Suchergebnisse

AbstractThis critical review essay addresses the underappreciation of citizenship inequalities in scholarship on marginalized women's community activism in the United States. Although both students of citizenship and women's grassroots resistance argue that neither citizenship nor lived experience is an individual‐level phenomenon or a public issue divorced from private troubles and that politics need not be formal and male, the two literatures do not break bread with each other. I contend that this lack of cross‐pollination owes to our fixation on the hallowed trifecta of race, class, gender intersectionality, but one that has elided the fact that the three have always constituted, and been constituted by, citizenship. Despite the fact that in recent decades immigrant women of color have taken the helm of community campaigns – such as in social reproduction (e.g. schools, churches, health), Environmental Justice, and immigration reform – few scholars mention citizenship and thus few analyze citizenship racism and its ties to other axes of inequality. I critique the existing scholarship by drawing on the contributions of the few works that analyze and intersect citizenship within women's community resistance struggles. I then point to future research directions to underscore their importance in an age of more exclusionary and draconian citizenship paradigms.

This essay explores the contradictions posed by states' efforts to exclude immigrants from south of the U.S. border on the grounds that they "burden" the economy, despite the same states' windfall revenue from the taxation of undocumented immigrants. Lawmakers' ongoing anti-immigrant sentiment yields a racialized contradiction in which mostly Mexican and Central American immigrants are derogated as economic burdens. In fact, they are unfairly taxed in addition to being indispensable to the U.S. economy. Based on these and other phenomena, such as racially coded preferences for higher-class immigrants and "antidiversity visas," I contend that contemporary U.S. immigration policy has regressed toward more blatant class and "race" (albeit raciallycoded) discrimination.

Although students of race have produced impressive works on global Western racism, their mostly macro-level focus has not addressed how marginal groups respond to Western racial ideology and do so based on state and cultural influences. To capture Asians' localized responses to white- American superiority specifically, the author conducts a comparative case study of South Koreans and Korean American immigrants, fitting groups given US geopolitical dominance in South Korea since 1945 and large numbers of Korean immigrants in the USA. Drawing on 66 combined interviews (in-depth, open-ended, and focus group) in Seoul and in Los Angeles County, the author finds that while South Koreans and Korean Americans at times similarly adopt and resist white racial hegemony, their responses differ by way of state and cultural ideologies and practices. The US military presence in South Korea, supported by the Korean state, and imported American mass media culture centrally shape the residents' narratives. In the United States, the American "racial state" and attendant cultural ideologies ("democracy," racial categories) figure centrally in Korean Americans' narrative responses to hegemony. The author concludes with the implications of localized analyses for global racism scholarship.

"As Ethnic Studies grows across campuses, traditional disciplines need to change. Disciplinary Futures brings together leading scholars who explain why and how fields of study can learn from one another in order to advance research on race/racism, white supremacy, and racial justice"--

Although Asian-descent men in the United States have been subjected to negative race-gender stereotyping and sexual racism, evidence suggests that mainstream perceptions and Asian American men's self-definitions are in flux. Drawing on in-depth interviews of U.S.-born and -raised, middle-class, heterosexual Asian American men, supplemented by popular media textual analysis, we examine how these men are drawing upon a new form of alternative Asian American masculinity— one that we call "The Model Man"—in order to renegotiate their position within the present hierarchy of romantic preference. "The Model Man," a hybrid masculinity construction that combines the elements of White hegemonic masculinity and model minority-based "Asian" masculinity, is co-opted and deployed by men as sexual/romantic capital—especially in relation to White women—because it enables the men to present themselves as desirable romantic partners. Although this masculinity strategy contains possibilities for further straitjacketing Asian American men via the model minority stereotype—and for re-inscribing heteronormativity and patriarchy/heterosexism—it may possess an unexpectedly subversive potential in allowing the men to contest their masculinity status and even remap hegemonic American manhood.

Previous studies have pursued whether there is an inverse relationship between levels of achievement and students' perceptions of their success. We find that these academic paradoxes exist but that they need to be analyzed in a manner that does not look only at structure or culture and that remaps what falls under both of these categories. Comparing in-depth interview data of middle-class Korean American and Mexican American college students who have realized a similar outcome, enrollment in a higher tier University of California school or rough equivalent, this study examines how the interplay of structural dimensions—class and ethnic factors such as social location and social capital—as well as cultural dimensions—ethnic expectations, reference groups, and emotional support—shapes the modes and mechanisms by which students feel "successful." Our study reveals that meaning-making processes influenced by this structural-cultural interplay yield paradoxical outcomes when analysts move beyond a single or objective focus on academic achievement. We conclude with a discussion of how scholarship on immigration, race/ethnicity, and education can move in this direction of complicating the definitions and measures of academic success.

Immigration is changing the racial composition of many societies. Yet leading theories of racial prejudice, even in a multiracial context, focus on dynamics in a single nation-state and fail to account for the experiences of the foreign-born. We adopt a transnational approach that incorporates processes creating prejudice from both inside and outside the receiving society and that shows how attitudes move across borders through immigration, transnationalism, and globalization. We draw upon two in-depth studies of immigrants and those who stay in the home countries, focusing on Koreans' and Dominicans' attitudes toward Black Americans. By situating existing theories of racial prejudice within a transnational framework, we illustrate how models of transnationalism are relevant not just within immigration scholarship, but to more general processes of social change.