5 - Integration and Fragmentation Discourses: Demanding and Supplying “Identity” in Diverse Societies

Summary

In the spring of 1995, Andrew Sullivan in the New Republic wondered about Phil Gramm's chances of winning the Republican nomination for president. Concluding his argument, he asked, “Is he too mean to win? Possibly. But on race, the issue where meanness most hurts, Gramm is inoculated. Thanks to his Asian-American wife and Amerasian sons, he's an archetype of this country's transracial, conservative future.” Some issues later, the New Republic published a letter to the editors saying:

Phil Gramm's Asian American wife hardly “inoculates” him on matters of race. . . .The dominant American cultures acceptance of Asian feminine sexuality has preceded acceptance of ethnic Asians as genuine Americans. Sullivan refers to Gramm's Eurasian American sons as “Amerasian.” This description is erroneous, since Wendy Gramm is just as American as Phil Gramm - but perhaps understandable, since Sullivan isn't.

Although neither Sullivan nor Andrew Chin, the writer of the letter, speaks of identity, they obviously refer to it - but in quite different manners. The writer of the letter rejects not only Sullivan's judgment of Gramm but also his semantics of ascribing group identities to individuals. Chin refers to Wendy Gramm as Asian American, as does Sullivan. But he rejects the notion that the offspring of a WASP American and an Asian American can be referred to as Amerasians, while himself referring to them as Eurasians.