We cannot verify your location
Browse Book and Journal Content on Project MUSE

Download PDF

Assembling Asian/American Naturecultures:
Orientalism and Invited Invasions

This essay de-centers the human for a more ecological perspective. Drawing on Haraway’s “naturecultures” and Deleuze and Guattari’s “assemblages,” the authors collaborate across the humanities and sciences to rethink Asian/America as a multispecies, naturecultural, and transnational phenomenon. After offering a theoretical foundation, the essay connects Asian/American Studies to issues in the biological sciences, and discusses how Said’s theory of Orientalism resonates in a multispecies paradigm – specifically, the nativism and xenophobia of “invasion biology” that vilifies foreign species with strident calls for their eradication. Case studies reveal that it is not an essential predilection to invasion, but the conditions of globalization that generate so-called invasions. The authors conclude that solutions must move from targeting species to a reconsideration of the larger forces that “invite” invasions and that assembling Asian/America generate interdisciplinary academic and political partnerships that can better solve the problems of the 21st century.

Every seed has a story . . . encrypted in a narrative line that stretches back for thousands of years. And if you trace that story, traveling with that little seed backward in time, you might find yourself tucked into an immigrant's hatband or sewn into the hem of a young wife's dress as she smuggles you from the old country into the New World. Or you might be clinging in the belly wool of a yak as you travel across the steppes of Mongolia. Or perhaps you are eaten by an albatross and pooped out on some rocky cropping, where you and your offspring will put down roots to colonize that foreign shore. Seeds tell the story of migrations and drifts, so if you learn to read them, they are very much like books.

—Ruth Ozeki, All Over Creation1

Recent scholarship across the disciplines represents a welcome decentering of the human in the age of what some cultural anthropologists have termed the anthropocene—the unprecedented dominance of Homo sapiens that has yielded a planet in crisis or, at the very least, out of balance.2 Forms of ecological thinking in which humans are thought as merely one animal among others offer the hope of more ethical perspectives and problem solving. However, the turn to including nonhuman animals in intellectual inquiries does not necessarily deconstruct a hierarchical Great Chain of Being but sometimes merely extends the ladder by allowing some species to "advance" up the rungs. Such efforts may paradoxically recenter humanity. Analogously, Shumei Shih (among others) has noted how "technologies of recognition" [End Page 1] confer acknowledgment upon the marginal by deploying "the logic of 'recognition,' the cognition of that which is already known and predetermined by political economy in mostly predictable ways."3 In Shih's Foucauldian critique of the reception of "world" literatures, the affixing of minoritarian labels domesticates difference while simultaneously recentering "the West," from whom "the rest" differ.

In the larger academic context, disciplinarity is such a technology, "recognizing" the three major divisions of knowledge (humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences) and the autonomy of various subfields within them. While specialization has its value, it inhibits more integrative ways of knowing along with a healthy respect for the unknown. In this essay, therefore, we try to "shift the politics of recognition from that which is assumed to be known to that which needs to be learned by effort."4 What if we could soften the three familiar divisions of academic knowledge to engage with interdisciplinary and multispecies modes of inquiry? How might fields such as ethnic studies and women's studies engage such a project? We venture that, just as an understanding of the sciences has been enriched by (often feminist) cultural studies of science, approaching "identity-based" fields of inquiry through more robust forms of interdisciplinarity would profoundly reshape such fields in both intellectually and politically resonant ways.

This article has emerged from years of collegial conversation across different fields of study. While our professional origins are varied—Karen's in higher education studies and the humanities and Banu's in evolutionary biology and women's studies—our disciplinary migrations and miscegenations opened the way to a collaboration that has revealed a profound convergence in our respective foci on American cultural studies and on foreign plants, animals, and their ecologies. Indeed, our dialogues across seemingly disparate disciplines reveal strong epistemological parallels and similar ontological conundrums. The struggles to order an ebullient biological world into neat genera parallel efforts in cultural studies to organize genres, as well as those in ethnic studies to understand the experience of cultural groups. In all cases, mobile and ever-evolving natural and cultural worlds challenge any simple categorization of what is of native and foreign origins, troubling easy notions of home and belonging (including for scholars whose work does not emerge from a single discipline). [End Page 2]

We thus embrace Donna Haraway's memorable term naturecultures to capture the shared histories of humans, plants, and animals and to acknowledge the impossibility of a pure "nature" that we have not already constructed by observing and speaking about it.5 Like Haraway and others, we deploy such familiar terms as "animal," "human," "ethnicity," "gender," "race," "sex," and "species" with ambivalence—recognizing their discursive construction while also acknowledging their material effects as conceptual categories. Yet we also worry that the independence of each term inadvertently and unproductively reinforces the binary and hierarchical divisions of nature/culture, human/nonhuman, plant/animal, male/ female, white/colored, and so on that many scholars in ethnic, feminist, and animal studies have worked hard to undermine. Thus, we aim to decenter the privileged singularity of both the individual organism and these conceptual categories, which we see in relational terms as part of an evolving collectivity rather than as absolute, pure, or real ontologies.

Plants, animals, viruses, bacteria, artifacts, objects, humans, cultures, and natures have come to be constituted and reconstituted in very deliberate and particular ways, and their histories are inextricably interconnected. It is this naturecultural world of heterogeneous, mobile, multivocal, and hybrid entities that interests us. In particular, we seek to better understand the processes by which multispecies organisms migrate, miscegenate, mutate, and transform each other in complex, mutually constitutive, and multidirectional ways—their assembling. Our use of this term draws upon the concept of the assemblage, an imprecise translation of Deleuze and Guattari's rhizome, initially signified by the French term agencement (meaning loosely, "arrangement"), which emphasizes the connections between concepts.6 Subsequent work has considerably developed how "global forms are articulated in specific situations—or territorialized in assemblages—they define new material, collective, and discursive relationships."7 In the present context, we explore the idea of "Asian/America" as a multispecies formation transcending the animate world in a constantly (re)assembling global form.

In examining how assemblages are subject to technological, political, and ethical reflection and intervention, scholars have explored the tracking, reconfiguration, and realignment of various subjectivities and identities.8 Here we want to note the importance of territoriality and the [End Page 3] shifting temporal logics of geopolitics and geopolitical identity. We track the shifting meaning of what is native and what is foreign and how those meanings are always contingent on temporal, spatial, cultural, and historical contexts. In particular, the term's simultaneous connotation of the "assembly line" also highlights the often-occluded forms of migrant labor in globalizing processes, as well as the mental labor in the construction of conceptual categories themselves.9 As will become evident, circuits of transnational labor, markets, and power are central to the assembling of a multispecies Asian/America.

Here, our preference for the active verbal emphasis of "assembling" over the fixed noun form "assemblage" aims to forestall the hardening of the concept itself into a unified singularity, albeit a multispecies and transnational one. Therefore, while grammatically awkward at times, we speak of assembling, since the whole point is to describe active relationships in flux—to think about processes of organizing as much as formal and individuated organisms. For us at present, this idea makes room for nonrecognition, a space to learn something we do not yet know. The price is messier scholarship—more suggestive than definitive, more exploratory than expert—but, we hope worth engaging with nonetheless.

To illustrate our inquiry into the assembling process we here represent "Asian/America"—typically thought as a cultural category—as a transnational multispecies formation in which questions of sex, gender, race, and both biological and cultural reproduction loom large. Such assembling is always in the making but never complete or finished as cultural, political, and material borders open and close and the domains of flora/ fauna continually collide and reassemble. For this reason, we follow David Palumbo-Liu's theoretical determination not to treat "Asian" as an adjective to "American," nor to join the two terms by a hyphen, but instead to deploy a slash between them to convey "an element of undecidability [that] at once implies both exclusion and inclusion [in] a dynamic [and] unsettled movement."10

In so doing, we aim to shift away from what we see as unproductive questions, such as the following: Is globalization good or bad? Should borders be open or closed? Is hybridity or multiraciality a good thing? Should we return to a pure "nature" or "culture?" For in the most literal [End Page 4] sense, these questions are moot—globalization is already here, borders have always been permeable, multiracial people and those of multiple sexualities have always existed, and there has never been a pure nature or culture. Indeed, some would argue that even without humans there has never been a pure or untrammeled nature—other animals can also constantly construct the worlds around them by building, transforming, communicating, destroying, and so on.11 As suggested by our epigraph's "story of seeds," from Ruth Ozeki's novel about genetic engineering in big agribusiness, naturecultural activity is undisciplined and complex.12

Ethnic studies has amply demonstrated that the migrations of various human groups are the results of economic, cultural, and social factors. The same is true of flora and fauna. Yet unlike other U.S. panethnic groups with claims to indigeneity (e.g., Hispanic, Native), or who have been Americanized through specific forms of cultural incorporation (e.g., black, white), "Orientals" (that is, Asians, Arabs, Pacific Islanders) have been marked uniquely as "forever foreigners."13 Hence the paradox much discussed in Asian/American studies: the perennial difficulties of thinking the Asian as American. However, our multispecies paradigm emphasizes how Asianness in the U.S. context is habitually interpreted not only as foreign, but also as invasive. The Second World War and subsequently revived fantasies of the "Yellow Peril" further reinforced this understanding, while perennial fears of spies (e.g., the Wen Ho Lee case) or Asian economic takeovers (e.g., by China and India), as well as campaigns to eradicate invasive Asian plants and animals, have kept these fears alive and well. After 9/11 Arabs and Asians were broadly confused as potential terrorists via the homogenizing discourse that Said termed Orientalism—wherein a nebulous and undifferentiated "East" is characterized as barbaric, exotic, and timeless in contrast to the civilized, familiar, and progressive West.14

The role of Orientalism in assembling Asian/America reminds us that circuits of flora and fauna are not completely free flowing or random but rather informed by the political economy of complex bio-geographies as well as a powerful political imaginary. Yet invasive species discourses in the United States tend to mask the cultural, economic, and political conditions of globalization under which the "foreign" enter "native" lands, often at the behest of the host.15 Thus we use the paradoxical term invited invasions [End Page 5] to highlight the contradictory nature of the "assembling" process. In the next section we rethink Asian/American identity and Orientalism as naturecultural assemblages before turning to a discussion of specific case studies of invited invasions—in particular the Asian long-horned beetle, kudzu, Asian snakehead, and Asian carp.

Orientalism as a Naturecultural Phenomenon

[The] inauguration of Orientalism was a considerable feat. It made possible a scientific terminology [and] put into cultural circulation a form of discursive currency by whose presence the Orient henceforth would be spoken for . . . reconstructive precision, science, even imagination could prepare the way for what armies, administrations, and bureaucracies would later do on the ground, in the Orient.

(Edward Said)16

At this early-twenty-first-century moment, "Asian American" is a familiar signifier in both academic and public contexts, evoking presumably coherent cultural and geographic referents. Yet as Kandice Chuh has argued, Asian American studies is a "subjectless" discourse because Asian America itself is not a fixed object but a diverse and evolving entity.17 As Yen Espiritu explained, panethnic "Asian American" identity is a social construction developed unevenly (and never completely) through cultural politics as well as legally (by the Nixon administration's Directive 15 in 1971, which inaugurated the five broad racial categories used in the U.S. census).18 Yet over time, what Gayatri Spivak called "strategic essentialism" has often been supplanted by uncritical notions of Asian American identity as an ontological reality as opposed to identification as a political strategy.19 As Vijay Prashad has argued, under state-managed multiculturalism, cultural essentialism largely replaced biological essentialism, conferring upon ethnicity a species-like genealogy of descent.20

It is here that we see the parallel to biology, where the definition of a "species" is an equally obscured process of epistemological or social construction. Indeed, one scholar notes twenty-six different definitions of species variously used in biology.21 For example, do we classify organisms by their ability to reproduce with one another (the biological species concept), by their differential structures (morphological species), or by [End Page 6] their environmental interdependence (ecological species)? And what of the asexually reproducing, multinuclear organism such as some fungi, where even the delineation of "an individual organism" is impossible? Quite evidently, the species concept is operationalized differently by biology's subdisciplines, as are ethnic and racial groups in different academic, cultural, or political contexts—all are ontologies generated bureaucratically for pragmatic, methodological, or political reasons. Ultimately a comparative examination of the conceptual categories in the biological sciences, Asian American studies, and women's studies reveals shared problems inherent in trying to categorize the tremendous diversity and fluidity of natural and cultural forms.

In her seminal essay, Lisa Lowe undermined such essentialisms by stressing Asian American "heterogeneity, hybridity, and multiplicity." This tripartite formulation is not a series of synonyms—each term has a distinct meaning that works to disrupt the "hegemonic relationship between 'dominant' and 'minority' positions."22 Lowe's framework enables us to understand the cultural and material conditions of Asians in the United States in terms other than the Orientalist construction of a monolithic and timeless "Asian American" presence. For present purposes, we find particularly salient Lowe's argument that the way Asian/America is "imagined, practiced, and continued [is] worked out as much 'horizontally' among communities as it is transmitted 'vertically' in unchanging forms from one generation to the next."23 For similarly, in the biological literature, evidence for horizontal or lateral gene transfer has considerably expanded our ideas of the genetic exchange of materials between organisms beyond the traditional ideas of genetic inheritance across generations.24 Lateral gene transfer challenges the taxonomies of biology: what is a species in the context of such change?25 In short, assembling Asian/America requires us to pay attention to both horizontal/lateral and vertical processes, of naturecultural interactions between present-day organisms as well as of intergenerational genealogical transfers. Like ethnicity or race, sex, gender, and species emerge as naturecultural phenomena that can be grasped only through a both/and rather than an either/or rubric—as a complex blend of both social construction and biological inheritance.

Assembling Asian/America as a multispecies paradigm brings fresh emphasis to a point that has been somewhat overlooked in discussions of [End Page 7] Said's original thesis—namely, that Orientalism is a systematic Western discourse that shaped and was shaped by science to gain mastery over a vast and hitherto uncharted "East."26 Orientalism, you might say, is itself a naturecultural phenomenon. Ultimately, the main observation, for Said, was that despite inevitable internal inconsistencies, Orientalism has retained remarkable structural cohesion and resilience over historical time and geographic locations. At the same time, however, Orientalism displays the ambivalence and contradictions of all cultural or psychological projections: desire is the other side of fear. That is, the Oriental—like the female, like the nonwhite—represents all that is repressed in a disembodied Enlightenment rationality. Thus the ancient sexual or spiritual arts—as well as scientific knowledges—of the East (e.g., Tantric practices, yoga, or alternative medicine) simultaneously evoke reverence and repulsion,. This is clearly seen even in posters popularizing the threats of foreign plants and animals. Invoking the traditional tropes of the "wanted" criminal along with exhortations to beware the "danger," such posters present, paradoxically, what often appear to be beautiful or innocuous life forms with symbols that signify a dire warning about the dangers of their reproduction.27 The superfertility of the female and rampant uncontrolled reproduction particularly mark invasion rhetoric. In so doing, these Orientalist and colonialist discourses feminize "Asia" itself as the masculine West's "other," reminding us that what is criminalized is also "wanted" or desired, and that gender and sexuality loom large in processes of assembling, dissembling, and reassembling. In the next section we turn to specific case studies before concluding with some reflections on the ethics and epistemologies of assembling Asian/America.

Invited Invasions: A Naturecultural History of Asian/America

The co-opting of strangers, the involvement and infolding of others into ever more complex and miscegenous genomes. . . . The acquisition of the reproducing other, of the microbe and the genome, is no mere sideshow. Attraction, merger, fusion, incorporation, co-habitation, recombination—both permanent and cyclical—and other forms of forbidden couplings, are the main sources of Darwin's missing variation.

(Margulis and Sagan)28 [End Page 8]

In the U.S. context, the vast majority of all species migrations (whether human, flora, or fauna) are invited invasions resulting from the demand for labor, beauty, aesthetics, utility, value, or entertainment. Like most Americans, the majority of U.S. crops are also foreign in origin.29 Their mutual history reveals vast parallels between the worlds of migrating humans and plants and nonhuman animals. For example, periods of heavy immigration are associated with germ panics.30 The histories of human immigrants are closely intertwined with a history of plants and nonhuman animals, and fears of human immigrants are routinely transferred onto fears of foreign plants and animals.31 Since this audience is quite familiar with the waves of Asian/American human immigrants and their histories, we focus on plants and animals in the rest of this section.

It is important to remember that our fear of foreign plants and animals and anxieties about open borders and quarantine programs are a recent preoccupation. The U.S. Department of Agriculture began a plant exploration program in 1890, through which they sent out plant explorers to roam the world in search of new, interesting, and useful plants and animals. These explorers brought back hundreds of plants. The lives of hundreds of crops, vegetables, and fruits were transformed by the botanical curiosity and exuberance of plant explorers. Dr. Douglas Fairchild, director of the USDA's Section of Seed and Plant Introduction from 1898 to 1928, traveled the world, bringing a range of fruit and vegetables such as avocados from Hawaii, mangoes from Bombay, onions from Egypt, bamboo from Japan, and soybeans from China. He is credited with the introduction of more than eighty thousand species and varieties into the United States.32 For example, today's fuzzy, sweet, juicy peach—now an icon for the southern state of Georgia—in fact has its origins in China, where it was collected by USDA plant explorers in the 1920s. Stories of these adventurers read "a bit like Indiana Jones" and fostered the creation of an adventurous, virile, white masculinity in representations of early naturalists that continues to haunt the field of ecology today.33 Nonetheless, this "exploratory" mode gave way to a more xenophobic discourse about invasive species.

For example, the Asian long-horned beetle (ALB), "starry sky," or "sky beetle" is a stunning beetle in luxurious black, studded with white spots. For most of its history, it occupied a "small and largely unremarkable [End Page 9] niche" in the forests of China, Korea, and Japan. However, with the increasing global concern around ecological degradation, ecological opportunities emerged in the 1960s and 1970s. The Chinese government, concerned with soil erosion and deforestation, planted stands of enormous windbreaks using millions of poplar trees. The ALB favors poplar trees, and the monoculture stands allowed tremendous growth opportunities for the beetle. Populations of ALB exploded, with the beetle and its larvae thriving in the poplar stands. The 1980s presented new and even greater and now global migration opportunities. With growing overseas trade, the world's companies needed wooden containers to transport goods. The stands of poplar trees provided great material for shipping pallets, and thus ALB larvae began to leave the Chinese shores for new lands in large numbers. Thus, the vagaries of international geopolitics, shifting economic and trade patterns, and poor environmental management have led to its new designation as an invasive pest. Like humans, who have also been stowaways throughout history, the ALB became a part of a transnational assemblage of multiple origins and complex causality.34

Or, take kudzu. A beautiful perennial vine in the pea family with large vibrant leaves with broad leaflets, it is a luxurious model of planthood. The Japanese government presented kudzu in the 1876 Centennial Explosion in Philadelphia to celebrate the hundredth birthday of the United States.35 The plant was marveled at and promptly embraced. Its deep taproots, its relationship with nitrogen-fixing bacteria, and its ability to propagate vegetatively through stolons are tremendously useful biological traits for healthy fertile soils and prevention of soil erosion. And indeed, in the 1940s the American Civilian Conservation Corps recognized the tremendous biological potential of kudzu and hired hundreds of men to plant it; farmers were paid as much as eight dollars an acre as an incentive. In one of the surprises of migrations, kudzu thrived in the American South. Indeed, it is argued that by leaving behind its many predators, kudzu grew much better in the American South than it ever did in Japan.36

Yet over time, this once admired and useful plant became increasingly vilified. Unlike in Japan, where kudzu is used for food and medicinal purposes, kudzu has never been assimilated into U.S. cultural practices. For example, in My Year of Meats, Ozeki uses the perspective of a Japanese [End Page 10] visitor to the United States to highlight the cultural relativity in constructing any given species as trash or treasure, pest or prize:

Suzuki put down the camera, dumbfounded. He hadn't realized that in the [American] South, kudzu was a weed—the whole time he was shooting it, he'd thought it was Vern's prized crop . . . he showed Vern how to turn them into starch, then how to use the starch to thicken sauces and batters. He made a salad with the shoots and the flowers, and even a hangover medicine that resembled milk of magnesia. Vern was astounded. He'd never thought of the plant as anything but an invasive weed.37

This suggests not only that both cultural and scientific analyses are needed to understand how kudzu came to populate the American South, but also how such relativistic and interdisciplinary understanding can help manage our ecological systems as well as put food on the table. As revealed in Ozeki's "biofiction," the lives of animals, plants, and humans are interwoven in a complex tale of interdependence.38 Nonetheless, this useful alien was transformed in the United States into an unwanted and vile invasive species now characterized as a "mile-a-minute vine," "foot-a-night vine," and "the vine that ate the South!"

To expand our thinking about Asian/America beyond the plant world, we turn to two fishier examples. First, let us consider the Asian snakehead of the family Channidae. A highly prized and valued fish in its native Asia, it has been viewed as an invasive and frightening species and the target of several media spectacles in the United States. Unlike most of the other species highlighted here, the Asian snakehead is believed to have come to the United States as a cotraveler with Asian humans who valued the delicacy in its native Asia as both a soup ingredient and a folk remedy.39 Several highly publicized U.S. media outbreaks brought the snakehead to fame, rendering a fish once prized for its medicinal properties as an evil "killer fish" and even resulting in absurd depictions of "baby evil killer fish."40 In 2002, it was found in a pond in Crofton, Maryland, allegedly bought there by a man from Hong Kong to make a healing soup for his sister who was ill. However, by the time the fish arrived, the sister had recovered. Once they got too big for his aquarium, he introduced them to a local pond,41 where they apparently thrived. [End Page 11]

Variously described as "alien monsters," "Frankenfish," "the stuff of nightmares," and "something from a bad horror movie," the snakehead headlines invoked alarm as a new kind of Yellow Peril. As one humorously quipped, "No, we're not talking about lawless corporate executives. The reviled species du jour is channaargus or the 'northern snakehead fish.'"42 Tourists from all over visited Crofton to sight the dreaded Frankenfish, while local entrepreneurs developed Snakehead paraphernalia, illustrating once more that "invasions" are often more profitable for, than parasitic upon, host societies.

Newspapers implied that this land-walking fish would consume all the other organisms in a pond and then walk on its pectoral fins to the neighboring pond and do the same. Yet homegrown fish experts balk at this characterization, arguing that snakeheads are a common "swamp fish," and their survival skills outside water are highly overblown; they are more sedentary than aggressive or predatory.43 Nonetheless, reminiscent of discourse about the unstoppable reproductive capacities of Third World women, the snakehead was feared as an indestructible breeding machine. In the context of a post-9/11 War on Terror, a simultaneous biotactical war was waged on the snakehead. Ultimately and ironically, officials did what they accused the snakehead of—they poisoned the pond to kill the snakehead and, in so doing, killed all life in it.44 Meanwhile, large-scale artificial breeding projects are under way in China and neighboring countries to meet a growing demand for snakehead meat throughout Asia.45

In another invited invasion, and not unlike prior importations of human labor from Asia, Asian carp were brought into the American South as "worker fish" imported to clean up enclosed areas by eating aquatic weeds.46 It is presumed that due to Mississippi River floods, the carp have now spread into much of the Midwest. Attempts to build borders and barriers of various kinds have largely failed.47 In March 2011, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services decided to ban the import and transport of the bighead carp under a century old law called the Lacey Act.48 As with the snakehead, a thriving paraphernalia industry and competitions around the carp have emerged.49

As with kudzu and Snakehead, carp is a prized delicacy in its native lands. Yet in one of the ironies of globalization and as a result of poor environmental [End Page 12] policies, it is difficult to find Asian carp in China because they have been fished out. Americans are not keen on eating carp, however, and so the governor of Illinois recently announced an agreement to sell carp to the Chinese. Thus, Big River Fish Corporation now harvests, packages, and ships carp to China as "Wild Asian Carp of IL." As the president of the company says, "I like to think [that] we're sendin' their own product back to 'em."50 Indeed, "The U.S. appears to be the only country that doesn't eat a carp."51 No one has found a marketing gimmick yet to make Americans eat carp—unlike Chilean sea bass, which has become a delicacy after being renamed from its original moniker, Patagonia toothfish.52 Companies in Illinois are trying to market carp by converting it into organic fertilizer as well as attempting to introduce it into the American market through products where the fish meat is ground into products such as salami, bologna, and even Asian carp jerky. Whether these efforts will be successful remains to be seen.53

The preceding examples foreground the role of global capitalism in generating particular kinds of assembling in which plants and nonhuman animals are deeply implicated in human migration and economic histories and politics. In each of these cases the Asian origin of the plant, insect, or fish is clearly signaled in their names and publicity. While invasive species are not all "Asian," they are all clearly not "native." In this instance, it is Asianness that precludes some from inhabiting the naturecultural space of Americanness. Furthermore, invasive species rhetoric always places the organism as the site of the "problem"—obscuring the larger contexts that have constructed them as such. As the examples above show, the cases in question are less about biological predilections to invasion and more about the forces of globalization. Indeed species that are "invasive" outside their native ranges are unlikely to be so within their home ranges.54 These vilified species have assembled in "Asian/America" precisely because U.S. political, economic, biological, and political institutions have invited them to do so. Yet discourses about "solutions" in immigration or invasive species discourses rarely interrogate the contexts of globalization, trade policies, or development, but rather focus on eradicating the Asian/foreign organism.

Here, it is striking how gendered, raced, and colonial tropes emerge again and again. Attempts such as the Chinese Exclusion Act have always [End Page 13] sought to limit and curtail the Asian/American family, and Orientalist tropes consistently highlight the fecundity of the "Orient," in the uncontrolled sexuality of its males and the superfertility of its women. Concerns about "overpopulation" are heightened by the uncritical and easy elision of sexual and asexual reproduction where sexual reproduction appears as fecund a possibility as asexual reproduction—since Orientalism conflates the former with the latter. The problem of invasive species also highlights the "otherness" of Oriental peoples—for example, in their penchant for exotic and dangerous food such as kudzu or snakehead. As the "Yellow Peril" stereotype in a more complimentary disguise, Asian/Americans have also been cast as a "model minority," where the achievements of some Asian groups forever mark all Asians as diligent students, math and science prodigies, and so on, and therefore implicit threats to the upward mobility of others.55 In short, the foreignness, resilience, strength, and near "indestructability" of the Asian/American recurs again and again, signaling the impossibility of destroying foreign/exotic humans, as well as flora and fauna.

This observation enables an important clarification of our focus in this essay. There are other ways of assembling a naturecultural Asian/ America that carry a more positive valence: for example, the earlier mentioned peach that is now associated with the state of Georgia rather than its country of origin, China, or the cherry blossoms that were originally a gift from the Japanese government and have certainly taken root in the nation's capital, Washington, D.C., are no longer seen as foreign, but have been assimilated as iconic harbingers of a particularly American springtime. Yet others, like tumbleweed (Eurasian in origin), have become so deeply assimilated that they are seen iconically and quintessentially part of the American West. Likewise, the burgeoning Western interest in Eastern spirituality/yoga as well as many forms of Asian cultural and food production are not marked as undesirable or dangerous but absorbed into the host culture or appropriated into the U.S. melting pot myth in uncritical forms of multiculturalism.56 For present purposes, however, we have limited our discussion to those assemblages framed by the discourse of invasive species. Future studies could begin to untangle why some cultural, historical, or material particularities construct some Asian/American [End Page 14] formations as desirable and instruct us to beware others. What gets framed as an "invasion," and what becomes a "trend"? How might these differences correspond to the ways in which U.S. economic and political interests historically generate a cycle of the vilification and rehabilitation of Asian nations (China, Japan, and Korea being prominent examples)? In addition, other racialized dynamics would yield different assemblages, such as in the U.S. South, where the history of slavery and white/black relations might generate particular tropes of miscegenation that might resonate with, but take distinctly different trajectories from, the trope of invasion that we describe here.57

Feminist science studies has begun to illuminate the connections between natures and cultures, and it is in that spirit that we have tried to show how assembling Asian/America reveals kindred structures across human, nonhuman, animate, and inanimate objects. This approach suggests that multiple "Asian" species share a natural and cultural stage in the West haunted by the long-enduring and entirely man-made tropes of Orientalism. Shifting the focus to the "invited" aspects of their allegedly invasive tendencies is one way, we believe, to foster more nuanced ethico-political engagements.

Ecologies, Epistemologies, and Ethics

Organisms are ecosystems of genomes, consortia, communities, partially digested dinners, and mortal boundary formations.58

Our world today is the product of dense traffic between natural and cultural worlds. So how do we begin "retying the knots of multi-specied living on earth"?59 Like globalization, this enmeshed relation between humans and other species has always already existed; as with the "invention" of homosexuality or miscegenation, what varies historically is whether and how cultures give recognition to these phenomena. We suspect that the ongoing attachment to such categories as human, animal, ethnicity, sex, gender, and species ultimately serves—however inadvertently at times—to re-create "pure" entities in an "original" nature or "native" land. In contrast, naturecultural assembling allows us to trace the inextricable interconnections of plant and animal evolutions and human histories, and to admit [End Page 15] a horizontal approach that looks at how race, sex, gender, and species are constantly and mutually assembling and reassembling.

Four intellectual impulses have undergirded our efforts to assemble Asian/America:

First, we have tried to trouble individual organisms and categories because we suspect that the persistence of singular entities prevents us from thinking in more ecological terms. Instead, we draw from the biological sciences and the recent turn to multispecies ethnography to view all life forms as continually assembling in naturecultural formations. Human beings, for example, are assembling at the organismic level: we are constituted by agriculture (literally, we are what we eat), and coevolved with myriad species of bacteria, insects, and worms, as well as prosthetics; we live in relation to companion species, as well as in social assemblages of various kinds. In addition, individuals (of all life forms) are themselves assembling at a fundamental level: there is a deeper "cellular" story of assembling to be told. Invoking the idea of symbiogenesis, Margulis and others suggest that individual human cells are themselves a product of a long history of symbiotic interactions of unicellular organisms.60 Each of our cells houses multiple life forms that have lived together for millennia. Thus, while affective or empathetic bonds inform some interspecies relations, there are also many other forces at work in coevolutionary processes. Thus, whereas an emphasis on sentience may inadvertently recenter the animal (humans and others), assemblings create a multispecies model in which certain constituent parts are not privileged over the others.

Second, for us, assembling is a naturecultural process in which the natural and cultural are fully imbricated in one another in historically specific but continuously evolving instantiations. Feminist science studies has reminded us since its inception that the material and the semiotic are not oppositional but co-constituted realms. In that spirit, we have adapted the idea of "social semiosis" for a concept of biosocial semiosis. That is, there is no nature or organism outside cultural meaning—all are assembling in historical contexts and thus evolving in their significance, as well as mutating and transforming materially. Akin to literary theories of intertextuality, this biosocial semiotic paradigm views the boundaries of any single organism or assemblage as permeable and shifting, a temporary formation in a coevolutionary story. [End Page 16]

Third, we have emphasized the importance of paying attention to both horizontal/lateral and vertical processes of naturecultural interactions between present-day organisms as well as of transfers across generations. The world of viruses and bacteria actively moves around bits of DNA acting as veritable cross-pollinators of our genomes, sowing the seeds to new futures and evolutions of multispecies assemblings.61 Indeed, the sequencing of the human genome revealed that endogenous retroviruses accounted for as much as 8 percent of human genetic material "as parasitic symbionts that laterally integrated with humans."62 This world of viruses opens new possibilities of life and "becoming with," Haraway's expansion of Deleuze and Guattari's concept of "becoming," signaling the possibilities of relations through alliance instead of filiation.63 Indeed, the microscopic world is teeming with cross-species and multispecies exchanges. Viruses have the capacity to replicate without reproduction and do so copiously without fidelity or durability,64 such that Stefan Helmreich has proposed that we need to rethink the social relations of micro and microbial worlds as "symbiopolitics."65

Fourth and finally, our attempt to theorize relations among non-commensurate objects and histories is fundamentally about recovering a vibrant mode of interdisciplinarity. The constituent elements of complex assemblages have been splintered off by disciplinary epistemologies; as such, interdisciplinarity itself is a syncretic method that assembles. Yet our paradigm is less interdisciplinary and more undisciplined in the sense that we are not bringing new objects into being as much as rethinking the disciplinary tendency to define "an" object. As such, ethnicity, sex, and gender are only some facets of the robustly intersectional analytic demanded by the concept of assembling, which may yield unrecognizable yet valuable new naturecultural studies.

So how does viewing Asian/America as a naturecultural assemblage afford ethnic studies any greater insight or ethical responsibility? Here we want to return to the theoretical ideas with which we began. Just as a "disciplined" academy has carved out the objects of the world into singular, sterile, and sanitized disciplinary formations, so too have been the solutions offered to the problems that ail the world. In focusing on political discourses, progressive proimmigration activists may be blind to the powerful ways in which progressive environmental activists shore up [End Page 17] anti-immigrant sentiments through racist and sexist discourses of foreign and exotic flora and fauna. Yet, just like with human immigrants, attempts to close borders, build fences, and inspect new entrants have proven more symbolic than effective.66 As we have argued, foreign species do not randomly circulate through open borders but rather through complex naturecultural processes, and it is ethically incumbent and ecologically imperative upon us to acknowledge this.

However, we want to make clear that our critique of invasive species discourse is not a defense of the unregulated flow of life forms, objects, or capital across borders. Ecological imbalances, threats to biodiversity, and multiple forms of scarcity are real and require ethical management. Rather, we want to suggest that disciplinary myopias and political agendas misplace and displace the problems of unfettered development by scapegoating foreign species as the problem. Environmental and public policies that organize campaigns against individual plant and animal species often focus on the individual identity or "foreignness" of the plant/ animal rather than the ecological or economic conditions that render the species "invited." Many migrant species have been inhabitants for a long time—what ecological and political conditions render them "invasive" now? Furthermore, how and in what ways have ecological, economic, developmental, and public policies transformed our ecosystem into one so vulnerable? We do not deny the vast and unfortunate transformations of our ecological landscape; rather, we argue that the focus instead should be on the larger and interrelated forces that have caused ecological degradation rather than the identity of individual species, for example, their Asian/Americanness. If we do not transform our ecological policies, the conditions of ecological degradation will undoubtedly persist.67

If globalization is itself assembling us, often against our will, then activism also needs to take the form of an exploratory verb rather than a fixed noun: as economic geographer J. K. Gibson-Graham has argued, "a postcapitalist politics" requires an openness to becoming, not rigid ontologies of being.68 While some might say that the amorphous "looseness" of the assembling concept is too indistinct to be epistemologically or politically useful, we would respond that such assembling processes are already at work. The issue is whether or not we will recognize them. [End Page 18] Only in acknowledging that plant and nonhuman animal migrations are deeply intertwined with human histories can we formulate better analyses or make better decisions about the role human beings should play within their ecosystems. Ultimately, we can address what ails us only by communicating in a biosemiotic syntax that bespeaks a more ethical, moral, and sustainable future.

Karen Cardozo

Karen Cardozo is a Research Associate at Five Colleges, Inc. She has taught humanities and interdisciplinary courses on all campuses of the Five College consortium of Western Massachusetts. Her scholarly publications include essays on American ethnic, literary and trauma studies, contemplative studies, cultural studies of science (with Banu Subramaniam), pedagogy, and the profession. Her current project integrates many of these areas, adapting the concerns of environmental justice for higher education reform.

Banu Subramaniam

Banu Subramaniam is associate professor of women, gender, sexuality studies at University of Massachusetts, Amherst. She is coeditor of Feminist Science Studies: A New Generation (Routledge, 2001) and Making Threats: Biofears and Environmental Anxieties (Rowman and Littlefield, 2005). Trained as a plant evolutionary biologist, her work is located at the intersections of biology, women's studies, ethnic studies, and postcolonial studies. Her current research focuses on the xenophobia and nativism that accompany frameworks on invasive plant species, and the relationship of science and religious nationalism in India.


1. Ruth Ozeki, All Over Creation (New York: Penguin, 2003), 171.

2. S. Eben Kirksey and Stefan Helmreich, "The Emergence of Multispecies Ethnography," Cultural Anthropology 25, no. 4 (2010): 545-76.

3. Shu-mei Shih, "Global Literature and the Technologies of Recognition," PMLA 119 (2004): 16-30, 27.

4. Ibid., 27.

5. Donna Haraway, How Like a Leaf: An Interview with Thyrza Nichols Goodve (New York: Routledge, 1999).

6. Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia, trans. Brian Massumi (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1980).

7. Aihwa Ong and Steven J. Collier, Global Assemblages: Technology, Politics, and Ethics as Anthropological Problems (Malden, Mass.: Wiley-Blackwell, 2004). In one scholar's gloss, "agencement designates the priority of neither the state of affairs nor [any] statement [about it] but of their connection, which implies the production of a sense that exceeds them and of which, transformed, they now form parts" (see http://courses.nus.edu.sg/course/elljwp/deleuzeandguattari.htm). This speaks to the impossibility of getting "outside" the objects we study as well as producing pure objects. That is, their interconnections in a relative context give meanings to concepts and objects. Aihwa Ong and Steven Collier's and more recently Jasbir Puar's articulations of assemblages have also been clarifying in our use of the term, particularly the latter's emphasis that as a theoretical tool, the assemblage concept itself can never be fixed and we must be willing to adapt in response to its changing iterations or even dispense of it when it ceases to be useful.

8. Ong and Collier, Global Assemblages; Jasbir K. Puar, Terrorist Assemblages: Homonationalism in Queer Times (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 2007).

9. We thank one of our anonymous JAAS reviewers for this astute observation.

10. David Palumbo-Liu, Asian/American: Historical Crossings of a Racial Frontier (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1999), 1.

11. Richard C. Lewontin, The Triple Helix: Gene, Organism and Environment (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2000).

12. Ozeki, All Over Creation. [End Page 19]

13. Mia Tuan, Forever Foreigners or Honorary Whites? The Asian Ethnic Experience Today (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1998).

14. Edward Said, Orientalism (New York: Vintage, 1979).

15. Sarah Hayden Reichard and Peter White, "Horticulture as a Pathway of Invasive Place Introductions in the United States," BioScience 51, no. 2 (2001): 103-13.

16. Edward Said, in Alexander MacFie, ed., Orientalism: A Reader (New York: New York University Press, 2000), 107.

17. Kandice Chuh, Imagine Otherwise: On Asian American Critique (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 2003).

18. Yen Espiritu, Asian American Panethnicity: Bridging Institutions and Identities (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1993).

19. Angela Davis and Eduardo Mendieta, Abolition Democracy (New York: Seven Stories Press, 2005).

20. Vijay Prashad, Everybody Was Kung-Fu Fighting: Afro-Asian Connections and the Myth of Cultural Purity (Boston: Beacon, 2001).

21. R. L. Mayden, "A Hierarchy of Species Concepts: The Denouement in the Saga of the Species Problem," in Species: The Units of Biodiversity, ed. M. F. Flaridge, H. A. Dawah, and R. Wilson (London: Chapman and Hall, 1997), 381-423.

22. Lisa Lowe, "Heterogeneity, Hybridity, Multiplicity: Marking Asian American Differences," in Immigrant Acts: On Asian American Cultural Politics (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1996), 60-83, 67.

23. Ibid., 64.

24. Maria Boikels Gogarten, Johann Peter Gogarten, and Lorraine Olendzenski, Horizontal Gene Transfer: Genomes in Flux (Methods in Molecular Biology) (New York: Humana Press, 2009).

25. Stefan Helmreich, Alien Ocean: Anthropological Voyages in Microbial Seas (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2009).

26. Whereas this aspect may have receded somewhat in the context of Said's voluminous original text, the point is emphasized in a filmed interview given by Said in a discussion of Napoleon's conquest of Egypt, which was not only a military conquest but one that deployed "an army" of scholars and scientists to catalog and gain mastery over what they found. Sut Jhally, director, Edward Said on Orientalism (Northampton, Mass.: Media Education Foundation, 2005).

27. Posters modeled on "danger," "stop signs," "No" (with a cross hatch), and "wanted" are ubiquitous in the invasive species management circles. These posters usually present an often innocuous or even beautiful plant or animal with clear instructions to educate the public on how to identify them. A simple web search reveals the numerous ongoing campaigns that use a model familiar from the human world to warn and mobilize the public. For example, see: http://na.fs.fed.us/fhp/alb/pubs/poster/wanted.htm. Also, the web reveals fascinating and numerous instances of classroom exercises involving students creating "wanted" posters for schoolwork. [End Page 20]

28. Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan, Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of Species (New York: Basic Books, 2002), 205.

29. Mark Sagoff, "Why Exotic Species Are Not as Bad as We Fear," Chronicle of Higher Education 46 (June 23, 2000): http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Exotic-Species-Are-Not-as/2045.

30. Nancy Tomes, "The Making of a Germ Panic, Then and Now," American Journal of Public Health 90, no. 2 (February 2000): 191-99.

31. Banu Subramaniam, "The Aliens Have Landed: Reflections on the Rhetoric of Biological Invasions," in Making Threats: Biofears and Environmental Anxieties, ed. Betsy Hartmann, Banu Subramaniam, and Charles Zerner (Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2005): 135-147..

32. Michael Conlon, "Flowering Cherry Trees—A Gift from Japan" (USD Foreign Agricultural Service Global Agricultural Information Network, GAIN Report Number JA0507, 2010), http://www.usdajapan.org/en/reports/20100330_Japanese%20Flowering%20Cherry%20Trees.pdf.

33. Kim Kaplan, "The Plant Hunters" (USDA Agricultural Research Service, n.d.), http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/kids/plants/story4/story4.htm.

34. Peter Alsop, "Invasion of the Longhorn Beetles," Smithsonian Magazine, November 2009, http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Invasion-of-he-Longhorns.html; Carol MacAusland and Christopher Costello, "Avoiding Invasives: Trade-Related Policies for Controlling Unintentional Exotic Species Introductions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 45, no. 2 (2004): 954-77.

35. Irwin Forseth and Anne Innis, "Kudzu: History, Physiology, and Ecology Combine to Make a Major Ecosystem Threat," Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 23, no. 5 (September-October 2004): 401-13.

36. Richard J. Blaustein, "Kudzu's Invasion into Southern United States Life and Culture," In The Great Reshuffling: Human Dimensions of Invasive Alien Species, ed. Jeffrey A.McNeeley (Gland, Switzerland: World Conservation Union, 2001), 55-62. The popular websites about kudzu are wonderful! See, for example, "The Amazing Story of Kudzu: Love It, or Hate It . . . It Grows on You," http://maxshores.com/kudzu/.

37. Ruth Ozeki, My Year of Meats (New York: Penguin, 1998), 75-76.

38. Karen Cardozo and Banu Subramaniam, "Genes, Genera, Genre: The Naturecultures of Biofiction in Ruth Ozeki's All Over Creation," in Tactical Biopolitics: Art, Activism, and Technoscience, ed. Beatriz da Costa and Kavita Philip (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2008), 269-87.

39. Walter R. Courtney and James D. Williams, "Snakeheads (Pisces, Channidae)—A Biological Synopsis and Risk Assessment" (U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Circular 1251, 2004).

40. "Freak Fish Have Spawned! Oh My!," CBS News, July 12, 2002.

41. Anita Huslin, "Snakeheads' Luck Put Pond in the Soup: In Sparing His Fish, Crofton Man Imperiled Others," Washington Post, July 12, 2002, A1, http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/snakehead/news0712.php. [End Page 21]

42. David Emery, "Attack of the Frankenfish: Northern Snakehead Fish Invades North America," About.com Urban Legends, 2002, http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/fish/a/snakehead.htm.

44. Candus Thomson, "Fish Poison Applied to Pond," Baltimore Sun, September 5, 2002, http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bal-te.md.snakehead05sep05,0,3940490.story.

45. Emery, "Attack of the Frankenfish."

46. Alan Burdick, "The Truth about Invasive Species: How to Stop Worrying and Learn to Love Ecological Intruders," Discover Magazine 26, no. 5 (2005): http://discovermagazine.com/2005/may/cover#.UMIRRKWpVhM

47. Todd M. Koel, Kevin S. Irons, and Eric Ratcliff, "Asian Carp Invasion of the Upper Mississippi River System" (U.S. Geological Survey, PSR 2000-05, November 2000), http://www.umesc.usgs.gov/documents/project_status_re-ports/2000/psr00_05.pdf.

48. Kari Lydersen, "Notre Dame Professor Leads Effort to Keep Asian Carp Out of Great Lakes," New York Times, March 31, 2010.

49. Ian Frazier, "Fish Out of Water: The Asian Carp Invasion," New Yorker, October 25, 2010, 66-73.

50. Ibid.

51. "An Old Fashioned Strategy to Keep Asian Carp at Bay in the Great Lakes: Eat Them," PBS NewsHour, July 26, 2012, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/july-dec12/carp_07-26.html.

52. An area for future inquiry is the politics of naming in exotic/foreign/invasive species discourse. Why do some species retain their Latinized or "scientific" name, while others are named for geographic origin or take on more colorful (and racist) terminology? What is in a name, and who does the naming?

53. "Old Fashioned Strategy to Keep Asian Carp at Bay."

54. Michelle Marvier, Peter Kareiva, and Michael Neubert, "Habitat Destruction, Fragmentation, and Disturbance Promote Invasion by Habitat Generalists in a Multispecies Metapopulation," Risk Analysis 24, no. 4 (2004): 869-78.

55. As many within Asian/Asian American studies have noted, the backhanded "compliment" of the model minority designation serves as a divide-and-conquer strategy between Asian/Americans and other ethnic groups while erasing the significant cultural and socioeconomic differences within the larger panethnic rubric. For a good summation of problems with the model minority discourse, see Timothy Fong, The Contemporary Asian American Experience: Beyond the Model Minority, 3rd ed. (Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 2007) . For a discussion of the potential psychological consequences, see Anne Anlin Cheng, The Melancholy of Race: Psychoanalysis, Assimilation and Hidden Grief (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001) and David Eng and Shinhee Han, "A Dialogue on Racial Melancholia," Psychoanalytic Dialogues 10, no. 4 (2000): 667-700. [End Page 22]

56. Sunaina Maira, "Henna and Hip Hop: The Politics of Cultural Production and the Work of Cultural Studies," Journal of Asian American Studies 3, no. 3 (2000): 329-69.

57. Thanks to Susan Fraiman, a participant in the Sex, Gender, and Species conference at Wesleyan University (February 25-26, 2011), where we presented an early version of this essay, for bringing this point to our attention.

58. Donna Haraway, 2008. When Species Meet. Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press: 31

59. Donna Haraway.,2008. When Species Meet. Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press: 2.

60. Victor Fet and Lynn Margulis, Symbiogenesis: A New Principle of Evolution Boris Kikahylovich Kozo-Polyansky, Harvard University Press, 2010; Rudolf Hagemann, "The reception of the Schimper-Mereschkowsky endosymbiont hypothesis on the origin of plastids- between 1883 and 1960," Annals of the History and Philosophy of Biology, Vol. 12 (2007): 41-59, Lynn Margulis, Symbiotic Planet: A look at Evolution (Amherst, Mass.: Perseus, 1998); Margulis and Sagan, Acquiring Genomes.

61. Margulis and Sagan, Acquiring Genomes.

62. Cailtlin Berrigan, "The Life Cycle of a Common Weed: Viral Imaginings in Plant-Human Encounters," Women's Studies Quarterly 40, nos. 1-2 (Spring/Summer 2012): 97-116, 106; also see Frank P. Ryan, "Human Endogenous Retroviruses in Health and Disease: A Symbiotic Perspective," Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 97 (2004): 560-65.

63. Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia, trans. Brian Massumi (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1980).: 234.

64. Patricia Clough and Jasbir Puar, "Introduction: Viruses," Women's Studies Quarterly 40, nos. 1-2 (Spring/Summer 2012): 13-26; Alexander Galloway and Eugene Thacker, The Exploit, A Theory of Networks (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2007).

65. Helmreich, Alien Ocean.

66. Mark A. Davis, Matthew K. Chew, Richard J. Hobbs, Ariel E. Lugo, John J. Ewel, Geerat J. Vermeij, James H. Brown, Michael L. Rosenzweig, Mark R. Gardener, Scott P. Carroll, Ken Thompson, Steward T. A. Pickett, Juliet C. Stromberg, Pater Del Tredici, Katharine N. Sudin, Joan G. Ehrenfeld, J. Philip Grime, Joseph Mascaro, and John C Briggs, "Don't Judge Species on Their Origins," Nature 474 (2011): 53-154.

67. Subramaniam, "Aliens Have Landed."

68. J. K. Gibson-Graham, A Postcapitalist Politics (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2006). [End Page 23]