Enjoyed this piece. I should finish Crying In H-Mart at some point in the near future. But its very premise (and from what I've already read) is such a perfect recipe of what mainstream liberal America wants Asian Americans to contribute to the figurative diversity potluck: food (obviously), mixed-race Asians (with preferably an Asian mother), a damsel-in-distress sentimentality that is the preferred voice of well-educated American-born straight Asian American women aspiring for inclusion into the elite culture class, and so forth.
Loved your piece, and your style is great. Absolutely agree with the self-censorship and validation narrative. I even find myself doing this sometimes. I really appreciate you sharing it.
I think that this point’s thesis about the so-called hollowness of Asian American culture is broadly correct, but it misses the mark of addressing whether or not this is important. I know you insist that you are not making a “normative claim”, but I think the things you choose to write about and the words you use describing them are fairly revealing of your normative beliefs—after all, you explicitly state a little bit later that there is “harm” to this sort of conception of cultural identity, even if it not obvious at first glance.
However, I think you make an error in assuming that it is useful to construct personal identity and beliefs from your national heritage. There are many ways for an individual to form beliefs, and it seems strange to me to insist that the best way to determine your values is by looking to what people who looked like vaguely like you 2000 years ago thought. Now, you may argue that these things affect you regardless, and it better that you understand them, then to let them shape you invisibly. This may be the case in some instances, but it seems doubtful that it is true in every or even most cases when there many distinct cultural influences in American life and any particular influence does not affect people in uniform ways. The substitution effect you claim exists between different forms of cultural contemplation is purely asserted—perhaps the reason why people choose to spend less time thinking about Confucius than scholars in ancient China is simply because Confucius is genuinely less relevant to their lives. I don’t mean to demean any significance that you have found from this, and I have no doubt that your feelings are genuine, but it simply is not true that every Asian person gains an enhanced sense of self-understanding from reading texts which may not be at all determinative of their values.
In fact, Crying in H Mart is an excellent example of this. The conflict between Zauner and her mother comes precisely from a difference in personal values: her mother wants her to embrace stability while she prefers the life of the artist. You may argue that Zauner would do well to understand the deeper roots of her mother’s life, but I truly wonder what end that would accomplish. Her mother may argue with her because of hundreds of years of cultural heritage, but knowing that about her does change the fact that you are yelling at your mother. I think there is a tendency among many to just “understand” things better, but some times people just fundamentally disagree in values and there’s no way around it.
Rather, one of the great challenges of globalization and progress becomes the question of maintaining close relationships with family members from whom you are radically different. The solution which Zauner and her mother find is the shared love of Korean food. You may prefer that they instead share some deep set of moral values, but the fact is that they do not, and it is not a plausible framework to believe that people should have similar values simply because they are racially similar. You may decry this level of cultural connection as shallow, but it is the thing that Zauner and her mother found to tie them together—and is there really anything shallow about rekindling a bond and staying connected to in death with the person in your life who matters most to you?
You missed the point of the novel. Just because you are autistic and lack a deeper understanding of the symbolism that Korean food held to her personally doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I understand you’re autistic and easily miss social cues, but this entire essay misses the core tenants of the novel and what genuinely made it a core favorite for many people. She doesn’t NEED to prove, or sustain your need for more “emotional” value. It is understandable that empirically and socially Koreans didn’t have access to food before seventy years. However, her being a Korean immigrant did not experience this. Her Korean-American identity doesn’t resist on this. Yes, it affected her mom and I agree she SHOULD acknowledge that leap her mom made to open value to food in her culture and home despite the lack of access earlier, it doesn’t mean that because she doesn’t give into your insistent need for trauma porn about how Koreans have suffered that her emotions are any less valid.
Poor writing. Your take on Korean-American culture does not imprint onto everyone else’s experience. You claim that it does a poor job representing it, yet real Korean-Americans like myself find ourselves relating to these “superficial terms” consider that maybe your experience isn’t the definition or standard? Much love.
This was a great, detailed read. As someone who is firmly entrenched in "Third Culture" it can be supremely tough to discern identity in a world caught up in stereotypes and surface-level fixations. Peel away the outer layers and you are left with this swirling pot of East meets West ideology, culture, and traditions. You are left with something entirely new, different, and at times confusing.
Typically immigrants go through a three generation process in the USA. The first wave is too busy trying to survive that they don't think about issues like culture. Plus they grew up back home and are not self conscious about their culture, it is what they are, and the USA is the new place they have to navigate. The second generation grows up here, realizes they have some ideas and baggage from their parents which don't fit well, and rebel against their roots. The third generation is secure here, grew up speaking english, becomes conscious of a cultural loss, and rebels against their parents and becomes interested in championing the culture that was abandoned. Are you seeing this process among Koreans in the USA?
Enjoyed this piece. I should finish Crying In H-Mart at some point in the near future. But its very premise (and from what I've already read) is such a perfect recipe of what mainstream liberal America wants Asian Americans to contribute to the figurative diversity potluck: food (obviously), mixed-race Asians (with preferably an Asian mother), a damsel-in-distress sentimentality that is the preferred voice of well-educated American-born straight Asian American women aspiring for inclusion into the elite culture class, and so forth.
I wrote about this a couple of years ago for Current Affairs, which I re-published to my Substack last year. Would be interested to get your thoughts on it: https://salieriredemption.substack.com/p/asian-american-psycho
Loved your piece, and your style is great. Absolutely agree with the self-censorship and validation narrative. I even find myself doing this sometimes. I really appreciate you sharing it.
Superb piece. I think you'd like the work of Mark Tseng-Putterman who situates Asian-American cultural discourse in the context of American imperialism more broadly: https://roarmag.org/essays/anti-asian-racism-american-imperialism/
Bookmarked this to read tonight!!
Another paradox here is that her father is actually Jewish.
Rather, it's the coming Eurasian elite talking about itself and telling everyone else to be prepared for a new beauty standard and culture.
Nowhere is this prevalent in the book. Curious how you originated this take?
I think that this point’s thesis about the so-called hollowness of Asian American culture is broadly correct, but it misses the mark of addressing whether or not this is important. I know you insist that you are not making a “normative claim”, but I think the things you choose to write about and the words you use describing them are fairly revealing of your normative beliefs—after all, you explicitly state a little bit later that there is “harm” to this sort of conception of cultural identity, even if it not obvious at first glance.
However, I think you make an error in assuming that it is useful to construct personal identity and beliefs from your national heritage. There are many ways for an individual to form beliefs, and it seems strange to me to insist that the best way to determine your values is by looking to what people who looked like vaguely like you 2000 years ago thought. Now, you may argue that these things affect you regardless, and it better that you understand them, then to let them shape you invisibly. This may be the case in some instances, but it seems doubtful that it is true in every or even most cases when there many distinct cultural influences in American life and any particular influence does not affect people in uniform ways. The substitution effect you claim exists between different forms of cultural contemplation is purely asserted—perhaps the reason why people choose to spend less time thinking about Confucius than scholars in ancient China is simply because Confucius is genuinely less relevant to their lives. I don’t mean to demean any significance that you have found from this, and I have no doubt that your feelings are genuine, but it simply is not true that every Asian person gains an enhanced sense of self-understanding from reading texts which may not be at all determinative of their values.
In fact, Crying in H Mart is an excellent example of this. The conflict between Zauner and her mother comes precisely from a difference in personal values: her mother wants her to embrace stability while she prefers the life of the artist. You may argue that Zauner would do well to understand the deeper roots of her mother’s life, but I truly wonder what end that would accomplish. Her mother may argue with her because of hundreds of years of cultural heritage, but knowing that about her does change the fact that you are yelling at your mother. I think there is a tendency among many to just “understand” things better, but some times people just fundamentally disagree in values and there’s no way around it.
Rather, one of the great challenges of globalization and progress becomes the question of maintaining close relationships with family members from whom you are radically different. The solution which Zauner and her mother find is the shared love of Korean food. You may prefer that they instead share some deep set of moral values, but the fact is that they do not, and it is not a plausible framework to believe that people should have similar values simply because they are racially similar. You may decry this level of cultural connection as shallow, but it is the thing that Zauner and her mother found to tie them together—and is there really anything shallow about rekindling a bond and staying connected to in death with the person in your life who matters most to you?
You missed the point of the novel. Just because you are autistic and lack a deeper understanding of the symbolism that Korean food held to her personally doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I understand you’re autistic and easily miss social cues, but this entire essay misses the core tenants of the novel and what genuinely made it a core favorite for many people. She doesn’t NEED to prove, or sustain your need for more “emotional” value. It is understandable that empirically and socially Koreans didn’t have access to food before seventy years. However, her being a Korean immigrant did not experience this. Her Korean-American identity doesn’t resist on this. Yes, it affected her mom and I agree she SHOULD acknowledge that leap her mom made to open value to food in her culture and home despite the lack of access earlier, it doesn’t mean that because she doesn’t give into your insistent need for trauma porn about how Koreans have suffered that her emotions are any less valid.
Consider nuance sometime, it’ll do you good.
This made me lol
Poor writing. Your take on Korean-American culture does not imprint onto everyone else’s experience. You claim that it does a poor job representing it, yet real Korean-Americans like myself find ourselves relating to these “superficial terms” consider that maybe your experience isn’t the definition or standard? Much love.
If your only connection to culture is food, you’re lost 👍👍
This was a great, detailed read. As someone who is firmly entrenched in "Third Culture" it can be supremely tough to discern identity in a world caught up in stereotypes and surface-level fixations. Peel away the outer layers and you are left with this swirling pot of East meets West ideology, culture, and traditions. You are left with something entirely new, different, and at times confusing.
But altogether delicious.
Good post.
Typically immigrants go through a three generation process in the USA. The first wave is too busy trying to survive that they don't think about issues like culture. Plus they grew up back home and are not self conscious about their culture, it is what they are, and the USA is the new place they have to navigate. The second generation grows up here, realizes they have some ideas and baggage from their parents which don't fit well, and rebel against their roots. The third generation is secure here, grew up speaking english, becomes conscious of a cultural loss, and rebels against their parents and becomes interested in championing the culture that was abandoned. Are you seeing this process among Koreans in the USA?