Week 11: (Re)thinking Diasporas

(Re)thinking Diasporas

Dipesh Chakrabarty - “Notes toward a Conversation between Area Studies and Diasporic 
Studies”
         Chakrabarty critiques how liberal education in the West framed the study of non-Western countries by perspectives from Western countries. Chakrabarty states that this liberal perspectives of such studies tries to be enlightened and treat Asia in equal terms with the West. However although this education does not aim to exotify Asia, it still places the burden of “studying Asia” on the West as if intellectual study can only be done by the West.
        Chakrabarty also discusses the framework of critique done in engaging Area Studies and Diasporic Studies. What really are the connections the diaspora has with the “homeland”? What are the parameters that define an “area” that is studied (and by/for whom?) in Area Studies? Through his examples of literature and other art forms, he discusses how the diaspora can critically identify with the homeland in multiple ways such as, such as locality, class, economics, lanauge etc...
(written by Desun)

Anderson and Lee - "Crossing Borders of Disciplines" -Hyoung James Oh

           The hope, according to Anderson via San Juan, is not to build an Asian American studies through which to understand American Society but rather to build an Asian American studies with which to change the world.  Anderson discusses a new society in the wake of 9/11. 
Speaking on the violence towards Muslim-looking people, Anderson argues, “the current wave of globalization reflects the practice of everyday life.”  His point is that “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.”  This in turn ultimately makes the lives of immigrants much more difficult.  Anderson illustrates the cause for growing difficulties for immigrants as a more intrusive and hostile state, decent housing and education placed beyond reach and the rise in exploitation current with unemployment.
           Anderson raises the issues on violence after 9/11 as a lead into a large idea.  He poses certain questions in regards to the epistemological, political, and institutional implications for our recognition of “Globalization from below”.  Also how our understanding of the Asian experience in the Americans as transnational or trans local experience of displacement shape our understanding of the processes of globalization, of empire, or identities. And what the disciplinary frameworks and institutional arrangements that will need to be built in order to accommodate that understanding.
           The goal of Anderson's article is to ultimately begin dialog among different disciplines.  He calls for Academic border crossing as a means of learning from other disciplines from other nations as a necessary and critical call for the opening of localities.    

Nancy Abelmenn - "Anthropology, Asian Studies, Asian American Studies"
           “Anthropology, Asian Studies, Asian American Studies: Open Systems, Closed Minds” by Nancy Abelmann discusses politics in academia.  Through various anecdotes, Abelmann explains how localities are made and enforced in academia.  She also proposes that we constantly reassess the way terms and ideas are classified.  Abelmann wants universities to encourage the continual learning of faculty members.  She wants professors to be given time in a collaborative environment so that they can rethink ideas and keep open minds.  This article goes along with the theme of rethinking diasporas because it talks about reevaluating the categorization of words such as “nation” and “diaspora” to cross various areas of study and become interdisciplinary.

Ien Ang - " "Beyond "Asian Diaspora" "
           Ien Ang discusses the inherent constant transforming of the categorization of "Asian Diasporas" but always with the fundamental idea of the relationship with the homeland. Ang also points out the importance of understanding how transnationalism and globalization directly characterize the concept of diaspora. To start off Ang discusses the origins of the term "diaspora" from the Jewish experience, in which it is often used negatively with the general meaning of forced dispersion and a strong desire to return to ones homeland (Ang, 286). However, "diaspora" is not longer used within negative connotations but rather in reference to many more groups who feel they do not belong or are partially alienated from the dominant culture of the host society (Ang, 286). "Diaspora" is also no longer "necessarily [a condition that] involves trauma and marginalization but also empowerment, enrichment, and expansion" (Ang, 287). This happens through crossing the nation-state boundaries and viewing themselves not as minorities but "transnational subjects" through the tools and abilities produced by globalization. As transnational subjects, multiculturalism/pluralism is fairly unavoidable and "diasporas" now have the power of "unsettling" the homogeneity of nation-states. Ang ends her short article by stating that "Asia" is a huge imagined construction that is used to suppress the internal heterogeneity of people (Ang, 288) and as subjects it is necessary to challenge the notion of "Asians" by understanding that is only a way of seeing people and categorizing. Ien Ang makes it clear that even with social constructions and categorizing, the transforming world into globalization and defying nationalism Asian diasporic communities will naturally "work towards its own productive analytical undoing" (Ang, 289).
(written by Mel)

Regina Lee - "Theorizing Diaspora: Three Types of Consciousness"
           Regina Lee discusses examining the theories of diasporic community through three main psychological states/forms of consciousness, "idealization of homeland, boutique multicultural manifestation, and transitional/transformational identity politics" (Lee, 54). Lee reminds their readers that it is necessary to understand the linkage between globalization, mobility and the economy to fully grasp the understanding of the previously stated consciences. 
            Homeland idealism is the idealization of the homeland by it's diaspora. Lee states, "the homeland-idealizing diasporic community is always marginalized because it is physically absent form the homeland (it's 'center') and (consequently) socially excluded from the host society and its narrative."  (Lee, 59). This idea provides the picture of the often occurring problem of finding a place to belong. Even with globalization allowing easier access to crossing national boundaries diasporic subjects are trapped in between the homeland and the host society. However, although they are caught in between often they reap the benefits of travelling to the host society which often allows for upward social or class mobility. Even within these beneficial economic circumstances diasporic subjects attempt to explain their conditions of being trapped. They aid in the narrative of existing as the "exotic Other community" which is of value to the host society and is known as "boutique multiculturalism" (Lee, 61).
          Boutique multiculturalism talks about diasporic subjects playing the multicultural game in which they choose to "have" their multiculturalism as opposed to actually being multicultural.  This idea is created by the western perspective of the "colonizer who feels looked at by the native's gaze and therefore has to work at producing the image of the native as object, silent and passive." (Lee, 62). This multiculturalism is casted upon diasporic subjects. However, there are "new diasporas [who] identify less with concerns of their predecessors" (Lee, 64) and are now beginning to disrupt the centrality of the fantasy of white supremacy. Within the idea of boutique multiculturalism, ethnicity, race, and politics are essentialized and therefore can easily be manipulated to increase the separation of the other and white supremacy or allow for sincerity in different aspects and groups of multiculturalism.  
Lee than discusses the importance of the hyphen in the dichotomy of diasporic identities. The hyphen acts as something that separates as well as joins two terms and Lee argues that is where diasporic communities sit now and determines where the future of diasporic communities will be. The indeterminant space in between (the hyphen) acts as potential to disrupt a lot of hegemonic ideals of national identity. Although this space does offer opportunity it is also tough for all diasporic subjects to have access to such a space, therefore there is a need for those that can access this space to make "this transitional consciousness as positively charged on" (Lee, 72). However, even with this urgency the hybrid space poses difficulty because it must be broken down to multiple components but at the same time must have some sort of coherence to enable the ability to move forward. 
Lee concludes that the problematizing of diasporic identity and its existence is the moving forward of diasporas. The hybrid space  created by the "hyphen" is where urgency is created and transforming of diaspora takes place. The consciences discussed as well as the phenomena of globalization allude to the concerns and issues facing diasporas today. 
(written by Mel)



Questions:
1. Does a "diasporic experience" have to be an experience that is experienced by the majority diasporic subjects within a certain diasporic group?
2. Is hybridity the same as multiculturalism?
3. What ways can Diasporic studies challenge and problematize  Western-centric perspectives of Area Studies?


Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DalYj2xvZo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNXoBFyolL8