Assimilation and identity

The late missiologist Paul Hiebert, together with Young Hertig, has an interesting though dated (1993) article on Asian immigrants in urban cities, with particular reference to North America. They examine the issue of identity and assimilation, suggesting that the core question is: to which culture does the immigrant really belong? Each generation after immigration approaches and answers this in a different way.

1. First generation - clear sense of identity. That is, their identity is very much tied to their "home" culture. They might develop survival skills to cope in the new culture, but their values, beliefs, things & events they find significant etc., are those of "home". If women come from patriarchal cultures, they are unlikely to be exposed much to the new culture, from staying at home etc., and so are often isolated.

2. 2nd generation - deep identity crisis. They encounter schizophrenia, for at home and within the family, they absorb certain values and beliefs, but in school and public are enculturated into the new culture. So you have a clash, with this generation often having to make decisions about how much to take on board parental values, resulting either in withdrawal, rebellion, or more likely, compartmentalization. The best case scenario is if one is able to integrate the best of both worlds. Add in other factors such as the different paces at which siblings within a family might assimilate and it gets even more complicated. One critical factor in the assimilation of second generation young people is the attitude of their parents. Other factors like social mobility etc. all count for something too.

3. 3rd and 4th generation - assimilation and appreciation. Here the identity crisis is not so acute, because they have figured out their place in society more, whether by carving out a niche for themselves or completely assimilating. But when we get to 4th/5th generation, we find that some begin to seek their roots once more, especially if their racial features are more distinct. Here we may find the problem of "hidden immigrants" - eg. looking Chinese on the outside but born and bred in America, and so actually being completely different culturally.

Also, at a deeper level, language becomes an issue. Hiebert and Hertig quote Cheryl, a Korean teenager in LA: "I try to speak Korean when I talk with my mother, but the most important emotional stuff I say in English because I cannot express it in Korean. So my mother does not have any idea what I am trying to say. It is really frustrating. I don't understand why she does not try to learn English. She has lived here almost twenty years." I think a few of us Malaysians will share similar experiences.

So why am I blogging about all this? There's the personal side, of course: I have often wrestled with questions such as this partly due to my upbringing, my family and educational background, the friends that I have, and of course, as someone involved in ministry with international students in a Western country. And because I just wanted to see if I could stimulate some thoughts from my readers, and the article above provides some important intercultural, and indeed, intergenerational insights which are relevant for the Malaysian context, although obviously we are very different in many ways. I think, for example, of the differences between English and Chinese-educated Chinese and the questions of trying to "preserve" a culture versus the "interaction" of cultures. Or the often frustrating family dynamics that those of us who are younger struggle to decipher - why are parents always so obtuse? (Apologies for the examples being obviously Chinese, that's my makeup). Or the wider politics of race and racial discourse - would you describe yourself as Malaysian or Malay/Indian/Chinese/Bumiputra/Iban/Kadazan/Martian first? I actually assert my "Malaysianness" more, I think, but I know others will differ from me.

Some might take exception to using an article on the "immigrant experience" to draw parallels to the Malaysian situation, since "immigrant" itself is a contested term in Malaysia. A big number of us will resent being labelled as pendatang, as if we were 2nd class citizens. That, of course, is to miss the point. It's simply a historical fact that many of us will have ancestors who at some point immigrated to what we now call Malaysia. I know we live in a plural society, so I wonder if we're not so much assimilating into a clearly marked majority/mainstream culture as forging a distinctively "Malaysian" culture, although again what that is is up for debate. How do you compare Sino-Kadazans in Sabah with the Nyonyas in Malacca? But maybe again the lack of flattening is a good thing. It means we're more aware that we all have particular categories and assumptions that affect how we view the world.

Plus, these are questions, I am convinced, we need to reflect on as Malaysian Christians, especially as it impacts on things like pastoral practice, evangelism and so on. It also challenges us to consider afresh what it means to consider ourselves to be Christians first and foremost, to be sojourners in this age. As Tim Kellers notes:

"Identity is a complex set of layers, for we are many things. Our occupation, ethnic identity, etc., are part of who we are. But we assign different values to these components and thus Christian maturing is a process in which the most fundamental layer of our identity becomes our self-understanding as a new creature in Christ along with all our privileges in him."

OK, I've rambled with no clear direction for long enough. Comments welcome. For more on the migrant experience, I can think of no better teacher than the short stories of Jhumpa Lahiri. For an intro to cross-cultural issues, try Sarah Lanier's From Foreign to Familiar or some of Duane Elmer's books.



† Expand post

Myth-busting

Unsurprisingly, quite a few introspective "state of the nation" pieces coming out.

There's an outsider's perspective, from a decidedly secularist viewpoint: The myth of a moderate Malaysia, originally published in Forbes. I get the sense that the piece is more about his larger point that religion is best subordinated to modernity, with Malaysia as his prime example, rather than Malaysia itself. But it's an interesting piece nevertheless, since it probably is representative of the beliefs of many of the urban, upper-middle class, Malaysiakini-reading segment.

Another myth to come under attack is that of the monolithic community. This is a piece I'm generally happy to agree with.

I've also gone back to read my post from over a year ago - Race meets the Malaysian church, in conversation with my friend WN, who incidentally is trying to think through what it means to be a citizen at the moment over at his blog. And I don't think there's anything I'll change from that post.

On mono/multi-cultural congregations

I’ve really enjoyed reading Tony Siew’s two posts on race and religion, here and here. I have always struggled to negotiate the tensions inherent in the task of assimilating into British culture while retaining a distinctly Malaysian identity; it gets even more complicated when you factor in that I am in some ways very Western, having taken the road less travelled by studying for a degree in English Literature, and have also been involved in international ministry for some time now predominantly amongst East Asians!

This translates over into church as well, where I initially sort of fell into attending a Caucasian-majority church during my A-Levels – I had no say in the matter really, but this turned out to be a good thing – and have done so ever since. Part of the reason for this was a conviction that church congregations should ideally be multiracial, having grown up in such a church myself. (Isn’t it interesting that Tony comes from the same denomination as myself? Ahem. OK, enough boasting for now. :->) I should hasten to add that I did not view my choices of churches primarily through ethnic lenses; there were plenty of other, more important reasons why I committed to the churches I did. And in any case, there are plenty of times when church congregations can’t be multiracial – I’m thinking hypothetically of the small church in the Japanese countryside where’s there’s unlikely to be any foreigners around!

In truth, there is a gospel tension "between building one church that displays Christian love, and the Christian love that reaches out to people in all their diversity", as Carson puts it. Andrew Lim, a pastor in Australia who comes from a Chinese church context, helpfully lists both criticisms and valid reasons for a mono-ethnic cultural church:

Criticisms

• They ignore the fact that we are all one in Christ (Galatians 3:28); there should not be distinctions (no longer Jew or Gentiles…)
  
• They encourage cultural biases like a sense of superiority or monoculturalism
  
• They are by definition racist, and may be seen by outsiders as such
  
• They may foster cultural intolerance
  
• They are inward and exclusive, by not seeking to minister to outsiders
  
• They are prone to mix up cultural ethics with Biblical ethics
  
• They restrict evangelistic opportunities. The environment might not be one you would feel comfortable inviting friends from other ethnic backgrounds to.
  
• They are anti-integration and anti-assimilation, a charge often summed up by the questioning statement, “But we live in Australia [or Britain!]...”

Valid reasons

• Jesus tells us to reach ‘all nations’ (Matthew 28:19)
  
• They overcome language and cultural barriers to understanding the gospel
  
• They target specific ethnic groups for evangelism
  
• They are a better forum for addressing culture-specific issues

Andrew and Carson (and I!) all agree that there is plenty of value to mono-cultural congregations, especially for missional purposes. I also find them a much needed resting place when the task of crossing cultures become too taxing . The dangers come in when churches become more "Chinese [substitute any other ethnic grouping here] than Christian", and Andrew helpfully lists 7 key identifiers when this might happen, all of which can be said to be a variant of insularity and/or restrictiveness. In other words, against the grain of a gospel that purports to be for all cultures. His whole article is worth reading. May I gently suggest here too that I’m afraid that some Asian Christian gatherings in England run a real danger of falling into this trap.

My current church has a small afternoon mono-cultural congregation for people who come from a particular Asian country (or who speak their particular language), but at the same time, they are encouraged to participate in wider church activities which will see them mixing with Caucasians and others. I think this is quite a helpful model, although in practice it isn’t always as neat as outlined here!

What are some of things I’ve learnt from being in such a congregation? Well, firstly, I think in some small way, I really do understand more what it feels like to be a minority. I think I know more of what it feels like when there are not many who can always understand where you are coming from, or to appreciate certain jokes. I agree with Tony that we should be seeking to understand the cultures of others, and on some things that’s not a problem for me, but it’s also true that it’s unlikely you will be able to get to attain a similar level of understanding unless you have the luxury of time. To be fair, for some it’s easier than others; I think some Malaysians and Singaporeans in particular are brilliant at this. Just last night I was listening to banter about people’s experiences of Christian summer camps. I’ve been in British church circles long enough now to have some knowledge about Iwerne and Sparkford and Bash Camps and their influence on British evangelicalism generally, but I don’t really know what it’s like to go on one, and I found no avenue to participate in such a conversation. I think wistfully of the Christian camps I’ve been to as a teenager and think that it would have also been quite alien to the many around me!

But I also know a little more about what true gospel unity looks like. I can think of a couple of British Christian friends who have put in the hard work of getting to know me, and thus provided some impetus for me to put in the work myself and I am thankful for that. Again, for some people this is not a problem, but for me personally I know it’s unlikely to ever get to a stage where it’ll be second nature for me to relate to a Brit. And the hard work stems from the wider recognition that together, we are a body in Christ.

I like what Tony says about over-sensitivity as well. I know there are times when I find it difficult to relate and it’s easy to blame it simply on cultural differences, when it’s more a matter of, for example, different temperaments. I do find it hard occasionally that I do get pigeonholed with mainland Chinese, when in reality I am very different to them, but well, the answer should be better education, not explosive reaction! After all, I do get it from the other side as well, when Malaysians who hear that I’ve studied literature have me pigeonholed as some sort of Shakespeare-spouting thespian when I’m nothing of the sort.

Finally, Tony suggests that "Western churches make extra efforts to show hospitality and love to foreign students or workers in their midst". I am glad that British churches are beginning to wake up to the reality of the huge numbers of overseas students and workers that are flowing in. A good friend of mine has just recently been appointed to a newly created international students worker post at a London church and I’m excited for him.

Won’t it be great when the day comes when such struggles will be no more?


† Expand post

Race meets the Malaysian church (part 2)

Part 1

Racial reconciliation in light of biblical reflection
WN now writes, in light of such attitudes that “the only hope, I believe, in bringing racial restoration is not in voting Opposition (because that reflects a selfish ‘protect me and not the UMNOputeras’ attitude) but in loving every other race.” Yes, yes, yes! I am in wholehearted agreement with the sentiments expressed here. However, I want to build on this statement in two ways. Negatively, I want to demolish what I feel is a false antithesis here. It might be the case that many would have voted Opposition on the basis of selfish attitudes. But I doubt many others would have reasoned like this in casting their votes. Firstly, is voting for the Opposition in this instance really reflective of an "it’s you or me, mister" attitude? I don’t think so. I would likely have voted Opposition in the last elections because I feel that the actions of some members of UMNO have harmed the rakyat regardless of whatever background they come from. The NEP, a political hot potato that inevitably comes up in such discussions, was not originally conceived as a zero sum game but ideally as a win-win situation for all. I would say that I feel that voting for the Opposition in this case is actually one small way I show my love for other races, as poor Malays have suffered especially from the misdemeanours of some corrupt members of the ruling party.

Now this is not the same as saying that by voting for PKR-DAP-PAS and simply changing institutional structures, racial reconciliation will surely come about. This leads on the second way I wish to build on his statement; positively, I seek to ground his proposal more Christianly. Now here I understand by doing so I necessarily limit my audience. I’m following Carson’s exhortation to "think biblically and theologically", and so this is not a discussion on specific matters of civil life and political activity (I hope my short justification of why I would have voted for the Opposition provides a sufficient eg. of this) nor is this a discussion on how best to work with other non-Christians in the public square, many with whom we would find common ground. However, as a Christian, my working assumption is that the biblical metanarrative is true, and therefore this will necessarily be the lens in which I view the world (just as a Muslim or an atheist will have their own assumptions). Anyway, let’s flesh this out.

The starting point, I think, should be the Trinity. The Trinity is perhaps the distinctive mark of the Christian God. For it teaches us one very important truth, and that is God is relational. One of the reasons we can confidently say that God didn’t create humans because he was lonely is because of the Trinity. God has always been in community. We further learn that all humans are made in the image of God. That means all humans have inherent dignity, and it also means that we are by nature, relational beings. Furthermore, as the Trinity is both the perfect example of unity and diversity, it gives us a basis to understand that we should mirror our relationships after the Triune God, enjoying both a God-given oneness and diversity. The way we view people, regardless of race, culture, or ethnicity must necessarily be governed by this.

Sin enters the world, and disrupts both our relationship with God and with each other. At its heart is the failure to honour God; he is displaced. This "works out in countless sins of every description. It includes oppression on the one hand and nurtured resentments on the other—and both feed into what we call racism. Idolatry means we are so selfish most of the time that most of us do not automatically think in terms of sacrificial service...Because almost all sin has social ramifications, the biases, hatreds, resentments, nurtured feelings of inferiority and superiority, anger, fear, sense of entitlement—all are passed on in corrosive ways to new generations." (Carson)

That is as true in Malaysia as in any other part of the world. This is why we cannot portray ourselves as mere victims. This is not to say that there have never been groups of people who have been sinned against terribly, and surely we want to redress those, and institutional reform is one way to go. But people don’t just need to be reconciled to one another, they need to be reconciled to God.

This is why Christians, more than any other people, have a basis to love others, regardless of race. They are meant to be a people reconciled to God because of the cross! Sadly, we have not always acted on that basis and practised what we preached. However, a love for others should naturally flow from the love God that he has shown us, through the atoning sacrifice of his Son for his...not friends, but enemies. In short, it is grounded in the gospel. (Romans 5:8, 1 John 4:10). John makes this clear in v.11: "Dear friends, since God so loved us, so we ought to love one another", where he is speaking of Christians in particular. There is no qualification, no appeal to loving those from the same race or culture. Similarly, in Philippians 2:1-11, we too are exhorted to put the interests of others ahead of ourselves, and again the reason we are given is the example of Jesus himself.

This should be a distinctive mark of Christian communities. There are countless other examples like these: Paul is grateful for the Colossians’ “faith in Christ Jesus” and love for "all the saints" (1:4), the Macedonian church (Gentiles) takes up a collection for the Christians in Jerusalem (Jews), as they recognise the grace of their Lord Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 8:1-9) and so on. Ephesians 2:11-22 is probably the definitive statement on how the cross impacts human relationships and creates not just saved individuals, but a new community. Christians, more than anyone, need to model racial reconciliation as a pointer to the God of all nations. On the final day, Scripture tells us that those who gather around his throne will be from all ethnicities, so that part of our identity is not eliminated in the new creation. Nonetheless such love is not restricted to Christians only, as is made clear elsewhere in the NT. "Make sure that nobody repays wrong for wrong, but always try to be kind to each other and everyone else." (1 Thess. 5:15). There is a responsibility to care for the church ("each other") but also those who are not Christians ("everyone else"). In multi-racial Malaysia, I think that this is especially pertinent.

It may be true that “when you start a culture of loving one another, it comes back to you.” But in the end, this is only a byproduct. And I don’t think it holds true in every case. If we recognise that the world is still fallen and that sin still exists, although Christ’s kingdom has already been inaugurated through the death of Jesus, then there will be ugly moments in history where love is not reciprocated. It is in such moments that Christians will need to recognise the hope found in the gospel, because hope found elsewhere is hope misplaced. Even when no one else fights for my race, I can rest secure in the love of Jesus for all people groups, and that in Christ, I also have a family that transcends race. Perfect love does not exist now, but it will in the new creation, and Christians should show glimpses of that future today in the way we treat others.

There is so much more that can be said, but I hope it’s sufficient for my point to stand. People can go and read Carson for a better and fuller account, or alternatively, Bruce Milne’s Dynamic Diversity.

Well, I must have broken just about every blogging rule regarding conciseness! This has been for your consideration and hopefully, not self-indulgence.


† Expand post

Race meets the Malaysian church

[Context: This is an edited version of a piece in which I interact fairly extensively with my friend Wai Nyan’s reflections on race-based politics. In it I attempt to modify some aspects and build upon his post and in doing so hope to encourage all of us to reflect more on the subject. This post makes no pretence at being definitive or exhaustive, not that I could do that anyway. Wai Nyan has seen an earlier draft, and encouraged me to put it online. Blame him. :-p]

My friend Wai Nyan asks the question, ‘Is race-based politics dying?’ and offers a few brief reflections. I suspect that his reflections are shaped by a desire to respond to those “who say that race-based politics should be eliminated but in the very same sentence, mock the Malays...” and those of similar attitudes. Therefore, his intended audience and purpose is quite different from mine; where he sought generally to correct, I was looking for further elucidation. That needs to be taken into account: writing a disciplinary report to the parents of the naughty kid in your class is obviously different from writing an extended essay for your college professor! So I was looking for some nuance in a post that was not necessarily meant to be read that way.

WN’s post reminded me of a D.A Carson piece where he reflects on racism with reference to the church in particular, and I managed to track it down and reread it. Five Steps for Reconciliation on Sunday at 11 a.m, adapted from chapter 4 of his book Love in Hard Places, represents Carson at his best. He suggests five things we need to keep in mind:

1. Know the history of the problem
   
2. Recognise our mutual culpability
   
3. Consider your church’s neighbourhood
   
4. Consider the real gospel tensions
   
5. Think biblically and theologically

On history and terminology
I want to use Carson’s suggestions as a jumping-off point. I think that first of all, to "know the history of the problem" is to know a little about the word 'race' itself. When we use the word, we normally mean a particular grouping of people based on certain physical characteristics, shared culture and perhaps also area of geographical origin. However, sometimes people go beyond that, and link these inherited physical characteristics to inherited moral, intellectual or behavourial qualities. This is certainly true historically: the history of colonialism reveals that frequent distinctions between the "civilized" and the "barbarians" were often made with these assumptions in mind. Antisemitism is another obvious example. I’m no expert, but as far as I can tell, no respectable geneticist today will tell you that there is an inherent link between “race” and genes. That sounds weird to our ears at first – surely Tiger Woods, Roger Federer and Lin Dan are completely different? It is true that their body shapes, hair and so on are different, and that this is based genetically. Nevertheless, it is only a very small part of us. The mix of melanin, the substance that controls our skin colour, is tiny, and everyone has the same genes that control skin colour! Caucasians could in theory be as dark-skinned as Africans. (I remember first reading about this as a kid in the Bookworm series from Singapore and being very tickled about it). It turns out that a tall person and a short person is probably more different genetically than a Malay and Chinese of equal height.

Does that mean 'race' doesn’t exist? No, we can still talk of race, but we just can’t ground it in purely biological terms. Rather, we use it as a convenient way to classify complex groupings of people with shared physical appearances, cultures, ancestry et al., and all this is bound up with questions of religion and geographical location and so on. It can be very difficult, even impossible to clarify where the exact boundaries are. Where do we draw the line where somebody belongs to a certain race and not the other (or when one qualifies as “mixed”)? The recent blooper where the Chief Minister of Perak mistakenly referred to Sikhs as Bengalis neatly illustrates this, and also shows the very real hurt feelings that can arise.

Generally, we do need to think more about what we mean by 'race', and particularly because it is relevant to, if only in a tiny part, "knowing the history of the problem" in Malaysia. In 1970, Tun Dr. Mahathir, the strongman of Malaysian politics, wrote The Malay Dilemma, where he, among other things, lamented the racial inferiority of the Malays and explicitly linked it with defective genes. This is just not a tenable position. There were also places in the book where he framed the discussion in terms of competition with other races. I don’t know if Dr. M would still defend those views in 2008, or how influential the book continues to be today, but there was no doubt that his book had a significant impact on the psyche of the Malays then and has helped frame the discussion not in altogether helpful ways.

Of course, Dr. M was also building on racial stereotypes inherited from our colonial masters and earlier intellectuals who depicted the Malays as an indolent people. The colonial administrators also played the divide-and-rule game and helped create a racially segregated society and also boosted a collective identity among various people groupings. It is also helpful to remember that as Malaya, which was already populated by various peoples, began to move towards independence, communal groupings were formed – UMNO, MCA etc. – and when they banded together as the “Alliance”, the predecessor of today’s BN, they faced the paradox of appealing to communalist sentiments to pander to their various bases while at the same time trying to present a united front, downplaying perceived threats from the other communities.

Now this is only a very small representation of the various complicated issues at hand. I am actually very reluctant to comment at length because I am quite aware of my own ignorance of these issues. All I really want to show is that it’s really important to try to understand why the situation as it exists today comes about. It’s also why I want to quibble slightly with some of the ways WN frames his discussion. I’m not sure, for instance, if it follows that identifying simply with the phrase “I am Malaysian” leads to CNY, Deepavali or Hari Raya being discarded or our various ancestral histories etc. being disposed of (if that was even possible). I get that this is a rhetorical strategy on his part to show two extreme positions – one where we merely emphasise our lot with no care for others and one where there is a flattening out of diversity, before he goes on to chart a better third way: love. I agree with the rejection of these two positions and the third way, and hopefully this will be evident later on this post.

But I think how we speak of these positions are important. Here, I would prefer to talk in terms of cultures or ethnicities – diverse cultures do exist, and they can all exist under the rubric: “I am Malaysian”. This might sound like mere semantics, but I don’t think so. I feel that we just cannot be loose with our talk if we are to challenge erroneous assumptions about race. Malaysia is a place of cultural diversity, and we can be thankful for that. And we do need to talk about problems of race and racism, as WN acknowledges. But WN implicitly ties CNY, Deepavali and Hari Raya with notions of racial essence, by suggesting that a singular “Malaysian race” means that these celebrations become a thing of the past. But Deepavali and Hari Raya are religious festivals which are celebrated by all kinds of people groups all over the world! True, the socio-cultural conditions in Malaysia are such that to be Malay is to be Muslim, and to be Indian is (mostly) to be Hindu, but this is not a link that is set in stone the way, say, being right or left-handed is. So I would have preferred him to use different terminology or examples.

Carson suggests that we also ought to "recognise our mutual culpability", by which he means that we need to acknowledge that racism often comes from both sides of the divide. WN rightly draws our attention to our hidden racism here; we, whatever colour we are, alll too easily often cast ourselves as collective victims. Yet we all have been guilty of perpetuating the problem at some point. Although he is addressing the black/white divide in America, Carson’s words have applicability cross-culturally and are worth quoting at length here:

" True, slavery is the sin of the powerful, not the weak; and very often racism follows the same pattern. But if racism is defined in terms of exclusion, then racism occurs wherever anyone is dismissed or disowned or demeaned or stereotyped for no other reason than his or her race or ethnicity. Doubtless many white racists think that African-Americans are intrinsically prone to violence, not too bright, and more of the same; but many an African-American finds it hard to imagine that "Whitey" can ever be trusted or should ever be given the benefit of the doubt. It may be useful to draw an analogy. If materialism is the exclusive sin of the rich, then only rich people can be materialistic. But if materialism is the passionate love of material goods, such that God himself is deposed, then poor people may be as horribly materialistic as the rich."

Continued (part 2)


† Expand post