America’s “Whiz Kids”? Ambivalence and the Model Minority Stereotype

Abstract

Asian Americans are commonly stereotyped as the “model minority”: smart, diligent, quiet, and conformist. While at the outset the model minority stereotype appears to be positive, consensus in academia is that this stereotype has significant negative consequences for those to whom it is applied. Moreover, the literature has repeatedly documented that the model minority stereotype is largely unfounded—that is, the model minority is a myth. The present study employs in-depth interviews with Asian American college students to gauge campus climate. Respondents tell dual tales: they reject the assumption that Asian Americans are the model minority while lending significant support for it via their narratives. Elements of the model minority stereotype are repeatedly invoked as respondents paint highly positive portraits of themselves. While the negative implications of the model minority stereotype are acknowledged, the possibility that this stereotype serves largely positive functions—for some Asian Americans—is considered, thereby adding much-needed nuance to the debate surrounding the model minority stereotype.

Notes

1 Although the model minority stereotype is most commonly attributed to the publication of these two articles, Ellen Wu (2013), in The Color of Success: Asian Americans and the Origins of the Model Minority, pointed out that the origin of this stereotype occurred years prior to these publications and in multiple arenas. Moreover, Asian Americans themselves played a role in the creation and perpetuation of this stereotype.

2 The American ideology of individualism and the value placed on personal achievement has been noted by numerous scholars, including Robin Williams (1970:454), American Society; Everett C. Ladd (1978:45), “Traditional Values Regnant,” Public Opinion; and C. Wright Mills (1959:346), The Power Elite.

3 According to an October 23, 2012, article published in the Collegiate Times (the student-run newspaper), as of fall 2012, double majors comprised approximately 64% of the 31,000+ enrolled students at the university (Harris 2012).

4 Although I intended to interview a larger pool of respondents, the issue of number of cases is less relevant given the study’s ethnographic approach, an approach in which by necessity, relatively small groups of people are studied (Gray et al. 2007:181). A strength of the ethnographic approach is its ability to produce rich and nuanced findings, whereas a weakness of this approach is the lack of representativeness of findings. The present study is less an exercise in the deductive method, in which “an expected pattern is tested against observations”; on the contrary, this study takes an inductive approach, in which one “begins with observations and seeks to find a pattern within them” (Babbie 2016:51).

5 All names of respondents have been changed to protect confidentiality. Each respondent has been assigned a pseudonym.

6 The name of the school has been fictionalized (ILU = Ivy League University), as the state in which it is located (and in which the present university is located) is included in its name.

7 The phenomenon of racial/ethnic minorities fueling, or offering support for, the very characteristics encompassed in harmful stereotypes of them is not new; rather, I suggest that we take a more nuanced view of the model minority stereotype, which has been cast primarily in negative terms.

8 My findings suggest that the following questions be more fully explored: for whom is the model minority stereotype an asset, and for whom is this stereotype detrimental? Why did my respondents report highly positive experiences at the university, while much of the literature in Asian American Studies relays the opposite experience from respondents? Is the experience of my respondents an anomaly? Is there something unique about the university at which they studied which caused the stereotype to work for them? Or, does the literature highlight the negative experiences of Asian American students to the exclusion of positive accounts for political reasons, as Sakamoto et al. (2012) suggest? These questions, along with a consideration of how demographic characteristics, such as Asian American subgroup, socioeconomic status, region, and so on, impact one’s experiences with the model minority stereotype deserve further attention.

9 The literature indicates that there is a relationship between race of the interviewer and the interviewee’s “racially relevant” responses: respondents typically provide answers that are favorable to the race of the interviewer (see, e.g., Anderson et al. 1988; Davis 1997; Finkel et al. 1991; Krysan and Couper 2003; Schuman and Converse 1971; Weeks and Moore 1981); likewise, there appears to be a similar effect when it comes to gender (see, e.g., Kane and Macaulay 1993). Thus, my respondents may have (a) thought the “correct” answer to give was “No, I haven’t experienced racism,” and (b) at the same time embraced elements of the model minority stereotype as a coping strategy, or simply because that’s what they thought I wanted, or expected, them to do.

10 As just noted, interviewer effects have been documented in terms of both gender (Huddy et al. 1997) and race/ethnicity of the interviewer (Hurtado 1994; Reese et al. 1986; Weeks and Moore 1981).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Daisy Ball

Daisy Ball, Ph.D., is an assistant professor and Coordinator of the Criminal Justice Program in the Department of Public Affairs at Roanoke College (Salem, VA). Her work focuses on race/ethnicity in academic settings, and race/ethnicity and criminal justice contact.