The other. He sits in the shadows, defined not by what he is, but by what he isn’t. He is stuck in the shadows, limited to a lightless existence in the corners of our society. But what if he rises? What if he climbs, slowly and tirelessly, out of the shadows, revealing his true colors in the light of all our society has to offer?
What do you know about the other and the other’s rise? The other refers to the group of people who don’t fit into the mold of common society, the other group of people in society. This link shows us who may be classified as the other, and one such group is who we will look at today: Asian-Americans. Today, we associate Asian-Americans with success, but it hasn’t always been so. Asian-Americans have a history with persecution, as this NPR article discusses in brief. That Asian-Americans used to be part of the other is clear, but is it as clear that Asian-Americans have risen out of the shadows of persecution? It appears so. The Pew article referenced in the article mentioned above demonstrates the success of Asian-Americans, who lead the country in education, income, and work ethic. So it seems safe to say that the once persecuted minority group of Asian-Americans has achieved success. An underdog has won. But before we can declare that Asian-Americans have left the position of being in the other, we must examine another term.
The term model minority refers to a minority who has achieved wider success than other minorities. Asian-Americans are often referred to as the model minority, especially when considering stats like the Pew article’s. But this model minority mindset is a myth. This article explores how we need to explore more telling stats. Asian-Americans are underrepresented in political careers and placing them as a model minority essentially keeps them as an other, just one on a different end of the spectrum. Many Asian-Americans have risen out of the shadows. But Asian-Americans are still the other, just a different kind. Has this underdog really won?
There is another area of exploration pertinent to our discussion: forced vs. selected immigration. These aren’t technical terms, just ones I have dubbed for our sake. We can think of forced immigration as immigration that occurs when home conditions become unbearable and emigration is the only path to survival. Selected immigration on the other hand is much more like moving, a person leaving the country of birth for any number of reasons, but not explicitly for survival. Given this division, can we identify differences in a group of immigrants based on which category the group falls into? Unfortunately, here the internet proves to have a limit, but we can postulate. Isn’t it reasonable to say a group of immigrants who, for the most part, chose to immigrate into the U.S. are more likely to be motivated to achieve success than a group forced into coming to the U.S.? Perhaps this could explain why it seems, as a group, Asian-Americans have achieved more success.
Your claim of forced vs selected immigration seems a bit oversimplified. For one, where do we draw the line? While an immigrant may not have faced political persecution in his homeland, maybe he was barely making a living there, and thus had to flee to the US to ensure his survival, and so in some ways he was "forced" to immigrate. The bottom line is people immigrate for a better life, and so the motivation to become successful probably depends on the person. I think more of it rests on the culture that they came from. Typically, Asian cultures tend to emphasize education, literacy, and hard work, things that build success even in America. In one sense, Asians have carried this image over and worked their way up in American society.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment Rohan. I completely agree that I oversimplified. Unfortunately, I feel grey area will always prevail in this scenario. However, I question the last point you make. While perhaps Asian cultures emphasize education more than others, I feel the reason is more predicated upon the form of immigration. Here's what I mean. I have met many first generation Americans whose parents come from Asian nations and who have come to America for educational opportunity. That is though this can be argued to be "forced" immigration, the driving force differs considerably from most other minority groups. Now, I can't honestly declare this to be perfectly true given that I don't have stats to back me up, but I feel that research would demonstrate Asian-Americans come for educational opportunity in a much higher proportion than other immigrant groups. Of course a counterpoint could be made that this too is a reflection of the culture, but I'm hesitant to imply one culture has inherently more focused on education than another.
ReplyDeleteAustin, I think you make a good point about underdogs in general-- looking at the Asian American example, the numbers certainly don't tell the entire story for any minority. There are a lot of underlying factors that determine success in any professional environment. Primarily, implicit stereotypes about different peoples groups.
ReplyDeleteI wanted to explore the "model minority" point you make earlier in your blog post.The label of the model minority results in a homogeneous grouping of an entire people-- especially in the context of Asian Americans, stereotypes can be especially strong academically which typecasts individuals. Carolyn Chen of the New York Times makes a similar point, that when it comes to things like college admissions or employment this "model minority" label can be disadvantageous to Asian Americans because perceptually there's limited diversity within the people's group.
(Here's the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/opinion/asians-too-smart-for-their-own-good.html?_r=1&)
You say that challenging images is the way to overcome this otherization-- how long do you think this process takes? It's certainly not cut and dry-- Jeremy Lin defied racial norms in the NBA but that still doesn't make college and professional basketball particularly welcoming for Asian Americans. How many norms have to be defied?
I have wondered this very point myself. How can a group challenge a stereotype? To me it seems that, unfortunately, to change a stereotype it takes many strong individuals. In other words, Jeremy Lin won't make people think that Asian Americans can be as good of basketball players as other groups, because Jeremy Lin has still been just an exception. But a trend of defying the odds can change the stereotype. One example that comes to mind is that of Jackie Robinson, who proved that African Americans can be excellent baseball players. Now Jackie Robinson didn't change people's views alone. It would take several more talented and brave individuals to do that. So how long does it take? Clearly, it will depend. I feel in this case the other-ing will take longer to disappear. My reasoning goes something like this. Many Asian-Americans are indeed very successful. Those that aren't will, over time, become more educated, which would serve to reaffirm the stereotype in others minds. Sorry for the unclear answer, I just feel the process is slow and thus no specific answer can be given.
DeleteAs I read this post I couldn't help but think about the role stereotyping and pigeonholing plays in our society.
ReplyDeleteStatistics like the ones mentioned in the Pew article tend to create "beneficial stereotypes"-- stereotypes that portray a collective in a positive light. Although at first glance deeming Asian-Americans as smart, ethical, successful people seems not only harmless, but advantageous.
But I feel like these stereotypes create additional societal pressures on people who feel compelled to become another statistic-- well educated, wealthy, etc. And although most people want that life for themselves, it should be for innate reasons rather than an external compulsion to fit a stereotype.
Additionally, by creating this beneficial stereotype, our country has further alienated Asian-Americans as "others," just on the other end of the spectrum, as you said. Do you think that still causes problems? I feel like labeling any group, regardless of whether it's the minority or the majority, as better than another will inherently create problems.
Yes, I'd agree that there is really very few circumstances in which being the other is good. As Alex commented above, one example of where the model minority stereotype has hurt Asian-Americans is in college admissions. Additionally, as you alluded to, it creates incredible pressures. But what I wonder, is can we say that the "good" other is better than the "bad"? In other words, is it more beneficial for Asian-Americans to be labeled as the model minority than as a more negative version of the other? As mentioned, both are bad, but I feel I can make arguments for both sides. If labeled as a poor, needy group, opportunities may be given to that group. But at the same time, employers may be more wary, assuming members of the group to be less talented. On the other side, a group labeled as the best, may be given opportunities because an employer may assume a member to be better. But opportunities may be lost as in the college admissions scenario. So in conclusion, both sides of the other are bad, but perhaps one is more desirable?
Delete