《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。

Q1 Social Sciences
D. Gorman
{"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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在三个东亚国家的融合中,钟发现了对多元文化主义的选择性和微妙的理解。总的来说,她坚持认为,“东亚案例代表了将多元文化修辞与同化主义政策以及文化一元论和文化多元主义相结合的模式的变化”(第164页)。一些读者可能会发现,在多元文化主义的概念中,这种包容和排斥的方法并列在一起很难接受,但对钟来说,这正是重点。虽然这本书描绘了包容和排斥并存的方法,挑战了对公民身份的二元方法,但它抓住了现实,对此,郑以合理的理论和实证论证进行了阐述。这也对考虑其他正在努力选择临时和永久移民的新移民国家如何同样适用有限的文化多元主义和包容概念具有启示意义。然而,应该强调的是,Chung在这里的议程是通过阐明公民遗产在促进融合方面的关键作用,参与比较移民的学术文献,包括亚洲地区以外的学术文献。我们没有理由认为,她是在提出一种“东亚模式”,供各国用来作为对移民包容和权利进行重大限制的理由。这是一本雄心勃勃的书,综合了有关移民,公民身份和社会运动的文献,以原创学术做出了重要贡献。与其接受东亚国家因历史、文化或种族认同而存在本质差异的区域划分,Chung指出,忽视东亚的经验对其他地区的学者来说将是一种损失,因为他们无法把握比较移民融合的微妙之处。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Race, Ethnicity and Politics
Journal of Race, Ethnicity and Politics Social Sciences-Anthropology
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
35
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信