R4 Editor Response : Depictions of Asian American Masculinity

Angie Woodmansee

“If Chan is considered solely as a Hollywood success story, the perpetuation of such stereotypes is not really a problem, as Hollywood films tend (though not exclusively) to avoid such social criticism in favor of more easily digested entertainment. This aspect is a part of Shu’s praise of Chan, but it seems incompatible with his simultaneous praise of Chan as a pioneer in the re-presentation of masculinity. My problem with this assessment as a whole is not based on a feeling that Chan is responsible for the deconstruction or destabilization of such cultural stereotypes and ideals; it is not to say that dealing with masculinity is not enough; it is not to ignore the complexity of a situation in which the assertion of one identity is done through the further marginalization of others. The issue is that Shu presents Chan as an individual who “embraces the multicultural rhetoric of the United States,” while his context provides an unclear explanation of what such a comment means in the overall assessment of Chan’s work (6).”

Chang Liu

“I could feel that those words from Danny and [Don] Lee were desperate, helpless and hopeless. Rachel said to Danny ‘But the thought of it’s taken over your life, it’s poisoned you, and that’s sadder than anything anyone could ever say or do to you. Don’t you see? Racism’s not the problem. It’s you. You’ve got no heart, Daniel. You’ve got no soul.’ (Lee 234). Danny had a heart and a soul that was once innocent and full of hope, but later on his heart and soul were deprived by the cruelty of the reality, people and the society. ‘He realized he was doomed. No matter what he did, no matter how much he tried to deny it, he would never get past his ethnicity. It was untenable, and the knowledge broke him’ (Lee 234).”

Dan Parker

“to redeem the essence of the Identity that had been shattered by the emasculation and alienation of the Asian American male, Bruce Lee and Danny resort to perfecting their bodies as weapons to be used as both preemptive means of attaching those biased accusations before any more ethnic damage is wrought, and the keys that will release their fettered Identities into the realm of a culturally universal acceptance that is free of levels, assumptions, and societal seclusion. The paradoxical effect of this preventative act, however, is the further alienation of the Self that sparks the birth of new prejudices and ignorant remarks that shape a new – though equally restricted – Asian American reality.”

Keen Hahn

“For Lee, the Asian American male must be an unassailable, rock-hard monument of discipline, cutting down opponents with precision and grace. While this does not sound like such a bad position to be in, it raises a very simple problem: not everyone is capable of achieving Lee’s level of expertise in his chosen field. His expectation is so demanding that it becomes inaccessible to the everyday male. As such, Lee can only stand as an idealization, a perfected image of Asian American masculinity that can resonate with others, but is ultimately not relatable. Further, Lee’s portrayal reinforces the idea of the Asian American male as mystical and stoic, showing no emotion and speaking, at least in Enter the Dragon, in cryptic Shaolin parables.

Rachael Furman

“The unfortunate fact is that the terms in use to accomplish [Asian American emasculation], as well as to try to correct, are ones that are gendered in nature, calling into question a whole new battle against an equally pervasive binary. However, this fact and its unfortunate ramifications fail to be addressed because the shadow of racism and the battle of superstars such as Lee and Chan smother it with their successes. In seeing the reworking of Asian American males in the cinema to allow for more breadth and depth of character, more characteristically (and stereotypically) “strong,” “male” characters allows us to applaud Chan and Lee’s work at battling racism, but at least for me it beings up questions as to if binaries of power can ever end, if humans can ever be gauged as equal without calling into play race or gender to help one or the other group proverbially get ahead.”

Tin-Yan Chan

“There will always be images of emasculated Asian American men in media but Bruce Lee and Jackie Chan have created unforgettable characters. Not only have Bruce Lee and Jackie Chan sculpted their bodies and personas to match that of a superhero, they have also changed the stigma of an Asian American male identity. They are superheroes in the sense that they have combated the views Americans have of Asian American men. Their purpose is to fight for what they believe is right whether it be on screen, or what they try to show through the characters they play. Lee possesses the characteristics of a true fighter while Chan used kung-fu and comedy as a more humanistic approach to combat today’s stereotypes against Asian American men. Even though they differ in this sense, they have both created unforgettable personalities that have a lasting impressing of the Asian American male in society.”

While the aforementioned responses note that Lee and Chan deeply impact the culture of Asian American masculine imagery, such an impact is deeply qualified and questioned ultimately demanding observations of such depiction’s role off camera and, specifically, in the life of men like Danny. Tin-Yan’s classification of the two actors as “superheroes” lays a basis for questions provoked by the hyper-masculinity of the characters and the men who play them: how does one integrate the “unassailable, rock-hard monuments of discipline” (to borrow Keen’s words) into the real world? Rachel states that social ramifications of Chan and Lee’s virtually inhuman masculine constructions are overshadowed by their enormous successes and, therefore, a true incorporation of Chan and Lee’s depictions into the lives of real Asian American men is not easy. Danny embodies what Chang describes as the “desperate, helpless and hopeless” nature instilled in Asian American males as a result.

The incompatibility of the cinematic depictions and reality of Asian American men arise from opposing approaches of the East (as characterized in the films) and West to masculinity and contrasting daily lives and the necessities to lead such. While Chan and Lee admittedly redefine masculinity, it is naïve to say that desires to socially attain the Western ideals of masculinity fuel their art. If superior brute force (with a touch of infrequent stoic or goofy dialogue) were the sole standard of masculinity, a significant majority of men of any origin would be lucky to equate themselves with Chan or Lee. Unfortunately for Danny, neither physical combat nor apparent passiveness benefits the social or occupational ascension of an American man. Dan’s response recounts Danny’s boxing as a means to create his body as a weapon but, unsurprisingly, even his peak physical performance is significantly lower than either Lee or Chan.

The rigid image of masculine achievement, as discussed by both Angie and Rachel, marginalizes much of society who finds their identities belittled and given outsider status. The rigidity equally hinders a potentially broad and empowering metaphor that would allow real men to benefit from Lee and Chan’s powerful imagery. A deeper interpretation would equate “normal” men with Chan and Lee who, as Keen states, achieve a superior level of expertise in a given field and “cut down opponents with precision and grace.” Danny metaphorically combats (and arguably defeats) his own negative relationship with his race by taking a cue from Chan and Lee and strengthening his body. Perhaps more importantly, though, he broadens his combat and, while he does not eliminate opponents with physical expertise, his prestigious circle of friends and hard won work promotion prove superiority over the (Western, white male) competition. This application of mastery and expertise to boring, everyday life, however, does not seem to invoke the same air of glory.

Editor: Mary Martin