On the Silencing Effect of "Getting It" and the Domination in “The Social Justice Movement” (and other personal and critical feelings)

…(got to thinking about this stuff from reading Asian Am studies stuff for my thesis. I feel that I’m coming full circle in my relation with social justice)…

After the past several years, after taking a much needed breather, a hiatus, from so-called “social justice work” and the ambiguously defined “interest in Asian American ‘issues’,” I’ve finally come to realize what was so alienating and undemocratic about “the community,” and what caused me to distance myself so far away from it for years. It was because even though these counter communities were meant to act as safe havens from the white/male/hetero mainstream society, as well as points from which to resist and counter the dominant discourses in mainstream society, they in fact were very stifling of difference, and simply reproduced the same structure of dominance. For example, there was emphasis on whether he or she “gets it” or not. Saying that someone doesn’t “get it” was the most damning insult you could say behind someone’s back. On the other hand, admitting in emotional outburst that “I finally get it!” (as happened at the leadership training I was a counselor for in Boston over the summer) was a way to valorize yourself by evoking reflectiveness and being a part of the in-group. There was this overall atmosphere and culture of “I’m holier than thou” or “we’re holier than them,” from which I or we are supposed to preach and convert others, almost religiously, to “get it.” But this implicitly controls and stifles anyone who disagrees or sees it differently, since they were excluded for not “getting it.”

Equally problematic and stifling was how stereotypes and positive/negative media representations were understood. According to many Asian American student activists, to counteract stereotypes meant having representations that were just the opposite of Hollywood stereotypes. Hence, you have companies like Black Lava with T-shirts reading “I suck at math” or “I can’t speak Chinese.” I always felt uncomfortable with these, but never understood how to articulate my discomfort. The problem with these is that by taking Hollywood stereotypes as reference points in constructing our own identities, we’re not really challenging the stereotypes, we simply reaffirm them because we’re reinforcing binary possibilities: you’re either the conformist Asian who is really good at math, speaks Chinese, is passive and reserved (read “FOB”) or you’re the “political” Asian who “gets it” and proclaims loud and proud that you suck at math, you suck at Chinese, you’re loud and you’re damned angry. Unfortunately, those who take on the latter identity are still letting stereotypes define and limit who they can be. Not only this, but other problems arise such as being sexist against Asian Am women in order to “counter” stereotypes of Asian Am masculinity; or antagonism against “Asian-Asians” who “don’t get it” and are too FOB-ie, and ignorantly perpetuate stereotypes. And then there’s the incredibly denigrating feeling of being criticized for “being the stereotype” just because I like to teach Chinese (for example tell some white guy that the tattoo on his arm means ‘loyalty’ 忠, and is amazingly poetic because it’s the “center character” 中 above the “heart” character 心 – meaning your heart is centered, hence loyal), or because I see the relative value in non-confrontation when it comes to personal interaction. Restricting the possibility to being someone who “is the stereotype” to someone who is “counter-stereotype” is repressive, and conservative. But these problems aren’t unique to Asian Americans of course, I just reference them because of my familiarity, and out of genuine care for Asian American identities.

On a public level then, it seems to me that the definition of “social justice” in America has been too rigidly defined, and therefore is an exclusive community with low tolerance for conflicting views. In my opinion, any organization that labels itself as a general “social justice” organization has to be inherently open and allowing of multiple conflicting views. A commitment for a more just society that seeks to resist dominant systems should be the only unifying principle. Anything more specific should have their own interest group (which of course would always interact with the broader social justice public). Social justice, then, would be a “movement of movements,” rather than “the movement,” which is too homogenizing and silencing of difference. A “movement of movements” in the Asian American communities would cause less alienation against Asian adoptees, GLBT Asian Ams, Hapas, Asian Ams with disabilities, South Asian Americans, even Asian Am women who date white men, and all sorts of outsiders of the outsiders. Not only would people feel more included, but the movement of movements would be fuller; the process of understanding systems of oppression would never stop (since the moment it does stop, the radical political nature of the movement ceases in my opinion). So instead of thinking of a pan-ethnic umbrella, we should think of pan-ethnic umbrellas.

On a more personal level, I think it’s more radical to simply be yourself (taking influence from all and everyone that is around you), without regard to what the stereotypes are, or how to be their opposites. Being yourself might overlap with Hollywood stereotypes, it might overlap with their opposites, in the end, your identity should overlap with several commons (Asian, women, Asian women, women of color, lesbian, classical music enthusiasts, salsa dancers, social justice agitators, educators, student), but taken as a whole is also uniquely you. This is the only way to truly resist the violence of stereotypes, cultural oppression, and domination.