ABSTRACT This paper aims to complicate elements proposed in Cohen’s typology of diaspora, which assumes that all diasporic communities speak with one voice with regard to defining moments in their history, as well as the fate of their people going forward. Focusing on the collective identity embodied by the flag, this paper demonstrates the extent to which this collective representation can create both unity and disunity. A symbol which is powerful also has the potential to polarize. My research examines the role of intellectuals in articulating group identity, and the tension they experience as they attempt to navigate a plurality of roles which are often in conflict with one another. Intellectuals are well aware that in their professional capacities as academics/writers/journalists/artists/community representatives, they are compelled to remain objective on political issues. This demand for objectivity may be at variance with both their personal views and the expectation of their community. Data collected through in-depth interviewing reveal that it is often facile and misleading to posit the existence of homogeneity and unity around politics, memory, and commemoration. As Georg Simmel reminded us, conflict is ubiquitous, and may in fact be generative rather than destructive.

中文翻译：

---

记忆与纪念的政治：北美越南侨民知识分子的旗帜辩论与观点

摘要 本文旨在使 Cohen 的侨民类型学中提出的元素复杂化，该分类假设所有侨民社区都以一种声音谈论他们历史上的决定性时刻，以及他们人民未来的命运。本文着眼于旗帜所体现的集体身份，展示了这种集体表现在多大程度上可以创造统一和不统一。一个强大的符号也有极化的潜力。我的研究考察了知识分子在阐明群体身份中的作用，以及他们在试图驾驭经常相互冲突的多元化角色时所经历的紧张局势。知识分子很清楚，在他们作为学者/作家/记者/艺术家/社区代表的专业能力中，他们被迫在政治问题上保持客观。这种对客观性的要求可能与他们的个人观点和社区的期望不一致。通过深入访谈收集的数据表明，假设围绕政治、记忆和纪念活动存在同质性和统一性，往往是轻率和误导性的。正如乔治·齐美尔提醒我们的那样，冲突无处不在，实际上可能是产生性的而不是破坏性的。