Asian Americans in the United States, particularly East Asian Americans (Koreans, Chinese, Taiwanese, Japanese, etc.,) face the double bind of two major stereotypes that shape perceptions of Asian people in the West: the Yellow Peril and the model minority.
These stereotypes create a societal ambivalence over East Asians, generating a dual dynamic of rejection and attraction. This experience disrupts social, personal, and communal integration, isolating and dividing East Asians from society, each other, and themselves.
Christian theology can restore the meaning and relational aspects of social integration within the framework of work, particularly in the racially divided and finance-driven capitalism that fosters exclusive communities and a fragmented labor market.
A key theological concept for addressing this issue is theologian Jung Young Lee’s “both/and” approach, especially in relation to the Trinity. Lee’s theology moves beyond binary thinking, advocating for the embrace of plurality and unity ―a powerful framework for overcoming the mar ginalization of East Asian Americans and promoting social integration.
This theoretical framework provides the basis for understanding the Yellow Peril and model minority stereotypes as a double bind that reinforces exclusion under capitalism and racism.
In the first part of the paper, I demonstrate how the concepts of Yellow Peril and model minority act as a double bind for East Asian and Asian Americans, leading to an isolated and marginalized structure of domination and exploitation. Domination refers to the exercise of power where one group controls or subjugates another, often using economic, political, or social influence to maintain hierarchy.
Exploitation is the use of individuals or groups for unfair gain, particularly in the labor market, where individuals’ work is undervalued, and they receive inadequate compensation for their contributions.
Together, these forces under capitalism and racism result in social fragmentation and hinder social integration in the workplace.
The second part engages with theological understanding to reflect on these historical experiences.
Drawing on the theological concepts of relationship, work, and community from Augustine, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and Kathryn Tanner, I propose that Christian theology offers a framework for restoring the significance and relational dynamics of social integration amidst the double bind.
While modern workplaces are often driven by economic goals and capitalist structures, Christian theology provides a contrasting vision: it understands work as an extension of human relationships, care, and community.
By integrating these theological principles, I aim to show how they can foster greater solidarity and inclusion in the labor market and workplace.
Furthermore, Jung Young Lee’s “both/and” thinking, particularly in relation to the Trinity, offers a compelling vision for overcoming binary structures of marginality and centrality, promoting a more inclusive approach to social integration. Thus, I propose that theological principles of community centered on the relationship between God and humanity can provide a framework for restoring social integration and communal solidarity.
I. The Double Bind at Work: Yellow Peril and Model Minority in the United States
The nature of work is often communal in essence, functioning as a means of social integration in many contexts.
Not only does work involve the compensation individuals receive for their labor and the subsequent formation of social networks through the consumption of that compensation, it also plays a crucial role in developing individual capacities and contributing to societal progress.
From this perspective, work extends beyond simple transactions between individuals; it reflects a broader relational dynamic. The interaction between offering employment, performing work, and receiving compensation involves various relational dynamics―between employers and employees, and among coworkers engaged in similar tasks.
Furthermore, individual differences in personality, temperament, skills, education, and cultural or linguistic backgrounds provide opportunities for mutual learning.
These differences enrich communal life by fostering the exchange of diverse approaches and more effective problem-solving.
Through collaboration, individuals can gain in- sights into more efficient ways of generating profits, including financial success as well as personal and collective growth.
In this way, work functions as a societal integrator, weaving individuals into the broader social fabric and helping to form a sense of community.
Work often fosters societal cohesion and integration, particularly when individuals collaborate in environments where diversity is valued and differences are harnessed for mutual benefit. Under the effect of globalization, migration―including immigration, studying abroad, finding a job, and surviving unexpected socio-political situations― has increased sharply in the United States.1
1 Pan American Health Organization, “Increased Migration Flow in the Americas in 2023: Challenges for Migrant Health and PAHO’s Response,” The Pan American Health Organization, Dec 2023, https://www.paho.org/en/news/18-12-2023-increased-migration-flow-americas-2023-challengesmigrant-health-and-pahos-response. Accessed Apr 6, 2024.
Historically, migration has played a significant role in shaping labor markets and economic systems, as labor movements―both domestic and international― have long been intertwined with economic growth and development. While it is commonly argued that successive waves of migrants willing to work for lower wages contribute to shifts in employment patterns and wage structures, the reality is more complex.
Migration’s effects on labor markets are multifaceted, the result of larger realities of economic policies, market demands, and global trade dynamics. Various factors motivate people to immigrate to America.
A significant allure is the freedom inherent in the market under capitalism, the opportunity for free, active participation in the labor market, and higher wages compared to their home countries.2
2 Andri Chassamboulli et al., “Immigration and Labour Market Flows,” Labour Economics 86 (2024), 3; Jongsung Kim, Labor Supply and Occupational Structure of Asian Immigrants in the U.S. Labor Market (New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1999), 2-3.
The enduring slogans of the “American Dream” and “the land of liberty” embody the aspiration that individuals of any background―regardless of class, race, gender, religion, or culture― can attain economic success.
This ethos has reshaped the perception of work, placing a strong emphasis on economic prosperity as a key driver of both individual success and social integration.
For many early immigrants, the promise of economic opportunity was intertwined with the hope of achieving social acceptance, as economic success often served as a pathway to greater social integration.
However, the concepts of the Yellow Peril and model minority have presented conflicting challenges and experiences for East Asian immigrants and Asian Americans.
The idea of the Yellow Peril in the United States stemmed from fears surrounding the large-scale influx of Chinese laborers, whose skin color European Americans perceived as being yellow―fears that Chinese workers’ willingness to work for significantly lower wages would undercut the economic stability of American laborers by increasing competition for jobs, decreasing wages, and threatening their ability to maintain their standard of living.
Racial and cultural anxieties compounded these economic concerns, as many viewed the growing presence of Chinese immigrants as a threat to the American way of life and social order. Such fears culminated in the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882. The backdrop to this legislation was the concern that the influx of Chinese laborers would destabilize the American labor market, prompting demands for legal restrictions.3
3 Cf. Benjamin Harrison, “United We Stand, Divided We Fall,” Benjamin Harrison Papers: Series 1, General Correspondence and Related Material, Oct 3-Nov 17, 1888. This pamphlet encapsulates the arguments put forth by Allan Thurman, a Democratic senator who served in the Senate, and shows that the matter was a politically sensitive one. “I have no sympathy with the cry for cheap labor and low wages. They [Chinese labors] may give rise, it is true, to great public works and magnificent structures, but the benefit is gained at the expense of a suffering people. ... Are we prepared to invite the American laborer to this competition―to yoke him with this fellow to plow the fields, delve in the mine, or work in the shops of capital seeking the cheapest labor?”
Over time, these anxieties transformed into systemic discrimination in employment and wages against Asians, particularly within the labor market and workplace.
This systemic discrimination is part of a broader structure of domination, in which economic power is used to perpetuate the subordination and exploitation of Asian workers, resulting in lower wages, fewer job opportunities, and more precarious working conditions for Asian workers.
Though the Chinese Exclusion Act was later extended to include Japanese immigrants in 1907 and all East Asians in 1917 under the guise of “labor protection,”4 it actually led to a decrease in labor supply,5 decreased productivity, economic contraction particularly affecting the agriculture, mining, and manufacturing industries, and decrease in wages. Kitty Calavita, an American criminologist specializing in immigration and immigration lawmaking, notes that this in turn led to ideological construction of gendered, racialized, and classed categories, which became intertwined with sexism, racism, and classism in the labor market.6
4 Charles B. Keely, U.S. Immigration: A Policy Analysis (New York: The Population Council, 1979), 15.
5 Joe Long et al., “The Impact of the Chinese Exclusion Act on the U.S. Economy,” Harvard Business School Working Paper, Sep 2024, https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=62403. Accessed Dec 15, 2024.
6 Kitty Calavita, “Collisions at the Intersection of Gender, Race, and Class: Enforcing the Chinese Exclusion Laws,” Law & Society Review 40 (2006/2), 252.
In short, the example of Yellow Peril shows that racial categories intersect with factors across society and the economy, leading to various forms of discrimination and hindering social integration.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the specter of the Yellow Peril again reared its head. However, instead of being related to fears of labor competition, the Yellow Peril in 2020 was channeled through public health fears, as Asians were scapegoated for the spread of the virus. On March 19, 2020, then President Donald Trump gave an address at the White House.
A close-up photo of the text of his speech was released to the media showing that the word “coronavirus” had been crossed out and replaced with “Chinese virus.”7
Shortly after, Trump also tweeted the term “Chinese Virus,” Which further popularized this phrasing. Following this tweet, there was a significant surge in tweets containing the hashtag “Anti-Asian.”8
His actions used humor to mask racial discrimination, without considering the impact of his influence. Such phenomena extended far beyond the online sphere into real-life manifestations of Anti-Asian racism and xenophobia, encompassing linguistic violence, physical assaults, and other forms of discrimination.9
7 Anne Gearan, “Trump Takes Direct Aim at China as Known US Infections Double and Criticism Mounts,” The Washington Post, Mar 2020, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumptakes-direct-aim-at-china-as-known-us-infections-double-and-criticism-mounts/2020/03/19/ 6df10828-6a06-11ea-abef-020f086a3fab_story.html. Accessed Apr 6, 2024.
8 Laura Kurtzman, “Trump’s ‘Chinese Virus’ Tweet Linked to Rise of Anti-Asian Hashtags on Twitter,” UCSF, Mar 2021, https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2021/03/420081/trumps-chinese-virus-tweet-linkedrise-anti-asian-hashtags-twitter. Accessed Apr 6, 2024.
9 Anti-Asian racial discrimination was not limited to Chinese individuals but predominantly targeted individuals from East Asian countries, including Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and Hong Kong, and Southeast and South Asian. Cf. Maya Yang, “More than 9,000 Anti-Asian Incidents Reported in US since Pandemic Started,” The Guardian, Aug 2021, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/12/anti-asianstop-aapi-hate-covid-report. Accessed Apr 6, 2024; Sabrina Tavernise and Richard A. Oppel Jr., “Spit On, Yelled At, Attacked: Chinese-Americans Fear for Their Safety,” The New York Times, Mar 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/23/us/chinese-coronavirus-racist-attacks.html. Accessed Apr 6, 2024; Darla Miles, “‘Where’s Your (Expletive) Mask?’: Asian Woman Attacked in Manhattan Hate Crime,” WABC, Mar 2020, https://abc7ny.com/assault-hate-crime-bias-attack-coronavirus/6003396/. Accessed Apr 6, 2024.
The term model minority, on the other hand, was first used after World War II, and signaled the stable social integration and educational levels of Japanese Americans as role models for minorities in the United States.
In 1966, William Peterson, a sociologist, addressed Japanese American as a “model minority,” in contrast to African Americans as one of “the problem minorities” in the New York Times article, “Success Story, Japanese-American Style.”10
10 William Peterson, “Success Story, Japanese American Style,” New York Times, Jan 1966, https:// www.nytimes.com/1966/01/09/archives/success-story-japaneseamerican-style-successstory-japaneseamerican.html. Accessed Apr 6, 2024.
This was not so much a celebration of Japanese Americans as a means of belittling other minorities, framing them as inferior for not achieving similar success and further entrenching discriminatory views.
The crux of his comparison is that Japanese Americans, despite facing the same realities of poverty and discrimination as other minorities, achieved success through hard work and perseverance.
According to Jonathan Tran, an Asian American Christian ethicist, the problem inherent in the model minority stereotype is that a few success stories are generalized to the entire Asian American population, suggesting that other minorities could also succeed if they worked as hard as Asian Americans, and implying that racial discrimination is not an issue for Asian Americans, and that it is the result of personal failure rather than systemic barriers.11
Therefore, the model minority not only exacerbates racial tensions and conflicts but also obscures the realm of racial discrimination with distorted positive perceptions, further entrenching racist narratives about other minority groups. The concept of the model minority entails not only the assimilation of Asian Americans into the dominant group but also the assimilation of other minorities into the perception of Asian Americans as a model minority.
The image of a successful minority implies a socioeconomic status above a certain threshold, with the model representing the dominant culture, namely the middle-class or higher-tier white American culture, and success being contingent upon assimilation into this culture.12
This assimilation, based on “a strong sense of racialized identity,” entails a transition from the original Asian or Asian American culture and language to the dominant white culture and language.
The designation of Asian Americans as a model minority neglects their actual realities, such as poverty, suffering, and inadequate educational environments.
And positioning Asian Americans as the “better” minority implicitly encourages other minorities likewise to assimilate into the dominant culture and group in order to succeed.13
11 Jonathan Tran, Asian Americans and the Spirit of Racial Capitalism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2022), 30. 12 Rosalind S. Chou and Joe R. Feagin, Myth of the Model Minority: Asian Americans Facing Racism (Boulder: Paradigm Publishers, 2015), 13, 17.
13 Lon Kurashige, Two Faces of Exclusion: The Untold History of Anti-Asian Racism in the United States (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2016), 217.
This stereotype paints Asians as compliant, tolerating workplace disadvantages, and being politically apathetic.
Sixty-three percent of Asians and Asian Americans report experiencing stereotypes associated with the model minority label in the workplace.14
This portrayal of compliance not only strips Asian Americans of leadership opportunities, while simultaneously using their labor to maintain momentum within the company’s hierarchy, positioning them as productive yet politically and hierarchically marginalized.15
This is particularly the case among women in the workplace.16
It also discourages their political engagement, potentially resulting in their voices being unreflected in policymaking, contributing to social alienation.
The twin concepts of the Yellow Peril and model minority have also led to other workplace myths.
One of the biggest is that immigration leads to fierce competition and takes away jobs from native workers.17
14 Neil G. Ruiz, Carolyne Im, and Ziyao Tian, “Discrimination Experiences Shape Most Asian Americans’ Lives: Stereotypes of Asians in the U.S. as Foreigners and a Model Minority Drive Discrimination,” Pew Research Center, Nov 2023, https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2023/11/30/ discrimination-experiences-shape-most-asian-americans-lives/. Accessed Apr 6, 2024.
15 See. Buck Gee and Denise Peck, “Asian Americans Are the Least Likely Group in the U.S. to Be Promoted to Management,” Harvard Business Review, May 2018, https://hbr.org/2018/05/ asian-americans-are-the-least-likely-group-in-the-u-s-to-be-promoted-to-management. Accessed Apr 6, 2024; Theresa Agovino, “Asian-Americans Seek More Respect, Authority in the Workplace,” SHRM, Jun 2021, https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/news/all-things-work/asianamericans-seek-respect-authority-workplace. Accessed Apr 6, 2024.
16 Kimmy Yam, “Asian American Women Fall off by 80% at Corporate Leadership Levels, a New Report Says,” NBC News, Sep 2022, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/asian-americanwomen-fall-80-corporate-leadership-levels-new-report-sa-rcna46546. Accessed Apr 6, 2024.
17 Victoria M. Esses, “Prejudice and Discrimination Toward Immigrants,” Annual Review of Psychology 72 (2021), 505.
However, research findings contradict this myth.
According to one simulation, it highlights that immigration can boost native employment and wage polarization by increasing aggregate demand and enabling access to higher-paying jobs, contrasting policies aimed at reducing low-skilled migration, which may inadvertently exacerbate middle-class job erosion through decreased demand and increased reliance on low-paying manual labor.18
Thus, opposition to immigration is predominantly influenced by “ethnocentrism” rather than “economic indicators.”19 Jonathan Tran argues that capitalism and racism are inherently intertwined, leading to the assertion that Asian Americans cannot escape the system formed by these two forces.
He points out that the background of racism, including instances such as the enslavement of the Slavic peoples in the ninth century, the enslavement of African peoples, particularly by European colonists and Americans in the sixteenth to nineteenth centuries, and the exploitation of Chinese individuals in the Mississippi Delta in the nineteenth century, stems from an epistemological separation of human/ non-human, a separation that fuels domination and exploitation for maximum profit.20
Those who exploit, justify domination and exploitation, without guilt, and compel those whom they exploit to comply with the system, commodifying them and racializing their worth.
Racialized capitalism perpetuates the same cycle, leaving only domination and exploitation for maximum profit within the system, as “the commitments rationalize the processes and the processes engender the commitments.”21
18 Giovanni Peri, Ahmed Rahman, and Gaetano Basso, “The Impact of Immigration on Wage Distributions in the Era of Technical Automation,” The Centre for Economic Policy Research, Jan 2018, https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/impact-immigration-wage-distributions-era-technicalautomation. Accessed Apr 6, 2024.
19 Steven V. Miller, “Economic Anxiety or Ethnocentrism? An Evaluation of Attitudes toward Immigration in the U.S. from 1992 to 2017,” The Social Science Journal 60 (2023/4), 824.
20 Tran, Asian Americans, 69-70.
21 Ibid., 76. This aligns with Kathryn Tanner’s description of the relationship of commitment between finance-dominated capitalism and workers in her book Christianity and the New Spirit of Capitalism. She explains how corporations demand maximum labor from workers to realize maximum profit, leveraging workers’ fears of dismissal to coerce them into acting in ways that serve the company’s interests. It ensures that workers remain trapped within the system formed by finance-dominated capitalism. Kathryn Tanner, Christianity and the New Spirit of Capitalism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2019), 66-67.
Through such processes, minorities are socioeconomically marginalized, isolated, and excluded.
Tran’s argument challenges the notion of “social integration,” particularly within the framework of racialized capitalism.
It suggests that social integration as it is typically conceived may be impossible within a system that inherently commodifies and exploits minorities.
However, rather than invalidate the concept of social integration, this requires a reimagining of integration beyond the constraints of capitalist exploitation.
True social integration, then, might require dismantling the very systems that perpetuate inequality, aiming for a form of integration built on equity and mutual respect rather than economic subjugation and racialized hierarchies.
If applied to the realities of East Asian American workplaces, the double bind concerning East Asian Americans, along with the heightened discrimination during the pandemic, created a harsher environment compared to other racial groups. From 2019 (pre-pandemic) to 2020 (pandemic), the long-term unemployment rate for Asians surged dramatically from 21 to 46 percent.22
22 Jesse Bennett, “Long-term Unemployment Has Risen Sharply in U.S. amid the Pandemic, Especially among Asian Americans,” Pew Research Center, Mar 2021, https://www.pewresearch.org/ short-reads/2021/03/11/long-term-unemployment-has-risen-sharply-in-u-s-amid-the-pandemicespecially-among-asian-americans/. Accessed Apr 6, 2024; “All workers increased from 21% to 36%, Whites from 21% to 35%, Blacks from 25% to 38%, and Hispanics from 18% to 34%, with the Asian group experiencing a more rapid increase than other racial groups.”
Moreover, according to surveys, “78 percent of Asian adults have been treated as a foreigner in some way, even if they are U.S. born,” and Asian American employees lack a sense of belonging at work.23
Thanks to the interplay of the Yellow Peril and model minority tropes, (White) US society not only considers Asians and Asian Americans “perpetual foreigners,” this sense of being excluded can also lead to their unwillingness to integrate.24 It is a double bind. The Yellow Peril and model minority tropes illustrate Americans’ ambivalence towards Asian Americans.
Their rejection of Asian Americans (as a foreign threat) and their attraction to them (as industrious and submissive) is grounded in stereotypes that idealize and marginalize them. American educator Lin Wu articulates this ambivalence as being two sides of the same racist coin, which Whites with institutional power flip as suits them.25
23 Matt Gonzales, “Discrimination Against Asian Americans Takes Many Forms,” SHRM, Feb 2024, https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/news/inclusion-equity-diversity/asian-american-discrimination-many-forms. Accessed Apr 6, 2024.
24 Que-Lam Huynh, Thierry Devos, and Laura Smalarz, “Perpetual Foreigner in One’s Own Land: Potential Implications for Identity and Psychological Adjustment,” Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 30 (2011/2), 136. 25 Lin Wu and Nhu Nguyen, “From Yellow Peril to Model Minority and Back to Yellow Peril,” AERA Open 8 (2022/1), 1.
Such ambivalence unfortunately diminishes the role of work as a means of social integration in the labor market and workplace for Asians and Asian Americans, fostering social segregation and division instead.
II. A Framework for A New Theology of Work
What fosters the formation ―and nature―of a community―whether a church or society?
Surely not marginalization and exclusion!
Domination, competition, and exploitation only deepen exclusivity and control, in our case specifically the unjust use of labor for profit.
To dismantle these structures of domination and exploitation entails reconsidering the nature of relationships and of work as the foundation for forming a true community, in every facet of society.
Instead of framing relationships solely around economic exchange or hierarchical power, true relationships need mutual engagement, true recognition of each other’s inherent worth.
Work, too, must be re-envisioned not as a means of exploitation or self-interest but as a communal endeavor that promotes shared growth and development.
Christian theology offers a model for such community, where power is not concentrated in a hierarchical system but is shared among all members, each one bearing the image of God, each one having equal dignity and opportunity to contribute.
For in Christian theology, all relationships (between persons, and between a person and the environment, a group, or a transcendent being) are based on the relationship between God and humans.
According to Augustine, the beginning of the relationship between God and humans is God’s characteristics, which are unchanging, good, and eternal, based on God’s unconditional covenant with humans.26
26 Augustine, Confessions, tr. by R. S. Pine-Coffin (London: Penguin, 1961), XIII.1. “For before I was, you were: I was nothing, that you should give me being. Yet now I am; and this is because out of your goodness you provided for all that you have made me and all from which you have made me. You had no need of me, nor am I a creature good in such a way as to be helpful to you, my Lord and my God.”
This relationship is focused solely on the good of fulfilling the other’s need, on God’s own care and concern, prioritizing the well-being of humans.
Augustine attributes the breakdown of this relationship to the human pursuit of self-centered interests, isolated from any concern for the well-being of others.27
27 Augustine, The City of God against the Pagans, ed. and tr. by R. W. Dyson (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013), XIV.11: “the first evil act of the will, since it preceded all other evil acts in man, consisted rather in its falling away from the work of God to its own works than in any one work.”; XIV.13: “Thus, to forsake God and to exist in oneself―that is, to be pleased with oneself ―is not immediately to lose all being; but it is to come closer to nothingness. This is why, according to Holy Scripture, the proud are called by another name: they are called ‘selfwilled.’”
This mirrors the formation of the dominant group’s pursuit of benefit in the formation process mentioned earlier, such as through marking an other as the Yellow Peril or the model minority.
There is a connection between human relationships that lack concern and consideration for others and societal structures of domination and exploitation.
In resisting the Nazis, German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer analyzed the relationship between God and humans as revealed in Genesis, affirming that, like Augustine, relationship towards the other is the beginning of all relationships.28
28 Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Creation and Fall: A Theological Exposition of Genesis 1-3, eds. Martin Rüter, Ilse Tödt, and John W. de Gruchy, tr. by Douglas Stephen Bax (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004), 64. “The creature is free in that one creature exists in relation to another creature, in that one human being is free for another human being. And God created them man and woman. The human being is not alone. Human beings exist in duality, and it is in this dependence on the other that their creatureliness consists.”
Both theologians challenge self-centered and exploitative structures, their emphasis on relationality a counterpoint to the commodification and dehumanization of capitalist systems.
Bonhoeffer proposes the concept of “being-free-for-the-other,” suggesting that freedom, when consumed selfishly within the context of “possession,” leads to evil.29
Instead, he perceives freedom as an orientation towards the other within relationships.
Relationships are sustained by this orientation towards the other.
When this orientation is absent, evil and sin creep in in the form of domination over others.30
The employment relationship is ideally one without domination. Bonhoeffer’s concept of freedom suggests that employment relationships should be based on mutual freedom, entailing dismantling the structures of domination and exploitation.
The freedom to employ another person is not the freedom to dominate them but to work together with mutual respect. Kathryn Tanner takes up Bonhoeffer’s concept of freedom in her discussion of the non-competitive relationship between God and humanity.
Rather than it being one in which for God to increase creatures must decrease, or vice versa,31 it is a non-competitive relationship between a God who gives everything and human beings who can receive it.
29 Ibid., 63, 67.
30 Ibid., 66. “On the contrary this freedom to rule includes being bound to the creatures who are ruled. The ground and the animals over which I am lord constitute the world in which I live, without which I cease to be. It is my world, my earth, over which I rule. I am not free from it in any sense of my essential being, my spirit, having no need of nature, as though nature were something alien to the spirit.”
31 Kathryn Tanner, Jesus, Humanity and the Trinity: A Brief Systematic Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), 2-3.
This relationship is entirely removed from the structures of domination and exploitation, based entirely on grace, with a focus solely on the benefit of the other or the orientation towards the other.
Tanner then applies this non-competitive relationality to economics, suggesting that if God is always offering all goods to everyone, but if the amount each of us receives is different due to the limitation of our capacity to receive it, it is “the result of our own sinful institution of contrary, competitive economies.”32
If this issue is addressed within a community that encompasses broader and more numerous relationships beyond narrow ones, the competitive structures formed under the influence of capitalism and racism, along with domination and exploitation, are things that should neither originate from nor be perpetuated within the community.
Within these competitive structures, Asian Americans face intensified competition, eroding their sense of belonging and integration within their communities.
This competitive isolation contrasts starkly with Tanner’s vision of a non-competitive relationality, which prioritizes belonging and mutual care over personal advancement.
She explains:
Noncompetitive relations... set up a social structure that encourages unconditional giving to others. In an economy organized noncompetitively the only sensible thing to do is to give unconditionally to others without regard for a return; that sort of giving now pays rewards for it having simply been built into the way the system works. ... there is no competition in property or possession. ... there is no competition between having oneself and giving to others.33
32 Kathryn Tanner, Economy of Grace (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005), 28.
33 Ibid., 76.
If we view the labor market and workplace in the United States through the lens of this hope, work cannot be possession or competition in itself.
It entails a broader sense of responsibility, that is community. It involves creating a space within the community for those who were originally considered competitors, and assuming communal responsibility for them.
A disposition that does not seek a return ultimately means not considering what one possesses and not exploiting it for personal gain at the expense of others. It means not engaging in business activities based on the belief of possessing something one does not have.
The current state of employment in the US commodifies intangible things such as promotion and work through competition, leading to further competition. Often unknowingly, individuals voluntarily comply with such systems of domination and exploitation ingrained in capitalist and racist structures.
Tanner’s call for a non-competitive community challenges this compliance, advocating for a system in which unconditional giving replaces exploitation. At root, the competitive structure of the economy is the problem.
Tanner’s vision for a non-competitive economy proposes that goods be distributed based on grace rather than competitive accumulation, dismantling systems of exploitation.
Korean American theologian Jung Young Lee offers a theology of marginality that shifts the Western individualistic understanding of relationships and community by incorporating the Asian concept of Change (I; 易) and yin-yang philosophy.
Lee critiques the Western focus on individualism and anthropocentrism, suggesting instead a cosmo-anthropological perspective that emphasizes humanity’s relationship to the cosmos34 ― a broader perspective that enables a more inclusive and relational understanding of human-human and human-di- Hangyoon Cho | How a Theology of Work Can Help East Asian Americans Overcome the Double Bind of Yellow Peril and Model Minority Stereotypes 91 vine interactions. T
he concept of yin and yang he sees as a framework for both/and thinking that values interdependence and mutuality.35
Yin and yang are inseparable; they exist only in relation to each other, and offer a balanced, inclusive approach to understanding identity and community.36
This perspective is particularly relevant for addressing the racial and ethnic marginalization of Asian Americans; it encourages shifting from rigid binaries and towards a more integrated, relational view of community that reflects the interconnected nature of human existence. Lee connects this both/and way of thinking and the concept of the Trinity. The traditional understanding of the Trinity, expressed as “one is in three or three is in one,” should not be limited by human interpretations of “numerical values of one and three.”37
Instead, using terms like “plurality and singularity” or “diversity and unity” would capture the essence of the Trinity38 and be a model for social integration. Just as the Trinity embodies diversity within unity, human communities should strive for integration that embraces difference while fostering unity.39
34 Jung Young Lee, The Trinity in Asian Perspective (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996), 22-23
35 Ibid., 32.
36 Ibid., 33, 54. Yin and yang are the fundamental principles that dictate the universe’s workings, encompassing the motion of celestial bodies and the cyclical patterns of day and night.
37 Ibid., 55.
38 Ibid., 55.
39 Ibid., 192.
By adopting this perspective, both marginalized communities, such as East Asian Americans, and dominant groups can overcome binary and exclusionary structures.
Instead of being constrained by either/or thinking that isolates and divides, Lee’s both/and approach offers a vision for a more inclusive and relational social order.
This relational framework, grounded in the theology of the Trinity, provides a theological foundation for overcoming the marginalization of East Asian Americans, who often face the dual challenge of being perceived as both “model minority” and “perpetual foreigner.”
Lee’s Trinity becomes a powerful tool for imagining a community in which diversity is not a threat to unity, but its foundation and strength.
The primary issue with Lee’s application of the relationality of the Trinity to human relationships lies in directly applying metaphysical concepts to existential beings.
For the relationality of the transcendent existence cannot be directly transposed onto non-transcendent relationships. However, Bonhoeffer argues that the idea of humans being created in the image of God (i.e., in the likeness of God) should be understood not as “analogia entis” but “analogia relationis”40 ― that is, it is grasped within the context of the relationship with God rather than interpreted ontologically as the image of God.
Relationship, like freedom, is given to humans as a gift, distinct from “not a human potential or possibility or a structure of human existence.”41
40 Bonhoeffer, Creation and Fall, 65.
41 Ibid., 65.
Therefore, if the relationality of the Trinity is seen not as a matter of existence but of relationship when applied to human relationships, it allows for the principle of Trinitarian relationality to be conceptually and relationally embraced rather than directly transposed onto ontological grounds.
Furthermore, Lee’s both/and way of thinking is linked to his concept of new marginality (on which more in a moment). This concept not only alleviates the tension between marginality and centrality in relationships between the dominant group and the marginalized group but also dismantles the isolated, marginalized structure of domination and exploitation, offering a new framework and providing a sense of community for Asian Americans.
While Bonhoeffer and Augustine provide a distinctly Christian framework centered on divine relationships, Lee’s concept of marginality, rooted in East Asian cosmology, offers a complementary perspective on relationality.
Despite their differences in origin, both perspectives highlight the importance of transcending binary oppositions and fostering inclusive, communal relationships.
The challenge lies in reconciling these metaphysical frameworks―one theologically grounded in a Christian God, the other cosmologically influenced by the principle of yin and yang.
Lee speaks about the relationship between marginality and centrality as follows:
Marginality and centrality are so mutually inclusive and relative that it is imbalanced to stress one more than the other.
If we stress marginality over centrality, are we not making the same mistake that centralists commit?
No. Here, marginality is stressed because it has been neglected.42
42 Jung Young Lee, Marginality: The Key to Multicultural Theology (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1995), 31.
Focusing on the voices of the marginalized is a crucial recognition that they have been dismissed and ignored.
However, says Lee, beingthis, he introduces the concept of new marginality, which emphasizes the need not only to transcend such binary relationships but also to create a new space for engagement:
New Marginality is dependent neither on the dominant group nor on the marginal group, but on both. ... To transcend or to live in-beyond does not mean to be free of the two different worlds in which persons exist, but to live in both of them without being bound by either of them. The new marginal person is a liberated person, a person who is truly free, because each is a whole person and able to be fully present in the world. Because the new marginal person is whole, he or she reconciles two opposing worlds unto the self. The new marginal person is a reconciler and a wounded healer to the two-category system.43
43 Ibid., 63.
This new marginal person, Lee argues, is liberated because he or she is whole and able to reconcile two opposing worlds without being confined to either. Such a person becomes both a reconciler and a healer to the system that perpetuates division.
This is an important insight for Asian Americans, who are often caught between a dominant group and marginalized groups in US society. They do not fully belong to either side: the dominant group does not regard them as belonging fully, as indicated by the “Yellow Peril” stereotype, nor do Asian Americans easily connect with other minorities due to the “model minority” myth. However, while Lee’s framework offers a vision of empowerment for marginalized individuals, it does not place the entire burden of reconciliation and healing on Asian Americans or other marginalized groups but requires the efforts and support of society at large. While the new marginal person can contribute to this transformation, it is essential that society as a whole takes on the responsibility of dismantling exclusionary structures. In the realm of employment, traditional competitive relationships often favor the dominant group. However, as Asian Americans face both marginalization and exclusion, they have the potential to challenge existing structures and bridge the gap between different communities. Rather than aligning solely with one side, they can emerge as a community that transcends these binaries and fosters connections between diverse groups. The significance of Lee’s both/and way of thinking and new marginality lies in its ability to inspire a sense of agency in Asian Americans, encouraging them not to be limited by existing competitive structures, but to create new spaces where they can be whole, connected, and truly free. Given the nature of relationships and community, work is not an object that requires competition to obtain something. According to Bonhoeffer, work is intricately linked to all relationships, a tool for creating new values within God’s created world and for enabling direct interaction with God’s created world. It is also a “divine mandate” received from God.44
In this regard, work becomes the axis of relationships connecting one person to another.
However, when such work deprives human (bodily and mental) freedom, it becomes associated with exploitation. Bonhoeffer defines the point at which work becomes exploitation as the moment when humans become “the unlimited property of another person or institution,” effectively reducing them to a state of servitude or even slavery.45
In this state, their freedom is entirely subordinated to the will of another.
This can be compared to slavery in that individuals lose autonomy over their own bodies and labor.
Under the influence of capitalism, not only humans but also things like the workplace and labor force, which cannot easily be valued, have been commodified and valued through comparison and competition, turning the reality of work itself into a reality of exploitation.
From Bonhoeffer’s perspective, this is the destruction of human bodily freedom, where work is used solely for one’s own benefit without any responsibility towards those whose work is being exploited.46
44 Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Ethics, eds. Ilse Tödt, Heinz Eduard Tödt, Ernst Feil, and Clifford Green, tr. by Reinhard Krauss, Charles C. West, and Douglas W. Stott (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005), 69.
45 Ibid., 215.
46 Ibid., 216.
In this regard, work is neither proprietary nor objectified.
Within Christian theology, work itself is understood as something inherently given to humanity, and its value is not determined by itself or used to dominate or exploit for someone else’s benefit.
III. Conclusion
The ideas of the Yellow Peril and model minority have long acted as a double bind for East Asian immigrants and Asian Americans, hindering their social and workplace integration through isolation.
In particular, the pandemic period unveiled the harsh realities of their employment.
Within the framework of capitalism and racism, the isolated and marginalized structure of domination and exploitation exacerbated their harsh realities.
The nature of relationships and work based on this structure betrayed an exclusive attitude towards others for the benefit of one individual or group, leading to the destruction of the foundation of others and, consequently, the destruction of one’s own foundation. Domination and exploitation distort not only the nature of relationships but also the nature of community.
They occur at the expense of individuals or groups and do not take responsibility for those who are sacrificed. Work is consequently valued only within the framework of competition and comparison.
However, a theological understanding offers a fitting response to such distorted nature of relationships and can transform the nature of both community and work.
The theologies of Augustine, Bonhoeffer, Tanner, and Lee suggest another way to approach work, one that moves beyond domination, competition, and exploitation to emphasize mutuality, grace, and relationality.
They regard work as a means of fostering human connections rather than as a tool for self-interest or subjugation. Framing work as a communal and relational practice grounded in the theology of grace encourages individuals to contribute to the well-being of others and the community at large, rather than competing for personal gain.
The origin of relationships lies in the relationship between God and humanity that is reciprocal, oriented towards others, and non-competitive.
Such relationships are not isolated, marginalized structures of domination and exploitation.
Work can connect individuals or institutions, benefit others, and promote their well-being rather than being a tool or target of competition.
In this sense, the nature of work can be inherently communal and relational.
Bibliography
Augustine. The City of God against the Pagans. Ed. and Tr. by R. W. Dyson. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013. _______. Confessions. Tr. by R.S. Pine-Coffin. London: Penguin, 1961. Agovino, Theresa. “Asian-Americans Seek More Respect, Authority in the Workplace.” SHRM. Jun 2021. http://shrm.org/topics-tools/news/allthings-work/asian-americans-seek-respect-authority-workplace. Accessed Apr 6, 2024. Bennett, Jesse. “Long-term Unemployment Has Risen Sharply in U.S. Amid the Pandemic, Especially Among Asian Americans.” Pew Research Center. Mar 2021. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/03/11/longterm-unemployment-has-risen-sharply-in-u-s-amid-the-pandemi c-especially-among-asian-americans/. Accessed Apr 6, 2024. Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Ethics. Eds. Ilse Tödt, Heinz Eduard Tödt, Ernst Feil, and Clifford Green, Tr. by Reinhard Krauss, Charles C. West, and Douglas W. Stott. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005. _______. Creation and Fall: A Theological Exposition of Genesis 1-3. Eds. Martin Rüter, Ilse Tödt, and John W. de Gruchy, Tr. by Douglas Stephen Bax. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004. Calavita, Kitty. “Collisions at the Intersection of Gender, Race, and Class: Enforcing the Chinese Exclusion Laws.” Law & Society Review 40 (2006/2), 249-281. Chassamboulli, Andri, Idriss Fontaine, Ismael Gálvez-Iniesta, and Pedro Gomes. “Immigration and Labour Market Flows.” Labour Economics 86 (2024), 1-17. Chou, Rosalind S. and Joe R. Feagin. Myth of the Model Minority: Asian Americans Facing Racism. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers, 2015. Esses, Victoria M. “Prejudice and Discrimination Toward Immigrants.” Annual Review of Psychology 72 (2021), 503-531. Gearan, Anne. “Trump Takes Direct Aim at China as Known U.S. Infections Double and Criticism Mounts.” The Washington Post. Mar 2020. https:// www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-takes-direct-aim-at-china -as-known-us-infections-double-and-criticism-mounts/2020/03/1 9/6df10828-6a06-11ea-abef-020f086a3fab_story.html. Accessed Apr 6, 2024. Gee, Buck and Denise Peck. “Asian Americans Are the Least Likely Group in the U.S. to Be Promoted to Management.” Harvard Business Review. May 2018. https://hbr.org/2018/05/asian-americans-are-the-least-likelygroup-in-the-u-s-to-be-promoted-to-management. Accessed Apr 6, 2024. Gonzales, Matt. “Discrimination Against Asian Americans Takes Many Forms.” SHRM. Feb 2024. https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/news/inclusionequity-diversity/asian-american-discrimination-many-forms. Accessed Apr 6, 2024. Harrison, Benjamin. “United We Stand, Divided We Fall.” Benjamin Harrison Papers: Series 1, General Correspondence and Related Material, Oct 3-Nov 17, 1888. Hartlep, Nicholas D. The Model Minority Stereotype: Demystifying Asian American Success. Normal: Illinois State University, 2013. Huynh, Que-Lam, Thierry Devos, and Laura Smalarz. “Perpetual Foreigner in One’s Own Land: Potential Implications for Identity and Psychological Adjustment.” Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 30 (2011/2), 133-162. Keely, Charles B. U.S. Immigration: A Policy Analysis. New York: The Population Council, 1979. Kim, Jongsung. Labor Supply and Occupational Structure of Asian Immigrants in the U.S. Labor Market. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1999. Kurashige, Lon. Two Faces of Exclusion: The Untold History of Anti-Asian Racism in the United States. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2016. Kurtzman, Laura. “Trump’s ‘Chinese Virus’ Tweet Linked to Rise of Anti-Asian Hashtags on Twitter.” UCSF. Mar 2021. https://www.ucsf.edu/news/ 2021/03/420081/trumps-chinese-virus-tweet-linked-rise-anti-asian Hangyoon Cho | How a Theology of Work Can Help East Asian Americans Overcome the Double Bind of Yellow Peril and Model Minority Stereotypes 101 -hashtags-twitter. Accessed Apr 6, 2024. Lee, Jung Young. The Trinity in Asian Perspective. Nashville: Abingdon, 1996. _______. Marginality: The Key to Multicultural Theology. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1995. Long, Joe, Carlo Medici, Nancy Qian, and Marco Tabellini. “The Impact of the Chinese Exclusion Act on the U.S. Economy.” Harvard Business School Working Paper. Sep 2024. https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item. aspx?num=62403. Accessed Dec 15, 2024. Miles, Darla. “‘Where’s Your (Expletive) Mask?’: Asian Woman Attacked in Manhattan Hate Crime.” WABC. Mar 2020. https://abc7ny.com/assaulthate-crime-bias-attack-coronavirus/6003396/. Accessed Apr 6, 2024. Miller, S. V. “Economic Anxiety or Ethnocentrism? An Evaluation of Attitudes toward Immigration in the U.S. from 1992 to 2017.” The Social Science Journal 60 (2023/4), 818-837. Pan American Health Organization. “Increased Migration Flow in the Americas in 2023: Challenges for Migrant Health and PAHO’s Response.” The Pan American Health Organization. Dec 2023. https://www.paho.org/en/ news/18-12-2023-increased-migration-flow-americas-2023-challe nges-migrant-health-and-pahos-response. Accessed Apr 6, 2024. Peterson, William. “Success Story, Japanese American Style.” New York Times. Jan 1966. https://www.nytimes.com/1966/01/09/archives/success-storyjapaneseamerican-style-success-story-japaneseamerican.html. Accessed Apr 6, 2024. Peri, Giovanni, Ahmed Rahman, and Gaetano Basso. “The Impact of Immigration on Wage Distributions in the Era of Technical Automation.” The Centre for Economic Policy Research. Jan 2018. https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/ impact-immigration-wage-distributions-era-technical-automation. Accessed Apr 6, 2024. Ruiz, Neil G., Carolyne Im, and Ziyao Tian. “Discrimination Experiences Shape Most Asian Americans’ Lives: Stereotypes of Asians in the U.S. as Foreigners and a Model Minority Drive Discrimination.” Pew Research Center. Nov 30, 2023. https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/ 102 한국기독교신학논총 136집 2023/11/30/discrimination-experiences-shape-most-asian-america ns-lives/. Accessed Apr 6, 2024. Tanner, Kathryn. Christianity and the New Spirit of Capitalism. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2019. _______. Economy of Grace. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005. _______. Jesus, Humanity and the Trinity: A Brief Systematic Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001. Tavernise, Sabrina and Richard A. Oppel Jr. “Spit On, Yelled At, Attacked: Chinese-Americans Fear for Their Safety.” The New York Times. Mar 23, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/23/us/chinese-coronavirusracist-attacks.html. Accessed Apr 6, 2024. Tran, Jonathan. Asian Americans and the Spirit of Racial Capitalism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2022. Wu, Lin and Nhu Nguyen, “From Yellow Peril to Model Minority and Back to Yellow Peril.” AERA Open 8 (2022/1), 1-10. Yam, Kimmy. “Asian American Women Fall off by 80% at Corporate Leadership Levels, a New Report Says.” NBC News. Sep 14, 2022. https://www. nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/asian-american-women-fall-80- corporate-leadership-levels-new-report-sa-rcna46546. Accessed Apr 6, 2024. Yang, Maya. “More than 9,000 Anti-Asian Incidents Reported in U.S. since Pandemic Started.” The Guardian. Aug 2021. https://www.theguardian. com/world/2021/aug/12/anti-asian-stop-aapi-hate-covid-report. Accessed April 6, 2024. Hangyoon Cho | How a Theology of Work Can Help East Asian Americans Overcome the Double Bind of Yellow Peril and Model Minority Stereotypes 103
한글 초록
미국내 동아시아계 미국인들은 사회적 안정에 위협으로 여겨지는 황화론 (Yellow Peril)과 성공과 순응을 이상화하지만 체계적인 차별을 은폐하는 모범적소수자신화(Model Minority)라는 이중도전에 직면하고 있다.
이러한고정 관념은 직장및 사회전반에서 포함과 배제를 동시에 촉진하며, 특히 인종화된 자본주의 체제속에서 더욱 심화된다.
본 논문은 기독교신학에서 제시하는 노동과 관계에 대한 관점을 통해 이러한 문제를 극복할 방안을 모색한다.
어거스 틴(Augustine), 디트리히본회퍼(Dietrich Bonhoeffer), 캐서린태너(Kathryn Tanner) 그리고이정용(Jung Young Lee)의신학은 지배, 경쟁, 착취의구조에 도전하며 노동을 관계적이고 공동체적인 관점에서 새롭게조명한다.
특히이 정용의 삼위일체 신학과 동아시아의 음양 철학에 뿌리를 둔 “양자/포괄 적”(both/and) 관점은 주변화된 집단이 이분법적 범주를 초월하고 포용과 상호 성을 증진할 가능성을 강조한다.
본논문은 이러한 신학적 관점을 통해 이중적 고정관념을 극복할 뿐만아니라 동아시아계 미국인을 위한 더 공정하고 통합적 인 노동과 공동체의 비전을 제시할 수있음을 주장한다.
은혜에 기초한 공동체적이고 관계적인 실천으로서 노동을 재구성함으로써 배제구조를 해체하고 사회적 소속감을 재구상하는 경로를 탐구한다.
주제어 : 동아시아계 미국인, 황화론, 모범적 소수자 신화, 노동 신학, 인종화된 자본주의, 사회적 통합
Abstract
How a Theology of Work Can Help East Asian Americans Overcome the Double Bind of Yellow Peril and Model Minority Stereotypes
Hangyoon Cho Student, Master of Arts in Religion Yale University Divinity School
East Asian Americans in the United States face a dual challenge: the Yellow Peril stereotype, which casts them as threats to societal stability, and the model minority myth, which idealizes their compliance and success but obscures systemic discrimination. These stereotypes create a double bind, fostering both inclusion and exclusion in the workplace and broader society, exacerbated by racialized capitalism. Drawing from Christian theology, this paper explores how theological perspectives on work and relationships can provide a framework for overcoming these challenges. Theologies from Augustine, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Kathryn Tanner, and Jung Young Lee offer relational and communal approaches to work that challenge structures of domination, competition, and exploitation. Jung Young Lee’s “both/and”perspective, rooted in Trinitarian theology and East Asian yin-yang philosophy, highlights the potential for marginalized groups to transcend binary categorizations, fostering inclusion and mutuality. This paper argues that such a theology of work not only counters the dual stereotypes but also promotes a more equitable and integrative vision of community and labor, advancing solidarity and social integration for East Asian Americans. By reframing work as a communal, relational practice grounded in grace, it suggests pathways for dismantling exclusionary structures and reimagining societal belonging
Keywords : East Asian Americans, Yellow Peril, Model Minority Myth, Theology of Work, Racialized Capitalism, Social Integration
접수일: 2025년 2월 2일, 심사완료일: 2025년 2월 27일, 게재확정일: 2025년 3월 1일
한국기독교신학논총 136집
'신학이야기' 카테고리의 다른 글
| 포스트젠더주의(Postgenderism)와 동성애에 관한 분석비평 연구/김성원. 나사렛大 (0) | 2025.05.19 |
|---|---|
| 화이트헤드의 과정 신론 연구/Daniel Chungsoon Lee.목원大 (0) | 2025.05.18 |
| 목회자의 경건과 설교를 통한선교의 원동력/장훈태.아프리카미래협회&한국칼빈학회) (0) | 2025.05.09 |
| 창조와 새 창조의 상관성에 관한 성경신학적 연구/박영복.안양대 (0) | 2025.05.02 |
| 성경동화(신약) (0) | 2025.04.30 |