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.

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.

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.

Reimagines how race, ethnicity, imperialism, and colonialism can be central to social science researchand methodsThere is a growing consensus that the discipline of sociology and the social sciences broadly need to engage more thoroughly with the legacy and the present day of colonialism, Indigenous/settler colonialism, imperialism, and racial capitalism in the United States and globally. In Disciplinary Futures, a cross-section of scholars comes together to engage sociology and the social sciences by way of these paradigms, particularly from the influence of disciplines of American, Ethnic, and Indigenous Studies.With original essays from scholars such as Yến Lê Espiritu, Miliann Kang, Monisha Das Gupta, Salvador Vidal-Ortiz, Laura E. Enriquez, Kevin Escudero, and Gilda L. Ochoa, Disciplinary Futures offers concrete pathways for how the social sciences can expand from the limiting frameworks they traditionally use to study race, racism, and White supremacy —namely, the Black-White binary, the privileging of the nation-state, the fixation on the US mainland, the underappreciation of post- and settler-colonial studies, liberal assumptions, and the limited conception of what constitutes data. Secondarily, the book and its contributors reveal that sociology has useful questions, methodologies, and approaches to offer scholars of American, Ethnic, and Indigenous Studies. Disciplinary Futures is an important work that renders these disciplines more intellectually expansive and thus better able to tackle urgent issues of race, White supremacy, and injustice