representational politics in chinatown: the ethnic other

Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 879–899, 20080160-7383/$ - see front matter � 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Printed in Great Britain

doi:10.1016/j.annals.2008.06.006www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures

REPRESENTATIONAL POLITICSIN CHINATOWN: The Ethnic Other

Carla Almeida SantosGrace Yan

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA

Abstract: This study engages with interlocking socio-cultural intra-ethnic relationships fromthe on-the-job perspectives of ethnic social agents involved in selling ethnic goods and ser-vices to tourists. It focuses on the narratives provided by Chicago’s Chinatown Chinese to jus-tify their involvement in the tourism-related project of manipulating ethnic identity. In sodoing, it reveals the role of social relationships and the discursive representations of thoserelationships, with special attention to the depictions and manipulation of ethnicity as a kindof cultural currency in the tourism exchange. By exposing these relationships, this studyreveals intra-ethnic domination processes at work in an ethnic urban space of tourism; pro-cesses which, at times, serve to produce experiences of ethnic identity. Keywords: Chinatown,urban, ethnic, multiculturalism. � 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION

Increasingly, urban areas across North America devote significanteconomic resources to the development of tourism as a central compo-nent of the local economy (Eisinger 2000; Judd and Simpson 2003). Toa great extent the main focus is culture and cultural products (Pageand Hall 2003; Rath 2005; Zukin 1995). Such a focus has contributedto the rapid growth of ethnic urban tourism which offers insights intoethnic neighborhoods by drawing attention to their ethnic socialagents, as well as the historic structures, cultural practices, and ethnicgoods and services made available to tourists. Accordingly, ethnicneighborhoods increasingly rely on the representation of their‘‘uniqueness’’ as a strategy to improve the everyday lives of their resi-dents and stakeholders (Page and Hall 2003). This tourism-related pro-ject of representing ‘‘uniqueness’’ involves interlocking socio-culturaland political relationships. Interestingly, while ethnic tourism and itscentrality in urban revitalization continues to grow worldwide, tourismresearch has largely neglected the everyday intra-ethnic relationshipsinvolved in constructing and representing the ethnic Other in urbanspaces of tourism. Therefore, this study engages in a dialogue regarding

Carla Almeida Santos is Assistant Professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (Department of Recreation, Sport and Tourism Urbana-Champaign, IL, USA.Email:<[email protected]>). Her research interests include socio-cultural and politicalaspects of tourism. Grace Yan is doctoral student in the Department of Recreation, Sportand Tourism at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Her research interestsinclude issues of self-identity and tourism.

879

880 C.A. Santos, G. Yan / Annals of Tourism Research 35 (2008) 879–899

ethnic tourism, representation and agency, and urban cultural econ-omy. Taking an interpretive turn, it examines an ‘‘ethnic enclave econ-omy’’ (Portes and Zhou 1992) – Chicago’s Chinatown – from the on-the-job perspectives and everyday experiences of Chinese social agentswho own, and (or) are employed in the selling of ethnic goods and ser-vices to tourists.

ETHNICITY, MULTICULTURALISM AND CHINATOWN

We are witnessing a trend toward the preservation and representa-tion of ethnic neighborhoods as both living communities and touristattractions (Henderson 2000). A trend that some propose is the directresult of a Western multiculturalist agenda. Indeed, while historicallysuch spaces were approached as a way to control the spread of ethnicculture and influence (Trevor and Monder 2003), multiculturalism sig-nificantly altered contemporary approaches to ethnic spaces and theirfunctions. In particular, considering contemporary urban revitalizationand its focus on the multicultural city, ethnic spaces are increasinglypreserved and represented as tourism attractions (Chang 1999; Hall2003). This can lead to the promotion of a nostalgic tourist attractionfor American born minorities, improved commercial value, jobs andentrepreneurial opportunities, and the recognition of ethnic minori-ties by the dominant societal structure (Conforti 1996; Hitchcock1999). Ethnic tourism, therefore, can play a significant role in acceler-ating the renewal of ethnic consciousness by fostering greater aware-ness of ethnic identity and serve as an impetus for social andpolitical change (Esman 1984). Conversely, the preservation and repre-sentation of cultural and ethnic heritage can also be experienced as apolitical strategy to depoliticize race relations (Horst 2003).

Ethnicity and tourism

Approaches to ethnicity have long used cultural continuity with thepast to explain ethnic groups’ cultural practices and cultural similari-ties or differences. Ethnicity, therefore, has traditionally been regardedas a series of ‘‘givens’’ originating from a particular community com-posed of a collective system of cultural and social features, and fol-lowed by a set of cultural practices (Hitchcock 1999; van den Bergheand Keyes 1984). In general, such approach is reflected in the traditionof cultural relativism in North American ethnic studies where ethnicityis accepted as an innate property of culture-bearing groups (Peach1984). To confront such deterministic propositions, contemporary lit-erature positions social agents as determined by their relative positionin the ‘‘social field’’ (Bourdieu 1989) and proposes that definitions,conceptions and expressions of ethnicities be approached as productsof social and cultural constructions and interactions (Anderson 1987).To be sure, scholars increasingly regard ethnicity as a process ratherthan a fixed entity. Ethnicity, therefore, is a fluid and integrated dy-namic that is situated in a social-cultural structure and carries a variety

C.A. Santos, G. Yan / Annals of Tourism Research 35 (2008) 879–899 881

of differentiated socio-cultural layers (Eriksen 1991). Nevertheless,tourism has largely approached ethnicity as concrete, unyielding andindisputable (Grunewald 2003; van den Berghe and Keyes 1984). Thisapproach serves to explain a great deal of tourism practices. Tourismdiscourses have long represented ethnic cultures as forever preservedand timeless, reduced to ancient socio-cultural products. Certain eth-nic forms are selectively preserved for the entertainment of touristswith the political atmosphere under which decisions and conflicts oc-cur deliberately omitted. Oftentimes, constructions of ethnicity arethe result of ethnic tensions with renegotiation proposed as a directoutcome of tourism development (Jamison 1999). Tourism, therefore,acts as a social force under the transforming power of which, ethnicidentities are increasingly subject to renegotiation, rediscovery andre-evaluation (Anderson 1987). What we are witnessing are ‘‘con-structed ethnicities’’ (MacCannell 1992) that have emerged inresponse to tourism. In the context of ethnic tourism, such ‘‘con-structed ethnicities’’ are particularly interesting when considering thatethnic social agents ‘‘satisfy the ethnic tourist’s thirst for authentic-ity. . .’’ largely through place differentiation (van den Berghe andKeyes 1984:346). However, ‘‘authenticity is a subjective phenomenoncreated by personal experience, cultural influences and national his-tory’’ (Timothy and Boyd 2003:247). If we accept ethnicity as a fluidprocess created and recreated through intentional agency, then theconstruction of ethnicity-for-tourism forms ‘‘ethnotouristic’’ communi-ties that are in their own right authentic; the result of processes en-gaged in by social agents who identify and form themselves into atouristic community within an ethnic community (Grunewald 2003).

Chinese Immigration to the U.S.

Chinese immigration to the U.S. is divided into three periods (Chen1999). The first period (1849–1882), which began mainly with the lur-ing of the California Gold Rush and the building of the transcontinen-tal railroad, was marked by a large influx of Chinese immigrants;primarily villagers from Guangdong and Fujian provinces in South Chi-na (Wickberg 1994). This period, however, ended abruptly with theanti-Chinese sentiments during the 1870’s depression years whichforced American laborers out of work and, in the process, made theChinese an easy target for persecution (McClellan 1971; Wong1998). The second period (1882–1965), largely influenced by the Chi-nese Exclusion Act of 1882, excluded most Chinese from entering intothe U.S. except for diplomats, entrepreneurs, and students and theirdependents. During this period the U.S. experienced a settlement ofChinese immigrants in Chinatowns mainly due to racial exclusionand fear of persecution (Lee 1965). In 1943, the Chinese ExclusionAct was repealed and small quotas for Chinese immigration were estab-lished. With the establishment of the People’s Republic of China in1949, the U.S. experienced another increase in Chinese immigration;these new immigrants, unlike their predecessors who traditionally held


low levels of education and spoke mostly Cantonese, were increasinglyMandarin-speaking professionals and businessmen displaced by therevolution. This period ended largely as a result of significant changesin U.S. immigration policy after World War II; specifically, the enact-ment of the United States Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965which abolished the discriminatory national origin’s quota system(Zhou and Guoxuan 2002).

The third and current period was largely shaped by the Civil RightsAct of 1964. Technological and economic changes in the U.S., as wellas the rise of the Asian economies – particularly China’s 1978 openingto the world economy – also contributed to an unprecedented diversityof Chinese immigrants across class and regional lines (Ma and Cartier2003). Such diversity resulted in a variety of major dialects such as Man-darin, Cantonese, Minnan and Fujian being spoken in Chinatown.Moreover, while during the first two periods the pattern of employ-ment were largely defined by economic development and racial exclu-sion, the current period has been defined by post-1965 immigrationpolicies which divided immigrants into ‘‘professional trained’’ and‘‘family reuniting.’’ Such policies have resulted in an increase of Chi-nese immigrants into entrepreneurial and professional roles in U.S.service, manufacturing and technology industries. In 2000 U.S. Censusestimated the Chinese American population to be 2,879,636; it is esti-mated that the Chinese American population in 2006 reached 3.5 mil-lion. The Legal Permanent Resident Flow for people born in China inthe Fiscal Year of 2006 was estimated at 87,345; in fact, according to theU.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, as of 2000 foreign-bornChinese accounted for nearly half of the ethnic Chinese populationcurrently residing in the United States.

Chinese and Chinatown: A complex relationship

There are three main categories of Chinese immigrants in the U.S.:1) wealthy entrepreneurs and highly educated professionals fromHong Kong, Taiwan and mainland China; 2) those who escaped severepoverty, political instability or repression throughout East and South-east Asia, as well as refugees from Vietnam and Cambodia seeking toescape ‘‘ethnic cleansing’’; and, 3) undocumented immigrants smug-gled in through networks of connections between Chinatowns andSoutheast Asia. These categories, characterized by distinct class dynam-ics, serve to explain current settlement patterns. Whereas wealthyentrepreneurs and highly educated professionals are better able tointegrate into American society and, consequently, do not settle in Chi-natown, the second and third categories of immigrants, due to fewereconomic resources and lower levels of education, have a harder timeintegrating into American society and, as a result, settle in Chinatown(Kwong 1996). This has long served to economically benefit China-town. Chinatown entrepreneurs have long relied on ethnic ties, espe-cially friends and family, to recruit and train workers. Such ties haveallowed entrepreneurs to reduce operating costs, as well as maintain


a paternalistic relationship with their workers whom they expect to ful-fill co-ethnic obligations (Zhou 2006). Accordingly, class struggles havelong underlined intra-ethnic relationships between entrepreneurs andworkers.

Multiculturalism and Chinatown

Traditional Western discourse has long represented Chinatown asdilapidated neighborhoods with unsanitary living conditions, badodors and dubious residents (Lin 1998). The image was of a dirty,dreadful, ghettorized Oriental enclave. In the 1970s this began tochange as the Western world begun changing traditional immigrationpolicies and attitudes towards ethnic minorities from ‘‘assimilation’’ to‘‘multiculturalism’’ (Horst 2003). A multicultural society was portrayedas an ideal landscape where the solution to social ills was to promote aharmonious, tolerant, and positive relationship among different ethnicgroups with high social cohesion. In the U.S., the revival of Chinatownbecame a critical part of the multiculturalism agenda; with its existenceaccepted and embraced uncritically as a Western symbol of triumphover ignorance and racism, and as a desirable expression of Chineseethnicity. Multiculturalism, however, is an illusionary image createdto pacify political conflicts and struggles between ethnic minoritiesand Caucasians (Horst 2003). As the multicultural agenda relies onpromoting harmonious campaigns of uncontroversial and unproblem-atic aspects of ethnic diversity, the resistance and the disadvantaged po-sition of ethnic groups are substantially suppressed. Instead ofempowering ethnic minorities by creating outlets for voices to beraised against dominant ideological and cultural structures, multicul-turalism can be experienced as a political strategy used to depoliticizerace relations (Horst 2003). While multiculturalism may have to a cer-tain extent created some room for tolerance, the new discourse andmakeovers are rather conditional and limited. Expected to conformto deterministic propositions of Chinese ethnicity, Chinatowns haveto continuously and unanimously draw on a celebrated and harmoni-ous cultural layer which often obscures socio-cultural, economic andpolitical intra-ethnic struggles. Reviving Chinatown from the typicalconception of an ethnic urban enclave provided a means for achievingan apolitical approach to the Chinese. This revitalization and its dis-course enabled Chinatown to function as a mediated social agency,negotiating the meaning and positioning of Chinese social agentsand cultural practices in American society; a movement experiencedby some as a response to multiculturalism. Considering that multicul-turalism is largely experienced as a middle-class lifestyle, it is thenthe American middle class – especially those with higher education –who are drawn to the multicultural ideal and who often patronizethe ethnic restaurants, attend the multicultural festivals and celebratecultural tolerance (Horst 2003). Seeking to cater to them, Chinatownhas to play the role of a ‘‘Gourmet Republic’’ (Tsu 1999). Such repack-aging unavoidably involves a significant level of essentializing. Indeed,


in the moral doctrine of multiculturalism, Chinese culture is seen ashaving an essential nature which has been formed through its long his-tory (Young 1999). Hence, Chinatown lays claim to being a representa-tion of Chinese ethnic identity. Such representation is a crystallizedimage of the Chinese as a unified cultural entity; masking and obscur-ing underlying socio-cultural complexities (Mak 2003).

Chicago’s Chinatown

Long recognized for its architecture, outstanding shopping, andwaterfront, Chicago has increasingly sought to capitalize on its ethnicadvantage. Indeed, Chicago’s branding focuses on its ethnic advantagethrough such promotional slogans as ‘‘The city of ethnic neighbor-hoods,’’ ‘‘Travel the world, in Chicago, one neighborhood at a time,’’and ‘‘Discover the world in our backyard’’(Chicago NeighborhoodTours 2007). One of such efforts is the ‘‘Chicago NeighborhoodTours’’; a not-for-profit ethnic tourism venture of the Chicago Officeof Tourism. Chinatown tours, one of the most sought after in the pro-gram, have brought increasing recognition and tourism dollars to Chi-cago’s Chinatown (Z. J. Tong, Associate Director, Chicago’s ChinatownChamber of Commerce, informal conversation, April 10, 2003).

Chicago’s Chinatown history can be traced back to the late 19th cen-tury when Chinese immigrants began moving to Chicago to work onbuilding the transcontinental railroad. By the time the railroad wascomplete anti-Chinese sentiments had gained momentum and, seek-ing to avoid it, many Chinese workers settled in Chicago; leading toa continuous flow of Chinese immigrants. Nevertheless, while anti-Chinese sentiment may not have been as strong as on the Pacific coast,it did significantly shape where Chicago’s Chinese lived and work. Thefirst Chinese neighborhood in Chicago was located in the north end ofChicago. In 1905, due to the ill-treatment of Chinese in California,there was a boycott of American trade in China. When news came toChicago, the presence of Chinese arouse hostile feelings and suspicionand landlords begun raising the rent of houses occupied by the Chi-nese. With rising rents, over half of the Chinese population in Chicagowas forced to move south of Chicago. This area was considered unde-sirable as it was, and still is, surrounded by physical barriers on all sides;racial prejudice and segregation, revealed in such land ‘‘allocation’’,continued to make integration into the American system difficult(Lindberg 1997). Indeed, as Kwong (1987) proposes, the movementof Chinese into Chinatown was not voluntary but a form of segregationwhich outlined where the Chinese were meant to live and, most impor-tantly, remain.

Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, Chinese from Hong Kong and Tai-wan migrated to Chicago in large numbers, followed by ethnic Chinesefrom Southeast Asia after the fall of Saigon. Chicago’s Chinese commu-nity doubled from 3,000 to 6,000 in the 1950s, and again to 12,000 bythe 1970s. As of the 2000 census, the city’s Chinese population was esti-mated at 42,679; 33 percent of whom lived in Chinatown (U.S. Bureau


of the Census 2000). Today, Chicago’s Chinatown continues to func-tion as a port of reception for some of the recent immigrants as theyacclimate to life in America. Seeking to attract entrepreneurs and tour-ists Chicago’s Chinatown built a new Square Plaza in 1997, a nine dra-gon wall replica of the famous wall in Beijing’s Forbidden City in 2004,and in 2006 the Chinese-American Museum of Chicago.

Study methods

To explore the narratives provided to justify involvement in the tour-ism-related project of representing Chinese ethnic identity for tourismpurposes, this study draws from in-depth interviews conducted between2003 and 2005 with 34 social agents. Purposive sampling was con-ducted in an effort to identify individuals who ‘‘have had experiencesrelating to the phenomenon to be researched’’ (Kruger 1988:150). Assuch, participants were selected based upon: 1) business ownershipand (or) employment directly related to the selling of ethnic goodsand services to tourists; and, 2) high contact with the service consumers(Urry 1990). Participants consisted of restaurant, souvenir shop, herbalstore, bakery, and grocery store owners and workers; the choice in busi-nesses was consistent with most Chinatowns’ major units of local indus-try, and represent some the most obvious forms of high contact, on-the-job experiences directly related to the selling of ethnic goodsand services to tourists (Zhou and Logan 1991). Access was initiallymade possible by the Associate Director of Chicago’s Chinatown Cham-ber of Commerce who facilitated introductions and preliminary meet-ings with five local business owners and three workers. Theseintroductions and the several follow-up meetings were intended to de-velop a rapport and, ultimately, led to eight in-depth interviews. Initialinterviews contributed to narrowing the range of questions eventuallypursued and assisted in tightening the research focus. Additional par-ticipants were subsequently identified by asking participants to facili-tate, at their discretion, introductions and preliminary meetings withother individuals directly involved in the tourism-related project of sell-ing ethnic goods and services. These introductions, and the several fol-low-up meetings, resulted in 26 additional in-depth interviews;therefore, each interview is the result of multiple visits and conversa-tions – the least amount of repeat visits for a completed interview is2 and the most is 7; each visit lasted on average 70 minutes. It shouldbe noted that interviews were conducted until the topic was saturated;in other words, when participants introduced no new perspectives nofurther interviews were conducted. It must also be acknowledged that,to some extent, participants influenced the course of the research bysuggesting certain potential participants over others. This, however,does not diminish the interest or relevance of the findings as the epis-temological stance of this study is one that stresses that each individualdefines the reality they perceive and from which they act.

The youngest participants were in their early 20s while the oldestwere in their 60s; of these, 15 were men and 19 were women. Interview


questions were ‘‘directed to the participant’s experiences, feelings, be-liefs and convictions about the theme in question’’ (Welman and Kru-ger 1999:196). A variety of issues were addressed, including on-the-jobperspectives and everyday experiences with tourism and tourists, andperspectives regarding relationships between employers, employeesand tourists. Questions were not asked in any particular order, andtime was allowed for extended answers. Extended pauses were notinterrupted and tangential issues were not discouraged. Employingmeaning interpretation this study approached the data by recognizingmultiple realities (Crotty 1998) and searched for meanings not obvi-ously or immediately stated in the interviews. Transcripts were analyzedby searching ‘‘for the themes common to most or all of the interviewsas well as the individual variations’’ (Hycner 1999:154). This involvedanalyzing and exploring each transcript in reference to the narrativesused to justify their involvement in the tourism-related project of rep-resenting ethnic identity (e.g., how participants described tourists’expectations when reflecting upon their tourism-related work practicesand experiences in Chicago’s Chinatown). Observations, informal con-versations and descriptive and reflective notes served as secondary dataand were utilized to explore and further contextualize the findingsfrom the in-depth interviews (Lofland and Lofland 1999).

We give them what they want

Participants validate and rationalize their behavior by contrastingtheir behavior and abilities with those of others who do not share theirethnicity. In other words, participants often explain that if they do notto take advantage of the unique presence of ethnic social agents andsymbols in their neighborhood, others will do so. Chun, a female sou-venir shop owner, stated:

If I don’t profit from it [being Chinese], others will. So, better be me.I’m Chinese, and I have the right to do it. My family has worked veryhard in this country for many years.(Interviewer follow-up question) Who are the ‘‘others’’?(Reply) The others? People who are not Asian. Like stores in Magnif-icent Mile who sell Chinese decorations, furniture, clothes. . .Whenmy family came to this country, they could not get a job in thosestores. The only place they could work was in Chinatown, and nowthey use our things to make profits? I can too and better.

This justification is not only rooted in a notion of ethnic ‘‘entitlement’’but also in the realization of the global nature of commerce. Thoseinterviewed understand that they don’t sell anything that can’t befound anywhere else. However, they are aware that what separates themfrom other spaces is the large concentration of ethnic Others and sym-bols. As Cheng-Gong, a male restaurant owner, explained:

Chinese restaurants are everywhere, not just here. It’s good herebecause many tourists come and food is very important for them.They think of Chinatown as more authentic with many Chinese res-taurants and shops. . .I give them what they want.


(Interviewer follow-up question) So, you represent your culture totourists?(Reply) No! I give them what they want. It doesn’t matter [what] myculture is. Many people here could not tell you what [their] cultureis, but we know what tourists want and we give it to them. We taketheir attention from negatives of Chinatown to make profits.

In terms of representing Chinatown as tourist attraction, businessinterests are central. In fact, representing the community is a selectiveprocess which reflects the economic interests of those making theselection and is based on the tourists’ expectations of Chinatown –a western landscape type (Anderson 1987). Such expectations, how-ever, are often layered with prevailing negative and demeaning dis-course of Chinatowns, ethnically segregated neighborhoods, as‘‘forever foreign to American sensibilities and completely unaccept-able’’ (Wong 1998:4). Undeniably, several common narratives thatcharacterized early discourse about Chinatown centered on notionsof Chinatown as dilapidated neighborhoods with unsanitary livingconditions and bad odors where opium smoking, gambling, prostitu-tion, secret societies and thugs wielded power (Lin 1998). Anderson(1987) argues that the word ‘‘Chinatown’’ was constructed by ‘‘Van-couver’s ‘White’ European society, who like their contemporariesthroughout North America, perceived the district of Chinese settle-ment according to an influential culture of race’’ (1987:594) and,therefore, proposed Chinese immigrants as inassimilable to Westernculture. Such perceptions and public expectations are recognizedwithin the context of Chicago’s Chinatown. Specifically, participantswere quite conscious of the role they have traditionally been assignedin American society, as well as their Chinese role. Yun, a female herbalstore owner discussing the stereotypes tourists have of Chinese andChinatown, explained:

We weren’t always here [current location]. I wasn’t born, but peoplestill talk about how the city had other plans for us [Chinatown Chi-nese] and we had to move here. We don’t know if the city will haveother plans again. . .and force us to move where we don’t want.(Interviewer follow-up question) What can you do to stop that fromhappening?(Reply) We work very hard to make Chinatown strong. . .so peopledon’t think it’s dirty and dangerous. And they visit. We’re Chinese!That’s something they can’t take. Can’t create Chinatown withoutus. . .tourists want Chinese in Chinatown. . .they have ideas.(Interviewer follow-up question) What kind of ideas?(Reply) What we are, what we do. For me, if the tourists think that Chi-nese know much about teas and herbal medicine, that’s good. I willbe as Chinese as they want me to be. It’s ok they think that. I knowwho I am.

This discussion reveals how segregated Chinatown Chinese continue tofeel about their presence in America. Indeed, while Yun was born inthe U.S. to foreign-born Chinese parents and owns her business andthe property it is located in, her statements expose a certain level ofdistrust toward other Americans. Yun contends with her struggle for


multi-ethnic citizenship in America by opportunely ‘‘embracing’’ thecurrent multiculturalism agenda that portrays the existence of China-town as an ideal landscape and desirable expression of Chinese ethnic-ity. Such struggle is particularly significant when one considers that themajority of Asians currently in the U.S. are foreign-born (U.S. Immigra-tion and Naturalization Service 2000).

The existing order is in everyone’s best interest

The second justification is couched in the context of how followingthe existing tourism-related project of manipulating Chinese ethnicidentity is in everyone’s best interest. Employers impose their interestson their co-ethnic workers by their insistence, for the ‘‘commongood’’, on maintaining a facade of traditional conservative relationsand cultural identity for tourists. Mei, a female restaurant owner, sta-ted: ‘‘We can go outside of Chinatown. Our friends own a restaurantin La Grange. . .they do good. But if we all leave, it would be verybad for the community’’. This justifications positions the use andmaneuvering of the presence of ethnic social agents and their symbolsin a manner which is proposed to be social and economically beneficialto not only co-ethnic workers, but the neighborhood in general. Ning,a male restaurant owner, described:

Chicago is a city of diverse neighborhoods. Among all, Chinatown isone of the best. . . The city does not fund very much the tourism inminority communities. A lot of money is put into Magnificent Mileand other landmarks of the city. Neighborhood has to take care ofitself. But, we want them to see us as a tourist attraction. Our chamber[of Commerce] does a lot to promote Chinatown and we work withthem. Everything is catered to bring tourists. We do a lot to bringtourists. . .we explain history, landmark buildings and architectures,Center Square, Nine Dragon Wall, Chinese New Year Festival. . .wehave little help from tourism officials but we do it. It helps all the peo-ple who are here.

To a great extent, employers refer to their commitment to being suc-cessful and their recognition that Chinatown as a space of tourismhas certainly contributed to their success. In order to justify their prof-iting from the sale of ethnic goods and services, employers representthemselves to co-ethnic workers as benevolent community advocateswhose strategic use of the presence of Chinese social agents and theirsymbols affords all a better life. Ning (above) continued:

(Interviewer follow-up question) When you say ‘‘we’’, whom are you refer-ring to?(Reply) The [business] owners. The workers, they care about living.Some don’t have many skills but. . .The jobs we give them are verygood. . .and, they need it. They have jobs because of us and tourists.We teach them to show Chinatown is a good neighborhood. We teachthem what they need to know. To treat tourists, what tourists want,what is Chinatown. . .


Consequently, the ability to define and represent Chinatown as an eth-nic space of tourism represents interconnected socio-cultural, eco-nomic and political intra-ethnic relationships. Employers positiontheir use and maneuvering of the presence of ethnic others and theirsymbols, as well as their promotion of tourism, as benevolent activitieswhich allow co-ethnic workers to gain entrance into Chicago’s econ-omy. This justification reveals some of the embedded class dynamicsin Chinatown. While it is assumed that such benevolent activities greatlybenefit co-ethnic workers, as Rath (2005) argued, entrance into the lo-cal economy should not be assumed to result necessarily in upward so-cial and economic mobility. As Parker (2002) proposed, ethnic workersinvolvement in the tourist industry is often confined to low-skill, low-pay, exploitative jobs independently of co-ethnic labor supply. This istrue for newly-arrived immigrant workers whose port of entry is animmigrant enclave economy. In the case of Chinatown, a large numberof those seeking employment lack professional or educational skills,have poor English skills, or are undocumented. Their entrance intothe ‘‘ethnic enclave economy’’ (Portes and Bach 1985) often meansthat they will be exploited by their co-ethnic employers; however, as Por-tes and Bach (1985) proposed, ethnic workers will still earn higher hu-man capital-adjusted returns working in the ‘‘ethnic enclave economy’’than they would if they chose to enter secondary or primary labor mar-kets. As such, the ‘‘ethnic enclave economy’’ works due to its reinforce-ment of mechanisms of support and control which sanction, amongothers, socially approved enclave behavior (Portes and Zhou 1992).

This justification is cloaked under the guise of upward social andeconomic mobility. One of the most often proposed benefits is the cre-ation of jobs; these allow co-ethnic workers to make a living, while atthe same time serving an educational trait function. It should be notedthat such educational function is not necessarily about educating work-ers with regards to their own economic advancement, but rather theunderstanding that their economic wellbeing is dependent on China-town as a Western landscape, tourism and the continued economicadvancement of those hiring them; in the process, ensuring that theexisting socio-economic structure, order and class dynamics withinco-ethnic employers and workers is maintained. It is within this contextthat employers affirm themselves as better qualified to undertake rep-resentational tasks. Cheng-Gong explained:

My wife and I started this restaurant. We know Americans and whatthey like. The workers, they only think about money. We do too,but [we] have business and have to think about customers. Whenwe hire them, we do a lot of teachings for foods and how to talk totourists. We want them to understand we’re a tourism community.Americans have ideas of Chinese and Chinatown is like. . .many ofthe workers don’t know what Americans are used. . .their standards.So we have to teach them.

Affirmations of the significance of Chinatown as a tourist destinationserve to provide a socio-cultural mechanism by which the intra-ethnic classboundaries between co-ethnic employers and workers are, therefore,


justified and sustained. Considering that the ability to define and rep-resent is an integral component of the social control of the commu-nity, such acts of representation are marked by the need to focus onparticularly profitable ethnic identities; a process that is made possiblepartly by perpetuating the idea that education and training provided byemployers is of the utmost necessity for workers to succeed. The coex-istence of dominant narratives of training and upward social and eco-nomic mobility are, therefore, deeply embedded within the discourseof employers because they provide the mechanism through which theyexpress and give meaning to intra-ethnic relationships, as well as justifythe manipulation of ethnicity as a kind of cultural currency in the tour-ism exchange. Such class dynamics confine and delineate intra-ethnicrelationships while at the same time revealing a system of communitybased co-ethnic social relations. As Zhou (2006) proposed, employersrely heavily on a co-ethnic recruitment system where workers both re-cruit and train new co-ethnic workers; this dynamic creates co-ethnicties and bounds workers to both their co-workers and employers. Whilethese co-ethnic obligations are constraining in the sense that they func-tion to reinforce class dynamics and lead to paternalistic relationshipsbetween employers and workers, they also lead to more personal andflexible relationships. An ‘‘ethnic enclave economy’’ is not simply dri-ven by market forces but also limited and strengthened by the enclave’ssocial structure (Zhou 2006). In this study, this enclave has developeddistinct economic opportunities based on its ethnic advantage. Work-ers, however, are well aware of such class dynamics and dominationprocesses. As Huan, a female restaurant worker confirmed:

I do what they [boss] want me to do. I learn from other workers andbosses. They tell me what Americans want. Americans like smiles andvery clean. They [employers] think that we’re not clean. They are justas bad as the Americans who think we are dirty. We are clean, andmany of us have good education. But, I do my job. If Americans likeit, then is good here for my family.

Workers realize that this is a role they are playing rather than being(Goffman 1959); specific Chinatown Chinese actions and behaviorsare on-the-job play. Therefore, while there is the recognition of themanipulation of ethnicity, those involved are able to disengage theirown being from such project. Jia, a female Asian grocery store workerand college student, stated ‘‘These things are not me. Many are notmade in China, but customers want it, so they sell it’’. Accordingly, thereare conflicting intra-ethnic relationships between those who control thetourism industry and those who provide the labor (Chang 2000). Thosewho control the tourism industry appear to label co-ethnic workers withthe same stereotypes they often accuse Americans of having towards Chi-nese and Chinatown Chinese individuals. As a result of socio-culturaland economic particularities, while seeking to distract tourists from neg-ative perceptions that exist, the very own socio-cultural structure ethnicemployers impose on their co-ethnic workers creates an artificial and‘‘Orientalist caricature’’ based on the ‘‘simplistic and exoticised culturalconceptions’’ of those visiting (Henderson 2000:530).


Taking a non-confrontational, non-competitive stance

As Wong proposes, ‘‘Chinatown’s social structure today is a result ofhistorical processes, and an end-product of concomitant interactionsbetween Chinese and American society’’ (1982:13). Such historicalprocesses and interactions continue to shape entrepreneurship andemployment choices and opportunities for Chinese immigrants. Spe-cifically, a western multicultural agenda increasingly allows China-town’s co-ethnic workers and employers the ability to embark ontheir pursuit of the American dream. Jing, a male Asian grocery storeowner said, ‘‘Asian food is very popular. . .They [tourists] want to buyingredients and cook Chinese foods, and we want that. Our childrenhave good college education and we own this store and house. Notbad?’’ Because their entrepreneurial and employment choices are asso-ciated with their ethnicity they are able to escape the criticism that theymay are competing with other ethnic neighborhoods. Jing (above)explained,

I sell to Chinese because they want different food [than Anglo Amer-icans]. They drive [from suburbs] to Chinatown to buy groceries.Tourists also shop here. . .They’re not the majority, but they spendmuch money. . .more now. They come because they know we havemany different foods. They see and ask questions [about] what weeat, how we cook. They know our shop is different from their shopand that is good for us.

Wen,a female restaurant worker and college student, describingChinatown stated:

Chinatown is very different from other neighborhoods in Chicago. Ithas landmarks to identify the community and the culture. We haveNine-dragon Wall. A piece of brick from the Great Wall is in theNine-dragon Wall. Not a lot of other communities have that. This isfor tourists and for us. Like Chinese Lunar New Year. . .they [tourists]come to experience our culture and fun, but Chinese also celebratethe holiday and make money. This is important because tourists haveto come to Chinatown. No other place has it.

Consequently, Chinatown social agents effectively create an ethnicniche which requires ethnic expertise and physical appearance accessi-ble only to Southeast Asians. The third justification can be interpretedas an adaptive strategy to the socio-economic environment, as well asthe current multicultural agenda. This need to avoid perceptions ofconfrontation and competition with the larger American society canalso be rooted in contemporary Chinese American relations. Whilethe Chinese are an integral component of contemporary America, thatis not to say that they are not without their problems; mainly, a strugglefor acceptance into a multicultural society. In 2001 a survey of Ameri-cans’ attitudes toward Chinese Americans indicated that over 68% ofAmericans had somewhat or very negative attitudes toward ChineseAmericans, 23% were uncomfortable voting for a Chinese Americanto be president, and 24% of Americans would not approve of inter-mar-riage with a Chinese American (Yi and Kim 2001). As Lee proposed, nomatter ‘‘how long they may have resided in the United States or how


assimilated they are, the ‘common understanding’ that Asians are analien presence in America is still the prevailing assumption in Ameri-can culture’’ (1999:164).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

During the modernist phase of urban development, ethnic neigh-borhoods were perceived as transitional spaces and obstacles to urbandevelopment and rejuvenation (Gotham 2001). The new voice in the‘‘postmodern’’ developmental era increasingly imbues ethnic neigh-borhoods with historical, cultural and sentimental value and salience(Judd and Simpson 2003). Accordingly, contemporary urban policystrives to stimulate growth and equity by focusing largely on diversity(Fainstein 2005); proposing that the presence of ethnic Others andtheir culture and symbols attract human capital, encourage innovation,and ensure fairness and equal access for a variety of groups. To profitfrom this new developmental era, ethnic neighborhoods are increas-ingly promoted as spaces of tourism; a process of production, negotia-tion and reproduction of particular ethnic identities. ‘‘Elected officialswho, in the 1960s, might have criticized immigrants and non-tradi-tional living arrangements, now consciously market the city’s diverseopportunities for cultural consumption’’ (Zukin 1998:836). Consider-ing that ‘‘the sensitivity of capital towards differences in place growsall the more’’ (Harvey 1989:296), this study engages with local (mi-cro-) level narratives attempting to represent and capitalize on ethnicdifference. It focuses on Chicago’s Chinatown Chinese, a sound forcein the socio-cultural, economic and political fabric that makes up Chi-cago and their contemporary struggles. Struggles which are not un-ique; in reality, the Chinese have long struggled to have theirlegitimate place in American society be recognized (Min 1995). Tradi-tionally perceived as resembling the white middle-class model, Chinesein America – independently from where they resided – have often beenrendered static by their portrayal as hardworking, traditional and con-forming individuals to whom family is central to their identity (Staplesand Mirande 1980). However, there is no one single ethnic identity as-sumed by a single Chinese diaspora but rather, many ethnic identitiesassumed by many Chinese diaspora. In this study, the social agentsencountered are not static or easily categorized but rather, due to so-cio-cultural, political and economic pressures and particularities haveundergone constant changes and adaptation to life in Chicago andin America. The most recent adaptation is in response to the multicul-turalist agenda, the growth of ethnic tourism and the cultural focus incontemporary urban development; perceived by those interviewed astools to engage with society-at-large at both an economic, as well aspolitical and socio-cultural level. Chinatown, therefore, is not a homo-geneous amalgamate but a fragmented and continually changing net-work of socio-cultural and political constructions and particularities. Inthe context of the current study, Chinatown Chinese, along with theirsymbols, goods and services, continue to be transformed in a vacuum


of cultural indifference into a marketable representation of culturaldifference. Many confirmed that their goal is to attract as many touristsas possible and, in the process, sell that which they believe tourists wantand demand regardless of socio-cultural significance. This perspectivehighlights the ongoing development of ethnic tourism in Chinatown asneither necessarily innate nor interculturally transformative. Instead,such a perspective is positioned as the result of actions taken by a vari-ety of self-interest groups such as business owners, workers, local offi-cials, and tourism officials who seek to capitalize on multiculturalismand diversity as ‘‘the new guiding principle’’ (Fainstein 2005). Whenthis occurs, as Light and Wong (1975) and Chang (2000) proposed,intra-ethnic conflict is possible between employees and employers.However, tourism literature has not dealt with issues of intra-ethnicdomination processes that occur between co-ethnic workers andemployers (Rath 2005). Such class conflicts, while seldom escalatinginto disparaging levels, do surface partly because Chinatown employ-ees, often lack professional or educational skills, have poor Englishskills, or are undocumented and, therefore, have few alternatives.Thus, working together to promote tourism in Chinatown and improvethe economic conditions of their community becomes a common goalthat co-ethnic workers and employers can embrace. Ethnic tourismmay, therefore, be experienced as a pacifying strategy situated in theinternal class dynamics of Chinatown.

As culture does not belong to any particular individual or group, theproject of using and maneuvering the Other is often open to anyonewho enters the market. In this manner, through the use of destinationbranding and marketing, the use and maneuver of the ethnic Otherbecomes implicated in the political economy of tourism development(Gottdiener 1997); Chicago’s Chinatown is no exception. ‘‘They sellenough Chineseness to get tourists here’’ stated Chen-Wei. The justifi-cations provided to validate and rationalize one’s engagement in thetourism-related project of using and maneuvering ethnicity are oftenexplained in terms of capitalizing on the most recent developmentalvoice; ‘‘More and more, tourists are very interested in culture and. . .Ithink they think Chinatown is Chinese culture. It’s Chinatown cul-ture. . .but it’s not a problem to them. They like it’’ continued Chen-Wei. The economic interests of those involved is, therefore, based onthe tourists’ understanding of Chinatown and, in that respect, thoseinterviewed will strive to Give Them [tourists] What They Want. Such pro-cesses of representation allude to Harvey’s ‘‘creative destruction’’ ofthe urban space (1985:150). To be sure, the nexus of representationaldynamics and tourism is increasingly making visible the artificial frame-work lines of ethnic urban spaces with those ‘‘in-charge’’ no longerseeking to conceal their motivations and riding themselves of the needto pretend to be culturally transformative. And, while some may arguethat the actual consumption of ethnic Others, goods, and services, alsooccurs in a vacuum of indifference, we must recognize that the culturalmeanings of tourism processes stretch out considerably further thanmerely consumption (Morgan and Pritchard 1998). Specifically, thereare socio-cultural and political dynamics and self-reflective processes


between and among co-ethnic social agents, tourists and society. Whileethnic tourism entails ‘‘a performative repertoire of cultural displaysthat increasingly serve the consumptive and speculating demands ofoutsider audiences’’ (Lin 1989: 2005) we must conceive of ethnic socialagents residing in urban areas as the focus of new tourist practices(Morris 1995).

In this study, such expression and socialization processes are pro-posed to be economically beneficial to the entire neighborhood and,as such result in narratives that promote the perception that The Exist-ing Order is in Everyone’s Best Interest; however real or fictitious. Such ca-veat of ‘‘however real or fictitious’’ stems from the recognition thatdespite the fact that previously undervalued ethnic neighborhoodsare increasingly market as tourist attractions, political, class and so-cio-cultural dynamics of exclusion persist and illustrate the difficultyof using ethnic diversity to foster both equity and growth. Furthermore,as Fainstein and Powers (2005) found, tourism officials’ efforts at fos-tering the dispersion of tourism gains is often negligible. Whileemployers interviewed position themselves as benevolent communityadvocates, such positioning is located in the claim that economic well-being is dependent on tourists and the continued economic advance-ment of the employers. Such stance ensures that the socio-economicstructure between owners and workers is maintained and, as a result,locating the power of employers in hegemonic terms. The ideology uti-lized in order to justify the actions of those involved, therefore, ensuresthat ‘‘any doubt about the social utility of the finished products is re-moved’’ (Horkheimer and Adorno 2000:121), by allowing businessprofits to take center stage in narratives of common good. It shouldbe noted, however, that co-ethnic workers are not passive social agentswhen it comes to these dynamics; in reality, workers are conscious ofthis structure. Their awareness translates into an operational modecharacterized by both obeying the existing order of conduct whilesimultaneously distancing themselves by claiming their operationalmode as on-the-job play (Goffman 1959). In particular, this study pro-poses that the hegemonic establishment of networks of shared suppo-sitions regarding American society and tourists serves to determine themode of operation in urban ethnic spaces of tourism.

Urban ethnic tourism is not a new phenomenon; dating back to thebeginning of the twentieth century, white upper and middle class indi-viduals would visit metropolitan areas inhabited by the poor or sociallydisadvantaged to shop and gawk at the residents. What makes the con-temporary situation different is the fact that those interviewed promoteand welcome the opportunity to be gawked at. By using and maneuver-ing their ethnicity, co-ethnic workers and employers create an ethnicniche contingent upon ethnic expertise and physical appearance acces-sible only to Chinese and other Southeast Asians. This, in turn, allowsthem to take A Non-Confrontational, Non-Competitive Stance with regard totheir entrepreneurial and job related undertakings. This is not to sug-gest that they have come to terms with and passively accept the socialstigmas Chinatown Chinese face. On the contrary, they continue tostruggle against the labels others have chosen to impose on them.


To a great extent, as part of their resistance, they dismiss the essential-ism inherent in the notion that Chinese ethnicity lies in practicing spe-cific cultural traditions or strictly upholding the same values as thoseheld in the motherland; Wen explained, ‘‘We are Chinese but we don’tdo things the same way. There are many different ethnic groups, cul-tures and customs. That doesn’t make them less Chinese.’’ In reality,they insist, uniquely Chinese American or American Chinese – andeven Asian-American – cultures have developed.

Chicago’s Chinatown is redesigning and remarketing itself throughits conscious and concerted use and maneuvering of the ethnic Other.This ability to redesign and remarket itself involves the deliberate revis-iting, reconstruction and re-representation of its history, as well as thehistory of the Chinese in America – as revealed with the opening of theChinese-American Museum of Chicago. Considering the current turnto ethnic tourism and its implied outcome of rejuvenating urban land-scapes and attracting capital (Law 1993), a critical account of the useand maneuvering of the ethnic Other is not only expected to continueto increase and be of concern among social science researchers(Henderson 2000), it is imperative if tourism research is to contributeto an understanding of urban ethnic politics (Tunbridge 1984).Such an examination within the context of multicultural U.S., atraditional nation of settler immigration, has significance for othernations such as Europe which continues to witness an increase in immi-gration and ethnic enclaves in its urban spaces. It is not the intent ofthis paper to suggest that Chicago’s Chinatown provides the ideal caseof an American ethnic urban space of tourism – considering thecomplexities of present-day metropolitan areas, no single city can dothat (Lefebvre 1991; Gottdiener 1994). It does, however, assist infurthering our understanding of ethnic tourism and its function inthe socio-cultural positioning of Chinatown in multi-ethnic Americansociety.

Acknowledgement—This study was made possible by a University of Illinois Urbana-ChampaignResearch Board Grant. We are also indebted to the Chinatown Chamber of Commerce, theChicago Neighborhood Tours and all of those who willingly and patiently assisted us.

REFERENCES

Anderson, K.1987 The Idea of Chinatown: The Power of Place and Institutional Practice in

the Making of Racial Category. Annals of the Association of AmericanGeographers 77(4):580–598.

Bourdieu, P.1989 Social Space and Symbolic PowerOther Words: Essays towards a Reflexive

Sociology. USA: vch. vch, pp.123–139.Chang, T.

1999 Local Uniqueness in the Global Village: Heritage Tourism in Singapore.Professional Geographer 5(1):91–103.


2000 Singapore’s Little India: A Tourist Attraction As A Contested Landscape.Urban Studies 37(2):343–366.

Conforti, J.1996 Ghettos as Tourism Attraction. Annals of Tourism Research 23:830–842.

Crotty, M.1998 The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective in the

Research Process. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Eisinger, P.

2000 The Politics of Bread and Circuses: Building the City for the Visitor Class.Urban Affairs Review 35(3):316–333.

Eriksen, T.1991 The Cultural Contexts of Ethnic Differences. Man 26(1):127–144.

Esman, M.1984 Tourism as Ethnic Preservation: The Cajuns of Louisiana. Annals of

Tourism Research 11:451–467.Fainstein, S.

2005 Cities and Diversity: Should We Want It? Can We Plan For It?. UrbanAffairs Review 41(1):3–19.

Fainstein, S., and J. Powers2005 Tourism and New York’s Ethnic Diversity: An Underutilized Resource?. In

Tourism, Ethnic Diversity and the City, J. Rath, ed. London: Routledge.Goffman, E.

1959 The Presentation of the Self in Everyday Life. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Gotham, K.

2001 Critical Perspectives on Urban Redevelopment. New York, NY: Elsevier.Gottdiener, M.

1994 The Social Production of Urban Space. Austin: University of Texas Press.1997 The Theming of America: Dreams, Visions, and Commercial Spaces.

Boulder: Westview.Grunewald, R.

2003 Tourism and ethnicity. Horizontes Antropologicos 9(20):141–159.Hall, C.

2003 Tourism, Migration and Place Advantage in the Global Cultural Economy.Paper prepared for ESF Exploratory Workshop: The Immigrant TourismIndustry, University of Amsterdam, Institute for Migration and Ethnic Studies,Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Harvey, D.1989 The Conditions of Postmodernity. Blackwell, oxford.1985 Consciousness and the Urban Experience: Studies in the History and

Theory of Capitalist Urbanization. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins UniversityPress.

Henderson, J.2000 Attracting Tourists to Singapore’s Chinatown: A Case Study in Conserva-

tion and Promotion. Tourism Management 21:525–534.Hitchcock, M.

1999 Tourism and Ethnicity: Situational Perspectives. International Journal ofTourism Research 1(1):17–32.

Horkheimer, M., and T. Adorno2000 Dialectic of Enlightenment (J. Cumming, Trans.). New York: Continuum.

Horst, H.2003 Multicultural Theming in the Netherlands: Pacifying, Essentializing and

Revanchist Effects. In Placing History: Themed Environments, Urban Con-sumption and the Public Entertainment, S. Ingram and M. Reisenleitner, eds.,pp. 1–24. Wien: Turia and Kant.

Hycner, R.1999 Some Guidelines for the Phenomenological Analysis of Interview Data. In

Qualitative Research, A. Bryman and R. Burgess, eds., pp. 143–164. London:Sage.


Jamison, D.1999 Tourism and Ethnicity: the Brotherhood of Coconuts. Annals of Tourism

Research 26:944–967.Judd, D., and D. Simpson

2003 Reconstructing the Local State: The Role of External Constituencies inBuilding Urban Tourism. American Behavioral Scientist 46(8):1056–1069.

Kruger, D.1988 An Introduction to Phenomenological Psychology (second ed.). Cape

Town, South Africa: Juta.Kwong, P.

1987 The New Chinatown. Revised Edition. New York: Hill and Wang.1996 The New Chinatown. New York: Hill and Wang.

Law, C.1993 Urban Tourism: Attracting Visitors to Large Cities. London: Mansell.

Lee, C.1965 Chinatown, U.S.A. New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc.

Lefebvre, H.1991 The Production of Space. Oxford: Blackwell.

Light, I., and C. Wong1975 Protest or Work: Dilemmas of the Tourist Industry in American China-

towns. American Journal of Sociology 80(6):1342–1368.Lin, J.

1998 Reconstructing Chinatown: Ethnic Enclave, Global Change. Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press.

Lindberg, R.1997 Passport’s Guide to Ethnic Chicago: A Complete Guide to the Many Faces

and Cultures of Chicago (2nd ed.). Illinois: Passport Books.Lofland, J., and L. Lofland

1999 Data Logging in Observation: Fieldnotes. In , A. Bryman and R. G. Burgesseds.. Qualitative research (Vol. 3) pp. 3–12. London: Sage.

Ma, L., and C. Cartier2003 The Chinese Diaspora: Space, Place, Mobility, and Identity. Boston:

Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Mak, A.

2003 Negotiating Identity: Ethnicity, Tourism and Chinatown. Journal ofAustralian Studies 77:93–100.

MacCannell, D.1992 Cannibalism Today. In Empty Meeting Grounds, D. MacCannell, ed., pp.

17–73. London: Routledge.McClellan, R.

1971 The Heathen Chinese: A Study of American Attitudes toward China, 1890–1905. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.

Min, P., ed.1995 Asian-Americans. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Morgan, N., and A. Pritchard1998 Tourism Promotion and Power: Creating Images, Creating Identities. West

Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.Morris, M.

1995 Life as a Tourist Object in Australia. In International Tourism, Identityand Change, M. Lanfant, J. Allock and E. Bruner, eds., pp. 171–191. London:Sage.

Page, S., and C. Hall2003 Managing Urban Tourism. Harlow: Prentice Hall.

Parker, J.2002 Women’s Groups in British Unions. British Journal of Industrial Relations

40(1):23–48.Peach, R.

1984 The Force of West Island Identity in Britain. In Geography and EthnicPluralism, C. Clarke, D. Ley and C. Peach, eds., pp. 214–230. London: GeorgeAllen and Unwin.


Portes, A., and R. Bach1985 Latin Journey: Cuban and Mexican Immigrants in the United States.

Berkeley: University of California Press.Portes, A., and M. Zhou

1992 The New Second Generation: Segmented Assimilation and its Variantsamong Post-1965 Immigrant Youth. Annals of the American Academy ofPolitical and Social Science 530:74–98.

Rath, J.2005 Feeding the Festive City: Immigrant Entrepreneurs and Tourist Industry.

In International Migration and Security: Opportunities and Challenges, E.Gulld and J. van Selm, eds., pp. 238–253. London: Routledge.

Staples, R., and A. Mirande1980 Racial and Cultural Variations Among American families: A Decennial

Review of the Literature of Minority Families. Journal of Marriage and theFamily 42(4):887–903.

Timothy, D., and S. Boyd2003 Heritage Tourism. Harlow: Prentice Hall.

Trevor, J., and R. Monder2003 South Asian Businesses in Retreat? The Case of the UK. Journal of Ethnic

and Migration Studies 29(3):485–500.Tsu, T.

1999 From Ethnic Ghetto to ’Gourmet Republic’: The Changing Image ofKobe’s Chinatown in Modern Japan. Japanese Studies 19(1):17–31.

Tunbridge, J.1984 Whose Heritage to Conserve? Cross Cultural Reflections upon Political

Dominance and Urban Heritage Conservation. Canadian Geographer28:171–180.

U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service 2000 Statistical Yearbook of theImmigration and Naturalization Service, 1998. Washington, DC: U.S. Govern-ment Printing Office.

Urry, J.1990 The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and Travel in Contemporary Societies. London:

Sage.Van den Berghe, P., and C. Keyes

1984 Introduction: Tourism and Re-created Ethnicity. Annals of TourismResearch 11:342–352.

Welman, J. C., and S. Kruger1999 Research Methodology for the Business and Administrative Sciences.

Johannesburg, South Africa: International Thompson.Wickberg, E.

1994 Overseas Chinese Adaptive Organizations: Past and Present. In ReluctantExiles? Migration from Hong Kong and the New Overseas Chinese,R. Skeldon, ed., pp. 68–84. New York: M.E. Sharpe.

Wong, B.1982 Chinatown Economic Adaptation And Ethnic Identity Of The Chinese.

Forth Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.1998 Ethnicity and Entrepreneurship: The New Chinese Immigrants in the San

Francisco Bay Area. Allyn and Bacon; Massachusetts.Young, J.

1999 The Exclusive Society, Social Exclusion, Crime and Difference in LateModernity. London: Sage.

Zhou, M.2006 The Significance of Ethnicity in Immigrant Enterprises. Sociological

Forum 21(3):505–510.Zhou, M., and C. Guoxuan

2002 The Chinese Language Media in the United States: Immigration andAssimilation in American Life. Qualitative Sociology 25(3):419–440.

Zhou, M., and J. Logan1991 In and Out of Chinatown: Residential Mobility and Segregation of New

York City’s Chinese. Social Forces 70(2):387–407.


Zukin, S.1995 The Cultures of Cities. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.1998 Urban lifestyles: Diversity and Standardization in Spaces of Consumption.

Urban Studies 35(5–6):825–839.

Submitted 24 April 2007. Resubmitted 18 January 2008. Final Version 6 April 2008.Accepted 15 June 2008. Refereed anonymously. Coordinating Editor: David Harrison

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

representational politics in chinatown: the ethnic other

Documents