portrayal has more going on than a representation of imagined social trends. This stereotype has gained currency because, like all stereotypes, it fits various preconceptions and racialized ideologies. First, it works to denigrate Asian Americans, even as it purports to praise them. The “model minority” is cast as subservient and obedient. While the “model minority” appears highly valorized, s/he remains a foreigner. According to the stereotype, their Asian, often Confucian, upbringing enables their success, rather than other sociological factors often cited for influencing children’s mobility, such as parents’ education level, networks of support, and so on. For this reason, Asian Americans can be successful but not considered assimilated enough to be seen as everyday citizens, much less civic or corporate leaders.
The “model minority” myth works not only to limit Asian Americans but also to uphold dominant ideologies of the United States race relations discussed above. The fact that a minority can achieve in the United States supports the American liberal notion of an open, meritocratic society that does not discriminate against minorities or have imperial ambitions (Bascara 2006). The United States instead is enlightened and color-blind. The stereotype also contributes to a laissez-faire racism, whereby groups have strong cultural proclivities that, rather than structural conditions, shape their place in the racial and economic hierarchies (Bobo and Smith 1998). Within this logic, the fact that Asian Americans as a minority can achieve means that any group can, even African Americans. The “model minority” stereotype gives the credit for a group’s success or failure to its culture, not to its structural conditions (e.g. family income level, degree of forced segregation, historical disfranchisement, etc.). So African Americans and most Latinxs presumably deserve blame for their relative lack of mobility. A quote from a December 1966 issue of US News and World Report illustrates this point: “At a time when Americans are awash in worry over the plight of racial minorities, one such minority is winning wealth and respect by dint of its own hard work . . . not a welfare check” (1966: 6). It is not a coincidence that the “model minority” stereotype became popular during the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. At a time when African Americans called out the United States as a racist nation, a counter-discourse of the United States as supportive of minorities was marshaled. The “model minority” demonstrated to the nation and the world that the United States was not racist. The stereotype, in effect, divides minorities, pitting one “good” group against another “bad” group.
Gender and sexual constructions of the “model minority”
The “model minority” stereotype is also popular because it promotes gendered and sexual assumptions. If the “yellow peril” man threatens to rape women, the “model minority” man is so asexual as to be considered effeminate. Such depictions stem partly from the occupations to which Asian-American men were relegated due to race in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, such as workers in laundries and houseboys, and living in bachelor societies. This depiction continues today, despite Asian Americans’ broader occupational representation (Espiritu 2007). Gay Asian-American men similarly play the role of the passive femme relative to the dominant white male (Manalansan 2003). Lesbian Asian Americans are presumed not to exist, for that would be too disruptive to the “proper” family (Gopinath 2005). If not characterized as a dragon lady within the “yellow peril” framework, Asian-American women are lotus blossoms ready to cater to men’s needs. This subservient, exotic framing, fueled by gendered and sexual assumptions, limits Asian Americans’ advancements in the workplace while supporting white men. It also shapes romantic relations with other groups and with other Asian Americans.
“Yellow peril” and “model minority” stereotypes in tandem
The “yellow peril” and “model minority” stereotypes appear as conflicting accounts of Asian Americans but in fact work together (Okihiro 1994). In both cases, there is an underlying supposition of Asian Americans as foreigners to the nation. The “yellow peril” is a foreigner bent on taking over the world. The “model minority” is a foreigner who is helpful to the United States. As long as Asian Americans “stay in their place” as models for how minorities are to behave, they are accepted, even praised. But, as they gain too many resources (in university admissions, in the labor market, etc.) and unlink the “natural” association between whiteness, the nation, and privilege, they become the “yellow peril” and threaten society. Other Americans can unite in opposition to the “yellow peril,” thereby helping with the racial imaginary of a white nation that in reality relies upon immigrant labor. For instance, when Asian Americans wear masks during the COVID-19 crisis as part of their public health duty, they can be read as a disease threat rather than conscientious citizen and be blamed for the “China virus.” So the “yellow peril” and “model minority” go hand-in-hand as complementary stereotypes. As fitting racial formation theory discussed above, a group’s characterization is not consistent but changes to fit the needs of political and economic elites.
The “yellow peril” and “model minority” stereotypes also stem from United States’ transnational relations within global capitalism (Lowe 1998). The United States has gone to war with Asian and Middle Eastern countries with imperial ambitions throughout much of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. These countries are often framed as threats to US physical and economic security. Immigration laws have reflected this framing, with Asian Americans being barred from immigrating in the early part of the twentieth century and thereafter only being let in bit by bit under heavy regulation. The immigration laws have changed to allow entry of Asian Americans, mostly in response to the economic needs and ambitions of the United States, creating in turn the “model minority” population.
Discussion questions
How are the stereotypes two sides of the same coin? Are there similar opposing stereotypes for other groups that in truth have an interconnectedness?
How are racialization, oppression, and power connected? Create a visual representation to illustrate the connections.
Reality versus stereotypes
Lost within these dichotomous stereotypes are the many Asian Americans who experience economic insecurity, poverty, discrimination, segregation, underfunded schools, and the like (as seen in future chapters). Asian Americans are not monolithic. Even ethnic groups considered overwhelmingly successful experience real social problems. But it becomes harder to recognize and address these problems, given the dominance of these stereotypes that diverts serious attention.
With this critique in mind, it is important not to forget that many Asian Americans have entered the middle class or even above. They have integrated in many ways, as fitting assimilation theory. Still, the notion of the “model minority” can still be a myth. The reason is that the stereotype is based on the faulty argument that somehow Asian culture drives all of their success, that the United States has no racial hierarchies, and that other minorities carry the blame for their continued challenges. The myth reinforces the notion that Asian Americans’ successes are due to the opportunities in the United States, opportunities supposedly available to all. Instead, the successes stem in large part from the educational credentials immigrants often arrived with, the family help they relied on, and a labor market in need of these immigrants’ skills and less expensive salary expectations. One can recognize Asian Americans’ accomplishments without advocating for the “model minority” stereotype or its threatening “yellow peril” cousin.
Towards that goal, assimilation scholars attempt to demonstrate Asian Americans’ successful integration as a minority without contributing to racist connotations. According to this perspective, Asian Americans may be seen culturally as threats or as foreigners, but this is minor compared to their overall acceptance as assimilating Americans. So the significance
