eCsuPA's Xanga

Tenderness in Love

Sun, 19 Jul 2009 07:23:52 GMT

"Perhaps nowhere does it become so clear that love transcends the taking form than in its tenderness. In love hands don't take, grasp or hold. They caress. Caressing is the possibility of human hands to be tender. The careful touch of the hand makes for growth. Like a gardner who carefully touches the glower to enable the light to shine through and stimulate growth, the hand of the lover allows for the full self-expression of the other. In love the mouth does not bite, devour or destroy. It kisses. A kiss is not to take in, but to allow for the full and fearless surrender. In love the eyes don't trap the stranger's body through a sartrian keyhole, nor do they arouse shame by the feeling of being exposed as Noah felt when his son Ham looked at his naked body, but in love the eyes over the other's body with the warm radiation of an admiring smile as an expression of tenderness." - Intimacy by Henri Nouwen

Thursday, July 09, 2009

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 05:37:27 GMT

For Someone, Somewhere
by anonymous

I’ve heard loneliness
associated with panes of glass:
rain sleeting down the sides,
blurred indigo
trickling in uneven rivulets.

Out there somewhere
someone’s warm inside,
dancing towards the drops
and all the while,
you sit
and watch
as loss pools on the ledge.

Tracing down the edge,
there was a time
safe and lost in sleep,
heart pumping dreams to your mind
when life and love were yours to keep.

In hindsight,

Thu, 04 Jun 2009 02:54:30 GMT

I think I've become a very different person than who I was a couple years ago. I've grown in a lot of ways. It was not pleasant. There was much pain and heartache, tears and sadness along the way. Challenges shaped me. Not to say I'm at the end of the road but you'll never know how you'll see yourself in a couple years. Am I grateful? Glad? Satisfied where I am? I'm not sure. All I know that love will follow me all the days of my life. And I pray that I'll be wise enough let it pursue me.

Reflections

Thu, 28 May 2009 02:37:00 GMT

All love comes from Jesus. All love comes from Him. Only through Him may we love without burdens.

I realized that much of frustration with fellowship and leadership stemmed from my own sense of responsibility. Responsibility is huge. Well, for me at least. Responsibility defines a lot of who I am. I need responsibility. I need control—the ability to act and set my mind on something, to change something, to do something good and beneficial for myself and for the people around me. I often felt I had the responsibility to be a good servant for God. I felt that God gave us the choice to act to do good. Thus, I felt that it was my responsibility—even when it came to ministry.

Of course, I knew that God was in control. This I understood on a conscious level. Of course, He is sovereign. But I always felt there was an underlying understanding that placed a huge weight upon my own shoulders. While God was in control, I needed to step it up to glorify Him. My sense of individual agency was backed by a sense of individual competency. That perhaps God gifted me in a special way and that He was going to use me for His Kingdom somehow—to do something great for Him. Of course I justified my self worth through a Kingdom mindset, that because I was doing it for him, I could reinsert my self worth as key.

However, I came to realize that it is the disposition of our service to Him that he is concerned. In what way do we come before His throne? What is the essence of our actions? He calls us to humility—not just because we cannot act, nor is it just because we aren't powerful. While these are true, the reason he calls us to humility is because He is ultimately responsible.

He is the source of all life and existence. He is the creator. Not only is He the beginning of all things, but He is the END of all things. He is, ultimately, the reason of all things. When life is done and over, everything is evaluated on the basis of His person. We live to be something of His essence. Why? Because he is the reason for all things. He is not only the Alpha—He is the Omega.

What does this have to do with love? When we serve in the Body we love. We love in Jesus' name. We love, not only because we're Christians, but it is the essence of His love for us. Christ died for us. He died for all our sin. He died for all the vileness and despicableness of our nature. He took that, nailed it to the cross, suffered separation from the Father and conquered it on the third day. Jesus Christ took all that we deserved to take upon ourselves.

So when it comes to love in the Body, we do NOT take responsibility for our own love. We easily become overburdened and frustrated because we feel we are responsible. Instead, we derive a new passion to love because He is responsible. This all comes from Him. Our love for others is HIS fundamental responsibility. This is demonstrated through His sacrifice on the cross and through His victory over the tomb. He took the responsibility. Even to love. He took that responsibility.

I need to stop trying to take that from Him.

"We love because He first loved us." - 1 John 4:19

Chinatown CDC: Modern Marxist Approaches to Community Development

Wed, 27 May 2009 02:33:24 GMT

Chinatown Community Development Center:

Modern Marxist Approaches to Community Development

1. Introduction
Poverty is clearly a problem that plagues modern society. Some have speculated that poverty is the major obstacle of our generation. No matter what political, religious and ideological background one may associate with, the facts of poverty are undeniable and clearly undesirable. However, despite this common understanding that poverty exists, many have sought to explain the origins of poverty—and this is where many diverge in views. Ted Bradshaw explains the myriad of views—of which he defines five major views: poverty caused by individual deficiencies, poverty caused by cultural belief systems, poverty caused by systemic and structural discrimination, poverty caused by geographical disparities and poverty caused by cumulative and cyclical interdependencies (Bradshaw, 2003, 317). The San Francisco Chinatown has been historically recognized as a place of culture and heritage, however also, as a place of blight and poverty. However, there are two approaches in explaining Chinatown’s poverty. The first explanation attributes poverty and crime in Chinatown as a result of the deficiencies of Chinese and immigrant culture. This clearly is found along the lines of the theory of poverty as caused by cultural belief systems. The second explanation seeks to expose the geographical and spatial disparities that result as a “spatial expressions of the capitalist system” (Bradshaw, 2003, 327). The Chinatown Community Development Center (CCDC) adopts this explanation of poverty, as a spatial expression of capitalism (and ultimately, exploitation of the underclass)—clearly rejecting the former theory of poverty as cultural. As one enters into the discussion of mitigating poverty in such a place, one must turn to the contemporary efforts of the Chinatown CDC, a community development corporation, and community development as a field of study. This is crucial in understanding the ideological and theoretical perspectives applied to this line of work (community development). In a case study of Chinatown and the CCDC, this community development organization seeks to mitigate the effects of poverty through a modern Marxist lens (Cornel West and Pierre Bourdieu) of spatial and geographical exploitation by the means of local control, building physical capital and Bourdieu’s use of symbolical resistance.

2. The Chinatown CDC as a Community Development Corporation
In order to understand the basic approaches to deal with poverty, the Chinatown CDC is a good example of spatial theory of poverty applied in the community development field. Background information (legal status, organizational structure, funding sources etc) is necessary in understanding this case study. In this case study, the CCDC is an organization that clearly engages in community development, maintains a organizational, structural commitment to the poor, and seeks funding from major sources in order to acquire projects of scale, ultimately affecting more low-income families.

2.1 Clearly, a “Community Development” Organization
The CCDC engages in community development. The Chinatown CDC seeks “to build community and enhance the quality of life for San Francisco residents” (ChinatownCDC.org). The center also works in North Beach and the Tenderloin with 22 building projects containing over 2,200 affordable housing units. Along with working for affordable housing, the center acts as a “community development organization with many roles, serving as neighborhood advocates, organizers, planners, as developers and managers of affordable housing” (ChinatownCDC.org). A holistic approach to community development, grassroots political mobilization and a commitment to low-income families and individuals, drives the CCDC in several projects. An example of a housing preservation of Namiki Apartments (a affordable housing project for senior residents) demonstrates a glimpse of what the Chinatown CDC does. In 2002, the Chinatown CDC worked with various other groups including the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency to officially acquire the Namiki Apartments. Gordon Chin, the Executive Director of the center commented that the "Chinatown CDC is committed to acquiring expiring use developments to preserve their long-term affordability. For low-income families and seniors on fixed incomes, the effects of losing their housing could be devastating” (Vodak). The Chinatown CDC clearly demonstrates an example of community development as a local permanent organization that builds physical, social and political capacity for low-income families. As a non-profit 501(c)(3), this organization is clearly non-market based as well as non-governmental. The organization, originally starting in 1977 as a conglomeration of five grassroots organizations, is a level one organization with paid staff with a funding source spanning from individuals to corporations to funding foundations.

2.2 Structural Commitment to the Community and the Poor
The Chinatown CDC’s organizational structure is elaborate and reflects the type of work the center engages in the community. The decisions of the organization are made by a Board of Directors with 27 members according to the organization website (ChinatownCDC.org). Board members consist of mostly local residents with experience in law, finance and housing development. Mostly notably, board members have significant positions in other community-based organizations and non-profits such as Cai Zhong Li, President of the Community Tenants Association, Gregory Chin, a consultant for the Bay Area Local Initiatives Support Corporation, Christabel Cheung, the Director of Diversity for the American Society on Aging and Ken Nim of Goodwill Industries. This reflects the organizations commitment to the low-income and marginalized community, in contrast to CBOs that mostly consist of business elites and politicians. In addition to the Board of Directors, the organization has 51 paid staffs, which are divided into 10 categories. There are Executive staff, Administration staff, Fiscal and MIS staff, Housing Development staff, Resource Development staff, Property Management staff and Programs staff. The Programs staffs are subdivided into four teams for their respective programs of the Youth Team, Tenant Service team, Planning team and Community Organizing team. Through a multi-faceted approach, advocacy, planning, community organizing positions are all examples of the CCDC’s commitment to the poor outside of the main housing development approach.

2.3 Major Funding: Needed But Not Swayed by Outside Interests
Funding sources come from a variety of individuals, foundations and corporations. While funding might been seen as an indicator of whether a CDC can maintain community interests in contrast to outside business interests, the CCDC maintains a community-based ethos through finding multiple and major funding sources in order to acquire projects of scale. Major funding sources (banks, businesses and multi-national corporations) is needed in order to maintain 2000+ affordable housing units. A smaller CDC may resist bank and business funding sources to mitigate outside interests. However, the CCDC is such a large organization that it needs engage in such a task. The organization finds much of its support deeply rooted in the local community of San Francisco, reflecting the organizations success and reputation among residents and local community members as well as business owners and politicians. Notable funders include Washington Mutual, the Evelyn and Walter Haas Jr. Foundation, Department of Public Health, Lucas Film Ltd. and a myriad of other corporations, foundations and individuals found on the organizations website (ChinatownCDC.org). While notable funders include banks, businesses and wealthy individuals, the CCDC maintains a modern Marxist understanding of poverty and seeks to maintain a community-based ethos as demonstrated by the following arguments.

3. Modern Marxism and Spatial Theory of Poverty Applied by the CCDC
The Chinatown CDC engages in a spatial and geographical understanding of poverty through modern Marxist underpinnings of capitalism. This is demonstrated in three ways: engaging in local control, physical capital and symbolic resistance. First, local control ensures that the underclass retains power to resist exploitation and serve self-interests. Second, building physical capital acts as a means to protect low-income families and individuals from the effects of gentrification and displacement. The gentrification of communities (where the poor are displaced by the way of the wealthy moving into the community resulting in housing prices becoming too high) is seen as a result of the natural flows of a capitalist system. Third, symbolic resistance is a necessary tool used by the Chinatown CDC in order to dislodge popular understandings of Chinatown as a place of cultural disparity and inherent poverty.

3.1 Local Control as a Means of Resistance
Local control is the concept that the community participation happens on a place-based (versus individual based) level in or through community-based organizations like CDCs and CBOs in order to maximize the voice of local residents in a local community. Local control is crucial in community development because “community self-determination should help to ensure that the felt needs of community members, not the self-interest of service providers or policymakers, guide the setting of priorities” (Ferguson, Stoutland 51). This sort of community self-determination is a crucial step in mitigating the effects of poverty by resisting outside interests.
The Chinatown CDC enhances local control of residents and community members—particularly youth—in a modern Marxist (Bourdieu) understanding of power. This is demonstrated by the AAA (Adopt-An-Alleyway) youth empowerment program, which is put on by the Chinatown CDC. The AAA trains and teaches youth (middle school, high school and college) how to keep Chinatown Alleyways clean through cleanups and trash pickups. Also, the AAA empowers students and youth through giving tours of Chinatown Alleyways for tourists and visitors. Considered one of the best tours of San Francisco, youth lead a tour group through Chinatown explaining the history and cultural importance of street names, Chinatown landmarks and alleys (ChinatownCDC.org). While one might argue that local control is only maintained at top positions and office, through the AAA (a Chinatown CDC program) Chinatown youth participate in local control through the creation of symbolic capital and symbolic resistance by reclaiming historical and cultural significance of “place-based” Chinatown in Bourdieu’s analysis of class and power. Symbolic capital can be defined as “the capacity to use symbols to create or solidify physical and social realities” (Allan, 2006, 176). Essentially, symbolic capital is a legitimate form of power relations. However, symbolic resistance needs to take place in reaction to symbolic violence, which is defined as the “invisible power which can be exercised only with the complicity of those who do not want to know that they are subject to it or even that they themselves exercise it” (Allan, 2006, 174). Here, local control is needed in order to combat symbolic violence. By this definition of symbolic violence, AAA tour guides and Chinese youth volunteers participate in symbolic resistance and protecting the interests of low-income and poor families in Chinatown. While local control is usually viewed in a top down manner, the Chinatown CDC demonstrates a bottom-up example of local control through the production of symbolic capital and resistance.

3.2 Physical Capital as a Tool of Mitigating Exploitation in Capital Markets
Engaging in physical capital is intimately tied with race theory as a means of modern Marxist approaches to mitigating poverty and fighting exploitation. Dr. Cornel West, a contemporary social theorist and race theorist draws from modern Marxist theory in his understanding of capitalist markets. He argues that capitalist markets are expansive “vertically (accessories for an existing product), horizontally (new products within a market), and geographically (extending existing markets to new social groups)” (Allan, 2006, 368). As capitalist markets expand geographically, it “drives commodification, the process through which more and more of the human lifeworld becomes something that can be bought and sold” (Allan, 2006, 368). This is to say that basic human entitlements (housing and physical capital for example) become commodified in capitalist market expansion. Physical capital can be bought and sold at the whims of market patterns and trends. This is crucial as the geographical space of Chinatown (the living space of many ethnic Chinese and racialized Asian Americans) is subject to capitalist exploitation.
Thus, the Chinatown CDC seeks to engage in building physical capital as a major means of resistance to capitalist exploitation in a geographical and racial sense. However, resistance can only be understood through the historical and contemporary developments of racial formation and racial movements in the United States in relation to Asian American nationalism (a social movement that seeks to reclaim culture, not as deficient but as celebrated). This is particularly crucial in understanding community control in response to racism. Omi and Winant demonstrate that Asian Americans fought for community control “to prevent commercial areas (such as San Francisco), Manilatowns, Japantowns had been destroyed by urban renewal schemes which had dispersed residents. Always a popular tourist attraction, Chinatowns have historically been the site of continual political battles over low-cost housing versus commercial development” (Omi and Winant, 1994, 109). Cleary here, Dr. Cornel West’s understanding of expansive capitalist markets through geographical commodification can be applied to Chinatown’s affordable housing stock. Chinatown faces the dangers of expansion and the commodification of housing in and near San Francisco’s rapidly growing downtown, as businesses and outside developers encroach on this ethnic territory. The Chinatown CDC, thus, acquires affordable housing sites in order to protect the poor and low-income individuals from the effects of gentrification and displacement.

3.3 The Dual Edged Sword: Symbolic and Physical Capital in Rebuilding the I-Hotel
The Chinatown CDC engages in resistance to capitalism through building physical capital (affordable housing) but also through the cultural nationalist approach of reclaiming legitimacy, history and place simultaneously—a dual edged sword of physical and symbolic capital. An excellent example of this dual edged approach of building physical and symbolic capital is demonstrated through the rebuilding of the I-Hotel in Manilatown, San Francisco. In 1977, 50 or so Asian immigrants (mostly farm workers from the Philippines were evicted from the I-Hotel to make way for a new commercial development. There was much political struggle and protest that occurred, but ultimately resulted in loss. The single-room occupancy (SRO) hotel was razed two years later. The Chinatown Community Development center rebuilt the I-Hotel “On Aug. 26, nearly 26 years later, 104 studio and one-bedroom apartments for low-income seniors are scheduled to open at 848 Kearny St., at Jackson Street, the same address of the original building. Handicapped-accessible with roomy bathrooms and kitchenettes, the units are vastly better than the crowded 10-by-10 rooms of the old building” (Estrella, 2005). The CDC ensures that the building remains affordable for seniors and low-income residents by setting an age restriction and income cap. Also the new I-Hotel ensures quality of life for low-income families through a learning center, community center, a small bookstore, a performance stage and other amenities (Estrella, 2005). In addition to all this, the new I-Hotel pays tribute to the old I-Hotel, the old Manilatown and to the previous struggles of the 1970s. This historical and ideological tribute to the past is crucial in understanding Chinatown CDC’s approach to symbolic resistance in addition to building physical capital. The new I-Hotel stems from an ideological struggle and thus symbolizes the victory and liberation from the oppressive structures of capitalism and commercial interests. This is directly tied to the Asian American (and cultural) nationalist movements of the 1970s, stressing the importance of community control in ethnic enclaves of Chinatown, Japantown, Manilatown, Little Saigon and other Asian American place-based communities. The material and cultural struggles of Chinatown and Asian Americans cannot be separated. Racial struggle is intimately tied with community development. Community development will never be culturally neutral. Thus, alternative institutions that address the geographical commodification of ethnic neighborhoods like Chinatown need to emerge. In the way of a prophetic voice of social justice, Omi and Winant explain that there is a need for “Asian Americans [to seek] to build alternative institutions which would more adequately address the needs of community residents than could the state or the existing conservative community leadership” (Omi and Winant, 1994, 109). The Chinatown CDC is an example of such alternative institutions that tie the material and spatial needs of a racialized community and the cultural, symbolic forms of capital in order to disrupt the rapidly expanding capitalist market.

4. Conclusion
Chinatown, San Francisco, faces the dangers of an expanding downtown and commodifcation of essential needs (affordable housing). This is compounded by issues of poverty and domestic race issues that have plagued Chinatown for centuries. However, the Chinatown CDC seeks to mitigate the effects of poverty through a geographical and spatial understanding of the capitalist system. As Shaw explains, “Space is not a backdrop for capitalism, but rather is restructured by it and contributes to the systems survival” (Bradshaw, 2003, 327). Thus, instead of prolonging the survival of a system built on spatial exploitation the CCDC engages in resistance. This is employed by a series of strategies and tactics, which seek to overthrow the exploitative nature of capitalist markets and western society. This includes a level of community and local control, building physical capital and engaging in symbolic resistance. This modern Marxist approach of the Chinatown CDC combats a cultural explanation of poverty through approaching the work of community development along the lines of spatial expressions and resistance of market expansion.

Works Cited

Allan, Kenneth. “The Replication of Class: Pierre Bourdieu (1930-2002).” Contemporary Social
and Sociological Theory: Visualizing Social Worlds. Pine Forge Press. Thousand Oaks,
California: 2006. 169-189.

“Race Matters: Cornel West (1953—).” Contemporary Social and Sociological Theory: Visualizing Social Worlds. Pine Forge Proess. Thousand Oaks, California: 2006. 357-382.

Bradshaw, Ted K. “Theories of Poverty and Anti-Poverty Programs in Rural and Community

Development.” 2003. 314-334 of course reader.
Estrella, Cicero A. “The I-Hotel Rises Again: Nearly 26 years later, rebuilt digs offer seniors
room with a view.” San Francisco Chronicle. July 22, 2005.

Ferguson, Ronald F., and Sara E. Stoutland. “Reconceiving the Community Development
Field.” Brookings Institution Press. Washington, D.C. 1999. 51.

Omi, Michael and Howard Winant. “Racial Formation in the United States: From the 1960s to
the 1990s.” New York: Routledge 1994. 109.

Shaw, Mae. “Community development and politics of community.” Community
Development Journal. Oxford University Press. 2007. 27.

Vodak, Jessica. “Tenants and Chinatown Community Development Center Save
Affordable Housing for Seniors.” ChinatownCDC.org. May 14, 2002.

Post-modernism in Asian American Studies

Tue, 26 May 2009 02:31:13 GMT

Although the word “theory” might evoke connotations of abstraction and detachment, in fact, theory shapes the world one lives in. Theory dictates much of everyday actions—how one interacts with others, how one conducts business and how one survives day to day. While theory might seem impractical and nonsensical to some, theory merely is “what we think” and in turn that “changes how we act” (“Why Theory?” by Gang of Four, 1981). This strikes a difference between fact—an objective reality—and the interpretation of that fact—subjective perspectives or how people perceive that fact. One might explain a simple observation or fact one way, while another might have a totally different take on the matter. Either way, “what we think changes how we act.” Theory cannot be ignored. The perception of everyday fact is always an interpretation, a way of thinking about things, and no matter how hard one can try to objectify reality theory will be used in order to make sense of this world. Theory is used constantly whether an individual may be conscious of it or not. This is crucial in understanding the Asian American experience—somewhat of an epistemological shift away from traditional Western perspectives and interpretations of “fact” and into a new field of study. I seek to explore how theory (more specifically, post-modernism, race and queer theory) has shaped and benefited Asian American academia and contributed to social change and social action.
Postmodernism has contributed significantly to Asian American movements by shifting the focus away from Western perspectives and Eurocentric lenses. Postmodernism can be best understood as a critique of modernity. This theoretical perspective is unique in that it is purely a reaction to (or more specifically, in opposition of) modernity. This theory is highlighted by Osajima “as a relational phenomenon, as perspectives situated in opposition to the power and practices associated with modernism” . Thus, in order to understand post-modernism as a helpful tool in Asian American studies, one must dive into the basic assumptions of modernity. Rationality, progress, linear development and universal truth are all words that characterize modernity. Stemming from the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason , the development of the physical sciences created an age where everyday life bore universal weight. This theory was born out of laboratories and universities, which bore legitimacy and a certain authority that could not be challenged. Consequently, a largely Eurocentric/Western perspective of modern life was perpetuated through the past few centuries . Modernity is a theoretical perspective that has dramatically “changed how we act” and is still a powerful force today.
Although, humanity has not reached an age of a complete shift to postmodernism, modernity has “come under increasing scrutiny in the last two decades” . A central argument by postmodernists have been pitted against the “narrow worldview emanating from a western European perspective” in the form of the critique of metanarratives, a universal story or experience. Metanarratives take the form of universal models such as social Darwinism, science, capitalism and Christianity. Only through these metanarratives can one undergo progress, modernists would say. However, Foucault, a prominent postmodernist (although he avoids this label) proposes that metanarratives are powerful because “they have come to be commonly accepted as true, and can define the normative standards by which the truth of other claims can be made” . Instead of seeing theory as a neutral force in the world, Foucault asserts that modernity enforces and asserts power through truth tactics. Consequently, post-modernists would say, metanarratives easily push other perspectives aside, rendering them as illegitimate, invisible or unimportant. The Asian American experience is one such of these perspectives that have been pushed aside by Western metanarratives and rendered invisible in most ways until the past few decades. This is clearly demonstrated through the 1968 San Francisco State Strike. Colored and ethnic students formed a coalition named the Third World Liberation Front and went on strike against the university. The TWLF mainly fought for the establishment of a College of Ethnic Studies . The reason for this strike lies in the epistemological struggle that post-modernists would qualify as making visible the once invisible narratives in reaction against western Eurocentric metanarratives. The students of SF State sought to shed light on the multiplicity of experiences, life and history that not merely lie in the hands of the western world—but in the hands of African Americans, Latino Americans, Native Americans and Asian Americans. These students drew from a Foucauldian tradition of resistance against the “truth regime” of modernity and sought to engage in an epistemological struggle that would change the modern world for years to come.
Queer theory, in a broad sense, has been derived from postmodernism as a way to think and to resist hegemonic norms in sexuality. While theory in a broad sense can dramatically affect social action and social change, postmodernism, as a way of thinking about the world, has given way to a variety of theories that dramatically affect social action including race and sexuality. Much of racial theory and sexuality are similar by the way of underlying postmodern tendencies. Nagel discusses the importance of race and sexuality as equally significant and, in fact, related in many ways “Just as the presence off female or male bodies does not automatically result in socially meaningful ‘men’ or ‘women,’ and just as differences in sexual practice or sexual desire do not always produce sexual identities and boundaries, differences in skin color, language, religion or ancestry do not always generate strong ethnic boundaries” . Ethnicity and sexuality are constructed and defined socially and subject to assertions of hegemonic power. Resistance to hegemonic norms, as a postmodern tendency, seeks to destabilize racial and sexual equilibriums by providing once invisible perspectives to the forefront. As Asian American studies have been brought to the forefront by the 1968 SF State Strike, so has queer theory been brought to the forefront by discussions of heteronormativity and critical approaches to sexuality.
However, the discussion of race and sexuality as related subjects do not merely lie in similarities but is further found in their underlying postmodern ties. As Foucault has highlighted the powerful effects of the modern metanarrative as a tool to maintain hegemony, post-moderns have sought to bring to light the narratives that have remained invisible for so long in the form of resistance. David L. Eng designates queer theory not as separate and distinct from racial theory but as interrelated. He points out that Asian American political activism has taken a shift in the 1980s away from traditional, class-based critique of race to “queerness as a critical methodology promising to open upon a much broader set of Asian American identities” . Eng continues to situate Asian American studies in terms of queerness as an understanding of transnational culturalism and diaspora—“its rethinkings of home and nation-state across multiple identity formations and numerous locations ‘out here’ and ‘over there’” . Asian American studies can be understood not only in terms of class as a source of political resistance but as “queered” in terms of spatial identities. This intersection of race and sexuality marks a form of post-modernism as race and queer theorists seek to dismantle the western, heteronormative metanarrative. They also seek to provide a means of resistance to such hegemony in a Foucauldian understanding of power and epistemology. Theory is what we think and in turn changes how we act. In the same way, race and queer theory embedded with post-modern undertones affect how people will act.
Theory is not merely abstract concepts that are separate from everyday life. In fact, much of what we think (theory) directly correlates to social action and change. However, this does not mean that Asian American Studies and academia will have profound influence in modern society if the appropriate measures are not taken. In order to engage in resistance, Dr. Cornel West, a contemporary social theorist (particularly dealing with race and class), encourages this notion of constant “Socratic questioning” in order to “engage in a critical and open-minded assessment of history of every dogma” as a right granted by the Founding Fathers in order to protect freedom . This commitment to resistance lends its roots to a critical approach to theory. Of course theory clearly affects how one acts on a everyday basis, however, one must engage critically to theory and understand the power of theory in the relationship between how “what we think changes how we act.” Socratic questioning lends us the tools to understand post-modernism, race and queer theory as important ways of thinking about Asian American studies and are vital in engaging in resistance to hegemonic norms in a Foucauldian tradition and understanding of power.

References:
Keith H. Osajima, “Postmodernism and Asian American Studies: A Critical Appropriation,” in Privileging Positions: The State of Asian American Studies, eds. Gary Okihiro et al. (Pullman WA: Washington State University Press, 1995), 22.
Glenn Omatsu, “The ‘Four Prisons’ and the Movements of Liberation: Asian American Activism from the 1960s to the 1990s” in The State of Asian America: Activism and Resistance in the 1990s, ed. Karin Aguuilar-San Juan (Boston: South End Press, 1994), 19-69.
Joane Nagel, “Constructing Ethnicity and Sexuality: Building Boundaries and Identities,” in Race, Ethnicity, and Sexuality: Intimate Intersections, Forbidden Frontiers (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 37-62.
David L. Eng, “Out Here and Over There: Queerness and Diaspora in Asian American Studies,” Social Text 52/53 (1997): 43.
Kenneth Allan, “Race Matters: Cornel West (1953—),” in Contemporary Social and Sociological Theory: Visualizing Social Worlds (Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press, 2006), 378.

A critical reflection of Omatsu's "The 'Four Prisons' and the Movements of Liberation"

Mon, 25 May 2009 02:30:00 GMT

Glenn Omatsu highlights the transitions of Asian American struggle in the United States through historical epochs and people in his article The “Four Prisons” and the Movements of Liberation—not merely as development of consciousness—but as a struggle against oppression and power. The development Omatsu’s argument focuses on the notion of liberation from certain “prisons” which prevent people groups from escaping oppression and subjugation. A few examples of these ideological “prisons” range from poverty and racism to hyper-capitalism and neo-conservatism. While this critical reflection paper will highlight Omatsu’s argument, I will not seek to summarize his points. Instead, this paper aims to provide a critical perspective on Asian American neo-conservatism, Asian American leaders and icons (or the lack thereof) and questions of empowerment for the “collective liberation of all peoples” (Omatsu 109). I will then finally make an argument for the academic and practical development of Asian American theology in the context of ideological struggle and liberation.

The rise of Asian American neo-conservatism stems from an ignorance of oppression and marginalization in historical and present-day, racist institutions. Omatsu simply attributes the rise of neo-conservation Asian Americans to being born in an era of Reaganomics and hyper-capitalism. However, I believe this is a question of epistemology—the study of knowledge. How does knowledge transfer itself to one generation to the next? The creation of the first Ethnic Studies department in the San Francisco State Strikes marks the first signs of this struggle—a struggle of knowledge. If were the young people of the late 1970s and 1980s knew of the oppressive acts of the dominant majority in marginalizing Asian Americans in history, would their only experiences of racism be found in “name calling or ‘glass ceilings’ blocking personal career advancement—not poverty and violence” (Omatsu 97)? However as time moves forward, the struggle for liberation in epistemology remains at the forefront of this battle. Omatsu highlights that even in the Asian American movement, “we have an ideological vacuum, and activists will compete with neoconservatives, mainstream conservatives and others will fill it” (100). While Asian American studies in the past 30 years have made remarkable advances in academia, are Ethnic Studies and political struggle the only channels of liberation? As we approach an age of technology, art, music and film, Asian American scholars have to remain innovative at the frontline of this ideological battlefield. Yimou Zhang, Ang Lee and other directors are at the forefront of Asian American film. However, Asian American film has still yet to liberate itself from the chains of mainstream stereotypes. There is much work to be reclaimed in the area of music in Asian American liberation. I.M. Pei and Maya Lin have made phenomenal efforts in architecture and art. However, do these warriors of the Asian American movement reflect a grassroots activist approach to liberation and oppression or do they perpetuate ideological “prison” that prevent Asian Americans from escaping?

There is a lack of icons and leaders for the Asian American community. While there is an ideological and epistemological struggle at hand, we must realize that ideologies are manifested in people and leaders of our time. International icons like Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X manifest Black liberation thought of the 1960s and 70s, but who are the leaders and icons of the Asian American liberation movement? Who are our leaders and icons? Omatsu asserts that the leaders and icons of our movement are found in the everyday activists like Philip Vera Cruz, in the efforts of organizations like CPA Workers Center, AIWA and KIWA. Nonetheless, what ideological contributions do these activists supply in this battle for liberation? I will argue that Asian American leaders do not perpetuate a single, cohesive ideology—contributing to the ideological vacuum. Perhaps this is because of diverse backgrounds or lack of similar experiences or the rise of the model minority stereotype.

Omatsu’s manifesto of a struggle for “collective liberation for all peoples” lacks strategy (109). While it is hopeful for leaders in Asian American communities to rise above their own struggles and self interests, what are the ideological advances we must make in order to win this war of liberation? The answer lies in the academic and historical study of Asian American theology—the study of God or gods from a religious perspective. Fundamental questions of ontology (the study of existence and being), morality, ethics and religion need to be cohesively addressed in order to provide the ideological backing of ideological liberation. Omatsu highlighted the global response to the struggle for liberation in the civil rights movements outside of the US. However, he failed to highlight the blossoming efforts in liberation theology all around the world. Ignacio Ellacuría, a Roman Catholic Jesuit priest, made significant contributions to Liberation Theology in El Salvador. The political implications of his findings was met with resistance which resulted in his murder in 1989 by the Salvadoran army. Reverend Allan Aubrey Boesak was a South African Dutch Reformed cleric who first became known as a liberation theologian in his work Farwell to Innocence, 1976. Boesak became most well known in his participation as an anti-apartheid activist in criticism of the Nationalist Party. Martin Luther King, Jr., was most well known for his involvement in the civil rights movement of the 1960s, but most forget of the ideological roots of his campaign for liberation. In the famous Letter from Birmingham Jail, King calls for unity within the Christian community (particularly moderate white pastors) to fight against racial inequality under the Biblical theological banner of equality of all men under God. While all these icons and leaders of liberation have made significant progress in political struggle, their theological roots have left a cohesive and profound legacy in their respective communities. Asian American theologians have much room to grow in order to fill that ideological vacuum. Among those fighting for ideological liberation, Timothy Tseng, Tony Carnes, Fenggang Yang and Joaquin L. Gonzalez III are examples of Asian American scholars making progress in this field, yet a prominent, cohesive Asian American theology is yet to be unveiled.

I agree with Omatsu’s manifesto for the Asian American community to rise above the prisons of our time and fight for a “collective liberation of all peoples.” Poverty, racism, social injustice, environmental degradation have imprisoned Third World peoples for far too long—yet there is hope as "the shirtless and barefoot people of the land are rising up as never before" (MLK, Jr.). However, Omatsu lacks strategy for his proposal. In order to win this ideological battle, liberation must be found in the development of Asian American theology in order to address the ideological prisons placed on us by white, Western dominant society in order to justify the moral and ethical implications of opposition to oppression and marginalization and racial inequality.

To LEED or not to LEED?

Thu, 23 Apr 2009 14:36:31 GMT

This article can be found here: To LEED Or Not To LEED?

So, guess what!? Here’s another topic we would really love to hear your opinions on. (Imagine that!)

We are at the point (and actually a little beyond the point) with some of our projects where we need to make decision whether to try for a LEED certification or to pass. Our strong commitment to creating eco-urban may make this seem like a no-brainer, but the more we talk about it the trickier it gets.

Our conversation has been circling around three things:

First, Which program?
There are over 70 regional green building certification programs in the U.S. according to the USGBC website. With LEED, the United States Green Building Council (USGBC) was the first to establish a comprehensive set of guidelines for rating the sustainability of a building. Since LEED’s formation, there have been quite a few new systems added to the mix. California Green Builder, and Build it Green are two other regional rating systems that are most recognized in California. Add the Energy Star certification and the local utility programs such as SMUD’s and PG&E’s energy efficiency and solar programs and there is an overwhelming amount of certification to be done. That is, of course, if it really makes sense to spend money on all the documentation!

Second, what is the trade off between the extra marketability, and the extra cost?
Let’s take B Street West for example. We have applied for the LEED ND pilot program that certifies the project as a whole - it is supposed to verify that the neighborhood we’re creating is an eco-urban place. It broadly rates the location and linkage, neighborhood pattern and design, and the green construction and technology equally with a 106 point scale. With everything included (application fees, consultant analysis, site verification and certification fee…) we are looking at about $1,800 extra a unit. That doesn’t sound too ridiculous, but when we think of all the cool possibilities of what we could do with that same $1,800 a unit, we are just not sure if it is a good trade.

LEED ND Certification or Paperstone countertops?
LEED ND Certification or higher efficiency insulation?
LEED ND Certification or a cork living room floor?

LEED ND and LEED for Homes
The analysis of the actual houses is not as intensive with the LEED ND program as with other building-specific rating systems. We could then go through the LEED for Homes process to certify that each home is built to LEED standard, which comes with its own set of fees and an even greater requirement to manage the certification process. This could be somewhat redundant due to the green construction and technology analysis that would have already been completed in the LEED ND certification noted above. The process is a 108 point scale that certifies a building Certified LEED with 30 points, Silver with 50 points, Gold with 70 points, and Platinum with 90 and above. A building is certified with 27% of the allowable points. Generally speaking LEED is a slow, cumbersome process- one that Micah estimates can take one person on the construction management team about a quarter of their time to manage the process (This is from experience in the commercial realm with LEED NC). So that could be $88,000 dollars in additional costs beyond the LEED ND certification fees. That makes the total closer to $4,300 per unit.

Build It Green’s “Green Point”: An Alternative
An alternative to the LEED for Homes program is the “Build it Green – GreenPoint” rating system. They use a 260 point scale which is comparable to the LEED Homes scale for rating the buildings. They have a lower threshold for “Green” and allow any home scoring 50 points or more into the club. So if you attain 19% of the points you are “green”. We have received a quote from Scott Blunk at Greenbuilt to manage and certify the process as a “Green Rater” through their program. This would cost substantially less, at about $650 per unit. So we could combine the LEED ND with a Build it Green certification for a total of $2,450 per unit.

For marketability purposes the LEED certification clearly stands out as the undeniable leader. This is not necessarily due to a better quantitative system but mainly name recognition. LEED does pay more attention to site and neighborhood planning issues than Build it Green does.

Finally, and most importantly, do we really believe a certification guarantees a greener home/neighborhood for our buyers?
There’s been a lot of debate about what LEED does and doesn’t guarantee. LEED has not only unquestionably filled a large need for a universally accepted standard for green building, but has also fueled a new level of demand and media attention to the issues of green building. But that’s not to say it has it’s own set of shortcomings.

One major limitation is that LEED is a prescriptive based program and not a performance based program. If our goal is a truly efficient, healthy home in a eco-urban neighborhood a prescriptive method does not necessarily guarantee this. One example of this is the way in which points are allotted. As others point out, there’s a problem when a point system weights a renewable-energy system about equal with a bike-storage room.

On the other hand, there’s also some potential validity to the increase in value for the homebuyer with green-certified house. Will houses with green certification appreciate at higher rates than houses without? If so, certification would certainly help the overall market acceptance and demand for green-built housing which would lead to more and more eco-friendly housing.

Since this post is already getting long, we’ll just refer you to a really well articulated article from 2005 that covers all this and more at grist.org.

So, the jury is still out. Give us your feedback/experience, please!

Micah and Vanessa

Work.

Wed, 15 Apr 2009 19:00:47 GMT

Ugh I have to go to work. -_-

"Won't Go Home Without You" - Maroon 5

Sat, 04 Apr 2009 21:52:34 GMT

I asked her to stay but she wouldn't listen
She left before I had the chance to say
Oh
The words that would mend the things that were broken
But now it's far too late, she's gone away

Every night you cry yourself to sleep
Thinking: "Why does this happen to me?
Why does every moment have to be so hard?"
Hard to believe that

It's not over tonight
Just give me one more chance to make it right
I may not make it through the night
I won't go home without you

The taste of your breath, I'll never get over
The noises that she made kept me awake
Oh
The weight of things that remained unspoken
Built up so much it crushed us everyday

Every night you cry yourself to sleep
Thinking: "Why does this happen to me?
Why does every moment have to be so hard?"
Hard to believe that

It's not over tonight
Just give me one more chance to make it right
I may not make it through the night
I won't go home without you

It's not over tonight
Just give me one more chance to make it right
I may not make it through the night
I won't go home without you

Of all the things I felt but never really shown
Perhaps the worst is that I ever let you go
I should not ever let you go, oh oh oh

It's not over tonight
Just give me one more chance to make it right
I may not make it through the night
I won't go home without you

It's not over tonight
Just give me one more chance to make it right
I may not make it through the night
I won't go home without you
And I won't go home without you
And I won't go home without you
And I won't go home without you