Search results

This essay starts from the idea that the correlation between Asian American subjectivity and exemplarity is an instance of race relations in the American context. The model minority myth represents Asian Americans as an example of successful assimilation into American society and simultaneously signals their exclusion from mainstream norms and ideals. In this essay I explore issues of representation, representativity, and access to narratives of identity choice by reading Yellow Face, the 2007 play written by David Henry Hwang. I first consider Hwang's parody of identity politics and his staging of the racialization of bodies in contemporary "postracial" American society. Next, I discuss how dynamics of envy (Ngai 2005) enable a series of disidentificatory and antiproprietory practices, which ultimately disavow the iteration of a preestablished model subjectivity. Finally, I focus on the "melancholic condition" (Eng e Han 2000) as a political strategy of building and preserving communities within and beyond racial, class, and national boundaries. ; L'articolo parte dall'idea che la correlazione tra soggettività asiatica americana e esemplarità sia una declinazione della questione razziale nel contesto americano. Il mito della minoranza modello rappresenta gli asiatici americani come un esempio di assimilazione di successo alla società americana, segnalando simultaneamente la loro esclusione dalle norme e dagli ideali del gruppo dominante. In questo saggio, esploro questioni di rappresentazione, rappresentatività e accesso alle scelte identitarie, attraverso una lettura di Yellow Face, il play del 2007 scritto da David Henry Hwang. Considero innanzitutto come Hwang costruisca una parodia delle politiche identitarie e metta in scena la razzializzazione dei corpi nella società americana "post-razziale". Nella seconda parte, mi occupo di dinamiche di invidia (Ngai 2005) e di come esse rendano possibili una serie di pratiche di disidentificazione e anti-appropriazione, che finiscono per interrompere l'iterazione di ...

This paper explores Bourdieu's account of a relational social space, and his relative neglect of social interaction within this framework. Bourdieu includes social capital as one of the key relational elements of his social space, but says much less about it than economic or cultural capital, and levels of social capital are rarely measured in his work. Bourdieu is reluctant to focus on the content of social networks as part of his rejection of substantialist thinking. The neglect of substantive networks creates problems for Bourdieu's framework, because many of Bourdieu's core concepts rest upon assumptions about their interactional properties (in particular, the prevalence of homophilous differential association) which are left unexamined. It is argued here that Bourdieu's neglect of the substance of social networks is related to the criticisms that Bourdieu's framework often encounters, and that this neglect bears re-examination, since it is helpful to think of the ways in which differentiated social networks contribute to the development of habitus, help form fields, and so constitute the intersubjective social relations within which sociality, and practice more generally, occur. © 2009 London School of Economics and Political Science.

What is the relationship between cultural difference and global cooperation, and what challenges and opportunities does this relationship pose for cooperation research? This paper examines how culture is a potential resource for global cooperation while grappling with its enigmas and ambiguities. It explores the paradoxes of culture to argue that the partly unknowable character of the concept 'culture' may be an advantage for cooperation research rather than a problem to be solved. The paper casts culture and cultures as examples of a wider class of 'relational' phenomena that arise through interaction and that rely upon this interaction for their standing. This proposition foregrounds relations over entities, becoming over being, and dynamism over fixity in line with a range of contemporary philosophical developments and the burgeoning of interest in relationality. Thinking of culture in relational terms offers a way of modulating culture; of simultaneously respecting cultural difference and allowing that difference is a shared human resource. Relationality can be deployed to help facilitate cooperation by re-opening interaction within political, social, economic, and institutional arrangements, including through processes for generating relational and cooperative effects have been developed in the field of conflict resolution. However, doing so requires that the fields most obviously related to global cooperation (political science, international relations, and global governance) engage relational approaches at the limits of the precise sciences and through philosophy, religion, and non-western cultural traditions.

China's expanding outreach and diversifying roles have provided a novel context for the ongoing reconsiderations of world politics. As a result, inquiries into how China thinks and in what way its history and traditions inform the idiosyncrasies of China's international outlook have grown into a cottage industry both in International Relations (IR) and across the full spectrum of the humanities and social sciences. In this setting, Beijing's external relations draw attention both because of their agency and due to the specificities of China's individual engagements. What has remained overlooked, however, is that such preoccupation with China has been paralleled by the emergence of a relational turn in IR. One could argue that this is not a mere coincidence. Relationality in IR has become prominent not least because of its simultaneous appropriation by both the so-called Western and non-Western (especially, Chinese) perspectives on world affairs. In this respect, the three books under review seem to have a shared interest in interpreting China's growing significance on the world stage through such relational lenses. Together the three books under review illustrate vividly that the complex patterns of global life resonate with relationality and dynamism, rather than the static and spatial arrangements implicit in the fetishized currency of self-other/centre-periphery/hegemon-challenger models underpinning the binary metanarratives of IR.

What is the relationship between cultural difference and global cooperation, and what challenges and opportunities does this relationship pose for cooperation research? This paper examines how culture is a potential resource for global cooperation while grappling with its enigmas and ambiguities. It explores the paradoxes of culture to argue that the partly unknowable character of the concept 'culture' may be an advantage for cooperation research rather than a problem to be solved. The paper casts culture and cultures as examples of a wider class of 'relational' phenomena that arise through interaction and that rely upon this interaction for their standing. This proposition foregrounds relations over entities, becoming over being, and dynamism over fixity in line with a range of contemporary philosophical developments and the burgeoning of interest in relationality. Thinking of culture in relational terms offers a way of modulating culture; of simultaneously respecting cultural difference and allowing that difference is a shared human resource. Relationality can be deployed to help facilitate cooperation by re-opening interaction within political, social, economic, and institutional arrangements, including through processes for generating relational and cooperative effects have been developed in the field of conflict resolution. However, doing so requires that the fields most obviously related to global cooperation (political science, international relations, and global governance) engage relational approaches at the limits of the precise sciences and through philosophy, religion, and non-western cultural traditions.

This article examines the way bodily substance has been deployed in the anthropology of kinship. Analytically important in linking kinship with understandings of the body and person, substance has highlighted processes of change and transferability in kinship. Studies of organ donation and reproductive technologies in the West considered here challenge any simple dichotomy between idioms of a bounded individual body/person and immutable kinship relations in Euro-American contexts and more fluid, mutable bodies and relations elsewhere. Focusing on blood as a bodily substance of everyday significance with a peculiarly extensive symbolic repertoire, this article connects material properties of blood to the ways it flows between domains that are often kept apart. The analogies of money and ghosts illuminate blood's capacity to participate in, and move between, multiple symbolic and practical spheres—capacities that carry important implications for ideas and practices of relationality.