Asian America. Pawan Dhingra
immigrants is not their problem but that of the state and institutions, which promote inequality.
The broader theme within the racial formation perspective is a lack of trust in the nation-state and its institutions to promote full equality among racial groups. The United States, like other western, hyper-capitalist nations, is neither the “land of opportunity” nor even a benign force relative to ethnic minorities. Instead, according to critics it is an imperial force that wages wars mostly in Third World nations and also engages in business practices that suit established interests more than minorities at home (Melamed 2006). Moreover, the racial formation perspective recognizes that from its inception, the United States has been a country that was founded on white supremacist rationale. The fact that naturalization, for example, was restricted to whites, or that slavery was actually permitted in the US Constitution, is evidence that race has organized American society. Even when these laws have changed, it is because of struggles by minorities and/or in response to US foreign and economic interests and without fully eradicating racializing logics. Immigrant minorities may do well economically, but they must suffer from greater hurdles and indignities en route. For instance, Filipinx-American men have attained a moderate middle-class status through working for the US navy. But they can be relegated to subservient, emasculating positions in the process (Espiritu 2003).
A racial formation perspective also helps explain how immigrant minorities respond to racist interactions. Asian Americans, even those raised in the United States, accentuate their cultural and social commonalties to one another rather than their ties to the mainstream (Dhingra 2007; Purkayastha 2005; Tuan 1998). Even if ethnic minorities live in mostly white neighborhoods, they often seek out one another for solidarity. People identify with their ethnicity rather than as simply “American.” These trends contradict assimilation predictions.
Pan-ethnicity
The growing pan-ethnicity among Asian Americans serves as another challenge to assimilation theory. Pan-ethnicity refers to Asian Americans’ increasing collaboration and identification along racial rather than only along ethnic lines. As pan-ethnicity occurs, identities can change, with a new group (i.e. “Asian American”) forming. Pan-ethnicity can result from a shared racial formation among ethnic groups but also from a sense of cultural connections, and so is not reducible to racial formation. Asian Americans identify pan-ethnically due to a shared culture (e.g. Confucian heritage), shared categorization by others (e.g. stereotypes of “Asians” as all foreigners), shared institutions (e.g. pan-ethnic student organizations that promote this identification), and shared interests (e.g. to eradicate racism). Understanding why pan-ethnicity happens, when it takes place and does not, and how strong it is informs the process of group identity formation more broadly.
Online resources:Learn more about race at https://www.britannica.com/topic/critical-race-theory; https://medium.com/@RedSummitProductions/fresh-off-the-boats-battle-with-stereotypes-and-sitcoms-9b4299dfc29
Global political economy
The increasing inter-dependency between countries also complicates immigrants’ adaptation. Globalization refers to the connections between nations economically, culturally, politically, and socially. For example, the fact that we learn about what is happening on the other side of the planet instantaneously through the internet, or the fact that most of the products we buy are made in another country, is evidence that our lives are being shaped by forces beyond our country. A global political economy perspective draws attention to the relations between nations that spur migration (Baldoz 2011). Because developing countries do not have enough employment opportunities for their population, or the jobs pay too little or lack options for mobility, individuals seek fortunes elsewhere. But individuals rarely just migrate anywhere. One’s country’s relationship with other nations influences where one migrates to. For instance, colonial histories between countries create lasting pathways of immigration. Also, to develop their economies, countries will train citizens for jobs in other countries. Migrants are then expected to send back money or expertise to their homeland (Rodriguez 2010). Would-be migrants hear of jobs in a particular country through state- or corporate-sponsored advertisements or through their personal networks. In other words, to understand immigration, one must understand the relationships between nations.
A global political perspective downplays the assimilationist model of immigration and adaptation. Assimilation theory frames migrants as independent actors who seek out a new country to make their living and settle their families. In contrast, a global political economy perspective highlights the sustained ties between migrants and their homeland. Immigration is not so much an act of pure volition as a consequence of global economic and political factors, within which immigrants make calculated decisions. Within this perspective, it makes sense that immigrants maintain transnational ties to their homeland. Transnationalism originated as a topic of study as a critique of assimilation theory’s assumption that one’s adopted nation defined immigrants’ subjective and material experiences. Instead, immigrants can live across borders. For instance, they may both receive and send money from and to a homeland, follow the political and cultural changes of the nation, visit home often, and more. Rather than consider immigrants’ adaptation relative to the United States, as is the case within assimilation theory, it may be more relevant to consider it within a broader diaspora or widely dispersed community.
A global political economy perspective often is combined with other ones. For instance, global dynamics connect to racial formation processes. In such cases, analysts frame international relations within a global power inequality, with developed nations utilizing immigrants from developing nations to their advantage (Parreñas 2001). Yet more recently, scholars have come to analyze immigrants’ transnational lives within an overall assimilation paradigm. Immigrants’ commitments abroad need not detract from their general integration within the United States (Levitt and Waters 2002). Transnational individuals can follow both homeland and US politics, for instance. Experiences in the homeland can give individuals the cultural tools, such as pride in their background, to help them feel supported when in the United States (Smith 2006). So, while transnationalism and globalization are receiving increasing attention, what they mean for immigrant groups is not settled.
A case study of theoretical convergence
A single case illuminates how different theories lead to distinct conclusions. Asian-American women have been closely associated with garment manufacturing in New York City and Los Angeles. Perspectives emphasizing assimilation explain the large number of immigrant minority women working the production line as due to their typically low human capital (i.e. lack of advanced education or English-language skills). They do not have the capacity to perform many other jobs in that geographic area. Also, their network ties lead them to the industry. From an assimilationist perspective, consideration is placed on whether workers gradually move out of these jobs or not as dependent on their education, skills, family needs, co-ethnic resources, and so on. For instance, many garment workers learn about these jobs through relatives and friends, and they prefer these jobs because the work schedules suit their needs as mothers (Chin 2005). For such persons, the industry works relatively well, even if it does not pay much. Unfair exploitation of the women may take place, but they can leave these jobs as they accrue more education or skills. They face no inherent marginalization.
More critical scholars such as those who adopt a racial formation and/or global economic perspective differ in their thinking of this trend. Their question is why are Asian-American women seen as “natural” fits for such manufacturing jobs within a racial capitalism that utilizes different groups of people for different parts of the production process? How do impressions of women shape how they are treated on the job? Why is migration structured around women’s supposedly nimble fingers? Global manufacturing firms and general consumers depend on these women to produce cheap goods. People’s gender and nationality sharply guide their job prospects, which means that people are