriarchies. That
reducible to identity, wound, and grievance, although
expectation on the part of American readers, editors,
those vulnerabilities exist and Asian Americans have
critics, and agents is also an example of how the present
not addressed them as significantly as they should. In-
shapes the past, as publishing demands influence main-
stead, Asian American memory’s genealogy can also be
stream Asian American literary production. The collec-
traced to the vast political movements of domestic resis-
tive and collected literary memory of Asian Americans
tance, civil rights struggle, anti-imperialist organizing,
is therefore sometimes a countermemory to dominant
and armed revolutions against colonization that link
expectations and sometimes simply a reinforcement of
American minorities to insurgent populations all over
those expectations, oftentimes in the same text. The
the world who rebelled against European domination
same can be said about one of the other key ways by
in the 20th century. Asian American memories, while
which Asian Americans build collective memory, which
prone to co-optation and commodification by both
is in the space of ethnic towns such as Chinatown, Little
dominant society and by Asian Americans themselves,
Saigon, Little India, Thaitown, Little Tokyo, J-Town, and
also provide a record of these political and collective
so on. These urban spaces of ethnic entrepreneurship al-
dreams for justice, equality, and freedom.
low collective memory to flourish, shaped by past histo-
Nevertheless, all forms of looking back on the past
ries of racial discrimination. At the same time, they are
in the name of constructing a shared set of memories
also evidence of a racially stratified and divided capital-
inevitably overlook something as well, for forgetting is
ism that limits ethnic populations and exploits ethnic
fundamental to remembering. For Asian American col-
differences as commodities. In a similar fashion, ethnic
lective memory, overlooked populations have included
memories are produced, exploited, and restrained in a
those with mixed-race ancestries; those with surnames
capitalist economy where memory can be both coun-
that do not sound Asian, including war brides and
termemory and commodified memory.
adoptees; those whose ideologies have not resonated memory
viet thanh nguyen
with the dominant ideologies of contemporary Asian tion with dominant power, or even service to power,
40
rather than resistance to it; those who might be Asian
Militarism
by descent but who choose to affiliate with other com-
Vernadette Vicuña Gonzalez
America, particularly those preferring accommoda-
munities and to form alliances other than with Asian Americans; in short, those who, if remembered, might trouble a contemporary consensus on Asian American collective memory. New memory projects initiated
Militarism is a founding value of the United States: in
from within and without Asian American cultures and
defense of the right to own (and wrest away) property,
Asian American studies have begun to address some of
later patriotically recast as “American interests,” the
these anomalous populations, expressing a dynamic
turn to a state- funded military and the threat or
with which Asian American collective memory is al-
implementation of armed aggression have been
ready familiar. In this dynamic, memories of the collec-
crucial. Arguably, militarism had its early iterations in
tive are not static, but subject to change in response to
the colonial era, before the United States of America
new challenges. These new challenges include demands
was even a political entity. The ways European settlers
for recognition by those who fit uneasily within the col-
executed a practice of land theft and the indigenous
lective, as well as refusals to be a part of the collective
genocide that intensified during the period known as
from those who might appear Asian American but are
the Indian Wars influenced how U.S. militarism would
not so in practice. Responding to these varied pressures,
be turned to Asia, Asians, and Asian Americans from the
Asian American memory continues to change and to
mid-1800s to the present. Militarism, or the valorization
serve its crucial function of helping Asian America rei-
of military life and values, the prioritization of armed
magine itself.
preparedness, and the legitimacy of armed force as an acceptable resolution for conflict, began its modern turn in the U.S. with Assistant Secretary of the Navy Theodore Roosevelt’s ambitions to modernize the fleet and engage in imperial wars outside of North America, reached a high point with the emergence of the military-industrial complex in the post–World War II era, and has defined global relations today through a state of constant war, the most bloated military budget in history, and the matter-of-fact saturation of civilian life with military values. Initial U.S.-Asia encounters in the mid- to late 1800s demonstrated an early American will to militarism in its governance of “America’s lake.” Commodore Matthew Perry’s show of U.S. Navy steamboats bristling 157
with the dominant ideologies of contemporary Asian tion with dominant power, or even service to power,
40
rather than resistance to it; those who might be Asian
Militarism
by descent but who choose to affiliate with other com-
Vernadette Vicuña Gonzalez
America, particularly those preferring accommoda-
munities and to form alliances other than with Asian Americans; in short, those who, if remembered, might trouble a contemporary consensus on Asian American collective memory. New memory projects initiated
Militarism is a founding value of the United States: in
from within and without Asian American cultures and
defense of the right to own (and wrest away) property,
Asian American studies have begun to address some of
later patriotically recast as “American interests,” the
these anomalous populations, expressing a dynamic
turn to a state- funded military and the threat or
with which Asian American collective memory is al-
implementation of armed aggression have been
ready familiar. In this dynamic, memories of the collec-
crucial. Arguably, militarism had its early iterations in
tive are not static, but subject to change in response to
the colonial era, before the United States of America
new challenges. These new challenges include demands
was even a political entity. The ways European settlers
for recognition by those who fit uneasily within the col-
executed a practice of land theft and the indigenous
lective, as well as refusals to be a part of the collective
genocide that intensified during the period known as
from those who might appear Asian American but are
the Indian Wars influenced how U.S. militarism would
not so in practice. Responding to these varied pressures,
be turned to Asia, Asians, and Asian Americans from the
Asian American memory continues to change and to
mid-1800s to the present. Militarism, or the valorization
serve its crucial function of helping Asian America rei-
of military life and values, the prioritization of armed
magine itself.
preparedness, and the legitimacy of armed force as an acceptable resolution for conflict, began its modern turn in the U.S. with Assistant Secretary of the Navy Theodore Roosevelt’s ambitions to modernize the fleet and engage in imperial wars outside of North America, reached a high point with the emergence of the military-industrial complex in the post–World War II era, and has defined global relations today through a state of constant war, the most bloated military budget in history, and the matter-of-fact saturation of civilian life with military values. Initial U.S.-Asia encounters in the mid- to late 1800s demonstrated an early American will to militarism in its governance of “America’s lake.” Commodore Matthew Perry’s show of U.S. Navy steamboats bristling 157
with guns at Edo (Tokyo) Bay in 1853 compelled a treaty that “opened” Japan to U.S. trade. Backed by the armed
pinos as savages (of which their turn to guerilla tactics
menace of his small armada, Perry’s ability to insist on
was confirmation): the water cure and concentration
negotiations with Japan’s highest officials confirmed
camps were used as modes of individual torture and
the effectiveness of military superiority and the threat
population control. Filipinos—the first “gooks”—were
of its use as a bargaining strategy. Wanting to compete
killed by the hundreds of thousands during the U.S.
with European imperial powers for Asia’s lucrative trade,
“pacification” campaign, which included atrocities such
the United States turned to other strategic sights in the
as the reduction of the island of Samar into a “howling
region. It soon established a military outpost in the
wilderness” with the sanctioned killing of “everyone
Kingdom of Hawai‘i, negotiating a treaty in 1875 that
over the age of ten” (Go 2011, 58; Kramer 2006). Later
would give the United States use of the harbor known
conflicts such as the Vietnam War would feature the
as Pu‘uloa (renamed Pearl Harbor). This foothold led
same kind of racialized violence and military strategy
the Navy to collude with American oligarchs who over-
with regard to Asian life, rationalized by the supposed
threw the queen of Hawai‘i—an action that was later
indifference to life in Asian culture (“the Oriental
characterized by President Grover Cleveland as an act
doesn’t put the same high price on life as does a West-
of war, and for which President William Clinton would
erner”) or an acceptable calculus of collateral damage, as
apologize a century later. However, the needs of milita-
was the case with U.S. nuclear testing in the Pacific (Da-
rism in U.S. imperial foreign policy rendered the illegal-
vis 1974). As Henry Kissinger infamously put it, “There
ity of Hawai‘i’s overthrow moot: it was all swept under
are only 90,000 people out there. Who gives a damn?”
the rug with a congressional resolution—a procedural
(Dibblin 1990).
move that annexed Hawai‘i and rendered it a coaling
Asians settling in the United States—some of them
station for American warships on their way to the Phil-
“pushed” there by U.S. wars elsewhere—have had mixed
ippines in the War of 1898. The war that featured Ad-
encounters with U.S. militarism. On one hand, crises
miral George Dewey decimating the Spanish Navy in
wrought by militarism have served to highlight the U.S.
the Battle of Manila Bay with a modernized U.S. Navy
state’s founding contradictions about citizenship and
(courtesy of Theodore Roosevelt) soon transmogrified a
race. World War II is perhaps most cited as the water-
“splendid little war” into a colonial occupation of pro-
shed moment that best illustrates how race is deployed
tracted violence.
158
deemed more acceptable due to the racialization of Fili-
by militarism. With Japan’s bombing of Pearl Harbor
These early armed encounters typified U.S. gendered
in 1941, the U.S. quickly moved to implement a pre-
racial attitudes toward Asia and Asians, which were ex-
meditated plan of incarceration for Japanese and Japa-
acerbated and made explicit in the crucible of war. A
nese Americans living in the United States and Latin
new war broke out on the islands once Filipinos, who
America. Executive Order 9066 placed over 100,000
had been involved in a revolutionary war against Spain,
people of Japanese descent, the majority of whom were
realized the United States’ imperial intentions to take
naturalized Nisei, in “war relocation camps” (Higashide
over where Spain left off. Extending past the 1902 of-
2006). This racialization of Japanese Americans as en-
ficial end date of the “insurrection,” the Philippine–
emy aliens was unique: German and Italian Americans
American War showcased brutal techniques that were
were exempt. The targeting of Japanese also extended to
militarism
vernadette vicuña gonzalez
Japan; at the end of the war, the systematic firebombing
awards and veterans benefits. In these instances, while
of Tokyo and the nuclear devastation of Hiroshima and
participation in war defined moments of sacrifice that
Nagasaki (the latter a fate that was evaded by Germany)
could be used to lay claim to martial citizenship, it
were also partially attributable to a racialization of Japa-
also meant forgoing a broader critique of a nationalist
nese people that allowed for disproportionate response
policy of militarism.
to be thinkable.
Asian women have had distinctly different experi-
On the other hand, militarism has also yielded op-
ences of U.S. militarism. While U.S. wars in Asia pro-
portunities for belonging through martial service. The
duced occasional opportunities for Asian women to
nationalist project of Asian American politics is at
migrate to the United States as war brides, these “ben-
heart driven by a desire to belong to a settler legacy;
efits” did not extend to all women. By and large women
“claiming” America and the rights attendant to citizen-
bear the burden of militarism more heavily: war ren-
ship forges alliances with a long-established imperial
ders them vulnerable to sexual violence from soldiers,
project. The heroism of Asian American men during
destroys their homes, puts their families at risk, and
wartime is often held up as evidence of their devotion
produces food shortages that inevitably affect women
to the United States and proof that Asians are deserv-
and children most intensely. For example, during World
ing of citizenship. Eager to prove their allegiance to
War II, women in Korea and the Philippines were forced
the United States, the members of the now-famous
into sexual servitude by the Japanese military as “com-
“Go for Broke” 442nd infantry unit voluntarily joined
fort women” (Choi 1997). Today, in places where mili-
the segregated military in the European theater. Joe
tary occupation is the norm, such as Okinawa, Korea,
Ichiugi remembers that he “wanted to prove that [he]
and the Philippines, Asian women are pulled into ar-
was a loyal American and wanted to fight for [his]
rangements of sexualized exploitation and economic
country during a time of war” (American Veterans
dependence with the U.S. military, often with the con-
Center 2012). The 442nd went on to become the most
sent of their own governments. Frequently shunned by
decorated unit of the war. World War II also further ce-
their communities yet indispensable to the “needs” of
mented the United States’ “special relationship” with
troops posted abroad, these women occupy a fraught
Filipinos, who were then still under the administration
position as a kind of sexualized currency that cements
of its colonial government. The outbreak of World War
fraternal relationships between states. They, and the
II and the loss of the Philippines to an invading Japan
mixed-race children they bear, are the collateral damage
framed Filipino soldiers as brothers in arms. Already
of U.S. militarisms in Asia and the Pacific. Compound-
militarized during the United States colonialism of
ing these sexual vulnerabilities, Asia and the Pacific,
the Philippines, Filipino men who had been recruited
too, as regions, have been feminized by U.S. militarism,
into the colonial constabulary forces shifted skills that
which has disempowered their state governments to
had been used to police their own people against an
act on behalf of their most exploited citizens vis-à-vis
invading Japanese army. Both Japanese American and
the U.S. military. In Korea, after the pyrrhic war that
Filipino soldiering inspired postwar narratives of com-
began and ended at the 38th parallel, the U.S. military
munity pride and spurred significant Asian Ameri-
policed the demilitarized zone for its South Korean ally
can campaigns to recognize their contributions with
and established camptowns where prostitution and the
militarism
vernadette vicuña gonzalez
159
trafficking of women remain a central economy (Moon 1997; Höhn and Moon 2010).
sexualization, from rape and sexual assault to the proliferation of a militarized sex trade (Manderson and Jolly
Militarism has also generated a transnationally in-
1997).
flected critique. The resurgence of U.S. militarism dur-
Today, wars, occupations, and weapons testing in
ing the Cold War, particularly during the Vietnam War,
Japan, Okinawa, Korea, Guam, and other sites mark
was a precipitating factor in the radicalization of Asian
militarism’s reterritorialization of Asia and the Pacific
American activists during the civil rights era. The U.S.
as the new theaters of a global U.S. militarism. Asian
policy in Vietnam had made it clear that the United
Americans and Pacific Islanders (more recently includ-
States was waging racial warfare abroad as well as at
ing women) have come to be recruited disproportion-
home. Asian American antiwar activism was distinct
ally into the U.S. military, taking on the new burdens
from the larger antiwar movement. Identifying with
of violent imperial action in the Middle East (Cama-
the “gooks” who were the targets of American military
cho 2011). This global state of war has yielded Asian
violence and responding to increasing anti-Asian hostil-
American resistance from within the ranks of the mili-
ity at home, Asian Americans linked U.S. Cold War in-
tary. First Lieutenant Ehren Watada’s refusal to serve in
terventions in Vietnam to a longer imperial project that
Iraq, and the arrest and torture of James Yee, the for-
began in Japan, the Philippines, and Korea. Student ac-
mer captain and Muslim chaplain at Guantanamo Bay
tivists were galvanized into antiwar demonstrations that
Prison, have rallied other Asian Americans to critique
generated a more panethnic and transnational mode of
the United States’s wartime ethics. Torn between serv-
solidarity and went beyond “bringing the boys home”
ing in the military, the realization of the contradictions
to a critical anti-imperialist analysis of U.S. foreign pol-
of militarism’s claims to bring freedom, and the very
icy. Groups like the Bay Area Asian Coalition Against
real opportunities offered by the military in a time of
the War organized to bring together students, churches,
economic austerity, these soldiers as well as militarized
community groups, and others for a broad-based coali-
civilians illustrate the tensions of militarism’s “multi-
tion that articulated opposition to the war and support
cultural” inclusions (M. Nguyen 2012). Testifying to the
for Southeast Asian resistance to U.S. aggression and
flexibility of racialization and shifting regional and na-
unilateralism. At protest actions such as marches and
tional needs as defined by geopolitical power struggles,
teach-ins, signs urging an end to “genocide” and the
Asians, Asian Americans, and Pacific Islanders continue
“bombing of Asian people” were just the beginning of
to engage in a complicated and fraught dance with U.S.
an evolving critique that supported Vietnamese sover-
militarism, its violent trajectories, and its conditional
eignty and vocalized a more trenchant stance against a
terms of “belonging.”
global race war and a rising military-industrial complex (Liu et al. 2008). With growing attention to the distinct experiences of women under militarism, these critiques have become more nuanced; for example, feminists have pointed out the particularly gendered devastation visited on Asian women (and other women in occupied territories) by militarism’s cultures of racialized 160
militarism
vernadette vicuña gonzalez
differential and unequal treatment and who therefore
41
tion” (1945, 347). Minority status thus “carries with it
Minority
the exclusion from full participation in the life of the
Crystal Parikh
society” (1945, 347). Wirth concomitantly explained
regard themselves as objects of collective discrimina-
that the presence of minority groups in a society “implies the existence of a corresponding dominant group enjoying higher social status and greater privileges” One day after the 2012 presidential election, Bill
(1945, 347). In this formulation, Wirth emphasized two
O’Reilly (2012), conservative commentator for the Fox
features that have remained part of the conventional
News network, declared, “the white establishment is
understanding of “minority” status in the United States
now the minority,” to explain how the nation’s first
up to the present day (including in the O’Reilly/Blow
black president, Barak Obama, was able to win a second
exchange). First, the term refers as significantly, if not
term in office. In response to O’Reilly’s proclamation,
more so, to dimensions of social and political belonging
New York Times op-ed columnist Charles Blow (2012)
and power as it does to the size of a population. Second,
explained that, in fact, white Americans are projected
it acknowledges that race (“physical characteristics”) is
to remain the majority racial population in the United
a salient marker by which, again in Wirth’s words, “the
States until 2043. Blow nonetheless acknowledged, “The browning of America is very real and unrelenting.”
minority is treated and regards itself as a people apart” (1945, 348).
Pondering the “meaning of minority,” Blow also
The commonsense usage of “minority” to refer to
suggested that the imminent “seismic shift in American
nonwhite racial groups reflects how deeply embedded
demography” required us to ask: “How should we
notions of racial identity are in American cultural and
consider a waning majority when their privilege of
social life and how pervasively they have structured ac-
numbers gives way to what many other Americans have
cess to legal, political, and economic power and privi-
experienced as the minority plight?”
lege in this country. An enslaved African was counted
While as a demographic label, “minority” might refer
in the nation’s constitution as three-fifths of a human
to any of a range of social differences (e.g., religious or
person until the passage of the Thirteenth and Four-
political affiliations), when used in popular, academic,
teenth Amendments, in 1865 and 1868, respectively.
media, and political discourses in the United States,
Beyond this, well into the second half of the twentieth
the term almost uniformly refers to race and specifi-
century, legalized as well as more informal practices
cally nonwhite populations, unless explicitly qualified
of segregation meant full access to American sociocul-
with an adjective indicating otherwise, as in the case of
tural resources, economic mobility, and political rights
“sexual minorities.” In 1945, Louis Wirth, a scholar from
depended upon one’s being—or being able to pass as—
the highly influential “Chicago School” of sociology,
white. Likewise, until 1952, resident aliens faced explicit
defined “minority” as “a group of people who, because
racial criteria, namely, that lawmakers or judiciaries rec-
of their physical or cultural characteristics, are singled
ognized one as “white,” in order to naturalize as U.S. cit-
out from the others in the society in which they live for
izens. Whiteness itself has been a legally and politically 161
contested moniker, so that it has been differently de-
immigrants from East, Southeast, and South Asia, as
fined at various moments and locations in American
well as from Pacific Island nations. While in 1960, Af-
history. Nevertheless, those who have been deemed
rican Americans comprised approximately 96% of the
white not only constituted the majority population, but
nonwhite population in the United States, by 2010,
enjoyed the lion’s share of power and privilege over the
eighteen million Americans identified themselves as
past two and half centuries. As Wirth argued, “Since the
of Asian or Pacific Islander descent (5.6% of the total
racial stock from which we are descended is something
population), and over fifty million as Hispanic or La-
over which we have perhaps least control and since ra-
tino (16.3% of the total population). In the twenty-first
cial marks are the most visible and permanent marks
century, “minority” has accordingly come to reference
with which we are afflicted, racial minorities tend to be
a larger and even more heterogeneous population, as re-
the most enduring minorities of all” (1945, 349).
flected in Blow’s observation regarding the “browning”
Furthermore, racial discourses in the United States
162
of America.
have been structured primarily as a binary between such
This demographic expansion has profoundly com-
empowered whiteness and its obverse, dispossessed and
plicated the meaning of “minority,” especially in the
disenfranchised blackness. As a result, “minority” has
context of the remarkable changes in U.S. culture and
primarily, although not always, been synonymous with
society during the postwar era. During and after the pe-
African American social identity. Other racialized popu-
riod of civil rights reforms, as entrenched racial hierar-
lations were occasionally lumped together with this
chy and white supremacy gave way to (neo)liberal con-
largest group of “people of color,” the descendants of
ceptions of colorblindness and multiculturalism, the
enslaved Africans. But these other peoples were as likely
notion that one’s racial identity determines one’s social,
to be represented as, in Mae Ngai’s terms, “impossible
economic, and political status came to appear less ob-
subjects.” That is, despite having a continuous social
vious to many Americans. Propounding the merits of
and cultural presence in the United States since the
a “post-racial” society, official and popular discourses
nineteenth century, Asians and Latino/as were repre-
suggest that adherence to any racial identity—whether
sented as foreign absences or alien presences to be ex-
that of whiteness or a minoritarian one—is at best mis-
cluded altogether from national life. (The construct of
guided in an egalitarian society where access to material
the “dead Indian” accomplishes this absenting for yet
and social power is “colorblind.” Indeed, this is a con-
another population, but also points to a very different
temporary construction of the nation to which many
history of colonial occupation, territorial displacement,
racial minorities assent, and it is the critical foundation
and vexed and limited concessions of sovereignty that
for the well-known representation of Asian Americans
have defined the so-called “government to government”
as “model minorities.” Beginning in the 1960s, this
relations between a white majority and native peoples.)
pervasive image posed Asian Americans as a minority
However, after comprehensive overhauls in U.S. im-
population that readily overcomes the “problem” of
migration law in 1952 and 1965, the nation underwent
its social and racial difference to enjoy remarkable ed-
rapid and thoroughgoing changes in its racial makeup.
ucational, occupational, and financial mobility, high
In particular, for our purposes, the effective end of
family or household incomes, and low rates of crime.
Asian exclusion brought a substantial number of new
As a stereotype, the “model minority” image means to
minority
crystal parikh
commend Asian Americans, by attributing such success
made it extremely difficult to speak of any single, uni-
to the cultural values (e.g., family values or work ethic)
fied “minority” experience of Asian Americans, much
and “natural” talents that characterize this group.
less of a minority experience that is shared across differ-
Various factual and conceptual problems plague the
ent racial and ethnic constituencies.
representation of Asian Americans as model minorities.
For this reason, it might be especially exigent for us
For example, the model minority construct does not ac-
to also consider the “minor” as a critical position. In
count for cost-of-living differentials in urban centers,
this case, a “minor” perspective might very well arise
where most Asian Americans tend to be concentrated,
from the experience of being a member of a statistical
or for the fact that Asian Americans are often subject to
minority. But it references, first and foremost, a specific
occupational “ghettos” and paid lower wages than are
orientation and relationship to that which is taken to be
commensurate with their educational qualifications.
“natural” or “normal,” regardless of how prevalent that
Nor does the model minority stereotype differentiate
normative ideal might actually be as a lived reality (e.g.,
between different Asian ethnic groups, who have not all
middle-class nuclear families). In this case, to describe
fared equally well with respect to normative measures
a subject, object, or practice as “minor”—for example,
of success. In truth, the economic status and material
minor literature or minor discourse—is to concern one-
well-being of Asian Americans have been divided—a
self not with some inherent content that defines a par-
certain sector has enjoyed an advantage over those who
ticular race or ethnic group, such as language. Rather, it
continue to struggle culturally and economically. Moreover, the model minority stereotype pits Asian
is to call critical attention to the way in which such a position, perspective, or practice is excluded from the
Americans against other minority groups, who are
norm, so as to account for how our normative ideals are
deemed to be politically troublesome and socially unde-
themselves constructed as universal goods.
serving of the rewards that Asian Americans enjoy. Yet
Thus, for example, Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari
the very designation of the model minority as a minor-
define a “minor literature” as “that which a minority
ity registers an ambivalent relationship, as it continues
constructs within a major language,” rather than sim-
to mark out the racial difference of Asians in national
ply a literature that originates in a minor language (1986,
culture from a normative majority (white) population,
16). For these critics, a minor literature is characterized
which retains for itself the privilege of designating
by “a high coefficient of deterritorialization” with re-
those it considers worthy of the title “model.” Even so,
spect to the major language and is inherently collective
the remarkable resilience of the model minority image
and political in character (1986, 16). In the name of the
bespeaks the complex changes in the meaning of the
marginalized group, it challenges the very institutional
term “minority” as a result of the demographic and so-
structures and terms by which a community is set off
cial changes described above. Not only has the class sta-
as “minor.” The “minor” is then no longer about a spe-
tus of different minority groups become increasingly di-
cific literature or tradition per se, but pertains to “the
versified, but minorities exhibit tremendous ideological
revolutionary conditions for every literature within the
and political heterogeneity. Certainly, there was noth-
heart of what is called great (or established) literature”
ing monolithic about Asians in the United States prior
(1986, 18). Likewise, Abdul R. JanMohamed and David
to the 1960s. But the increasingly visible fissures have
Lloyd describe a “theory of minority discourse” that
minority
crystal parikh
163
164
is attentive to how “[c]ultures designated as minori-
less concerned . . . with racial minorities than ethnic
ties have certain shared experiences by virtue of their
minorities” (1945, 351). Wirth and other liberal scholars
similar antagonistic relationship to the dominant cul-
of race from the mid-twentieth century onward chose
ture, which seeks to marginalize them all” (1990, 1). As
instead to highlight the example of ethnic Europeans,
JanMohamed and Lloyd further contend, a theory of
such as Italians and the Irish in the United States, as
minority discourse does not simply celebrate the differ-
well as ethnic, linguistic, and religious minorities in Eu-
ence of particular groups in order to pluralize majoritar-
rope. Wirth certainly recognized that “the Negro in the
ian culture without troubling it. Instead, such a theory
United States has become the principal shock absorber
should “provide a sustained critique of the historical
of the antiminority sentiment of the dominant whites”
conditions and formal qualities of the institutions that
(1945, 353). Nonetheless, he claimed in all earnestness
have continued to legitimize exclusion and marginaliza-
that “the United States was in the forefront of the na-
tion in the name of universality,” because “the univer-
tions of the world in the treatment of minorities” de-
salizing humanist project has been highly selective, sys-
spite “occasional relapses and despite the great contrast
tematically valorizing certain texts and authors as the
between the enlightened treatment we accorded our
humanist tradition while ignoring or actively repressing
ethnic minorities and the backward policy we followed
alternative traditions and attitudes” (1990, 6). A minor
in the case of the Negro, the Indian, and the Oriental”
critical perspective or cultural practice that recognizes
(1945, 353, 370).
and affirms itself as such allows us to see the way in
For liberal Americans like Wirth, the assimilation of
which assimilation and integration is always an uneven
European ethnics from the nineteenth century onward
and asymmetrical process.
proved the hallmark of an exceptional nation, “a nation
To return to Wirth and his concern with “the prob-
of immigrants.” In this national self-image, the incor-
lem of minority groups” (which is also the title of the
poration of European immigrants and their descen-
well-known essay I have been citing), we find that the
dants as full citizens in a hybridized national culture
critical minor perspective is a significant departure from
(i.e., melting pot), served as a shining example for other
the terms he uses to address and approach the subject
nations. It was also to provide the model for assimilating
of minority groups. Wirth—and other postwar liber-
those racial minorities in the United States who had un-
als like him—worried especially that the exclusion of
fortunately been treated otherwise. But a minor critical
minorities from full national belonging, in the United
perspective illuminates the limits to such an idealized
States and elsewhere, gave rise to conflict and a “rebel-
historical perspective on the integration of European
lious attitude” that “weakens national loyalties and
ethnics. Unlike a normatively liberal approach that
solidarity” (1945, 348, 368). From this perspective, the
focuses only upon the relationship between the “prob-
most salutary approach to the “problem” of minority
lematic” minority group and the majority population, a
groups was to achieve their dissolution, so that each
critical minor perspective recognizes how the assimila-
individual could pursue his or her own voluntary affili-
bility of European ethnics was defined over and against
ations and enjoy the “rights of man” to the fullest. As a
Asians, Latinos, and African Americans, whose persis-
result, Wirth was compelled to make a curious turn in
tent racialization served as a mark of presumed inas-
his discussion of minority groups, as he wrote, “We are
similability to such liberal ideals. Moreover, a minority
minority
crystal parikh
discourse finds possibilities of solidarity between those Lloyd explain, “‘becoming minor’ is not a question of
42
essence” but, rather “a question of position” (1990, 9).
Movement
relegated to the margins. As such, as JanMohamed and
A minor critical perspective allows us to interrogate
Daryl Joji Maeda
what we take for granted as good and desirable, and how it is that such norms have come to be accepted as naturally and universally so. It also makes visible other ways of life, forms of affiliation, and understandings of self
Although the keyword “movement” can bring to mind a
that are either denigrated by or simply imperceptible
variety of meanings—migration, transnationalism, and
within those idealized standards. A minor perspective
diaspora, to name a few—in the field of Asian American
does not make a multiculturalist plea for members of
studies, “movement” is most often joined with “Asian
the majority to tolerate those who are different from
American” to form a label for the political assemblage
them. Precisely because “minority” has referred us to
known as the “Asian American movement.” Fortuitously,
relations and structures of power, minor critical per-
the social movement connotation of “movement” also
spectives compel us instead to explain why some ways
accords with the sense of the word that suggests flux
of life and forms of being are able to accrue social value,
rather than stasis, for the Asian American movement
material resources, and cultural status for themselves,
was constructed and evolved over time.
while others are merely “tolerated”—which, without
Politically active Asian Americans began to use the
such support, often means being benignly left to die
word “movement” even prior to the coining of the term
out, if not actively killed off. But this also means that, as
“Asian American” in 1968. The multifaceted New Left
JanMohamed and Lloyd remind us, minor perspectives
social movement of the 1960s and 1970s incorporated
“must remain [as] fluid in their objects as in their soli-
students, supporters of the civil rights and Black Power
darities” as historical forces reconfigure and transform
movements, antiwar and antinuclear activists, feminists,
such relations of power (1990, 13–14). If we retain this
antipoverty activists, gay liberation advocates, and oth-
analytical force of “the minor”—even beyond the mo-
ers. Although they confronted a wide variety of issues,
ment when the nation has fully “browned” itself—we
prioritized race, gender, class, and opposition to the war
will be able to continue to probe who wields power, how,
differently, and adopted a dizzying array of ideologies,
and why, while also according recognition to and seek-
participants in the New Left believed that they were
ing justice for those other ways of life that exist beyond
part of a shared undertaking to radically transform so-
the norm or the majority.
ciety. Activists operated within a broad-based coalition they called “the movement,” which they understood to include the Freedom Rides and Mississippi Summer in the South, the Free Speech Movement at Berkeley, antiwar demonstrations from San Francisco to New York to Washington, D.C., and all points between, the unrest at the 1968 Chicago Democratic National Convention, 165
discourse finds possibilities of solidarity between those Lloyd explain, “‘becoming minor’ is not a question of
42
essence” but, rather “a question of position” (1990, 9).
Movement
relegated to the margins. As such, as JanMohamed and
A minor critical perspective allows us to interrogate
Daryl Joji Maeda
what we take for granted as good and desirable, and how it is that such norms have come to be accepted as naturally and universally so. It also makes visible other ways of life, forms of affiliation, and understandings of self
Although the keyword “movement” can bring to mind a
that are either denigrated by or simply imperceptible
variety of meanings—migration, transnationalism, and
within those idealized standards. A minor perspective
diaspora, to name a few—in the field of Asian American
does not make a multiculturalist plea for members of
studies, “movement” is most often joined with “Asian
the majority to tolerate those who are different from
American” to form a label for the political assemblage
them. Precisely because “minority” has referred us to
known as the “Asian American movement.” Fortuitously,
relations and structures of power, minor critical per-
the social movement connotation of “movement” also
spectives compel us instead to explain why some ways
accords with the sense of the word that suggests flux
of life and forms of being are able to accrue social value,
rather than stasis, for the Asian American movement
material resources, and cultural status for themselves,
was constructed and evolved over time.
while others are merely “tolerated”—which, without
Politically active Asian Americans began to use the
such support, often means being benignly left to die
word “movement” even prior to the coining of the term
out, if not actively killed off. But this also means that, as
“Asian American” in 1968. The multifaceted New Left
JanMohamed and Lloyd remind us, minor perspectives
social movement of the 1960s and 1970s incorporated
“must remain [as] fluid in their objects as in their soli-
students, supporters of the civil rights and Black Power
darities” as historical forces reconfigure and transform
movements, antiwar and antinuclear activists, feminists,
such relations of power (1990, 13–14). If we retain this
antipoverty activists, gay liberation advocates, and oth-
analytical force of “the minor”—even beyond the mo-
ers. Although they confronted a wide variety of issues,
ment when the nation has fully “browned” itself—we
prioritized race, gender, class, and opposition to the war
will be able to continue to probe who wields power, how,
differently, and adopted a dizzying array of ideologies,
and why, while also according recognition to and seek-
participants in the New Left believed that they were
ing justice for those other ways of life that exist beyond
part of a shared undertaking to radically transform so-
the norm or the majority.
ciety. Activists operated within a broad-based coalition they called “the movement,” which they understood to include the Freedom Rides and Mississippi Summer in the South, the Free Speech Movement at Berkeley, antiwar demonstrations from San Francisco to New York to Washington, D.C., and all points between, the unrest at the 1968 Chicago Democratic National Convention, 165
166
the Summer of Love, and the rise of Black Power, the
united by a conviction that something was desperately
women’s movement, and the counterculture (T. Ander-
wrong with an America that discriminated against and
son 1995).
exploited nonwhite people within its borders and com-
During the 1960s, individual Americans of Asian
mitted genocide against Asians abroad. Although these
ancestry participated in various segments of the move-
beliefs were generally in keeping with the ideologies
ment, most notably its student, civil rights, Black Power,
of the New Left, Asian Americans also came to believe
and antiwar components. As they protested for free
that the white-dominated mainstream movement did
speech, registered black voters in the South, and dem-
not take anti-Asian racism seriously and, hence, that it
onstrated against the Vietnam War, these individuals
was important to organize specifically as Asian Ameri-
reflected upon their own position as racial minorities.
cans. Thus, the Asian American movement emerged as
Many began to see that as people of Asian ancestry in
an Asian-specific outgrowth of the New Left movement
the United States, they suffered from racism that was
and also as a reaction against it (Maeda 2009).
similar to that experienced by black people in the U.S.
Just as grouping the various aspects of the New Left,
and Vietnamese people in Asia. Furthermore, they
from pacifists to proponents of armed resistance, into a
came to believe that they should organize fellow Asians
singular entity called “the movement” entailed paper-
to address the discrimination and exploitation that
ing over enormous differences of ideology and tactics,
their communities faced. Finally, they concluded that
to speak of the “Asian American movement” required
despite historical antipathy among Asians of different
negotiating the tension between uniformity and varia-
ethnicities in the U.S., all Asians shared a common rela-
tion. Prominent social movement theorist Sidney Tar-
tionship to U.S. racism. In 1968, Yuji Ichioka coined the
row defines social movements as “collective challenges,
term “Asian American” when he cofounded the germi-
based on common purposes and social solidarities, in
nal Asian American Political Alliance (AAPA) at the Uni-
sustained interaction with elites, opponents, and au-
versity of California, Berkeley. To recruit new members,
thorities” (2011, 4). The collective solidarity signified
AAPA contacted all Asian-surnamed members of a New
by the term “Asian American” comprised Asians of vari-
Left organization called the Peace and Freedom Party.
ous ethnicities within the U.S., which in the late 1960s
AAPA decried U.S. racism, called for solidarity among
meant primarily Chinese, Japanese, and Filipinos. Mul-
“Third World” people, and opposed the war in particu-
tiethnic groups like AAPA and AAA certainly contrib-
lar and U.S. imperialism more generally. In New York
uted to the building of Asian American solidarity, but
City, the Asian Americans for Action (AAA) was formed
even single-ethnic organizations were considered to be
in 1969 by two Nisei women, Kazu Iijima and Minn
part of the “Asian movement.” For example, in the Third
Masuda, who were inspired by the Black Power move-
World Liberation Front strike at San Francisco State Col-
ment and hoped to found a similar organization for
lege, groups like Intercollegiate Chinese for Social Ac-
their children. These two “little old ladies” contacted all
tion (ICSA) and Pilipino American Collegiate Endeavor
the Asian individuals they saw at various antiwar dem-
(PACE) were single ethnic but part of a multiethnic Asian
onstrations and invited them to meet with the group.
American coalition, and more broadly, of a multiracial
Asian American organizations proliferated in the late
coalition including black, Latino, and American Indian
1960s and early 1970s. Members of AAPA and AAA were
students. The group Katipunan ng mga Demokratikong
movement
daryl joji maeda
Pilipino (KDP), with its roots in both Filipino American
better places to live and work by providing social ser-
politics and Philippines radicalism, worked primarily on
vices such as food, healthcare, and legal aid, opposed
issues impacting Filipinos, such as fighting against the
redevelopment that would displace poor residents, or-
destruction of the International Hotel in San Francisco
ganized Asian American workers in sweatshops, restau-
and opposing the imposition of martial law in the Phil-
rants, and service industries, and attempted to create a
ippines by President Ferdinand Marcos (Habal 2007).
distinct Asian American culture. But despite sharing a
Groups like I Wor Kuen (IWK) and Wei Min She (WMS)
basic urge toward justice and power, the Asian American
emerged from Chinatowns in New York and San Fran-
movement was rife with contradictions. Even among
cisco, and the Little Tokyo People’s Rights Organization
groups fighting for the same goals, such as preserv-
(LTPRO) came out of the Japanese American commu-
ing the I-Hotel or organizing sweatshop workers, basic
nity in Los Angeles. Yet despite their tendencies toward
disagreements over ideology and tactics could become
ethnic-specific membership, KDP, IWK, WMS, and LT-
divisive. Given its diversity and flexibility, it makes
PRO were important Asian American movement orga-
more sense to speak of the “Asian American move-
nizations because of their activism in Asian American
ment” (without capitalization) rather than the “Asian
communities and because they were aligned with the
American Movement.” Doing so sidesteps the problem
generally antiracist, anti-imperialist ideologies of the
of defining the Asian American movement precisely, in
movement. In contrast to community-action/political
favor of understanding that a variety of loosely affiliated
organizations, arts and culture organizations tended
groups and individuals were united by a conviction that
to be thoroughly multiethnic. The East-West Players
racism, class exploitation, and imperialism negatively
and Visual Communications in Los Angeles, Basement
impacted people of Asian ancestry in the United States,
Workshop in New York City, Kearny Street Workshop
and acted on that conviction to transform society
and Asian American Theater Workshop in San Francisco,
accordingly.
and Northwest Asian American Theater in Seattle all
The Asian American movement changed dramati-
promoted cultural expressions by an ethnically diverse
cally during the 1970s, evoking the meaning of “move-
array of artists and writers, brought together multieth-
ment” that suggests dynamism. Tracing the narrative of
nic audiences, and promoted arts and literature in vari-
AAPA provides a useful way to understand the changes
ous Asian ethnic communities (Maeda 2012).
wrought more generally in the Asian American move-
Although Tarrow’s definition of a social movement
ment during the passage of over a decade. From its gen-
relies on solidarity, no movement is unitary. Indeed, the
esis in the New Left in 1968, AAPA went on to become
Asian American movement featured tremendous vari-
a key Asian American organization. Its San Francisco
ety in terms of geography, campaigns, and ideology. It
chapter participated in the TWLF strike at SF State and
spanned from New York and Philadelphia on the East
its Berkeley chapter provided the major Asian Ameri-
Coast to college towns in the Midwest to Seattle, San
can force in the TWLF strike at UC Berkeley. After
Francisco, and Los Angeles on the West Coast to Ho-
the successful establishment of ethnic studies at Cal,
nolulu and the Kalama Valley in Hawai‘i. Participants
some Berkeley AAPA members moved from campus to
sought to transform higher education through the
community—where they believed they could make the
establishment of ethnic studies, make Asian ghettoes
greatest difference—forming the Asian Community
movement
daryl joji maeda
167
Center (ACC) in San Francisco’s Chinatown in 1970.
the formation and maintenance of the nation (Fujino
ACC established “Serve the People” programs that pro-
2005; Fujino 2012).
vided free food and healthcare for the elderly, and op-
As an outgrowth of the New Left, the Asian Ameri-
erated a drop-in community center. In addition, ACC
can movement called attention to the problem of rac-
screened films from the People’s Republic of China and
ism facing Asians of all ethnicities in the U.S., opposed
opened Everybody’s Bookstore; the films and bookstore
the exercise of U.S. military power against Asians across
provided a leftist perspective that was sorely missing
the Pacific, and sought solidarity with other racialized
from conservative-dominated Chinatown. Thus, ACC
peoples both at home and abroad. During the late 1960s
both sought to provide for the needs of the community
and 1970s, this movement brought into being the very
and propagate a forward-looking ideology of solidarity
category of “Asian American” and opened new pos-
and liberation. In 1971–1972, ACC transformed into Wei
sibilities for political activism and subjectivities from
Min She (“Organization for the People”), a self-described
which to operate. The ideologies of the groups compris-
anti-imperialist organization dedicated to eradicating
ing the Asian American movement shifted over time,
the interlinked systems of class exploitation and racial
as did their priorities and strategies (Liu, Geron, and
oppression; members studied Lenin, Marx, Stalin, and
Lai 2008). During the 1970s, large-scale immigration
Mao and dedicated themselves to protecting the rights
from Asia enabled by the immigration reforms of 1965
of workers. Furthermore, WMS linked up with the Revo-
transformed Asian America itself, making it more ethni-
lutionary Union (RU), a multiracial Marxist-Leninist or-
cally diverse, increasingly immigrant based, and more
ganization, then subsequently merged along with the
heterogeneous with regard to class than ever before. By
other components of the RU to form the Revolutionary
1980, Asian American activism had moved far from its
Communist Party in 1975 (Asian Community Center Ar-
origins in 1968, thus marking an inflection point in
chive Group 2009). Over roughly a half decade, AAPA
the Asian American movement. Many activists entered
went from a student group to a cadre organization, and
community-based nonprofits, unions, academia, or
from flexible anti-imperialism to the disciplined ideol-
even electoral politics. But recognizing the social move-
ogy of Marxism–Leninism–Mao Zedong Thought. Dur-
ment roots of the category of “Asian American” and
ing the same period, IWK and KDP underwent similar
marking its creation with the energetic word “move-
transformations. Many groups within the Asian Ameri-
ment” suggests that Asian Americans must persevere in
can movement eventually functioned within what
their efforts to build a more just society. Today, despite
authors have called the Third World Left or New Com-
the fact that progressives or radicals do not possess a
munist Movement (Pulido 2006; Elbaum 2002). Just
monopoly on Asian American community politics (nor
as the groups that made up the Asian American move-
have they ever), issues such as immigration, the dis-
ment evolved, over time individuals participants grew
mantling of the social safety net and affirmative action,
to understand themselves as subjects of systems of race,
LGBT rights, and ongoing racism continue to motivate
gender, and nation in new ways. Yuri Kochiyama and
Asian Americans toward movement.
Richard Aoki entered the 1950s believing in the promise of American democracy, but over the course of the 1960s, grew to view race, class, and empire as integral to 168
movement
daryl joji maeda
conundrum persisted: not only would we engage in
43
civil war to answer the question of slavery, but the lead-up to and execution of the war foregrounded the
Multiculturalism
question of how to belong to this “American crucible.”
James Kyung-Jin Lee
Many Irish, cast as demonstrably nonwhite throughout their mass wave of immigration in the first half of the nineteenth century, refused in 1863 to participate in the Union effort—to help liberate African Americans from
While what one might call the multicultural mode or
slavery—so committed were they to adhering to the
inclination first entered the verbal imagination in the
mantle of whiteness via the ideology of white supremacy.
United States in 1935, the OED does not recognize its
The irony then to the “melting pot” is that on the
nominal usage until 1957; “multiculturalism” found
one hand it was seen as the cultural and ideological
its way and allied to multilingualism in the journal
antagonist to cultural and social segregation; the notion
Hispania. But before the term entered the lexicon,
of the melting pot and its sociological successor, Robert
and certainly before it became part of a popular if not
Park’s “assimilation” cycle, might be viewed as early
normative understanding of how to negotiate cultural
expressions of and experiments in multiculturalism,
difference, it was quite the vexed notion. In 1784, J.
as both subscribed to the idea—against prevailing and
Hector St. John de Crèvecoeur published Letters from
even dominant understandings of racial biologism—
an American Farmer, which includes the now famous
that peoples might indeed interact and change on the
chapter “What Is an American?” to which he answers
cultural level. On the other hand, that conformity to
in part, “Here individuals of all races are melted into a
a singular cultural end product, “American,” was a
new race of man, whose labors and posterity will one
given was at best a compromise between virulent white
day cause great changes in the world” (55). Crèvecoeur
supremacy on the one hand and what contemporary
sought to demonstrate that an American was one who
assimilationists would disparage as cultural relativism
left aside past prejudices in favor of a presumably more
on the other. Until the later twentieth century, even the
egalitarian mode of relationship with one’s compatriots.
most charitable recognition of difference-in-equality
Yet even in this very early, proto-formulation of what
presupposed a cultural, not to mention legal, desire for
would later be known as the “melting pot,” this “new
white belonging.
race of man” could not account for a major challenge:
This assimilationist strain in what would become
how to incorporate those who did not hail from Europe,
known as at least one, if not the principal, model of
most notably in Crèvecoeur’s day Native Americans
multiculturalism has its antecedents in Asian Ameri-
figured as uncivilized and blacks held in slavery, in both
can practice, which exposes the muddiness of the term
the North and South. By extension, then, “American”
with regard to what kinds of social difference something
demanded a kind of cultural sameness to which
called multiculturalism is meant to describe or produce.
nonwhite groups were required to enter in order to
Put simply, it is not at all clear whether multicultural-
be marked as belonging to the United States. As the
ism attends to what we might call ethnic difference or
U.S. moved through its early republican phase, this
the most insidious differences based on race, the latter a 169
170
production of the U.S./Western legacy of white suprem-
in demonstrating how contestations over whiteness and
acy that multiculturalism has done little more than to
white belonging remained the crux of cultural belong-
feebly mitigate. Or, as Avery Gordon and Christopher
ing in the United States. But it is equally important to
Newfield put it some two decades ago, “Is multicultur-
note that these early Asian American assertions of legal
alism antiracist or oblivious to racism?” (1996, 3). This
and political rights were premised on the idea that ra-
question is not at all put to rest, precisely because in
cial proximity to whiteness, and not a challenge to the
the long fetch of U.S. history before the term came into
logic of whiteness itself; one might suggest that this ap-
household use, those marked as culturally different of-
proach continues to be a significant strain of how Asian
ten worked within the constraints of racial hierarchy to
Americans negotiate their place in the United States.
win social recognition while leaving those structures
By the time race-based legal restrictions on citizen-
intact. Two infamous Asian American examples cap-
ship eligibility were finally eliminated, this cultural logic
ture this dilemma: in November 1922, a Japanese im-
remained intact, deeply imbedded in the U.S. psyche
migrant, Takao Ozawa, lost his Supreme Court appeal
and, by extension, the Asian American one. Less than
to be naturalized as a U.S. citizen; three months later,
fifty years after these Supreme Court decisions, and only
Bhagat Singh Thind, an Indian Sikh, was denied the
two decades after the internment of Japanese Ameri-
right to be naturalized. In both cases, the plaintiffs ar-
cans during World War II, we see the emergence of the
gued that their capacity to become U.S. citizens had to
Asian American as “model minority,” what we might
do with their proximity to whiteness (the 1870 Natural-
call the predecessor to Asian American participation in
ization Act enabled “white” persons and those of “Afri-
multiculturalism. This 1960s conception and represen-
can nativity” to become naturalized, the former under
tation of Asian Americans as paragons of social mobil-
the stipulation of 1790 that “free white persons” were
ity, in direct antagonism to calls by “Negroes and other
eligible for naturalized citizenship). Ozawa argued that
minorities” (“Success Story of One Minority Group in
his skin was paler than those of Southern and Eastern
the US,” U.S. News & World Report, December 26, 1966)
European origin who had won citizenship, and that his
to work to abolish white supremacy, provided the space
cultural upbringing and proximity to already white per-
for Asian Americans to make claims on social belonging,
sons and culture made him eligible for citizenship. In
this time with legal rights intact. This belatedly fulfilled
contrast, Thind suggested that his “Aryan” ancestry put
Ozawa’s and Thind’s dreams for their descendants. The
him in common with other “Caucasians,” mobilizing
Asian American as model minority entered the popular
linguistic and anthropological understandings of “Cau-
consciousness at the very moment that the civil rights
casoid” types as prototypes for white people. In the for-
movement took on a decidedly radical turn; this well-
mer case, the Supreme Court denied Ozawa on the basis
known U.S. News & World Report article chronicling Chi-
of his non-Caucasian phenotype, while in the latter, it
nese Americans’ success came out a few months after
decided that despite his Caucasian “type” Thind was
Stokely Carmichael uttered the phrase “Black Power”
“clearly” not white in commonsense terms. The delete-
as he assumed the leadership of the Student Nonvio-
rious legal effect for Asian Americans was significant, as
lent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and just weeks
they would be unable to belong to this “race of men” for
after the formation of the Black Panther Party in Oak-
decades longer. Moreover, these two cases were crucial
land. Two models or sociologies of multiculturalism
multiculturalism
james kyung-jin lee
were crystallizing in the 1960s: one that fulfilled Robert
and the establishment of the field of Asian American
Park’s model of assimilation, of which Asian Americans
studies which has for almost half a century committed
were becoming perfect expressions; another that spoke
to produce research and pedagogical resources to help
to an alternative ethic and politics that took seriously
document and disseminate the specific contributions
Du Bois’s observation that racial difference resulted in a
and insights that emerge from the differential experi-
differential existential expression, and therefore differ-
ences of the communities that make up “Asian America.”
ential political arrangement: “two souls, two thoughts,
It should be noted, however, that the rise of Asian
two unreconciled strivings; two warring ideals in one
American studies coincides with the rise of a corporately
dark body, whose dogged strength alone keeps it from
driven embrace of “cultural diversity,” to which what
being torn asunder” (1903, 12).
becomes known as multiculturalism is seen as synony-
Yet the differential consciousness that Du Bois proph-
mous. By the time Hazel Carby published a short article
esied in Souls of Black Folk captured the imagination of
titled “Multi-Culture” in the Australian journal Screen
Asian Americans as well, so that in 1968 and 1969, Asian
Education in 1980, the emerging hegemony of cultural
American students revolted alongside black, Chicano,
diversity as a way to understand and manage the swell-
Native American, and progressive whites to shut down
ing ranks of immigrant communities in the West, in-
classes at San Francisco State College, UC Berkeley, and
cluding the U.S. and the U.K., favored this idealization
other college campuses across the United States. Galva-
and celebration of ethnicity and culture. This ideology
nized by the call to Black Power and the ethos of self-
also facilitated the pathologization of other communi-
determination, and undergirded by the emergence of
ties as well as a distancing from a racial analytic. “The
a Third Worldist worldview (inspired by the Bandung
paradigm of multiculturalism,” Carby writes, “actually
Conference of newly decolonized Asian and African
excludes the concept of dominant and subordinate
countries in 1955), a concomitant if not unproblemati-
cultures—either indigineous or migrant—and fails to
cally named Yellow Power movement sought to bring a
recognize that the existence of racism relates to the pos-
radical politics of difference that refused the imperative
session and exercise of politico-economic control and
of a kind of cultural incorporation that kept in place
authority and also to forms of resistance to the power
existing structures of power and relation. Whether
of dominant social groups” (1980, 65). Such is the racial
protesting against American involvement in the war
bargain that enabled Asian Americans to enter, however
in Vietnam, working with working-class and elderly
unevenly, social legibility or visibility in the U.S.; to
Asian Americans cramped in urban areas, counseling
be seen as part of the American “mosaic,” to acknowl-
Asian American youth struggling with drug addiction,
edge the presence and participation of more than two
or fighting to include the histories, cultures, and litera-
races, one needed to displace the trenchant analysis of
tures of Asian Americans in college classrooms, this rad-
power that was endemic to a reading of the U.S. not as
ical movement proclaimed social and political transfor-
multicultural but as racially stratified. But the diffusion
mation as the basis through which an alternative mode
of analysis is only the beginning. For it is possible that
of identity could be forged. Over time, as the embers of
the flourishing of Asian American life in a multicultural
such political fervor cooled, what remained were some
rubric has enabled the social disappearance of others,
long-standing community and cultural organizations,
and nowhere is this more evident than in, on the one
multiculturalism
james kyung-jin lee
171
hand, the high visibility of Asian Americans on college
looters, abandoned so that the state via the police and
and university campuses while, on the other, the black
National Guard could protect white spaces of the city
and Latino populations in U.S. prisons and jails have
such as Beverly Hills. In this “abandonment narrative,”
exploded. As Dylan Rodríguez points out, Asian Ameri-
the armed defense of Koreatown and its businesses by
can civic life thrives on the social death of black and
their owners and other Korean immigrants was neces-
brown life, “while the very articulation and material
sary and justified, the use of lethal force against black
gravity of Asian Americanism sits on the precipice and
and brown looters a necessary evil, and perhaps even a
precedent of the 1965 Immigration Act. . . . [W]e must
social good. What undergirds and would protect Asian
contextualize this change in federal immigration law
American social life then in this situation is the moral
as a measure that further facilitated the effective expul-
outrage that the state momentarily did not do its “job”
sion of criminalized populations from US civil society”
of securing Asian American civic life against black rage,
(2005, 257–58). Neither a multicultural analytic nor a
and the consequent moral defensibility of shooting
multicultural policy can account for this phenomenon,
black people. In this reading, it is an ethical impossibil-
that one minority group would enjoy such flourishing
ity for Asian American studies to imagine the case for
at the very moment that others suffer such penal costs,
letting Koreatown burn, which speaks to the political
unless of course multiculturalism comes to be known as
incommensurabilities that inhere when Asian Ameri-
the very cultural logic that enables a coexistence of dif-
can participation in U.S. social life via multiculturalism
ferent communities or “cultures” while accepting or at
confronts blacks’ (and others’) deep social grievances
best ignoring the political and economic subordination
over a racism that multiculturalism can neither address
of other communities.
nor mitigate. A multiculturalist framework must in the
Perhaps the phenomenon that has done the most to
final instance produce an ellipsis in defense of the racial
both galvanize and haunt Asian American studies schol-
innocence of the Asian American subject, even if this
ars over this vexed participation in multiculturalism—
subject pulled the trigger and ended a black life, or as
and it is hard to argue against the idea that Asian
Neil Gotanda puts it, “The Korean ‘model minority’ is
American studies itself has flourished as a field because
thus the measure of the African American ‘monitored
of the general, wide acceptance of multiculturalism in
minority’” (Gordon and Newfield 1996, 240).
academic discourse—is the manner in which the 1992
172
Thus we see the deep problematic of multicultural-
Los Angeles Uprisings (or Riots, as most Asian Ameri-
ism, a discourse that ostensibly allows for the incorpora-
canists refer to the event) were and continue to be un-
tion of new “subjects,” but subjects enabled consistently
derstood. The particular presence of Asian Americans in
and persistently on antiblack grounds. This problem-
this late-twentieth-century civil crisis—often portrayed
atic emerged from the moment that Asian immigrants
as the U.S.’s first multiracial or, fittingly, multicultural
tried to make claims by disassociating themselves from
“riot”—demands an official understanding of the vio-
persons of African nativity and has extended to recent
lence in this way: Asian Americans, specifically Korean
examples of Asian Americans wondering why more
immigrant merchants in Koreatown and sections of
black people were not arrested by police in 1992. Indeed,
South Central Los Angeles, were betrayed by a racial
recent scholarship in African American studies has
state that left them subject to the violence of rioters and
foregrounded this political and discursive antagonism
multiculturalism
james kyung-jin lee
between the coalitional, comparative approaches to
notices that the woman holds her hair with chopsticks.
race that might be viewed as a trenchant, robust multi-
Emi asks the sushi chef for two forks, holds them up to
culturalism and the view that such analysis still fails to
the white woman, and asks, “Would you consider us-
acknowledge its antiblack animus. Jared Sexton, com-
ing these in your hair? Or would you consider that . . .
menting on the multiculturalist trope which argues
unsanitary?” (1997, 129). Cultural diversity as multi-
that scholarship necessarily must move “beyond black
culturalism cannot account for the thick description
and white,” critiques this vision of blackness as a tem-
of any social life that centrally involves contradiction,
poral obstacle to progress: “What concerns me in the
especially if those leading complicated, contradictory
articulation of these various developments within the
lives suffer from forces of our making. It prevents us
horizon of the multiracial—pointing toward both racial
from examining the possibility of communicability and
multiplicity and racial mixture—is their common point
sociality across the incommensurabilities that racism
of reference, their common antagonism with a figure of
has wrought. In the end, cultural diversity reinforces
blackness supposed to stand in the way of future prog-
the idea of the ever-emerging but also ever-elusive “race
ress, silencing the expression of much needed voices on
of man,” an abstract notion of cultural difference that
the political and intellectual scene” (2008, 252). Mul-
always demands the sameness produced by the silenc-
ticulturalism can do little to provide analytical tools to
ing of stories of violence and exclusion. As such, an em-
point to the stark realities of difference and vulnerabil-
brace of multiculturalism would be Asian America’s ul-
ity in the United States. To wit: it is true but analytically
timate undoing, as our allegiance to ignore the suffering
brittle and historically impoverished to say that Trayvon
of others inevitably prevents us from confronting the
Martin and Emmett Till were killed because they were
suffering within.
nonwhite, but to understand that these two young men were murdered because they were black allows a historical reading of blackness that informs our understanding of these two acts of violence. Likewise, it is true that Vincent Chin died because he was not viewed as either white or American, but to embrace the history of antiAsian sentiment provides a far more honed narrative understanding than the “person of color” rubric can offer. Asian Americans implicitly know this to be true; as Emi, Karen Tei Yamashita’s Japanese American character in Tropic of Orange, puts it to her Chicano boyfriend as they dine in a sushi restaurant, “cultural diversity is bullshit,” because it is no more than “a white guy wearing a Nirvana T-shirt and dreds. . . . It’s just tea, raw fish, and credit cards” (1997, 128). When a white woman overhears Emi’s diatribe and asserts that she loves Los Angeles because of its celebration of cultures, Emi multiculturalism
james kyung-jin lee
173
criticized for reifying the concept of “race” (i.e., that
44
you have to be part one race and part another, which
Multiracial
tists for the most part have taken the lead of activists
Rebecca Chiyoko King-O’Riain
themselves and refer to the multiracial movement as by
takes for granted that races actually exist). Social scien-
and about mixed-race people. “Biracial” comes out of the psychological literature and was traditionally used to discuss the identity deAccording to the Oxford English Dictionary, “multiracial”
velopment of people who are mixed with two distinct
means “made up of or relating to people of many
groups, but again, this has been criticized by multiracial
races.” Coming into common use in the mid-1920s,
activists as too “pathologizing” and not encompassing
“multiracial” initially referred primarily to relationships
enough to deal with people who are mixed with more
that spanned across racial groups or collectives of
than two backgrounds. Within Japan, “halfu” was used
monoracial people from different racial groups. But
to describe the mixed children of American servicemen
this word has shifted meaning in the United States,
and Japanese women in the post–World War II era. The
particularly over the last 80 years. In the contemporary
term later spread to other parts of Asia in the wake of
era, “multiracial” began in the late 1980s and early
U.S. military occupations in Korea, Vietnam, and Oki-
1990s to refer more specifically to people of mixed racial
nawa. “Halfu” has become outdated and is rejected
and ethnic descent as individuals, i.e., multiracial or
by many as emphasizing just “half” of one’s identity.
mixed-race people and identities. Many, more specific
“Doubles” became a popular replacement in Japan in the
terms, have been used to describe people of mixed Asian
1990s, based on the claim that mixed people in Japan
and Pacific Islander descent: “mixed race,” “biracial,”
were not “half,” but “double.” “Amerasian” was used
“hapa,” “halfu,” and “Amerasian.” “Hapa,” which comes from the Hawai‘ian term “hapa
of U.S. servicemen and Vietnamese women. As such, it
haole,” meaning “half white/foreigner,” is used in lo-
evoked faces that were reminders of war and occupa-
cal parlance in Hawai‘i to describe people who are part
tion and has been rejected for focusing too much on na-
Asian. Because it is a native Hawai‘ian word, its use has
tional origins and not capturing the complexity of this
been criticized by Native Hawai‘ians as a cultural ap-
mixed experience.
propriation by Asians in the islands. The word “hapa”
174
mainly in Vietnam, again to describe mixed children
In 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Lov-
found its way to the West Coast of the American main-
ing v. Virginia found that laws that prohibited people
land in the 1990s and was used by some to describe
from marrying across racial lines were illegal. Prior anti-
groups of people of mixed Asian descent often united
miscegenation laws were based on the fear that mixed
by poor treatment or outright discrimination within
marriages challenged claims to white supremacy and
Asian American and Pacific Islander (API) communities.
threatened white racial purity. The assumption was
On the mainland, “mixed race” also started to become
that if racial groups mixed, the resulting mixed children
popular and more politicized during the 1990s as a part
would be “hybrid degenerates” with physical, men-
of the multiracial movement. The term has also been
tal, and/or social problems (Nakashima 1992). Others
argued in response to scientific racist arguments against
They also felt both excluded from and less accepted in
intermarriage that, in fact, mixed people would not be
Asian American communities—both in the past and at
degenerate, but instead have “hybrid vigor.” In truth,
present—due to a lack of history of racial mixing in the
there had long been interracial sex at the highest levels
U.S. and/or because of a history of mixing in Asia that
of political life in the U.S., as in the case of Thomas Jef-
was tangled up with resentments provoked by military
ferson and Sally Hemmings, but much of this was never
occupation, colonization, and colorism.
formally or legally recognized for fear of challenging white supremacy and power.
Student and community groups of mixed Asian Americans began using terms such as “hapa,” as in the
By 1994, the U.S. Census Bureau was under pressure
San Francisco Bay Area’s Hapa Issues Forum, published
from a multiracial movement to better represent the
from 1992 to 2007. They reappropriated this term to
reality of the country’s racial diversity, including the
give it a positive meaning and to move away from more
growing population of people who wanted to identify
derogatory terms often used to describe mixed-descent,
both personally and publicly as multiracial. Just a gen-
part-Asian people linked with military occupation and
eration after the Loving decision, a critical mass of multi-
war (“war baby,” “Eurasian,” “Amerasian”), illicit sexual
racial people sought to be heard and the Census Bureau
relations (“ainoko,” “love child”), and impurity (“halfu,”
was ready to listen. This was controversial, as the NAACP and the National Council of La Raza opposed multira-
“mixed blood”). A smaller percentage of Asian Americans identify
cial activists’ claims to the right to express their iden-
as mixed than do Latinos, Native Americans, and the
tities in the census. The worry was that if mixed-race
members of some Pacific Islander groups. And yet, in
people checked “multiracial” and not the communities
the 2000 census, Asian/white was one of the top three
of color that they felt they belonged to, that this would
identities expressed. Even with continued migration
undermine the gains of the civil rights movements (par-
from Asia, which could lead to a larger API marriage
ticularly in voting districts, affirmative action, and the
pool, intermarriage rates have stabilized somewhat
like). The Census Bureau took this under consideration
and there is not a proportionately large mixed popu-
and in response added the ability to check multiple
lation. There are also cultural legacies around “racial
racial/ethnic boxes on the census but did not proceed
purity” that make some Asian American suspicious of
with listing a “multiracial” category. In the 2000 census,
those that are less than 100% blood quantum Asian,
6.8 million Americans (or 2.4% of the country’s popula-
whom they consider to be not “truly” Asian (Armstrong
tion) indicated they were two or more racial identities,
1989). There is some evidence of shifting racial attitudes
making this population one of the fastest growing in
within Asian American communities, but there are still,
the United States (Nagai 2010).
for instance, racial eligibility rules in many Japanese
The term “multiracial” did not suit everyone. Specifi-
American and Chinese American beauty pageants and
cally, many mixed-race and multiracial Asian Americans
basketball leagues, which state that if you are less than
felt that they were not multiracial in the same ways that
25% Japanese or Chinese you are not Asian “enough” to
black/white mixed people were, or that mixed Asian/
participate (King-O’Riain 2006).
blacks faced more discrimination from the both larger
Asian American studies research initially focused on
society and the API community than Asian/whites did.
Asian pride and the development of Asian American
multiracial
rebecca chiyoko king-o’riain
175
communities within the United States. Within this
L. Rondilla and Paul Spickard tackled the issue of skin-
narrative, interracial marriage was seen as assimila-
tone discrimination and Asian Americans, including
tive and a threat to the sustenance of Asian Ameri-
multiracials, in their book Is Lighter Better? in 2007.
can communities. Further, because the out-marriage
Multiracial Asian Americans are now expanding their
rates in some, like the Japanese American community,
foci to ask how the multiracial experience is different in
was gendered (women were more likely than men to
Asian nations or Asian and Pacific Islander communities
marry out with white partners), women came under
that historically recognize racial mixing such as Filipi-
particular political scrutiny in their marriage choices
nos, Samoans, and South and Southeast Asian groups.
(Shinagawa and Pang 1996). As Asian American studies
These analyses have opened up a discussion about the
matured as a discipline, a more nuanced understand-
links between colonialism, sexualization, and racializa-
ing of issues of multiraciality developed. One signifi-
tion, and how they have played out on mixed-race bod-
cant example of this was a special issue of Amerasia
ies both in Asia and the United States.
Journal edited by Velina Hasu Houston and Teresa
Likewise, the presidency of Barack Obama has fore-
Williams-León in 1997 entitled No Passing Zone, which
grounded the issue of multiraciality across the world
made the case that multiracial Asian Americans were
in new ways. Obama, who is seen predominantly as
not all assimilated and trying to pass as white, but
African American, nevertheless has raised the visibil-
that their identities were as diverse as they were. It
ity of multiracial people by openly claiming both his
was a unique and important contribution both about,
black father from Kenya and his white mother from
but more importantly researched and written by, mul-
Kansas. And he is equally proud that he grew up in
tiracial Asian Americans themselves. A collection of
Hawai‘i, strongly influenced by Native Hawai‘ian and
essays covering a range of multiracial Asian American
Asian American cultures, while also recognizing influ-
themes, edited by Williams-León and Cynthia L. Na-
ences from his Indonesian relatives and more recently
kashima, followed in 2001, perhaps ironically titled
discovered Irish ancestry. In many ways, Obama has
The Sum of Our Parts.
176
faced the classic conundrum of mixed people. He was
By the mid-2000s, multiracial Asian Americans were
heralded by many as the first “black” president, while
well represented within both the Association for Asian
for others he was “not black enough” (Dickerson 2007)
American Studies and Asian American studies depart-
and for yet others, he was just a black man who was
ments, with mixed-race courses and research projects
really “white” and had “neo-mulatto politics” (Bonilla-
widespread. However, some stereotypes of mixed mar-
Silva 2008). Senate majority leader Harry Reid stated
riages/relationships and particularly of mixed Asian
that he believed Barack Obama could become the
American people persisted. Global ideas of beauty, flow-
country’s first black president because he was light-
ing from the West to the East, impacted on popular
skinned and had the advantage of “carrying no Negro
looks via news anchors, media presenters, and music
dialect, unless he wanted to have one” (Zeleny 2010).
and acting icons. Some saw multiracial Asian Ameri-
Others essentially agreed that Obama opened up the
cans as exotic, “kinder, gentler,” or more “palatable”
definition of blackness and expanded it to represent
Asian Americans. Others argued that it was white West-
a much broader and more diverse community (Lo-
ern society that saw “lighter as being better”; Joanne
gan 2008). As Kim DaCosta (2008) points out, what is
multiracial
rebecca chiyoko king-o’riain
interesting is not what Barack Obama “really” is, but
to which they belong. In the end, “multiracial,” as
that we ask this question at all and expect him to make
both word and concept, holds within it the hope of
political and identity choices based on a single race
recognizing racial hybridity and multiple racial/ethnic
affiliation.
backgrounds, ties, and connections, but at the same
While the context and choices for multiracial people have shifted drastically in the last 20 years, the
time it is clear that it is not, nor may it ever be, the cure-all for racism.
artistic expression and scholarly work on multiracial people and multiracial Asian American continues apace. Kip Fulbeck’s photographic installation and book Part Asian, 100% Hapa (2006) was one of the most successful in the history of Asian American studies. Still others, such as Stephen Murphy Shigematsu (2012), have turned to Asia and personal biography to think about the types of hybridities and crossings that multiracial Asian Americans can take or, as Laura Kina has done, how that is expressed through art. Others feel that multiraciality is becoming ubiquitous, that everyone is jumping on the multiracial bandwagon because it is “cool” or “chic” to be multiracial (Spencer 2009), and that mixed-race people are just being commodified like Benetton poster models to sell ideas of racial colorblindness across Asia and the world (Matthews 2007). “Multiracial,” as a word, has come a long way, and while there may be positive views of multiraciality and mixed people now, it is probably best to recognize that not all multiracial people are symbols of racial harmony and the rainbow nation, and while it may link the East and West, even Hawai‘i is not a multiracial paradise. Many people who identify as mixed or monoracial still face discrimination not based on what they have done or not done, but because of who people think they are and how they appear to others. Some multiracial people may be under constant social and political pressure to “choose one and only one” identity for fear of being called inauthentic or illegitimate members of the racial and ethnic groups multiracial
rebecca chiyoko king-o’riain
177
TWLF demanded educational self-determination in in-
45
stitutional resources, representation, decision making, and power in their calls for an education relevant and
Nationalism
accessible to their lives and communities. In doing so,
Richard S. Kim
they sought a redefinition of education by transforming how knowledge was produced and disseminated (Maeda 2012; Omatsu 1994; Umemoto 1989). The movement for ethnic studies reverberated throughout colleges and
“Nationalism” is a term fraught with multiple and
universities across the nation, creating institutional
complex meanings. The OED defines nationalism as
spaces for the development of the field of Asian Ameri-
“advocacy of or support for national independence or self-determination” that “usually refers to a specific
Established as a part of broader movements for social
ideology, esp. one expressed through political activism.”
transformation in American society in the late 1960s,
This definition provides a useful starting point for
the intellectual project of Asian American studies is ex-
examining nationalism as a keyword in Asian American
plicitly rooted in an orientation of protest and eman-
studies. Indeed, nationalism has been central to the
cipation. In coining the term “Asian American” itself,
intellectual and political project of Asian American
student activists asserted a counterhegemonic subjec-
studies from its inception through its subsequent
tivity that rejected the racist, imperialist biases and ste-
trajectory. Using nationalism as a keyword thus offers
reotypes embedded in the term “Oriental.” Animated
a productive means to chart a critical genealogy of
by such decolonial, antiracist, and anti-Orientalist sen-
Asian American studies that traces its key interventions,
timents, Asian American studies centered its attentions
possibilities, and limits. The field of Asian American studies emerged from
178
can studies.
on refuting Eurocentric representations of the foreverforeign and inassimilable Oriental that cast Asian Amer-
the social movements of the late 1960s and early
icans as perpetual outsiders to the U.S. nation-state.
1970s, including the student protests for ethnic stud-
Much of the early scholarship in Asian American stud-
ies courses at universities across the country. San Fran-
ies focused on claiming full and equal membership in
cisco State College was a particularly intense hotbed of
the American nation through the recovery of a “buried
campus activism. In 1968, the Third World Liberation
past” that provided correctives to racist Eurocentric rep-
Front (TWLF), a multiracial alliance of African Ameri-
resentations that ignored or distorted the experiences
can, Asian American, Latino, and Native American stu-
of Asians in the United States. These concerns for self-
dents at San Francisco State College, led a five-month
representation, self-definition, and self-empowerment
student strike that resulted in the establishment of the
were reflected in the titles and contents of foundational
first school of ethnic studies in the United States. A lib-
texts such as Roots: An Asian American Reader (1971)
eratory nationalist ideology underwrote TWLF protests
and Counterpoint: Perspectives on Asian America (1976).
for ethnic studies at San Francisco State. Influenced by
Guided by an analysis and critique of power and domi-
the Black Power, antiwar, and Third World anticolo-
nation in American society, the scholarly, journalistic,
nial liberation movements, the student activists of the
and creative works compiled in these seminal texts
underscored the centrality of race and racism in Ameri-
resistive strategy against dominant society and culture
can life by documenting diverse histories of protest and
that excluded and denigrated Asian Americans (J. Ling
resistance, radical nationalist politics, and community
1998). The discursive strategies of this cultural national-
formation that attested to the richness and complexity
ism focused on the emasculation of Asian men’s gender
of Asian American experiences.
and sexuality and the imperative to reclaim and affirm
The liberatory nationalist sensibilities that informed the academic orientation of Asian American studies ex-
an Asian American manhood. This cultural nationalist position became a source of
tended to off-campus activism as well. The epistemolog-
contentious debate in subsequent years. Feminist crit-
ical critique of Asian American studies was intertwined
ics challenged the exclusivity of the cultural nationalist
with the struggle for structural change and transforma-
project, especially its preoccupation with recuperating
tion in American society. Student and community ac-
Asian American manhood and valorizing the mascu-
tivists viewed Asian American communities as primary
line attributes of an authentic Asian American subject
arenas for social change. As such, community activism
that idealized heteropatriarchy and thereby suppressed
was central to the intellectual and political project of
gender and sexual heterogeneity (Cheung 1990; Elaine
Asian American studies. Employing nationalist dis-
Kim 1990; S. Lim 1993; S. Wong 1992). Influenced by
courses of self-determination and service to the masses,
postcolonial studies, queer studies, and cultural stud-
activists called for community control over resources
ies, other scholars further assessed the homogenizing
and institutions. Emphasizing grassroots political par-
and essentializing tenets of cultural nationalism. David
ticipatory models for social change, they established
Eng, for instance, comments that the narrow and inflex-
self-help programs around housing, legal rights, urban
ible notions of Asian American identity emerging from
redevelopment, youth, health, schools, social services,
the cultural nationalist project “focused on not merely
and labor rights (Maeda 2009; Omatsu 1994; Umemoto
defining but prescribing how a recognizable and recog-
1989).
nizably legitimate Asian American racial subject should
Cultural production also emerged as a principal
ideally be: male, heterosexual, working class, American
arena for political struggle and the expression of the
born, and English speaking” (1997, 34). Reinscribing a
emancipatory possibilities of new identities as Asian
compulsory gender and sexual normativity, cultural
Americans that refuted Orientalist stereotypes and af-
nationalism ironically mirrored the dominant ideol-
firmed an American belonging. The group of writers
ogy and discourses of the very racist regime it was re-
who edited the seminal Aiiieeeee! An Anthology of Asian
jecting. Proposing a model of “heterogeneity, hybridity,
American Writers (1974) exemplified these efforts. The
and multiplicity,” Lisa Lowe (1991b) underscored the
Aiiieeeee! group stridently promoted a collective Asian
simultaneity of race, class, gender, and sexuality in the
American identity by seeking to identify and establish
shaping of Asian American identities, past and present.
a distinct “Asian American cultural integrity” as an al-
Highlighting the processes of inclusion and exclusion
ternative presence in American culture. Viewing Asian
inherent in nationalist projects, these critiques locating
Americans as an internally colonized racial minority in
and theorizing heterogeneity and differences within
the United States, they articulated a counterhegemonic,
Asian America complicated a nation-based discourse on
antiassimilationist form of cultural nationalism as a
racial ideology.
nationalism
richard s. kim
179
180
Changes in the academy and the post-1965 growth
of colonialism, imperialism, empire, war, nation-state
in Asian immigrant populations in the United States
formation, and international relations. In explicating
have also blurred the lines dividing Asian and Asian
such complex global dynamics, these studies show that
American that were fundamental to earlier nationalist
Asian nationalisms have been constitutively transna-
conceptualizations of Asian American identities. Sau-
tional in nature as Asian migrants are vitally located
ling Wong (1995) notes these dramatic changes ushered
at key geopolitical interstices, affirming Oscar Campo-
in a “denationalization” of Asian American studies that
manes’s call for the “worlding” of Asian American stud-
has “eased the cultural nationalist concerns” of claim-
ies by situating the “Asian American predicament as
ing America. The concerns of a domestic identity poli-
part of a ‘world-historical process’” (1997, 534). Accord-
tics that promoted an American belonging often led to
ingly, these studies on diasporic nationalism have not
a critical distancing from Asia. Even the term “Asian
only provided new questions and new perspectives but
American” advanced a political solidarity that used
also opened new possibilities for scholars in Asian and
“Asian” to modify the central subject of “American.”
Asian American studies to consider important connec-
Changes in the demographic makeup of Asian Ameri-
tions between the two fields, which traditionally have
can communities since 1965 and the ascendency of the
been at odds over their differing intellectual and politi-
Pacific Rim in the global economy, however, have un-
cal imperatives.
derscored the increasingly complex interconnections
At the same time, the internationalization of Asian
between Asia and Asian American that have destabilized
American studies has not been mutually exclusive to the
the domestic emphases of Asian American studies.
field’s long-standing domestic imperative of claiming
The denationalization of Asian American studies has
America. Some scholars have cautioned that the shift
paralleled the larger transnational turn in the academy
to transnational and diasporic perspectives threatens to
that has widened the scope of scholarly inquiry beyond
elide race as a significant category of analysis in Asian
the borders of the U.S. nation-state. Adopting a transna-
American studies and thus diminish the presence and
tional frame of analysis, an emergent body of historical
voice of Asian Americans in the context of U.S. race re-
scholarship on Asian diasporic nationalisms by scholars
lations (D. Li 2000; S. Wong 1995). However, the emer-
in Asian American studies has been a particularly fruit-
gent body of historical research on diasporic nation-
ful area of research. Often using non-English-language
alism underscores the interconnections between the
materials and non-U.S. archival research, these works
domestic and global by highlighting the international
have examined the complex and multiple ways in
context of social and political formations of Asian im-
which Asian immigrants in the United States have
migrant communities in the United States that harks
mobilized to support and participate in the homeland
back to the international scope of the genesis of Asian
politics of their respective countries of origin (Azuma
American studies (Mazumdar 1991; L. Lowe 1998). More-
2005; A. Espiritu 2005; Jensen 1988; R. Kim 2011; M. Lai
over, immigrants’ involvement in the diasporic nation-
1991; Ma 1990; Sohi 2014; R. Yu 1992). These transna-
alisms of their homelands was rooted in the realities
tional ties have not simply been nostalgic attachments
of racial discrimination they faced in America. Consti-
to the homeland but have been deeply imbricated
tuted as not belonging to American society, Asian im-
within global structures of inequality involving issues
migrants were in many ways forced to live transnational
nationalism
richard s. kim
lives, which led to new modes of organizing and new
In sum, nationalism has been central to the intellec-
forms of political agency in the United States. Support-
tual and political concerns of Asian American studies,
ing their homelands provided a means for strengthen-
shaping its overall development and trajectory. As a key-
ing their positions in America. In doing so, immigrants
word, nationalism spotlights the intellectual richness
often drew upon American political discourses in their
and complexity of Asian American studies, manifested
diasporic nationalist activities. Asian immigrant nation-
in its innovative interventions as well as productive ten-
alist politics thus involved a complex amalgamation of
sions that have allowed the field to remain relevant and
both transnational and domestic concerns.
vital.
The transnational call to think beyond the national borders of the U.S. nation-state has also brought critical attention to the nationalist discourse of American exceptionalism, including its settler-colonial underpinnings. This move has opened possibilities for putting Asian American studies into greater dialogue with Native and indigenous studies, particularly around issues of Native Hawai‘ian nationalism and sovereignty. Candace Fujikane (2005), for instance, calls for the need of Asian American studies to foreground Native nationalisms and the colonial system of the U.S. nation-state. She notes that the identity politics of Asian American studies seek equal representation and access to a colonial system that Native peoples view as illegitimate and strive to dismantle. Native nationalism instead revolves around land, self-government, and international status as a sovereign nation. As such, Native struggles cannot be reduced to the rights-based framework of racial minorities, which serves only to reify the settler colonial structures of the U.S. nation-state (Kauanui 2008a; Trask 2008). Fujikane further observes that the antiessentialist critique of American nationalism and Asian American cultural nationalism in Asian American studies cannot be extended to Native nationalisms, which are incommensurably different. According to Fujikane, such critiques ultimately undermine Native nationalism’s struggle for self-determination and reinscribe settler colonial claims.
nationalism
richard s. kim
181
Yuri Kochiyama, Richard Aoki, Philip Vera Cruz, and
46
Ling-Chi Wang—real people representing the heterogeneity of Asian American communities, causes, and
Orientalism
activities. Thus, when Said described Orientalism as “a
Sylvia Shin Huey Chong
Western style for dominating, restructuring, and having authority over the Orient” (1978, 3), his term had great resonance with Asian Americans who were themselves contesting the domination and restructuring of Asians
Had the activists of the late 1960s christened themselves
in America. As a critique of the racial ideology behind
“Orientals” instead of “Asian Americans,” we might be
European colonialism, Orientalism appeared at the end
calling this volume “Keywords in Oriental American
of a massive era of decolonization that also fed into the
Studies.” This alternate history is not so unlikely, for
energies of the Asian American movement—recall that
both terms expressed a similar desire for a pan-Asian
the student strikes at UC Berkeley and San Francisco
coalition, and both were more inclusive than the skin-
State that helped establish Asian American curricula
color-based calls for “yellow” or “brown” power. One
were called for by the Third World Liberation Front, and
of the first Asian American studies classes taught by
that anti–Vietnam War protests also contributed to the
Yuji Ichioka at UCLA in 1969 was entitled “Orientals in
consciousness raising of early Asian American activists.
America,” and the UCLA student group Sansei Concern
Thus, although Said never addressed the experiences of
initially changed its name to Oriental Concern in
Asian Americans, or even the racial ideology of the U.S.,
1968 to accommodate more ethnic groups (Ichioka
he seemed to be speaking to the same concerns that
2000, 33; Y. Espiritu 1992, 32–33). Like the reclamation
birthed the Asian American movement.
of the word “queer” in the 1990s, the term “Oriental”
Despite this resonance, Said’s Orientalism remained
had the potential to confront a history of exclusion,
somewhat peripheral to the development of Asian
explusion, and discrimination by bringing together
American studies as an academic discipline. Although
and politicizing precisely those groups it had deemed
Orientalism became a founding text of postcolonial stud-
“other” in the past. However, even before Edward Said’s landmark work
182
ies, especially as a model for politicizing literary studies alongside broader investigations of the history and
Orientalism (1978), activists felt that “Oriental” simply
dynamics of imperial cultures, it has found less trac-
carried too much negative historical baggage for them
tion within Asian American studies, especially as Asian
to resignify. The “Orient” only existed as a figment of
American literature focused on excavating an alternate
the European imagination, lumping together dispa-
canon and Asian American history delved into forgot-
rate peoples from Asia and Africa into an undifferen-
ten peoples and movements left out of narratives of the
tiated mass of colonial subjects, slaves, servants, and
United States. Because Orientalism seems to name a ra-
unwanted immigrants. “Orientals” were Suzie Wongs,
cial ideology imposed from the outside (ostensibly the
Charlie Chans, and Fu Manchus— fictional stereo-
“West,” or the “Occident”), studies of Orientalism focus
types connoting exoticism, foreignness, passivity, and
more on issues of racist representation than those of
obsolesence—while “Asian Americans” were figures like
ethnic self-expression and agency (Lye 2008, 96). Thus,
when invoked, Orientalism in Asian American stud-
American sociologists used that ideology to make them-
ies often stands as a synonym for “racism,” especially
selves and their communities legible as racial subjects.
those forms that focus on making-exotic or making-
Moreover, the impulse to refute the “foreignness”
other. According to this usage, what is Orientalist about
of Asian Americans also contradicts the transnational
American racism is often its denial of Asian American
dimension of Asian American studies, which has re-
assimilation or hybridity (another key term from post-
cently become a larger line of inquiry. Scholars have
colonial studies), casting Asians as “forever foreigners”
defined the uniqueness of American Orientalism as the
indelibly marked with their racial origins elsewhere.
doubling or splitting of the Orient into both an inside,
This meaning has been compounded by the fact that
represented by the Asian American “foreigner-within”
some of the “Orientalists” Said targeted were scholars of
who becomes an integral part of the American racial or-
Asia and Africa, often based in area studies departments
der, and an outside, represented by those Asian nations
like East Asian or Middle East and South Asian studies
whose military, economic, and diplomatic interactions
and employed to produce “useful” knowledge for guid-
with the U.S. loom large over the course of the long
ing military or foreign policy in those regions. As Asian
American Century (Ngai 2000; L. Lowe 1991; L. Lowe
American studies found a home in the academy, it has
1996; Palumbo-Liu 1999; Lye 2004). Thus, unlike the
often taken the opposite route, eschewing area studies
classic model of colonialism in which colony and metro-
and aligning either with American studies and English
pole remain separated geographically and politically,
departments, or in coalitions with African American,
Asian Americans in American Orientalism infiltrate the
Latino/a, and Native American studies under the um-
center of the empire. Furthermore, scholars focusing on
brella of ethnic studies.
Asian America as a transnational or diasporic configura-
While these have been useful lines of argument, this
tion have challenged the assumption that Asian Ameri-
collapse of Orientalism into xenophobic racism ignores
can immigrants always desire assimilation and sever
the useful Foucauldian aspects of Said’s original concept,
ties to their countries of origin (Shukla 2003; Hsu 2000;
which outlined a discursive realm that was both produc-
Azuma 2005; Shibusawa 2006; Duong 2012). These
tive as well as repressive. In other words, Orientalism
scholars, often working with non-English-language ar-
was powerful not simply as a way of dominating the Ori-
chives and sources, do not start from the Americanness
ent: it also created the Orient (and Orientals) as objects
of Asian America as a way to refute American Oriental-
of knowledge and representation, whether in sympathy
ism. Instead, they maintain the otherness of these Asian
or with hostility. This was the key insight that allowed
American diasporas from the U.S. nation-state as a form
Said to link poetry with anthropology, fiction with
of critical distance, but one that does not collapse into
science—these were not separate discourses, but related
the romantic projections of Orientalist otherness.
ideologies that constructed racial subjects both rhetori-
Unlike its European counterpart, American Orien-
cally and epistemologically. Henry Yu’s work Thinking
talism has drawn its vocabulary more from mass media
Orientals (2002) illustrates this more complex deploy-
and popular culture than from high art and literature,
ment of Orientalism within Asian American studies,
as is befitting the nation that gave birth to Kodak, Hol-
combining an intellectual history of this particular ra-
lywood, Disney, and CNN. Accordingly, many of the in-
cial ideology along with an account of how early Asian
vestigations of American Orientalism have been based
orientalism
sylvia shin huey chong
183
more in media and cultural studies than in literary stud-
the role of Oriental master or teacher in these exchanges
ies, mirroring the way Said himself turned to analyzing
(Iwamura 2010). Here, an experience of “becoming-
mass media when understanding contemporary Orien-
Oriental,” rather than an object imbued with Oriental
talism in his Covering Islam (Said 1981; Robert Lee 1999;
culture, is what is being commodified, enabling non-
A. Lee 2001; Capino 2010; Shimizu 2007; Delmendo
Asian consumers access to an idealized realm of spiri-
2004; Davé, Nishime, and Oren 2005). Among these
tuality, authenticity, or cultural otherness that some
cultural studies approaches to American Orientalism
may view as a form of racial minstrelsy. Another variant
has been a renewed interest in what I call “commodity
known as techno-Orientalism has likewise transformed
Orientalism,” or the history of trade in Orientalist con-
the process of assigning cultural and/or racial meaning
sumer goods that has accompanied or even anticipated
to commodities. This term, coined within East Asian
the movement of Oriental peoples into the United
studies and anthropology (Morley and Robins 1995), re-
States (Tchen 1999; Yoshihara 2003; Josephine Lee 2010;
fers to high-tech commodities that seem devoid of the
Tu 2010). Uncannily echoing the complaints of Asian
“Oriental” cultural markers that accompanied the earlier
American students that “Orientals are rugs, not people”
rugs and teacups: Toyota vehicles, Sony Walkmen, Sam-
(Robert Lee 1999, ix), this line of work traces the asso-
sung cell phones, Nintendo gamesets, etc. While these
ciation of rugs, tea, porcelain, and silk with people, but
products seem to be neutral, even culturally “univer-
not just to dispute the objectification of Asian Ameri-
sal” objects, they are nonetheless racialized as markers
cans. From the early American trade with China that
of Oriental technological advancement or economic
made the fortune of John Astor in the early 19th cen-
domination. Techno-Orientalism accompanied the rise
tury to the craze in “Japanese taste” around the time
of Asian economic powers like Japan and South Korea,
of the Russo-Japanese War (1904–1905), commodity
which aroused anxiety both in the sphere of interna-
Orientalism frames the movement of goods not only
tional trade and also in domestic race relations, most
within a symbolic system but also a materialist econ-
tragically in the killing of Chinese American engineer
omy that mirrors the circulation of laborers. At times,
Vincent Chin in Detroit, Michigan, in 1982 in the midst
Asian American subjects may even twist commodity
of a racial panic within the American auto industry.
Orientalism to their advantage, marketing their goods
Asian Americanists have begun to take more interest in
or products as exotic in an act of “self-Orientalization.”
techno-Orientalism, examining its effects in the popu-
For example, Chinese American restaurateurs have been
larization of anime, K-pop, video games, and cyberpunk
perfecting this art form for over a century, consciously
culture (Nakamura 2002; Nguyen and Tu 2007; Tu and
shaping their menus and décor into a Orientalist fan-
Nelson 2001; Chun and Joyrich 2009; J. Park 2010).
tasy for the enjoyment of their non-Chinese customers (Chow 2005; Hsu 2008).
investigations of America’s imperial legacies at large.
Some recent versions of commodity Orientalism
184
Asian American studies has also taken the lead in After all, Rudyard Kipling may have been known as
may involve intangible goods such as the popularity of
a chronicler of the British empire, but his poem “The
yoga, Buddhism, or the martial arts, sometimes led by
White Man’s Burden” (1899) was about the American
Asians or Asian Americans like D. T. Suzuki or Deepak
colonization of the Philippines. Here, Asian American
Chopra, but more often enabling non-Asians to take on
studies does not simply replicate postcolonial studies,
orientalism
sylvia shin huey chong
but produces an alternate history of American imperiippines and Japan, neocolonial relations with Taiwan,
47
South Korea, and Vietnam, and the continued coloni-
Performance
zation of Hawai‘i, Guam, Saipan, and American Samoa
Josephine Lee
alism, as seen in the colonial occupations of the Phil-
(Rafael 2000; Jodi Kim 2010; Kauanui 2008b). In some of this work, Asian Americans are not always aligned with the colonized, but sometimes collaborate with or take on the role of imperialists, as in critiques of settler
“Performance” can mean the everyday accomplishment
colonialism in Hawai‘i or Asian American conserva-
of a task or function, or acting in special contexts
tives (Fujikane and Okamura 2008; Camacho and Shi-
such as plays, music, or sports. The first meaning links
gematsu 2010; Prashad 2005) These critical, transna-
“performance” to the fulfillment of social roles; in both
tional investigations of American Orientalism not only
cases, instances of “performance” reference and reiterate
reanimate the Third World internationalism of the
the conventions of meaning that define communities,
Asian American movement, but also break new ground
societies, or nations (“as American as [eating] apple
in critical ethnic studies by showing racialization as a
pie”). Scholars have adopted the term “performative”
complex and continuing process. One outgrowth of this
(derived from language philosopher J. L. Austin’s
new use of American Orientalism has been the linking
“performative utterance” in How to Do Things with
of Arab, Middle Eastern, and Muslim Americans with
Words [1962]) to good effect in analyzing the everyday
Asian Americans, especially as the ongoing War on Ter-
enactments that constitute aspects of identity such as
ror intensifies the racialization of “brownness” across all
gender, sexuality, class, and race (Butler 1988; Parker and
of Asia and beyond (McAlister 2001; Volpp 2002; J. Kang
Sedgwick 1995). These understandings of “performance”
2002; Bayoumi 2009; Prashad 2008; Puar 2007; Rana
and its variants are tied to what Erving Goffman (1959)
2011). Another development has been the investigation
called the “presentation of self”: how words and actions
of Afro-Asian connections both internationally as well
manifest human signification, relationship, status, and
as within the U.S., connecting the larger realm of Said’s
power.
Orient with post-Bandung national alignments as well
The more specific case of theatrical performance is
as a politically productive African American Oriental-
never far from these usages. Different attitudes toward
ism (Prashad 2001; Steen 2006; Mullen 2004; Deutsch
theater, evidenced by those who applaud actors for their
2001; Ongiri 2002). These two trends are an apt tribute
virtuosity or those who react with more puritanical sus-
to Said’s original formulation of Orientalism, reuniting
picion, engage theater’s basic tensions between actor
the black, brown, and yellow inhabitants of that imagi-
and character, action and interpretation, and private
nary geography into reinvigorated political coalitions,
motivation and public show. That Asian American stud-
and allowing the Orient to write its own future.
ies and other studies of race and ethnicity frequently use “performance,” as well as other stage terms such as “acting,” “mask,” “role,” or “character,” suggests similarly dramatic tensions in offstage life. 185
but produces an alternate history of American imperiippines and Japan, neocolonial relations with Taiwan,
47
South Korea, and Vietnam, and the continued coloni-
Performance
zation of Hawai‘i, Guam, Saipan, and American Samoa
Josephine Lee
alism, as seen in the colonial occupations of the Phil-
(Rafael 2000; Jodi Kim 2010; Kauanui 2008b). In some of this work, Asian Americans are not always aligned with the colonized, but sometimes collaborate with or take on the role of imperialists, as in critiques of settler
“Performance” can mean the everyday accomplishment
colonialism in Hawai‘i or Asian American conserva-
of a task or function, or acting in special contexts
tives (Fujikane and Okamura 2008; Camacho and Shi-
such as plays, music, or sports. The first meaning links
gematsu 2010; Prashad 2005) These critical, transna-
“performance” to the fulfillment of social roles; in both
tional investigations of American Orientalism not only
cases, instances of “performance” reference and reiterate
reanimate the Third World internationalism of the
the conventions of meaning that define communities,
Asian American movement, but also break new ground
societies, or nations (“as American as [eating] apple
in critical ethnic studies by showing racialization as a
pie”). Scholars have adopted the term “performative”
complex and continuing process. One outgrowth of this
(derived from language philosopher J. L. Austin’s
new use of American Orientalism has been the linking
“performative utterance” in How to Do Things with
of Arab, Middle Eastern, and Muslim Americans with
Words [1962]) to good effect in analyzing the everyday
Asian Americans, especially as the ongoing War on Ter-
enactments that constitute aspects of identity such as
ror intensifies the racialization of “brownness” across all
gender, sexuality, class, and race (Butler 1988; Parker and
of Asia and beyond (McAlister 2001; Volpp 2002; J. Kang
Sedgwick 1995). These understandings of “performance”
2002; Bayoumi 2009; Prashad 2008; Puar 2007; Rana
and its variants are tied to what Erving Goffman (1959)
2011). Another development has been the investigation
called the “presentation of self”: how words and actions
of Afro-Asian connections both internationally as well
manifest human signification, relationship, status, and
as within the U.S., connecting the larger realm of Said’s
power.
Orient with post-Bandung national alignments as well
The more specific case of theatrical performance is
as a politically productive African American Oriental-
never far from these usages. Different attitudes toward
ism (Prashad 2001; Steen 2006; Mullen 2004; Deutsch
theater, evidenced by those who applaud actors for their
2001; Ongiri 2002). These two trends are an apt tribute
virtuosity or those who react with more puritanical sus-
to Said’s original formulation of Orientalism, reuniting
picion, engage theater’s basic tensions between actor
the black, brown, and yellow inhabitants of that imagi-
and character, action and interpretation, and private
nary geography into reinvigorated political coalitions,
motivation and public show. That Asian American stud-
and allowing the Orient to write its own future.
ies and other studies of race and ethnicity frequently use “performance,” as well as other stage terms such as “acting,” “mask,” “role,” or “character,” suggests similarly dramatic tensions in offstage life. 185
Many instances of Asian American “performance”
These assessments of Asian American performance
bring up concerns about Asian American performance
were manifested in how Lieutenant General John De-
as a kind of “acting” that is artificial, excessive, or in-
Witt, commanding general of the Western Defense
appropriate. As Henry Yu’s Thinking Orientals (2001)
Command, justified the internment of Japanese Ameri-
points out, in the first half of the twentieth century
cans. DeWitt posited that “[t]he Japanese race is an en-
sociologists from the University of Chicago noted how
emy race” and “while many second and third genera-
Chinese and Japanese Americans successfully executed
tion Japanese born on United States soil, possessed of
nuanced performances of American language and be-
United States citizenship, have become ‘Americanized,’
havior; however, many felt that physical differences
the racial strains are undiluted.” These “racial strains”
prevented them from being seen as fully American. In
made all Japanese Americans along the West Coast
Robert Park’s assessment, the successful assimilation
“potential enemies” whose very lack of military action
of Japanese Americans was compromised by certain
could be interpreted as duplicitous behavior: “The very
bodily attributes—facial features, skin color, or stature
fact that no sabotage has taken place to date is a disturb-
and build.
ing and confirming indication that such action will be taken” (Commission 1997, 7). Given these suspicions of
The fact that the Japanese bears in his features
Japanese American performance, even the pitch-perfect
a distinctive racial hallmark, that he wears, so
enactment of American activities such as playing base-
to speak, a uniform, classifies him. He cannot
ball, saying the Pledge of Allegiance, or serving in the
become a mere individual, indistinguishable in the
U.S. military—strikingly documented in internment
cosmopolitan mass of the populations, as is true,
camp photographs by Dorothea Lange, Ansel Adams,
for example, of the Irish and, to a lesser extent, of
and others—could not render them trustworthy.
some of the other immigrant races. The Japanese
Fundamental assumptions that Asian Americans
like the Negro is condemned to remain among us
could never truly be American—that their “racial uni-
an abstract symbol, and a symbol not merely of
form” marked them as perpetually “Asian” and there-
his own race, but of the Orient and of the vague,
fore foreign—cast doubts on acts of speech, action,
ill-defined menace we sometimes refer to as the
labor, and loyalty. As scholarship on the tropes of “betrayal” (Bow 2001), “impersonation” (T. Chen 2005),
“yellow peril.” (1914, 611)
or “spectacle” (Roxworthy 2008) details, the Asian The stigma of the racial “uniform” undoes the theory that racial performance is only a matter of cultural
can cultural identity has long been viewed as contradic-
behavior. Race continues to be tied up with perceptions
tory; no matter how skilled the Asian American actor,
of intrinsic, even essential bodily difference. For Asian
this performance is never taken for granted as fitting or
Americans, even the most successful demonstration
felicitous. The fear of being targeted as “un-American”
of American culture or citizenship never affirms their
and singled out as the enemy might lead the Japanese
identity as truly American; since they are also wearing a
American store owner to hang a sign declaring “I am an
“racial uniform,” their assimilation is seen as only artifice,
American” in his window; in the post-9/11 era, it might
a form of false acting that belies their true nature. 186
American performance of what is seen as white Ameri-
performance
prompt turbaned Sikhs to wave the American flag. Yet josephine lee
often these anxiously repetitive acts of American be-
and obscured the complicated anxieties about cultural
longing only intensify the suspicion with which such
contact, modernity, capitalism, and gender and sexual-
performances are regarded. Even Asian Americans who
ity that undergirded them. Whether appearing in com-
inhabit the privileged spaces of the model minority in
edies such as Bret Harte and Mark Twain’s stage adapta-
terms of professional or class status—such as Wen Ho
tion of Ah Sin (1876) or melodramatic propaganda such
Lee—receive severe reminders that their “American”
as Henry Grimm’s The Chinese Must Go (1879), these
performances may be questioned.
caricatures, most often played by white actors in yel-
This racial typecasting is consistent with the long
lowface, set the stage for the racial typecasting of Asian
history of imagining an “Orient” as, to borrow from Ed-
Americans as perpetual foreigners and unassimilable
ward Said, “a theatrical stage affixed to Europe.” If the
aliens.
Orient was indeed the “stage on which the whole East is
Asian and Asian American performers in the United
confined,” then Asian Americans, like other “Orientals,”
States took the stage amid these different modes of ste-
became icons, “figures whose role it is to represent the
reotyping. The 1834 display of the “Chinese Lady” Afong
larger whole from which they emanate” (1978, 63). What
Moy in New York attracted attention for her “monstrous
they represented, moreover, transformed Asia into the
small” feet as well as for her “indigenous” dress. Later
antithesis of the West: exotic, mysterious, uncivilized,
reports of a “Chinese Lady” (whether Moy or another
and irrational. This history involved a host of familiar
woman is uncertain) advertised her as talking and
characterizations such as the despotic emperor or the
counting in Chinese and eating with chopsticks, which
hapless maiden that today are reincarnated in the con-
“render[ed] the exhibition highly interesting to lovers
tinued popularity of Puccini’s Madame Butterfly and the
of curiosities” (Tchen 2001, 104). Profitable enterprises
Asian villains of television, movies, and video games.
such as Phineas T. Barnum’s 1850 “Chinese Museum”
In the twentieth century, a fascination with imagin-
featured a “Living Chinese Family” that included “Miss
ing Asians as exotic and decorative gave way to more
Pwan-Yekoo, the Chinese Belle,” who fascinated white
fearful representations of immigrants or of Japanese
audiences: “She is so pretty, so arch, so lively, and so
imperial power. In contrast to the “queer and quaint”
graceful, while her minute feet are wondrous!” (Tchen
orientals appearing in nineteenth-century works such
2001, 118). This characteristic staging designated parts
as Gilbert and Sullivan’s The Mikado, these more violent
and actions of the Asian body as different and strange;
and degraded images of stage, film, television, and ad-
it thus greatly limited the expressive potential of Asian
vertising imagined Japanese military power as well as
American performance and undermined the Asian
Asian immigrant labor in the form of a “yellow peril”
American performer. In both nineteenth-century (such
threatening American foreign interests, labor, and do-
as Chinese and Japanese acrobatic troupes or the con-
mesticity. These stereotypes exaggerated the “racial
joined twins Chang and Eng Bunker) and more contem-
uniform” of the Asian body, fixating on racial signifiers
porary performances (martial arts films that link feats of
such as skin color, eye shape, and teeth, and magnify-
skill and strength with Asian bodies), Asian and Asian
ing perceptions of physical difference with spectacular
American bodies are displayed as curiosities in which ex-
clothing, hair, and verbal and gestural mannerisms. The
otic and extraordinary physical attributes define racial
simplicity of these stereotypes heightened their power
difference, even freakishness.
performance
josephine lee
187
Richard Schechner’s Performance Studies makes a dis-
188
There are thus many examples of the complexities
tinction between “being,” “doing,” and “performing,”
and possibilities of Asian American performance. These
where “being” is “existence itself,” “doing” is “the activ-
might indeed be traced through looking at a play such
ity of all that exists,” and “performing” means “show-
as David Henry Hwang’s Tony Award–winning M. But-
ing doing”: “pointing to, underlining, and displaying
terfly (1988). M. Butterfly deftly deconstructs the con-
doing” (2002, 22). Objectifying Asian bodies in displays
nected ideologies of imperialism, racism, gender, and
at various fairs or exhibitions turns them into objects
capitalism that inform stereotypes such as the exotic
of interest simply for “being” rather than “performing”;
“butterfly,” and stages its leading Asian character, Song
what these performers do is framed as natural behavior
Liling, as a consummate performer. But because the his-
rather than the achievement of acting or art. To counter
tory of Asian American performance lies in large part in
this tendency, Asian American artists draw attention to
“embodied memory,” the “ephemeral, nonreproducible
the inner lives of performers as well as the contexts and
knowledge” of what Diana Taylor calls the “repertoire”
constraints for performance. For instance, plays such
(2003, 20), I would like to note as my final example an
as Philip Kan Gotanda’s Yankee Dawg You Die (1988)
instance of Asian American performance—glimpsed
and Sun Mee Chomet’s Asiamnesia (2008) focus on the
momentarily in the vast archives of Shakespearean
plight of Asian and Asian American actors working in a
performance— that moves beyond both script and
racist industry; each references a history of Asian Ameri-
expectation.
cans in theater and film as well as allows actors to dis-
The title role of Hamlet, directed by Stephen Kanee
play a full range of expressive abilities. Asian American
for the 1978–1979 season of Minneapolis’s Guthrie The-
solo performers such as Jude Narita, Dan Kwong, Denise
atre, was played by Randall Duk Kim. Kim, of course, is
Uyehara, and Zaraawar Mistry also push the limits of
better known to Asian American performance schol-
what it means for Asian Americans to perform multiple
ars for his roles in the 1972 Off-Broadway production
characterizations and styles of acting. Innovative op-
of Frank Chin’s Chickencoop Chinaman and the 2002
portunities for Asian American performance have also
Broadway cast of David Henry Hwang’s repurposed
been provided by Asian American theater companies
Flower Drum Song, and to more general audiences for
such as East West Players, the National Asian American
roles in films such as The Matrix: Reloaded and Kung Fu
Theatre Company, and Mu Performing Arts, as well as by
Panda. That Kim’s now long-past Guthrie performance
new venues in theater, film, television, and the internet.
as Hamlet did not inspire a “colorblind” reaction is
Asian American studies is building a significant body of
evidenced by a review by David George for Shakespeare
scholarship (Kondo 1997; Josephine Lee 1997; Shimak-
Quarterly. George described a sense of incongruity, es-
awa 2002; Esther Lee 2006; Yoshihara 2007; Gonzalves
pecially “in the bedroom scene when this Oriental
2010; Y. Wong 2010; Srinivasan 2011; Burns 2012) that
Hamlet confronted his British-speaking mother” (1979,
looks particularly at Asian Americans in theater, dance,
219). But he does not peg Kim as a novelty act. Rather,
music, and other performing arts, thus redefining Asian
George praised “the superior acting of Duk Kim and the
American performance in terms that are, if not episte-
peculiar odds against this was achieved,” noting as prob-
mologically or politically radical, at the very least more
lems in the production not Kim’s “racial uniform” but
expansive.
rather the other, non-Asian actors: “There were a few performance
josephine lee
actors against whom Duk Kim could play, but most of them gave him no chance” (1979, 220). In particular he praised Kim’s “commanding diction” (“a pure, sculpted
48
diction, entirely American”) and “lithe movements”—
Politics
such as “utterly natural relaxing and tensing”—and
Janelle Wong
pronounced him “a deeply committed and reverent Shakespearean performer,” quoting his previous Hamlet director Wallace Chappell’s statement that Kim is “one of the best actors in the country doing Shakespeare, if
“Politics” is a term that is used broadly in Asian
not in the English-speaking world” (1979, 219–21). Kim’s
American studies. Scholars might refer to cultural
successes on the stage—including many leading roles at
politics or the politics of identity (Takagi 1994; Maira
the American Place Theatre in Spring Green, Wisconsin,
2000; L. Lowe 1996), or they might refer to the political
(which he, along with Anne Occhiogrosso and Chuck
representation (J. Lai 2011; Lai and Geron 2006; W.
Bright, helped found) as well as one-man shows about
Tam 1995) and participation of Asian Americans in
Mark Twain, Edgar Allan Poe, and Walt Whitman—are
civic, governmental, and institutional settings (Cain,
unfortunately atypical for earlier generations of Asian
Kiewiet, and Uhlaner 1991; Nakanishi 1991; Ong and
American actors. Yet it is worth noting how his success-
Nakanishi 1996; Lien 1997; Janelle Wong et al. 2011). In
ful transformations into Hamlet’s melancholy Dane
part, the use of the term depends on the discipline, but
and other characters insist on another distinctive idea
for all, the term “politics” refers to processes or sites in
of Asian American performance: as a dynamic and com-
which Asian American power is constructed, defined,
plex set of possibilities that might be brought to life in
negotiated, and deployed. That power may be in the
one person.
form of and shaped by identity and culture, relations with dominant or marginalized groups, or civic and governmental influence. In the emerging field of Asian American politics, politics is deeply associated with formal and informal political power, particularly though political participation and political representation. In the late 1960s, at the height of the civil rights movement and amid widespread demands for minority political empowerment, it was widely assumed that Asian Americans were too busy striving to achieve the American Dream to be concerned with political power. Instead, the group was praised as a model minority by some conservatives for having “survived adversity and advanced because of their emphasis on education and family values, their community cohesion, and other aspects of their 189
actors against whom Duk Kim could play, but most of them gave him no chance” (1979, 220). In particular he praised Kim’s “commanding diction” (“a pure, sculpted
48
diction, entirely American”) and “lithe movements”—
Politics
such as “utterly natural relaxing and tensing”—and
Janelle Wong
pronounced him “a deeply committed and reverent Shakespearean performer,” quoting his previous Hamlet director Wallace Chappell’s statement that Kim is “one of the best actors in the country doing Shakespeare, if
“Politics” is a term that is used broadly in Asian
not in the English-speaking world” (1979, 219–21). Kim’s
American studies. Scholars might refer to cultural
successes on the stage—including many leading roles at
politics or the politics of identity (Takagi 1994; Maira
the American Place Theatre in Spring Green, Wisconsin,
2000; L. Lowe 1996), or they might refer to the political
(which he, along with Anne Occhiogrosso and Chuck
representation (J. Lai 2011; Lai and Geron 2006; W.
Bright, helped found) as well as one-man shows about
Tam 1995) and participation of Asian Americans in
Mark Twain, Edgar Allan Poe, and Walt Whitman—are
civic, governmental, and institutional settings (Cain,
unfortunately atypical for earlier generations of Asian
Kiewiet, and Uhlaner 1991; Nakanishi 1991; Ong and
American actors. Yet it is worth noting how his success-
Nakanishi 1996; Lien 1997; Janelle Wong et al. 2011). In
ful transformations into Hamlet’s melancholy Dane
part, the use of the term depends on the discipline, but
and other characters insist on another distinctive idea
for all, the term “politics” refers to processes or sites in
of Asian American performance: as a dynamic and com-
which Asian American power is constructed, defined,
plex set of possibilities that might be brought to life in
negotiated, and deployed. That power may be in the
one person.
form of and shaped by identity and culture, relations with dominant or marginalized groups, or civic and governmental influence. In the emerging field of Asian American politics, politics is deeply associated with formal and informal political power, particularly though political participation and political representation. In the late 1960s, at the height of the civil rights movement and amid widespread demands for minority political empowerment, it was widely assumed that Asian Americans were too busy striving to achieve the American Dream to be concerned with political power. Instead, the group was praised as a model minority by some conservatives for having “survived adversity and advanced because of their emphasis on education and family values, their community cohesion, and other aspects of their 189
cultural heritage” (Omatsu 2003, 158). A correlate of
passage of the 1952 Immigration and Naturalization Act
this characterization was a sharp contrast with Black
(McCarren-Walter) that all Asian American groups were
Americans. Asian Americans flourished, the stereotype
allowed to become naturalized citizens.
implied, by prioritizing educational and family values
Despite a long history of limited voting rights and
over political protest and explicit demands for policies
stereotypes that paint the group as apolitical, Asian
designed to mitigate racial discrimination and inequal-
Americans have sought to make their voices heard in
ity (c.f. C. Kim 2000). As the model minority stereotype
U.S. politics outside of the ballot box. In 1886, dur-
embedded itself in the American conscious, it fostered
ing the era of Chinese exclusion, a Chinese petitioner
the notion that, unlike other racially marginalized
brought a case all the way to the Supreme Court by
groups, Asian Americans’ educational achievement
challenging, under the 14th Amendment’s equal pro-
and strong family values would ensure their success
tection clause, a law requiring wood laundry facilities
without political activism. The decades that followed
in San Francisco to obtain special permits to oper-
were marked by unprecedented migration from Asia to
ate. Don Nakanishi and James Lai note that this case,
the U.S., but along with the fact that they remained a
Yick Wo v. Hopkins, “demonstrates that early Asians in
relatively small, majority-foreign-born group with low
America were politically aware despite their lack of ba-
rates of voting participation compared to other groups,
sic constitutional rights” (2003, 20). Citing Japanese
the model minority stereotype served to reinforce the
American participation in farmworkers’ strikes in Ox-
notion that Asian Americans were marginal to the U.S.
nard, California, in 1903 and the activism of Filipino
political process.
American farmworkers in California’s Central Valley
Around the time of the 2012 presidential campaign,
in the 1930s, labor movement scholar Kent Wong sug-
however, the image of Asian Americans in U.S. poli-
gests that “the strong tradition of Asian Pacific labor
tics was beginning to change. Unlike in the past, Asian
activism stands in sharp contrast to the widespread
Americans were being recognized as a potential politi-
myths that Asians are docile, individualistic, and in-
cal force. In late October 2012, for example, National
capable of being organized, or organizing themselves
Journal ran a story with the headline “The Power of the
(2003, 422).
Asian-American Vote Is Growing—And It’s Up for Grabs” (Goldmacher 2012).
190
Since the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, voting requirements determined to be racially discrimi-
Until the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, most
natory have been outlawed, and Asian American vot-
members of racial minority groups in the United States,
ing participation has increased dramatically. Asian
including Asian Americans, were systematically denied
Americans continue to be underrepresented at the
the right to vote. As a predominantly immigrant group
polls, however. The most recent data available on voter
in the United States, enforcement of a 1790 law permit-
turnout show that 57% of adult citizen Asian Ameri-
ting only “free white men” to naturalize and become
cans report turning out in the 2008 presidential elec-
citizens denied the franchise to most Asian Americans
tion, compared to about 75% of White and Black adult
until after World War II. In 1943, Chinese immigrants
citizens (File and Crissey 2012). According to govern-
received the right to naturalize, in part because of
ment data, Asian American voting rates did not change
pressure from China, a WWII ally. It was not until the
significantly between the 2008 and 2012 presidential
politics
janelle wong
elections. Asian Americans made up about 6% of the
Asian-language speakers’ access to translated voting ma-
U.S. population in 2012, but only about 3% of the na-
terials (Springer 2012). Since the late 1990s, Asian Americans have increas-
tional electorate. The gap in voting participation persists for several
ingly identified with the Democratic Party. However,
reasons. Eligibility requirements prevent many Asian
even in 2012, a large proportion of Asian Americans
Americans from voting. The vast majority, 75%, of Asian
were not attached to any party. Fully 51% identified
American adults are foreign born, and of this group,
as independent or did not think in terms of political
about 40% are not yet citizens and ineligible to vote.
party identification (Ramakrishnan and Lee 2012). This
In addition, Asian Americans tend to be younger than
is a higher proportion of nonparty identifiers than in
other major segments of the U.S. population. While
the general population. As such, Asian Americans are
79% of non-Hispanic Whites are over the age of 18 and
“up for grabs” by the two major parties, but also seen
therefore of voting age, this is true of 76% of Asian
as a moving target in terms of mobilization. Because
Americans. But Asian Americans are underrepresented
political parties and their associated campaigns deploy
even among those that that are eligible to vote. One
their resources strategically to target the voters most
important explanation for this is that Asian Americans
likely to support their candidates, they tend to target
are not mobilized to participate in politics at the same
high-propensity voters with a long history of support
levels as other groups (Janelle Wong 2006). This is espe-
for their party. In recent national elections, campaigns
cially true in national elections.
have been reluctant to target Asian Americans for mo-
Like Latinos, Asian Americans are underrepresented
bilization, given their relatively recent entrance into
in key battleground states. A little less than 20% of
the voting population and uncertain party loyalties.
Asian Americans live in states considered competitive
In state and local contexts, though, Asian Americans
presidential battlegrounds. In contrast, more than
may be seen as a more desirable constituency (c.f. J.
30% of non-Hispanic Whites and Blacks live in battle-
Lai 2010).
ground states. The overall Asian American population
Outside of voting, Asian Americans are most likely to
is fast growing in swing states like Nevada, Virginia, and
participate in politics by working with others in their
North Carolina, but the group still makes up a relatively
communities to solve a community problem (Lien et al.
small proportion of eligible voters in these states—less
2004; Janelle Wong et al. 2011; see also Võ 2004). On
than 5% of the eligible voters in 2012. In presidential
the whole they work on political campaigns, contact
elections, then, Asian Americans are less likely to be
government officials, and take part in political pro-
mobilized to vote by campaigns seeking to sway vot-
tests at about the same or slightly lower rates than most
ers in key swing states. And the data reflect this. Data
other racial groups. In the 1990s, some observers were
from the 2008 Collaborative Multiracial Post-election
convinced that Asian Americans would attain political
Study show that in 2008, even among registered voters,
power though campaign giving. Don Nakanishi sug-
Asian Americans were five percentage points less likely
gests that in key political circles, Asian Americans were
to be contacted and mobilized to vote than their White
viewed as “a veritable mountain of gold for Democratic
and Black counterparts (Frasure et al. 2008). Further,
and Republican prospectors in California and across the
Asian Americans still face barriers to voting in terms of
nation” (1991, 33).
politics
janelle wong
191
192
In fact, campaign giving by Asian Americans has
participation among Asian Americans more generally:
been a fraught topic over the past two decades. In
“I worry about John Liu. . . . But I am more worried
1996, a small group of Asian Americans was accused
about how this will hurt Asian-Americans’ political
of raising illegal funds for the Democratic National
involvement and scare off contributors” (D. Chen
Committee and the Clinton reelection campaign. At
2012, A-24)
the heart of the scandal were several Asian Ameri-
Despite racialized media attention to Asian Ameri-
cans charged with raising money from illegal for-
cans and their campaign giving since the mid-1990s,
eign sources in Asia. The role of Asian Americans in
data from throughout the 2000s suggest that Asian
American politics was deeply scrutinized as the na-
Americans donate to campaigns at levels proportional
tional media covered investigations by the U.S. Jus-
to their population, even in high- density localities
tice Department, House, and Senate. Two fundrais-
(Adams and Ren 2006; see also Cho 2002). They are
ers, Johnny Huang and Charlie Trie, eventually pled
no more likely to contribute funds to campaigns than
guilty to felony violations of federal election law, but
are white Americans (Janelle Wong et al. 2011, 23). Per-
the effects of the investigation were far more wide
haps because there are relatively few Asian American
reaching. In 1997, a coalition of Asian American ad-
candidates, Asian American donors are more likely to
vocacy organizations, including the National Asian
give funds to non–Asian American candidates, but they
Pacific American Legal Consortium, the Organization
strongly support Asian Americans if they do seek office.
of Chinese Americans, the Asian Pacific American
Asian American candidates, however, receive most of
Labor Alliance, the Korean American Coalition, and
their funds from co-ethnics or other Asian Americans
ten other groups and individuals filed a complaint
(Adams and Ren 2006).
with the U.S Commission on Civil Rights and called
Ben Adams and Ping Ren (2006) speculate that lack
for a hearing to expose discriminatory aspects of the
of financial support from non–Asian Americans may ac-
government’s investigation of the scandal. Federal in-
count in part for the small number of Asian Americans
vestigators, members of Congress, and the media con-
who have run for elected office successfully. In fact, his-
sistently represented Asian Americans as a whole, not
torically, Asian Americans have been underrepresented
just the accused fundraisers, as perpetual foreigners
in elected office. Although the Asian American popula-
and a “Yellow Peril,” or foreign threat to the United
tion grew tremendously from 1978 to 2000, the number
States (c.f. L. Wang 1998; Taeku Lee 2000). In 2012,
of Asian Americans holding state office increased from
Taiwanese American John Liu, the first Asian Ameri-
just 63 to 73 and the number holding federal office in-
can elected to citywide office in New York City, was
creased from just five to seven over that period (J. Lai et
involved in a scandal when his campaign treasurer
al. 2001). James Lai identifies several additional chal-
was arrested for raising funds using the names of fake
lenges facing Asian Americans seeking to win elected
donors. John Y. Park, an advocate for the New York
office, including the lack of concentrated residential
City Asian American community, voiced his concern
populations combined with single- district elections,
that the media’s focus on Liu’s potential impropri-
the limited number of Asian Americans in the candi-
eties would lead to extra scrutiny of all Asian Ameri-
date pipeline, the need for stronger political networks,
can donors and have a negative impact on political
entrenched political interests that resist Asian American
politics
janelle wong
newcomers, and the lack of an ideological platform
small and medium-sized cities in an increasing range of
that will attract both Asian Americans and other groups
places (J. Lai 2011, 18).
(2011, 57).
Outside of Hawai‘i, which is not only majority Asian
Over time, however, Asian Americans’ descriptive
American but also has a long history of Asian Ameri-
representation has increased at every level of elected
cans holding office, including the first woman of color
office. According to the Asian Pacific American Insti-
ever elected to Congress, Rep. Patsy Mink (a Democrat,
tute for Congressional Studies (APAICS), the number of
elected in 1964), most Asian Americans seeking office
Asian American candidates for federal office has been
must be able to gain the votes of non–Asian Americans
rising fast in recent years. In 2008, there were eight
to win state or federal office. In fact, this has long been
Asian Americans running for congressional office. Four
the case. The first Asian American elected to Congress,
years later, there were 30 bids by Asian Americans for
Dalip Singh Saund, was elected from a mostly white dis-
congressional office. A record number of Asian Ameri-
trict in Southern California in 1956. Saund, an Indian
cans were elected to Congress in 2012. Asian Americans
American, was an early Asian American activist. As the
are less geographically concentrated than Blacks and
leader of several ethnic advocacy organizations in the
Latinos in the United States. As a result, there are few
United States, he pressed for passage of the Luce-Cellar
places in the United States outside of Hawai‘i that in-
Act of 1946, which allowed Filipino and Indian immi-
clude a majority of Asian Americans. Although most
grants to naturalize. Although Saund was a proponent
Blacks and Latinos are elected from districts where
of Indian American causes, he was also very active in
minority group members are in the majority, Asian
local community organizations, such as the Boy Scouts
Americans tend to be elected by a coalition of voters, of
and March of Dimes. As a result of his activism in lo-
which Asian Americans may be a plurality, or more of-
cal and national Democratic Party politics and a strong
ten, a minority, of the winning coalition. For example,
local campaign that emphasized his advocacy on farm-
in 2009, Representative Judy Chu was first elected to
ing issues, he was elected to Congress in an overwhelm-
Congress in a special election to represent California’s
ingly white district. Other factors associated with Asian
27th Congressional District, which was just over 62%
American electoral success at every level of government
Latino, nearly 20% Asian American, and 15% non-
include support from Asian American community-
Hispanic white.
based organizations and Asian American ethnic media
Asian Americans are also running outside of traditional Asian American gateway cities like Los Angeles
sources. Today, more than 4,000 Asian Americans hold
and New York. James Lai makes a compelling argument
elected and major appointed office at the local, state,
that “for the first time in American politics, Asian Amer-
and federal level in at least 39 different states (Nakani-
ican candidates in suburbs in the continental United
shi 2011, 2). Further, members of both major political
States are winning, sustaining, and building on Asian
parties have appointed Asian Americans to prominent
American elected representation” (2011, 228). This is in
political posts in the recent past.
part due to the fact that more than 50% of Asian Ameri-
Although some assume that Asian Americans, as a
cans live in the suburbs and that the group makes up
predominantly immigrant group, may be preoccupied
a critical mass, either a majority or plurality, in many
with politics in their countries of origin at the expense
politics
janelle wong
193
of U.S. politics, in actuality a very small proportion (less
discrimination in a 2012 Pew survey. A a whole, 19% of
than 5%) of any Asian American national origin group
Asian Americans said they had personally experienced
participates in politics related to the country of origin
racial discrimination Yet few Asian Americans, only
(Janelle Wong et al. 2011). Further, research suggests
13%, said they saw racial discrimination as a “major”
that those who do participate in politics related to the
problem (Taylor et al. 2012). Other surveys show that
country of origin are also the most likely to participate
while nearly one in five Asian Americans reports hav-
in politics in the United States (c.f. Janelle Wong 2006,
ing experienced racial discrimination, all racial groups,
ch. 8). In other words, political activists in one context
including Asian Americans, believe Asian Americans
are likely to be activists in other contexts as well.
face the least amount of discrimination of any group.
Given the tremendous diversity that characterizes
Although experience with racial discrimination could
the Asian American community, an enduring question
serve as common ground for Asian Americans, if few
in the field of Asian American politics is whether or not
Asian Americans currently believe it is a major problem
Asian Americans constitute a meaningful political cat-
then it is unlikely to serve as the basis for mass political
egory. While members of this diverse group do share
action.
common identities, experiences, and attitudes, a coherent political agenda is still developing.
Asian Americans, directly or indirectly. Not only are
Panethnic identity is more common among younger
most Asian Americans immigrants, but 48% of Chinese,
and second-generation Asian Americans, but it is still
46% of Koreans, and 60% of Vietnamese reported in the
emerging. Data from the 2008 National Asian Ameri-
2010 Current Population Survey that they speak Eng-
can Survey, a study conducted in eight languages that
lish less than very well (Taylor et al. 2012). Even 18% of
includes more than 5,000 Asian Americans show that
the mostly U.S.-born Japanese American group report
about 20% of Asian Americans identify with a pan-
speaking English less than very well. Across all national
Asian label such as “Asian American” or “Asian” (Ra-
origins, including Japanese American, and regardless of
makrishnan et al. 2008). Although Asian Americans are
nativity, a majority say that they continue to maintain
classified by the census as a distinct racial group, some
communication with family and friends in the country
might be surprised to learn that, in 2008, only 55% of
of origin. Immigration, then, will likely continue to be
Asian Americans believed that they shared a “common
an important political touchstone for Asian Americans.
race.” Even fewer, 37%, claimed that Asian Americans
Asian Americans share distinct policy attitudes ac-
shared common political interests. Asian Americans
cording to the 2012 National Asian American Survey
are more likely to believe they share a common culture
(Ramakrishnan and Lee 2012). For example, the ma-
(64%). In 2012, responses to these questions about Asian
jority of most Asian American national-origin groups,
American commonality were similar. Shared identity
including Chinese, Vietnamese, Indians, and Korean
or feelings of commonality are only a partial basis for
Americans, express stronger support for the universal health care than does the general public. Fifty-five
group coherence then.
194
The immigrant experience touches the lives of most
A fairly large chunk of Asian Americans, includ-
percent of Asian Americans support health care reform
ing more than 15% of Chinese, Indians, Koreans, and
under the Affordable Care Act passed by Congress and
Filipinos, reported experiences with racially motivated
signed into law by President Barack Obama in 2010,
politics
janelle wong
compared to just 38% of Americans generally. Fully 60% of Asian Americans favor protecting environment over economic growth, compared to 40% of Americans
49
generally.
Postcolonialism
It should be clear, then, that Asian Americans con-
Allan Punzalan Isaac
verge to some extent around experiences and attitudes. Yet these experiences and attitudes are not absolutely consistent across all national origin groups or individuals. Shared experiences and attitudes alone will not hold
Emerging from literary studies, postcolonial criticism
the Asian American community together. Organiza-
initially examined how the experience of, negotiation
tions, advocacy groups, and community leaders provide
with, and resistance to formal colonialism have
the institutional support necessary to cultivate a sense
shaped national cultures and literatures emerging
of common political destiny.
from the former British empire (Ashcroft 1989). The
Asian Americans represent an emerging political
consideration of subjects and subjectivity impacted by
group, but one that also has a long history of activism
imperial incursions and fantasies, as explored in Edward
in the United States. Low levels of Asian American po-
Said’s Orientalism (1978), has resonance for multiple
litical participation are primarily a function of eligibil-
populations from Asia with varied colonial legacies that
ity and mobilization, rather than attitudes. And Asian
have come to enter the political coalition called Asian
American elected representation is growing as the group
America. The postcolonial signals the colonial legacy
moves into new geographic and ideological territory.
as part of the cultural heterogeneity and hybridity lived by ethnic groups such as South Asians from the different parts of the British empire and Filipinos emerging from Spanish, Japanese, and U.S. occupations, as well as Koreans and Southeast Asians who have undergone palpable, and oftentimes devastating, U.S. and European military interventions (Gopinath 2005; L. Lowe 1996; Shankar and Srikanth 1998; SchlundVials 2012b). As Asian Americanists extend the field of study to the Americas as a hemispheric unit, the postcolonial approach also makes visible the geography of colonialism and ways by which Asians have entered the Americas from other parts of Latin America and the Caribbean (M. Jung 2006; Yun 2008; Lee-Loy 2010; Khan 2004; López 2013; L. Lowe 2006). Decentering North America as the privileged site and voluntary immigration as the dominant trope for Asian American studies, the postcolonial maps the uneven flows of 195
compared to just 38% of Americans generally. Fully 60% of Asian Americans favor protecting environment over economic growth, compared to 40% of Americans
49
generally.
Postcolonialism
It should be clear, then, that Asian Americans con-
Allan Punzalan Isaac
verge to some extent around experiences and attitudes. Yet these experiences and attitudes are not absolutely consistent across all national origin groups or individuals. Shared experiences and attitudes alone will not hold
Emerging from literary studies, postcolonial criticism
the Asian American community together. Organiza-
initially examined how the experience of, negotiation
tions, advocacy groups, and community leaders provide
with, and resistance to formal colonialism have
the institutional support necessary to cultivate a sense
shaped national cultures and literatures emerging
of common political destiny.
from the former British empire (Ashcroft 1989). The
Asian Americans represent an emerging political
consideration of subjects and subjectivity impacted by
group, but one that also has a long history of activism
imperial incursions and fantasies, as explored in Edward
in the United States. Low levels of Asian American po-
Said’s Orientalism (1978), has resonance for multiple
litical participation are primarily a function of eligibil-
populations from Asia with varied colonial legacies that
ity and mobilization, rather than attitudes. And Asian
have come to enter the political coalition called Asian
American elected representation is growing as the group
America. The postcolonial signals the colonial legacy
moves into new geographic and ideological territory.
as part of the cultural heterogeneity and hybridity lived by ethnic groups such as South Asians from the different parts of the British empire and Filipinos emerging from Spanish, Japanese, and U.S. occupations, as well as Koreans and Southeast Asians who have undergone palpable, and oftentimes devastating, U.S. and European military interventions (Gopinath 2005; L. Lowe 1996; Shankar and Srikanth 1998; SchlundVials 2012b). As Asian Americanists extend the field of study to the Americas as a hemispheric unit, the postcolonial approach also makes visible the geography of colonialism and ways by which Asians have entered the Americas from other parts of Latin America and the Caribbean (M. Jung 2006; Yun 2008; Lee-Loy 2010; Khan 2004; López 2013; L. Lowe 2006). Decentering North America as the privileged site and voluntary immigration as the dominant trope for Asian American studies, the postcolonial maps the uneven flows of 195
196
capital, goods, cultures, fantasies, and displacement of
entry of several Asian American ethnic groups shaped
peoples across the continents. Thus, postcolonialism
variously by colonialism including Indians, Pakistanis,
is intimately tied to concepts of diaspora,
Bangladeshis, Vietnamese, Hmong, Cambodians, Lao-
transnationalism, migration, and globalization.
tians, and Filipinos, among others, as well as Asian
The prefix “post” in postcolonialism does not nec-
groups from the Caribbean, Hawai‘i, and the Pacific Is-
essarily mark the historical era after colonialism, but
lands, has given rise to diverse histories of labor migra-
rather its aftermath and how formal colonialism and
tion, refugeeism, and militarization. Some critics main-
imperial state power are reconfigured and continue to
tain that the postcolonial draws attention away from
structure lives and cultures. The approach acknowledges
critical work on social and political inequality based on
the legacies of ever-shifting borders to blur the divide
race, gender, class, and ethnicity in U.S. society. Sau-ling
between home(land) and abroad, foreign and domes-
Wong has argued how “denationalized” (diasporic) and
tic, and center and periphery. In the U.S. context, 1898
domestic Asian subjectivities in the U.S. are not logical
signified a dramatic shift in U.S. expansion beyond the
evolutions of each other, but coexist as “modes rather
continent by government annexation of Hawai‘i and in-
than phases of Asian American subjectivity” (1995, 17).
corporation of former Spanish insular possessions such
King-Kok Cheung in “Re-viewing Asian American Liter-
as Guam, the Philippines, and Puerto Rico. Pioneering
ary Studies” proposes that critics “assert and manifest
scholarly collections that facilitated links among post-
the historical and cultural presence of Asians in North
colonial, American, and Asian American studies include
America and use our transnational consciousness to cri-
Amy Kaplan and Donald Pease’s Cultures of United States
tique the polity, whether of an Asian country, Canada,
Imperialism (1993), which opened avenues to connect
the United States, or Asian America” (1997, 9).
diverse U.S. American imperial projects along the coun-
Postcolonial criticism complicates voluntary migra-
try’s borders and among its overseas island possessions,
tion as a dominant trope in Asian American and Ameri-
and Vicente Rafael’s Discrepant Histories: Translocal Es-
can studies to uncover varied racial histories and hier-
says on Filipino Cultures (1995), which collected early
archies when applied to U.S. imperial possessions. For
works of scholars like Oscar Campomanes, Martin
example, the ambivalent “inclusion” of Filipinos into
Manalansan, and Michael Salman working at the nexus
the U.S. polity as American “nationals” (like Puerto
of Philippine, U.S. American, and Filipino American
Ricans, Samoans, Guamanians, and U.S. Virgin Island-
studies to navigate the shared borders of the U.S. and
ers at different historical junctures) reveals the con-
the Philippine archipelago.
tradictions in a political belonging founded on forced
Postcolonial theory wielded by Asian American liter-
membership and social and political domination (A.
ary critics has radically destabilized the nation-oriented
Isaac 2006). The theoretical approaches issuing from
politics that have historically anchored Asian American
postcolonial and ethnic studies together also raise the
studies (Chuh 2003). Nguyen and Chen (2000) point
complicity of some Asian American political practices
to how postcolonial critique’s attention to diasporic or
with U.S. imperial projects in relation to Native peoples
homeland issues means that racial identity “is not nec-
across the Americas and the Pacific Islands. The Asian
essarily a prime site of political and cultural mobiliza-
American movement has moved toward expanding
tion” as in the early Asian American movement. The
civil rights for Asian-descent peoples, a double-edged
postcolonialism
allan punzalan isaac
political project that might in practice undermine the 2008; Najita 2006). Asian American postcolonial cri-
50
tique decouples national identity from the state, under-
Queer
scoring issues such as imperial interventions and forced
Martin F. Manalansan IV
sovereignty of Native peoples (Fujikane and Okamura
incorporation of peoples and spaces by tracing the cultural, economic, and political continuities between older and more recent migrations and displacements, and by understanding how capital has shifted the terms
“Queer” has become a ubiquitous term in quotidian,
of political and cultural domination (Choy 2003; Chuh
scholarly, mass media, and political discourses to
2003; Bascara 2006; See 2009).
characterize and name things, relationships, situations,
Postcolonial critique’s transnational consciousness
practices, and bodies from TV shows such as Queer
and critique of imperial state power, while more pro-
Eye for the Straight Guy to academic endeavors such as
nounced with the changes in Asian American demo-
queer studies. Its pervasiveness has resulted in messy
graphics since the 1960s and 1970s, arguably has roots
contexts and situations as it is deployed in multiple
in the early Asian American movement with its close
and oftentimes contradictory ways. In its various uses,
alliance with other people of color in the U.S. and with
“queer” is and can be a vernacular word, a political
Third World movements. Early cultural nationalism re-
idiom, and an academic field of study. The crux of the
jected the perpetual-foreigner condition to stake a claim
contentious nature of “queer” is whether the right
to American belonging in historical, political, and cul-
question is “what is queer?” or “what does ‘queer’ do?” Is
tural terms; at the same time, the movement’s global
“queer” about ontology, identity, and being, or is it about
politics vehemently opposed imperial wars in Southeast
processes, mechanics, and/or frameworks of analysis?
Asia and supported self-determination in the decoloniz-
“Queer” is necessarily about both aspects or dimensions.
ing Third World. The more recent examination of dif-
In everyday usage, “queer” was and is still used as
ferent colonial histories of Asian ethnic groups arriving
an umbrella term that designates identities, behaviors,
on American shores emerges from this transnational
and bodies as nonconforming to specific notions of the
historical awareness to complicate Asian American
normal. In more scholarly deployments, “queer” has
politics and culture. Articulating vexed political and
become a vantage, an approach, and a method that
cultural borders that map emergent postnational episte-
has been productively used to engage with virtually
mologies, Asian American postcolonial criticism makes
all kinds of phenomena from 17th-century romantic
manifest reconfigurations and structures of imperial
relationships to present-day human-animal relations.
state power that reinstate the binary of the nation and
While “queer” has had a strong sexual connotation, it is
its others (Chuh 2003).
no longer tethered to a monolithic notion of the sexual as it is applied intersectionally to other realms such as race, class, and gender. In other words, “queer” resists the easy partitioning or demarcation of discrete categories. For example, sexuality or, more specifically, the 197
political project that might in practice undermine the 2008; Najita 2006). Asian American postcolonial cri-
50
tique decouples national identity from the state, under-
Queer
scoring issues such as imperial interventions and forced
Martin F. Manalansan IV
sovereignty of Native peoples (Fujikane and Okamura
incorporation of peoples and spaces by tracing the cultural, economic, and political continuities between older and more recent migrations and displacements, and by understanding how capital has shifted the terms
“Queer” has become a ubiquitous term in quotidian,
of political and cultural domination (Choy 2003; Chuh
scholarly, mass media, and political discourses to
2003; Bascara 2006; See 2009).
characterize and name things, relationships, situations,
Postcolonial critique’s transnational consciousness
practices, and bodies from TV shows such as Queer
and critique of imperial state power, while more pro-
Eye for the Straight Guy to academic endeavors such as
nounced with the changes in Asian American demo-
queer studies. Its pervasiveness has resulted in messy
graphics since the 1960s and 1970s, arguably has roots
contexts and situations as it is deployed in multiple
in the early Asian American movement with its close
and oftentimes contradictory ways. In its various uses,
alliance with other people of color in the U.S. and with
“queer” is and can be a vernacular word, a political
Third World movements. Early cultural nationalism re-
idiom, and an academic field of study. The crux of the
jected the perpetual-foreigner condition to stake a claim
contentious nature of “queer” is whether the right
to American belonging in historical, political, and cul-
question is “what is queer?” or “what does ‘queer’ do?” Is
tural terms; at the same time, the movement’s global
“queer” about ontology, identity, and being, or is it about
politics vehemently opposed imperial wars in Southeast
processes, mechanics, and/or frameworks of analysis?
Asia and supported self-determination in the decoloniz-
“Queer” is necessarily about both aspects or dimensions.
ing Third World. The more recent examination of dif-
In everyday usage, “queer” was and is still used as
ferent colonial histories of Asian ethnic groups arriving
an umbrella term that designates identities, behaviors,
on American shores emerges from this transnational
and bodies as nonconforming to specific notions of the
historical awareness to complicate Asian American
normal. In more scholarly deployments, “queer” has
politics and culture. Articulating vexed political and
become a vantage, an approach, and a method that
cultural borders that map emergent postnational episte-
has been productively used to engage with virtually
mologies, Asian American postcolonial criticism makes
all kinds of phenomena from 17th-century romantic
manifest reconfigurations and structures of imperial
relationships to present-day human-animal relations.
state power that reinstate the binary of the nation and
While “queer” has had a strong sexual connotation, it is
its others (Chuh 2003).
no longer tethered to a monolithic notion of the sexual as it is applied intersectionally to other realms such as race, class, and gender. In other words, “queer” resists the easy partitioning or demarcation of discrete categories. For example, sexuality or, more specifically, the 197
processes of sexualization (how things get sexualized)
“homosexual” phenomena through ethnographic stud-
can occur coextensively if not jointly with operations
ies of various practices, institutions, and bodies that
of racialization, class formation, and gendering.
exceeded the parameters of Western notions of sexual
“Queer,” as a word, has discrepant origins, meanings,
orientation. Activists, scholars, and the general public
and circuits of circulations. During its early use in the
slowly came to realize the parochial and narrow cultural
17th century, it was a label for things, people, and situa-
contexts of sexual orientation and identity categories
tions that were considered renegade, wayward, strange,
such as gay and lesbian vis-à-vis those of the non-West.
counterfeit, and/or perverted. By the beginning of the
Operating in parallel realms, feminist theory and Third
20th century, with the consolidation of sexual orienta-
World and women-of-color feminism in particular were
tion as a cultural identity marker, “queer” had become
responsible for a trenchant critique of the universaliza-
a derogatory stand-in for “homosexual” and gender
tion and naturalization of the category “woman” and
insubordination.
provided situated understandings of racialized and
The dramatic shift of “queer” as a concept and iden-
minoritized women. Instead of a global womanhood,
tity category from its rather denigrating semantic be-
Third World and women-of-color feminism suggested
ginnings to a more vigilant and positive frame occurred
multiple contexts and strategies for understanding
during the 1980s. During this period, “queer” under-
women’s issues. As such, their ideas complemented if
went a political and cultural “makeover.” Gay and les-
not helped animate the thinking around “queer.”
bian activists and organizations such as Queer Nation
Gay and lesbian studies emerged in the 1980s as a
recuperated, appropriated, and resignified “queer” in a
product of the gay/lesbian and feminist activisms and
way that retained its nonnormative assignation and po-
early studies on homosexuality of the 1970s. There was
litically deployed it against the violent homophobia of
consensus among scholars during this period regard-
the state and the private sector. By so doing, these social
ing the detachment of sexuality and gender from their
agents were responsible for the resurgence of a term that
natural and biological roots and from their dependence
was seen as archaic and derogatory and transformed it
on Euro-American categories and cultural mores. While
into an idiom that engaged with and expressed the pre-
visibility and rights-based activism were at the core of
vailing conditions of the times.
198
some of their activities, a significant number of schol-
From a theoretical point of view, this lexical and
ars and activists realized, confronted, and engaged with
structural transformation was aided and abetted by
the limitations of identity politics and the struggles
scholarly sources as well as events of the late 20th cen-
for rights. They questioned: Rights for whom? Whose
tury. Michel Foucault was perhaps most influential in
identity?
inspiring several of the crucial scholarly contributions.
Part of the impetus for the transformation of “queer”
He vociferously articulated the cultural and historical
came from activities (policy oriented, scholarly fo-
dimensions of sexuality and was partly responsible for
cused, and/or activist based) around the AIDS pan-
inciting scholarly attempts to denaturalize sexuality
demic. The pandemic was not only a medical crisis
and gender.
but also a major semantic/semiotic one. Meanings of
Researchers in the social sciences, particularly an-
long-held categories such as homosexual, heterosex-
thropology, conducted cross- cultural mappings of
ual, gay, and straight were put into question as policy
queer
martin f. manalansan iv
makers, epidemiologists, AIDS prevention educators/
and for empowering and politicizing communities. In
community outreach workers, and social workers were
other words, “queer” not only became a fallback um-
confronted with the discrepancy between behavior and
brella category for the “other” but was deployed to
available identity categories. People who were seen to
“mess up” and/or—to use a relatively archaic meaning
be “practicing” homosexual acts or “exhibiting” homo-
of the term—“spoil” the seemingly cohesive categories
sexual behavior were not identifying accordingly. The
of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and straight, thereby break-
discordance between identity and behavior was further
ing down the monolithic understanding of the sexual
complicated in the late 1980s by the population shift
that has been primarily anchored to sex-object-choice
in the pandemic with the influx of AIDS cases who
orientation.
were nonwhite, nonmainstream, and mostly from immigrant and/or racialized communities. This shift cre-
Gaining momentum from the various legacies and historical contexts outlined above, the concept “queer”
ated a muddled and confused atmosphere, dramatically
and its academic arm, queer theory/queer studies,
troubling the terrains of sexual orientation and gender
“moved” the questions of sex and gender beyond the
as designations such as gay, straight, male, or female of-
contexts of biological destiny and Western categories
ten did not neatly adhere to either bodies or practices.
into more thorough engagements with cultural and
This became a source of contention as political efforts
historical exigencies. With this transformative make-
around the pandemic, particularly service delivery and
over, “queer” was increasingly used to resist and refuse
activism, were anchored around gay and lesbian politi-
the coherence and stability of sex and gender and to ar-
cal and social visibility and empowerment.
gue for more capacious and open-ended understandings
For example, AIDS service agencies found that in immigrant communities as well as communities of color,
of these phenomena. Nowhere are the processes, strategies, and vantage
services and materials with the words “gay” and “les-
of “queer” more prevalent, productive, and paradigm
bian” were met with resistance if not total rejection.
shifting than in the field of Asian American studies. It
While public health officials pointed to “traditional
is no wonder that there have been grumblings in some
values” they deemed always already “premodern” and
sectors about how the “queers” have “taken over the
homophobic as the primary causes for these kinds of
field.” While it may be true that queer-identified schol-
barriers to service delivery, more nuanced analyses by
ars have emerged and that scholarship about LGBTQ
ethnographers, historians, and other humanistic schol-
Asian Americans has proliferated, it is shortsighted to
ars have demonstrated that gay and lesbian identity
see the value of “queer” as merely an identity add-on
categories often do not translate and therefore AIDS
to “Asian” and “American,” since that fails to grasp the
service and prevention education work are not always
substantive value of “queer” as a category of analysis
effectively framed around such categories. By the 1990s,
that “does something” within this so-called “takeover”
we see many of these agencies looking at non-Western
of Asian American studies.
“queer” categories such as kathoey (Thailand) and bakla
The deployment of “queer” in this field is neither a
(Philippines) not as antiquated forms of homosexual-
mere additive measure nor an augmentation or supple-
ity but as possible gateways for sensitively and effec-
ment to that imagined totality called “Asian American.”
tively imparting information about AIDS transmission
It is not just about mixing in the gay and lesbian factors,
queer
martin f. manalansan iv
199
but rather aims to consider “queer” as pivotal to and constitutive of a critical understanding of Asian Ameri-
pino men can be productively understood in terms of
can experiences. “Queer” has remapped and reshaped
their queer and recalcitrant locations in the American
the contours of Asian American experiences. It has been
nation-state at that time, with the Chinese ineligible for
and is presently being used in Asian American studies
citizenship due to a long history of exclusion laws and
scholarship as a theoretical, methodological, and con-
the Filipinos not deemed or treated as citizens, though
ceptual scaffolding from which to conceptualize and en-
as American colonial subjects and American nationals
gage with the historical, cultural, economic, and politi-
they carried American passports. “Queer” operates as a
cal exigencies, realities, and paradoxes that have beset
frame that creatively brings together the practices and
Asian Americans. The queer approach in Asian Ameri-
institutions of immigration law with the forces of race,
can studies has also invigorated enduring fieldwide
class, and gender to help us properly and vitally under-
conversations about the erased/invisible, marginalized,
stand the historical and cultural workings of state power.
and abject histories and communities of Asian America
While some have heralded the advent of a queer
(Okihiro 1994).
200
Such contradictory constructions of Chinese and Fili-
Asian American studies, it was far from becoming a
From the mid-1990s to the present day, the queer ap-
ghettoized and discrete form of inquiry. In fact, the
proach has gained meaningful traction in Asian Ameri-
queer approach in the field has created crucial links and
can studies through numerous publications (Bao and
enabled new formulations and frameworks through
Yanagihara 2000; Eng and Hom 1998; R. Leong 1996).
conversations among Asian American scholars. Dana
Far from merely encouraging an archeological excava-
Takagi (1996), in her now canonical essay, called for the
tion of Asian American gays and lesbians in the past, a
necessary braiding or intertwining of race and sexuality
queer approach enables a serious appreciation of the
not only in the experiences of Asian American gays and
messy and wayward composition of such things as the
lesbians but as a constitutive element of the history of
law and the workings of the normal through popular
Asians in the United States. She further demonstrated
culture, and a critical consideration of such issues as var-
the links between an Asian American–focused gay and
ied miscegenation, bachelor societies, failed masculini-
lesbian or queer studies and its connection to larger
ties, Orientalism, domesticity, and perpetual-foreigner
questions in the field through an engagement with the
status. For example, bachelor societies such as those of
work of Lisa Lowe (1996), who has argued for a serious
early Chinatowns and Filipino agricultural camps were
consideration of heterogeneity and the nonunitary na-
seen as predominantly male-dominated sites, while a
ture of Asian American subjectivity. Both works raised a
queer perspective renders these sites not so much as a
clarion call for capacious scholarly and political engage-
haven for homosexual activity but rather as social stages
ments that went beyond essential static identities or po-
for the performance of hegemonic understandings of
litical trajectories that lead up to the nation-state as the
race, gender, and sexuality. Chinese and Filipino men in
final destination or telos.
the early 20th century were seen as failed masculinities
This approach was demonstrated by works that re-
or always already criminals, either sexual eunuchs (sex-
formulated the idea of Asian American immigration
less and gender-insubordinate subjects) or sexual preda-
through the lenses of what Gayatri Gopinath (2004)
tors (hypermasculine and sexually aggressive subjects).
called a “queer diasporic approach” or what David Eng
queer
martin f. manalansan iv
(2010) termed a “queer diaspora.” By decentering the
Prada. Scholars have shown that the mainstreaming
nation as the primary vehicle for the articulation of
and normalization of these aforementioned “gay issues”
global migratory movement in general and Asian Amer-
have resulted in the domestication and tacit acceptance
ican immigration in particular, queer works have laid
of various forms of social inequality, heteronormative
bare the racial and sexual undercurrents of gender for-
ideals, and structural violence (Manalansan 2005).
mations (Gopinath 2004; Eng 2001), the inadequacies
At the same time, Asian American scholars have
of gay liberation narratives and Western gay and lesbian
noted that the increased visibility of gay and lesbian is-
categories (Manalansan 2003), the variable cultural ex-
sues has been used as evidence of an exceptional Ameri-
pressions of desire, the sexist and racist foundations of
can modernity vis-à-vis a non-modern/non-Western
the nation, and the virulence of state governmentality.
sexually deviant “other” such as the figure of the ter-
Various works have also helped elucidate the legal
rorist in the post-9/11 world (Eng 2010; Puar 2007). To
construction of the Asian migrant subject as always al-
put it simply, the proliferation of American gay culture
ready deviant and showcase how legally framed racial-
is used to portray the global South or, more specifically,
ized, heteropatriachal, and heteronormative expecta-
the Middle East as backward, homophobic, and violent
tions have authorized mainstream neoliberal agenda
and therefore in need of rescue or a kind of “cultural”
and structures that, in turn, have sequestered and given
makeover. Asian American scholars have demonstrated
privilege to classed and racialized forms of kinship and
how in a neoliberal America, colorblindness, cultural
intimacies, and fueled violences and social inequalities
chauvinism/ethnocentricity, and gay images have gone
(Reddy 2011; Eng 2010; N. Shah 2012). In other words,
hand in hand. In sum, Asian American queer scholars
the triumphant emergence of issues such as gay mar-
have revealed how increased rights and visibility for
riage, gays in the military, and gay-focused consumer-
gay- and lesbian-identified subjects have led to potent
ism have given rise to an increased disregard for and the
yet veiled forms of racist, misogynist, and other phobic
virulent erasure of race and class. Contemporary images
forms of structural violence and disparities (Hong and
of proper gay and lesbian citizens center on lifestyle
Ferguson 2011).
choices, including where and how one lives, buys, and
Critiques of a queer- focused approach in Asian
consumes products and services. “Queer,” for example,
American studies (and of queer studies in general) have
has been used to denote a discerning “eye” and a range
pointed to its limitations in terms of its seemingly ro-
of elite, high-end consumptive practices. In Queer Eye for
manticized middle-class and hip antinormative stance.
the Straight Guy, the gay man functions as the beacon
Many of the condemnations of the queer approach
and arbiter of good taste in the service of the heterosex-
pivot around the ways in which such a stance has no
ual man, with the show’s “queer” characters counsel-
durability or longevity. In other words, some critics say
ing hapless straight men in need of fashion makeovers.
that there is no future for a queer approach to social jus-
In other words, being queer or, more correctly, being
tice causes or to critical ethnic studies. These reproaches
gay has become less a matter of sex or even gender and
do not take into account the astute critiques of tempo-
more one of shopping and consuming. However, it is
rality that queer studies scholars, particularly queers of
clear that not all gays and lesbians have the means to
color (R. Ferguson 2004), have put forward. Normality
live fabulous, wealthy lives of Champagne, caviar, and
and, for that matter, queerness are moving targets. They
queer
martin f. manalansan iv
201
are historically and culturally constituted. The future privilege. While there may be a need to project and look
51
forward to utopias devoid of such wretched realities, a
Race
queer approach is necessary to maintain a healthy sus-
Junaid Rana
is not a matter of chronology but one of vantage and
picion of political ends. This “suspicious” standpoint coupled with a fervent aspirational attitude toward such temporal (im)possibilities is much needed in order to continue unravelling and exfoliating layers of ideologi-
Race is a key concept in the formation of Asian American
cal obfuscation and intersecting strands of institutional
studies as a political project and an intellectual field.
practices that mask various forms of violent abjections
Throughout U.S. history, Asians have been racially cast
and unjust marginalizations. A relevant queer approach
through the narratives of empire, war, and migration.
is one that strongly maintains its link to “other” mar-
The racial logic of yellow peril, enemy aliens, model
ginal subjects and states of being, empowers an ethical
minority, and now the enemy combatant are part of a
stance that decenters the “America” in “Asian America,”
genealogy that represents Asian Americans as potential
and assumes a humble yet vital way of knowing and be-
threats to the American way of life— a euphemism
ing in the world (Eng, Halberstam, and Muñoz 2005, 15).
for modernity, capitalism, and white supremacy (e.g., Okihiro 1994, 118–47). Similarly, race in relationship to representations of gender and sexuality has historically been used to demean Asian Americans, rendering them as inferior. While perpetuating racial inequality, these portrayals often situate norms of gender and sexuality that are potential sites of political critique and social transformation (Eng 2001; Marchetti 1993; Shimizu 2007). Race is a social construction in which biology and culture are often conflated as a rhetorical logic and material practice in a system of domination. Inasmuch as race is used for subjugation, it is also a productive category used by subaltern groups in opposition to racism. Asian American studies was born out of the struggle to critique and oppose racism. As a politics of protest organized around social justice and in solidarity with communities of color, race became a pivotal organizing tool to foster the Asian American movement. Alongside the Black, Brown, and Red power movements, Asian American radicalism grew in the post-1968 era as part of an antiwar, anti-imperialist, and feminist
202
are historically and culturally constituted. The future privilege. While there may be a need to project and look
51
forward to utopias devoid of such wretched realities, a
Race
queer approach is necessary to maintain a healthy sus-
Junaid Rana
is not a matter of chronology but one of vantage and
picion of political ends. This “suspicious” standpoint coupled with a fervent aspirational attitude toward such temporal (im)possibilities is much needed in order to continue unravelling and exfoliating layers of ideologi-
Race is a key concept in the formation of Asian American
cal obfuscation and intersecting strands of institutional
studies as a political project and an intellectual field.
practices that mask various forms of violent abjections
Throughout U.S. history, Asians have been racially cast
and unjust marginalizations. A relevant queer approach
through the narratives of empire, war, and migration.
is one that strongly maintains its link to “other” mar-
The racial logic of yellow peril, enemy aliens, model
ginal subjects and states of being, empowers an ethical
minority, and now the enemy combatant are part of a
stance that decenters the “America” in “Asian America,”
genealogy that represents Asian Americans as potential
and assumes a humble yet vital way of knowing and be-
threats to the American way of life— a euphemism
ing in the world (Eng, Halberstam, and Muñoz 2005, 15).
for modernity, capitalism, and white supremacy (e.g., Okihiro 1994, 118–47). Similarly, race in relationship to representations of gender and sexuality has historically been used to demean Asian Americans, rendering them as inferior. While perpetuating racial inequality, these portrayals often situate norms of gender and sexuality that are potential sites of political critique and social transformation (Eng 2001; Marchetti 1993; Shimizu 2007). Race is a social construction in which biology and culture are often conflated as a rhetorical logic and material practice in a system of domination. Inasmuch as race is used for subjugation, it is also a productive category used by subaltern groups in opposition to racism. Asian American studies was born out of the struggle to critique and oppose racism. As a politics of protest organized around social justice and in solidarity with communities of color, race became a pivotal organizing tool to foster the Asian American movement. Alongside the Black, Brown, and Red power movements, Asian American radicalism grew in the post-1968 era as part of an antiwar, anti-imperialist, and feminist
202
agenda (Maeda 2009; Pulido 2006; J. Wu 2013). While
century. The word “race” draws its lineage from a his-
Asian American politics was connected to left critiques
tory mired in campaigns of conquest and war that im-
of capitalism and war in this formative period, the
portantly included practices of religious conversion.
Asian American movement would not launch onto the
The ascension of Christianity through colonization
national stage until the 1980s as a panethnic alliance
combined with the ideology of white supremacy devel-
in response to the brutal murder of Vincent Chin and
oped in an epistemological and moral order in which
subsequent antiracist organizing (Y. Espiritu 1992).
race and religion became precepts of social hierarchy.
In the barest scholarly definition, race is a social
With the expansion of scientific racism in Europe, race
construct. This fails, however, to describe the extent
was systematized into taxonomies of inferiority and
and power of race. Race is inextricably a concept of the
superiority, argued to be the basis of visible biological
modern episteme, intertwined in systems of imperial-
difference such as skin color and hair type, and justified
ism, colonization, capitalism, and social structure that
by the belief in a divine right ordained to Christian civi-
emerged out of the European Enlightenment (Goldberg
lization and the notions of moral development embed-
1993; Mills 1997; Silva 2007; Winant 2001). Tethered
ded in this worldview. It was not until the latter half of
to race is the ideology of white supremacy that while
the twentieth century that this usage was debunked as a
appearing to be on the wane has transformed into an
conventional belief and standard institutional practice
increasingly complex system of dispossession and vio-
of state racism.
lence. The inequality at the center of racism and white
In parsing this history in the United States, the in-
supremacy is based on the enduring power of race as a
fluential concept of racial formation has provided an
flexible and shifting category. In this essay I draw on
intellectual framework for a theory of race and racism
the terms “racial formation,” “racial capitalism,” “racial
that critiques a range of social relations, structures, and
liberalism,” and “global racial system” to elaborate the dynamic range and durability of race.
institutions. Michael Omi and Howard Winant define “racial formation as the sociohistorical process by which
As a construct that elaborates a social order, race has
racial categories are created, inhabited, transformed,
varied in meaning and usage over time. As some schol-
and destroyed” (1994, 55). Racial formation theorizes
ars would have it, racism predated the formal concept of
racism and antiracist social movements of opposition
race, which emerged in the contact of Spanish explor-
as an active social process. As a modern construct, race
ers and the New World. For example, in the period of
became a proxy for kinship systems that divide groups
classical antiquity, Greco-Roman prejudice against and
of people according to descent and geographic origin.
social hatred of particular groups is described as “proto-
Using the idioms of blood, skin color, and phenotypic
racism” (B. Isaac 2006). Originating roughly in the six-
difference, scientific racism was used to enforce social
teenth century, the concept of race imbued notions of
boundaries and regulations including legal statutes and
difference that encompassed ideas of religious superior-
spatial segregation. The system of race and racializa-
ity and social hierarchy. Subsequently, the idea of race
tion was embedded in social structures and hierarchies
became an explanatory dogma that combined notions
that depended on notions of culture and biology to fix
of physical difference, culture, and ancestry, leading to
cultural essences as naturalized traits. As a regulatory
the predominance of scientific racism in the nineteenth
system, race defined acceptable social practices such as
race
junaid rana
203
sexual couplings, marriageability, and the inheritance
of modernity developed according to a racial capitalism
of property. In regard to sexual contact, fears of misce-
that distributed resources along lines of race, class, and
genation resulted in rules for the maintenance of racial
gender that continued in political systems of authority
purity and categories of mixed race. The classification
and legitimated state practices of racism. This system
of mixed race emerged as both defiled and redemp-
enabled a ranking order at a global level, consented to
tive, creating passing zones in which racial privilege
by domestic systems of everyday racism, to provide a
was accorded through the structures of white suprem-
platform for U.S. imperial expansion through war, mili-
acy (Williams-León and Nakashima 2001). To pass as
tarism, and violence. Because the abolitionist move-
white, or as honorary white in the case of the myth of
ment to end slavery emerged as part of the struggle of
the model minority, is also one of the complications of
antiracism and emancipation that opposed the dictates
racial hierarchies and collusion with privileges that are
of white supremacy, abolition continues as a model of
obtained through, for example, economic status and
antiracist struggle in the contemporary moment, partic-
class mobility. Thus, racial performance is an important
ularly as it relates to the prison-industrial complex and
aspect of interpreting structures organized in relation-
the preponderance of black suffering (Michelle Alexan-
ship to whiteness, including social economies based in
der 2010; Gilmore 2007; D. Rodríguez 2006).
notions of beauty, desire, and sexual preference.
Race is thus an epistemological category of white su-
In the context of racism and the struggle against it,
204
premacy that maintains structures of violence and dis-
the story of race in the United States has been histori-
possession, while its permanence is contested through
cally dominated by slavery and the ideology of white
the struggle to change and destroy such systems
supremacy (Roediger 1991; Roediger 2008). Indeed, race
through antiracism and liberation struggles. According
is often coded as black in the American vernacular, com-
to the foundational analysis of Cedric Robinson (1983),
plicating the analysis of race as it affects a broad range
racial capitalism imposed a simultaneous racism and
of communities of color and antiracist struggle. Anti-
antiracism that converged in a system of dominance,
racist analysis is further confounded by a masculinist
accumulation, and violence by mobilizing race in re-
narrative of recovery and a dependence on patriarchal
lationship to other forms of difference such as sexual-
narratives of redemption. Feminist-of-color and queer-
ity, gender, class, religion, and disability, among others
of-color critiques have articulated important alterna-
(R. Ferguson 2012a; Melamed 2012; Reddy 2011). Racial
tive strategies and tactics of antiracist organizing by
capitalism, built upon hierarchy and social structures of
emphasizing the moral structures of race (R. Ferguson
dispossession, is quintessentially a system of accumula-
2012b). Indeed, the genocide of indigenous peoples of
tion that proffers an ethic of individual mobility while
the Americas was made possible by an imperial mo-
drawing on geographies of racial difference. Such divi-
rality that justified the conquest of lands through the
sions, fostered through the foundations of capitalism
practices of settler colonialism and the erasure of Native
and ideas of social and material property, are the terrain
histories. In this system, race figured as a way to define
from which gendered forms of racism and immigra-
property in the case of whiteness, and as a system of la-
tion led women-of-color feminist critiques to resist and
bor exploitation that defined U.S. modernity and capi-
transform exclusionary laws, labor discrimination, and
talism (Harris 1995; Gilroy 1993). The American model
sexism (L. Lowe 1996; Hong 2006). Despite the gains of
race
junaid rana
civil rights and liberation movements, racism remains
destiny that led to the military conquest of Native
prevalent by virtue of the deeply embedded notion of
Americans and their genocidal extermination expanded
race within U.S. social structures. With the advent of
across the Pacific as the U.S. consolidated its imperial
multiculturalism, “race” has been supplanted by sup-
legacy in gaining control over Hawai‘i, Samoa, Guam,
posedly neutral terms such as “minority,” “ethnicity,”
and the Philippines, as well as Cuba and Puerto Rico.
and “culture.” Yet the idea of race persists in the prac-
The placement of Japanese and Japanese Americans in
tices, logics, and rationales of racism and white suprem-
internment camps during World War II, justified by the
acy. The continuation of the ideas of race into the pres-
Alien Enemies Act of 1798, drew upon a racialization
ent at times results in a paradoxical colorblind racism, or
process in which the demands of war and militarism
racism without racists, in which the ideology of culture
demonized already racialized domestic populations as
and race are interchangeable (Bonilla-Silva 2010).
enemies of the state.
State systems of classification have often placed
It was not until the mid-twentieth century that
Asian Americans and other people of color in an am-
prohibitions on immigration and naturalization were
biguous status. The categorization of citizens as “free
finally overturned through the 1952 McCarren-Walter
white people” in the Naturalization Act of 1790 set the
Act. To the present day, the taxonomic rationales of the
course for centuries of legislative struggle for civil rights.
census continue to place Asian Americans in a bipolar
At the heart of the state sanction of racism was the use of
race continuum of either black or white. South Asian
census categories to deem certain groups eligible for full
Americans were once nonwhite, then white, and now
rights of citizenship while others were barred. Through-
through legislative battles are classified as Asian Ameri-
out the nineteenth century Asian immigrants, particu-
can, whereas Arab Americans are classified as white.
larly Chinese and South Asians, were excluded from
Contemporary Asian Americans represent a wide range
citizenship through classifications that deemed them
of class and income categories, placing some in wealthy
nonwhite. Racial capitalism as a concept articulated
and prosperous middle-class groups, while others such
through practices of war and migration helps to explain
as Cambodians, Laotians, and Vietnamese face high
the racialization of Asians in the United States. Based in
rates of poverty and limited access to resources (Lui et
the popular racism of the second half of the nineteenth
al. 2006). With these latter groups, poverty and mar-
century, the specter of a yellow peril exemplified in the
ginalization is the product of how Asian Americans are
legal control of Chinese migrants was the result of labor
racialized as model minorities that are high achieving
unrest that was sanctioned by state racism and immigra-
while histories of war and displacement as refugees cre-
tion policy. The U.S. government established a range of
ated systematic forms of disenfranchisement.
legal regulations and policies derived from conjectures
After World War II, the policy of containment known
about nationality, gender, and race that circulated in
as the Truman Doctrine that solidified the Cold War
popular culture—first in the Page Act of 1875, which
with the Soviet Union came at a moment of shifting
specifically banned Chinese women from immigration
domestic race relations and the rise of racial liberalism.
ostensibly to control prostitution, and more broadly in
As Truman began a process of limited endorsement of
the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 that targeted laborers.
a civil rights agenda to placate African Americans, the
By 1898, the legacy of a frontier mentality and manifest
dictates of Cold War ideology defined a large part of
race
junaid rana
205
the world as potential enemies, including domestic
206
liberation were subsumed within multiracial and pan-
populations. Asian Americans, predominantly Japa-
ethnic solidarity movements which resolved to forge an
nese Americans who had just been subjected to a state
alternative system to that of racial capitalism and global
policy of internment, were deemed foreign and outside
white supremacy (Y. Espiritu 1992; Pulido 2007; J. Wu
of U.S. nationalism, and pitted against other commu-
2013).
nities of color. Following the Truman presidency, the
Drawing on the patterns and legacies of war, migra-
use of covert actions to implement U.S. imperial goals
tion, and the formation of diaspora communities, Asian
without direct military involvement expanded under
Americans have been collapsed into the U.S. racial for-
the Eisenhower administration. In 1953, a U.S.-backed
mation through a mixture of racial policy and foreign
coup in Iran reversed a national project to control oil
policy. Racializing Asian Americans followed a pattern
reserves, and the strategy rapidly spread to other parts of
of connecting frames of war to domestic enemies be-
the world, notably Asia and Latin America (Abrahamian
ginning in World War II with the Japanese, and later in
2013). As this program of covert international interven-
the Korean and Vietnam wars. Southeast Asians were
tion expanded in the following years, the civil rights
cast through representations of war and colonialism
struggle reached fruition in a shift of race relations. Pat-
that circulated through the racialization of refugee and
terns of immigration also began to change dramatically
mixed-race populations in the United States (Chong
through state selection after 1965, creating new Asian
2011). Similarly, a history of crisis developed around U.S.
immigrant populations throughout the United States.
involvement in the Arab and Muslim world, with diplo-
Such demographic changes were the devices of a racial
matic and military entanglements in, for example, Iran,
liberalism that offered limited civil rights to some racial-
Egypt and the Suez Canal, Lebanon, and the Israeli oc-
ized groups while antagonizing others, and, notably, at
cupation of Palestine. The contemporary global War on
the cusp of new waves of immigration that fundamen-
Terror, defined by the twenty-first-century wars in Iraq
tally changed the social and economic makeup of the
and Afghanistan, extends this history, which links for-
country. By the late 1960s, Asian Americans were my-
eign policy to domestic immigrant communities. After
thologized as a model minority by the media, scholars,
9/11, South Asians, Arabs, and Muslims were targeted
and a state apparatus that used the language of social
for surveillance, detention, and deportation (Cainkar
mobility and work ethic as a racial wedge while ignor-
2009; Maira 2009). An array of Asian Americans were
ing the histories of racial oppression and differential
affected by those policies, particularly Cambodian
patterns of migration created by U.S. policies and stat-
Americans, who faced deportations based on selective
utes. Racial liberalism emerged as a direct response to
enforcement (Hing 2006). The construction of enemy
the black freedom movement that refuted white su-
terrorists configured Arabs, South Asians, and Muslims
premacy as a normative and public practice expressed
alongside other Asian Americans and communities of
in Jim Crow segregation (Singh 2004; Singh 2012). Al-
color as racialized figures through the broad mandates
ternatively, black radicalism linked to the internation-
of the Patriot Act and the U.S. War on Terror campaign.
alism of decolonizing social movements called for the
Although the history of race in the United States is
end of global white supremacy beyond the United States
largely dependent on skin color and phenotypic dif-
(R. Bush 2009; Daulatzai 2012). Radical ideologies of
ference, the twenty-first century has brought forth the
race
junaid rana
often hidden relationship of religion to racism, par-
category from which to justify and achieve colonial
ticularly in terms of the figure of the Muslim in the
conquest.
U.S. racial formation and the role of the War on Ter-
The figure of the racialized Muslim is at the forefront
ror in this racialization. The threat of terrorism and
of some important interventions of critical and inter-
the racialized Muslim are the latest entrants in a long
sectional analysis. From gender and sexuality critiques
genealogy of how race and religion have been imag-
(Naber 2012; Razack 2007; Reddy 2011; Puar 2007) to
ined in Asian American populations. For example, the
labor and political formations (Daulatzai 2012; Rana
mid-nineteenth-century idea of the heathen Chinese
2011), the figure of the Muslim represents important
migrant, which mobilized the racialization of a yellow
challenges in terms of the flexibility of the race concept,
peril in opposition to an American nationalism de-
and in how race is collapsed into the categories of reli-
scribed as white and Christian, in the latter half of the
gion, gender and sexuality, violence, imperialism, and
twentieth century translated into godless-communist
white supremacy. Islam and the figure of the Muslim
threats from across Asia. Other stereotypes of race and
have emerged as the new global racial system of the
racialization based on presumptions about religion and
twenty-first century. And yet this system is not new in
geographic origin include the so-called Hindoo, encom-
the theory of racism, in which egalitarian principles of
passing Muslims, Hindus, and Sikhs, and the misnomer
democracy are wedded to imperial morals of apartheid
of Mohammedan, applied to people from South Asia to
based in an older system of racism (Winant 2002, 18).
West Asia and North Africa. United States foreign policy
Empire and white supremacy are at the heart of U.S.
and military involvement across the globe, particularly
histories of race. With the expansion of technologies
in Asia, the Pacific, and the Middle East, has historically
of war and militarism, race is a concept in which state
been framed through notions of the Orient and what
violence and conquest are justified. Perhaps the greatest
Edward Said refers to as Orientalism as a way of know-
challenge of race is imagining the struggle against white
ing and dominating parts of the world to further a U.S.
supremacy. As race continues to confound, and racism
imperial agenda (Said 1978; Said 1994). The deployment
proliferates, opposing global apartheid and the con-
of race in relationship to the spread of globalization
sequences of the global color line depend not only on
is part of a centuries-old global racial system (Winant
a black and white opposition, but a vast array of com-
2001; Winant 2002; Clarke and Thomas 2006; Mullings
munities of color to take part in the world struggle for
2005; Mullings 2008). When racial capitalism is imag-
an alternative that goes beyond racism, war, capitalism,
ined beyond the confines of the U.S. nation-state, race
and white supremacy.
must also be understood as circulating at global levels alongside racism and white supremacy. The global racial system frames histories of domination and exploitation such that slavery, genocide, war, and labor migration can be analyzed through the rhetoric and mobilization of racial discourse at the regional, hemispheric, and even planetary level. In other words, if war is the means of achieving imperial interests, race is the historical race
junaid rana
207
Liisa Malkki (1995) has argued that the construction
52
fiction of an unproblematic link between territory and
Refugee
identity and an idealized relationship between the state
Yến Lê Espiritu
and its citizens. Viewing state borders as geographical
of refugees as out-of-place victims reflects nationalism’s
givens, the “there’s no place like home” mantra implies that only those fleeing tyrannical governments would forsake their state’s protection to embark on a perilous In the devastating aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in
208
path as refugees. According to Randy Lippert, in the
2005, reporters, politicians, and media commentators
early Cold War, “refugeeness became a moral-political
used the term “refugee” to describe the tens of thousands
tactic,” demarcating the difference between the sup-
of storm victims, many of whom were poor African
posedly uncivilized East and civilized West, and foster-
Americans, who were uprooted from their homes and
ing “cohesion of the Western Alliance nations” (1999,
forced to flee in search of refuge. Almost immediately,
305). This “moral-political tactic” was the impetus be-
prominent African American leaders, including
hind the production of the “refugee” as a sociolegal
Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, charged that the use
object of knowledge and management at the onset of
of “refugee” to refer to Katrina survivors was “racially
the Cold War (Malkki 1995). In 1951, prodded by the
biased,” contending that the term implies second-
United States, whose paradigmatic refugee was the East-
class citizens—or even non-Americans (Sommers et al.
ern European and Soviet escapee, the United Nations
2006, 40–41). For these critics, “refugeeness” connotes
officially defined “refugee” as a person who harbors “a
“otherness,” summoning the image of “people in a
well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race,
Third World country” who “carried the scraps of their
religion, nationality, membership of a particular social
lives in plastic trash bags,” wore “donated clothes,”
group or political opinion” (U.N. General Assembly
and slept “on the floor of overpopulated shelters”
1951). This definition privileged sufferers of political op-
(Masquelier 2006, 737). In this context, calling U.S.-
pression above victims of natural disaster; it also sharply
born African Americans “refugees” was tantamount to
distinguished political refugees fleeing persecution
stripping them of their citizenship—“their right to be
from economic migrants moving in search of a better
part of the national order of things” (Masquelier 2006,
life, even when it is impossible to disentangle the politi-
737). As the Katrina controversy makes clear, the term
cal from the economic (Carruthers 2005, 921).
“refugee” triggers associations to highly charged images
For the most part, state interests have determined
of Third World poverty, foreignness, and statelessness,
whether, when, and where displaced persons receive
which are intimately related to core issues of personal
asylum in the West. With the beginning of the Cold
and national identity. These associations reflect the
War, the term “refugee” became interchangeable with
transnationally circulated representations of refugees
“defector,” as the “provision of asylum became a foreign
as incapacitated objects of rescue, fleeing impoverished,
policy tool” awarded by Western countries primarily to
war-torn, or corrupt states—a “problem” for asylum and
those who fled or refused to be repatriated to Commu-
resettlement countries.
nist countries (Gibney and Hansen 2005, 25). In 1948,
following the admission of more than 250,000 dis-
new lives in our country” (1980, 702). Palmieri’s por-
placed Europeans, the U.S. Congress enacted the coun-
trayal of Southeast Asian refugees as desperate indi-
try’s first refugee legislation, which provided for the
viduals fleeing political persecution and/or economic
admission of an additional 400,000 European refugees.
depression invokes racialized images of the “refugees”
Reflecting the anticommunist imperative of the time,
as grief-stricken objects of rescue, which completely
subsequent refugee laws granted admission primarily
discounts the aggressive roles that the U.S. government,
to persons “escaping” from Communist governments,
military, and corporations played in generating this ex-
largely from Hungary, Poland, Yugoslavia, North Ko-
odus in the first place. This “willed forgetfulness of the
rea, and China, and in the 1960s from Cuba (Office of
American imaginary . . . write[s] out the specificities of
Refugee Resettlement n.d.). In the face of the massive
forced migration and the legacy of the American/Viet-
exodus of refugees from Southeast Asia beginning in
nam War,” enabling Americans to remake themselves
the late 1970s, and continuing outflows from the Soviet
from military aggressors into magnanimous rescuers
Union and Cuba, the U.S. Congress passed the Refugee
(Palumbo-Liu 1999, 235).
Act of 1980, which adopted the 1951 United Nations
Social scientists also participated in turning South-
definition of “refugee” and established a uniform pro-
east Asian refugees into “an object of sociological in-
cedure for the admission and resettlement of refugees
quiry and psychiatric correction” (Ngô, Nguyen, and
of special concern to the United States. While the pur-
Lam 2012, 677). Soon after Vietnamese refugees arrived
ported goal of the 1980 act was to eliminate the “previ-
in the United States in 1975, the federal government, in
ous geographic and ideological restrictions on granting
collaboration with social scientists, initiated a series
of refugee status,” the actual admissions proposals for
of needs assessment surveys to generate knowledge on
fiscal year 1980 continued to prioritize refugees who
what was widely touted as a “refugee resettlement cri-
had “close ties to the United States,” whose resettlement
sis.” Viewing the newly arrived refugees as coming from
would further U.S. foreign policy objectives, and for
“a society so markedly different from that of America,”
whom the “United States has stood uniquely as a sym-
government officials and scholars alike regarded the
bol of freedom from oppression” (Palmieri 1980, 701).
accumulation of data on Vietnamese economic and so-
According to Ambassador Victor H. Palmieri, U.S.
ciocultural adaptation as essential to “protect[ing] the
coordinator for refugee affairs, refugees from Southeast
interests of the American public” (Dunning 1989, 55).
Asia were the main beneficiaries of the Refugee Act of
Casting Vietnamese as objects of rescue, this literature
1980. To tackle what Palmieri characterized as “a hu-
portrays the refugees as “incapacitated by grief and
man tragedy of staggering dimensions,” the United
therefore in need of care”—a care that is purportedly
States proposed to admit a total of 168,000 refugees
best provided in and by the United States (DuBois 1993,
from “Indochina” in fiscal year 1980, in comparison to
4–5). Other substantial data sets on Southeast Asian ref-
the proposed 33,00 from the Soviet Union and 19,500
ugee adaptation followed: from the Bureau of Social Sci-
from Cuba (1980, 701–2). Palmieri concluded that these
ence Research Survey; the Institute for Social Research
refugee admissions constituted a “major commitment
Survey; the NICHD-funded survey; and other govern-
by [the U.S.] government and by the American people”
ment records, including the 1980 census (Haines 1989).
to help “these persecuted and uprooted persons begin
Constituting the primary data sources on Southeast
refugee
y ê´ n l ê e s p i r i t u
209
Asians from the mid-1970s and throughout the 1980s,
Robyn Liu warns that the desire to provide a durable so-
these large-scale surveys, which cumulatively produce
lution to the “refugee problem”—“to create or restore
Southeast Asian refugees in the United States as a prob-
the bond between a person as a citizen and a state as her
lem to be solved, delimit and conceptually underpin fu-
legal protector”—ends up affirming the status of the
ture studies of these communities in the United States.
nation-state as the ultimate protector and provider of
As a consequence, it is as refugees—the purported desper-
human welfare (2002, 9). In the same way, Nevzat Soguk
ate seekers of U.S. asylum—and not as migrants, trans-
maintains that humanitarian interventions on behalf
migrants, diasporics, or exiles, that Southeast