Desis and Racial Minority Politics: Disrupting Assumptions of Ethnoracial Solidarity: Current sociological analyses of Desi political interests are incomplete because they gravitate toward flattened identity-based, and electoral-based, understandings of ethnoracial groups. This study examines the political agendas and campaigns of four political organizations, located in New York City and Washington, D.C., with South Asian-origin members and constituents. These groups are 1) The Washington Leadership Program; 2) South Asian Americans Leading Together; and 3) Seva New York; and 4) Desis Rising Up and Moving. I collected qualitative data via in-person interviews (n=40) and participant observations (n=10) with members and organizational leaders, and at public events and programs. A key finding from this study is that South Asians are not a cohesive political force. The narratives demonstrate that the political agendas and activities of each organization undoubtedly shift and evolve in response to racializing moments (such as the events and aftermath of September 11, 2001). The data also illustrate that because the political interests of South Asian Americans get activated in subgroups, along the margins, and fragmentally, their agendas still cannot be captured through a shared ethnoracial or "panethnic" experience. While the desire for ethnoracial solidarity comes from an identification of common cause, the internal fragments – defined by issues of class, religion, gender, sexuality, nation of origin, immigration and citizenship status, and language – point to the difficulty of developing an authentic practice of intra-ethnic solidarity for Desis. Further, each organization's relationship to building alliances and coalitions cross-racially further delineate the fragmented nature of Desi political values. Based on the narratives from participants and leaders in these organizations, I make a case for why sociologists need to expand their theoretical lens for interpreting South Asian political agendas and locate Desi politicization along an “assimilation-to-racialization continuum” that intersects the paradigms of “assimilation” and “racialization” in conversation with one another. The categories between the “assimilation-to-racialization continuum” are as follows: “Wholehearted Assimilation (of Racial Minorities into the Mainstream Elite),” “Model Minority Assimilation (into "Honorary Whiteness”) ,” “Normalizing Minority Representation and Racial Diversity,” “Racial Justice and Progressive Inclusivity,” and “Empowering the Most Marginalized for Social Justice & Transformative Change.” Although this study reveals the specificity of an “assimilation-to-racialization continuum” and its application to the political lives of South Asian Americans, we can nevertheless think of ways that this model can be extended to other ethnic and racial groups in the U.S. I posit that we adopt the “assimilation-to-racialization continuum” to better understand how fragmented ethnoracial communities engage the political sphere. / Sociology