Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: This paper discusses how twenty second generation Korean American college women participate in a process of “othering” whereby individuals who self-identify as of the same race and gender create social boundaries among one another through language that reflects and perpetuates particular hierarchies originally put forth by the dominant society. In an effort to extend sociological understandings regarding identity formation, this piece focuses on othering as it reveals the social construction of race and gender without giving primacy to one form of inequality. Consistent with scholarship that identifies college as a key time period for individual exploration and self-definition, I aim to contribute to a better understanding of how youth and Asian American youth, in particular, make sense of their racialized/gendered identities.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: The place of theory in the study and analysis of the international relations of the Asian region seems to be a key concern among scholars today, if the growing number of panels devoted to the subject at recent international academic conferences (including International Studies Association annual meetings) is any indication. This likely has something to do with the fact that theory has gone from having long been dismissed by students of Asian international relations as having little relevance to their area of concern, to being seriously engaged by a new generation of scholars tutored in western social science methodologies. Theoretically-informed scholarship on Asian international relations?one thinks of Amitav Acharya (Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia, The Quest for Identity) or Muthiah Alagappa (Asian Security Practice, Asian Security Order) or numerous other examples in major academic journals?reflects this shared concern, by ?Asians? no less, over whether theory matters to Asian international affairs. That said, these ?indigenous? attempts at appropriating ?western? theory can also be understood as ?native informant? discourses that betray an ambivalence towards theory. On the one hand, they resist what they regard as the ethnocentrism and imperialism of the Anglo-American-centric (perhaps more American than Anglo) theoretical project, perceiving themselves as alienated from the great debates and theoretical breakthroughs of IR, which seem to take place with almost complete disregard for the totality of world culture and experience, particularly their own. On the other hand, in appropriating ?indigenized? or ?localized? IR categories and concepts they are equally ?accomplices? or ?collaborators? in that project in that they are subject to the same terms of reference and epistemological-cum-methodological parameters and constraints, thereby rendering them (to borrow an handy phrase from another context) ?Orientalized Orientals?, as it were. These are some of the themes that will be addressed in this inquiry into the conceivable problems and prospects related to the debate about the place of theory in Asian international relations.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: This paper examines key Southeast Asian states' worldviews and relates these to their perceptions of and policies to manage regional security in Asia after the Cold War. 'Worldviews' is a contested category; here, the concept is operationalised as the identifiable and coherent perceptions, beliefs and preferences of the most influential political and military leaders of Southeast Asian states regarding Asian security order, particularly in the context of the preponderance of the U.S. and the rise of China. I derive their worldviews according to the following variables: (1) beliefs about the prevailing structure of international affairs (anarchical or hierarchical; distribution of power; potential changes in the distribution of power; key actors and institutions in the international system); (2) perceptions about the key ordering principles in international affairs (sovereignty; imperialism; hegemony; balance of power; interdependence; dependency; law; diplomacy); (3) views about the key order-producing and maintaining processes in Asian security (self-help; balance of power; concert; hegemony; bilateralism; multilateral institutions); (4) conceptions of the role and position of their own state in the regional security structure, and potential for influencing regional order; and (5) visions of and preferences for the ideal outcome in Asian security order (distribution of power; main patterns of order and pathways to order; own position in regional order). In view of the availability of evidence required, the paper is likely to concentrate on a few key Southeast Asian states - Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. By adopting the systematic framework for investigating worldviews, this paper allows comparison of the worldviews of leaders of these states, and will highlight the convergence and divergence in their perceptions of and strategies to manage regional order.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: This article is probably among the first to document the purposes for and antecedents of ethnic media use among Asian Americans. The author utilized the Pilot National Asian American Political Survey to examine usage of Asian ethnic media as vehicles for sustaining attachment to ethnic identity. The results indicate that Asian ethnic media have a potential in strengthening Asian identity, but only if they can keep up with the next generation of Asian ethnics who are fast becoming a part of mainstream America. Theoretical and practical implications of the findings are also discussed.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: In this paper I will refocus on the essential elements of development in Northeast Asia: the economic nationalism and the logic of national security that animated Japan, Korea and Taiwan. These are, I will argue, two fundamental elements that made these three places so different than the countries of Southeast Asia. I will examine these ideological bases and institutions of the Northeast Asian pattern in the spirit of Albert Hirschman's dictum that ideas are the binding agents of economic development, and I will examine these binding agents in several parts: first, I argue for an overarching nationalism in East Asian industrial development, an experience that might appear to mimic Western experience, but in fact did not—because nationalism was a flexible vehicle for deviation and innovation. Second, this nationalism is different from overarching ideology that many other analysts thought lay behind this same developmental experience, namely, Asian values. I find no basis for sustaining a relationship between these putative Asian values and economic development. Much more important were security concerns, particularly those of the Cold War period, which provided a flexible vehicle for economic mobilization, often going under the philosophically vacuous but catch-all rubric of anti-communism. Third, the uses of economic nationalism in the service of mobilizing the populace for vast projects of national security/economic development have not yet run their full course, and they offer great promise for organizing China's development. Older forms of nationalism no longer have the appeal or clout that they once did, mostly because the two great endeavors which nationalism served—post-colonial emergence and Cold War struggle—have little relevance today. Security against communism is also far less important in a 21st-century context where average citizens in China, North Korea and Vietnam are probably more anti-communist than the populations of their capitalist counterparts. But new forms of nationalism for this new century will emerge in a region that still has few multilateral institutions, and little or no movement toward any overarching regional unity—in other words a nearly complete contrast to the European Union.