Please respond to one or more of the following questions. Have fun!!
1. Freire emphasizes the role of prescription in helping the oppressor to maintain their position of power over the oppressed (see pg 47). Discuss a prescribed behavioral pattern that you have observed - one amongst members of an oppressed group that is designed to maintain the interests of the oppressor. How does this prescribed behavior serve to keep the oppressor-oppressed relationship in place? How can one identify and combat this pattern of prescribed behavior in oneself or others?
Omatsu -
2. Do you consider yourself to be a "conscious element" as defined by Omatsu (page 6 of "Listening to the Small Voice Speaking the Truth")? Why or why not? What role does mass organizing play in the evolution of the "conscious element" identity?
3. Omatsu names keywords to describe the Asian American Movement of the 1960s and 1970s, and contrasts them with those of the 1980s and 1990s (page 7 of the pdf, pg 30 of original text in "The Four Prisons"). What do you think the keywords are for the Asian American social justice movement of the 2000s? What will they be in the coming decade? What does this say about the focus of current social justice movements in the United States?
Quon -
4. How does coalition building between social justice groups function to help these groups achieve their goals? What are some of the structural obstacles to coalition building?"
Based on the wisdom gleaned by Glenn Omatsu, I'd say think that everyone is a conscious element, yet many of us are dormant. It is sometimes difficult to know on which issues we have the strongest opinions, or best ability to influence, or most willingness to devote time/effort. Yet, simply by being part of a community/communities, we become part of that "small voice" whispering the truth about what our experience has been, on an individual and collective level. I am not arguing that we are all experts, or even that our opinions are fully formed. Again, based on the Omastu reading, I'd say that community organizing serves to amplify the small whispers and helps to direct them. It also makes people aware that they have a voice. While it's true that the community usually has more to teach the activist than vice versa, it frequently takes an activist to frame the outlets for discourse and action. Activists understand the formation of the prisons, which are of course hard to break out of without some form of guidance (or else they wouldn't be prisons.) Once the walls are down, however, any community member's potential for action is great.
ReplyDelete“Theory becomes a material force when it is grasped by the masses.” Never has this statement, though coined in the 1960s, been as true as it is in contemporary Asian American society. What utility do theories provide if they never enter social and political arenas? How germane are they if they neither shape policy nor the mindsets of our neighbors? What use do we have with them if they don’t escape the realm of academia? Essentially, why do we have theories at all if they do nothing to redress the issues that we face?
ReplyDeleteWhile academics offer myriad theories regarding Asian America, unless we translate these theories through discourse, they remain obsolete. I maintain that, as Raymond Williams and Warren Susman similarly do, keywords which define Asian American movements assume that role of translation. Just as “participatory democracy” and “ideology” defined the 1960s-70s, “advocacy” and “assertiveness” defined the 1980s-90s, a new family of rhetoric defines the upcoming decades. When we analyze the issues that Asian Americans face in the 21st century, it is apparent that these new keywords include “esteem” and “individuality.”
Mainstream society historically portrays Asian Americans as the “model minority.” Glenn Omatsu contends that this identity purports capitalist (corporatist) ideals. And while the “model minority” status does promote false socio-economic ideas, its implications further extend to self-esteem issues that Asian American adolescents face. Amy Chua’s Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother exemplifies this well, as Asian American parents, disillusioned by the “model minority” belief, demand their children “be the best”. If not, they are scolded and/or ostracized. I argue that societal pressure to be a “model minority” on young Asian Americans contributes greatly to the high suicide rate of Asian Americans, particularly among females.
To redress the ramifying identify of being a “model minority” that mainstream society thrusts upon Asian Americans, Asian Americans ought to define their individuality, replacing antiquated stereotypes. While Asian Americans have achieved economic and political success, they still face issues of identity, especially with a growing Asian American population. It would be wholly hypocritical for me, as one individual, to specify what this new identity ought to be for an entire community. Rather, I contend that the Asian American community ought to organically develop their individuality.
I'm answering 4. Most of the issues affecting the world stem from (in my opinion) neoliberal capitalism, racism, sexism, homophobia, heteronormativity, ableism, colonization, and certainly other systems of oppression I am not aware. What makes it difficult to confront oppression is exactly its nature as acting systematically. Oppression does not exist as an aberration within a current society, but as a constitutive element of society. This is why true social justice is only likely to occur when these systems themselves are changed. Yet this is a very daunting goal, and legitimately most activists choose to work on labor organizing, prison reform, housing, and other community issues, as these our issues most directly facing the oppressed. However, these issues do not exist in a vacuum but are connected. Prison labor is connected to the underdevelopment of the inner city which is connected to militarism abroad, etc. The value of coalition building is that is brings separate, issue-focused groups together in a way that forces them to address systematic issues.
ReplyDeleteYet the fact that most organizing is done around issues makes it difficult to connect people in ways to confront more abstract issues. Communities can see how gentrification threatens housing, but maybe not how this is related to policies of urban development that target working class communities of color. As Omatsu says then the role of the activist is to act as an educator and connect the local to the national and global, while keeping in mind how the local is always particular to itself and needs to be confronted on its own terms.
An offshoot of #3:
ReplyDeleteOmatsu notes that our words do work—our keywords “[reflect] vital concerns and changing values” of their time, couching themselves in a web of historically-based signifiers (30). Yet as I reflect on the structural nuances and political implications in the history of Asian American movements’ language, I wonder how place—as much as time—shapes how we wield our well-chosen codewords. Is a spatial context, in fact, just as significant as a temporal one in determining how we construct Asian American activism? The activism in which I am most intimately familiar, taking place primarily at Scripps and the larger five Colleges, is one that mobilizes a language rife with what Omatsu identifies as 1960s keywords of “consciousness,” “theory,” “ideology,” and “community.” Unless we are severely behind in the times, the use of such charged signifiers seems to emerge at least in part from Claremont’s sphere of entrenched academic sensibilities. With words referencing a conceptual and intellectual militancy, we seem to liberate our minds through language—we embark in the process of first “decolonizing our minds.” Considering the current struggles that Asian American students face at the Colleges, however, I wonder how our language connects to initiatives taking place outside this space. While dialogues surrounding “transit justice” and “transnational labor” may seem to reference decade, for the most part they exist beyond the realm of the spatial and experiential concerns of students in the City of Trees and PhDs; activism brands itself with its own contextual particularities, its rhetoric mediated by its immediate environs. Thus, rather than simply considering language as a product of time, maybe we also must consider how words “[reflect] the vital concerns and changing values” of place.
Hi, I just found out about the blog. I have not had a chance to do more than skim the posts so far, but wow!
ReplyDeleteI'm also answering number 4. I agree with Quinn and will try not to be repetitive. Quon identifies the "enemy" as "the economic political system that survive[s] and thrive[s] on racism, sexism, and war" (217). Thus, for many activist groups, this enemy is the same; the only difference is the concrete results they are fighting for. And like Quinn said, all these issues are in some way related. The trouble is that not everyone can see the connection.
ReplyDeleteCandace’s point about the plural definition of “place”—as a concept contingent on geography and intellectual environment as well as time—raises a question about the validity of assigning keywords to characterize an entire movement. My initial response to this question included “intersectionality” as one of those keywords: any efforts to address matrices of oppression must come from a perspective that is sensitive to the variable permutations and combinations of identities. For instance, Johnny mentions the recent controversy over the WSJ feature on Amy Chua. While it is, of course, an issue of race and culture, it is also an issue of gender and class. Would her book have been received differently had Chua been a man? Would she have even been able to write the book with any semblance of respectability had she not enjoyed the privileges of being a highly educated, English-speaking individual? And is this uproar registering at all among communities in which Chua’s positions are perfectly normal?
ReplyDeletePerhaps intersectionality is the only keyword that should be applied to the 21st century. Given the plurality of contexts in which social justice movements flourish, it seems somewhat futile to attempt to pluck out a few overarching concerns. However, I concede that shared language, when wielded carefully, is an important method of building solidarity. I’m just not convinced that keywords are an effective way of monitoring the focus of movements across decades when language itself is unstable and dependent on its frame(r)s.
I'm going to go on and attempt to answer number three. Please keep in mind I do not know much about any social movements in the recent years. Personally, I feel there is a big difference in what happens in Claremont in terms of activism and what happens outside of Claremont. Inside the Claremont community, I feel like the keywords that would best describe the 2000s and probably the future would be words synonymous with the 60s and early 70s: "theory", "ideology", "community", "liberation", "practice." Anyone can walk through Claremont and see activism at work in many forms, and it is not just for the ASAM community but for other minority communities as well. That being said, I feel like activism in outside of Claremont (the "real world") has a different set of keywords, mostly synonymous with the 80s and 90s: "advocacy", "access", "legitimacy", "empowerment". Honestly, I do not feel much has changed since the 80s and 90s, mostly because the ASAM community faces alot of the same problems it has been facing since then. The model minority stereotype is still a major issue, as is Asian American women being depicted as "geisha girls" or "dragon ladies" and being exoticized by the American media. And Asian American men are STILL portrayed as the only asexual beings in America, apparently having no sex drive if we are to believe their portrayal in the media. Neoconservative Asian Americans also are still around and, although offering differing viewpoints, still dividing the community. The community, to me as an outsider, seems to be stuck in a rut.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I think in the future, things are going to change. In the past year alone (2010) we have seen Asian Americans portrayed more favorably in the media, taking charge as main characters in TV shows like Glee and dominating the American industry, as demonstrated by groupsl like Far East Movement and solo singers such as Charise. Slowly, but surely, Asian Americans are breaking the established stereotypes against them by the American media, and as these stereotypes are broken, equality will be one step closer.
If I am to guess, the next decade's key words will be things like "visibility", "equalization", "normativity", and, for lack of a better phrase "taking back the penis." It definitely will be interesting to see what lies in wait this decade.
Responding to question 2
ReplyDeleteI don’t think I can confidently claim to be a “conscious element” seeing as I don’t have proof of historical changes I have initiated. At the same time I don’t think I have a defeatist attitude where I’ve passively accepted that I’m going to have to face certain things in life or expectations based on my being Asian-American/Mixed-race/Bi. Like they say change is the only constant and I’d like to think that my very existence as a hybrid and someone in between many two sided things often without an accepted middle ground, is helping to redefine these lines and peoples conceptions of them. I understand that histories of whatever groups we identify with have some influence in shaping our lives, but we don’t have to play the victim. Hopefully my participation in the Asian Pacific American Coalition Sponsor Program at Pitzer is helping present opportunities for people to learn what it means to be Asian American and then letting them decide whether they identify and help them make choices thereafter. Without mass organizing and interacting with people of similar and dissimilar backgrounds, people may never be confronted with questioning the state of their lives and able to acknowledge that they have the ability to act and change it. Large scale change can’t happen unless many have a unified idea or desire to organize around.