Asianized Asians, Twinkies, and North Face Puffy Jackets Constructing Racialized Gender Identities among Second Generation Korean American College Women

Authors: Kim, Helen. The passage of the 1965 Immigration Act ushered in an era marked by a massive influx of non- white immigrants to the United States. Contrary to previous waves of immigration that included primarily Europeans, the past four decades have seen a surge in non-European immigrants from Asia, Latin America, Africa, the Middle East and the Caribbean. However, while civil rights and immigration reforms have, on a legislative level, legitimated the entry of previously excluded groups to the US, social acceptance of these “new immigrants” and their children has been slow to follow. Assimilation patterns of European immigrants and their children have historically resulted in an eventual racial blending into the white majority.

In contrast, non-European immigrants and their descendants have primarily been excluded from the white mainstream, viewed as “others” on the basis of their physical attributes and national background combined (Tuan 1998). This social hierarchy based on an inextricable relationship between cultural assimilation and race/ethnicity provides various theoretical and empirical opportunities to understand the identity formation process for the children of non-white, non-European immigrant groups. As the primary undertakers of defining what it means to be “Hyphenated Americans,” second generation children realize their identities much more so according to American norms than to those of their parents’ countries of origin (Zhou 1999). Numerous scholars have argued that traditional assimilation models attentive to the pathways of white Europeans and their descendants into the US majority are inadequate when applied to the newer, more ethnically and nationally diverse immigrant population because of the continuing significance of racial difference in assuring complete integration into the white mainstream (Almaguer 1994; Blauner 1972; Lieberson & Waters 1988; Omi & Winant 1994; Takaki 1989). While some maintain that subsequent generations of non-European immigrant groups will eventually be seen as white and, therefore, socially accepted on the basis of race, most agree that the physical distinctiveness of this population precludes the possibility of history repeating itself. As Portes and Zhou (1993) argue, “[European immigrants’] skin color reduced a major barrier to entry into the American mainstream. For this reason, the process of assimilation depended largely on individual decisions to leave the immigrant culture behind and embrace American ways. Such an advantage obviously does not exist for the black, Asian and mestizo children of today’s immigrants” (76). More recent scholarship on racial/ethnic identity formation provides some essentials to understanding the experiences of descendants of non-European, non-white immigrants.

While traditional assimilationist perspectives argue for the inevitability of a white identity for immigrant children via a linear, color-blind process, social constructionist models argue for the complexity of racial/ethnic identity formation processes as on-going, situational, and multidirectional, occurring across numerous interactional contexts that include those in and outside one’s racial, ethnic, and national community (Espiritu 1992; Nagel 1994; Smith 1991). Additionally, social constructionist frameworks see a diversity of shifting identities arrived at through a recurrent course of negotiation of various social boundaries that differentiate one racial group from another. As Cornell and Hartmann (1998) discuss: Identities are made, but by an interaction between circumstantial and human assignment on the one hand and assertion on the other.Construction involves both the passive experience of being “made” by external forces, including not only the material circumstances but the claims that other persons or groups make about the group in question, and the active process by which the group “makes” itself… This interaction is continuous, and it involves all those processes through which identities are made and remade, from the initial formation of a collective identity through its maintenance, reproduction, transformation, and even repudiation over time. Construction refers not to a one-time event but an ongoing project (80). Just as race and ethnicity scholarship has incorporated a social constructionist framework, this perspective has also guided the study of gender. More recent theorizing regards gender as something individuals “do” in interaction with others through the enactment of particular kinds of behaviors and appearances that are socially agreed upon to be acceptable or unacceptable (West and Zimmerman 1987). As with race, gender is not simplistically hardwired into all of us. Rather, one accomplishes one’s gender across multiple shifting contexts. Moreover, by “doing gender” along socially constructed lines of appropriateness, certain hierarchies between and among men and women are upheld that give the impression that these differences are natural. “If we do gender appropriately, we simultaneously sustain, reproduce and render legitimate the institutional arrangements based on sex category” (146). The power of social constructionist frameworks in the analysis of race/ethnicity as well as gender can be seen in scholarship on interlocking systems of oppression (Espiritu 1997; Hill Collins 2000; West and Fenstermaker 1995).

Understanding the ways in which traditionally subordinated individuals such as women of color conceptualize their racial/ethnic and gender identity in and across multiple contexts and boundaries would help illuminate some of the very complicated processes of oppression. Invoking traditional sociological constructs of structure and agency, individuals, thus, shape their intersecting racial and gender identities within the limitations of externally imposed assignments that privilege certain groups over others. However, while social constructionist models speak to the interplay between individuals and distinct groups/structures, absent from these perspectives is how identity is formed within one’s own racial/gender group, via interaction with individuals who are similar to one another. Just as identities shift and take on different forms across group boundaries, so, too, can they be made in multiple ways among individuals who are similar to one another, particularly along racial and gender lines. These practices by which distinction is realized opens up opportunities to better understand how second generation children living in the US, in particular, are involved in forming their intersecting identities. To address this gap in the theoretical and empirical literature, this piece offers an alternative perspective on the identity formation process for a particular segment of the non-white immigrant population in the US. More specifically, I discuss the ways in which 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 theoretical approaches to understanding how identity is produced, 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. As Lee and Zhou (2004) have noted, academic explorations into Asian American youth remain scant among work on youth and youth culture in the US, primarily because of mainstream society’s view of this minority group as simultaneously “Forever Foreigners” and “Honorary Whites” (Tuan 1998). This piece attempts to place one segment of the Asian American population at the center of analysis, thereby challenging how scholarship on race and gender can be conceptualized in the future. To understand this adaptive response to a broader racial and gender oppression surrounding this population, I begin with a discussion of mainstream society’s negative stereotypes related to Asian Americans, Asian American college students and Asian American women.

While specific Asian American representations speak directly to gender and age, others have been more broadly applied to categorize all Asian Americans. I then offer a review of the literature on internalized oppression as a framework for my analysis. Next, I present findings from in-depth interviews conducted with second- generation Korean American women ages 18-22 who attend a large Midwestern university. My analysis of racialized gender identities among Korean Americans is not to downplay their sense of ethnic affiliation. Discussions with my sample emphasized Tuan’s (1998) notion of “racialized ethnicity” whereby marginalized groups are recognized by mainstream society more for their racial affiliations (Asian) and less for their ties to a particular nation and its culture. This investigation distinctively reveals how certain markers employed among my sample sustains an intra-group hierarchy centered on physical appearance, language, peer association, and social behavior.

The privileging and subordination of specific racialized gender identities is not meant to place complete responsibility on Asian American women for their own oppression. Instead, that my sample contributes to reproducing a certain racial/gender inequality illuminates the structure/agency relationship in a realm whereby individuals actively participate in constructing their own identity within the confines of oppressive racial/gender ideologies of mainstream society. From “Forever Foreigners” to “Lotus Blossoms”: Mainstream Constructions of Asian Americans Historically, the image of “outsider” has most commonly been associated with Asian American men and women regardless of whether or not they have been born and raised in the US. This long- standing positioning of Asian Americans as “forever foreigners” has historically fueled antagonistic views of this population as unassimilable aliens who represent the opposite of what it means to be “American” (Lowe 1996). This hostility has revealed itself in legislative measures such as the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act and the 1913 Alien Land Law, intended to counteract “yellow peril” by first barring Asian Americans from entering the US and then from the right to own land. Efforts to extinguish the threat of “yellow hordes” have also been reflected in various anti-Asian social agendas such as the supposed Asian campaign finance scandal of the late 1990s, the backlash against figure skaters Kristi Yamaguchi and Michelle Kwan as foreigners rather than Americans, and the US government’s attempts to legally vilify Los Alamos nuclear scientist Dr. Wen Ho Lee. More recent stereotyping has incorporated the illustration of Asian Americans as outsiders while depicting this population to be a “model minority.” Attached to this label are exaggerated notions of Asian Americans as super smart, quiet, hard working, and family oriented, therefore prepared for socioeconomic advancement.

A seemingly positive marker of success, this model minority is arguably a myth that acts as a tool to divide people of color in the US by incorrectly essentializing such characteristics to Asian Americans at the same time that these qualities are deemed to be absent among other minority groups. Asian Americans are therefore incorporated into a black/white hierarchy in which their position as model minority serves to belittle African Americans at one end of the racial spectrum while they do not obtain the status of honorary whites situated at the other end (Tuan 1998). The model minority and outsider/foreigner constructs are particularly relevant for Asian American youth attending college. Popularized stereotypes have accompanied Asian American male and female students in a manner that perpetuates a certain social position vis-à-vis those of different racial backgrounds. That Asian Americans are believed to be excellent students and high academic achievers in comparison to others indicates an erroneous assumption supported by high SAT scores and GPAs among this population (Takagi 1992:60). This image has fueled a simultaneous admiration and resentment of Asian Americans on college campuses. While Asian Americans may be lauded for their scholarly achievements, they are antagonistically singled out as increasing competition for good grades and precious admission slots in the more selective universities (Kibria 2002). Phrases such as “University of Caucasians living among Asians” and “Made in Taiwan” to refer to UCLA and MIT reflect this antipathy toward Asian Americans among college campus social circles (Takagi 1992:60). Accompanying the resentment of Asian American student achievement are behavioral suppositions of this racial group as being nerdy, quiet, shy, socially inept, and uninterested in anything outside academics.

Additional stereotypes of Asian Americans as exclusive, cliquish, and associating only with peers similar to them have pervaded the dominant society’s conceptualization of this racial group. Thus, as Kibria (2002) notes, “ (this) proclivity… is seen to be deeply contradictory to the individualism of American culture and hence foreign… Asian students become more than just a part of the balkanized college campus – they become, in effect, a cause of it.” (106) Yet another stereotype connected to the Asian American student population focuses on financial wealth and conspicuous materialism. An association with the recent influx of supposedly children from more wealth immigrant families, luxury cars, expensive clothing, and hard-core party hopping often accompany an alternative image to the introverted, studious Asian American student. Kibria (2002) posits that these material markers often indicate an emphasis on and competition for social and economic status within one’s peer group (106). As part of this “status game” material goods uch as clothes and cars are “further affirmations of Asian Americans’ ‘foreignness’ when they are out of sync with those of mainstream of American culture” (106).

Aside from these stereotypes of Asian Americans and Asian American college students, other derogatory illustrations have dominated mainstream society’s conceptualization of Asian American women. In addition to essentialized notions of Asian Americans ranging from “forever foreigners” to the “model minority” depictions of behavioral traits commonly associated with individuals of Asian descent have pervaded the imagery in US popular culture of Asian women. Gendered and racialized representations such as the “Suzie Wong” and “Lotus Blossom” images portray Asian women as hypersexual, superfeminine, exotic, and always ready to fulfill men’s desires as well as being docile, quiet, and passive (Cheung 1990; Fong 1998; Kim 1986). Moreover, just as the usage of the “model minority” label serves to reinforce a particular representations of Asian Americans along a black/white racial spectrum, so, too does the imagery associated with Asian American women strengthen specific racialized forms of gender as desirable/normal vs. undesirable/abnormal.

That Asian women are commonly depicted as always sexually available, passive and weak further masculinizes black women as unfeminine, aggressive, and overpowering (Pyke and Johnson 2003:36). Again, then, white forms of gender are privileged as the standard against which other racialized types of gender are to be measured. Internalized Oppression Recognized as one of the least investigated aspects of oppression, internalized oppression often takes a backseat to scholarship on more external expressions such as institutional discrimination and violence (Hall 1986). The dearth of literature on the processes of internalized oppression and identity formation within groups calls for an extension of social constructionist perspectives regarding intersectionalities that has largely been uninvestigated. This absence indicates an understandable apprehension of “blaming the victim” by diverting focus away from more fundamental dynamics of oppression such as institutionalized and legalized discrimination. As such, internalized oppression has remained one of the least explained aspects of understandings of power (Hall 1986: 27). Within the existing literature, scholars have depicted internalized racism as a response to discrimination experienced within the broader society. This speaks to particular dynamics central to identity formation, namely the embeddedness and limitations of self-identity within the racial ideologies of the dominant society. However, while internalized racism is arguably an adaptive reaction to a larger discrimination, its “victims” are not passive but, rather, active participants in a “form of compliance that replicates inequality” (Pyke and Dang 2003). Though research on internalized oppression among Asian Americans has not been copious, a few scholars have looked at this phenomenon through the experiences of this portion of the US minority population. Osajima’s (1993) investigation of Asian American students attending primarily white colleges in the Northeast revealed numerous “hidden injuries of race.” In reaction to the dominant society’s negative perceptions of Asians, Asian American students sought to deflect social stigma by attempting not to appear “too Asian.” In avoiding, conveying repugnance toward, and negatively stereotyping others of Asian descent, those within Osajima’s sample participated in the process of internalized racism by attempting to demonstrate an assimilated status by distancing themselves from individuals of the same racial/ethnic group.

A more recent study by Pyke and Dang (2003) discusses a process of “intraethnic othering” whereby grown children of Korean and Vietnamese immigrants utilized specific language to label other coethnics according to negative identities reflective of mainstream society’s oppressive stereotypes of Asians. Focusing on the terms “Fresh Off The Boat” (FOB) and “whitewashed,” Pyke and Dang reveal a specific lexicon employed among Asian American adults that forms the “basis for sub-ethnic identities, intraethnic social boundaries and the monitoring and control of social behavior” (147). Both of these studies reflect a social constructionist approach to understanding racial and ethnic affiliation as well as the some of the dynamics that occur among Asian Americans to produce a sense of racial and ethnic identity. Furthermore, these authors open up the opportunity for examinations of internalized oppression along racialized gender lines by reaffirming the legitimacy of this avenue of investigation into how traditionally marginalized individuals reaffirm a dominant discriminatory ideologies as a response to negative stereotypes and portrayals.

Method Over a six-month period from March to October 2003, I conducted in-depth, semi structured interviews with 20 second generation Korean American women attending a major Midwestern public university. All the women in my sample self-identified as Korean American and Asian American. Ranging in age from 18 to 24 with an average age of 19.5, interviewees were either in the midst of their college education or had just received their bachelor’s degree. Those who had recently completed their undergraduate education were waiting to start full-time jobs in fall 2003 or were taking time off to decide what to do next. Among my sample, 17 women were of the true second generation, having been born and raised solely in the United States. Three out of twenty were born in South Korea and emigrated to the U.S. at or before the age of three. With the assistance of the university’s office of minority student and ethnic affairs, I distributed an initial recruitment e-mail to a database of first-year students who identified as Asian American. While I initially expected to secure 20 interviewees through a random sample of respondents, the recruitment e-mail surprisingly yielded very few Korean American women who qualified to participate.

As a result, I relied on a snowball sample consisting of eligible respondents from the initial recruitment e-mail and friends or acquaintances they identified as fitting participant criteria. The variation in age and year in school can primarily be attributed to this sampling method. Rather than conduct interviews on a one-time basis, I wanted to talk to women multiple times for various reasons. Foremost, I was interested in gaining participants’ trust, especially over the course of a discussion that delved into fairly personal subjects such as racial/gender identity. Multiple interviews allowed me to ask introductory questions to establish a rapport and subsequently follow up with questions that were more sensitive nature and that incorporated responses from the previous interview(s). This allowed time for reflection between interviews for myself and the interviewees. In addition, the wide range, depth and seriousness of questions did not seem suited for a one-shot one to two hour period of time. Along with concerns of not being able to establish a comfortable level of trust during one session, I was concerned that participants would feel overwhelmed and tire easily during a single long interview session. Interviews generally fell into a particular pattern.

First interviews consisted of questions and responses revolving around background information such as childhood and adolescent experiences, daily activities, academic interests, and future goals and priorities. During many of the interviews, I did not need to prompt women to talk about the intersections of race and gender according to their experiences. Rather, they freely discussed conceptualizations of Korean American/Asian American women as part of their growing up, their current day-to-day experiences as college students, and the diversity of contexts within these environments. Second and final interviews served as opportunities to focus more specifically on racial/gender conceptualizations brought up by the interviewees themselves during initial interviews. These subsequent conversations primarily revolved around participants’ definitions of physical attractiveness and how they felt others perceived them physically. Furthermore, discussions centered on racialized beliefs about gender behavior as they demonstrated responses to mainstream society’s depictions of Asian American women in relationship to racialized gender imagery of other women.

After transcribing interviews, I inductively coded the first ten transcripts according to a modified version of Glaser’s (1987) core-category coding model. Consistent with this approach, I developed codes and subsequent groups of codes extracted from the data itself, rather than according to pre-established categories. The remaining data were then deductively coded using these categories. The analysis presented in this paper focuses on emergent themes from the data that are detailed in the following sections From FOBs to Bananas: Racialized and Gendered Othering through Language As a way of conceptualizing particular racialized gender identities, my sample relied on various symbolic markers to establish boundaries and hierarchies among other women that reflected and reinforced mainstream society’s derogatory imagery of Asian American women. While numerous depictions of Asian American women permeated all my conversations, I focus on those labels most commonly deployed among participants to denigrate and/or praise other coethnic women according to beliefs that position certain types of racialized gender identities as more desirable than others. Similar to Pyke and Dang (2003) the terms “fresh off the boat” (from now on referred to as “FOB”) and “whitewashed” were used by all of the women in my sample. Markers such as “Asianized Asian,” “sorority white girls with Asian faces,” “twinkie,” and “banana” were also employed. The comprehension and use of this language was understood by my sample to be exclusive to other coethnics, thereby demonstrating a particular form of internalized oppression. As Kerry, a 19 year-old first year student, described her understanding of whites’ conceptualizations of Asian Americans, “… something as simple as what ‘twinkie’ means. You know, people who aren't Asian don't know what that means. I used it once with my (white) boyfriend now, and he was like, ‘What's a twinkie?’ It was just foreign to him” (Int. 15, pp. 17-18). Moreover, while the use of such terms reveals specific types of racialized gender identities that are either privileged or belittled in line with mainstream ideologies, this process was not identical across all participants. FOBby Asian Women: “You Just Don’t Do That Here!” The mimicking of dominant society’s negative portrayals of Asian American women can be seen in the use of “FOB” as a marker of difference and undesirability along multiple dimensions. Participants relied on “FOB” and other terms such as “Asianized Asians” or “Koreanized Koreans” to single out those women who were seen as unassimilated in comparison to more mainstream and desirable racialized gender identities. Depictions of “FOBby” women commonly essentialized particular physical attributes and associated body practices that revolved around choice of clothing and accessories, body comportment, and hairstyles. Women who looked stereotypically “studious” or “nerdy” were negatively assumed to be so because of the fact they “look like they don’t take care of themselves” and “they don’t pay attention to current (dress) trends.” Commenting on her notions of unattractive Asian American women, Myra, a 19 year-old who maintained friendships with Asian American women separate from those with white women, described someone “Fresh off the boat looking. Wearing weird clothes, not up to date with the regular trends. Walking looking down” (Int. 1, p. 19). My sample also talked about derogatorily about additional physical traits associated with FOB women. Body weight and size emerged as a point of distinction for less assimilated Asian American women. Ultra skinny women who showed no muscular definition or body curvature were commonly referred to as FOBby women. Twenty year-old Janice, who associated almost exclusively with non- Asian American women and whose own views of attractive female bodies revolved around more curvy and muscular non-Asian women, linked this body style to particular negative gender stereotypes of Asian women. When I asked her why she thought this body type existed among less assimilated women, she responded: I think maybe some of it has to do with the fact that, well not the fact but the perception that women are fragile and delicate, like the old, old school belief. And I think maybe some people are submitting to that belief and making their physical appearance seem that way… If you could lift things with the boys you weren't fragile and delicate. You couldn't be as strong as them. Oh, if you're fragile and delicate you can't possibly be as smart as some of them, if you are that's amazing…If you were fragile and delicate, there's no chance that you could stand up for yourself, or you're gonna assert your own rights in certain senses I guess. Or be as smart as everyone else, just things like that (Int. 16, p. 4). Janice’s comments reflect mainstream society’s attributions of docility and weakness, in particular, to Asian American women. The connection Janice makes between how particular behavioral characteristics are attached to a specific body type illustrates the perpetuation of negative stereotypes of Asian American women at the same time that it reinforces a more desirable racialized image of gender. While Myra’s and Janice’s depictions of FOBby Asian women emphasized awkwardness and weakness, other interviewees discussed alternative characterizations of “Asianized Asian” women contradictory to images of docile and asexual femininity. The image of the Asian female student who belongs to an exclusively Asian sorority was often invoked for various derogatory associations. Reflecting on the possibility of joining an Asian sorority during her first semester, 18 year-old Lisa talked about the reasons why she rejected this option: I like spending time one-on-one with some of them. But when they’re in a group it’s kind of like, the way they act really annoyed me and it was very superficial. But, like, it was like you had, it was very typical (Asian). Like, you all had to go out the same way, if you go to a party or anything. It’s like long hair, you gotta straighten your hair and all that. Sometimes everyone, everyone will wear white and it’s like, the clothes you wear, you have to wear, like, very… I don’t normally dress that way. It’s just, like, they’re skimpy (Int. 2, p. 4) As someone who entered college “know(ing) a lot of Asian people” but “want(ing) to be more universal,” Lori’s descriptions of “typical Asian women” invoked negative images of Asian Americans and Asian American women as sexually available, exclusive, cliquish, and focused on material goods such as clothing. Notably, other interviewees belittled the typical Asian woman in alternative ways, identifying her as “(having) double eye lid surgery,” “feminine but trying to act gangster at the same time,” “dieting like crazy,” and “wearing black pants and North Face puffy jackets.” The inconsistent variations of FOB women are understandable due to the existence of this category as the storehouse for all of the negative conceptualizations of Asian American women put forth by the dominant society. Furthermore, the intra-group use of markers such as “FOB” and “typical Asian woman” indicates a process whereby respondents perpetuate negative racialized gender images of Asian American women at the same time that they distance themselves from those whom they disparage (Pyke & Dang 2003). The possible reasons for why my sample engages in this dynamic are worth investigating. Myra, when asked what she believed to be the primary influence for her beliefs about FOBby women, responded, “…a lot of the Caucasian guys influence (me) ‘cause I think they have a lot of say and power on this campus. And if Asians get a lot of attention from them, I think it alters and depends on what they think” (p. 19). These comments are powerful not only for what they demonstrate about how a particular kind of Asian American woman is negatively typecast by fellow Asian American women but also for what they reveal about the reasons for participation in an internalized oppression surrounding racialized gender ideologies.

Yellow on the Outside, White on the Inside: From Admiration to Derision In contrast to the unequivocally negative use of “FOB,” vocabulary such as “whitewashed," “twinkie,” and “banana” were employed as positive and negative illustrations of Asian American women. As markers responsive to dominant society's racialized and gendered imagery, these terms also indicated a high level of assimilation to mainstream culture. However, respondents who perceived themselves as more assimilated and even self-labeled themselves as "whitewashed" accorded status and took pride in being regarded in such a fashion. Identifying oneself or being identified primarily as "white" pointed to a certain success at assimilating to "American (code word for white)" society, especially in relation to the position of Asian Americans as foreign others. Additionally, these respondents overwhelmingly talked about growing up in predominantly white neighborhoods, never having experienced discrimination by whites or feeling like they were racial others. Even after having spent time at college and confronting negative stereotypes regarding Asian Americans and Asian American women, more assimilated participants communicated a sense of privilege in seeing themselves and knowing others recognized them as "white."

Regarding the expression of racialized gender ideologies through physical appearance, some respondents took pride in knowing that others viewed their bodies as similar to white women and, therefore, more desirable than stereotypical Asian American women's bodies. As an example, 22 year-old Sarah who grew up in a white neighborhood where she never thought of herself as racially different from her peers, talked about how her body is perceived by other Asian American female friends: ...my body, a lot of people, even my (Asian American friend) Emma, she's always telling me, "Oh, you've got such a white girl's body." And I never knew what that meant but some people have mentioned it to me... A lot of Asian girls' thighs are straight but then mine are more shapely than most Korean girls. She's like, "you're just more curvy there" (Int. 10, p. 4) When I asked her what she thought of these comments, Sarah acknowledged that she felt good that she was seen as having a more curvy body associated more with white women than with Asian American women. In this sense, then a particular racialized femininity is invoked whereby certain kinds of bodies associated with white women are deemed sexually more desirable than non-shapely, asexual Asian American women. Here again, respondents participated in sustaining certain racialized gender ideologies by distancing themselves from other Asian American women and aligning themselves with whites. In contrast, those among my sample who were unwavering in their identification as racially/ethnically Asian American and/or Korean American criticized assimilated coethnics as "wannabes" who are "in denial."

The derogatory use of "whitewashed" indicated criticism of other coethnics for associating with whites at the exclusion of Asian Americans and for exhibiting certain behaviors they considered to be "American." Not knowing an Asian language, not liking Asian foods, using colloquialisms associated predominantly with whites, and disrespecting elders were commonly invoked negative associations with whitewashed coethnics. Interestingly, a rejection of the model minority status associated with Asian Americans was also seen as a denial of one's racial/ethnic roots. As 19 year-old Olivia, a fiercely proud Korean American female student commented, "When I come across Asian Americans who are like, 'Well, I don't want to be placed in the minority category in the first place so I don't want to be a model type,' I just assume that they weren't exposed to Asian culture and Asian people" (Int. 17, p. 22). Olivia identifies these individuals as whitewashed Asian Americans who reject the label as "something to take pride in or (that is) good that you're getting recognition from other people that you are hardworking and you are trying to make something of yourself" (p. 22). With regard to specific negative depictions of whitewashed Asian American women, commentary on racialized femininity through physical appearance also emerged. Again, Lisa derided a particular Asian American female student living in her dormitory for wanting to be white by having a certain kind of body: Her tummy's like this. It's rounded. It's like a pot belly... I don't know. I just didn't think that was cool... Just the clothes she wears. It's like she thinks she's great. She thinks she's thin. She's so proud of herself. I see she's so hypocritical because she's Asian and yet she has this thing. And I'm like, "Whatever! You're such a wanna-be white person. What do you wanna look like them, too? You wanna have a gut?" (Int. 2, p. 17) Clearly, these depictions of a female peer's physical appearance point to the value placed on a particular racialized and gendered body type.

That an Asian American woman would maintain anything other than a flat stomach and go to lengths to show it runs counter to Lisa's notions of what constitutes a desirable Asian American femininity and an undesirable white femininity. Furthermore, Lisa's automatic assumption of her fellow student's bodily display as anti-Asian and white demonstrates the racialized and gendered contexts in which stereotypes about Asian American women have been historically produced. Lisa's belief that her peer's actions are anti-Asian in spite of the fact that she is racially seen as Asian by coethnics and others results in an immediate association with wanting to be perceived as a non-foreign white woman and, therefore, positioned at the top of a racialized gender hierarchy. Here, too, respondents produced certain racialized gender identities among one another through a process of intra-group othering shaped by dominant society's negative steroetypes of Asian American women. In all of these instances, the conflicting uses of "whitewashed" and similar terms are important to acknowledge for what they indicate about the labelers themselves and the social contexts in which they function. That pride and disgust were invoked in labeling women as “whitewashed” and “American” emphasizes the situational dynamics of racial categories, especially as those employing such markers bring their distinct interpretations and experiences into this process. However, in a world where negative images of Asian American women revolve around a subordinated racialized gender position, the likelihood of racial crossover by those historically seen as “forever foreigners” remains to be seen. What is clear from this analysis are the varying ways in which individuals can engage in intra-group contradictions surrounding a particular racial/gender to make sense of their own identity. Discussion and Summary

This study attempts to expose some of the dynamics of identity formation for one segment of a traditionally marginalized population. My analysis of the ways in which twenty second generation Korean American college students makes sense of their racial and gender identities reveals a process of nternalized oppression whereby individuals participate in “othering” fellow Korean American women. As an adaptive response to discriminatory ideologies first put forth by the dominant society, my sample reproduces a mainstream racialized gender hierarchy by disparaging other Korean American women who personify long-held negative images of Asian American women or try to deny their racial status by crossing over into white society. As the use of terms like “FOB” and “Asianized Asian” suggest the production of inequality within a particular group indicates the pervasiveness of oppression, thereby complicating the possibility of resisting discriminatory labels and assumptions regarding race and gender.

The application of markers such as “twinkie,” “American,” and “banana” on fellow Korean American women puts an additional spin on the social construction of a racialized gender identity. The use of these terms by my sample was much more inconsistent, with some individuals taking pleasure in self-identifying as “whitewashed” while others ridiculed those they perceived as “in denial.” Women who proudly identified as more assimilated simultaneously resisted and affirmed negative stereotypes associated with Asian American women. This process was, therefore, emblematic of internalized racial/gender oppression among my sample. In contrast, those who used “whitewashed” to denigrate fellow coethnics, assumed that assimilation into the white mainstream is an unattainable aspiration. Korean American women who maintained a strong racial affiliation viewed coethnics as inevitably different from white women. This assumption reiterates the legitimacy of a mainstream racialized gender oppression that positions Asian American women as biologically and socially distinct from white women.

The willingness with which my sample employed discriminatory language to describe other Asian American women is worth some discussion for the insights it can offer into possibility of uprooting internalized oppression. Throughout my conversations, participants invoked markers such as “FOB” and “twinkie” with almost no hesitancy. That these terms were used exclusively among Korean Americans and other Asian Americans implies a rejection of their problematic nature. Additionally, the freedom with which my sample relied on these markers with me, an interviewer who self-identified as a second generation Korean American/Asian American to her respondents, further emphasizes the acceptance of these descriptors as legitimate. The fact that outsiders are not privy to these dynamics combined with a blindness to internalized oppression characteristic of its own participants offers a picture of the inescapability of this process. Regardless, these factors are crucial to recognize in devising future efforts to resist and break down such practices.

What lies ahead for subsequent generations of non-white immigrants to the US and the ways in which they will construct their racial and gender identities? My analysis of second generation Korean American women does not hold the answers to these questions but perhaps offers some opportunities for future investigations. As a number of my participants expressed strong interest in interracial dating and marriage, further research on the processes of identity formation can further illuminate the complexity and challenges that multiracial/multiethnic children will undoubtedly face. While traditional assimilationist frameworks are currently perceived by many scholars as unsuitable to newer generations of non-white immigrant children, it may be that subsequent interracial generations create a sense of identity that is far more assimilated to the mainstream. Moreover, future demographic shifts will undoubtedly raise questions about various manifestations of oppression as well as the viability of current categories and their accompanying social hierarchies. How these change and how individuals interpret and respond to these classifications are promising questions to be answered that will hopefully extend our understanding of the social construction of all types of intersecting identities.

Bibliography and source
All academicresearch.com