Week Five: Palumbo-Liu

Asian Diasporas, and Yet. . .

1.     Cultural rituals articulate:  p. 279

2.     What does this mean:  the testing out of the notion of diaspora p. 280  Apply this to everything we are testing out in this course.

3.     How do “these specters of ‘homogeneity’ and boundedness haunt the logic of this collection?  p. 281

4.     Really examine the final full paragraph on page 281, and relate it to the question of “Asia” on page 288 of Ang.  Particularly the section beginning “But we are still faced with the question, why retain Asia?...”

5.     The oppositional strategy (from the West) pp. 281-2

6.     In relation to “the West and the Rest division”  “I would suggest a wider inquiry into the driving forces behind the movement of populations outside the homeland.”  p. 282  Think about this in relation to our discussion of colonization, and the Wong piece.

7.     Etymological and historical relationship to Jewish notion of galut:  look at this entire paragraph on p. 283 and Palumbo-Liu’s final statement “the transposition of diaspora from the premodern to the modern and postmodern historical moments cannot completely slough off the historical and foundational element of disenfranchisement and statelessness that drives the identification with home.”

8.     “we should also consider that there is an abiding possibility that the cultural identification with home is more than (merely) sentimental.”  P. 283

Week Five: Ien Ang

Beyond “Asian Diaporas”

1.     Note the importance, and understand the significance, of prefatory comments:   “the movement of peoples from parts of Asia to other parts of the world (and back) has had a longstanding and complex history, a history that cannot be told in any singular, one-dimensional, or teleological manner.”  p. 285

2.     Historical association of Diaspora with the archetypical Jewish case p. 186

3.     “where the classic definition of diaspora emphasized the traumatic past of the dispersed group, in todays usage trauma is located as much in the present, in the contemporary experiences of marginalization or discrimination in the nation-state of residence.”  p. 286

4.     “Diasporic groups imagine themselves increasingly not as “ethnic minorities” within nation-states, but as transnational subjects whose affiliations and loyalties reside in the interstices between nation states:  they cannot be contained within the boundaries of any nation-state, be it the homeland, the host society, or any other country.”  p. 287

5.     “nation-states, as discrete territorial and governmental units within a much larger world of global flows and exchanges, are no longer in full control of the composition of their populations or capable of commanding people’s movement in and out of their territories.” p. 287

6.     Read and understand the final paragraph on page 288.  We will be thinking about this, in relation to the idea of Latin America and continental divides as we move into the next few weeks.  Paragraph begins:  “But if the nation state as the predominant discrete unit of analysis of area studies is now deeply contested, then the status of a larger, more encompassing unit of analysis Asia—should also be put under erasure.”   Be able to talk about this in detail.

Week Five: Parreñas and Siu

1.     Key words: diaspora, transnationalism, and globalization

2.     Diaspora:  “ongoing and contested process of subject formation” Entailing:  displacement, simultaneity of alienation and affiliation , and collective consciousness and connectivity p. 1

3.     Simultaneous relations:  p. 2

4.     Three interventions:  p. 2-3

5.     “Asian diasporas facilitate analysis of interlocking relationships that are at once local, national, and transnational.  It seeks to explore global connections from different angles.”  P. 3

6.     Diaspora:  as framework to study home (adopted), homeland (ethnic) and the geographically dispersed relations (coethnics) p. 3

7.     Area Studies p. 4

8.     Asian American Studies as “an area of study and a social movement” p. 5

9.     Diaspora:  “enthographically grounded and historically informed” p. 5

10.  Page 5:  read and understand

11. “not all Asian migrations are diasporic in nature” p. 7

12. “Aviod constructing Asia as a homogeneous homeland.”  p. 8

13. “We understand Asia to be a homogenizing category that is historically produced through a set of discourses and imaginaries and whose parameters have been drawn and redrawn by the shifting agendas of various intellectual and political projects.”  p. 8

14. diasporas (in its plural form) p. 9

15. A quick glance at the colonial history! p. 9  Think about this in reference to Lowe, Manalansan and Roque Ramírez.  “we also emphasize the uneven political and economic relations that have formed between Asia and the West, as well as within Asia, and discuss their implications in facilitating Asian emigration as well as in shaping the conditions of their displacement.”  p. 9

16. Page 10:  read and understand

17. Diasporic identity:  p. 11

18. “Nationalism is at the heart of diasporic displacements.”  P. 11

19. “The Making of Diasporas” fully understand and be able to apply pp. 12-13

20. Displacement and the nation-state p. 13

21. “being diasporic is not always is a matter of choice.”  P. 13

22. page 13:  read and understand

23.   “We do not view diasporas and immigration to be mutually exclusive categories of settlement. . .”  p. 14

24. “we recognize the subaltern who is without resources to cross or align across borders.”  p. 14

25. Home:  social relations, memories, imaginaries, cultural production that form multiple links to place, culture, and community.  p. 14

26. “the question of home serves not only as a source of anxiety but also as a site of creativity and refuge.”  P. 15

27. “it’s one’s positioning in the local that helps define one’s relationship to an ‘elsewhere.’”  p. 15  NB:  this is not Rabasa’s use of the term elsewhere, but what can we learn from both of these ideas in conversation

28. positioning p. 15

29. situated loyalties p. 15

30. Five Major Themes (pp. 16-24)  Be able to name and discuss each theme.  Think about how they relate to last week’s readings, and then to the overall structure of the class.

31. Culture p. 22

32. Diasporic Amnesia p. 22

33. Diasporic Cultural formation p. 22

34. Think about the author’s invitation to Palumbo-Lui and Ang.  After reading their pieces, what do you think “new directions for broadening this conversation” might be? p. 23

35.  The triangulating relationship p. 24 How does this relate to our overall theoretical project in this class, not the shape and form of the syllabus.

Week Five: Wong

Contextualizing “Denationalization Reconsidered”

1.     Immigrant Model of ES:  p. 4, 11, 16

2.     Historical Approach to ES: 

3.     Review Rabasa’s piece from week one, pp. 195-99

4.     The Central Question of Wong’s Piece:  Diasporic Prespective (p. 2, p. 10) and or a Domestic Perspective (p. 2).  Place in conversation with Parreñas and Sui

5.     Note Wong’s definition and understanding of each of these perspectives and be able to clarify each, and remember they reflect her theoretical/political frames and reading materials.  Consequently, you must be aware of your own theoretical and political frameworks.

6.     Critique of the “trajectory of growth” for people of color in the U.S. p. 13

7.     Decolonial thinking p. 17

8.     Exilic sensibility p. 15

9.     Question of political interventions p. 18

10. Critique of the nation state p. 17

11. Critique of being “just a human being” p. 19

12. Concept of Asian American p. 17

13. Ling-Chi Wang’s four founding principles of ES p. 20

14. Coming back to roots and routes p. 19

Home

Home

Home

R2: Quotidian --> Products

Quotidian struggle and cultural product need each other for existence. They have been described to be different sides of the same coin, but for those who choose to carry the coin in their pocket, it is a process and way of life.

First, an artist must live his quotidian struggle, which is made up of the private and public actions of one's daily life. The visible and invisible. The literal and abstract. It is how one lives within the realms of reality and chooses to stretch, morph and perform their lives. Each combination is unique and all are adapting to obstacles in the best way they see to survive life. These experiences and choices of each individual are part of the concoction that creates voice and story. The sharers of these stories and ideas receive the identity of artists, the creators of social products.

Cultural products are works of art that symbolize argumentative ideas and themes from life and then provoke conversation from their audience. These works of art can range from visual to performing arts, which include but are not limited to plays, songs, dances, drawings and paintings. Such work cannot be created with out the inspiration of the quotidian struggle of it’s creator. We create from what we know and what we dream and because dreams cannot be contained, art has no limits. Therefore there is no knowing how big of an impact one piece of art can have.

Keep in mind, the impact of cultural product is not measured in sold out auditoriums or number of prints sold. This may sound counter intuitive because of course one wants their works to be seen by as many people as possible. My point is just because there was not a full house does not mean it was a flop, because impact is measured through interpersonal interactions and private thought. Even if a work is shared with one person, if their was dialogue and thought it was productive.

Because we all struggle and have a story to share we each have the potential to be producers of cultural products. This is a challenge: carry the coin in your pocket. Live. Struggle. Stretch. Compress. Challenge. Nap. Juggle. Listen. Cry. Breathe. And then don’t be afraid to share. Provoke. Think. Inspire. Do.

RP2: Culture as an Argument

Everything is an argument. 

           I heard this in high school as a part of my junior-level AP test prep. It’s was supposed to encourage our skeptical investigation of texts and symbols, but I’ve noticed that it’s a generally fair understanding in general. All that we see, hear, read, and watch is arguing something—and we have, I think, the responsibility to evaluate those claims. These arguments are part of both quotidian experiences and expansive cultural narratives and productions as well. Just like a stop light argues you should stop here, and the Ten Commandments of the Judeo-Christian Tradition make their arguments for and against behaviors, books argue themes, media argues values and politicians argue anything they have to in order to get your attention. Everything is trying to convince us of something. However, this argument is not one-sided. In responding to these forces, stories, structures, we are given a part in a dialogue in which we must evaluate the other side and respond appropriately. Without a response, these other arguments are meaningless; they evaporate.

In order to respond though, to join the dialogue, we have to acknowledge the arguments being presented to us. Our evaluation leads us to action. Interpret and react. This is where I see agency and how I’ve been making connections between Lowe’s Immigrant Acts, Roque Ramírez’s Claiming Queer Cultural Citizenship, and Manalansan’s Migrancy, Modernity, Mobility: Quotidian Struggles and Queer Diasporic Intimacy. The state makes an argument about who the immigrant is, about who is and is not included in some established ‘We’. Those who are then assigned this status, immigrants, aliens, must evaluate these arguments about who is and is not and then react. Those included in the ‘We’ have this same opportunity—every individual has a degree of autonomy to either accept or challenge the arguments presented to them in some capacity. There is always a give and take from both sides and it takes place on several scales.

These arguments play out in both our daily interactions with other people and the forces, images and structures they have created.  Cultural productions, as described by Roque Ramírez, host these discussions on a more public stage, but simple things, whether or not to follow that stop light, comply with a law, challenge a stereotype, are a part of the same cultural dialogue that we’re all a part of. As much as these arguments shape our world, we are shaping them back. All those arguments are dependent on our reaction to them, so we have the responsibility to be very conscious of what power we give them. We're all cultural agents, so we must decide what we're arguing back. 

RP2: Internal

I am still trying to figure out which identities I am comfortable with, Mexican I will always hold proudly but, through new academic information I’m not sure if adding –American will be seen as a way of assimilation. The word Chicano has other things added to it, which I’m still learning about. So yes, if I am asked I will say Mexican-American, but my internal discussion is ongoing at the moment.   On one side I am thankful that my parents took the risk of immigrating to this country, and (although the system isn’t perfect) this country has offered me an education (even then, its fight through the educational system too). This then raises the question of acknowledging that by adding the –American after Mexican, but why should I acknowledge a country that wants my parents out? One that wants to separate my family (the very family I will die for). That just doesn’t make any sense to me.For this reason the term Cultural Citizenship mentioned in the Ramirez reading definitely caught my eye. “Cultural citizenship thus allows for an exploration of alternatives to the dominant model of citizenship based on assimilation, for new possibilities for Latinos- immigrant and U.S. born- to make public communities and claim space and rights as full members of society” (Ramirez,162). This is where I am able to “claim space and rights” in this country while not completely assimilating, and having the ability to keep the beautiful culture I was raised in. By being a U.S citizen, I feel that I will hold that identity, but I’m just having trouble expressing it in a way that I am most comfortable. 

The Lights

The Lights

By Sheila Carter

Cue the lights

Ready…

Set…

Action!

The Drama is about to begin

But I suppose, it has always been on

Playing, film reeling

Curtain opening then never closing

But now the lights are shining like stars

Illuminating, burning in their brightness

When invisibility is sought, you only seem to see

The room is divided

The stage is halved

Does the light catch both or only cast a shadow?

They both exist for one cannot be without the other

The stage is a circle but the actor operates in a sphere

We live in global times, after all

Which half would sell the show? What would pass as appropriate?

Forget appropriation.

The antique religious figurines or the (movie) poster of the naked man?

Or perhaps the French impressionist painting would give a different flavor.

Should he publish the script? Would the story sell?

Might as well stay silent

There is no set wardrobe director because he dresses fabulously

Only business attire and social norms seem to dictate

But not so tangibly as to warrant mention in the credits right?

He dresses for himself as well as the “gorgeous white men”

Its supposed to be a secret but the show must go on

Fear pervades the sphere

There is no privacy when the camera is rolling

In the home least of all, but where is home?

Here, there, or nowhere?

The laugh track, booing, and clapping are always waiting in the wings

Possibly carrying the weight of his fate

But hey that’s the entertainment value am I right?

But a cautionary hopefulness prevails

Spin with spirit across the breach

Across the bridge

Within the sphere

You are whole

The drama is on everyday

The Quotidian Struggle

Rewind, fast forward, and PAUSE

Snapshot

The scene is set

Only he can change the design

Circle his sphere, space, sashay

There are no reruns

Just the familiar, the familial reappearing

Remittances

Time to pay it back

Would he exchange the struggle?

“Never darling, never!”

Cut the lights