← New Books Network
New Books Network
LiLi Johnson, "Technologies of Kinship: Asian American Racialization and the Making of Family" (NYU Press, 2025)
01:11:59
Loading summary
Transcript74 lines
- [00:00]
A
Hello, everybody. This is Marshall Po. I'm the founder and editor of the New Books Network. And if you're listening to this, you know that the NBN is the largest academic podcast network in the world. We reach a worldwide audience of 2 million people. You may have a podcast or you may be thinking about starting a podcast. As you probably know, there are challenges basically of two kinds. One is technical. There are things you have to know in order to get your podcast produced and distributed. And the second is, and this is the biggest problem, you need to get an audience. Building an audience in podcasting is the hardest thing to do today. With this in mind, we at the NBM have started a service called NBN Productions. What we do is help you create a podcast, produce your podcast, distribute your podcast, and we host your podcast. Most importantly, what we do is we distribute your podcast to the NBN audience. We've done this many times with many academic podcasts, and we would like to help you. If you would be interested in talking to us about how we can help you with your podcast, please contact us. Just go to the front page of the New Books Network and you will see a link to NBN Productions. Click that, fill out the form, and we can talk. Welcome to the New Books Network.
- [01:07]
B
Hi, everyone. Welcome back to the New Books Network. I'm your host, Eileen Zhou. Today, I'm really excited to have Professor Lily Johnson on the show to chat about her new book titled Technologies of Asian American Racialization and the Making of Family, published by the New York University Press in 2025. So, starting from the premise that race and family are not fixed or purely biological, this asks how they're actively produced through technological systems such as immigration policy, government paperwork, photography, online profiles, and genetic testing. It shows us how these systems have shaped the racialization of Asian Americans over the past century, from the exclusion era to a time of neoliberal multiculturalism. And it analyzes the political and interpersonal implications of this social and cultural changes for affected families. Ultimately, this book invites us to rethink social intimacy, belonging, and the boundaries of family and identity in a world increasingly structured by technological system. So, without further ado, let's get the conversation started. Hi, Lily. Welcome to the show, and thank you so much for joining us.
- [02:31]
C
Hi, thanks so much for having me.
- [02:33]
B
Great. To start off, could you briefly introduce yourself a little bit to our listeners?
- [02:40]
C
Sure. My name is Lili Johnson, and I'm an assistant professor of Gender and Women's Studies and English at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia, Canada, and Halifax and I also previously was an assistant professor in Gender and Women's Studies and Asian American Studies at University of Wisconsin, Madison. So I just shout out to my friends there. And then I got my PhD in American Studies at Yale. So I sort of the project kind of started and has gone through these various institutions.
- [03:10]
B
Oh, interesting. So what first motivated you to start this project and how did it come about into a book? Sure.
- [03:21]
C
I, like many, this was my dissertation while I was working on my PhD in American Studies. And I think I'd always been very interested in Asian American family and kinship, in thinking sort of critically about the construction of family and kinship. And I was also very interested in sort of science and technology studies as a field and feminist science and technology studies as a sort of subfield of science and technology studies and what the intersections are between thinking critically about science and reproduction and conception and family formation in that context and alongside with across Asian American racial formation, Asian American family and kinship, the sort of history and narratives around Asian American families. And so I think sort of the project came out of kind of bringing those different threads together. And so that was really sort of my starting place. And then I started to sort of think about, you know, this concept of sort of technologies of family, technologies of kinship. It sort of went through various iterations and. And what the different sort of case studies or examples that kind of coalesce all of those different themes might be. And so I think that was. There was always a sort of case study approach to it that I always found really interesting and exciting and kind of carried me through the various processes.
- [04:50]
B
Interesting. So, as you said, personally, you've moved across different disciplines. And I think it really shows in this book how interdisciplinary it is, as you just said. So I'm wondering, you know, and me, myself, as someone coming from film and media studies, I also really feel inspired by how you engage with different media and also visual materials. So I'm wondering how you navigated working across so many different disciplines and theoretical traditions.
- [05:25]
C
Yeah, absolutely. Thank you for that question. And I. It's funny because I. I think interdisciplinarity has always been a part of how I was thinking. And it can get really challenging and messy at times. But then it's also, I think, for me, one of the most exciting things about doing this kind of work. And I think from the beginning, I even in my undergraduate. I went to NYU for my undergraduate degree and I did social and cultural analysis there. So I had always kind of been thinking about how to use different methods and different tools to ask different questions. And one thing I really like about interdisciplinary work is that you kind of get to ask your questions first, and then you can figure out how to answer them, you know, so you can think about, you know, asking questions about family and kinship, for example, and then you can think, okay, how might I answer this? From an ethnographic perspective, or from a textual perspective, or from a media perspective or from a historical perspective? And then you get to sort of pull from these different fields. And so that's always really fun and exciting, but also means you're kind of. It can get overwhelming at the same time because suddenly you're sort of pulled in all these different directions and so on Sense, I think, trying to juggle both the challenges, but also the sort of inspirations of different fields was something that has always really kept me going with the project. And I think I was really shaped by while I was doing my PhD taking courses from a lot of different departments. So I took courses from history departments, from anthropology departments, from English department. And so in that sense, it was always kind of seeing what inspired me and then seeing how I might be able to use different tools in new ways. And I think that's a. Something that really shows through in different parts of this project.
- [07:09]
B
So was there a specific moment when you wrote this book that you really felt the challenge of, you know, using different theories? Or were you. Were there any moments you debate, you debated whether to drop something or pick up something new?
- [07:30]
C
Yeah, absolutely. I mean, I think every step of the way, I had like, a different. You know, I was faced with different choices about. I mean, maybe this is true for everyone.
- [07:37]
A
Everyone.
- [07:37]
C
But you're faced with different choices about what to keep or what to sort of develop and what to kind of let fall into the background, because you can't put everything sort of in the foreground. And for me, I mean, I think that this is where Asian American Studies specifically as a field was really kind of grounding for me. Because from the beginning, I saw this project as an Asian American studies project. And obviously that can include lots of different methods and theories. But this sort of question of who am I talking to? Who am I trying to bring these other ideas to? Was sort of Asian American Studies at the center. And then from there, I think that's where there are different times where sort of ethnographic view was coming through, even when I wasn't necessarily doing ethnographic work. So in that first chapter with the archive thinking about paper and paper families and government bureaucracy, and that was the first chapter that I wrote for the dissertation, I really actually kind of saw that as like an ethnographic engagement, even though I was using sort of traditionally historical material, you know, so I was going to an archive and working with historical documents. But I think sort of being able to bring different sort of lenses or frameworks to doing the primary research for these different sites, I think was really helpful and helped kind of, you know, bring something new to my intervention as I was trying to kind of connect the different threads. And in that context, I think it was very exciting and fun. But it was also, I mean, again, I think, trying to create a project where it all kind of comes together. It's kind of the challenge, I think, for everyone who's doing a new book, definitely.
- [09:17]
B
But I think you've done great in this book. And as you just talk about your archival research, I was really interested to hear from you how that research process was like. Because for me, visiting an institution and I don't know if you were able to really access the original files, but sometimes I feel really touching. Those papers are something intimate and very embodied. So are there any stories about your archival visas that you would like to share with us?
- [09:56]
C
I'm trying to think if I have a story, but I. I really relate to what you just said, and I do think that that was something that I experienced while I was working with the first chapter. Archives especially, as well as, you know, I think there were some different sort of, you know, in different. At various points, sort of looking at images, I think is very. It's not always tactile. Like, obviously, if you're using a digital image, it's not. But the moments where you're able to use, you know, to physically engage with documents, I think it definitely feels like an encounter in itself. And I. And I really was thinking about that approach for that first chapter, especially where I agree, like, going to an archive feel like is an experience in itself, you know, and can we think about that as part of the research experience? Can we think about that as a kind of encounter? And I think thinking from a sort of thing theory or, like, new materialist perspective was really formative for me. When I was in graduate school, I was working with Katherine Dudley at Yale, who is an anthropologist, and we were all. I was part of an ethnography and oral history working group where we were all kind of thinking about what is our encounter with. With, you know, that not just the people that we're talking to or interviewing, if you're doing oral history or doing, you know, sort of more traditional ethnography but also the things that you encounter while you're doing the research, you know, and, and so again, touching the documents and, and seeing the folders and I think that comes through a bit in the writing of that first chapter is, is part of the process, you know, and, and I think also helps just keep in mind too, like what are people experiencing, you know, as they are experiencing the ideas or the structures that you're writing about. So in that context, thinking about government bureaucracy and I was writing about these immigration files and I think it is helpful to kind of be like, I'm reading this transcript in the same way that an immigration inspector might have been reading it. And what does that mean? That we're both sort of part of this, encountering these different papers, producing them, engaging with them at different points in history or different points in time in very different contexts. But there is that sort of physical connection there. And you know, obviously that's complicated by the digital stuff that comes later in the book. But I think that's, I like to think about what the process is like also because it's such a long process, you know, so obviously the book takes many years, you know, and so trying to see the writing of the book and doing the research as part of this larger engagement or larger encounter with these different stories, I think helps keep it exciting and help sustain the practice as you go through the different stages.
- [12:40]
B
Yeah, that sounds really interesting. And we'll get into the details more later when we talk about the chapters. So another thing I really like about this is the COVID image of the book. It's a painting by Chinese Cuban born Chinese American artist Ching Ho Chung. So you know, visually it looks like a peach pit, a heart and maybe also a wound. So I'm wondering, did you or the publisher choose this image?
- [13:14]
C
I love this image and it, and actually, I mean it's not a, it's not, it's not such a dramatic story, but it is nice. Which is to say I actually had sent the image to Miu Press and I didn't think that it would be the COVID I sent it as a sort of inspiration image and then they managed to get the image. So that was great. I mean it's, it's fun. Funny because I mean I didn't, I hadn't seen the paint, the painting before I, before the project. But I think it fits really well and I'm so happy with it. I really love the COVID But while I was, while we were going through the publishing process, you know, I had to let the folks at MIU Press know sort of what I, what I was thinking in terms of a cover image. And I had said I don't want something too representational, you know, so like just a picture of a family or like stick figures or something like that. I really liked that sort of more abstract, you know, vibes based cover image. And actually it was my partner who found the image, you know, at the Smithsonian, since it's, it's digitized. And so I'd send it to NYU Press saying, you know, this kind of vibe. And then, and then when I found out that they were able to make it the COVID I was really, really happy because I, I just think I agree with you. It's, it's such a beautiful image, but then also kind of pulls on all these different threads that feel connected to the project without sort of saying this is what it is, you know. And I think my hope, you know, visually, you know, in terms of the different ideas is that it's more of an invitation, you know, to interpret, you know, the world around us and the concepts and the visuality of these different themes than just saying, you know, X is Y. And so in that sense I'm really happy and excited about the image. I agree. Like, I think it's so evocative and in that sense. And yeah, I appreciate you asking because I like talking about it.
- [15:09]
B
Oh, that's cool. So I think we can get deeper into the topic of this book. So I feel like you triangulate three things. Asian Americans or Asian American identity, family and technology. So how about we start from the linkage between Asianness and technology? I think that's already discussed by a lot of scholars, but for our audience, could you walk us through some key ideas in this field or key terms like techno Orientalism?
- [15:43]
C
Yeah, absolutely. I mean, one thing that always stood out to me both as I was developing the project, as I was working through it, is this kind of paradox that I've observed where Asians, Asianness, sort of Asian racial typing is often associated with science and technology. And yet the Asian American family, as a sort of unit or as an image, as a narrative, is often assumed to be very sort of natural, biological, heteronormative, is not really questioned as the sort of constructed entity. And so that sort of contrast has always been really interesting to me. And in the context, I think, as you mentioned, techno Orientalism is very relevant to this insofar as it kind of captures this association of Asianness, both, both Asian people and sort of Asian things and vibes and you know, music and other things. This. That association between Asianness and technology, futurism, the robot, the cyborg, et cetera. And, you know, I think Asian American scholars, again, yeah, as you had said, you know, have. Have written about this a lot. You know, I mean, Lisa Lowe was writing about Blade runner in the 90s. Leslie Bow just came out with her book Racist Love, that really digs into it as well. And. And so I think, think techno Orientalism is a way to think critically about Asian racial formation and racialization, how Asians are sort of typed in a particular way. And so I think that triangulation, or it really is something that I want to highlight because of the way that, you know, the sort of two. Each of the two items, you know, so technology and Asianness, or Asianness and family and kinship, you know, seem like they make sense as a pair. But then when you put them into this sort of triangulation of technology, kinship, Asian ness, it doesn't always match up, you know, so we don't always sort of think about how the Asian American family has been constructed or how the Asian American family has been impacted by, you know, this sort of technology, both the literal technologies of reproduction or sort of technology as a sort of racial type. And so I think that's where I wanted to kind of explore, you know, what's going on there. And in that context, too, I mean, I think the book and my thinking really are connected to these other sort of concepts in Asian American studies that include sort of critiquing and thinking critically about the model minority. And a lot of scholars have, you know, engaged with that in different ways. And even within the model minority, you know, there's this idea that, you know, there's this sort of family, this very heteronormative, patriarchal sort of Asian family. And how is that, you know, itself sort of the social construction, this narrative construction that's both powerful, you know, and a form of racialization, as Erin Nin had sort of talked about in her book. But also, you know, this framework that both sort of covers up certain ways that race has played out within the Asian diaspora, and that sort of shapes our understanding about what family kinship is.
- [18:56]
B
Is.
- [18:57]
C
And so I think those different tropes really do have. Have impacted my thinking. Additionally, I think the book engages with this concept of racial formation sort of, I mean, I think within the classic framework from me and yn, but then also within a sort of more contemporary understanding of how race is constructed, understood, felt, you know, what does it mean in the contemporary moment. And so I think in that context, technologies of kinship as a concept is really trying bring those different threads together.
- [19:31]
B
Yeah, I want to follow up on that. What do you mean by technology of kinship? That's the title of this book. Because when I first came across the book title, I was thinking about, you know, like ivf, surrogacy, or reproductive technologies as such. But, I mean, you covered some of that in your book, but I feel like you. You actually takes this concept into a different direction. So what does it really mean? Technologies of kinship.
- [20:03]
C
Yes. No, thank you. And I feel like that's sort of. To me, what was one of the most exciting things was trying to think about this concept of technologies of kinship as a framework for thinking about different forms of technology or family formation without it becoming too unruly and without it kind of becoming everything and nothing or just sort of a meaningless concept that's thrown out there and then kind of can mean everything and nothing. And so in that context, the idea really came out of. Yeah, the way that we do tend to associate when we think about technology plus kinship, we think about reproductive technologies, but the way that there are so many other types of technologies and types of systems, technical systems, that shape how family is formed, how it's felt, and how family becomes racialized within. In the context of this book, Asian American history, but also, I think, across in different contexts as well. And so the way that I would highlight or explain technology as a kinship is kind of in two ways in the context of the book. First is this idea of expanding what we think of when we think of technology and in relation to kinship, you know, and so it's not just. I mean, in addition to. It's in addition to, you know, reproductive technologies like IVF or surrogacy, but it's also thinking about other types of digital technologies, media technologies, photographic technologies, you know, and so, again, not keeping the framework of technology bound to science or the body, but also thinking and thinking about how technologies are acting upon people and families, even when we're not really thinking of them as doing so, you know. So again, I think when you think of ivf, it's a very conscious process. You know, you don't accidentally do ivf, you know, or you don't. You. You know, people who choose to use reproductive technology, there's a very conscious choice, and it. And it's very much framed that way. Whereas, you know, using the Internet or using photography, those are technologies that we don't often think have this great impact on how we experience family kinship or how we experience racial identity. And so I think part of the book is really trying to highlight how these other technologies are participating in the production of family and kinship, in the production of race, even if we don't necessarily feel or see them as such in a normative thing. And then I would just say just the other way. I think I do want to highlight, from a sort of theoretical perspective is just the use of technologies of. As this kind of conceptual framework that comes from Foucault, you know, where he talks about technologies of power and technologies of sex, and later De Laurentiis talks about technologies of gender. And so I do want to sort of highlight, acknowledge, build on some of these other theorists that are using this term, technologies of. Of power to explore. I mean, I think that's sort of what Foucault's project is. How do we think about. How do we describe health, power functions? And I think that's something that is really running through the book. And why Technologies of kinship, I think, felt like a fit for what I was trying to capture is just that kinship as a site of power, both sort of state power, but also sort of social, cultural, racial, gender, sexual power, I think is something that really runs through the project and is an important part of thinking about this, because oftentimes not so much in cultural studies. I think people are pretty ready to accept that kinship is a site of power. But I do think within popular culture, oftentimes the family is seen as this private, apolitical thing. And so I think a big part of the project is also sort of highlighting and understanding the nuances of power as it acts on families.
- [24:03]
B
I was going to ask you. So for the first point, we're talking about technologies and kinship or in the making of family kinship. So this book has five chapters, and each one discusses one specific technology or technological system, in your words. I'm also thinking, are there any other technologies you could have included in this book, but you ended up deciding not to?
- [24:33]
C
Yeah, there were a few. I'm like, it's funny because I think this is part of the revision process for everyone, is like, certain chapters get written or rewritten or taken out, and you're sort of like, does that fit? My hope, more broadly, is that folks will be able to use the concept of technologies of kinship to name other things. So I certainly don't want to suggest that the five chapters here, those are the only technologies of kinship that ever existed. My hope is that it can apply to a lot of different case studies. In terms of my own process and other examples, I did Have a few others that I kind of played around with as I was in the writing process. And so just for one historical example, and it comes up in the book, but I obviously don't have a whole chapter on it, is thinking about picture brides and photography and the history of Asian women, Asian American women, and immigration to the United States and North America. And that practice of picture brides where the women would send a photograph of themselves to, or both parties would send a photograph in exchange before sort of doing a proxy marriage to facilitate immigration. And in that context, I think it's serving a similar function of the photograph, doing a lot of work to help produce, participating in that family formation process. So that was one example of something that I had written more about. And then I, you know, I kind of. It kind of grew and. And shrank in different areas throughout the writing process. So I think my. My hope is that there are different moments, sort of historical moments or moments in the present where we might be able to point to different technologies and sort of say, this is an example of a technology of kinship as a way to help us understand and think critically about it. Not, not so much. I mean, not that you're suggesting this, but not so much just that, you know, something is objectively or inherently a technology of kinship or not.
- [26:36]
B
Got it. So this, your book is very, very much grounded in the specific social and historical experiences of Asian Americans or Asian American families. So do you think this idea of technologies of kinship can be applied to other. To think about other kinship and racial formation for other minoritized communities either within or outside the U.S. i hope so.
- [27:07]
C
I mean, I think it would be up to others to make the case that coders should. But I do hope that it's sort of an invitation for thinking critically about those processes. And, you know, it's tough because I think this was sort of a challenge. Is like, well, what's specific to Asian American history, to Asian Americans experience in relation to, you know, this concept of technologies of kinship and what is. Is, you know, could more broadly be applied. And in that context, I think my hope in, you know, more broadly applying the idea of technologies of kinship is that it is kind of engaging with a couple sort of key interventions. So one is this, you know, critiquing the idea that family formation in American culture is. Is just this sort of heteronormative, biological, you know, standard or norm, and that it's sort of this private process that it does not have to do with race, does not have to do with racialization, does it not have to do with power, does not have to do with sort of sexuality, all these other forms that power can take. And then also this idea that race and kinship are co constituted and not just sort of like from a theoretical perspective, but that, you know, when you actually look at the way that people are living, you know, and producing their own forms of kinship, that it is very much shaped by the sort of racial history or racialized conditions in which they're living, you know, and in that sense, obviously that's very specific. So paper families is a good example where, you know, that's very specific to Chinese immigration history. And yet it is sort of capturing the way that the racialized history of Chinese immigration during this period was giving rise to a very specific type of family and kinship in that context.
- [29:00]
B
Context.
- [29:01]
C
And so that's where I would call it technologies of kinship, just to highlight those elements. And that might be sort of racially specific, but also the concept can still do that work, theoretical work.
- [29:15]
B
So we've been talking about the paper family a couple of times, so I think that's a good point for us to jump into the chapters. This is actually the main topic of your first chapter. So can you first tell us what the paper family practice was and what were the historical conditions that gave rise to that?
- [29:38]
C
Yeah, so no. And then. Thank you. I mean, I appreciate that we are sort of jumping the gun here at the specific chapters, but in terms of the first chapter, it's really capturing this era of Chinese exclusion in the United States, which was this period starting in 1882 and then going into the mid 20th century, where immigration from China was. Was almost completely banned by the United States government. And the chapter sort of starts from this place that is pretty familiar with an Asian American history where immigration policy really relied on the idea of family reunification. And so one of the exceptions to Chinese exclusion was that people who were, you know, U.S. citizens or related, you know, were the children of U.S. citizens could come to the United States, which makes sense because, you know, US Citizens can obviously enter the United States. And so in that context, one of the only legal ways to enter the United States as a Chinese person was through sort of family reunification provisions. So, you know, father bringing his sons from China to the United States or his wife or, you know, things like that. And what ended up happening though, in this context was that you have this sort of rise in what they call paper families, where people claimed on paper that they were U.S. citizens or the children of the citizens or the Family members of U.S. citizens in order to enter the United States. And so during this period when the United States government is trying to regulate immigration, they are very invested in trying to verify, is this a paper family or a false family, or is this a legitimate, true family? And this is a pretty commonly or this has been written about by several Asian American studies historians. So Estelle Lau and Erica Lebos have books that really dig more deeply into the phenomenon of paper families. But what was interesting to me about it, and I think this came up, you know, a little bit earlier when I was talking about the archive, is the way that, you know, paper itself becomes this technology that is producing a certain type of kinship, you know, so. So if we kind of, you know, temperature this impulse to say, okay, what's real and what's false, you know, or what's a true family and what's a false family, what we start to see is, like, that all these families are on paper, you know, are made from paper. You know, they're. They're validated and acknowledged and created through these documents. And this is what happens when you go into the archive, too, is you suddenly see all of these interviews of people claiming family members. You know, they're testifying under oath, they're writing affidavits. There's photo photographs of people together. And so what you end up seeing is this whole sort of network of families being produced through paper. And, you know, some of them are, you know, true or real insofar as, you know, they were, like, embodied and biological family members, and some of them were sort of paper families or false, insofar as, you know, they weren't biological family members. But what I think is truly interesting to me is that it came to sort of define, you know, this particular era of Chinese immigration and that. That it's. It sort of shows us or reminds us how much all family kinship in some ways, gets validated through paper and government bureaucracy and recordkeeping. You know, so how many of us have, you know, passports, and we have to bring the passports when we travel, and when we're traveling with family members, our passports line up or they have the same last name, you know, and we all have, you know, these documents that come to stand in for, you know, these bonds and represent these family and kinship bonds, but they also end up kind of producing, you know, these different claims of kinship. And so I think the chapter kind of. I don't really dig into the contemporary moment in the chapter, but I think the chapter is kind of suggesting or highlighting the ways that paper families of this particular moment kind of give rise to and remind us, you know, the ways that government bureaucracy shapes kinship, you know, throughout contemporary history.
- [33:50]
B
I remember reading about, you know, from some historians that back then there were actually many agents and companies in Hong Kong to help, to help people who wanted to immigrate, to pair up between the son and the father. So it's, I feel like it's actually a transnational making of. So we're not only thinking about Asian American families within the US but also the transnational or trans pacific aspect. And it also somehow is parallel to the transnational adoption that you discuss later in later chapters.
- [34:32]
C
Yeah, absolutely. And I think this is where, I mean, it's tough because, you know, Asian American history, Asian American studies, mobility, like, has always been this sort of transnational project, you know, so so often it's not just you go from point A to point B and then you stay at point B forever. And Asian American studies scholars have written about these sort of transnational circuits. And so I'd agree. I mean, this is where I think kinship really becomes this helpful framework for thinking about mobility and transnationalism and the way that these histories are connected, as you're suggesting. And so part of, of these connections run through these different case studies, even though in each chapter I'm kind of highlighting a different element of it. So, yeah, as you mentioned, when I write about transnational adoption, that chapter is more on photography, but it very much is shaped by government record keeping, government bureaucracy. And again, I think when you were saying that about folks who, the sort of brokers and the matching up, you know, it's. It's very interesting to think about, you know, having to memorize a lot of, you know, paper. Paper families had to memorize these very detailed biographies of the identities that they were using to immigrate with. And, and that's a very sort of intimate kind of kinship act, you know, to. Even if, even if it's completely false or a very different person from yourself, you know, what are the different kind of connections or sort of affective connections that people are making, you know, across and through these different kinds of kinship, I think is something that I've always been really interested in and kind of applies in these different contexts, for sure.
- [36:17]
B
So similarly, it's not just simply reproduces the heteronormative patriarchal family paradigm, but there is something subversive in this paper family system.
- [36:34]
C
I hope so. I mean, I think so, yeah, I think both sort of, you know, that's self evident insofar as, you know, they're kind of breaking the law. But also I think insofar as it is resisting a little bit of the dehumanization of, you know, government bureaucracy. And I don't want to over romanticize because a lot of the people that were experiencing this were, you know, just trying to survive, you know, so they weren't necessarily thinking to themselves, oh, I'm so radical or I'm so subversive. But I would agree, I think that trying to, you know, read or interpret the sort of, you know, intimacy or affective connections or the sort of kin connections that are coming through in these different moments does offer us a different way to think about. Yeah. How power functions and how resistance functions. And I would agree. I mean, there is something almost tender or, you know, that's. That's kind of interesting to read when you're seeing people really claim each other as family members and really sort of connecting with each other in this very different way. I mean, it is different than, you know, face to face connection or encounters, whatever. But I think when we try, you know, to kind of think through that framework and to think through how people are, you know, living and interacting with these systems, I think that's where we can kind of find those sort of nuances that are really interesting.
- [38:00]
B
And then moving into the Cold War era, this whole exclusion, Exclusionary narrative somehow began to give. Give way to the model minority discourse. So what were some of the technologies of. Technologies of. Technologies of power were exploited to. To make this discursive and racial ideological change?
- [38:32]
C
Yeah, that's a great question. I mean, I think, think especially with that second chapter, it is funny because that's one of the more sort of familiar in terms of thinking about 20th century history, that's the sort of more familiar history of the sort of rise of immigration in the sort of post 1965 era. And it's tough because, you know, it's not that the model minority is so, you know, that there's so much, you know, exciting stuff to say about it, but rather that or that it's so great or not great, you know, And I, I think, I think in many ways the model minority, you know, kind of on the rise during that period is sort of old hat in Asian American studies, you know, so we've all sort of heard of the model minority myth. We've all, you know, even in the 1960s when it was like, you know, coming out, people were against, you know, Asian American studies, and Asian American folks were. Were saying, you know, this is a myth, it's not real, et cetera. But I Think what's interesting to me, and I don't really say this in the book, but I guess I. I would. I would maybe dare to call it, you know, the model minority itself, a kind of racialization in this context, where, you know, I think at that time, the model minority comes to define Asianness, you know, and. And so the chapter is really trying to explore how immigration policy is the kind of underlying technology that is facilitating both the influx of immigration. You know, that makes sense. You know, so immigration policy changes, and then you have, you know, the influx of immigration from Asia, but then also that. That actually is shaping how families are constructed and how that is sort of connecting or. Or what's going on underneath the model minority. And so a big part of what that chapter is arguing is that the model minority, in a lot of ways becomes this kind of red herring or this sort of false trope, you know, that, you know, assumes there's something inherent about Asian success, you know, and assumes that. That, you know, oh, look at. Look at this wave of immigration. You know, they're all this way. They're all a kind of type. But actually, you know, a big part of what was happening at the time was that the immigration policy was deciding who is coming to the United States from Asia. And because, I mean, I mentioned the family reunification policy, and that also runs through this period. You know, the immigration policy was prioritizing families coming and was prioritizing, you know, the heteronormative, biologically reproductive family coming to the United States. States. And so, again, you kind of have this, you know, you have the model minority explanation, which is saying, oh, it's inherent. And yet actually underneath that is the sort of immigration policy. And both are kind of participating in this image of the family, you know, Asian American family as this icon of the model minority, even as it's not so inherent. It's more about, you know, who is being allowed to immigrate to the United States in the first place. Place.
- [41:26]
B
And actually, the image of Asian Americans or Asian American families was not monolithic. I'm thinking about the divisions or different stereotypes among different cultural or ethnic groups within Asians.
- [41:47]
C
Yeah, absolutely. And I think that's where the chapter tries to sort of think through, because you have this sort of bifurcation, and scholars have written about this from a sort of economic and labor perspective as well. But you have this sort of bifurcation of the sort of upwardly mobile East Asian families, and then you have this sort of refugee migration that's coming out of the wars in Southeast Asia. And so there's this sort of economic bifurcation that's happening at that time, and yet everyone's getting lumped into Asian American, you know, and. And there was a lot of. I mean, from an. I look at some of the different news sources of that period, and there was a lot of anxiety about that, you know, and. And. And a lot of popular culture was concerned, you know, that, you know, the Asian Americans wouldn't uphold this model minority idea. And I think part of what I'm pointing to in the chapter is the role of families in that immigration policy is what kind of connects the two, because families were really prioritized both under the sort of standard immigration provisions as well as refugee provisions. And that family was sort of, from a popular culture and a sort of government perspective, the family was seen as the thing that was going to get everyone through, you know, that was going to, you know, maintain the model minority, was going to, you know, maintain that sort of socioeconomic upward mobility. And. Yeah, so that image of the Asian American family becomes just as important as, you know, what people are experiencing in their own family. Families.
- [43:22]
B
And then the emergence of transnational adoption, starting from 1970s or 80s, kind of imposes a challenge to this image of Asian American family. Because I think an intuitive question is, can those adoptee families be understood as Asian American families?
- [43:50]
C
Right, right. Yeah. And it's funny because I wonder. I mean, I've asked that question rhetorically, I think, you know, like. Like in many contexts. And. And it's true. I mean, I would say Asia. Transnational adoption from Asia kind of starts in the 1950s, but it really takes off later, sort of when you were talking about in sort of the 1980s. And, you know, originally it sort of starts. It follows very much the pattern of US wars in Asia, you know, so it starts. Starts in the Korean War and then into the Vietnam War, and then later, I think later during the Cold War, you see this sort of growth or increase of transnational adoption, first from Korea and then later, sort of in the 1990s from China. That comes out of this sort of moment of globalization.
- [44:40]
B
And.
- [44:43]
C
I think it's tough because I wouldn't necessarily say, oh, oh, a white fam. A white family that adopts, you know, an Asian diasporic child isn't suddenly an Asian American family, you know, and. And obviously that's objective and, you know, there's no authority on that.
- [44:58]
B
But.
- [44:59]
C
But I think what's helpful to think about in relation to Asian American family and kinship, and maybe I prefer this sort of Asian American as modifying the. The family and kinship as a sort of process or as a form of relation rather than like a family unit, is the way that race becomes so important to how family is lived and constructed. You know, and I think as you were highlighting and as the chapter kind of digs into race is some foundational to the formation of the family when it comes to transracial, transnationally adoptive families.
- [45:35]
B
And gender as well.
- [45:37]
C
Yes. Yeah. And it's interesting, I mean, I think, think, because during the rise of adoption from Korea, especially during the 1970s and 1980s, it was not really gender specific. So, you know, children who are adopted from Korea were both, you know, boys and girls. And yet, I think the image of the Korean child, and a lot of scholars who write on adoption sort of during this Cold War period talk about this, but the image of the sort of Korean adoptive child comes to sort of symbolize this sort of geopolitical relationship, you know, between sort of Korea and the United States at that time, and is. And that is still very gendered relationship because the United States takes that sort of paternalistic role. And what's interesting is that becomes more literalized with the adoption from China, where the majority of children that are adopted from China in the 1990s and early 2000s are girls. And that has to do with the history of the one child policy. But what ends up happening is, I think, what was sort of working on symbolic terms for adoption, transnational adoption at the time suddenly becomes more literal because all of the children that are not all, but the vast majority of children adopted from China in the 1990s and 2000s are girls. And so what ends up happening is this sort of normalization of the child or this under the tutelage of this sort of, you know, American parent. And that being a sort of gendered, you know, paternalism in relation to the United States, but then also the sort of gendered, you know, form of kinship for Chinese adoptees.
- [47:18]
B
And you were saying in the book that photography, particularly referral photography, plays an important role in shaping this racial and gendered power dynamics in the making of, you know, a transnational adoption family, kinship.
- [47:41]
C
Yeah, I mean, the chapter really focuses on referral photography. So the photograph that's often sent, like, ahead of the child to sort of say, this is your child. And I think what's so interesting about that and photography in general, I mean, I think photography still studies, you know, has really been influential for my thinking, you know, across the chapters, but particularly in relation to transnational adoption, is the way that race becomes this very visible thing in photography and especially for adoption. And I kind of talk about this in the chapter, is how a child needs to be sort of interchangeable when. Before they are adopted. Adopted. So if a child has a family and they're not available for adoption unless they are sort of produced as a sort of orphan, And Jodi Kim and other scholars have written about this, this is the sort of social orphanhood. But in that context, then what you have is not only the interchangeability of children. And a lot of adoption studies scholars are really critical of that, critical of the sort of commodification of children. Um, but is the sort of racialization of the adopted child. You know, so. So this is just. It is like before someone is adopted, you know, if a Chinese adoptee, before they're adopted and become, you know, a Chinese adoptee in the family that they're in, they have to be, you know, orphaned. They have to be produced as a sort of social orphan in order to be available for adoption. And part of. And I. So the chapter really argues that photography is a part of that process, you know, of. Of making them available, making them seen as, you know, a child that's available for adoption and then becomes individuated by their photograph being sent. They're being assigned to a family, them kind of acquiring this identity. And so in that sense, again, you can kind of see how race, it becomes racial because there's this interchangeable Chinese orphan that suddenly is both racialized, is made into orphan, that then is transformed from sort of Chinese orphan, quote unquote, to, you know, Asian American adoptee or Chinese American adoptee, you know. And so in sense, to see this sort of triangulation of race and kinship and the photography that kind of makes it possible.
- [50:04]
B
And it's actually, I feel it's connected to the next chapter. When you talk about online profile, online profile platforms. And I feel like for those platforms, like you were basically talking about dating apps and ad sperm donation websites. For those photography, not only digital media, digital platforms, but photography also plays a part.
- [50:33]
C
Yeah, absolutely. And I think photography as a sort of representation or symbol of, you know, that sort of marketplace attitude becomes very relevant. I think it's connected to adoption and the sort of marketplace of adoption, but then also is connected to do very much, you know, the way that these online platforms work as, you know, and I sort of call the. The online interface itself, the sort of technology of kinship in this context, because it's really facilitating the production of kinship, you know, so people are using, I Mean, this is more literal insofar as people are using these sites to, you know, reproduce if they're using Angular Nation or obviously, you know, online dating isn't always reproductive or you know, creating family. But, but I think there's kind of that promise or that narrative that it's at will and it's both, you know, facilitating that production of family while also, you know, outlining a particular kind of racial logic. And I was very sort of drawn to or inspired by, you know, Lisa Nakamura's book and books and research on these sort of menu driven identities. And the role, the way that race gets categorized in digital spaces is not, you know, it's, it's, it's very specific to the, to the contemporary moment, you know, and to contemporary culture and the way contemporary culture thinks about race, you know, so it's not that there are these objective racial categories, but rather that it's using the sort of popular culture, common, you know, mainstream culture to impose or categorize people by these more, you know, standardized, digitized racial identity categories.
- [52:12]
B
So in that sense, do you think digital technologies just reinforce, you know, the popular culture or neoliberalism and all the racial, racial images or do digital technologies have any liberating or, I don't want to say subversive, but any potential for something alternative?
- [52:41]
C
I hope it's both. I definitely, I mean, I think it's, I definitely would say that the technology is reinforced force the sort of neoliberal racial ideology that you're mentioning. I mean, I have to believe that there are ways and I think there are examples, there are examples out there of ways that people are sort of subverting or using digital technology. I mean, they're using digital technologies, you know, for these more sort of radical laboratory functions. In this particular context, like in the context of the online interfaces that I'm looking for at, I think it's hard to say because I think what often happens with these sort of mainstream digital technologies is, you know, we see that tension between power working, you know, so we can say, oh yeah, let's, we'll critique the sort of racial categories that are being used here. But we're also seeing people finding a lot of, you know, agency in using them, you know, so again, it's not, I'm not necessarily saying oh, so no one should use an online dating profile, you know, or, or oh, so you know, you shouldn't use an egg and firm don like, or, or oh, we should just mix all the egg and sperm together and you just get a random one like you know, so I think part of what's interesting is, is precisely that question of, you know, what, where does agency lie? And, and, and is it liberating, you know, and, and what, and, and I tend to take a more sort of structure thinking, more from a structural perspective, you know, so at the end of the day, you know, we're all sort of functioning under neoliberalism and in that sense, think. What's interesting is to try to think through, you know, how are people experiencing it and, you know, and, and maybe thinking about what, of what, where agency might be for individuals, you know, because again, I, I don't think I'm necessarily, or I'm definitely not arguing like people should or shouldn't do something, but at the same time, this question of like, are we ever free, you know, to choose? Is an ongoing question that I think is, is much more difficult to answer, you know, because we're, we all are kind of making do in the society that we live in. And in that sense, I, I don't know that we can ever really be free from it. But I do think, you know, the awareness or that sort of critical perspective on it does help us understand what's going on as it's working on us, you know, even if we can't necessarily stop it or we still are functioning, you know, with those, with those technologies.
- [55:05]
B
Yeah, definitely. So, moving on to the fifth chapter. You talk about genetic testing. It's been so popular. So I'm wondering, what do you think are the drives from the customer side and the marketing strategies from the companies or from the commercial operations side? And also calling back to what you just said, that where does the agency lie?
- [55:36]
C
It's interesting. I'm really interested by genetic testing, the sort of consumer genetic testing. So I mean, there's also other types of genetic testing that I don't really touch on, you know, that are for other, other projects, but in terms of like consumer culture and, and, and These sort of popular 23andMe type genetic ancestry tests. I think a lot of it, sadly, is because we live in a moment, moment where you have this rise in the culture of science and sort of the objective science as the sort of, you know, see it is. Ms. In a what I would say misguided way, seen as, you know, providing these sort of true answers to questions that to me are humanistic questions, you know, about race and about politics and about who we are and people, you know, we've been, I mean, we have a whole generation that's taught that has been told STEM is superior to everything else, you know. And so I'm not surprised that then people look to stem, you know, look to genetic science to answer questions about what race means or what politics mean or what morality is, you know, and what family is, you know. And so in that sense, I mean, this doesn't really have to do with the book, but I would say, I think that's why they've become so popular, is this sense that, oh, you know, I, I could just spit into a thing and then I can get an answer about race. Like, and it's very specific how.
- [56:57]
B
How much percentage of this, that.
- [57:00]
C
That. And. And I also think, yeah, in the contemporary moment, people are really scared to talk about race. I mean, I would say not obviously not in race studies, but like. But I think in. In contemporary culture, people are really afraid of being called racist. They're really worried about saying the wrong thing or, or, you know, using the term race. And so having, yeah, as you said, the percentage breakdown, I think it feels like a. A safe way to answer those questions, you know, like, because. Because it's backed by science, you know, and, and, and I think that's a lot of customers. I mean, it's driven by curiosity, for sure, and just sort of general interest. But I do also think they're so popular because it's sort of providing these scientific answers to what I would argue are much more complicated questions about what race means, how it functions, what are we supposed to do about it? And it also offers it in a way that's sort of framed as sort of depoliticized, you know, so you can just say, oh, I'm 23%, you know, whatever, and it's not seen as this political claim. And so I think a lot of what the chapter is doing, since I don't even say any of that in my book, but I think what a lot of the chapter is doing is really trying to bring that context, you know, that racial. The racial politics back into these genetic texts that have kind of tried to shed it, you know, and, and so again, this idea that, oh, you're 23%, you know, X or Y, actually it is political even, but maybe not in the way that people think, you know, and, and actually it is, you know, shaping the way we think about what kinship is, because it's very much reliant on, you know, inheritance and genetics and family and kinship, and you can find DNA, relatives and things like that. And, and I would just. I mean, and I think maybe to your earlier question, I would say I think there is people are finding ways and uses of these sort of consumer tests that feel really meaningful to them. And I think that kind of connects to agency and how people are living on a day to day level. A lot of people find it really meaningful to use these tests because they're meeting relatives or they're meeting cousins or siblings or whatever. And in that context, I do appreciate that even as the technologies themselves are also sort of bringing in these other logics that are shaped from a more oppressive way.
- [59:30]
B
And there's one specific phrasing really caught my eyes. You wrote it as genetic intimacy. What do you mean by that? And how do you see that's not something like we're not going back to family or kinship as biologically fixed.
- [59:49]
C
Yeah, I mean, I think that was a way to try to acknowledge and see and understand how people are forming kinship bonds based on these genetic tests. That again, I think many of us, or I would say is, it's not that, you know, you just because you're genetically related to someone, you need to have some sort of kinship with them, you know, and I think, I think that's pretty common in contemporary culture, but rather, you know, how does this kind of become the launching point or the seed, you know, that's planted of these other forms of kinship and relationships that are really meaningful to people, you know, so, so I don't want to, you know, this is where I want to critique the sort of racial structures and the, and the forms of, you know, neoliberal multiculturalism and power that are creating this, the, the logic and then discourse of, you know, race and percentages and ancestry and all these things. But I don't want to discount people's positive or meaningful experiences with these technologies either, you know, and this is where you, you have adoptees, for example, and I read this is in the chapters, you have adoptees that are meeting cousins, you know, so they, you know, they've grown up in a white family and, and they're adopted from China and then suddenly they're meeting cousins that they're biologically related to. And these are the first people that they've ever met that they're biologically related to. And so, you know, again, I don't want, I don't want to ignore some of those forms of kinship relations intimacy, you know, like that come from, you know, these sort of genetic test results in, you know, doing that critique. And I, and I want to kind of do both, you know, or I think we all can try to do both, you know, in terms of critiquing the Larger power structure, but also kind of acknowledging managing what's happening for people. And how is that actually really meaningful and important in individuals experiences?
- [61:47]
B
Yeah, definitely. And think about actually individuals as users of technologies, not just users, but they also could have used it in many different ways. And for good or for bad.
- [62:04]
C
Yeah, absolutely.
- [62:06]
B
So I, I, it's really interesting that we, we've had a really rich conversation about your book and this is your first academic monograph, right?
- [62:18]
C
Yes.
- [62:19]
B
That's really a milestone. Congratulations. And I'm also wondering, do you have any advice for either grad students or early career scholars, especially those who are also working across multiple disciplines?
- [62:37]
C
Yeah, I was thinking about this like before the interview and you know, and it's funny because I don't know that I'm someone to take advice from, but I think one thing that was really important to me throughout the project and that I've really learned is about, from, in that interdisciplinary context, to really be open to everything, but only take what you need. That's how I would phrase it. For me, I think some of my best ideas and my best, most exciting kind of moments in the process were discovered sort of by accident or from unexpected places. So unexpected texts and scholars and fields and things that seem to have nothing to do with my project. And, and so I remember taking a class at Yale called Producing and Consuming Nature that was with Karen Hebert, and we were reading political economy and Polanyi and Marx and reading environmental humanities and like, okay, the biopolitics of artisanal cheese making has nothing to do with family, kinship or Asian American, but it really shaped my thinking about materiality, about these sort of encounters and interactions about how, how labor functions and, you know, and so in that sense, it was really exciting and it shaped my thinking, even though it wasn't so specific to my field or my topics or, you know, those things. And in that sense, you know, I'm really, that, to me, was the best, is the best part about getting to do interdisciplinary work is you just get to really explore all these different things that are so interesting in every field or in many different fields. Obviously you can't do everything at the same time. That can sometimes equal pressure from all sides. You know, like, and I think we've all experienced that thing where it's like suddenly there's someone who's disciplinary giving you advice or telling you something's wrong with your project or that it's not this or it's not enough that why don't.
- [64:33]
B
You do this or that?
- [64:34]
C
Yes, yes. And they have A vision of your project that's very disciplinary. And in that sense, I would say, you know, you can't please everyone. And, and, and, you know, if it's going to stress, be just stressful or if, if it feels like it's too much, I think, you know, you got to make choices. This is your life and your work and your research and your book. And, and in that sense, I think just because you're open to everything doesn't mean you have to do everything like that everyone else says. And in that sense, that's where I would say take what you need, wherein there's going to be times where you obviously want to take some advice, take advice from people you trust, but it doesn't have to be everything to everyone. And I think that's a tough thing about doing academic work, is feeling like we owe so much to so many people. People, but at the same time, it is our work and it is our project. And I think that that is something that you don't have to feel so stuck by, you know, because oftentimes you, you're getting conflicting advice, you know, and, and actually, sometimes that's good because then it means you can just choose whichever one you, you know, makes the most sense for you.
- [65:39]
B
That's very helpful. And I'm also thinking about, you know, a lot of academics would say your project, your book is like your baby, but that's also like a trope of kinship making and that very. On our own agency and decision making, although in relational, you know, in relationships with others.
- [66:03]
C
Yeah, totally. No, it's funny you say that also, because I just had a baby. You could keep this in the podcast. I just had a baby in March. And, and, and I would say it's funny to have both kind of being new at the same time because I would, I would say, yeah, with the book, you let it go. And I guess I can't really say that about a real maybe. But, you know, as I think the other thing I thought of was advice. I was like, you know, done is better than perfect. And, you know, and you just got to do each stage and, and, you know, sometimes you have to, you know, write a bad draft before you get a good draft later. And, and in that sense, too, like, I mean, I think it's interesting to think about it is we feel that deep sense of, of care and love towards our work. But at the same time, I think, think, you know, it's like you don't want to have your dissertation project at every Thanksgiving dinner or whatever. And so in that sense, too, I feel like. I feel like it's okay to let things go and finish them, too. And I have felt that about this book, too.
- [67:02]
B
Yeah. And keep moving on. So talking about moving on, and before I let you go, I want to ask you, what's next for you? Are there any upcoming projects you'd like to share with or listening?
- [67:18]
C
I was thinking about this. Obviously, a lot of my work has been very connected to transnational and transracial adoption, and I think that's where a lot of my future work or that my current projects are kind of engaging with. Most recently, I would say I've been really thinking about transracial adoption specifically. And that kind of connects to these themes of race and what race means, but in this context, not just Asian, Asian American, or Asian transracial adoption, but how transracial adoption kind of covers this umbrella across these different historical moments within sort of North American history. And I would say, you know, I joined the faculty at Dalhousie in 2023, and being in Canada has been really interesting experience because it has a very. It's similar, you know, a connected racial history, but it also has this sort of racial history of its own. And the history of transracial adoption in Canada is very much conn, you know, Indigenous history, colonial settler colonialism. And then at the same time, you know, you have adoption from. From Asia and from, you know, transnational adoption around the world also coming to Canada. And. And so I think a lot of my. My current work is really trying to think critically about the sort of U.S. canada context and how race both functions similarly within Canada and the U.S. but then also has its own sort of unique histories. And so a lot of my work right now is really thinking specifically about sort of transracial adoption and multiculturalism in North America.
- [68:55]
B
That's really interesting. I look forward to reading more from you.
- [68:59]
C
Oh, thank you. Yeah, thank you so much. It's been so great to talk to you, of course.
- [69:04]
B
Thank you.