6 A/Moral Divide: Questions for an Asian American Studies Research Paradigm

Abstract

6 A/Moral DivideQuestions for an Asian American Studies Research Paradigm Russell Jeung1 (bio) Customer began screaming at me for no reason while in line and correctly distanced at six feet. I am mostly Chinese and my family has been in San Luis Obispo since the 1860's. I am 4th generation in San Luis Obispo, but guess I will never be an American. (71-year-old person, San Luis Obispo, CA) As I was leaving the restaurant, a white male stormed up to me and verbally harassed and terrorized me—screaming "Return to China you f***ing Asian!" and other hateful, racial slurs … threatening me physically. A clear case of racial hatred towards me. I gave a verbal account to an officer who arrived later. I have not heard back from anyone. (67-year-old person, Alamo, CA) These elders' accounts, reported to Stop AAPI Hate's reporting center, are just two of the 10,000 incidents and counting that we have received since the COVID-19 pandemic began. Not only do they exemplify the vitriolic hate that Asian Americans have experienced, but they also highlight the perpetual foreigner status we embody and the marginalization we experience from public institutions and mainstream society. Addressing these root sources of anti-Asian racism has become the aim of the Asian American Research Initiative (AARI) of [End Page 211] San Francisco State University, one of the co-founding partners of Stop AAPI Hate (SAH). SAH, as a coalition, has been instrumental to the broader movement to stop anti-Asian violence. We are grateful to be rooted as a trusted community institution, so that SAH was able to gather many more reports from the Asian American community than a government agency could have. With knowledge of our history, we have been able to demonstrate how the COVID-19 surge in anti-Asian racism is an extension of the historic and institutional Yellow/Dusky Peril racism that Asian Americans have faced since the nineteenth century. Our data demonstrated the widespread nature of the hate incidents, thus legitimizing the issue as one for policy-makers and journalists to address. And furthering the strength of our advocacy, we provided evidence-based research for each of our policy recommendations. Yet AARI's membership within the SAH coalition also raises difficult questions about whether AARI can take an objective, neutral stance toward the issue of anti-Asian hate. Indeed, AARI has a political and vested stake in documenting and analyzing this issue. For example, reporting high numbers of racism keeps the issue on the agenda of policy-makers and in the media. However, AARI can be accused of over-alarming the community in its reporting of numbers in order to gain attention and support. Further, AARI now receives funding from the State of California. AARI can have a conflict of interest if it is involved in evaluating the policies and programs that SAH supports, such as researching the effects of ethnic studies on race relations. These questions relate to the institutional field of Asian American studies (AAS) as well, and raise for me the broader debate about the research paradigm of AAS. This paradigm includes assumptions about the 1) positionality; 2) questions; 3) aims; and 4) language for our research. At SF State, our students learn about an ethnic studies paradigm that radically differs from one directed towards objective analysis and theoretically oriented discourse. As required by our curriculum, they have to decide where they stand in relationship to the academy and to the broader community.2 These two sites make competing demands of Asian American scholars, who find themselves often caught in a bind such as I find myself with AARI and SAH. Academia addresses lacunae in the field in order to build theories in conversation with other researchers. The end goal is publication, which disseminates one's work and confers legitimacy. The community, on the other hand, continues to face social issues such as anti-Asian hate and is in dire need of organizing tactics and policy solutions. Research for the community ultimately aims to effect social change. Each side of the divide poses separate questions, employs its own jargon, and places specific demands...