Lam:
- Why does Lam feel that it is problematic, when engaging discourses, to focus on binary oppositions? And, do you feel that her concern is warranted?
- What does Lam mean by “transnational social fields (pp.83 of source text)” and how are they potentially counter-hegemonic (according to Lam)? Please explain.
- According to Lam, the development of intercultural voices and perspectives are vitally important for youth, especially immigrant youth. According to Lam, what do these two terms denote; and, do you agree with her regarding their intrinsic significance?
Lam feels that it is problematic to focus on binary oppositions when engaging in discourses because "many -if not most- people belong to more than one social category that may be more or less in conflict with another." Put another way, people are never one sided. Instead, like crystals, people always have different facets that reflect the different roles and cultures an individual must navigate traveling through life. Focusing on binary oppositions eliminates any opportunity to utilize the nuance of these facets to find common ground. “Us versus them” or “dominant versus dominated” automatically creates conflict, not only between individuals, but within individuals as well. Immigrants and the children of immigrants must struggle in a binary opposition to define whether they belong to where they came from or where they are. A more faceted and nuanced approach can recognize the different aspects of people and resolve the situation without conflict. Binary solutions are tempting. They simplify options and clarify positions. Unfortunately, binary solutions are too often relied upon for situations that are more complex. By definition, a binary solution eliminates possible answers. That sort of true or false thinking fails to recognize or utilize the grey and multi-faceted nature of humanity. It shuts down creativity and overlooks real solutions.
ReplyDeleteWithin the writing “Border Discourses and Identities in Transnational Youth Culture” written by Wan Shun Eva Lam, one is able to understand how certain students who pertain to a immigrant background has to deal with the educational system and its influences on their cultural identity. Focusing on the concept of “transnational social fields” (Lam, 26), Lam addresses this idea as a construct that “counteract[s] the hegemonic forms of political and economical oppression in both their host and home countries.” She uses examples such as how Vincentian and Grenadian “Trans-immigrants” are able, to some extent, live two lives. They can both become successful in their host country, either through business or “nation building projects” by forging partnerships with other minority groups, and thus also becoming economically stable in their own country; thereby granting them a higher social status. Furthermore, Lam utilizes an example of Chinese businessmen and how they initially may have access to luxurious amenities within China but are located in “riskier territories,” (presumably meaning that they will not be able to achieve a complete capitalist goal if they remained in China). And thus the Chinese would act as a “trans-immigrant” and perform business within other countries to not only boost the social perspective of the Chinese within the host country but also achieve a greater social status within China. Therefore, Lam introduces another person by the name Hannerz, and how he was able to build upon the notion of habitat (initially from another person by the name Bauman), and to derive a new concept of how a habitat should be flexible and how the “agent/subject utilizes different forms of cultural connections to serve specific needs or purposes…” (Lam, 83). Ultimately, one believes that the purpose of why Lam introduces this notion of transnational social fields is that when one is able to realize the importance of having a flexible habitat and that they can expand beyond the borders of one’s own nation, it can potentially counter act hegemonic ideals of certain races by raising the social status of their specific race, both at the host country and their own.
ReplyDeleteLam feels it is problematic, when engaging discourses, to focus on binary oppositions because they hinder unity between people of different social and cultural backgrounds. She asserts that when binary oppositions are emphasized in discourses, people become conscious of their dissimilarities and tend to shy away from communicating with people different than them, so as to prevent the feeling of inferiority or otherwise superiority. Thus, instead of accepting differences and working along with each other, people begin to confine themselves only to groups who share the same discourse or social and cultural backgrounds as them. For those belonging to more than one social and cultural groups, who have formulated means to effectively communicate with each group, focus on binary oppositions pushes them out of one group and pulls them towards another.
ReplyDeleteIn this light, I certainly do feel that Lam’s concern is warranted. When people focus on differences rather than the content of what are being said, when communicating, important messages get lost and unnecessary tensions are created. Assimilation for immigrants then becomes impossible, as they have to choose to lose their identities or stick to their identities without being identified by dominant people outside their backgrounds. Thus, the issue is not to pretend that “dominant” and “dominated”, “oppressed” and “oppressor” groups do not exist; it is rather to see these schemes as means to merge uniqueness, especially when engaging discourses.
I agree that it is problematic to ‘focus on binary oppositions’ in regards to discourses. Lam’s main point here is that many individuals feel a sense of belonging to several, sometimes conflicting, discourses. To claim that someone’s discourse is inherently oppressed or oppressive may not be satisfactory—they might fall somewhere in between. But even if we were to judge discourses based on a more spectral approach, I think this would still be a mistake. In ‘negotiating’ between discourses, an individual may regularly change depending on the people they’re interacting with. If talking with friends from their native country, they might have a more oppressive discourse, whereas when talking to friends in their country of residence, they may display more of an oppressed discourse.
ReplyDeleteThe notion of discourses that you can ‘adapt’ or ‘resist’, seems problematic to begin with, despite being very widespread. It seems as if there is a natural tendency, even desire, to categorize oneself and others into groups, by judging many of these oppositions/attributes. While most people are willing to be friends with others outside of their discourses, this tendency ultimately creates barriers preventing closer relationships. Breaking down these tendencies would clearly take a lot of effort—even in ‘melting pot’ communities (like the Bay Area), people gravitate towards others in their same discourse groups, and neighborhoods can often be defined by these discourses.
ASTRID ACKERMAN:
ReplyDeleteIntercultural voices and perspectives intersect different cultures through communication. Lam regards their development as a source of emancipation for immigrant youth. Immigrant youth, through participation in activities that develop their intercultural voices and perspectives, empower themselves. Lam argues that a space where immigrant youth can be respected has to be based on transnationalism and, the appreciation of new positions of power that emerge out of cross-cultural exchange.
When a person engages in intercultural communication (out of the established geographical nation-state borders), he is only trying to survive to the fixed cultural hierarchy. I do not agree with Lam that these voices and perspectives empower immigrants. First, the experiences of Asian immigrants are very different from African and Latino immigrants. Asian immigrants have a better place in legal, educational, and economic spheres. Therefore, drawing the conclusion that cross- cultural exchange is empowering for every ethnic minority is incorrect. Lastly, in order for immigrant youth to gain authority, white supremacy needs to be contested. Intercultural positions do not challenge this racial structure. Intercultural communication that does not question the validity of current social structures provides space for their development because they are not going against the established order. Therefore, they become part of what is already established and do not empower immigrant youth.
Tuyet Truong:
ReplyDeleteLam feels that it is problematic, when engaging discourses, to focus on binary oppositions because "many -if not most- people belong to more than one social category that may be more or less in conflict with another.(Gee,1996)" [As Michael mentioned before] This quote is very important in defining what her case study is about as well as what her article is trying to convey, in that people who come here from another country often feel out of place. They feel the need to fit in to the group that holds all the power that can either include having the technology that everyone else is using or speaking in a way that seems to be "cool" or doing something that everyone else seems to be into. This can be a problem since people who come from other countries may not know the cultural background or customs and say or do something that may offend people who are already living here which may cause them pain in the end (i.e beatings, victims of bullying, etc) People who come from other countries feel the need to make tons of money or have lots of education in order to send money to families back in their country of go back and be considered rich. This can force the immigrant to isolate themselves and feel as if they don't belong to any particular group. since they left their homeland and no being able to fit into where they are currently living since they are too busy finding jobs, working, or studying (i.e Willis in Lam's case study who was placed in English as a second language programs, but he wanted to get out of since he didn't want it on his transcript and wanted classmates to stop teasing him or feeling the need to do extracurricular activities so it could advance him in college admission).
Yes,I do believe that Lam's concern is warranted because if we don't look into changing the way immigrants can try to fit in, there will be much mor problems in the future. Since there are people from other countries are constantly coming to America "for a better future" this divide that some people have needs to be reevaluated and changed to understand multiculturalism.That can happen in various ways such as Lam as mentioned already; the discrimination that immigrant youth go through in school there are still potential empowerment for them through their engagement in practices that develop their intercultural voices and perpectives.
Lam feels it is problematic to understand group relationships by simply focusing on binary oppositions. The binary oppositions, he suggests, highlight a simplified social relationship among different groups, that is, “the dominant versus the dominated, or the oppressor verse the oppressed”. Indeed, the idea of discourses is group-specific, which highlights group differentation and social hierarchy in a society to exercise their privileges. However, I agree with what Arno said, “someone’s discourse is inherently oppressed or oppressive may not be satisfactory”. What lam tries to clarify is that this binary opposition of social relationships poses a danger to fall into a preconception of the oppressed role of other social or cultural groups in contrast to the dominant one. In fact, many people who feel the sense of belonging to more than one social category, however, requires the careful negotiation between various discourses to signify their ties and identity. In this sense, I agree that, when engaging with different dicourses, to understand he complexities of various social discourses requires focusing on establishing their connections more than binary oppositions. According to Lam, increasing immigrants are attempting to establish “transnational connections” , which entails a dynamic balancing between their native country and adopted country in regard to their social networks and identities.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Lam, intercultural voices and perspectives are vital part of a young immigrant's life because they face this immersion of American culture in school everyday. The youth have to deal with separate identities within themselves. They have a separate identity when with friends, family, and academia. These identities are completely distant from the identity they had in their home country.
ReplyDeleteThe young students usually take a negative perspective from new adopted discourse in America. Like the student in the case study, he was displaced from American discourse and the also the discourse of those of the same ethnicity. So he became weary of his own language and English. He found comfort with in Japanese discourse by reading comics. He was able to find a new beginning in America transculturally.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete