{"title":"《种族的梦幻世界:帝国与盎格鲁-美国的乌托邦命运》,邓肯·贝尔著。普林斯顿,新泽西州:普林斯顿大学出版社,2020。465页,39.95美元。布。","authors":"D. Gorman","doi":"10.1017/rep.2021.22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"incorporation across the three East Asian countries, Chung identifies selective and nuanced understandings of multiculturalism. Overall, she maintains, “East Asian cases represent variations of models that couple multicultural rhetoric with assimilationist policies as well as cultural monism and cultural pluralism” (p. 164). Some readers may find this juxtaposition of inclusionary and exclusionary approaches difficult to accept in a notion of multiculturalism, but for Chung, this is precisely the point. Although the book’s portrayal of a coexistence of inclusionary and exclusionary approaches challenges a binary approach to citizenship, it captures the realities, for which Chung accounts with a sound theoretical and empirical argument. It also has implications for considering how other newer countries of immigration grappling with choices about temporary and permanent migration may similarly apply limited notions of cultural pluralism and inclusion. It should be stressed, however, that Chung’s agenda here is to engage scholarly literature on comparative immigration, including that outside of the Asian region, by elucidating the pivotal role of civic legacies in promoting incorporation. There is no reason to conclude that she is proposing an “East Asian model” for countries to use as justification for major limits on inclusion and rights for migrants. This is an ambitious book that synthesizes across literatures on immigration, citizenship, and social movements to make an important contribution with original scholarship. Rather than accept a regional demarcation of East Asian countries as inherently different because of history, culture, or ethnic identity, Chung demonstrates that ignoring the experiences of East Asia would be a loss to scholars of other regions for grasping the subtleties of comparative immigrant incorporation.","PeriodicalId":37190,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Race, Ethnicity and Politics","volume":"28 1","pages":"671 - 673"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dreamworlds of Race: Empire and the Utopian Destiny of Anglo-America By Duncan Bell. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2020. 465 pp., $39.95. Cloth.\",\"authors\":\"D. Gorman\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/rep.2021.22\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"incorporation across the three East Asian countries, Chung identifies selective and nuanced understandings of multiculturalism. Overall, she maintains, “East Asian cases represent variations of models that couple multicultural rhetoric with assimilationist policies as well as cultural monism and cultural pluralism” (p. 164). Some readers may find this juxtaposition of inclusionary and exclusionary approaches difficult to accept in a notion of multiculturalism, but for Chung, this is precisely the point. Although the book’s portrayal of a coexistence of inclusionary and exclusionary approaches challenges a binary approach to citizenship, it captures the realities, for which Chung accounts with a sound theoretical and empirical argument. It also has implications for considering how other newer countries of immigration grappling with choices about temporary and permanent migration may similarly apply limited notions of cultural pluralism and inclusion. It should be stressed, however, that Chung’s agenda here is to engage scholarly literature on comparative immigration, including that outside of the Asian region, by elucidating the pivotal role of civic legacies in promoting incorporation. There is no reason to conclude that she is proposing an “East Asian model” for countries to use as justification for major limits on inclusion and rights for migrants. This is an ambitious book that synthesizes across literatures on immigration, citizenship, and social movements to make an important contribution with original scholarship. Rather than accept a regional demarcation of East Asian countries as inherently different because of history, culture, or ethnic identity, Chung demonstrates that ignoring the experiences of East Asia would be a loss to scholars of other regions for grasping the subtleties of comparative immigrant incorporation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37190,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Race, Ethnicity and Politics\",\"volume\":\"28 1\",\"pages\":\"671 - 673\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-08-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Race, Ethnicity and Politics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/rep.2021.22\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Race, Ethnicity and Politics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/rep.2021.22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
Dreamworlds of Race: Empire and the Utopian Destiny of Anglo-America By Duncan Bell. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2020. 465 pp., $39.95. Cloth.
incorporation across the three East Asian countries, Chung identifies selective and nuanced understandings of multiculturalism. Overall, she maintains, “East Asian cases represent variations of models that couple multicultural rhetoric with assimilationist policies as well as cultural monism and cultural pluralism” (p. 164). Some readers may find this juxtaposition of inclusionary and exclusionary approaches difficult to accept in a notion of multiculturalism, but for Chung, this is precisely the point. Although the book’s portrayal of a coexistence of inclusionary and exclusionary approaches challenges a binary approach to citizenship, it captures the realities, for which Chung accounts with a sound theoretical and empirical argument. It also has implications for considering how other newer countries of immigration grappling with choices about temporary and permanent migration may similarly apply limited notions of cultural pluralism and inclusion. It should be stressed, however, that Chung’s agenda here is to engage scholarly literature on comparative immigration, including that outside of the Asian region, by elucidating the pivotal role of civic legacies in promoting incorporation. There is no reason to conclude that she is proposing an “East Asian model” for countries to use as justification for major limits on inclusion and rights for migrants. This is an ambitious book that synthesizes across literatures on immigration, citizenship, and social movements to make an important contribution with original scholarship. Rather than accept a regional demarcation of East Asian countries as inherently different because of history, culture, or ethnic identity, Chung demonstrates that ignoring the experiences of East Asia would be a loss to scholars of other regions for grasping the subtleties of comparative immigrant incorporation.