Week 10 Questions Sarah Frank

 From “Heterogeneity, Hybridity, Multiplicity: Marking Asian American Differences” by Lisa Lowe.

Across all four readings, the trending juxtaposition of difference, otherness, and marginality beside unity, “centres,” and strategic essentialism was enlightening, but it started to feel overdetermined and, frankly, overwhelming. On its own, each piece made a lot of sense, but the comingling of definitions (Hall’s view of ‘ethnicity’ compared to Julien and Mercer’s) and interpretations of scholars like Spivak (Lowe’s interpretation of strategic essentialism compared to Spivak’s) made it hard to grasp firm takeaways. (Still not sure that Lowe interprets Spivak the way Spivak interprets herself; Spivak has continued to revise SE as a term because of misappropriation by scholars.) Honestly, I’d really appreciate it if we could take some time as a class to bring these readings into conversation—where do they intersect, where do they depart, where do they contradict, in the event that they do?

Of the four readings, I especially enjoyed Lisa Lowe’s discussion of strategic essentialism vis-à-vis the phrase ‘Asian Americans.’ Strategic essentialism as a theory is notoriously slippery to employ satisfactorily these days, and its use is contested—by its coiner, no less. In interviews, Spivak has spoken about the misappropriation of the theory as a carte blanche to revert to simple essentialism (strategic being the most important part of the phrase), and Spivak admits that she no longer uses the term.

Question: I think Lowe appropriately appropriates strategic essentialism, but what does she urge readers to do with this strategic framework, besides asking us to acknowledge it as such? In the final line of her conclusion, Lowe writes, “In the 1990s, we can diversify our political practices to include a more heterogenous group and to enable crucial alliances with other groups…in the ongoing work of transforming hegemony” (40). In the realm of praxis, what does this work look like on the ground? How do we practice strategic essentialism in the theater of cultural studies? (Gender, sexuality, and queer studies have utilized it in really concrete ways.)

Comments