|
Article Excerpt
RACISM IN THE POST-CIVIL RIGHTS UNITED STATES IS REPRODUCED THROUGH SUBTLE and naturalized ideologies (Bonilla-Silva, 2001; Feagin, 2000; Omi and Winant, 1994). (1) Consequently, efforts to document and combat racism need to match this shift into the ideological realm. This study analyzes the racial ideologies surrounding Asian/Pacific Islander Americans (APIAs) in prime-time television. By examining one of the most widely consumed media of popular culture, this article empirically demonstrates how APIAs continue to be marginalized and stereotyped in prime-time television through particular frames. (2) It also identifies specific instances in which this medium pushes the racial envelope, challenging existing stereotypes through counter-ideologies.
Anti-Asian Racism and Ideology in the United States
Overt racist practices in the United States have historically shaped federal, state, and local policy. Explicit and direct in supporting individuals deemed "white" (Almaguer, 1994; Foley, 1997; Oliver and Shapiro, 1997; Wilson, 1978), U.S. legislation has historically denied people of color equal rights (Nakano Glenn, 2002; Takaki, 2000). Racialized meanings, characterized by fluidity and shifts over time and space, have affected the economic well-being and citizenship status of various groups. Historically, those deemed "white" have benefited from economic and social privileges withheld from those deemed "nonwhite" (Almaguer, 1994; Nakano Glenn, 2002; Takaki, 2000). (3)
Overt racist acts punctuate the historical experience of APIAs. Sought for their labor power, Japanese, Chinese, and other Asian "coolies" were brought into the western United States and Hawaii in the 1800s (Almaguer, 1994; Nakano Glenn, 2002; Takaki, 2000). As they did with African Americans and other people of color, white employers coerced Asian labor, usually by way of duplicitous "labor contracts" that ultimately resulted in subcontracting and land tenancy (Almaguer, 1994; Nakano Glenn, 2002). Whereas European immigrant men were encouraged to bring their families to the United States and were treated as potential citizens, Asian men were regarded primarily as sojourner laborers (Nakano Glenn, 2002).
As a means of preserving racial boundaries, Jim Crow segregation was a key white supremacist principle enforced by the state. Like African Americans and other people of color, Asians were subject to de facto segregation. In addition, the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act, the Gentlemen's agreement of 1907-1908, and the 1917 Immigration Act denied entry into the Unites States to Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Asian Indians, and others (Ong and Liu, 2000:15). Not until the Immigration Act of 1965 were the bans against Asian immigrants lifted. Furthermore, exclusion acts and anti-miscegenation laws prevented Asian families from being reunited in America and denied Asians the right to marry outside their race.
Before the Civil Rights Movement, ideologies served as justifications for overt racism at the state, local, and individual levels (Omi and Winant, 1994). Racialization sprouted with European colonialism and "has been first and foremost a way of describing 'others,' of making clear that 'they' are not 'us'" (Cornell and Hartmann, 1998: 27; see also Omi and Winant, 1994). In the U.S., whites waged ideological warfare on Asian immigrants with the same violent and savage character they had used against African Americans, though the effects were perhaps less severe given the smaller numbers of Asians in the United States (Lieberson, 1980: 368). (4) To exclude Asians from American society, whites characterized Chinese men and women as aggressive heathens, unworthy of citizenship (Almaguer, 1994; Takaki, 2000). Similarly, the Japanese were perceived as "perpetual foreigners," "aliens" whose allegiance rested with the Japanese government (Nakano Glenn, 2002). Besides exclusion, this racist ideology contributed to the most devastating anti-Asian, anti-citizen action in the United States: the incarceration of nearly 110,000 U.S. residents and citizens of Japanese descent in 1942 (Ong and Liu, 2000: 157). Deemed "foreign" based on their race, not for their actual place of birth or residency (Wu, 2002), APIAs continue to face the consequences of this racist ideology.
Even "positive" stereotypes of racial minorities, such as the "model minority," can serve as ideological tools in preserving the racial hierarchy. Originating in the 1950s, the model minority stereotype is used to discount the existence of persistent racial discrimination while buttressing the myth of meritocracy--that if APIAs have succeeded economically in the face of past discrimination, then other racial minorities should follow suit. (5) The stereotype suggests that as hardworking entrepreneurs who are doing well economically and as dedicated students who excel in math and sciences, APIAs have overcome discrimination and are now "outwhiting whites" (Lee and Gandy, 1996: 6). This model minority stereotype denies the poverty, illiteracy, and racism that afflict many APIA individuals and communities. It also counters civil rights efforts by condemning poor African Americans and Latinos based on individual and cultural characteristics. These ideologies continue to circulate in the post-Civil Rights era to buttress less overt, but nonetheless effective, efforts to stunt progressive antiracist efforts.
"Color-Blind" Ideology in the Post-Civil Rights Era
Whereas past racism was often overt, codified by civil society, and fortified in private enterprise, the racial inequality that persists in the post-Civil Rights era is camouflaged with a "color-blind" smile (Bonilla-Silva, 2001:138). Scholars argue that despite a contemporary "color-blind" ideology (Ibid.; Feagin, 2000; Omi and Winant, 1994), race continues to define the experiences of people of color. Omi and Winant (1994:117; 60) note that although neoconservatives and neoliberals have rearticulated the United States as a color-blind society, it is still immersed in a "comprehensively racialized social structure." As such, they warn: "So today, more than ever, opposing racism requires that we notice race, not ignore it, that we afford it the recognition it deserves and the subtlety it embodies" (p. 159).
Color-blindness has now become a dominant ideology buttressing white privilege and supremacy. Eduardo Bonilla-Silva (2001, 2003) examines white individuals' rationales for interpreting information, styles of talk, and personal testimonies. A majority of white respondents in his study believe that the racial playing field has been leveled and, following this, that race no longer permeates U.S. social relations. This so-called color-blindness remains "formidable" because the ideology leaves "little intellectual, moral, and practical room for whites to support the policies that are needed to accomplish significant racial change in this country" (Bonilla-Silva, 2001: 162). "Color-blind" racism is thus "the central ideological formation that has emerged to support and reproduce the new racial structure of the United States and the "seductive lullaby" that lures us into the false belief that racism has ceased" (Ibid.: 138; 204).
Indeed, as an ideology, color-blindness serves as a "practical toolkit of ideas and concepts, expressions, prejudices, and stories that provide individuals with 'naive basic theories of social life'" (Ibid.: 137). Because this toolkit is so naturalized, an "ideological analysis about race" is "not a matter of finding 'racists,' but rather an attempt to uncover the frames, racetalk, and storylines that help lubricate a racial order at a particular historical juncture" (Ibid.: 138). To do this, we must pinpoint and analyze the collective representations that now serve as substitutes for overt racism.
One major disseminator of collective representations is the mass media. Joe Feagin (2000: 88) writes the following about the relationships between the mass media and racist ideology:
In recent decades white elites--especially white male elites-- have continued to...
|
