How do multiracial societies like Singapore foster social integration? How successful are these efforts, and how do they affect the lived experiences of minority groups, especially in contexts governed by racial quotas? In what ways does enforced racial integration shape racial formations and race relations?

These are some of the questions guiding APARC Predoctoral Fellow Alisha Cherian’s academic journey, which is rooted in a deep curiosity about how race operates in everyday urban life, particularly within Southeast Asia.

Cherian, a Stanford Ph.D. candidate in social and cultural anthropology, delves into the ways in which Indian Singaporeans navigate their identities and racial positioning in a public urban setting in a society where race is both a deeply ingrained social reality and an official category enforced by the state. Her research reflects a nuanced approach to race relations in a region that has long been at the crossroads of colonial legacies, multiculturalism, and state-led racial governance.

• Learn more about the APARC Predoctoral Fellowship >
• Sign up for APARC newsletters to receive updates from our scholars >

By focusing on the experiences of Indian Singaporeans, Cherian challenges traditional top-down narratives of racial governance that have dominated scholarship on Singapore, Malaysia, and Indonesia. These countries, often studied together due to their shared historical, cultural, and political contexts, have long been the subject of analyses from disciplines such as history, political science, urban studies, and geography. Yet, as Cherian points out, much of this work has focused on macro-level structures such as policies and state narratives, leaving gaps in understanding how these policies manifest in the daily lives of individuals.

"I’m interested in exploring how people live their lives within these larger structural conditions," she explains. "I’m trying to get a deeper understanding of the grounded, empirical lived reality of the Singapore state’s explicit race craft."

The Struggles and Nuances of Studying Race in Singapore

Race relations in Singapore — central to the nation’s political and historical development — remain a subject fraught with tension. As Cherian describes, although race is an official category in Singapore, the discussion of racism is a highly sensitive one. Conversations around racial discrimination are often met with skepticism or outright denial, particularly by the Singapore government and the racial majority, which in the context of the state’s policies is predominantly Chinese.

This skepticism extends even into academic circles, where Cherian has encountered resistance from scholars unfamiliar with the region who question whether her work might be too heavily influenced by American ideas of race relations, especially in light of global conversations around privilege.

Indeed, the notion of "Chinese privilege," a term that Cherian uses in her research, has roots in the American concept of "white privilege," yet it takes on distinct meanings within the Singaporean context. "Chinese privilege" refers to the systemic advantages that ethnic Chinese enjoy in Singapore, something that Cherian’s research subjects, primarily Indian Singaporeans, use to explain their marginalized position within the city-state. For Cherian, these local terminologies and frameworks are essential to understanding the racial dynamics at play. "I make sure to study Singapore race relations on their own terms," she says, "which is at the heart of anthropological inquiry itself."

Navigating the sensitive nature of her subject matter, Cherian is aware that critiques of the state’s racial policies can be met with censorship, or worse, backlash. Yet, she sees these challenges as integral to capturing the complex dynamics of racial identity in a globalized world. "Race is not a monolith," she asserts. "It’s a lived reality, and that’s where the story lies."

Scholarship Shaped by Interdisciplinary Conversations

Cherian’s time as a predoctoral scholar has been pivotal in shaping her approach to research and its potential for broader societal impact. While her research at APARC has allowed her to refine her dissertation, titled "Discordant Harmonies: Everyday Life in the Racial City-State," the experience has also provided her with a unique opportunity to engage in interdisciplinary conversations with scholars and practitioners from across Asia and the world.

"It’s been inspiring to see how postdoctoral scholars and faculty at APARC have mobilized their findings in ways that have a broader impact," Cherian reflects. "It’s made me think about how I can channel my own work into productive change. Whether it’s through policy conferences or meetings with world leaders, the way scholars here have connected their research to real-world challenges has been really inspiring."

The collegial and intellectually stimulating environment at APARC has helped her envision new possibilities for her academic career. Cherian describes the APARC community as one that is both rigorous and warm. “I’ve had some great conversations with my deskmates and at lunch events,” she says. “I’ve received reading recommendations and heard fascinating stories about the varied professional trajectories of the people around me. It’s helped me imagine even more futures for myself.”

Looking Ahead: Turning Research into Action

With her dissertation nearing completion, Cherian plans to adapt her work into a book that will bring the complex, often discordant dynamics of race relations in Singapore to a broader audience. Through this book, she hopes to offer a new perspective on how race operates within the everyday lives of Singaporeans, ultimately providing a more grounded understanding of racial governance in the city-state.

To aspiring scholars in race and ethnicity studies, Cherian offers this advice: "Center your research subjects," she says, emphasizing the importance of grounding scholarly work in the lived experiences of people. "Take seriously how they understand their world, and don’t be afraid to confront the gaps in the existing literature."

Driven by a commitment to rigorous scholarship and its social impact, Cherian’s work challenges us to reconsider how race is not just a structural concept, but a lived experience that shapes the very fabric of urban life in Singapore and beyond.
 

Race and the Pursuit of Multiracial Democracy

Hakeem Jefferson kicked off the discussion with a presentation on race's role in American politics, especially during the 2024 election season. He argued against perspectives that minimize the salience of this issue, noting that the January 6 insurrection was a stark example of the influence of White identity politics on electoral dynamics. Jefferson, an assistant professor of political science and a CDDRL affiliated faculty, underscored the continued prevalence of racial appeals and overt racism in political messaging, which significantly affects public perception and voter behavior. He also examined Vice President Kamala Harris’s campaign, emphasizing the complexities of identity politics and the challenges in representing diverse coalitions.

In his closing remarks, Jefferson tackled the narrative surrounding Black male voters’ declining support, advocating for a nuanced understanding of political behavior within this demographic. He emphasized that the United States is at a crossroads, needing to embrace the potential for a multiracial democracy to avoid losing its democratic identity.

The Paradox of Political Parties

Didi Kuo, a Center Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI), explored the challenges facing political parties in the United States. While parties seem strong due to the current state of polarization and surge in fundraising, they struggle with selecting candidates and managing extremist views, which has contributed to a decline in public trust. Historically, political parties acted as intermediaries, linking societal demands to political representation. However, the decline in support for mainstream parties and the rise of anti-system challengers reveal a troubling gap in responsiveness to critical issues.

Kuo noted that parties are transforming from grassroots organizations into professional campaign entities focused on fundraising, weakening their ties to the public, especially working-class voters. She mentioned that reforms like nonpartisan primaries reflect widespread dissatisfaction with how parties choose candidates. As nonparty actors assume traditional party functions, the future dynamics of political parties remain uncertain. Kuo called for parties to rebuild trust and re-engage with constituents to maintain their vital role in democracy.

Challenging Assumptions of Political Polarization

Professor of Political Science Jonathan Rodden challenged the prevailing belief that American political parties have become more homogenous. He argued that both the Democratic and Republican parties are becoming more diverse, complicating the narrative of ideological sameness. While contemporary politics often focuses on a single dimension of conflict, Rodden posited that American parties are increasingly varied in race, education, religion, and income.

Rodden explained that this growing diversity contributes to rising affective polarization, where animosity toward the opposing party intensifies. With party members holding a broader range of opinions, leaders face challenges in proposing policies that appeal to all constituents. This often leads to strategies that demonize the opposing party by emphasizing its extreme members, further deepening voter divides. Rodden's analysis illustrates that both parties are evolving into coalitions with diverse interests, inviting a reevaluation of political polarization in the U.S. 

Illiberal Populism: Patterns of Success and Failure

Putting the United States in comparative perspective, Professor of Political Science Anna Grzymala-Busse examined illiberal populism in Europe, focusing on why some populist leaders lose power despite initial successes. She defined illiberal populism as framing elites as corrupt while promoting an exclusivist concept of "the people." While populists can mobilize voter dissatisfaction, recent electoral defeats in Poland and the Czech Republic and anticipated losses in France highlight the vulnerabilities of such movements.

Grzymala-Busse, a senior fellow at FSI, where she serves as the director of The Europe Center, identified factors contributing to these populist setbacks. She noted that high voter turnout, especially among younger voters, can legitimize democratic processes and counter populist influence. Additionally, elite responses, such as isolating populists, have often proven more effective than attempts to co-opt their rhetoric. Lastly, she emphasized that populists frequently prioritize consolidating power over addressing core societal issues, leading to disillusionment among supporters. These dynamics illustrate the limitations of populist strategies and provide valuable lessons for democracies facing similar challenges.

The final event in our series will take place post-election on Tuesday, November 12, from 10:00 to 11:30 am on Zoom. You can register for that event here and catch up on previous sessions on the America Votes 2024 webpage.

Team members of the Stanford Next Asia Policy Lab (SNAPL) recently presented findings from several of the lab’s research projects at forums and meetings with policy and academic communities in Washington, D.C. Their activities included a joint symposium with the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a presentation at George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs, and meetings with think tanks and Congress members. These policy engagements are supported by a Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies grant.

SNAPL, which is housed at the Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center (APARC), is led by sociologist Gi-Wook Shin, the William J. Perry Professor of Contemporary Korea, a senior fellow at FSI, and the director of APARC and the Korea Program. SNAPL is committed to generating evidence-based policy recommendations and promoting transnational collaboration with academic and policy institutions to advance the future prosperity of Asia and U.S.-Asia relations.

On September 16, 2024, SNAPL and CSIS co-hosted the symposium “A New Cold War?: Congressional Rhetoric and Regional Reactions to the U.S.-China Rivalry.” At this event, SNAPL team members presented fresh perspectives on the U.S.-China relationship, grounded in two original studies that challenge the application of the “new Cold War” narrative to frame the competition between the two powers. Both studies are part of SNAPL’s U.S.-Asia Relations research track.

Research Fellow Xinru Ma shared the first study, “A New Cold War? An Analysis of Congressional Discourse on U.S. Rivalries with the USSR, Japan, and China.” Discussant Evan Medeiros, Penner Family Chair in Asian Studies and the Cling Family Senior Fellow in US-China Relations at Georgetown University, commented on the study. In a following session, Postdoctoral Fellow Gidong Kim presented a second study, “The U.S. Alliance and Public Attitudes toward China: Evidence from the Asia-Pacific Region.” Discussant Matthew Kroenig, professor in the Department of Government and the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, offered feedback on the research.

Sign up for APARC newsletters to receive our scholars’ research updates > 

Moving Beyond Cold War Comparisons

Ma’s study, which analyzes over 41,000 Congressional speeches, upends the notion that today’s U.S.-China tensions mirror Cold War dynamics. The research shows that Cold War debates historically focused on two primary themes — ideological expansion and military aggression — with the former as the dominant concern. By contrast, current concerns about China center on human rights issues more than outward ideological expansion, while military concerns focus on budgetary issues rather than the kind of direct confrontations that defined the Cold War.

Ma’s findings also reveal that the current U.S.-China rivalry bears more resemblance to the U.S.-Japan economic competition of the 1980s, where economic concerns and domestic priorities took center stage rather than ideological or military threats. With these findings, the study establishes an empirical baseline for defining the current state of the U.S.-China relationship, illuminating the risks of framing it by the misleading “new Cold War” label.

Risks of the Cold War Analogy: Policy Implications

Ma’s study highlights that Cold War-era strategies are ill-suited for addressing the challenges posed by China today. Clinging to a Cold War analogy presents several risks:

• Misguided Focus: Framing China as a Cold War-like rival risks overemphasizing military buildup and ideological competition globally, overlooking the true nature of today’s competition, which is primarily economic and technological.
• Paranoia and Isolationism: The new Cold War analogy could foster a climate of paranoia and isolation, undermining the principles of open engagement and collaboration that have historically supported American leadership. Maintaining open dialogue and people-to-people exchanges that promote democratic values and human rights is more effective for preserving U.S. leadership in addressing ideological differences with China than confrontational ideological warfare.

The study has even further implications for U.S. domestic debates:
 

• Impacts on the American Workforce: At a bilateral level, the economic tensions that constitute the backbone of today's challenges with China, such as concerns over the loss of American jobs, were virtually missing from the dynamics of the Cold War era. Addressing these tensions requires new strategies and measures such as reinforcing free trade practices, upgrading infrastructure, upskilling the workforce, and fostering technological innovation.
• Overlooked U.S. Domestic Challenges: The Cold War analogy can also lead to ignorance about challenges rooted in pressing U.S. domestic issues — such as education inequality, the opioid crisis, and political polarization — which could be more consequential to American global leadership than the challenges China poses.

Public Perceptions of China in U.S. Allies

Kim’s study examines how geopolitical contexts such as the U.S.-China tensions and alliance relationships shape public attitudes toward China among citizens of U.S. allies. It analyzes data from the Gallup World Poll (2006-2022) covering 22 Asia-Pacific countries and the Asian Barometer Survey (2010-2021) from 14 countries.

The study shows that U.S. alliances and the U.S.-China rivalry influence public attitudes toward China. It finds that, as U.S.-China tensions escalate, citizens in U.S. allied countries — unlike those in non-allied nations — are more likely to develop unfavorable views of China. Additionally, public opinions of China and the United States tend to move in opposite directions as the great power competition intensifies because U.S. alliance relationships help strengthen a sense of shared identity during times of geopolitical crisis.

Shapers of Anti-China Sentiments: Policy Implications
 

• Strengthening Alliances Amid U.S.-China Tensions: The United States should understand that alliance relationships increasingly matter as U.S.-China tensions intensify. Strengthening these ties can be particularly effective in managing escalating tensions with China.
• Alliance Diplomacy vs. Traditional Value Diplomacy: During periods of geopolitical rivalry, U.S. alliances may have a greater impact than traditional diplomacy based on democratic values. In such times, alliances serve as critical frameworks for shared identity and mutual defense.
• Understanding Anti-China Sentiment: U.S. allies should recognize that rising anti-China sentiments among citizens are closely related to broader geopolitical dynamics. While anti-Japan or anti-America sentiments in countries like South Korea and the Philippines were historically bilateral issues, today's anti-China views are more structural issues and unlikely to diminish unless U.S.-China relations improve.
• China’s Need for a Shift in Strategy: China should consider the geopolitical factors contributing to rising anti-China sentiment in U.S.-allied nations. China’s public diplomacy efforts to strengthen its soft power through financial and non-financial measures may be ineffective when applied to U.S. allies. The Chinese government should therefore prioritize improving its relationship with the United States to mitigate anti-China sentiments in U.S. allies.
   

National Understandings of Race and Racism in Asia

On September 17, 2024, Postdoctoral Fellow Junki Nakahara shared findings from a SNAPL project that is part of another Lab research track, Nationalism and Racism, at a discussion titled Deconstructing Racism “Denial” in Asia, hosted by George Washington University’s Sigur Center for Asian Studies.

Nakahara’s study examines how nationalism and racism intersect to create exclusion and marginalization across Asia. By analyzing state reports from 16 Asian countries submitted to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), the research investigates how these official reports conceptualize race and racism, uncovering pervasive patterns of their denial — literal, interpretive, and ideological. Nakahara thus offers a comparative view of how these perspectives by Asian nations align with or deviate from global norms. Her analysis also illustrates how historical identities and dominant social, political, and religious values shape national attitudes toward race in Asia.

Following Nakahara’s presentation, discussants Hiromi Ishizawa, associate professor of sociology at George Washington University, and Erin Aeran Chung, the Charles D. Miller Professor of East Asian Politics and Director of Undergraduate Studies in the Department of Political Science at Johns Hopkins University, provided insightful commentary. They emphasized the importance of studying race and racism in the Asia-Pacific region and their implications for marginalized communities. The event also sparked an engaging dialogue with the audience, addressing how racism in Asia remains a “blind spot” overlooked in policy, media, and public discourse.

See the coverage of the event in George Washington’s student newspaper >

The event opened with remarks from Kathryn Stoner, Mosbacher Director of CDDRL, and was co-moderated by Stanford's Hakeem Jefferson, assistant professor of political science and IDJ’s faculty director, and UC Berkeley's Jake Grumbach. Following the conversation, the panel engaged the standing-room-only crowd through a lively audience Q&A.

In their talk, Levitsky and Ziblatt reiterated their argument that democratic erosion in the United States has been enabled by “democratic semi-loyalist” elites who prioritize their own career incentives or partisan gains over their duty to condemn anti-democratic behavior, such as instigating political violence or refusing to accept electoral defeats.

Grumbach and Jefferson invited the authors to discuss how their background as scholars of comparative politics – Levitsky and Ziblatt have studied Latin American and European politics, respectively – informed their analysis of American democracy. The authors commented on how remarkable they found the parallels between moments when democratic norms have come under question in other countries, like the February 6 insurrection in France or Peronist leader Cafiero’s key decision to join President Alfonsín on the balcony of the presidential palace to accept defeat and deter another coup in Argentina, and what we see in the U.S. today.

The conversation also addressed open debates on how concerned we should be about American democracy, and audience members brought up questions on how to think about generational differences, demographic change, and frustrated lawmaking. Jefferson called the launch event an “exciting, energizing convening of ideas” and shared how keen he is to continue these conversations through upcoming program events.

You can learn more about IDJ on the program’s website and watch a recording of the event below.

On January 11, 2024, IDJ will host its inaugural event, titled Multiracial Democracy and its Future in the United States, with Harvard University professors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt. Levitsky and Ziblatt are the New York Times best-selling authors of How Democracies Die and will discuss their newest book, Tyranny of the Minority: Why American Democracy Reached the Breaking Point (Crown, 2023). In a moderated conversation with Professors Hakeem Jefferson and Jake Grumbach (UC Berkeley) and an audience Q&A, Levitsky and Ziblatt will offer a framework for understanding the current crisis in America's democracy. You can learn more about the event and register to attend here.

In the following Q&A, Hakeem Jefferson, an assistant professor of political science in the School of Humanities and Sciences, shares more about the motivations and objectives of the new IDJ program and the transformative potential of identity-focused research.

What motivated the establishment of the Program on Identity, Democracy, and Justice (IDJ) at CDDRL, and what specific gaps or challenges in existing research does it aim to address?

As a scholar of race and politics, it has always been clear to me that we cannot understand threats to democracy or the promise of democracy without engaging issues of race and identity more broadly. I am excited to launch this program at CDDRL because I think we have a real opportunity to bring together scholars, practitioners, and community members concerned with creating a society of political and social equals. At IDJ, we hope to expand people’s understanding of what it means to care about democracy and what the study of democracy looks like. For us, these questions necessitate a focus on difference, a focus on inequality, and a concern with democracy beyond the ballot box. To be sure, we will engage questions related to elections and the health of electoral democracy, but we also want to make the strong case in the research we platform and in the conversations and workshops we convene that being concerned with democracy means thinking quite carefully about how societies are stratified, how power is distributed, and how justice is achieved.

What are some of the program's key goals and objectives?

I want to invite folks who study the program themes to be in community with one another. The hope is that these interactions will lead to more thoughtful scholarship and initiatives. We want people to share early-stage ideas, make connections with like-minded collaborators, sharpen later-stage research, and broaden their aims and interests through consuming the work hosted by the program. We want to keep researchers aware of practitioners, especially at the local level, who are working to promote democratic principles and, in parallel, keep those organizations abreast of findings relevant to our shared interest in a healthier democracy.

How does the IDJ program approach the study of identity-related issues, and what makes it distinctive compared to existing research programs?

IDJ is ideas first. Different backgrounds, training, and scholarly dispositions mean that we think about identity-related questions in different ways. IDJ seeks to bring our attention to how we are engaging the same objective — equitable democracies — whether we are concerned with different identities, different contexts, or different sorts of evidence. By pursuing common insights, IDJ aims to produce work that is interesting to a broad audience.

As the IDJ program unfolds, how do you envision its role in shaping public discourse and influencing policies related to identity, democracy, and justice, both locally and globally?

Throughout my career — and since I was a young boy in South Carolina — I have engaged in public conversations about issues of justice. In recent years, I have written extensively for public audiences about topics ranging from the January 6 insurrection and whiteness to the crisis facing multiracial democracy in the United States. As I launch the IDJ program, this commitment to public engagement remains at the heart of what we plan to do. From writing Op-Eds to engaging directly with those working on the ground to safeguard democracy, we hope to be a public-facing program whose stakeholders include those far beyond our Stanford community.