Some people may wonder what the terms panethnic or panethnicity mean. My first exposure comes from this book by Yen Le Espiritu. Here is the description of the book:
With different histories, cultures, languages, and identities, most Americans of Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, Korean, and Vietnamese origin are lumped together and viewed by other Americans simply as Asian Americans. Since the mid 1960s, however, these different Asian American groups have come together to promote and protect both their individual and their united interests. The first book to examine this particular subject, Asian American Panethnicity is a highly detailed case study of how, and with what success, diverse national-origin groups can come together as a new, enlarged panethnic group.
Yen Le Espiritu explores the construction of large-scale affiliations, in which previously unrelated groups submerge their differences and assume a common identity. Making use of extensive interviews and statistical data, she examines how Asian panethnicity protects the rights and interests of all Asian American groups, including those, like the Vietnamese and Cambodians, which are less powerful and prominent than the Chinese and Japanese. By citing specific examples…educational discrimination, legal redress, anti-Asian violence, the development of Asian American Studies programs, social services, and affirmative action…the author demonstrates how Asian Americans came to understand that only by cooperating with each other would they succeed in fighting the racism they all faced.
So a panethnic category takes many diverse groups of people and groups them together as one group. Terms like European American, African American, Latino/a, American Indian, and Asian American are all panethnic labels that take diverse groups of people and lump them into larger categories.
I have mixed feeling about panethnic labels. Espiritu argues the advantage of such labels is that they can consolidate diverse groups with diverse histories to help them organize for social change. The power of the groups and their ability to create change is much greater because the panethnic label leads to greater numbers, which clearly has political implications in a democratic society.
While the terms Asian American was created as an organizing tool in the 1960s, the panethnic labels for African Americans, and European Americans were created at a much earlier. Let me start by saying I don’t think the term European Americans is a very popular term; most people just use the term Whites. What is fascinating about the category of Whiteness is that it started out fairly narrow…British and a few northern European groups were included. Later the Irish were included into the Whiteness category, and Italians and eastern Europeans were the last to be included into this category (I’m sure others are to come.). The creation of a White panracial category was designed to integrate European immigrants, while simultaneously keeping these immigrants from forming alliances between the indigenous people and enslaved Africans. See the various European groups did not see them selves as aligned with each other, but the creation of the White race (or a panracial identity) allied these groups and allowed them to squash their differences.
Enslaved Africans were forced to develop a panracial identity, because they were not allowed to engage in the customs associated with their ethnic groups. This was forbidden by slave owners; moreover, these Africans came from very diverse ethnic groups, which made communication very difficult. African American panethnic identity formed in part because it was forced upon Africans by Whites and in part as a means of survival under conditions of slavery.
American Indians also come from very diverse origins. In some cases early settlers allied with various American Indian ethnic groups against other ethnic groups. It wasn’t until somewhat later through Census enumeration and the legal system that the notion of a panethnic American Indian group was established and to a large extent forced upon indigenous people. However, some American Indians later saw panethnic alliances (for example the Lakota and the Cheyenne at Little Big Horn).as a means of fending off Whites.
Panethnic labels can and do unite diverse groups of people, but I think the greater question is to what end. If people are united to oppress (as is the case with the Irish becoming White), or if people are united to fight for the survival of their ethnic group and their way of life as in the case of Little Big Horn, then the more important issue is not whether or not diverse groups are united under one umbrella, but why they are united and what can be done about it.
One down side of Panethnic labels is that tend to become racial terms. While ethnic labels group people based on culture, racial labels tend to group people based on perceived physical characteristics, thus, many people come to the conclusion that these groups are groups of people who are similar “physically, genetically, and culturally.” While race is not about genes our culture constructs it in this way, and thus, very diverse groups such as east Indians and Japanese or Somalians and Nigerians are groups together. Ironically, people in these groups don’t typically look alike they have been geographically and culturally isolated from each other, but they all get lumped together under a label and people tend to group them as a race..
When panethnic labels become popular there is a tendency for people to forget the diversity and variety that goes into the groups that make up the panethnic categories. For example, people frequently talk about “Asian culture” or “African Culture” which is problematic because there are many cultures in Asian or Africa and they are often in conflict with each other. The same could be said for Native Americans, Latino/as, Europeans, and so on. At times panethnic labels become short cuts that allow us to be very lazy in thinking about the complexity and diversity of various groups. For example, Puerto Ricans and Chicanos (Mexican Americans) are situated very differently on the issue of immigration simply because Puerto Rico is a US territory. In fact, in my own community, my sense is that the local Black/West Indian population and the local Mexican American/Chicano population have much more in common with each other, but that often gets lost in the media and the larger culture since one group is put under the label Black/African American and the other is put under the label Latino/Hispanic.
Some people lament panethnic categories because they believe that it leads to the loss of cultures, languages, and customs. Once groups are combined together whether by force or by choice people worry that some traditions will necessarily disappear as a new panethnic culture and identity emerges. This attitude comes up frequently in discussions about intermarriage. Many people who oppose interethnic and interracial marriage do so out of a concern that the hybridization of cultures will lead to the loss of traditions and language. I have mixed feelings about this because my sense is that global capitalism and the modern communication and transportation technology will inevitably lead to a mishmash of cultures (what Kwame Anthony Appiah calls the new Cosmopolitanism) In fact, one of the ideas that comes up frequently is the notion that a “mixed” ethnic identity inherently involves the loss of some traits from either side. Personally, I am skeptical of that argument because I think a much larger force is at work–global capitalism and the one world culture that it encourages. Given the trend toward a global culture dominated by capitalist superpowers like the US, the creation of panethnic categories can in fact be a way to retain aspects of cultures that are being over run by western countries (put more simply for those who might be losing me…if local ethnic groups can unite they stand a greater chance of keeping their traditions in the face of corporations like McDonalds. Corporations are some powerful that small ethnic and regional groups can’t do much to keep them out, but by uniting diverse groups, they stand a chance.). Here, there seems to be a tension between humanism and identity based politics. Humanism emphasizes universal human rights, while coalitions along panethnic lines represent one of the last bastion of unique, traditional cultural identities. (Here is an interesting essay on this subject I should forewarn everybody that it is written in the typical post modern academic language, so it is really hard to follow if you are unfamiliar with the jargon.) The irony here is that both the new cosmopolitanism and panethnic identities lead to a flattening of culture. The unique traits of groups are going to be lost under both ideas. The question is just a matter of how much local culture will be lost and how fast it will be lost.
The potential for organizing groups around panethnic identities has upsides and downsides. On the upside, it can consolidate political power and help underrepresented groups gain a voice. On the down side, it has a tendency to encourage some people to forget the diversity and variety subsumed under the panethnic label. I think the increasing popularity of panethnic labels is both a reaction to and a product of the larger trend toward becoming a global culture. Humanism and global capitalism seek to squash difference…humanist would say we’re all people, and capitalists would say we’re all profit maximizers. On the contrary, panethnic organizers would say we are people competing over scarce resources. The only way for oppressed groups to fight back is under by uniting various groups (many would go beyond ethnicity, to class, sexuality, gender, and so on). The alliances that this leads to are very unusually and do not fit neatly into political lines…both conservatives and liberals ideologies are promoted by panethnic politics, and both conservative and liberal ideologies are part of the humanist/capitalist perspectives on identity. Panethnic categories seem to be a bridge between modern ideas of identity and post modern ideas of identity.
(PS…I know this is a very jargony piece for those who are accustomed to reading most of my posts. Sorry in advance if people have no idea what the hell I’m talking about. LOL!! I promise to get back to some more simplistic stuff later in the week.)
This post can also be found over at my Rachel’s Tavern.
Pingback: feminist blogs
Pingback: Blog Curry
Pingback: FeministBlogosphere
Here’s another problem with these catogories- try being Arab American. You haven’t even mentioned them.
I’ve found on “check which race you are” forms, the catogories are: “Asian-American,” “African-American,” “Native American,” “Hispanic,” and “White.”
If you’re from Iraq or Iran or India, you just don’t check “Asian American”- because you’re not considered one. You’re told to check “White,” when you obviously don’t feel like a “white person”- racism is still directed at you, yet you’re not officially a different race- it’s very hard to organise for your own place in America when you’re not recognized. And, of course, people from Iraq and Iran and India are all different ethnic groups- and they’d feel insulted being lumped in together (and who wouldn’t?).
I’m currently working on an article about this phenomenon- how people from the Middel East and Indian Subcontinent don’t even get token characters in childern’s books and cartoons. No American Girl Doll is named Fatima.
This was great, and very informative. Thank you.
Thank you for the interesting analysis.
Let me quibble a bit with your take on American Indians. The loose Cheyenne-Lakota(-Arapahoe) alliance that met Colonel Custer on the Greasy Grass was scarcely the first pan-ethnic American Indian grouping.
The Iroquois Confederacy was pan-ethnic before Europeans ever showed up in the Americas, and the great Shawnee chief Tecumseh built a pan-ethnic alliance eight decades before Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse took out the 7th Cavalry.
More recently, those of us in the American Indian Movement tried, with partial success, to build a pan-ethnicity, which contained within it seeds of great difficulty, chief among them the fact that most of us were what European Americans used to call “half-breeds.”
Yeah, I actually thought of the Iroquois confederacy and am familiar with Tecumseh since I am from the Shawnee area. I was looking for a specific example where is was successful at fending off Whites. Your point is very well taken…….AIM is of course, a great contemporary example.
Thanks folks for taking the time to read that long ass post LOL!!
I don’t think pan-ethnic groups actually exist, but instead represent a specific cultural signifier that’s elevated above other signifiers to differentiate between rivals. For example; a White Jew might have more in common with an Oriental Jew than either of them does with the White or Oriental communities, yet, all three cultural signifiers have pan-ethnic movements claiming to represent them.
I prefer a world view that observes we all share signifiers on some level, while few of us share the exact same signifiers. This defeats cultural rivalries and homogenization in one stroke.
The other problem with the whole Arab label is that many people simply don’t define themselves as Arab even thought ignorant people don’t know any better–e.g. Iranians or Iraqi Chaldeans neither of who speak Arabic as a primary language.
Rachel- you’re preaching to the choir here. My father is Lebanese Christian- and many Lebanese Christians would never, ever identify as just “Arab” for various political and social reasons- it’s incredibly complex.
Hybridization, or whatever fancy term one may call it, has not only been happening in the here and now, but has been happening for thousands of years. It is not at all uncommon for people to end up panethnic and stick together in groups whether they be racial or cultural.
An excellent way to examine the phenomenon is to study major world civilizations, study the cosmopolitanism there, to predict a possible outcome.
(Apologies if this takes the thread off topic, but I don’t think that “jargon” and “simplistic” are opposites — in fact, I think people often resort to jargon to disguise how simplistic their underlying ideas really are. Complex and nuanced ideas can often be expressed in clear lay language. Other times the best way to make your point is to clearly introduce a bit of jargon. I think your post is a good example of the latter, though I admit that as someone with above-average experience with social science jargon I may not be the best judge.)
panethnic people need to rea;ize that political organization under one umbrellais not enough to enforce and win their rights. they have to mobilize themselves as acommunity , forgetting racial and ethnic differences.
Hmmm… Perhaps I missed something here in your analysis, but I don’t think the racialization of panethnic identities began with the groups applying those terms to themselves. Many diverse Asian Americans, for example, were lumped together in a variety of racist ways LONG before they joined forces explicitly to fight oppression under the banner of “Asian/Asian American.” And they still are. Witness the terms “Mexican” and “Chinese” freely applied to Latinos and Asian Americans, regardless of heritage. I feel an analysis that imagines panethnic movements as CREATING problematic racialized ethnic conflation lacks grounding in history.
April, I think that is true, but given the vast expansion of communication and transportation technologies over the last 100 years or so the rate of cultural blending and mixing has increased dramatically.
Michelle, You bring up an interesting point–what is essentially a chicken and egg question. Do groups unite because the dominant culture perceives them as the same and forces them together? Or do they unite out of a common set group interests? Or some combination of the two. I think there is some combination of those two things going on.
I think panethnic movements can be and often are a reaction to racialization, and I think they also reify those racialized categories. So I guess I agree that the dominant group often starts this, but I also think in panethnic movements contribute to this further, which I think is both good and bad.
Central Content Publisher–so are you invoking the humantist approach? I’m a little unclear.
I’m not convinced what I’m suggesting has a name, but like humanisn, I would affirm the dignity and worth of all people. Unlike humanism, I don’t reject all faiths, demand a universal morality, or recommend the alienation of a vast majority of the world’s culture. I’m also not a fan of the idea that humans are especially important, or that we’re doing anyone a big favour by considering ourselves first.
Intresting post, and not too “jargonized” at all as comparing it to that ridiculously elaborate piece of work by Henry Dougan demonstrates.
(While I’ll admid that I did have to read this post twice…)
I like how he says that “It has been claimed that hybridization reduces intolerance”:
I also did not fully agree with his conclusions, but perhaps I don’t rant about those as there is much to comment in your post.
Like April already pointed out the phenomenon is certainly as ancient as the idea of civilization.
Historically, it seems that cultural diversity has been steadily decreasing since stone age. The reason is likely to be the fact that bigger cultures have vastly better ability to wage war and assimilate even more cultures. Or simply destroy the others.
I’d say that “panethnicity” has historically largely been facilitating factor for oppression.
For example when the panethnic alliances of native Americans stood in the way of “manifest destiny” of powerful panethnic alliance of whites in north America they were brutally defeated.
On the other hand, I believe that panethnic alliance against cultural influence can be quite successful as that is passive by nature. While the nature of hybridization is more benevolent today than in the 19th century certainly the loss of cultures and customs is as lamentable.
Yet it is not wrong per se, as long as inviduals are expressing their free will.
While the eventual emergence of global culture might seem as a logical outcome of recent trends, I personally doubt it. One reason why people somewhat seem to overestimate these changes is the fact that the world today is very diverse not only culturally but also technologically.
Some cultures are searching for distant galaxies with incredibly sophisticated technology, others are still hunting lizards with stone-tipped spears.
For historical reasons modern technology is seen as something “western” instead of simply modern. Modernization naturally changes cultures, sometimes quite brutally, yet to call it western cultural imperialism is somewhat paternalistic since people often choose the medicine that works and other benefits of science for the same reasons we do.
Japan would perhaps be a good example of what I mean: one of few modern non-white countries. While genuinely “westernized” to some extent it is in many ways retains its unique characteristics.
Finally, my only real problem with the this post was the portrayal of
humanism.
These definitions (…all people, maximizing profit etc) need not be mutually exclusive.
Capitalism is mostly indifferent to cultural differences, unless they can be used as raw material for tourism industry.
Cultures can indeed be in conflict with human rights and therefore humanism. Yet to claim that it means that humanism seeks to squash cultural differences is an incredibly negative and inaccurate spin on that.
If we look at an example of these kind of tensions good one would be the fierce 19th century conflict in USA between human right principles of abolitionist movement and unique traditional cultural identity known as
“Southern way of life”.
While the latter does (rightly) sound ridiculously hypocritical now it was genuinely believed by many to be something worth dying for.
Despite the eventual total defeat of supporters of this kind of cultural relativity the result did not mean that cultural differences between north and south disappeared.
Naturally by choosing this kind of example I mean to imply that identity politics can have no ethically sustainable position if they stand in the way of universal human rights. Furthermore, the usual interpretation of humanism does not oppose identity politics otherwise.