Asian American “Success”: What Are the Dimensions, Causes, and Implications for Other Minority Groups?

 

OVERVIEW

We have seen in this chapter that the notion of Asian American success is a stereotype, an exaggeration, and, in many ways, simply false. Yet, the characterization is persistent and, for many, compelling. We have also seen that, like all myths, there is some truth to the notion: on many indicators that Americans would take as measures of “success,” Asian Americans are superior to national norms and much higher than other racial minorities.

In this installment of Current Debates, we consider several related questions: What are the sources of Asian American “success?”  How accurate is this characterization? What are the political and cultural implications of applying the label of success to Asian Americans?

The readings for this debate include two selections that are consistent with the “cultural” explanation for Asian American success discussed in Chapter 9. The first article is by sociologist Harry Kitano, who argues that the success of the Japanese in America is due in part to their culture and in part to their strength of character, resilience, and flexibility. The second article, by journalist Lee Seigel, characterizes Asian Americans as successful and attributes their success as “driven by will and resolve.”

Next, we consider the “structural” explanation, as presented by sociologists Alejandro Portes and Min Zhou. They link the success of Chinese Americans to their enclave economy and also draw some provocative comparisons between Chinese Americans and African Americans, suggesting that the “thorough acculturation” of the African American community has weakened its economic vitality.

Finally, we consider two authors who dispute the notion that Asian Americans are more successful.  Sociologist Pyong Gap Min points out the limits and qualifications that need to be observed when comparing Asian Americans with other groups. Min also argues that the image of success is harmful, both to Asian Americans and to other racial minority groups. Finally, sociologist Stacey Lee argues that the myth of Asian American Success has been developed to criticize other minorities, blacks in particular.

 

POINTS OF VIEW

Selection by Min  (edited)

A Critique of the Model Minority Thesis

Pyong Gap Min

Probably the most frequently cited thesis . . . in the Asian American social science literature over the past two decades is the model minority thesis. . . . Many Asian American community leaders might have felt appreciative of the success image, taking it as a positive acceptance of Asian Americans by U.S. society. Yet, Asian American scholars, teachers, social workers, and activists have never appreciated the success image. Instead, they have provided harsh criticisms of the so-called model minority thesis, examining its inadequacies and its political basis and negative consequences. . . .

Median Family Income Not a Good Measure of Asian Americans’ Economic Well-Being

The success image of Asian Americans is partly based on the fact that the median household . . . income of Asian Americans is higher than that of white Americans. However, many . . . social scientists have . . . argued that the median family income is not a good measure of the economic success of Asian Americans because they have more workers per family and residentially concentrate in large cities, such as San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, and Washington, DC, where living costs are very high.

The critics of the model minority thesis have also indicated that the thesis . . . distorts the . . . socioeconomic diversity [of Asian Americans]. While many college-educated Asian immigrants make high earnings . . . many others struggle for economic survival trapped in low-level, service-related jobs [and in] . . . the secondary labor market or the ethnic market. . . . [There is] a greater diversity in class among Asian Americans than among white Americans.

Issues of Lower Rewards to Human Capital Investment

The critics . . . do not consider Asian Americans successful mainly because Asian immigrants do not get rewards for their educational investments equal to white Americans. . . . Many college-educated Asian immigrants engage in low-status, low-paying occupations as taxi drivers, gas station attendants, or cleaners. Many Korean immigrants engage in labor-intensive small businesses to avoid low-paying service and blue-collar jobs. Some studies have indicated that even Asian immigrants who hold professional and government jobs are concentrated in periphery specialty areas or less influential positions. . . .

It is important to examine foreign-born Asian Americans separately from native-born, because the latter have a language barrier and other disadvantages for employment in the United States. [Some] studies . . . have found that native-born Asian American workers receive more or less equal rewards from their human capital investments to white Americans, while Asian immigrants get much lower returns. . . .

[Various studies] support the view that foreign-educated Asian immigrants’ language barrier and their lack of job market information, along with the difference in quality of education between Asian countries and the United Sates, are mainly responsible for their lower returns for human capital investments. However, [the studies also show] that Asian immigrants do . . . experience discrimination, whether based on racism, nativism, or both, in the U.S. labor market. . . .

The Glass Ceiling Problem

Another important issue . . . is the underrepresentation [of Asian Americans] in upper-level administrative, executive, and managerial positions in corporate and public sectors. [Although they] are well represented in professional occupations . . . Asian Americans may be at a disadvantage for these upper-level administrative positions because they lack communication and leadership skills, a result of more authoritarian child socialization techniques practiced in many Asian immigrant families. But it is also true that some well-qualified Asian Americans are not given these desirable positions because Asians are stereotyped as lacking leadership skills. . . . However, as native-born Asian Americans have come of age, more and more of them have been able to move into high-ranking positions during recent years. . . . As more and more Asian Americans occupy upper-level managerial and administrative positions, the stereotype of Asian Americans as lacking leadership skills will change too.

Asian Americans’ High Academic Achievement

The model minority image assumes that nearly all Asian American children are successful in school performance and that Asian cultural norms emphasizing children’s education are mainly responsible for their educational success. The critics of the model minority thesis have challenged both of these assumptions. . . . Asian Americans out­perform whites in the rate of college degree attainment almost 2 times [see Exhibit 9.13] and statistics [like these] may have led . . . reporters and some researchers to overgeneralize Asian Americans’ educational success. But . . . Vietnamese Americans, especially foreign-born Vietnamese, [and some other groups] have a substantially lower level of education than white Americans. . . .

   The model minority image includes the assumption that the Asian immigrant parents’ cultural norms emphasizing their children’s education are mainly responsible for the high academic achievement of Asian American students. This assumption is problematic, although it has some element of truth. . . . Contemporary Asian immigrants include a significant proportion of highly educated people who held professional and managerial occupations prior to immigration. Because of their parents’ highly educated background, Asian American students have a huge advantage in school performance over other minority children and even white students. This background of Asian immigrants should be emphasized as the most significant determinant of Asian American students’ academic success. Moreover, . . . immigrants . . . are self-selected in that those who are more . . . achievement oriented have taken the risk of immigrating to the United States. . . .

However, in addition to these class and self­selection effects, cultural factors contribute to Asian American students’ academic success, and this is why I have indicated that the Asian cultural norms interpretation has some element of truth. People in other countries, especially Asian and Caribbean countries, tend to put more emphasis on education . . . than people in the United States and Western European countries. . . . I have seen many students from Asian and Caribbean countries . . . working exceptionally hard to advance to a graduate school despite their financial difficulty and language barrier, while many native-born white American students . . . were attending college simply to get a college degree. The high achievement orientation of Asian and Caribbean students in the United States reflects the values in their home countries. . . .

No doubt, Asian immigrant parents’ emphasis on their children’s success . . . and . . . the perception of Asian American children as model students have positively affected their academic performance. But they have also had negative effects on their psychological well-being by putting too much pressure on them. Although academically successful children are well rewarded in the family and the community, the students who perform at below-average or even average levels are not rewarded and are sometimes neglected by their parents. . . .

Negative Effects of the Success Image on Asian Americans’ Welfare and Other Minority Groups

Asian American critics of the model minority thesis have argued that the success image . . . is not only invalid but also detrimental to the welfare of Asian Americans. . . . The critics point out that . . . Asian Americans have frequently been eliminated from affirmative action and other social service programs designed for disadvantaged minority groups. For example, the poverty rates of Chinese residents in New York Chinatown and Korean residents in Los Angeles Koreatown in 1990 were 25% and 26%, respectively. . . . Yet, those poor Chinese and Korean residents were not eligible for many welfare programs for which poor African Americans were eligible. The critics have also indicated that the success stories . . . stimulated anti-Asian sentiment and violence on college campuses and in communities. . . .

Asian American social work and mental health professionals in particular have been concerned about the negative implications of the success image for various social services to Asian Americans. . . . Policymakers and non-Asian social workers tend to assume that Asian Americans generally do not have serious juvenile, elderly, and other family problems. However, Asian American social workers have argued that Asian Americans’ underuse of social services does not imply that they have fewer . . . problems . . . [but] rather . . . their help-seeking behavior patterns. . . . Moderately disturbed Asian Americans are reluctant to seek help from mental health services because of their cultural norms emphasizing shame and family integrity. Several studies reveal that Asian immigrants have a higher rate of stress and other mental health problems than white Americans. . . .

Finally, . . . the model minority thesis . . . negatively affects other minority groups as well. . . . By emphasizing the importance of cultural factors for the successful adjustment of Asian Americans, the success image in effect blames other less successful minority groups for their failure. It thus legitimates the openness of American society and leads people to fail to recognize social barriers encountered by other minority groups.

SOURCE: Min (2006, pp. 81–87)

 

DEBATE QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER

1. According to Min, what are the limitations of the “model minority” image? What specific sociological concepts do Min use in their critiques? What is the “glass ceiling” problem for Asian Americans, and how does it compare with similar problems faced by women (see Chapter 11)? What “self-selection” factors affect the academic performance of Asian Americans? What are some of the negative effects of the model minority image for Asian Americans and for other minority groups?
2. Which of these views are consistent with traditional assimilation theory? How? Which are consistent with human capital theory? How? Which views are consistent with the thinking of Noel and Blauner? How?th the evidence presented in this chapter? How?