Link round-up (to be updated as the series develops)

1. Introduction (this post!) – What’s the problem? Why am I doing this? Who am I? What do I hope to get out of this?
2. Representasian 101: What is FRIED RICE?
3. On being hungry for faces. Conventional ESEA narratives, my journey out of representasianism, and the case for shitting more interestingly
4. Your fancy dinner probably isn’t activism
5. Representasianism as counterinsurgency
6. […]

Introduction

What is this?

After much consideration, I’ve decided it would be helpful to dedicate a series of posts to analysing the thing I call representasianism. In brief, this is a framework that reduces all social problems faced by Asians as problematic representation in media roles, respectable jobs, and data–especially hate crime data.

Representasianism seems to be the natural state of things in ESEA conversations about art, activism and community. Everybody is in agreement, everybody tells the same story, everybody is in unity against ESEA hate. The overall feeling is that going along with representasianism is the only way to stop the neglect, isolation and violence experienced by our communities. These feelings are tied up with the formation of a particular type of diasporic ESEA identity and a focus on cultural activities, joy and unity.

What’s the problem?

However, the seemingly “natural feelings” that have brought people together in this so-called unity are political viewpoints which have their own context and history. Representasianism is only possible in the first place due to decades of infrastructure and cultural narratives which value competitive self-interest and increased policing (read: neoliberal state violence). For example, the insistence on Asian entrepreneurial success, simplistic ‘East vs West’ cultural framings, and seeing police as the main solution to racist attacks is shaped by decades of neoliberalism–which is in turn made possible by decades of colonial capitalism. (I find Michael Richmond’s historicisation of neoliberalism very useful.)

You’re just nitpicking! It’s such a new identity and we’re so hardworking…

I understand if this reframing is challenging. It’s been a few years since the first wave of Stop Asian Hate discourse rolled out, and discourse seems to still focus on how new ‘ESEA’ is, who ‘counts’ as this or that identity, how we’re all so hardworking, how we’re uniquely neglected and attacked, and so on. For some people, it feels really radical to speak about this at all; perhaps there’s a worry that if we deviate from the messaging and look critically at what we’re saying, we’ll destroy everything because it’s demotivating. In addition to this, neglect of Asian support services was and is very real, and running these services and community centres and arts groups (and so on) continues to be a struggle in this current political and financial landscape. I am not saying it was easy: I am saying this was all made possible by existing structures–just like everything else!

There’s so much that people are already doing to preserve, nurture, and sustain our movement. Similarly, there are things we need to break down and use in a different form – like a compost heap. We shouldn’t be afraid to get our hands dirty. Maybe we could dig into how a certain version of ESEA identity is being produced and celebrated, a version that humbly contributes to British nationbuilding and whose identity and values are entirely compatible with a certain version of Britishness – stiff upper lip, hard work, a sense of social niceties, the desire to live in a home that is your castle. Beneath that bright bubbling joy lurks an old colonial mindset: this ESEA identity acts as if it was destined to be British, only with a taste for mahjong. Above all, it obeys the status quo in advance. Asians who have been criminalised – the rebels, undocumented migrants, sex workers, among many others – are not welcome in this castle. They’re not seen as lived realities of people in our community worthy of care: they’re merely “stereotypes” to be shamed and discreetly sorted out. They can’t possibly be part of the masses who understand their own identity in political terms and are organising around shared struggles.

Who are you, anyway? What’s your identity?

I’m a diasporic Thai artist and writer from London. My book, Pearls From Their Mouth, was published in 2022 by Hajar Press. I was frustrated with both conventional Stop Asian Hate narratives and the limitations of diaspora art and I wanted to write something different. The book captures my interests from that period; my thoughts have developed in the years since, and I wanted to share them with others in a different way to help proliferate this knowledge.

In addition to this, I’ve been involved in various bits of queer community support since the late 2010s. So I’m coming at this within and outside of an ESEA context – I know the struggles of working in community support contexts and why it’s important to provide both essential services and cultural activities. We focus on serving the parts of the queer community which are neglected and under attack, such as trans people, disabled people, undocumented migrants, and many others. A shared condition between all of these groups is poverty and housing struggles, and I’m seeing the same issues in queer and ESEA discourse:

• Increased criminalisation and policing (hate crime legislation etc.) being offered as the main solution to our suffering when we actually need the decriminalisation of homelessness, sex work, transness, migration and so on.
• The desire to extract more and more data from our communities which doesn’t actually get used to improve our living conditions, but does benefit the careers of policymakers and academics.
• Obsession with media representation and culture of celebrity worship, further cementing the idea of top-down change and unwillingness to question authority.

Why aren’t you reaching out to ESEA community groups directly?

It’s because of my own community work that I understand you don’t just barge into groups. We have an outright ban on researchers and journalists who suddenly want to attend our group for their work. It’s extractive, contemptuous saviourism which assumes that the community doesn’t have its own knowledge-making.

This series reflects my own interests and position. I know organisers who work in ESEA contexts. Representasianism can be usefully reframed as a form of counterinsurgency, so if we want to create social change we should understand its forms and tendencies. If any of my writing is useful, I hope that anyone embedded within these communities will be able to take the words, ideas, vibes, structures and make it relevant to their own contexts. I encourage the translation, repurposing, and redistribution of my work into relevant languages, different Englishes, zines, audio versions and more. You do not need my permission to do this, but it would be really cool to know what groups find it useful.

But criticism isn’t useful and is just attacking your own community. Unity and “calling-in” is what’s needed right now!

While I am critical of certain groups and organisations, I will try to place their work in larger contexts with the intent of making it a generative analysis. That said, I will not abide by the enculturated need for “gentleness”, “niceness”, and “unity” which is actually a demand for the blandness of political homogeneity. Do we think social transformation is only created through the language of work emails?

I am in the trenches with you. It’s not just about crazy rich asians vs everyone else. While there are clear class distinctions, there are also some tricky entanglements. I know a lot of these groups are run by volunteers and under-paid employees. I understand that the reality of working a creative job is juggling contracts. I also very much know that if you’re in a position of visibility it brings a lot of pressure, scrutiny, and creepy parasocial relationships. We may work with organisations or in roles that are uncomfortable. We all have limited options because of the system we’re in.

But does that mean we need to tolerate the ways things are? My intention is to provide criticism of systems, tendencies, and narratives that further activates you from your current position, rather than the scolding of a disappointed parent who expects ever-moving standards of perfection.

I know that simply by speaking against representasianism I will confuse and upset some people, perhaps some of them respected elders who maintain that we don’t need this “divisiveness” – the more explicitly conservative strand say we need to maintain “racial self-interest,” while those who organised under Political Blackness in the ’70s maintain that critique is “divide and rule,” for in their day everybody supposedly stuck together and agreed and that was how they got rights (a cursory knowledge of organising history dispells this – all movements have conflict and irreconcilable differences). Both are silencing tactics, and it won’t do. Because I myself am closer to 40, I want to model how intergenerational knowledge must be a two-way street, not one of deference and hierarchy. It means releasing my need for recognition. I want the ideas to take root more than anything. Besides, my younger friends keep me sharp!

We don’t need to accept the terms offered to us by representasianism. If you aren’t sure about any of this, that’s okay. I am still committed to showing you how you might get there.

I won’t be opening comments on the blog posts or holding debates around the subject because you should proliferate your own ideas in your own spaces. I encourage you to write your own theories and describe your own experiences!