Understanding the Silence:

The Paradoxes of Asian Immigrants as Model Minority

Lixuan Gong

According to its nature, the discourse of racism ought to

include all the races. However, even in the light of neo-

racism, where racial conflicts have been reinterpreted as

cultural conflicts, the conversations about racism still

narrowly concentrate on one thing: black-white relationship.

In such discourse, the power of racism seems to have shifted

to this absolute monochrome, whereas all the other races

(generally represented in colours as yellow, brown and red)

are consciously or unconsciously degraded into “minorities”,

which resulting in a substantial intensify of discursive

hegemony.

Contemporary Asian immigrants, stereotypically portrayed as

obtaining a higher level of success, are titled as “Model

Minority” in American and “Indo People” in the Netherlands.

This phenomenon is both the cause and the consequence of

biased racial studies, leading to two major paradoxes, one

concerning theoretical racism and another prejudice racism, in

understanding the status quo of Asian immigrants.

Mapping the Discourse of Racism

To start the analysis, this article will focus on American,

the front line of racial struggles. The discourse in the US in

so racially oriented as if there is no escape from this

massive explosion of racial conversations. However, one race

or one group seems to be left outside the conversations: Asian

American. A famous comedy called “The Daily Show” offers such

a glimpse. As a phenomenal fake news comedy that focuses on

criticizing the biased discourse on social medias, this show

hires comedians of different interests to mimic real news

report correspondents in order to poke jokes like racism or

gender discrimination. However, not in once does an Asian

Correspondent appear on that show to touch upon an Asian-

American problem while Latinos and Native Americans are the

frequenters1. Asian American, in terms of social awareness,

totally disappears from the public conversation. The claim

stands correct in political field. Counting from year 2000

till now, only 15 Asian Americans have entered the congress,

compared to 70 African Americans.

Being referred as the Model Minority deprives Asian

Americans’ ability to participate in the discussion of

theoretical racism on one hand, and intensity their ability to

confront prejudice racism on the other hand. In order to map

the racial discourse in American, this article single out five

most important factors: whiteness, economic status, education

level, occupation and political importance. (See the charts

below)

* From left to right: White American, African American and AsianAmerican2.

**The closer to the border, the high the score is regarding onespecific factor.

Hypothetically, the size of the white coverage over the chart

represents the significance one group has towards the

discourse: the larger the stronger3. However, the reality is

that, as mentioned, Asian American is extremely surpassed by

African American in terms of the discursive participation,

both quantitatively and quantitatively. Therefore, the shape

rather than the size become more of analytical importance.

Compared with Asian American, the shape for African Americans

is much more imbalanced, creating a metaphorically sharp arrow

pointing towards political importance, which all the more

reinforces the necessity for African Americans to cling to

this ultimate battle field, further resulting in the dominance

over the racial conversation. Asian Americans, on the other

side, swing to factors concerning social life like economy,

education and occupation，giving enough room for the expansion

of monochromic hegemony.

People With History But No Past

Asia, specifically China, is well-known for its

longstanding history, which naturally comes along with an

enormous amount of cultural and anthropological studies.

However, there is huge ignorance towards the colonial history

of Asian Pacific region, partly due to the fact that Asians

were less the victims of human trafficking and slavery than of

inexpensive labors on the assembly lines. Asian immigrants,

therefore, instead of being transported as commodity, are

recognized as people who willingly chose to live abroad for a

better life. Voluntariness and rationality sets the tone for

underestimating the racial oppression Asians faced and are now

facing. “We never have issues with Asians”, claimed one

“White” American, who has no knowledge about the Chinese

Exclusion Act in 1882 and the Interment of Japanese American

during World War II. In other words, Asian immigrants are the

carriers of the heavy history of their genetic ancestors but

not the representatives of their own immigratory past. As

Balibar believes, the suppression of effects depends precisely

upon the suppression of their causes. Since the cause for an

anti-Asian racism is denied by the voluntariness and

rationality, this theoretical racism then has no analytical

ground.

This chaotic history-past relationship further provokes

another paradox, which I call “misplaced ethnics and

nationalities”. The lack of immigratory past makes Asian

Americans are always recognized as the first or second

generation, who still obtain a strong attachment with their

homelands. Unlike African Americans who have no home country

to refer to, Asian Americans, as a whole, are still projected

to two to three influential Asian Countries, like China, Japan

or South Korea. The increasingly growing power of their

“homelands” along with the stereotypes of being economically

well-off soothes the urgency and the necessity for a

“colorful” racial discourse. Born and raised in American,

people who share Asian phenotype are misplaced in both ethnic

boxes and nationality boxes. Ethnics and nationalities,

sometimes interchangeable, are wrongly interpreted and placed.

Thus, the triangular relationship among race, ethnic and

nationality makes the conversation even harder to arise public

awareness. In summary, Asian Americans are not what Balibar

says “ the presence of one’s past” but “a presence of a

present that filled with otherness and displacement”. The

frontier of otherness is so dramatically blurred that there is

no “other of the otherness” after all.

People With Knowledge But No Power

At the first glance, this paradox can be understood in a

literal way, stating that Asian Americans generally obtain a

high level of education but stay at the bottom of racial

movement agenda (or hierarchy4) in American discourse. However,

the real paradox lies in a more metaphorical and theoretical

interpretation. In a Foucauldian perspective, the relationship

between power and knowledge is so sophisticated and

inseparable that it should be conceptualized as one thing:

power-knowledge. In light of this analytical framework, this

article argues that, for Asian Americans, the disentanglement

of power and knowledge is in fact an indicator of showing how

Asian Americans, in daily practice, are dropping out of the

racial discourse.

Asians, let alone Asian Americans, are well educated about

racism, but only about anti-black racism. Due to contemporary

biased racial discussion, Asian Americans, along with any

other racial groups in American, are immersed with this

blackness versus whiteness discourse. Unfortunately, obtaining

the knowledge does not guarantee the conversation. In terms of

authenticity, Asian Americans are not entitled to talk about

this particular racism for their lack of real experience. Being

a middle group decreases the power of performativity in the

daily practice. Racism, in this sense, is not performed or

enhanced by the presence of Asian Americans.

Even when it comes to their own experience, Asian Americans

are still questioning their authenticity. A perfect analogy

would be like a choice of coming out the closet. For Asian

Americans, they can either coming out as being “Asian” or

“American”; or to be more straightforward, they can be either

black or white. But unlike self-identifying as homosexual,

coming out as Asian or American is a process mixed with

presentation and recognition. “Where are you actually from? ”

is a question that confronts Asian Americans on a daily basis,

even after they’ve stated that they are born and raised in

America. Instability and unpredictability of identity cause

insecurity and stops Asian Americans to form a consensus

towards anti-Asian racism practice. The uncertainty of other

people’s racial experience leaves Asian American with such

racism that only possesses the phenomena but no noumenon. The

power generated by the knowledge loses its agent and

eventually dies out.

Presence Racism: A New Racism?

While the neo-racism claims that cultural difference has

replaced racial difference to become the new demarcation for

grouping, it is empirical to say that Asian immigrants who are

immersed in local cultural practice still confront racism.

O’brien (2008) shows that Asians Latinos who have lighter skin

are more easily identified as white, while darker skin as

black. Meanwhile, all kinds of phenotype that are dissimilar

to typical white, or having a non-Europe or non-American

accent, or simply wearing glasses can result in an undesirable

identification of blackness. It seems like racism is going to

an anti-essentialist way, where appearance has transcended

symbolic meaning to real identification. One’s racial

experience and racial identification now largely depends on

one’s presence. Contextualization is no longer just an

analytical tool but has its own practical influence on shaping

the reality. Is this a new racism, or just the reflection of

the old sensory discrimination? Will racism finally fade away

or periodically repeat itself? This is the fundamental

question behind this Model Minority myth.

Notes

1 Common tools for political comedies involve stereotypes, exaggeration, irony and sarcasm, which are very much all the basic practices of discrimination. However, what gives comedians political-correctness and hilarity is the strategy of DIY (Do It Yourself)，in which people tend to mock their own identity group so as to raise political or social issues such as gender, sexuality and racism. Comedians’ capability to “hit the nerve”, therefore, lies in to what extent can not only the audience from particular identity group but the entire audience relate to the scenario, which requires a shared discourse and a spontaneous motional bond. Given this mutual information give and take, the audience of “The Daily Show” ranks the highest among all TV show audience in political awareness and sensitivity. The lackof an Asian Correspondent, therefore, is a strong evidence to show that Asian Americans have neither voice nor audience in terms of political controversies. The success of Asian Comedian Joe Wang is such an exception for it shows the difficultyof fighting the existing discourse and social obstacles.

2 Latino American is actually the biggest minority group in American; in some states they have already become the majority of the population. However, after mapping the discourse for Latinos, the pattern of Latino Americans is quite like that of African Americans: high in political importance and comparatively low in other factors, which is why for the sake of conciseness they are not listed in the text. What makes Latinos fundamentally different from African Americans is the sense of immigration. Like Asian American, Latino Americans are generally considered as the newcomer of the country, regardless of their long immigratory past. Another unique identity relates to drug dealer and gun use, which once again links to their “homeland”. If necessary, Latino Americans can be placed between African Americans and Asian Americans, sharing both the political importance and a distorted otherness.

3 The mapping model can also contribute to understand the contradiction between one’s social status and discourse significance. Especially within under a competitive universal capital system where economic status can be changed overnight, class is no longer the umbrella phrase for one’s social status. The class identity has to be deconstructed to at least two parts: one economical and one discursive. Compared to economic status, the possession of discourse is more history-loaded and gains more momentum as it grows, therefore creating an unfixable distortion between the two elements.

4 Ranking difference racisms in a hierarchical system is a risk because it implies the internal tension among different ethnic groups and their potential conflicts inpursuing their own interests. However, the question is does the dominant black power need its ally? If so, to where can black power found its ally? Based on current situation, it is apparent that black power does need ally to open up a morewide conversation but the ally is never any other ethnic group. Black power has been and will always be friends with sexual liberation and gender equality. This strategy is understandable in light of the economy of power exchange. Race, gender and sexuality are carefully interweaved and are projected as the “trinity” of one’s

identity whereas different racial groups are in competition for the same limited power resource. In this way, the hierarchical system is in fact an appropriate and effective way to understand the racial struggle complexity.