"The Cultural Capital of Asian American Studies (New York University Press) explores the state of the discipline more than 40 years after its founding amid the student protests of the 60s. Mark Chiang, associate professor of English at the University of Illinois at Chicago, writes about how the field has grown and also changed since its early days. In an e-mail interview, he discussed the themes of the book.
Q: What are the key ways Asian American studies as a field is different today from the era when it was created?"
A: The first Asian American studies program at San Francisco State University was distinguished by its community orientation and founded on two main slogans regarding the relation of the university to the community: community autonomy and relevant education. The institutional structure of Asian American studies marked a radical break from the typical model of the American university in that it gave community members who were not academics a voice in program governance over such matters as hiring and curriculum. In this regard, the program threatened the principle of faculty autonomy and self-governance that were essential to the modern research university. The necessity of institutional survival, however, meant that the program soon was forced to conform more or less to the rest of the university and thus to exclude non-faculty members from any participation in program operations.
Q: What are the key ways Asian American studies as a field is different today from the era when it was created?"
A: The first Asian American studies program at San Francisco State University was distinguished by its community orientation and founded on two main slogans regarding the relation of the university to the community: community autonomy and relevant education. The institutional structure of Asian American studies marked a radical break from the typical model of the American university in that it gave community members who were not academics a voice in program governance over such matters as hiring and curriculum. In this regard, the program threatened the principle of faculty autonomy and self-governance that were essential to the modern research university. The necessity of institutional survival, however, meant that the program soon was forced to conform more or less to the rest of the university and thus to exclude non-faculty members from any participation in program operations.