Reclassifying Our Stories
The Intersection of Archives, Power, and Asian American Theology
By Dr. David C. Chao, Director of the Center for Asian American Christianity
This summer, my conference travels have taken me far from New Jersey. A number of these conferences featured historical archives as a central theme or included visits to the archives as part of the schedule, immersing me in the rich histories preserved by these archives. During the May 29th “Asian Exclusion and the Church” conference in Little Tokyo, Los Angeles, I met Dr. Emily Anderson, the curator at the Japanese American National Museum. From Dr. Anderson, I learned about significant archives on Japanese American churches in the Los Angeles area, a resource I had not known before.
When I attended the 13th International Symposium on the History of Christianity in Modern China held in Hong Kong, I had the opportunity to visit three different archives: the Chinese Christianity archive at the Hong Kong Baptist University (directed by Jeanette Ma, the Special Collections and Archives Librarian), the Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui archives (the Anglican Church archives directed by Provincial Archivist—and PTS alum!—Rev. Dr. Philip L. Wickeri), and the Hong Kong Catholic Diocesan Archives (directed by the Archivist Peter Lau). These eye-opening archival tours revealed a complicated history of Christianity in Hong Kong.
Last, at the APARRI conference held at the University of California, Berkeley, we toured the Ethnic Studies Library Archive. Learning about the organization and development of the Ethnic Studies Archive in relation to the field of Ethnic Studies was fascinating. I had the good fortune of having a more extended conversation with Asian American and Comparative Ethnic Studies Librarian Sine Hwang Jensen. The following essay comes out of this wide-ranging and deeply informative conversation with Librarian Jensen.
All of these trips were incredibly enlightening as I contemplate the development of the field of Asian American Theology, particularly concerning archives, source material, and ethnic history.
At the Center for Asian American Christianity at Princeton Theological Seminary, we seek to reimagine the theological structures and categories inherited from Anglo-European Christendom. We aim to reclassify the narratives and frameworks that have long defined and confined our understanding of Asian American Christianity. In doing so, we must grapple with the complexities and biases inherent in the archival and classificatory systems that shape our knowledge. My recent travels and engagement with archives have revealed some profound challenges and opportunities in working with archives to reshape our theological narratives.
The Power Dynamics of Archives
The establishment of ethnic studies as an academic discipline required a significant struggle, exemplified by the student-led revolution at San Francisco State and UC Berkeley in the 1960s. Similarly, the creation of a library and its archives to support ethnic studies at UC Berkeley faced resistance and has required persistent advocacy and financial support. This history is a testament to the power dynamics at play in the creation and maintenance of knowledge systems.
Ethnic studies, as a curricular and disciplinary subject, emerged not just as an academic pursuit but as a political act of reclaiming and preserving marginalized histories. The establishment of archives for ethnic studies was similarly fraught with challenges, reflecting the broader societal power dynamics and the ongoing struggle for recognition and representation.
Challenges in Classification Systems
A significant portion of my recent conversation with librarian Sine Hwang Jensen focused on the Library of Congress (LC) classification system, a tool that profoundly influences how knowledge is categorized and accessed. The LC classification system was originally developed to serve the needs of Congress, reflecting the priorities and biases of its time. This system, now widely adopted by academic libraries in the United States and around the world, continues to marginalize non-European subjects.
The Eurocentric biases inherent in the LC system’s class on philosophy, psychology, and religion, for example, are evident in the disproportionate representation of Christianity compared to other religions such as Buddhism. While Christianity is divided into multiple subclasses, Buddhism and other non-Christian religions are often lumped into singular categories. This not only reflects historical biases but also perpetuates them by shaping how future generations access and engage with these subjects.
Efforts to create more inclusive and accurate classification systems, such as those developed by the Chicano Studies Library, demonstrate the potential for better reflecting the needs and realities of marginalized communities.
Another noteworthy example of innovative practice is the Saginaw Chippewa Tribal Libraries. They have created a new classification system that reflects their cultural worldview, incorporating symbols and structures that resonate with their intellectual, epistemological, and cosmological perspectives. This approach stands in stark contrast to the often alienating systems imposed by Anglo-European frameworks.
The Saginaw Chippewa Tribal Libraries demonstrate that it is possible to build systems that fit the shape of the subject matter, rather than forcing diverse and complex cultures into predefined and often unsuitable categories. Their work underscores the importance of autonomy and culturally relevant practices in archival work, providing a model that can inspire similar efforts in other communities.
These bespoke classification systems offer a more culturally relevant approach, allowing for a richer and more nuanced understanding of the subjects they cover.
Archival Provenance and Ownership
The concept of provenance in archival work is crucial, as it often dictates that materials are named after the donors or collectors rather than the communities they document. This practice can obscure the true nature of the collections and reinforce colonial narratives. For example, collections that contain artifacts from colonized regions are often named after colonial officers, masking the significance of the materials to the communities from which they originate.
Provenance also extends to issues of ownership and access. Historically, archives have been about full ownership of materials, often transferring not just the physical items but also the copyright and intellectual property rights. This practice has significant ethical and political implications, especially when it comes to materials documenting colonized or marginalized communities. The legal and bureaucratic barriers to accessing these materials can be substantial, further entrenching power imbalances.
Access and Representation in Archives
The practical challenges in archival work are manifold, particularly regarding non-Roman script languages and the inconsistencies in transliterations. Cataloging materials from Chinese American communities, for instance, involves navigating various spellings and naming conventions, complicating access and research. These challenges highlight the need for more flexible and inclusive archival practices that can accommodate the linguistic and cultural diversity of the communities they serve.
Moreover, the intimidating nature of archival spaces can deter individuals from accessing materials related to their heritage. Security measures, bureaucratic processes, and the often austere environment of archives create an unwelcoming atmosphere. This can be particularly alienating for individuals seeking to reclaim their histories and identities.
Power Dynamics and Colonial Legacies
Colonial archives have historically documented, and thus facilitated, the dispossession and marginalization of indigenous and minority communities. Efforts to engage with these archives, such as those by the Breath of Life Institute, are often fraught with challenges due to the fragmented and colonial nature of the records. Indigenous representatives seeking to revitalize their languages and cultures must navigate archives that reflect colonial priorities and perspectives.
This practice of documenting cultures as "disappearing" or "extinct" is a form of colonial violence, cementing narratives of inevitable decline. It undermines the efforts of indigenous communities to reclaim and revitalize their cultural heritage, framing their histories in terms of loss rather than resilience and continuity.
Engaging with the Broader Community
We are not alone in this journey. There are many scholars and archivists who share our commitment to rethinking and reclassifying knowledge. For example, projects like ReCollect/ReConnect at the University of Michigan, led by Filipino American archivists, focus on reparative archives and the complex histories of colonialism and education.
Collaborations with such initiatives can provide valuable insights and support as we navigate the challenges of archival work. By learning from and working with others who are engaged in similar efforts, we can strengthen our own practices and build a more robust field of Asian American theology.
Implications for Asian American Theology
The challenges faced in ethnic studies and archives parallel those we encounter in developing Asian American theology. The eurocentric categories and frameworks inherited from Anglo-European Christendom do not adequately capture the experiences and perspectives of Asian American Christians. To build the field of Asian American theology, we must engage deeply with archives and continue to develop ethnographic studies and oral historical investigations by, for, and about Asian Americans.
The current and available published materials are only beginning to tell our stories—there is much more work to be had. We need to create new frameworks that reflect the complexities of our communities. This involves not only rethinking how we categorize knowledge but also advocating for greater autonomy and representation in archival practices.
The Way Forward
As we move forward, we must continue to challenge existing classification systems and seek more inclusive and accurate ways to document and understand our histories. This involves creating systems that reflect the subject matter rather than imposing external, often alien, frameworks. By engaging with archives and developing our own research methodologies, we can create a more comprehensive and faithful narrative of Asian American Christianity.
The journey to reclassify our stories is not easy, but it is essential. We must collaborate with scholars, students, and community members to build a richer, more inclusive understanding of our histories. This work requires persistence, creativity, and a commitment to challenging the power dynamics that have long shaped our understanding of history and theology.
Conclusion
The critical need to reclassify and reclaim our stories within Asian American theology cannot be overstated. By addressing the racial biases inherent in existing organizational structures and institutions, we can develop a more accurate and inclusive narrative of our communities. This work is foundational to building the field of Asian American theology and advancing our understanding of the diverse experiences and perspectives within our faith tradition.
We look forward to continuing this important work and invite you to join us in this transformative journey. Together, we can create a richer, more inclusive understanding of Asian American Christianity and its place in the broader theological discourse.
Dr. David C. Chao is director of the Center for Asian American Christianity at Princeton Theological Seminary. He teaches courses related to Asian American theology and organizes programs in Asian American theology and ministry. His research and writing focus on the faith and practice of ordinary Asian Christians in diasporic context as well as the uses of Christian doctrine for liberation, the convergence and divergence of Protestant and Catholic dogmatics, and the theology of Karl Barth. His research on Asian American religious life and politics is funded by The Henry Luce Foundation, the Louisville Institute, and APARRI.
Read more about the director of the CAAC here.