Читать книгу Asian America - Pawan Dhingra - Страница 23

In contrast to these assimilationist perspectives, other sociologists and those in Ethnic Studies highlight the significance of race and inequality facing ethnic minorities. The racial formation perspective argues that race is fundamental to how society is organized and so continues to matter for minorities even if they are economically secure (Delgado and Stefancic 2001; Omi and Winant 1994). Whites gain materially and psychologically in all sorts of ways, such as when attaining a mortgage or paying for a car, at the expense of minorities (Lipsitz 1998). Racial formation theory draws attention to how minorities are racialized, that is, how they are socially defined and treated as racial groups rather than as individuals. This racialization changes with historical and contextual circumstances in ways that often benefit the state and corporate interests. As the United States engages in empire building, whether through settler colonialism (e.g. against Native Americans and in Hawaii) or overseas in Asia (e.g. during the Cold War or the “war on terror”), immigrants become racialized in positive or negative ways so as to further those national ambitions (Karuka 2019; Kosasa 2000; Selod 2018).

More broadly, the way groups are framed suits the white dominant establishment (e.g. government, the military, corporations). For instance, Chinese Americans went from “good” minorities during World War II to “bad” minorities post World War II as China became increasingly communist and seemed a threat to the government. Japanese Americans switched from “bad” to “good” during this same time period. Our everyday interactions also reflect the power of race. We may talk to someone or even shake the person’s hands differently, based on her/his race. Multiracial individuals may feel pressured to identify with one of their racial backgrounds over the other so as to conform to singular categories.

Racism is allowed to continue because racial ideologies make it socially permissible. For instance, even an ideology of “color-blindness,” which seems to downplay the relevance of race, limits minorities (Bonilla-Silva 2003; Omi and Winant 1994). It suggests that we should be “blind” to race, should ignore it, and that the real problem is those who keep talking about it as well as programs like affirmative action. So, minorities who complain about racism become blamed for perpetuating racial differences. Indeed, some might suggest that since the United States has elected the first African-American president that it has truly achieved a post-racial, color-blind society. However, sociologists and other scholarly critics point out that even with his election, race continued to organize American life and cannot be ignored (Okamura 2011). The election of Donald Trump immediately following that of Barak Obama suggests that racial progress is not a linear trajectory and, instead, entails significant pushback. Hate crimes in 2019 were at a sixteen-year high, even before the backlash from COVID-19 and the xenophobic rhetoric from political leaders.⁵

The racial formation perspective helps explain trends that assimilation theory either cannot or that it overlooks. For instance, even as more minorities appear on television, they remain in often stereotypical depictions (Davé, Nishime, and Oren 2005). People’s attitudes about race might have become more benevolent, therefore supporting assimilation theory assumptions about a merit-based United States, but that does not mean that minorities have ample opportunities. The US prison population has become overwhelmingly black and brown compared to the general population, for example, and not because those populations started committing more and more crime (Alexander 2010). Meanwhile, even as Asian Americans and Latinxs have become more welcome within urban development, welfare laws discriminate against immigrants (Fujiwara 2008). Nor is this mistreatment relegated to poor immigrants. Wealthy Asian Americans experience barriers to full inclusion due to racist and/or culturally prejudiced attitudes from the majority. Even when Asian Americans achieve, they experience a white supremacy in their residences, school systems, and elsewhere (Cheng 2013; Dhingra 2020). According to this perspective, middle-class Asian Americans are “a part” of the mainstream but “apart” from it (Kibria 2002a).

The “model minority” stereotype exemplifies this dynamic. It argues that Asian Americans succeed due to their Asian values of hard work and family support. In fact, Asian Americans’ success in schools and workplaces may be due in part to such racial stereotypes rather than a sign that stereotypes are fading (Dhingra 2007; Lee and Zhou 2015). But within this stereotype Asian-American men and women are characterized as sexually deviant (i.e. Asian-American men are figured as effeminate; Asian-American women as hypersexualized), overly passive, and apolitical. The stereotype is premised on anti-blackness, that blacks are inherently undeserving and prone to social problems. White elites within the capitalist structure benefit the most from this institutionalized discrimination. According to the racial formation perspective, a lack of equality for immigrants is not their problem but that of the state and institutions, which promote inequality.

The broader theme within the racial formation perspective is a lack of trust in the nation-state and its institutions to promote full equality among racial groups. The United States, like other western, hyper-capitalist nations, is neither the “land of opportunity” nor even a benign force relative to ethnic minorities. Instead, according to critics it is an imperial force that wages wars mostly in Third World nations and also engages in business practices that suit established interests more than minorities at home (Melamed 2006). Moreover, the racial formation perspective recognizes that from its inception, the United States has been a country that was founded on white supremacist rationale. The fact that naturalization, for example, was restricted to whites, or that slavery was actually permitted in the US Constitution, is evidence that race has organized American society. Even when these laws have changed, it is because of struggles by minorities and/or in response to US foreign and economic interests and without fully eradicating racializing logics. Immigrant minorities may do well economically, but they must suffer from greater hurdles and indignities en route. For instance, Filipinx-American men have attained a moderate middle-class status through working for the US navy. But they can be relegated to subservient, emasculating positions in the process (Espiritu 2003).

A racial formation perspective also helps explain how immigrant minorities respond to racist interactions. Asian Americans, even those raised in the United States, accentuate their cultural and social commonalties to one another rather than their ties to the mainstream (Dhingra 2007; Purkayastha 2005; Tuan 1998). Even if ethnic minorities live in mostly white neighborhoods, they often seek out one another for solidarity. People identify with their ethnicity rather than as simply “American.” These trends contradict assimilation predictions.