Multiculturalism, masculinity and citizenship

Han is constantly reminding us that the questions to be asked are who should be the actors in the discussion of multiculturalism and what the discussion should be about. Like Viola, I think as multiculturalism as this utopian flower which even Canada does not know how to grow. The major problem with this multicultural concept in Korea seems to be how the concept is defined. For both of the authors (Kim and Han), claiming South Korea as multicultural is false. 

By the use of multicultural policies, they are simply dislocating the problem of the nation to the foreign bodies (mostly female if we follow what Kim HM says). The rural unmarried man is not the tumor of the nation anymore; this tumor is transferred to their new foreign wife. The masculinity of the man is not hurt anymore, but the new wife’s femininity is challenged and reconstructed by the Korean standards. However, Kim notes that the problem of birth low rates were not solved by the migrant wives, since the women who were assimilated to fit the Korean context, reacted the same as a Korean women would: divorcing them or ending up having one kid.  In this way, Kim is not totally separating the Korean female bodies and aspirations with the foreign females’ ones; they are both inspiring to a better life than the rural poor life allowed with the low status of the Korean husbands. Ideal femininity is shared by the foreign women who come to Korea and to the Korean rural women who decide to go to urban areas and having urban husbands. I found it quite interesting how Han compares international marriages to human trafficking. Even though I found her explanations a little lacking, I found myself asking myself the same thing when I was reading Kim's article about multiculturalism.  

Even though it quite obvious that the media portrays and control in way the identity of foreign communities, it is quite interesting to think about WHY do they portray otherness (and I am thinking here about the example of African community that Han relates (44)). Do they gain something, or are they are simply insights of the ‘Korean’ mentality? I tend to believe that by portraying ‘others’ in some primitive way sometimes, they are constructing a more closed nationalism, but also put somewhat Korean culture on a pedestal.

Personal story. When I was in Korea to study, one of our professors was giving front row tickets for free to one of the award show since one of his good friends was a director for this award show. My professor explains that the director was looking for foreigners; his reasons were that he needed foreigners to be easily captured during the award show to demonstrate the popularity of Kmusic and promote the unison and unity between foreigners and Koreans by this common interest in the ‘awesome’ Hallyu wave. Media is portraying an ideal, but is this ideal really an ambition? 

On Kwon's article, masculinity, citizenship and nationalism are closely linked and gendered. Since her article was written in 2001, I am quite curious about how is this discourse can take place today, after the death of Kim Jong Il. I was quite septic when Kwon is making the point that there was no opposition to the conscription; maybe there was no formal one but like she underlines, people are trying to find their way out of the system. And like she is quoting Professor Ha Taehun, thinking about that thinking about how to escape the system is actually "the beginning of the resistance of the military service itself" (31). Having that in mind, what would trigger a formal resistance? and what the 'possible' unification would effect the conscription and nationalism sentiment? There is a sense in Kwon's interviews that mandatory conscription would be over- since there would be no 'threat' anymore - but the conscription is such a important place and tool for the state to build nationalism that I doubt it would not be used to build a new nationalistic feeling. 

I would leave the rest for our conversation later today. 

Intersectionality of Multiculturalism

The articles by Han Geon-Soo, Kim Hyun Mee and Taeyon Kim all approached the question of “multiculturalism” from an intersectional lens, and I found the explorations of intersecting ethnicity, gender and class positions very interesting in their analyses. 

In the Canadian context, the ways in which I have talked about multiculturalism largely correspond to Arjun Appardurai's theories. Appadurai argues that multiculturalism (as it exists in white settler states) stems from the idea that whiteness is in the centre of our society and that all Other "cultures" extend from that centre. Therefore, the commercialized idea of multiculturalism appears to be a beautiful flower (excuse the allegory) but whiteness still remains to be the pistil.

It is interesting for me, then, to think and talk about a concept of multiculturalism that is not essentially based on racial difference.

In "Multicultural Korea," Geon-Soo argues that the process of migration itself is feminized. And this is evident as we read the reasons for which women are typically encouraged or forced to migrate - due to oppressive circumstances in their home country, cultural indoctrination in the ideal of a “better future” elsewhere, etc. Geon-Soo also shows that in the specific example of unskilled migrant workers in late 20^th-century to early 21^st-century Korea, lower-class men are also feminized/emasculated due to the class-based oppressions that they face. 

It is also interesting to think about “multiculturalism” as a concept that primarily fulfills political agendas. Geon-Soo demonstrates that official multiculturalism policies imposed by the government actually have very little relevance/significance for the social and cultural realities of oppression and intolerance experienced by migrants; “their actual problems are concealed by the discourse on multiculturalism that focuses on discussing cultural diversity or intercultural exchange and understanding” (Geon-Soo 47). 

So how can policies regarding multiculturalism navigate the hegemonic power of the government while creating space for the needs/desires of migrants/the common people? How can civic and non-profit organizations play a productive role in this?

The articles by Geon-Soo and Hyun Mee specifically examine multicultural subjectivity - in other words, “who are and should be the leading players in making cultural exchanges happen, and help develop a multicultural state” (Geon-Soo 44). Hyun Mee argues that women who migrate to Korea for purposes of marriage are solely considered to be objects by the state. As such, they are used for political purposes, such as restoring the patriarchal order in rural communities and increasing the national birth rate. In a way, Hyun Mee characterizes the state-functional “multiculturalism” as a way of regulating and policing migrant bodies. 

Both Geon-Soon and Hyun Mee argue that we need to break out of the mono-cultural imagination of the “multicultural family.” Instead, it is important to examine how this family structure exists and is reproduced in pluralistic ways. I would add that the very process of family-making also needs to be analyzed further, not just its products.

When examining this question, Kim’s article on Neo-Confucian body techniques is very useful. Under Neo-Confucian ideology, the female body has always been characterized as merely a vessel through which the patrilineal line could be perpetuated. Clearly, the specific ways in which the Korean female body is policed extend to historical narratives. But it is always important to consider: how can healing take place in the present?

I'm so confused and I covered a lot of topics: Multiculturalism, Gender, and Adoption

I had a lot of difficulties with the readings this week… I found many to be conflicting in terms of content and what’s included in the authors’ analysis and others to be conflicting with my emotions. I have so much to say about these texts but I’m afraid that the blog posts and time wont simply cut it!

For example, the chapter titled Defensive Nationalism seemed to leave out many points that other articles included. This was evident in the case of how multiculturalism exists in reality versus how it is presented in the media. This specific article was very supportive of multiculturalism in South Korea, and did not really mention the hardships of being a visible other, or someone who does not fit into the standard of Korean homogeneity. However, other authors, such as Kim Hyun Mee demonstrated the struggles that migrant women have and the challenges the use of the word multiculturalism in South Korean, which is exactly the issue that Han Geon Soo considers.

While it was fun to consider what was missing from the first set of articles, I found other aspects of the idea of being visible minority in South Korea to be quick interesting, and also heartbreaking.

Taeyon Kim discusses how Korean women’s bodies are constructed based off of Neo-Confucian ideal, and how these ideas continue into the 21^st century, allowing for women to get plastic surgery without much scrutiny as it is apparently supported. That being said, I found one idea that Kim presented to be contradicting to everything I’ve already learned about Korean cultures – and other cultures for that matter – when it comes to assuming White … hegemony? (I’m not sure if this is exactly where I’m going with this but I’m struggling to find the proper vocabulary).  Kim presents the idea that Korean women feel the need to change their appearance because of the Western influence, and that there is a strong desire for women to appear “Euro-American” (p. 103). This is unlike what I’ve read online which is strongly against this concept, and instead supports the idea that these features are still in Korean genes, and these highly idealized Koreans are the basis for physical change and plastic surgery in South Korean. I understand the argument that Kim is making concerning uniformity, but I don’t buy 100% of it. I understand the nationalist drive causing many Korean women to leave the private sphere for the public sphere, but the ideas about uniformity in Korean physical appearance seems to be a little flawed, or maybe my perspective is not correct. I also found it interesting that there was no mention of male plastic surgery, which I’m sure, occurs. I also thought that this point of uniformity could potentially be connected to the idea of a homogenized society, a point that I will return to later.

In the study of foreigners in South Korea, there is a lot of research in the idea of multiculturalism. Such as what Kim Hyun Mee and Han Geon Soo present, the idea of multiculturalism in South Korea is flawed, and is only a means of promoting government propaganda without any actual social or lawful help. It is a façaçde, and the ideas promoted in the media are not the reality of those who are not ethnically Korean or even racially similar. Kim describes it best when she says, “Multiculturalism in Korea is thus used as a counter-concept to Korea’s violent mono-ethnicity, rather than its general meaning of recognizing or having a mutual understanding of cultural difference” (103).  I also think  its interesting that the migrant women are used to reinforce the Confucian ideals that Taeyon Kim mentioned earlier. Kim Hyun Mee states, “…the government’s efforts simply reinforce prevailing attitudes in Korea of using women as uniform objects to achieve the state0-building project” (105). Women are consistently being used and not enforcing their own power. Kim also mentions that, “…foreign men, including migrant workers who married Korean women, are not supported by any service, including education” (106). This implies that a true Korean needs a man’s blood line, and the woman carrying the child has no effect on the outcome of the child. Therefore the number one criterion of being a Korean citizen is to be a pure Korean man.

This leads into the gendered citizen that Insook Kwon discusses. The idea of conscription simply reinforces the neo-Confucian idea that the men control the public sphere, being visible in the public sphere allows for a full citizenship, or full consideration by society, while women are gendered into being bodies that have the ability to create full citizenships. I think its interesting how from my perspective, the biggest sacrifice a woman can make is bearing a child, and that I can’t quite think of the equivalent in men, but in South Korea the sacrifice to the nation is far greater than any sacrifice a woman could ever make, even though she is bringing the men into the world. I also find it interesting that when women made their bodies visible in politics, there was uproar against their position. This was during the part where Kwon awas describing that the Constitutional Court deemed that the extra point system violated gender equality, but then the pre/post/and current conscripts said that their sacrifice to the nation validated a point system. Their position as men, as being the purest of all Koreans, validated a system that subordinates women.

My emotions were the worst when it came to the adoptees. First of all, I cried for basically the whole DanAKADan documentary. But my tears weren’t for his situation, they were for his mother. I understand that his mother tried her hardest to create a wonderful life for her child, but as Dan, and other adoptees in the John D. Palmer reading describes, there is a sense of something missing, and adoptees struggle to complete their life. But that feeling of sadness that I get is described best in Dan’s lyrics, “Would my family here/feel loved or abandoned/And if I told you the truth/would you understand it?” I don’t really understand why, but for some reason I identified with his mother more than I identified with Dan. I would feel so inadequate if my child, even if it was a biological child, felt that I couldn’t provide everything that they needed to feel whole.

After reading the John D. Palmer reading, I understand that there actually are inadequacies in teaching Korean adoptees about where they are from, and that adoptive parents need to consider the missing pieces a adoptee might feel, and that there are also ways of positively presenting a culture but also not appropriating it (154-156). I think the most important is to not push culture onto their children. As a child I felt so othered when I had to go to Dharma school instead of Bible school, or when my parents spoke to me in a different language compared to my classmates. I get it now, and I embrace my difference, but I don’t know if I would have been able to if my parents forced me to live a lifestyle that I didn’t feel comfortable with.

There are two final points that I’d like to bring up concerning this article. The first is that I’m interested in the second generation of Korean adoptees: the children of adoptees. Charlotte brings this up when she says, “We have to start thinking about the next generations and how the issue of adoption affects each of our lives” (144). I think that this applies to the current group of children becoming a part of transracial adoption, but it also applies to the children of the adoptees. What new identities are being created through this process?

The second point is kind of a little more controversial. One person being interviewed, Daniel, makes a point that, “I’ve always felt that, ideally, Korea could take care of its own, and no one would have to be adopted out of the country” (161). I understand what Daniel is trying to point out, that there is a negative view of adoption in South Korea, and this needs to be discussed, and hopefully changed in the future, and that there are a lot of negative aspects to transracial adoption. But after reading all the articles about multiculturalism and homogeneity in South Korea, I also feel like this is making a full circle into the homogenous culture that is South Korea. It also ties into the nationalist, self-preservation culture.

This also got me thinking what’s better in the view of Koreans – transracial adoption or no adoption and higher amounts of orphans?

Othered Masculinity and Trans-Racial Adoption

I found the Real Men episode interesting mostly due to the depiction of Sam Hammington it portrayed. Even though white masculinity is idealized under white supremacist patriarchy, the masculinity that Sam presents is very much othered in the show. I would argue that the show uses Sam’s fatness to present him as effeminate and unintelligent. The show accentuates Sam’s inability to adhere to the instructions of his superior in the army, which emasculates him. Although the other men also fail to adhere to instructions, their boyish playfulness seems to redeem them. 

Moreover, the show focuses on Sam’s fatness through a fatphobic lens, portraying fatness as something that is supposed to cause shame and embarrassment. The scenes in which the military clothing that Sam receives proves to be too small for him are shown to the viewer through a comedic lens. Therefore, Sam’s white masculinity (which typically is idealized) is weakened through fatphobia. Sam’s portrayal seems to be used to inflate the masculinities of the Korean men around him, presenting the Korean men’s masculinities as generally more desirable and sexually attractive than his “foreign” one.

On the “Pop Quiz on Transracial & International Adoption,” Koyama questions: How much does it cost to adopt and to raise a child? If that money were given to the birth parents of these children or to their communities, would it still be necessary for them to give up their child? This rhetorical question brings into question the presence of the white saviour complex in the adoption of non-white children. It extends into the narrative of the “civilized vs. savage” binary between the white, bourgeois familial structure and the traditional familial structures of non-white communities perpetuated by the institution of white supremacy. Within this narrative, the traditional familial structures of non-white communities are seen to be in need of civilizing/saving. 

Because the institution of racism/white supremacy is a reality, an unequal power dynamic is automatically reproduced when a white person/family adopts a non-white child. In this context, what does child abuse entail/include? Does the white person’s/family’s racist attitudes toward the child (whether malevolent or “benevolent”) count as abuse? Why would a white person/family want to adopt a non-white child in the first place - what does this choice illuminate about racist stereotypes?

I also read the “Voices of Adoption” pages on the First Person Plural website. In adoptee Heather Papp’s interview videos, she is asked the question “How do you feel about your ethnicity, or what do you feel to be your cultural identification?” She replies with ambivalence toward the identities of “Korean-American” and “Asian-American.” Her account seems to place her identity as an adoptee (from Korea, adopted into a white American family) in a liminal position. Papp does not express the nostalgia for a lost homeland that is defined to be essential to the diasporic subject. Instead, she simply acknowledges, “I have an antecedent. I am meaningfully connected to others. What I do affects them, and them, me. I need people in my life.”

Papp’s account complicates the definition of diasporic subjectivity as a position of longing for a lost homeland while pining for a hopeful future. So where does the trans-racial/trans-cultural adoptee fit into the narrative of diasporic subjectivity if, like Papp, the adoptee “already knows what home feels like”? A friend of mine argues that the queer diasporic subject must find space for belonging/livelihood in the present, since the “lost homeland” will not accommodate them and the “hopeful future” cannot accommodate them. Perhaps we can find a comparison with the adoptee diasporic subject?

Korean Bodies Outside and Inside the Country

I want to start off with TaeYeon Kim's article about the Neo-Confucian Body in the consumerist society. The reason why I wanted us to read this text might seem a little nebulous, and somewhat still not clear for me either why I thought of this article as soon as we talked about identity in the Korean context.. It is maybe off-topic, but I will try to guide you through the thoughts I had trying to linking it to our broader discussion about identity.

I think that the concept of Neo-Confucian body is something that can be insightful for the purpose of understanding the concept of body, gender, purity of the bloodline and the concept of family IN THE KOREAN CONTEXT and after, in the North American one. Like Kim mentions, Neo-Confucian ideology is somewhat associated to what we call "Koreanness" (102). Here, even though this statement can be problematic, it surely highlights the importance of the concepts this Neo-Confucian ideology embeds and thus, this importance is something we can look at. Kim talks about how the concept of ki as "material link between ancestors and descendants" (99) and how women are regarded as "vessel" for perpetuating the 'family body',the ki of the family, making them "subjectless bodies" (100). The concept of family here is constructed on shared ki. So how this 'Korean' concept ki is perceived if the body itself displaced? The ki can still be passed down, so why are the bodies outside of Korea are seen somewhat as foreign and thus their identity is also seen as somewhat different? What does it say about their 'Koreanness' ? Do the role of the body changes? But most importantly, how is your body part of the identity discourse? and what does it says about your role in the society?I think that we can maybe link Kim's concept of the body and its role to why, in Korea, domestic adoption is not something common or seeing as 'great', like it is mentioned in Palmer's article by the example of the woman and her pillow-belly (161) . I am not saying here that South Korea is still in the stage of Neo-Confucianism, but I do believe those remains are not part of the popular belief.

I actually took a class on Korean Diaspora when I was in Korea, and I remember this professor telling us that most of the migrants (for the Korean-American case) were people from the women lineages who would migrate or the younger sons' lineage would migrate, not having the privilege and obligations of the first son lineage who needs to take care the rituals for the ancestors,; allowing them to some mobility. One other question I would like to raise is on what do we think about the concept of women as mothers? In the case of adoptees, like it is discussed in the Poundpup story, but especially in the case of akaDan, how is the figure of mother discussed? This mother is definitely not simply a simple body where the baby was incubated, there is some value in her body. Moreover, I think it is interesting to think about the relation between the adoptee and the mothers (plural!),

I really enjoyed the article about the empowerment of the adoptees over their identity as a realization, a process . This idea of taking control of their own identity actually implies that someone did have this power instead of them and the article proposes adoption families, adoption agencies and the outsiders' perspectives as potential disempowering forces. There is an interesting paradox that those activists are making: at the same time they are trying to normalize their experiences, they are emphasizing the uniqueness of their discrimination. The adoptee named Amber says "One of the things that I've learned from other adoptees is that my experiences are normal" (143). Within their group of adoptees, their experiences are normal. Tori mentions that, however, the discrimination they are victim of is not the same as being "picked on for wearing glasses" or for having "red hair" (157) - but it is a racial discrimination. Also, it is interesting to see this interest of from the older adoptees to help the younger generation; it is a recent phenomenon in the North American context that they can now actually try to reform the 'adoption industry' and the view about them being lost and unhappy (163).

Also, from the Pop Quiz from eminism.com, I think it is interesting and important how the question of economic aspect of a family is brought. And it is something I did not really think about until now is that you actually 'buy' a baby. There is an economical aspect to adoption, and it is an important criteria for adoptive families. Also, the comment about the how the Holt family adopted 8 Korean kids after the war because they felt bad for them and how they promoted the adoption system with Korea is somewhat a little.. suspect to me. I wonder if there would be something linked to how the American society maybe did not want to the next generation to 'take revenge' against them; and by bringing children, and assimilating them to the American culture and making them Americans, some who got their parents killed by that war (and the imperialist power) would not try to seek revenge.

Notes: I left out some questions I would like to address about akaDan for our next meeting. I will try to do the same for Real Men and address those questions in class instead of on the blog.

Also, I do not now if you guys are aware of the baby-box project in Korea which won a Christian prize, but can help us understand in the Korean context, why are babies abandoned? I leave another video for you to watch if you have time. (Yes, I love YouTube.)

akaDAN documentary

Hey guys!
So here's the documentary on Dan Matthews's journey in Korea. His documentary was actually a project funded on kickstarter and here some information about its project. I think it is interesting to note that the filmmaker of this documentary is also Korean American, but was one the unfortunate one who did not get any response from the birth search.

The documentary is divided in 9 parts of 15mins each. (You can find all the links in the description box on the youtube page of the first video) So I think watching one part each night before sleep is a great way to deal with the materials. ALSO, they made an epilogue series of the documentary. This one includes words of experts and some theory so I think it would be great to watch also, BUT I would like this series optional since we do have already a lot of material to deal with. ( and.. I didn't watch this series yet).
Notes: For PART 2, you can skip at 7:25.

ENJOY!

ABOUT PROJECT

"aka Dan" is a documentary project chronicling Dan Matthews' journey to Korea in summer 2013, centering around his struggles with identity and family during the IKAA (International Korean Adoptee Association) 2013 summit, his first live concert performance in Korea, and his reunion with his Korean birth family. Accompanying the documentary project will be a full-length music album inspired by his experiences. 

I wanted to send a quick personal thank you for taking the time to even check out this Kick Starter page. This has been one of the most emotional and personal experiences i've ever been through. Not only will I be reconnecting with my roots, i'll be meeting my biological family for the first time, including a TWIN brother I never in my wildest dreams expected to encounter.  I'm blessed and honored to have this opportunity, and hope that i'm able to provide an experience that everyone, adopted or not, will be able to relate and identify with. Family. Identity. Roots.  

WHY WE NEED HELP

Your generous donations will help fund a bare bones production crew that will capture this story to the best of all of our abilities. The expenses we are anticipating are: 

• Travel, lodging and transportation in Korea • Crew costs for camera persons, audio engineer, producer • Production equipment rentals • Production insurance • Post-production costs (Editing, art/graphics) • Album production and printing costs • And all of the intangibles that arise during film production 

Our producer has raised just enough money to get us to Korea. He’s taken a leap of faith in me and the journey that we're all about to embark on. He believes that this story is both unique and powerful and needs to be told. We hope that you do too and that you will join us and help us complete the project in the manner that it deserves.

ABOUT FILMMAKERS

Dan Matthews is a Korean adoptee currently living in Los Angeles and working in the entertainment industry. He was raised in the small town of Camarillo, an hour north of LA, with his parents Lynne, Paul, and Jamie (also adopted). He's currently working as a producer for International Secret Agents, an Asian American entertainment and production company owned by Wong Fu Productions and Far East Movement. He's deeply nervous, scared, but above all excited at what is to come and how his life will change post this experience. 

Director's Note: I am also a Korean Adoptee who unsuccessfully went back to Korea in 2002 to search for my birth family. Soon after that, I arrived in LA to pursue a career in film.  Returning to Korea with Dan, over a decade later is both exciting and bittersweet.  I spent many years trying to figure out my adoption story and I am honored to have the opportunity to tell Dan's.  The struggle to create our identity despite our past is a universal experience.  Adoption simply adds another barrier in this process.  My hope is that everyone can relate to this story whether or not you are adopted, or even Asian.  The search for identity is within us all.  -Jon Maxwell

AKADAN docomentary:

AKADAN Epilogue Series: (TOTALLY OPTIONAL)
- Part 2 to 4 seem to have most of the experts point of view/theory on adoption.

Overseas Koreans

In the selections of Noh, the suffix Canadian is used more to refer to a place of residence than an actually sentiment of belonging to a certain culture (and it is actually specified). I believe that Noh underlines Canadian values in democracy and freedom – However, it is not developed how those immigrants identify themselves. For certain, they are not totally integrated in economic system and are discriminated like Kim mentions in his article about Koreans in Manitoba; which can be frustrating like Meineka mentions since their expectations are not met. I think that multicultural character of Canada is somewhat an illusion in this sense; it helps to maintain different ethnicities and diversities, but does not make any promise about equalities in between those different ethnicities. Therefore multiculturalism does not make Canada free of ethnic discrimination nor is a synonym of ethnic equality; Even though multiculturalism is supposed to respect different ethnicities, maybe it does encourage differences and a wall between the “i” and the “other”.

( I would like to also underline how the suffix in Korean-Canadian maybe does not have the same meaning as in Korean-American. )

I think Ryang discussion about love was really interesting too. Ryang mentions love as a cultural construct and highlights that Songrae does not share the same definition of love than the romantic love discourse of the West. I think that of course language reveals a lot of someone realm of reality and therefore in which realm identity would be constructed; and would like to just hold onto this idea for our next meeting in 2 weeks. However, I am somewhat not totally convinced by the direct relation that Ryang makes about Songrae’s “lack of language of love” as revealing her “lack of national belonging” (55). To who’s experience Songrae’s lack is compared to? To Ryang, in-betweeness  or plural ethnic identity does not seem like a sufficient response to a construction of identity that would give you a clear language about love.  

I liked how Song explained Koreaness as “not only racial, but also cultural” and the discrimination toward the Chinese-Korean brothers. It was interesting to see how economic status is somewhat a factor of Koreaness; or more precisely having a better economic situation than others can help you as being more Korean than others. Here, the shared of capitalist system (and believes)is seen as somewhat a more unifying factor for identity?

Nadia Kim’s discourse about the hybrid identity of Korean-American not on a 50/50 ratio was enlightening too. Her concept of cultural familiarity as the criteria of home, of sense of belonging is really interesting. Not only it is again a really subjective matter constructed on one’s experience, but it also opens a door on the possibility of a ‘more-than-two plural identity’. If this cultural familiarity is considered a factor of identification, identification, like Kim suggests, can change during one’s lifetime but can also add another component of identity into the equation of contemporary identity. What I mean by that is that usually the discourse of identity, especially dual identity, is shaped by someone’s place of birth (or someone’s new place of residence ) and someone’s heritage (blood. However, this notion of cultural familiarity can be an identity which does not necessarily correspond to neither of someone’s place of birth nor heritage. What matters in someone’s identity? What values the most in the construction of (plural) identity? Where does the construction of identity stop? Or even begin? In this sense, how does cultural citizenship that Ong talks about participate in the construction of identity? 

(Sorry about this late post that does not cover everything . I first wrote my post on the blog directly as a draft to publish it after, but for some reasons did not register and I had to do it all over again... yay)