The Racial Mundane
eBook - ePub

The Racial Mundane

Asian American Performance and the Embodied Everyday

Ju Yon Kim

Share book
  1. 304 pages
  2. English
  3. ePUB (mobile friendly)
  4. Available on iOS & Android
eBook - ePub

The Racial Mundane

Asian American Performance and the Embodied Everyday

Ju Yon Kim

Book details
Book preview
Table of contents
Citations

About This Book

Winner, Lois P. Rudnick Book Prize presented bythe New England American Studies Association Across the twentieth century, national controversies involving Asian Americans have drawn attention to such seemingly unremarkable activities as eating rice, greeting customers, and studying for exams. While public debates about Asian Americans have invoked quotidian practices to support inconsistent claims about racial difference, diverse aesthetic projects have tested these claims by experimenting with the relationships among habit, body, and identity. In The Racial Mundane, Ju Yon Kim argues that the ambiguous relationship between behavioral tendencies and the body has sustained paradoxical characterizations of Asian Americans as ideal and impossible Americans. The body’s uncertain attachment to its routine motions promises alternately to materialize racial distinctions and to dissolve them. Kim’s study focuses on works of theater, fiction, and film that explore the interface between racialized bodies and everyday enactments to reveal new and latent affiliations. The various modes of performance developed in these works not only encourage audiences to see habitual behaviors differently, but also reveal the stakes of noticing such behaviors at all. Integrating studies of race, performance, and the everyday, The Racial Mundane invites readers to reflect on how and to what effect perfunctory behaviors become objects of public scrutiny.

Frequently asked questions

How do I cancel my subscription?
Simply head over to the account section in settings and click on “Cancel Subscription” - it’s as simple as that. After you cancel, your membership will stay active for the remainder of the time you’ve paid for. Learn more here.
Can/how do I download books?
At the moment all of our mobile-responsive ePub books are available to download via the app. Most of our PDFs are also available to download and we're working on making the final remaining ones downloadable now. Learn more here.
What is the difference between the pricing plans?
Both plans give you full access to the library and all of Perlego’s features. The only differences are the price and subscription period: With the annual plan you’ll save around 30% compared to 12 months on the monthly plan.
What is Perlego?
We are an online textbook subscription service, where you can get access to an entire online library for less than the price of a single book per month. With over 1 million books across 1000+ topics, we’ve got you covered! Learn more here.
Do you support text-to-speech?
Look out for the read-aloud symbol on your next book to see if you can listen to it. The read-aloud tool reads text aloud for you, highlighting the text as it is being read. You can pause it, speed it up and slow it down. Learn more here.
Is The Racial Mundane an online PDF/ePUB?
Yes, you can access The Racial Mundane by Ju Yon Kim in PDF and/or ePUB format, as well as other popular books in Sozialwissenschaften & Brauchtum & Tradition. We have over one million books available in our catalogue for you to explore.

Information

Publisher
NYU Press
Year
2015
ISBN
9781479821747

1

Trying on The Yellow Jacket at the Limits of Our Town

The Routines of Race and Nation

On the nearly bare stage of Thornton Wilder’s Our Town, the New England village of Grover’s Corners attains a tangibility, if not a visibility, through the bodies of the actors as they mime the daily activities of residents. Delivering milk, preparing meals, reading the newspaper, or doing homework, they carry out the routine tasks that give the unseen town its life, rhythm, and shape. Guided by these gestures, theatergoers are asked to fill the stage with their own vision of a particular place and time. Between the empty stage and the details supplied immediately by the Stage Manager (the town’s name, the town’s latitude and longitude, and the exact date),1 the actors and the audience must create a community from embodiments of the mundane.
Yet who exactly constitutes the community realized by these performances? The question of how far the borders of “our town” actually stretch has troubled critical assessments of Wilder’s drama. Much like its juxtaposition of a blank stage with the minutiae of geographic coordinates, the play splits possible answers between the abstract and the specific. Although Our Town opens with the birth of twins to a “Polish mother” (6), this family remains at the periphery of Grover’s Corners: offstage and “by the tracks” (6), they await incorporation into a community that is mostly populated, a character later explains, by those who come from “English brachiocephalic blue-eyed stock” (22). Wilder’s own writings about the play, however, suggest a desire to imbue daily life in Grover’s Corners with a universal significance, to “set the village against the largest dimensions of time and place.”2 What mediates between the specificities of life in Grover’s Corners and the drama’s more centrifugal tendencies are the quotidian activities that allow the audience to “see” the town without props or scenery. As actors simulate the motions of the townspeople, the degree of familiarity they bring to their roles and evoke in viewers generates relationships of affiliation and estrangement that modulate the expansiveness of the community articulated by the performance.
In the early twentieth century, the potential for routine behaviors to manifest social and cultural boundaries was weighed in heated political disputes, investigated in foundational sociological studies, and dramatized as part of a new movement in American theater. Each of these sites placed competing pressures on the mundane to enable passages between established racial and national demarcations, and to impede such crossings. Beginning with restrictions on immigration from China in the late nineteenth century, the United States set entry limits that targeted nations in Asia as well as Southern and Eastern Europe. In the debates leading up to the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and subsequent efforts to implement the new immigration laws, supporters of Chinese exclusion and government agents tasked with enforcing the border called on small behavioral tendencies to distinguish those who could enter the United States from those who could not. The embodiment of particular habits and the potential to assimilate new ones could position applicants for entry on either side of the U.S. perimeter. As I establish in the next section of this chapter—and trace across the book—the mundane offers only fleeting and capricious support when called on to make such distinctions; indeed, it threatens to undermine the very truths it presumably discloses and raises questions about the reliability of perception.
In an era when immigration restrictions attempted to draw strict lines between “Chinese” and “American,” a drama purporting to replicate Chinese theater was hailed an American classic, and likely inspired the staging of Wilder’s Our Town. In 1912, J. Harry Benrimo and George C. Hazelton, Jr.’s The Yellow Jacket offered Broadway audiences a supposedly authentic experience of the Chinese theater, including elaborate costumes, minimal sets, props that served multiple functions, and a “property man” who openly managed the stage during the performance. Mildly successful when it opened in New York, the drama became a favorite among prominent European and Russian directors during its international tour and returned to the United States as an aesthetically sophisticated and influential American play, rather than an amusing imitation of the Chinese theater. Despite the acclaim bestowed upon The Yellow Jacket and the revivals that continued to the midcentury, it has since slipped from classic to curiosity, leaving only secondhand traces on the American dramatic canon through its echoes in Our Town. In examining the two works together, I am less concerned with charting a line of influence than with comparing how they integrate the performance of quotidian activities with emphatically nonrealistic stage conventions. As the plays invite their audiences to trespass (or surpass) certain boundaries by seeing and not seeing the mundane, their experiments with Chinese theatrical practices become explorations of the relationship between habitual behaviors and social delineations—the site of so much contestation in debates about Chinese immigration.

Bad Habits and Exclusion Acts

In 1885, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors appointed a special committee to investigate and evaluate living conditions in the city’s Chinatown. Appended to the yearly municipal report, the committee’s assessment, which covers a variety of subjects including housing, crime, prostitution, and health, offers a stark picture of the neighborhood and its residents. It bluntly states, “Here [in San Francisco’s Chinatown] it may truly be said that human beings exist under conditions (as regards their mode of life and the air they breathe) scarcely one degree above those under which the rats of our water-front and other vermin live, breathe and have their being. And this order of things seems inseparable from the very nature of the race.”3 Emphasizing that crowding, grime, and a general lack of hygiene are endemic to Chinatown, the report catalogues the habits of Chinese immigrants deemed responsible for creating living conditions akin to those of rats. It moreover ventures a connection between the “order of things” in the neighborhood and “the very nature of the race”: the immigrants’ way of living, it suggests, might be essential rather than circumstantial, and thus unchangeable.
Even as it repeatedly proposes an abiding bond between race and behavioral tendencies, the report’s hesitation to claim a definitive link reveals a lingering uncertainty about their relationship. Tracing this uncertainty across seemingly disparate arguments about Chinese immigration, I contend that the ambiguous attachment of bodies to habits allowed the mundane to play dual roles in these debates. While calls for restricting Chinese immigration in the late nineteenth century stressed the intransigence of particular modes of living and the incompatibility of “Chinese” and “American” habits, the potential for those of Chinese descent to adopt different habits—whether as part of the process of assimilation or as part of an attempt to foil immigration officials—became a matter of serious consideration in the decades after entry limits were imposed. The mundane helped to substantiate claims of racial difference, but also served, through its performance in interrogation rooms as well as on the theatrical stage, as a vehicle for testing borders of race, nation, and class.
In the mid-nineteenth century, the gold rush and the building of the transcontinental railroad drew thousands of Chinese immigrants, largely from Canton, to the United States. These opportunities in mining and railroad construction had faded by the 1870s, however, and Chinese immigrants found themselves in competition for jobs with white Americans and European immigrants during a time of economic recession. The potential threat that Chinese labor posed the white working class became a central part of campaigns to regulate immigration. In his study of the factors that led to the passing of Chinese immigration restrictions, Andrew Gyory argues that the national labor movement played a much smaller part in the enactment of these laws than the politicians who found immigration an expedient issue for building political support.4 Protecting white American labor nevertheless became a major justification for the first U.S. law limiting immigration from a particular nation. The Chinese Exclusion Act, first passed in 1882, was continually renewed until it was superseded by the Immigration Act of 1924, which closed immigration from Asia. The initial restrictions on Chinese immigration, however, were less expansive in scope, and specifically distinguished Chinese laborers, who were barred, from merchants, scholars, diplomats, and leisure travelers, who were permitted temporary access. The government made other exemptions for entry and reentry for those who had immediate family in the United States and for those who were citizens by birth, although Chinese immigrants could not become naturalized citizens.
In defending their position, proponents of exclusion stressed that the Chinese could not assimilate: their living habits were too different from those of Americans and, moreover, could not be changed. In 1877, the California State Senate presented an address to Congress that declared, “The Chinese have now lived among us, in considerable numbers, for a quarter of a century, and yet they remain separate, distinct from, and antagonistic to our people in thinking, mode of life, in tastes and principles, and are as far from assimilation as when they first arrived.”5 The alleged problem was not just that the Chinese “mode of life” was too different, but that it seemed innate and unchangeable as well. Connecting the particular state of Chinatown to the particularities of the Chinese people, the 1885 report (cited above) similarly stated that forcing residents to abide by American standards of living by enforcing municipal regulations would probably not change them; it would, however, induce them to leave because of their deep resistance to changing. It claimed, “The fact that the race is one that cannot readily throw off its habits and customs, the fact that these habits and customs are so widely at variance with our own, makes the enforcement of our laws and compulsory obedience to our laws necessarily obnoxious and revolting to the Chinese.”6 Thus, it was not just the habits themselves but also the supposed fixity of these habits that affirmed the obduracy of racial difference. Any conflict between this depiction and prevailing contemporary stereotypes of the Chinese as quintessentially imitative could be resolved by differentiating between the temporary adoption of acceptable behaviors—for example, while working as a servant in a white household or while under scrutiny by municipal officials—and the ingrained habits to which the Chinese would always return.7
Yet if the possibility that the Chinese could assimilate was widely dismissed, the potential for Chinese habits to infiltrate and reshape American behaviors loomed over debates about Chinese immigration. In his study of San Francisco’s Chinatown, Nayan Shah explains that anxieties about the Chinese “contaminating” the American way of life were connected to fears that they would bring dirty and unsanitary conditions to cities, as well as force white workers to lower their standard of living. The comparison of Chinese immigrants to vermin, seen in the 1885 report on Chinatown, was a prevalent one in the late nineteenth century, in popular culture as well as in government-sanctioned studies. Shah observes, “In health reports and journalistic reports of health inspections, Chinese were likened to a wide array of animals, including rats, hogs, and cattle. The choice of animals underscored a relationship to waste and an imperviousness to crowding.”8 The San Francisco report, for example, is thick with sensory details that convey the deplorable living conditions of Chinatown and the baffling habits of its residents: it describes “open cess-pools, exhalations from water-closets, sinks, urinals and sewers tainting the atmosphere with noxious vapors and stifling odors,” and “people herded and packed in damp cellars, living literally the life of vermin, badly fed and clothed.”9 “Herded and packed” into rooms like animals, the residents of Chinatown as depicted by this report are surrounded by similarly crowded receptacles of excrement. Multiple public health investigations of Chinatown stirred fears that such living practices and conditions would spread.10 Reports about white prostitutes living in the neighborhood recounted that their “mode of life seems to be modeled after that of the Mongolian, to a larger extent than after the manners and customs of the race to which they belong.”11 These public studies hinted that white Americans were in danger of taking up the behaviors of the Chinese, who, by contrast, remained impervious. Habits—as well as disease—could be contagious, but apparently moved in only one direction.
Anxieties about economic competition intensified trepidation about contact and contagion: supporters of immigration restrictions argued that because the habits and customs of the Chinese allowed them to subsist on much lower wages than white workers and their families, the latter would be forced to adopt similar practices just to compete. Shah contends that as unions advocated for better working conditions and living standards, “the so-called American standard of living, or more bluntly ‘the white man’s standard,’ was defined in resolute opposition to the ‘Asiatic’ or the ‘coolie’ standard of living.”12 The San Francisco municipal report determined of the Chinese, “Their habits and mode of life render the cost of support less than one-fifth of that of the ordinary American laborer who exercises what is commonly recognized as the strictest rules of economy and thrift.”13 Among the tendencies that supposedly enabled the Chinese to live on so little, dietary choices emerged as key. Erika Lee notes that “Chinese immigrants’ purported diet of ‘rice and rats’ was . . . cited as a clear sign that they had a lower standard of living, one that white working families could not (and should not) degrade themselves by accepting.”14 The California State Senate elaborated on the potential consequences of these different eating practices in “An Address to the People of the United States upon the Evils of Chinese Immigration”:
Our laborers require meat and bread, which have been considered by us as necessary to that mental and bodily strength which is thought to be important to the citizens of a Republic which depends upon the strength of its people, while the Chinese require only rice, dried fish, tea, and a few simple vegetables. The cost of sustenance to the white is four-fold greater than that of the Chinese, and the wages of the whites must of necessity be greater than the wages required by the Chinese. . . . To compete with the Chinese, our laborer must be entirely changed in character, in habits of life, in everything that the Republic has hitherto required him to be.15
The address connected eating practices to the very vitality of the nation. Dietary preferences were not simply a matter of taste, but intrinsic to the American worker’s “character,” and essential to fulfilling the responsibilities of a republican government. Offering its own theory of consubstantiation, the state senate located the body politic in the very meat and bread consumed by the nation’s citizens. The presumed irreconcilability of “meat” and “rice” as metonyms for American and Chinese ways of living set distinct racial limits on the struggle for workers’ rights by suggesting that the very “stuff” of Chinese and American labor differed.
Political addresses and government reports such as these attached the “problem” of Chinese immigration to the mundane, and their minute considerations of living habits lent their statements an ethnographic weight. Although polemic anti-immigration speeches made stronger claims about the relationship between the (racialized) body and its habits, municipal reports had the added purchase of being official, government-sanctioned studies. Moreover, their breadth in covering numerous corners of Chinatown life suggested a comprehensi...

Table of contents