Week 11: (Re)thinking Diasporas

Robert G. Lee, ”Crossing Borders of Discipline and Departments”. Displacements and Diasporas: Asians in the Americas.

     We’ve all heard the saying “don’t judge a book by it’s cover”, so shouldn't we practice what we preach? We were all affected as individuals and as a nation on September 11, 2001, whether it was personally or emotionally. But the people who had and still have it the worst are those who are or assumed to be Muslim and Muslim American. After 9/11, three Muslim American men were victims of racial profiling; Sher Singh, arrested for the assumption of being involved in the 9/11 attack, and Balbar Singh Sodhi and Waqar Hasan, both shot to death in front of their businesses. In Robert G. Lee’s chapter “Crossing Borders of Discipline and Departments” in Displacements and Diasporas: Asians in the Americas, he states “globally and locally, multiculturalism, the celebration of hybridity as a commercialized lifestyle, has become the ideology for managing the increasingly deep class and racial cleavages brought about by neoliberal economic policy” (p. 252). What Lee means by this is that we should live in a diverse society without discriminating others. Yet, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, an arm of the ministry of homeland security, requires immigrants, new or permanent residents, to register with them. Also, in 1996, Congress authorized the Immigration and Naturalization Services to deport any immigrants based on their criminal past.

Question:
Why is it that we teach children at an early age to not judge people based on how they look, yet its ok for the Government to single out certain ethnic groups and get away with it by creating new arms of homeland security and legislations?

(Sher Singh, Photo Credit: www.sikhchic.com, 2011)

Nancy Abelmann, “Anthropology, Asian Studies, Asian American Studies: Open System, Closed Minds”, Displacements and Diasporas: Asians in the Americas.

     Nancy Abelmann’s article, “Anthropology, Asian Studies, Asian American Studies: Open System, Closed Minds”, discusses the localities of the universities and students. Abelmann discusses how universities are contradicting themselves by allowing anthropology classes to discuss ethnic groups, and not having any ethnic literature classes. Abelmann also points out that there is a lack of communication between the students and the faculty members. Abelmann states that faculty members should have an “open mind” about what is taking place between the lines and lives of our students” (264). To better understand the students, especially the international students, faculty members should be culturally aware. By stating this, Abelmann is saying that by the faculty having an open mind, they will better understand the students and themselves. The faculty will better understand themselves by placing themselves in their students shoes while getting a higher education as well.

Question:
What are some ways that both faculties and students can practice “open minded” communication?



(From YouTube, Rendezvous - Nancy Abelmann 교수 Part 1)



Regina Lee, "Theorizing Diasporas: Three Types of Consciousness" . Reader

According to Lee, there are three times of consciousness or psychological states that diasporas exhibit: “idealization of homeland, boutique multicultural manifestation, and transitional/transformational identity politics” through which these communities should be examined with. Lee seeks to examine the different modes through which the diaspora could be explained from. The study of diasporas and the diasporic conditions are affected by rapid globalization and the impact of mobility and how these two factors shapes the previously stated consciousness.

The diasporic experience is affected by the idealization of the homeland in terms of the diaspora’s “strong identification with, and idealization of, the homeland”. In which despite the increasingly globalized economy, diasporic subjects and their experiences are greatly influenced by the “homeland myth (including the [embedded] myth of return)”. 

The diasporic experience is also affected by the concept of multicultural manifestation in which the diaspora’s value in a host country lies precisely in its difference and “exotic” characteristics. Also, the diasporas play into the “exotic” fantasies and stereotypes that the host country has of the diaspora in order to fit in and to be accepted. However, with the rise of "new diasporas [who] identify less with concerns of their predecessors", serve to break the hegemonic power structures and the exotic fantasies of diasporic subjects. 

The diasporic experience is affected by transitional or transformational state in which there is an “informed (if not ambivalent) way” of integrating and assimilating into the host society. Through studies of diasporic experience, there has always been a focus of the history in order to explain the journey and process of getting to the “here and now” but no focus of where the diaspora will go. The focus of the future trajectory of the diaspora provides a “significant impact on the framing/positioning of diasporic subjects and their narratives”. 

How do these three concepts play out in your experience as diasporic subjects, if you identify as one? 
Lee mentioned that the "future of diasporic trajectories" should be looked at in addition to foregrounding of histories to explain the current diasproic experience , what could that potentially look like?