“You are not an American. When they call you names, you lose nothing. If you throw away nuts just like that, you will never become rich. With one penny you could start a saving-account and draw interest from it” (25)
“In the South, Negroes are not allowed to ride in the same streetcar with whites, but Chinese are. Black children are not allowed to go to school with white children, but Chinese children are” (26)
I found these passages to be very interesting as they demonstrate the pressure Pearl feels to abide by hegemonic American ideals of success. She foils Wong and his ethnic and nationalistic pride (of being Chinese/China), as demonstrated by him giving out lychee nuts to customers as a gesture of pridefully sharing elements of his culture. The lychees are used again for the same reason, as Wong throws them at kids heckling him with racial taunts to defend his racial/ethnic identity. In this sense, he operates on a basis of values intrinsic to his Chinese identity. Pearl points out that his values are incompatible to the American- capitalist way of life. Wong’s open-minded, multiculturalist approach to life leaves him vulnerable to the reality of America, that there is a “best” culture, defined by the profitability of each culture. Pearl is more attuned to this reality, as she deliberately identifies with her Chinese identity, not for the same reasons that Wong does but for the simple fact that Asians weren’t/aren’t discriminated against as much as Black people. This demonstrates how capitalism, despite its unbiased and objective facade, manifests hegemonically not only physically in our globalized cities but also even within everyone’s identity.
I also thought the philosophical underpinnings of these passages were interesting. I want to tie this to the concept of the “invisible/one-dimensional man” by Herbert Marcuse, who was actually writing his most prominent works around the time “And China Has Hands” was published. The author also has strong Communist leanings and I wouldn’t be surprised if he was familiar with this work. The notion is that, in Capitalist America, there exists an ideal image of a worker: someone that patiently saves for the future, works diligently without complaining, consumes just enough to suffice and not excessively, and is perhaps a devout Christian. At this time of the book, Pearl most likely embodies this person, as one crucial aspect of the “invisible man” is that they are not aware of the hegemonic forces of their reality. Pearl is certainly aware that there are racial inequalities, but she does not consider herself a victim nor does she demand social change.
This sets up an interesting dynamic between Wong and Pearl who are both trying to become accustomed to a culture they are unfamiliar with. In many ways, they are forced/feel pressured to do so, as they manage to convince themselves and each other so in response to the hegemonic forces in society. However, in doing so, they invoke and reinforce these racial values, ultimately oppressing themselves nevertheless. There’s no playing the game. The game plays you?
Eugene,
Thanks for this comment. I really enjoyed reading your thoughts on hegemonic capitalism in the United States. I particularly thought your distinction between Pearl Chang and Wong’s different cultural view towards capitalism was interesting and descriptive of the novel’s presentation of these two characters. For Pearl, identifying with one part of her identity meant a specific way of understanding economic systems. I wonder how her view towards “the game” and capitalism will change throughout the novel, and what role she will have to play in “the game?”
This is a very interesting reading! I’m particularly struck by your analysis of Pearl Chang’s relationship to capitalism and, consequently, to her identities. She completely rejects her blackness throughout the book and embraces her Chinese identity because, as you stated, Asian people in this historical moment had more capitalistic privileges (at least as the author presents the narrative to us). I wonder, then, how capitalism suppresses the self in other ways? Are there whole modes of ‘being’ that are simply not allowed because capitalism exists?