American Literature#11/ Fish Cheeks/ Hypocritical Cultural-relativism

Hypocritical Cultural-relativism in “Fish Cheek”

             We live in a society that upholds diversity and cultural-relativism on one hand and “political correctness” on another. The term “political correctness” consists of respect towards minority, and moral that treats every groups and individuals with egalitarian standards. In general, it is used to describe an attitude that respects every others’ opinions.

             Because respect towards other’s opinion has become the dominating hegemony, we always respect others’ opinions—at least outwardly. Many whites detest the “Japs”, “Chin-chins” and etcetera, but this idea rarely appears in the public sphere. Hence the new racial slur such as “Asians do math,” many hold discriminatory prejudice that trifle minorities, but such discourse is never done in a public discourse, where the minorities could fight back. Such backbiting occurs in a private level where only people with similar thoughts share what they think, and solidify their antagonism. The reason for this twofold phenomenon would be concurrence of hatred towards outsiders and WASP arrogance to maintain the “politically-correct” behavior.

             William Bennett was gravely criticized when he stated in his call-in show: “But I do know that it’s true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down.” This might seem as a prominent example of proud American civic consciousness. However, I doubt whether the criticism was directed at the content of the statement or the context of the statement. If Bennett had stated this in a dinner table with conservatives, would he have been criticized so much? Many whites would actually agree to the statement, but also agree that it was not “politically correct”, content otherwise.

             Of course, I don’t mean to say that all racial slurs and hate speech should be out in the open and proudly bellowed—they are all repulsive. But what I wish to stress is that pretending to be “politically correct” when they are morally not is even more disgusting. People in mainstream maintain their imperialistic, colonialist behavior behind their mask of tolerance. If such behavior is existent in the public sphere, it can be attacked and overcome, but because it lurks in the private sphere, it has become stronger and more rooted.

             In such sense, Amy Tan’s work “Fish Cheeks” is an exemplar of how well-masked colonialism can impress even those who are suppressed. This story seems to follow a stereotypical college-essay fairytale; there is a personal yet sympathizing experience nicely wrapped by concluding axiom. Hence what the narrator’s mother says at the end of the story: “But inside you must always be Chinese. You must be proud you are different. Your only shame is to have shame.” This is an ideal lesson for growing children of a culturally-relativistic era. But is it really?

             This extremely short narrative invests most of its 500 words into a foul description of Chinese food culture and the narrator’s shame about it. The description is done from Westerner’s perspective: “slimy rock cod with bulging eyes”, “[t]ofu, which looked like stacked wedges of robbery white sponges,” “squid…..resembled bicycle tires,” “my father……belched loudly.” In any westernized reader’s perspective, it is pretty repulsive. Disgust resulting from such description cannot be all covered up instantaneously by a short, hasty “words of wisdom.”

             Amy Tan’s story is more of a situational irony than an educational children’s story, even if not intended. No matter what Amy Tan felt after the Christmas Eve visit, the minister’s family (including Amy Tan’s crush) would leave disgusted by Chinese food culture. Despite the reputation as a post-colonial story “Fish Cheek” has, does the viewpoint of Westerners in the story ever change? Or does the readers’ perspective change? Hardly. Even if it does, it is only a superficial level of “The Chinese have some strange culture, and I don’t understand why the fuck they eat such disgusting stuff, but I’ll respect them anyway, because I am a proud, intellectual, politically correct American citizen.”

             The intention to justify assimilation or uphold respect towards others’ cultures (cultural-relativism) might have been kind, or to say, “politically correct.” But the actual function it does is to form a superficial level of respect, more of avoidance, to an unfamiliar culture. In a Zizekian sense, the Westerners are further alienating the Chinese by showing a gesture of acceptance. The Chinese fail to enter the Western pool of culture as a respectful, mature culture but as weird, queer lifestyle. Of course, Amy Tan’s story is politically correct, but the actual meaning that it delivers isn’t. The respect in Amy Tan’s story reflects more Western arrogance (“We, the civilized, accept your barbarism”) than true alienation that outsiders face.



Comments:

Lee Hyunseok: Interesting reflection upon individual plus society. But along the flow or your points, I wonder that although problematic assertions relating to races do now always reflect public but only some people in dominant position. Isn't it so dangerous since those are often influential and power-speaking? 

Han Jonghyun: A very impressive start. I was very surprised by how you have started writing this reflection relating to the general society. However, some ideas you have mentioned seem pretty vague that I cannot fully understand what you are saying. Furthermore, I want to question you that Amy Tan's Fish Cheek does not represent the westerner's view of the Chinese food culture, but rather Amy Tan's personal opinions. I believe that in this "society that upholds diversity and multi-cultralism", the westerners are not so hostile.