Saturday, July 19, 2008

Asian as Subculture group?

As I read through the old postings of my classmates, I found a lot of interesting and insightful posts. I may not share the same point of view as everyone, but I do understand why they may think in such manner. However, as an Asian American who was and still a member of, I guess what Warren called, an “Asian subculture” group, I felt a ting of being different in an “abnormal” fashion when he stated: There are so many subcultural groups everywhere you go. Many are considered different from each other. In high school I remember how segregated it was between groups of people with different interests. I don’t want to sound cliché, but here is a small list of groups: “emo”, goths, jocks, “nerds”, hipsters, Asian, etc. I found it funny how Asians were a group of their own with no apparent similar interests, just the fact that they share a common culture/race.
First off, putting Asian on the list of “emo”, “goths”, “jocks” and “nerds” has somehow made me feel belittle as an Asian. It makes me feel as if my race group is similar to that of these often outcaste groups, as if being Asian is abnormal or what not. Maybe I am reading too much into it and Warren is simply trying to make a point that Asians, being that they share similar cultures and beliefs, has created their own subculture groups. But then he states that “Asians were a group of their own with no apparent similar interests”. Perhaps, the situation is different in my schools, but I feel that I share more than just being “Asian” with my gang of Asian friends. We shared a similar culture, Confucius beliefs, an immigrant history, a minority status and a sense of being excluded one point or another. More so than anything else, my group of Asian friends helped me develop an Asian American identity in a school environment that showed little appreciation to Asians and their contribution to our country and an environment that teaches the normality of being Caucasian American. Additionally, there are many Asian groups, not just one, each group with their own special subculture. There were the “ghetto”, but super genius Asian boys who smoked under the pine tree,the rice car boys, the “preppy” Asian kids, and the newly immigrated Asians, to name a few. I guess, I do not think that being Asian qualifies the group as a “subculture”; rather it is the experience, belief, interest and practice that the Asian subgroups shared that created a bond for their subgroup to develop.
As we do not call groups that are comprised of Caucasians only, a subculture for no apparent shared interest other than their whiteness, we should not call Asian groups subculture simply because of their race. I strongly oppose the idea that Asian “subculture” groups or any seemingly race base groups, forms simply because they share the same race, instead the similar experience of discrimination or similar upbringing due to their shared race is what bonds them. I apologize for seeming redundant, however I just want to make clear that Asian subcultures may not be form merely on the grounds of Asian race, rather it is the entire identity of that race which embodies experience, belief, interest that acts as the “similar interest” and the glue of the group.

5 comments:

Christopher Schaberg said...

Koy, this is a cogent response to a complex of problems raised by Warren and other posts concerning identity and groups.

What I took Warren to mean in his post was just that he found it strange that 'Asians' seemed to designate a coherent identity, when in fact (as you point out in your post) this 'group' splinters into smaller groups. But can't we keep dividing 'groups' into smaller and smaller subdivisions? Does this *ever* stop?

I am slightly perplexed by your response, because you seem at once to disavow race-based (not "race base") group identity (you understandably worry that this automatically translates to abnormality or outcast status), yet at the same time you seem to insist that race-based identity is important to 'develop' and define in terms of "similar interest[s]." So my confusion arises at how you are conceptualizing 'groups': Should groups define identity? Should people identify others in terms of what groups they belong in (or don't)? Do groups really help people get to know other people, or do groups isolate people from one another? Might it help to think about identity without the impulse to 'group' people? I know it might sound difficult (if not impossible), but I wonder if this would be a way to work through the problems you had with Warren's post: not to redefine the alleged 'subculture' (nor to refine it into a 'culture'), but to be wary of any such attempts to include and exclude people based on 'group' status. How can we preserve the rich lessons of history while not forming fractious groups? This seems to be the crux of the problem.

warren tan said...

Yes, Chris is right, sorry to put the term out there so blatantly in my post. In all honesty, I was having trouble putting my thoughts into words and that jumbled sentence came out, maybe more. And don't get me wrong, I am Asian American myself, but the point I was really trying to make was that you can distinctly see that Asians, as a group, mostly hang out with one another, rarely with in another group. For example, if there were to be an Asian American female hanging out with a group of "white" females, sometimes the term "white-washed" arises. Definitely not insulting or segregating any one race, people, or group, it's just what I've observed all throughout grade school. As I reread my post I do not like the way I come off and I should edit it. Thanks for bringing up your viewpoint to my post because you put what I was thinking correctly into words. What I think I was really trying to say was that there are many subcultures within the culture of being Asian (American), as you've so clearly pointed out. And it’s interesting that from my one miswritten post that it created such a reaction. Of course this wasn’t on purpose, but it did bring out a strong opposing opinion that is very helpful to my understanding of this delicate subject. My intentions were definitely not to disregard or belittle anyone it was just a way in which I saw a difference in today’s youth and generation. But as Chris also said, what if “we keep dividing 'groups' into smaller and smaller subdivisions?” Is there that much of a difference within a single culture or group? The main point of my post was to point out a difference in how today’s general public would associate one another by something other than a shared complexion. So I’m sorry to unintentionally offend you Koy, I will try to be more careful in the things I write.

Koy Saelee said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Koy Saelee said...

I did not take great offense to what you (Warren) wrote, but this is something that I have heard from so many people and am just a little tired of hearing it -- people always assuming that all Asians are alike. I totally understand that your overall message was not to generalize Asians and I share your thoughts of how people should look for commonality rather than difference and am very glad that you wrote about it (i feel a little rather bad for being so sensitive about such issues). I also understand your's and chris' concern about grouping people and the possibility of the process isolating people rather than mixing. However, I feel that people do not intentionally group or set out to group themselves, but rather the process just happens. In fact sometimes it "groups" may not even be "groups", that is, the member of the groups may not see themselves as a "group" but outsider labels them as group, assuming that they are a "group" because of an aesthetic common characteristic. Additionally, individuals can belong to many groups, not just one (unless they are in a cult) thus, groups are not unnecessarily going to completely isolate people from one another. More so than anything, groups help people develop a sense of belonging.

We strive for a society of "colorblindness" and an identity that is constructed of being just human, but unless everyone is born identically (physiologically, mentally, socioeconomically) isolation, division, conflict, stratification and groups will form. We can look at "animals" for example, wolves travel in packs, bees have different hives -- human did not put these animals into groups, they grouped themselves. Can any living creature survive without "grouping" themselves?

Christopher Schaberg said...

This is a great discussion. I suppose one thing to wonder would be whether we can have 'groups' that don't depend on codes of inclusion or exclusion, but that could infinitely morph. It occurs to me that this is how 'animal' groups (as Koy describes them) take place—they are not defined entities so much as they are dynamic and porous collections. Maybe we just need to accept that humans *do* form groups, but also be cautious not to see these groups as ever rigidly defined. Does that make sense?