Asian America. Pawan Dhingra
group against another “bad” group.
Gender and sexual constructions of the “model minority”
The “model minority” stereotype is also popular because it promotes gendered and sexual assumptions. If the “yellow peril” man threatens to rape women, the “model minority” man is so asexual as to be considered effeminate. Such depictions stem partly from the occupations to which Asian-American men were relegated due to race in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, such as workers in laundries and houseboys, and living in bachelor societies. This depiction continues today, despite Asian Americans’ broader occupational representation (Espiritu 2007). Gay Asian-American men similarly play the role of the passive femme relative to the dominant white male (Manalansan 2003). Lesbian Asian Americans are presumed not to exist, for that would be too disruptive to the “proper” family (Gopinath 2005). If not characterized as a dragon lady within the “yellow peril” framework, Asian-American women are lotus blossoms ready to cater to men’s needs. This subservient, exotic framing, fueled by gendered and sexual assumptions, limits Asian Americans’ advancements in the workplace while supporting white men. It also shapes romantic relations with other groups and with other Asian Americans.
“Yellow peril” and “model minority” stereotypes in tandem
The “yellow peril” and “model minority” stereotypes appear as conflicting accounts of Asian Americans but in fact work together (Okihiro 1994). In both cases, there is an underlying supposition of Asian Americans as foreigners to the nation. The “yellow peril” is a foreigner bent on taking over the world. The “model minority” is a foreigner who is helpful to the United States. As long as Asian Americans “stay in their place” as models for how minorities are to behave, they are accepted, even praised. But, as they gain too many resources (in university admissions, in the labor market, etc.) and unlink the “natural” association between whiteness, the nation, and privilege, they become the “yellow peril” and threaten society. Other Americans can unite in opposition to the “yellow peril,” thereby helping with the racial imaginary of a white nation that in reality relies upon immigrant labor. For instance, when Asian Americans wear masks during the COVID-19 crisis as part of their public health duty, they can be read as a disease threat rather than conscientious citizen and be blamed for the “China virus.” So the “yellow peril” and “model minority” go hand-in-hand as complementary stereotypes. As fitting racial formation theory discussed above, a group’s characterization is not consistent but changes to fit the needs of political and economic elites.
The “yellow peril” and “model minority” stereotypes also stem from United States’ transnational relations within global capitalism (Lowe 1998). The United States has gone to war with Asian and Middle Eastern countries with imperial ambitions throughout much of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. These countries are often framed as threats to US physical and economic security. Immigration laws have reflected this framing, with Asian Americans being barred from immigrating in the early part of the twentieth century and thereafter only being let in bit by bit under heavy regulation. The immigration laws have changed to allow entry of Asian Americans, mostly in response to the economic needs and ambitions of the United States, creating in turn the “model minority” population.
Discussion questions
How are the stereotypes two sides of the same coin? Are there similar opposing stereotypes for other groups that in truth have an interconnectedness?
How are racialization, oppression, and power connected? Create a visual representation to illustrate the connections.
Reality versus stereotypes
Lost within these dichotomous stereotypes are the many Asian Americans who experience economic insecurity, poverty, discrimination, segregation, underfunded schools, and the like (as seen in future chapters). Asian Americans are not monolithic. Even ethnic groups considered overwhelmingly successful experience real social problems. But it becomes harder to recognize and address these problems, given the dominance of these stereotypes that diverts serious attention.
With this critique in mind, it is important not to forget that many Asian Americans have entered the middle class or even above. They have integrated in many ways, as fitting assimilation theory. Still, the notion of the “model minority” can still be a myth. The reason is that the stereotype is based on the faulty argument that somehow Asian culture drives all of their success, that the United States has no racial hierarchies, and that other minorities carry the blame for their continued challenges. The myth reinforces the notion that Asian Americans’ successes are due to the opportunities in the United States, opportunities supposedly available to all. Instead, the successes stem in large part from the educational credentials immigrants often arrived with, the family help they relied on, and a labor market in need of these immigrants’ skills and less expensive salary expectations. One can recognize Asian Americans’ accomplishments without advocating for the “model minority” stereotype or its threatening “yellow peril” cousin.
Towards that goal, assimilation scholars attempt to demonstrate Asian Americans’ successful integration as a minority without contributing to racist connotations. According to this perspective, Asian Americans may be seen culturally as threats or as foreigners, but this is minor compared to their overall acceptance as assimilating Americans. So the significance of these stereotypes is downplayed. Furthermore, this perspective maintains that there is nothing inherently wrong, much less racist, with crediting their success partly to their culture if evidence supports that (Alba and Nee 2003; Zhou and Bankston 1998). And the stereotype of the passive Asian American may have merit, especially when applied to recent immigrants with limited English abilities. In other words, the assimilation perspective sees the “model minority” stereotype as not malicious but instead as possibly accurate. Such scholars attend to the cultural and the non-cultural factors that define a group, such as income, residential integration, and the like, and they try to avoid racist implications for other minorities. This book will attend to multiple perspectives in analyzing Asian-American social trends.
Real impact of social constructions
Because Asian Americans exist partly as foreigners, much of the racism they encounter is in the form of nativism. In fact, it may not seem like racism at all and so not appear to assimilation theorists as problematic. Calls for immigrants to “go home” or critiques of bilingual education may stem from an extreme patriotism, from xenophobia, from concern over the use of tax dollars, and/or other motivations. It is not clearly racist, especially when race is understood within a black–white binary. But such calls can carry a racist assumption that certain immigrants, in particular those from less-developed nations, would corrupt the nation with their way of life (Brimelow 1998). The notion of the United States as a cohesive and moral nation is affirmed by framing Asian Americans and others as outside of the nation, as not full members (Lowe 1996). Whites become the embodiment of the nation, as Asian Americans are contrasted to them. This occurs in many ways. Only three types are discussed here: immigration laws, racial profiling, and hate crimes. Other consequences of framing Asian Americans as foreigners are discussed in later chapters.
Immigration law
Immigration laws appear, on the surface, removed from race. They deal with national security, borders, sovereignty, and citizenship. Yet concerns about national interests often contain assumptions about race, in particular regarding Asian Americans and Latinxs (Hing 2000; Lowe 1998; Ngai 2004). One way of securing who can belong to the nation is by outlawing certain groups from immigrating. Such laws represent direct, institutional discrimination against would-be immigrants and against those already in the country seeking reunification with relatives. In arguing the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act, the Asiatic “barred