Seeing that you're more than half a person

-Enriching our racial identity by using a non-zero-sum game perspective

Anthony hid behind a tree at the edge of the neighborhood park. He was watching some kids near his age play baseball. Even though he lived right next to the park and all the kids knew he could play baseball he was seldom ever invited to play. Even when he finally mustered the courage to ask them, they only let him play out of politeness because Anthony's dad was their English teacher at school.

I experienced a racially motivated exclusion based on an odd positive stereotype as a 'half' child with Japanese and American parents growing up in Japan. In Japan being 'half' or 'hapa' meant that I was considered a pseudo-Japanese person with an unfair Caucasian/American advantage. The exclusion I now experience in America is often the opposite where I am considered a pseudo-American with an unfair 'Asian' advantage. While I haven't experienced outward hostility based on my race, I've been consistently categorized as 'other'. Effectively, rather than being both Japanese and American, I was being told I was neither. As scientists, we often deal with categorical data. We categorize things in yes/no, 0 or 1, etc. We categorize because categorizing is easier than measuring something in detail. So, in regard to race, am I categorized as a 0 or a 1? From a numeric standpoint, I am 0.5 but from a social point of view, I am often considered either a 0 in a group of 1s or a 1 in a group of 0s. Even the 'correct' 0.5 is sad because it implies I am only half an American. These phenomena can be broadly converted into the terms of zero-sum games(game theory). In zero-sum games, there are only two outcomes, a winner, and a loser. Zero-sum games operate on a fixed resource pool that has fixed values. To win, I must steal and/or hoard all the resources for myself. What does this mean in terms of racial identity? When I am playing a zero-sum game, I must lose part of my identity to gain another. For example, in a zero-sum game, I could try to lose my Caucasian side in Japan to win, or in America, I could try to lose my Japanese side to win. In these examples, I need to lose part of my identity to fully obtain the identity that allows me to win in each respective social context. In zero-sum games, someone must lose. However, in regards to racial identity, I am effectively playing the game within myself, thus a part of me must lose for another part of me to win. But why play a game where I have to lose a part of myself to win? I could instead change the game I play to a non-zero-sum game. In non-zero-sum games, the resource pool does not have a fixed value or size. What does this mean? It means that both/all players can win by exchanging resources that have increased value to the other player. In the context of racial identity, this means that I can use my American side to improve my Japanese side and my Japanese side to improve my American side. Simply put, I can be a better American by using my Japanese identity! This doesn't mean I am some winning fraction American with some winning fraction of Japanese, rather I can multiply my American and Japanese together to become a rich mixture of both. Moving beyond the zero-sum game. Thinking in terms of zero-sum games is self-limiting. Many of us have heard statements where those important to us say we're not "X" enough (American enough, Hispanic enough, Black enough, Asian enough, etc.). This is because we are still operating under the notion that we can only successfully be one thing. We can be more. The different experiences and things that make us who we are need not be subtractive or divisive but can be additive and multiplicative. Next time instead of asking ourselves what we need to lose to win the game, why don't we ask what parts of our identity can we use additively so that all of us can win?