Cultural Identity & Diaspora (Hall & Lowe)

Hall and Lowe really complete Cho's argument of diaspora as a concept always changing, always in process. Like Cho, Hall highlights the temporality of the concept both belonging to the past and the future (236). Those two texts put more importance on the differences in between several Asian groups within the bigger identity of Asian American.

Lowe's layers of identity and discourse about gender is really interesting. Her discourse about "essentialization" of Asian-American identity can actually apply to the cultural minority groups in general. This type of generalization, like Lowe mentions, can exclude different counterparts in the discourse and put some more important than the others (142). Gramsci idea of hegemony is also a concept we should not forget. Hegemony of culture is not simply one culture ruling over others, but like Lowe mentions its an equal process "through which emergent groups organize and contest any specific hegemony"(140) and can regroup to form what Gramsci and Lowe "counter-hegemony". However, the same problem occurs here. There is a generalization of interest from different groups to create the counter-hegemony. The fact that the subalterns do not have the same/equal impact as the counter-hegemony is problematic.

The most important thing that Hall mentions about is the cultural identity constructed on the basis of 2 vectors; one about similarities and the other about differences (23). His concept of positioning is really helpful to think about cultural identity as not an essence but as an identity during a certain period and certain context. Hall also adds that cultural identity changes depending on different point of reference (238). I think it is something really interesting how, for example, I present myself as Canadian when I am in Korea, Asian when I am in Montreal and Quebecoise when I am in Vancouver.  The relation between what is defined and its context is a good example of how cultural identity can differ and is malleable. 

We mentioned in class that Hall believes in the plural of 'cultural identity'. Here, would it be possible to maybe argue that cultural identity can be plural and distinct? As being Korean and being American and not being Korean-American? I feel like putting a dash between what is regarded as two 'full' identities, does alienate Korean-American as not quite yet, as lacking, instead of being a full identity. 

The next video is several interviews about the Asian-American experiences in the US. (Yes, another one). A lot of it is about personal experiences, group identity, stereotypes, but one interesting idea the video addresses that our texts do not is identity as commodity. In the video, one Pacific Islander Asian American (that is how she addresses herself) talks about how being 'Asian' is a source of fantasy. Even though she does talk about how being 'totally Asian' is somewhat more profitable than being Asian-American, cultural identity can be a commodity. Media does turn some minority groups and their cultural identity as a way to attract a specific group of viewers; being more advantageous toward some people rather than others.