A “Different” Asian American Literature

The seeming indecisiveness of agenda for Filipino-American writers (to

exile themselves from the home country, accept the status of a
hyphenated American or find a bridge between the two) is not exclusive
to this branch of what we term as “Asian American” literature. There are,
however, some ways in which the Filipino American experience veers
away from the “normal” Asian American lifestyle, and these differences
contribute to these writers’ literary intentions. Ephifanio San Juan Jr.
claims, in “Filipino Writing in the United States, “that Filipino
Americans remain an exploited and disadvantaged, not a ‘model’
minority” (142). Oscar Campomanes, in his arguments that all types of
Filipino American writing are “exilic” in some way, counters Bharati
Mukherjee’s strict dichotomy of immigration and expatriatism (Lim and
Ling 57). The uniqueness of Filipino American writing comes, for critics
like Campomanes, from its inability to fit neatly into divisive labels
(see Essentialism). What makes Filipino American literary efforts
different, even from South Asian American writers, is the combination of
the length of the total colonial experience, the involvement of the United
States, and the varying degrees of willingness to assimilate into the
American cultural landscape. Further complicating the matter is the
Filipino appraisal of its own “national” language (Pilipino, stemming
from Tagalog) which, according to an entry in the 1995 Encyclopedia
Americana written by Leonard Casper, is known as “Filipino English.”
The pluralism of national consciousness within the Philippines (eight
vernacular languages and three distinct geographical divisions) also
precludes an immediate and unified “home” or”national” identify
(see Benedict Anderson).