Negotiating Ethnic Boundaries

http://etn.sagepub.
com
Ethnicities
DOI: 10.1177/1468796804040329
2004; 4; 75 Ethnicities
TomS R. Jim...nez
Ethnic Identity in the United States
Negotiating Ethnic Boundaries: Multiethnic Mexican Americans and
http://etn.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/4/1/75
The online version of this article can be found at:
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
can be found at: Ethnicities Additional services and information for
http://etn.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:
http://etn.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:
http://etn.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/4/1/75
SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms):
(this article cites 11 articles hosted on the Citations
2004 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
by Serban Vaetisi on November 28, 2007 http://etn.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Negotiating ethnic boundaries
Multiethnic Mexican Americans and ethnic identity in the
United States
TOMS R. JIMNEZ
Harvard University, USA
ABSTRACT This article examines the ethnic identity of the offspring of
Mexican/white (non-Hispanic) intermarriages, or multiethnic Mexican Americans,
using 20 in-depth interviews with multiethnic Mexican Americans in California.
Interviews indicate that respondents gravitate toward a Mexican American ethnic
identity since it is the most salient ethnicity in their social environment. But as
respondents choose their identities, they confront ethnic boundaries, or sharp
division between ethnic categories, that inuence the extent to which they feel free
to assert any one particular identity. They respond to these boundaries by taking a
symbolic approach, a Mexican American approach, a multiethnic approach to their
ethnicity, and a combination of these approaches.
KEYWORDS assimilation identity construction intermarriage multi-
ethnicity
INTRODUCTION
The Mexican-origin population constitutes the second largest minority
group in the United States. The 2000 US Census counted 20,640,711 people
of Mexican origin living in the USA, comprising 7.3 percent of the total US
population. Counted in this population is a large number of people who
trace their ethnic roots to multiple origins, Mexico being just one of them.
These individuals are the offspring of one Mexican-descent parent and one
non-Mexican descent parent. Yet we know little about how the offspring of
this population identies when they are not forced to make mutually
exclusive choices because Census gures provide no information on how
A R T I C L E
Copyright 2004 SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi) 1468-7968
Vol 4(1): 7597; 040329
DOI:10.117/1468796804040329
www.sagepublications.com
76
the children of these unions identify. The identity choices that children of
these intermarriages make have implications for how we think about race
and ethnicity in the US and for how we understand the inuence that
exogamy has on the assimilation of the Mexican-origin population (Alonso
and Waters, 1993).
This article examines the identity of multiethnic Mexican Americans
the offspring of intermarriages between one white-non-Hispanic parent
and one Mexican parent living in California. According to the US racial
and ethnic classication system, people of Hispanic origin (Mexicans,
Cubans, Puerto Ricans, Central and South Americans, and Spanish) can be
of any race, including white. Thus, a person who is white-non-Hispanic is
racially white, but not Hispanic, according to this system. For simplicity I
use the term white for white non-Hispanic.
While research focuses on various dimensions of assimilation for the
Mexican-origin population, such as education (Bean et al., 1994; Ortiz 1996;
Rumbaut and Portes, 2001), politics (de la Garza and DeSipio, 1998;
Skerry, 1993), and residential/spatial (Massey and Denton, 1992), much less
attention has been paid to Mexican intermarriage (Murgua, 1982) and
virtually no scholarly attention centers on the identity choices of the multi-
ethnic Mexican American population.
This research provides insight into the lives of this population by explor-
ing how 20 multiethnic Mexican Americans choose identities, and the
consequences associated with their choices. I nd that multiethnic Mexican
Americans gravitate toward a Mexican American identity because it is the
most readily available ethnic identity in their social environment. However,
when multiethnic Mexican Americans assert a Mexican American identity,
they confront ethnic boundaries, or a sharp division between ethnic
categories, that inuence the extent to which they feel free to assert any
one particular identity. I use Cornells (2000) conceptualization of ethnic-
ity as a narrative to understand how encounters with ethnic boundaries
shape multiethnic Mexican Americans ethnic identity. These encounters
remind multiethnic Mexican Americans of the ways that their own narra-
tive both departs from, and overlaps with, the Mexican American narra-
tive. These experiences lead multiethnic Mexican Americans to take a
symbolic approach, a Mexican American approach, a multiethnic
approach, or to combine approaches in forming their ethnic identity.
THEORIZING MULTIETHNICITY
Much of the research on multiethnicity in the USA is situated within a
broader debate on immigrant-group assimilation. Linear conceptions of
assimilation view intermarriage with the dominant group as the greatest
ETHNI CI TI ES 4(1)
77
indicator of assimilation into the core structures of a society and the
offspring of these intermarriages represent the fading of distinctions
between the immigrant group and the dominant group in the host society
(Gordon, 1964). In the USA, large-scale intermarriage among people of
European descent has led to a symbolic form of ethnic identity that is
characterized by a nostalgic allegiance to the culture of the immigrant
generation, or that of the old country; a love for and pride in a tradition
that can be felt without having to be incorporated in everyday behavior
(Gans, 1979: 9). Descendents of European immigrants may invoke one of
their many strands of ethnic lineage as a matter of choice and these choices
carry few consequences (Waters, 1990). For example, someone who is of
Italian and Irish descent might invoke their Irish identity only on St
Patricks Day and their Italian identity when they eat Italian cuisine, but
choose not to make either of these identities a central part of everyday life.
In addition to intermarriage, the disappearance of large ethnically concen-
trated communities and the lack of any subsequent large waves of
European immigrants diminishes opportunities to celebrate these identities
and reduces ethnic identity to its symbolic form (Alba, 1990).
A second line of research on multiethnicity departs from a focus on
ethnic identity as a dimension of assimilation and centers on how multi-
ethnics choose their identities when confronted with mutually exclusive
identity choices. Much of this research examines psychological aspects of
multiethnicity, focusing on the individual identity choices that multiethnics
and multiracials make. This literature argues for the creation of a social
space in which multiethnic and multiracial individuals are socially and insti-
tutionally recognized (Root, 1992, 1996).
Other research examines the cultural and regional context in which indi-
viduals live as determinants of identity choice. Multiethnic individuals who
live in regions where there is a large number of multiethnic individuals,
such as the US state of Hawaii, have a rich and commonly used vocabulary
for identifying persons of multiple ethnic backgrounds, and are thus more
likely to identify themselves as multiethnic (Stephan and Stephan, 1989).
In these regions, multiethnics are accepted as full-edged members of each
of the individual ethnic groups to which they belong, regardless of what
those other groups are (Davis, 1995; Spickard and Fong, 1995). In contrast,
those who live in regions where unmixed groups predominate more often
choose a single ethnic identity because there is no ready-made language for
describing their ethnic hybridity (Harris and Sim, 2002; Stephan and
Stephan, 1989). Furthermore, the exposure that multiethnics have to a
particular aspect of their ethnic identity inuences identity choice, as multi-
ethnics feel more attached when they have more cultural exposure to this
aspect (i.e. food, holidays, music, lifestyle, and family) and less attached
when they have negative experiences with cultural exposure or when
cultural exposure is limited (Stephan, 1991).
JI MNEZ NEGOTI ATI NG ETHNI C BOUNDARI ES
78
Students of multiethnicity and multiraciality have also focused on the
experiences of various multiethnic mixes, showing that the unique combi-
nation of ethnic and racial groups to which individuals trace their ethnic
backgrounds shapes the experiences and identity choices of these indi-
viduals in profound ways (Iijima Hall and Cooke Turner, 2001; Thorton
and Gates, 2001). Harris and Sim (2002) nd that the patterns of classi-
cation among multiracials vary depending on the distinct groups to which
individuals belong. Whereas White/Indian youth are least likely to choose
a multiracial category, White/Black youth are the most committed to
choosing multiple categories in various setting.
So too does the particular combination of white and Mexican shape the
ethnic identity of multiethnic Mexican Americans. Like European groups,
the Mexican-origin population has experienced high rates of intermarriage.
Thus, the existence of multiethnic Mexican Americans may be considered
evidence of structural assimilation and, based on the European case, one
might predict the emergence of a symbolic form of Mexican ethnicity
among this population. However, high rates of European-origin intermar-
riage took place after the end of large-scale European immigration, which
virtually came to a halt after the Great Depression. In contrast, Mexican
immigration and large-scale Mexican/white intermarriage are simultaneous
processes. Despite high rates of Mexican intermarriage, Mexican ethnicity
remains a vivid part of the USs racial and ethnic landscape because
continued large waves of immigration from Mexico refresh it. Mexican
clubs, organizations, and neighborhoods are prevalent throughout the USA
and Mexican cultural customs remain visible and are integral to the daily
lives of many Mexicans in the USA. Thus, multiethnic Mexican Americans
choose identities against a social backdrop where part of their ethnic
ancestry remains vivid.
We know very little about the identities of multiethnic Mexican Ameri-
cans. How do multiethnic Mexican Americans identify themselves? What
are the factors that inuence the choices that they make? What are the
mechanisms and symbolic forms that multiethnic Mexican Americans use
in asserting their ethnic identity? Finally, what implications do these ethnic
choices have for the future of Mexican ethnicity among multiethnic
Mexican Americans, for racial and ethnic stratication, and for how
researchers think about ethnic categories?
DATA AND METHODS
Data for this paper come from 20 in-depth interviews
1
that I conducted in
the summer and winter of 1999 with individuals who have one white parent
and one parent who is entirely of Mexican origin. I interviewed respondents
ETHNI CI TI ES 4(1)
79
with this mixture of backgrounds (as opposed to, for instance, African
American/Mexican American, or Korean American/Mexican American)
because I am interested in how they choose identities and the consequences
associated with these choices when part of their ethnic background is a vivid
component of the larger racial and ethnic landscape and when the other
part is not. Furthermore, white/Mexican intermarriage is the most common
intermarriage combination for Mexicans and there is a large population
that is the offspring of these unions. All of the respondents live in Santa
Clara County (also known as the Silicon Valley/San Jos Area), located in
the southern portion of the San Francisco Bay Area. Santa Clara County is
a sprawling metropolitan area with a total population of 1,700,976, of which
24 percent was Hispanic in 1999 (State of California, Department of
Finance, 2003). I chose a single geographic location to ensure respondents
negotiate the same general social environment. I also chose Santa Clara
County because it closely approximates the California state average for
interethnic/interracial births. In 1997, 14 percent of all births in California
were multiethnic/multiracial, compared to 15 percent in Santa Clara
County in the same year (Tafoya, 2000). I obtained respondents using
the snowball sampling technique. After each interview I asked the respon-
dent to identify other potential respondents. Snowball sampling is an
efcient way to obtain respondents from a specic group. While there is
a risk of sample-selection bias, I made efforts to minimize any such bias
by using several difference snowballs. The range of responses to my inter-
view questions makes me condent that my sample did not fall prey to this
bias.
Interviews lasted between 45 and 120 minutes and were conducted in a
place of the respondents choosing, normally their home. I interviewed all
respondents once, except for two people with whom I conducted follow-up
interviews. I tape-recorded all interviews, transcribed them, and analyzed
them using ATLASti, a computer software package that allows users to
attach coding categories to relevant parts of the transcripts and to compare
similarly coded portions of text across interviews. I built my analysis based
on relationships between a set of themes that emerged from the coded text.
Most of the people I interviewed fall between the ages of 20 and 30, and
none of the respondents were younger than 19 or older than 41.
Claims made in this paper should be treated as testable theoretical asser-
tions and not as generalizable empirical statements. The respondents are
primarily middle class and most are college educated, which may limit the
extent to which this research is generalizable to other populations. The
middle-class status of my respondents may be an artifact of the very class
mobility that often facilitates ethnic intermarriage in the rst place
(Kalmijn, 1998). However, class and education should be tested as predic-
tors of ethnic attachment among multiethnic Mexican Americans using
larger, representative samples, such as the 2000 US Census.
80
CHECKING BOXES, CHOOSING IDENTITIES
Perhaps the most explicit way that multiethnic Mexican Americans choose
identities is when lling out forms that require them to check a box that
indicates their background, such as a job or school application. I began each
in-depth interview by asking the respondent to state how they would
identify themselves on such forms. Respondents said that they are confused
when lling out forms because the given categories do not match their own
specic ethnic background. Despite the perceived inadequacy of the given
categories, 14 of the 20 respondents said that they would check a box that
would identify themselves as Mexican, Mexican American, or Hispanic.
Some choose a Mexican/Mexican American/Hispanic label because their
non-Mexican ancestry is so mixed that when it comes to percentages, [the
Mexican American background is] the biggest part (25-year-old male of
Mexican and mixed European ancestry). Others who reported themselves
as Mexican/Mexican American/Hispanic do so even when they have no
cognitive rule on which to rely when identifying themselves.
The reasoning that these respondents give for choosing a single category
on forms points to the importance of ethnic markers, such as skin-color and
surname, in choosing identity categories. One respondent of Mexican and
Irish ancestry chooses a white identity because he believes that he looks
more Caucasian. Another said that he chooses a white label because his
father is white and he was told that he should choose his fathers identity
when he is asked to make a choice. Still another respondent relies on his
Spanish surname when choosing an identity category, opting to simplify his
ethnicity to Mexican American because he believes that his Spanish
surname identied him as such.
Other respondents did not like the limitation of choosing a single
identity category and said that they would choose the other category or
that they would check all of the boxes that represent their ethnic back-
ground. The comments of a 26-year-old female of Mexican and Irish
ancestry typify the sentiments of these respondents:
If it only says check one, I pick other because there isnt one that says Mexican
and Irish or Mexican American. Its always Hispanic. Or they have [a] million
different terms for Mexican and then black or whatever. But theres never one
that says half this and half that.
By choosing other or checking multiple boxes (i.e. white and Mexican),
multiethnic Mexican Americans attempt to manipulate the mutually
exclusive categories in order to more accurately represent their ethnic back-
ground.
ETHNI CI TI ES 4(1)
81
CHOOSING IDENTITIES IN DAILY LIFE
Just as respondents must make choices when lling out forms, they must
also select from readily available identities in interactive settings. Multi-
ethnic Mexican Americans gravitate toward a Mexican American ethnic
identity more than they do a white identity as they choose identities in their
daily lives. The strong presence of Mexican Americans and continual inux
of Mexican immigrants maintain and refresh Mexican culture, customs, and
practices in California, making Mexican American ethnicity the most avail-
able ethnic option. As a 24-year-old woman of Mexican and Canadian
descent put it:
[L]iving here where I do, and its really a Mexican-like [city]. This town has a
lot of Mexican culture surrounding it, and you dont see shops ying Canadian
ags, yknow. Ive just had a lot more contact with my Mexican culture.
Respondents mentioned more specic avenues through which a Mexican
American ethnicity is made available to them, including school settings,
travel to Mexico, and extended family. Schools facilitate exposure to
Mexican and Mexican American ethnicity by supporting Mexican and
Mexican American cultural customs through courses offered on Mexican
American history and culture, school-sponsored clubs and organizations,
and school-sponsored holiday celebrations (i.e. Cinco de Mayo). Schools
also provide a place where multiethnic Mexican Americans form friend-
ships and social networks with Mexicans and Mexican Americans, as a
number of respondents reported that Mexican and Mexican American
peers and dating partners, in both high school and college, led them to
identify more strongly with their Mexican American background.
Travel to Mexico is another way that respondents are exposed to their
Mexican origins, lending further strength to their preference for a Mexican
American identity. The close proximity of Mexico to the US makes travel
to Mexico relatively easy and a number of respondents have taken trips to
Mexico to study, for vacation, or to visit family.
Likewise, the family plays a key role in reinforcing the importance of
Mexican American ethnicity in respondents lives. Having large and close
knit families both immediate and extended leads them to gravitate
toward their Mexican American ethnicity more than those who did not
have large or close knit families. They reported that frequent interaction
with Mexican American extended family members gives them a sense of
family history and exposure to aspects of Mexican and Mexican American
customs and culture. Other respondents mentioned that the quality of
interactions with their Mexican American side of their family as
compared to their non-Mexican American side of the family inuences
them to have a stronger attachment to their Mexican background. They
noted that gatherings and interactions with their non-Mexican side of the
82
family tend to focus on events that are devoid of ethnic themes, and conver-
sations with these family members revolve around their daily lives apart
from ethnicity. In contrast, gatherings and interactions with their Mexican
American side of the family reect Mexican American themes in the form
of language, food, and family history. Respondents were especially quick
to mention the frequency with which they discuss family history with the
Mexican side of their family relative to their non-Mexican side. Because
their non-Mexican side is so mixed, in most cases, conversations with non-
Mexican extended family members tend to include little family history. In
contrast, respondents do tend to discuss where their ancestors come from
in Mexico and their relatives experiences as people of Mexican descent in
the USA. As a 26-year-old male teacher, whose mother is mixed-European
and whose father is Mexican, said:
[W]hen Im with my dads side its always Hispanic related and [we discuss]
where our roots come from. And with my moms side, its kind of iffy, its kind
of the immediate family more now, compared to my dads family. [My dads
family] talk[s] about more the past and where our family comes from.
THE ROLE OF SYMBOLIC ETHNICITY
The extent to which a Mexican American ethnicity was an option must also
be considered in comparison to the relative salience of the alternatives.
While respondents recognize their non-Mexican background, it is only a
weak contributor to their ethnic identity. Nearly all of the respondents
reported having very little knowledge of, and minimal exposure to, their
non-Mexican American ethnic background. Some noted that their other
background is too detached from the ethnic homeland (i.e. too many gener-
ations removed from the immigrant generation) to permit any strong
attachment to, or knowledge of, those points of origin. If their non-Mexican
side was a mlange of European ethnicities, no single alternative emerged.
Others pointed out that their non-Mexican American background was
simply too mixed-up to amount to a salient counterpart. Also, the low
visibility of their white ethnic background in their social environment
contributes to their weak attachment to this aspect of their ethnic back-
ground. The lack of ethnic specic structures neighborhoods,
celebrations, political movements, etc. in Santa Clara County and Cali-
fornia, creates few opportunities for multiethnic Mexican Americans to
experience their non-Mexican background in any meaningful way. For
respondents with multiple ethnic heritages on their non-Mexican American
side, a weak attachment and lack of knowledge made it especially difcult
to identify with the non-Mexican American background, as the following
ETHNI CI TI ES 4(1)
83
exchange with a 24-year-old male of Mexican (mothers side) and mixed-
European (fathers side) ancestry illustrates:
Q: Would you say that your fathers ethnic background is important to you?
R: No. I would say that its important, but I dont understand why I would say
that because I dont know what it is. I could say that its white, cause it is
white. But there are people who can go, Oh, Im one thirteenth Portuguese,
one fourteenth Scotch-Irish. We dont know. The fty percent thats
Mexican, I know what that is. Its from Jalisco and its from over here and
there. We know Michoacan I think is the other one And its all Mexican,
no matter where it is. But the American side of the family, we dont know
what it is. Im part Native American. Im part this and Im part that . . . But
its an insignicant portion of the pie. And there aint nobody around to
explain.
The weak attachment that respondents express for their non-Mexican
background mirrors the ndings of research on later generation European
Americans, for whom the ethnicity of their immigrant ancestors plays only
a symbolic role in their lives (Alba, 1990; Waters, 1990).
Like multiethnics who trace their roots only to European ethnic groups,
the multiethnic Mexican Americans I interviewed exercise a great deal of
choice in how they identify; and ethnic markers, most notably skin color
and surname, inuence the freedom that they have in choosing identities.
Respondents who have light skin and who have no Spanish surname have
the greater freedom when choosing their identity. Without a Spanish
surname, these respondents are less likely to have others identify them as
people of Mexican origin, and more likely to identify them as people of
European origin. But even if they are identied as such, there are, at most,
weak expectations for how respondents are to live up to any notions about
how a person from a particular European ethnic group ought to exhibit
their ethnic identity. Furthermore, light-skinned respondents are able to
exercise considerable choice because their skin color does not meet US
notions of what people of Mexican descent look like. While there is a range
of skin color among people in Mexico (and all of Latin America for that
matter) (see Montalvo and Codina, 2001), dark skin serves as a primary
identier of people of Mexican descent in the USA. Because they do not
possess this surface trait, light-skinned respondents told me that people
just assume Im white. Darker-skinned multiethnic Mexican Americans,
on the other hand, are often identied by others as being of Mexican
descent. But, even if they are identied as such, interview data do not
reveal a stronger or weaker attachment to any particular ethnic background
owing to their skin color.
Even as respondents exercise choice in their identity, with minimal
exposure to their non-Mexican American lineage and considerable
exposure to their Mexican background, the latter becomes more available,
84
accessible, and meaningful to respondents as they choose their ethnic
identity when lling out forms and in daily life.
NEGOTIATING ETHNIC BOUNDARIES
Interview data on how multiethnic Mexican Americans assert their ethnic
identity indicate that sharp boundaries between ethnic categories compli-
cate respondents identity choices. They report numerous experiences in
which they must negotiate boundaries between ethnic categories and the
difculty that they have crossing back and forth between them. It is through
this process of negotiation that the respondents choose, assert, and some-
times shun a particular identity.
Although the family facilitates greater familiarity with respondents
Mexican ethnic background, so too does the family make respondents
aware of ethnic boundaries. They noted being made fun of by extended
family members because they lack characteristics that are often associated
with being of Mexican descent, such as dark skin and the ability to speak
Spanish. In some cases, parents or extended family members strongly
encourage or pressure respondents to place more importance on a particu-
lar component of their ethnic background to the exclusion of another. The
boundaries between ethnic categories were especially clear for those
respondents whose parents are divorced. The differences between their
parents backgrounds are often accentuated because parents use these
differences as a basis for disputes, leading some to see their ethnic back-
grounds as compartmentalized, mutually exclusive components of their
familys ethnic lineage.
Likewise, peers simultaneously reinforce Mexican American ethnicity
and ethnic boundaries. Peers often make respondents aware of boundaries
between ethnic categories by pointing to their mixed ethnic background
and their lack of characteristics dark skin, a Spanish surname, being able
to speak Spanish, and knowledge of Mexican and Mexican American
culture that inauthenticate them as Mexican Americans. Although many
purer Mexican Americans too lack these characteristics, multiethnic
respondents believed that their own inability to display them accounts for
why they feel unwelcome with some Mexican American peers.
Peer interactions in clubs or organizations that celebrate Mexican and
Mexican American ethnicity such as MEChA
2
either in high school or
in college are important sites of ethnic articulation. But membership does
not necessarily signal acceptance for multiethnic Mexican Americans, who
are often rejected by the members or made to feel as an outsider at club
gatherings. These instances caused many respondents to doubt their own
right to be members. For example, a 27-year-old Mexican, Polish and
ETHNI CI TI ES 4(1)
85
Russian man who once danced with a Mexican folk-dance group said that
he felt hypocritical for performing the dances. He explained, [I]ts partly
because I tell myself that Im not really Im not full Mexican so I dont
have the right to [participate]. Partaking in Mexican and Mexican
American cultural customs or joining clubs and organizations means
staking claim to a Mexican American identity that respondents themselves
perceive to be only partially authentic.
Despite the fact that they are mostly middle class and college educated,
the respondents did not mention their class status as a reason for their
authenticity being challenged. Research on middle class African Ameri-
cans has shown that class status is seen as a challenge to their African
American ethnic authenticity (Lacy, 2000). However, similar evidence did
not emerge from my in-depth interviews. One possible explanation is that
Mexican Americans of equal class and educational status, such as college
classmates, challenged the respondents ethnic authenticity. Whether
experienced or only perceived, rejection from people of Mexican descent
upon joining clubs and organizations deters many respondents from assert-
ing a Mexican identity altogether.
These ethnic boundaries are perhaps most apparent when multiethnic
Mexican Americans encounter situations that require them to make
mutually exclusive choices about their ethnic identity, as when deciding
whether or not to take advantage of afrmative action policies. Ethnic
identity carries material rewards in an era of afrmative action, and some
respondents feel that they do not deserve to benet from afrmative action
despite the fact that they qualify. Some refuse to mark the Mexican Ameri-
cans categories when lling out job or school applications because they
believe that their middle class background and white skin preclude them
from reaping the benets of afrmative action that come with marking such
categories.
Since a valuable resource is at stake, ethnicity becomes a gatekeeper and
purer bearers of Mexican American identity are willing to slam the door
on their multiethnic cousins. For example, one respondent joined a high
school program designed to help high-achieving minority students enter
college, but felt that he was not accepted by the other students, and particu-
larly by Mexican American students:
[E]verybody in the club was looking at me weird. Like I didnt belong there . . .
This Mexican girl, she was like, What are you in here for? No, no you couldnt
be [Mexican American]. And so I left. I never went back. (29-year-old Mexican
and Irish male)
Choosing a Mexican American identity on forms means claiming member-
ship to an underrepresented and historically disadvantaged group.
3
Many
perceive that they have not experienced the same discrimination that
poorer or darker-skinned people of Mexican descent have encountered
86
(Murgua and Telles, 1996; Telles and Murgua, 1990) and their beliefs are
conrmed when respondents run into purer Mexican Americans who
remind respondents that they do not have the right biography to be
considered a minority.
Other respondents do not experience this same dilemma and are quite
willing to claim a Mexican American identity in order to benet from
afrmative action programs. For example, a 26-year-old woman of Mexican
and Irish descent unabashedly claimed:
R: I used to play the Mexican side a little bit, you know, when afrmative
action was (pause) . . . (laugh) Ill take anything, Im not proud.
Q: Tell me about that.
R: When its obvious that they dont want a white girl or they are trying to
make their quota or whatever it is, yeah, forget the Irish (laugh).
For these respondents, multiethnicity permits the claiming of benets that
accrue to a Mexican American identity without having to experience the
discrimination that many people of Mexican descent often encounter. They
do not see their opportunistic use of ethnicity as making any strong claims
about their own ethnic identity. Rather, they view themselves as simply
beneting in an instrumental way from that for which they legally qualify.
Boundaries also become apparent when respondents must make choices
about their identity when interacting with non-Mexican Americans. These
choices do not take place against a neutral backdrop. Prejudice directed at
people of Mexican descent is a feature of everyday life, but one that only
indirectly impacts the children of these mixed marriages. Because most of
the respondents can pass as white, they are often privy to the world of white
racism and white privilege, hearing comments that many darker skinned
people of Mexican descent may not hear. A 24-year-old woman of Mexican
and Canadian background recalled her high school friends reaction to
Mexican immigrants who frequented the same shopping mall:
[I]f [the Mexican immigrants] looked at any of my friends, they would just start
telling them to fuck off and What are you looking at? . . . And that was hard
for us too, because it was like, what do you say? . . . [I]f they werent a really
close friend and they didnt know my background, and just from the way I
looked they would just assume that I was totally white. And I would have this
going on inside me, like feeling like kinda sick to my stomach, feeling anxious,
like what do I say, yknow? . . . Especially when its about you and your family,
yknow. And Im like, my family looks like the people theyre making fun of,
yknow?
Confrontations with racism remind respondents of their simultaneous
connection to multiple ethnic groups. Their white skin is not normally
associated with American conceptions of what people of Mexican descent
look like and their experience as a white person allows them an insiders
view of white racism (Frankenberg, 1993). This insiders view opens them
ETHNI CI TI ES 4(1)
87
up to emotional and psychological injury, reminding them that they are
Mexican American enough to feel this injury.
MULTIETHNIC MEXICAN AMERICANS AND THE ETHNIC
NARRATIVE
A useful way to understand multiethnic Mexican Americans experiences
in choosing identity is to conceptualize ethnic identity as being rooted in an
ethnic-group narrative. Cornell (2000) argues groups of individuals select,
plot, and interpret events that are common to their experiences. The result
of this process is the construction of a narrative that captures the central
understanding of what it means to be a member of [a] group(2000: 42). As
Cornell points out, narratives help ethnic groups distinguish between us
and them.
While the content and boundaries of a particular ethnic narrative are
continually contested and negotiated, the Mexican experience in the USA
is dened by a number of key conditions and events: conquest, immi-
gration, poverty, discrimination, protest, and struggle. Multiethnic Mexican
Americans in this study respond to these core conditions and events as they
consider their own ethnic identity, but in ways that highlight their ambiva-
lence.
Their own biography departs from the Mexican American narrative. I
could appreciate [the Mexican Americans] struggle from afar, but I didnt
live it, one man told me. Respondents perceive these differences most
keenly when purer Mexican Americans reject them because they do not
possess the surface traits and characteristics that are often associated with
people of Mexican descent: dark skin color, ability to speak Spanish, know-
ledge of Mexican and Mexican American culture, Spanish surnames,
blood-line and the like.
The dilemma that some respondents face with afrmative action illus-
trates this point. Afrmative action programs are generally designed to
offset the effects of discrimination. These programs reinforce discrimi-
nation as a central feature of the Mexican American narrative since anyone
who is of Mexican descent qualies for afrmative action. As multiethnic
Mexican Americans choose their identity on forms or in their daily lives,
they must consider the extent to which they have experienced racial or
ethnic discrimination on the basis of their ethnic background. Often times
it is other Mexican Americans who police the extent to which multiethnic
Mexican Americans may claim membership in a Mexican American narra-
tive. Recall the respondent whose right to be in a school program for high-
achieving minority students was questioned by the other members. His
right to be in the organization was questioned because his biography his
88
narrative was perceived to be different from that which is necessary to
qualify for the program. This incident forced him to consider the extent to
which his experiences interact with the events at the core of the Mexican
American narrative. As is the case with many multiethnic Mexican Ameri-
cans, he concluded that his experiences as a middle class individual with
white skin preclude him from membership in the narrative. However,
claiming ones membership is far less taxing when there is no Mexican
American audience to rebuff claims of membership to a Mexican American
narrative, as in the case of the respondents who use their Mexican
American backgrounds when checking boxes or applying for jobs solely to
benet from afrmative action.
The experience of confronting prejudice also forces respondents to
consider their connection to the Mexican American narrative. Respon-
dents can pass as white, allowing their non-Mexican peers to feel comfort-
able enough to make prejudicial comments. On the one hand, they escape
the very burdens that afrmative action is meant to remedy and reinforce
the way in which their own experience departs from the legacy of discrimi-
nation that many Mexican Americans know too well. On the other hand,
hearing prejudicial comments strikes a chord with some respondents, as
they recognize that such comments are an affront to their Mexican
American family members and ancestors. Thus, respondents cannot
entirely ignore their connection to a Mexican American narrative.
It is through experiences such as these that respondents come to feel
more like one of them than one of us. If, as Cornell (2000) argues, ethnic
categories are categories of collective stories that dene what it means to
be a member of a particular ethnic group, there is no widely recognized
ethnic category or label that depicts the set of experiences that is the multi-
ethnic Mexican Americans narrative.
NEGOTIATING ETHNIC BOUNDARIES: APPROACHES TO
ETHNIC IDENTITY
The in-depth interviews reveal that multiethnic Mexican Americans take
several approaches to their ethnic identity in response to their encounters
with ethnic boundaries: a symbolic approach, a Mexican American
approach, a multiethnic approach, or a combination of approaches.
4
These
approaches are by no means mutually exclusive, as respondents combine
several approaches, invoking the combination most suitable to a particular
social context.
ETHNI CI TI ES 4(1)
89
Symbolic identity
Many of the respondents describe an attachment to their ethnic identity
that is largely symbolic, characterized by a nostalgic allegiance to the
culture of the immigrant generation, or that of the old country; a love for
and pride in a tradition that can be felt without having to be incorporated
in everyday behavior (Gans, 1979: 9). For some, a symbolic identity stems
from their limited experience with and knowledge of their ethnic back-
ground. These respondents primarily experience their Mexican American
ethnicity through ethnic cuisine and celebrating certain ethnic holidays. For
example, some mentioned eating tamales during the holidays as a primary
way to experience their Mexican American heritage.
Others respondents described the enjoyment that they received from
being of Mexican descent because it allows them to be something other
than just white. As Waters (1990) points out, invoking a symbolic identity
allows individuals to assert themselves as an individual, or as this respon-
dent put it, her Mexican American background gives her avor. Yet,
symbolic ethnicity also allows respondents to be part of a larger collective
that does not have ethnicity at its core.
By invoking a symbolic ethnic identity, respondents do not push or cross
ethnic boundaries, and therefore mitigate the extent to which they must
negotiate such boundaries. In so doing, they avoid the potential rejection
that they experience when claiming a Mexican American identity, yet they
maintain some connection albeit symbolic to their Mexican American
heritage.
Mexican American identity
A second is characterized by a strong afnity for Mexican American ethnic-
ity. The respondents who take on a Mexican American identity see them-
selves as Mexican American and assert that ethnicity strongly. These
multiethnic Mexican Americans actively seek out Mexican and Mexican
American cultural celebrations, clubs, and organizations, participate in
Mexican traditions, and are politically active in causes and movements
related to Mexican American ethnicity.
Despite the fact that some of these respondents reported experiencing
rejection born out of boundary maintenance, they persisted in asserting a
Mexican identity. Why would some respondents assert a Mexican
American identity at the risk of being rejected or stigmatized? Two struc-
tural changes provide potential explanations. First, there have been signi-
cant changes in the sociopolitical structure for Mexican Americans in
California in the last 30 years. The post Civil Rights ideology of multi-
culturalism in California allows and often encourages individuals to
maintain a connection to their ethnic roots, as a number of ethnic holidays
90
are recognized in school and in civic celebrations. Furthermore, Mexican
Americans occupy a number of local and state positions of political power
in California, contributing to the positive visibility of Californian Mexican
Americans. Thus, many respondents see a Mexican American identity as a
positive ethnic option.
A second factor has to do with demographic changes. A majority of the
residents in Santa Clara County and California are non-white. Therefore,
asserting a Mexican American identity means claiming membership to the
majority group in Santa Clara County. It may be the case that respondents
persist in choosing a Mexican American identity because they would rather
be a part of the (numerical) majority. I can only speculate on how these
structural changes inuence identity choices from the given data. However,
this line of research deserves further empirical investigation and theoreti-
cal development.
The multiethnic approach
A third approach to ethnic identity is the multiethnic approach. In formu-
lating his argument about ethnicity as a narrative, Cornell (2000) points out
that there is an emerging multiethnic narrative that is characterized by a
common experience of not tting the established categories. These are
narratives of connection, focused not on the boundaries on what sepa-
rates people but on connection, on the intertwined patterns of descent
that muddy boundaries, fuzz differences, and create shared narrative space
(Cornell, 2000: 50). The comments of many respondents are exemplary of
the multiethnic narrative that Cornell describes. Some described a rejection
of the available ofcial ethnic identities, as those narratives do not accu-
rately depict their own experience. Recall that others took a multiethnic
approach in choosing their ethnic identity when lling out forms, choosing
to identify multiple categories or other so as not be placed entirely in one
category. In so doing, respondents assert their connection to multiple ethnic
narratives.
For some, the multiethnic narrative is one that respondents fall back on
in response to not feeling entirely Mexican American. In describing her peer
group in high school, a 24-year-old woman of Mexican and Danish descent
noted that she never felt entirely comfortable spending time with students
who were completely of Mexican descent. Instead, she chose to spend time
with other multiethnic students, some of whom were also multiethnic
Mexican Americans. Respondents may also choose a multiethnic back-
ground in reaction to pressure from their close-knit family to assert only
their Mexican background. One respondents father pressured her to
identify with her Mexican background to the exclusion of her French and
Italian ancestry. This pressure effectively pushed her to embrace all of her
ethnic backgrounds as a way to identify with a larger multiethnic population.
ETHNI CI TI ES 4(1)
91
For others, the multiethnic identity is an increasingly recognized,
primary identity. Many respondents prefer to think of themselves as simul-
taneously tting into a number of ethnic categories and as being part of a
number of ethnic narratives:
[M]ost people tend to want to make me only white or only Mexican. And Im
like, thats not who I am. You have to take in all of me. (24-year-old Mexican
and Canadian woman)
Others convey their simultaneous connection to multiple backgrounds by
displaying ags, posters, or artwork representing each of their backgrounds.
Just as the large presence of Mexican American peers inuences a number
of respondents to become more aware of their Mexican American identity,
the growing number of multiethnic individuals leads some respondents to
become more aware of an emerging multiethnic identity.
Combining approaches
These approaches to ethnic identity are not mutually exclusive. Respon-
dents often assert a mixture of identity approaches, depending on the
context. They may assert a strong Mexican American identity when in the
company of Mexican Americans, while presenting themselves as people of
mixed ancestry when with a group of people made up of individuals from
different ethnic backgrounds. When I asked a 20-year-old, female college
student of Mexican, French, and Italian ancestry how she would respond
when asked about her ethnic background in different settings she said:
If I was with all Mexicans, I would be like, Im Mexican, but Im French and
Italian too. But I think that if I were with a group of white people, I would be
like, Im Mexican, but Im also French and Italian. I would emphasize that part
to try and t in a little more.
Respondents believe that their multiple identities, despite the boundaries
that they often encounter, provide them freedom to associate and to t in
with many different ethnic groups. They see their multiple ethnic roots as
conferring on them a social advantage that frees them from having to
identify with only one background. Even those who most strongly identify
with their Mexican background believe that their multiple roots are an
advantage when moving between social contexts, and they may employ one
or more of the three identity approaches accordingly. One respondent, who
is quite proud of her Mexican ethnic background said: I mean that it gives
you a lot more choices in terms of who you want to be your friends. So you
can just choose yourself. You are not just put into a category.
92
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
This exploratory research shows that multiethnic Mexican Americans
encounter ethnic boundaries in many aspects of their lives. When lling out
forms, most respondents simplify their ethnicity, calling themselves
Mexican, Mexican American, or Hispanic. Still others choose to mark more
than one box or refer to their background simply as other. The people I
interviewed believe that the responses that they give are generally a
compromise because no category accurately describes their own back-
ground. The dilemmas that they experience when lling out forms are
similar to those that they experience as they choose identities in their daily
lives. Multiethnic Mexican Americans must choose from ethnic identities
that are readily available. Mexican American ethnicity is readily available
in their social environment because of the strong Mexican presence in Cali-
fornia and in Santa Clara County. Because some part of their own ethnic
lineage can be traced to a Mexican narrative, multiethnic Mexican Ameri-
cans confront boundaries between their own multiethnic narrative and
prevailing narratives of the Mexican population in the US. Multiethnic
Mexican Americans respond to these boundaries with one or more
approaches to their ethnic identity: a symbolic approach, a Mexican
American approach, a multiethnic approach, or a combination of these
approaches. This research has several implications for theorizing on ethni-
city and policy.
The future of ethnic identity for Multiethnic Mexican Americans
Given the ndings in this paper, what is the future of ethnicity for multi-
ethnic Mexican Americans? Intermarriage has traditionally been
considered the greatest indicator of ethnic group assimilation (Gordon,
1964). However, intermarriage does not inevitably lead the minority group
in this case Mexicans to adopt the identity of the majority group in
this case whites. Recent theorizing on ethnic identity among the second
generation points out that individuals may adopt a range of identities avail-
able in US society (Portes and Rumbaut, 2001; Portes and Zhou, 1993;
Rumbaut and Portes, 2001; Waters, 1999; Zhou and Bankston, 1998). The
same may be true for multiethnic Mexican Americans.
Therefore, determining what the future holds for the ethnic identity of
multiethnic Mexican American requires taking stock of the available ethnic
identities. If the prevailing established categories white and Mexican
American remain the most readily available ethnic options, then multi-
ethnic Mexican Americans may continue to choose their ethnic identity in
reference to these two categories and assert themselves as members of one
of these groups. Still, multiethnic Mexican Americans may have another
ETHNI CI TI ES 4(1)
93
option: a multiethnic identity. As intermarriage rates continue to climb, a
critical mass of people who do not t into the traditional categories of race
and ethnicity will grow. This critical mass may bring forth the emergence
of a new narrative and with it a new ethnic identity the multiethnic
identity. There is evidence that just such an identity is emerging, and this
multiethnic identity is gaining legitimacy within the larger US society. In
popular culture, a number of celebrities, such as Tiger Woods, have begun
to openly claim a mixed, or multiethnic identity, creating greater visibility
for multiethnics and multiracials. Similarly, a number of student-clubs and
organizations that celebrate multiethnicity have emerged on college and
university campuses and various communities across the US
5
and an
approach to ethnic identity that embraces hybridity seems to be gaining
popularity (Harris and Sim, 2002).
Perhaps the greatest evidence of the emergence of a multiethnic narra-
tive can be found in the institutional recognition that an individual may
have multiple racial and ethnic origins. The Executive Ofce of Manage-
ment and Budget (OMB) Statistical Directive 15, which provides
standard for classication for record keeping, collection and presentation
of data on race and ethnicity in Federal program administrative reporting
and statistical activities (Executive Ofce of Management and Budget,
1996), now permits respondents to check more than one racial category
when lling out federal forms, such as the 2000 US Census. Figures from
the 2000 US Census suggest that a substantial number of people employ
this option. In California alone 1.6 million, or 4.75% of that states popu-
lation chose multiple boxes (US Bureau of the Census 2001). Changes in
Statistical Directive 15 do not, however, directly affect people of Mexican
origin. The category Mexican is considered an ethnic group under the
general rubric of the larger ethnic category Hispanic. So, while non-
Hispanics are now free to choose more than one racial box (e.g. black,
white-non-Hispanic and Chinese), people of Mexican descent still cannot
choose more than one ethnic category, such as Mexican and Cuban. Even
though these changes in the Census have virtually no direct effect on the
way that government agencies categorize people of Mexican descent, the
changes do mark an institutional recognition of a larger multiracial or
multiethnic identity. Combined, a critical mass of multiethnic individuals,
celebrities who promote their multiethnicity, clubs and organizations, and
institutional recognition of multiethnic and multiracials help to give the
multiethnic narrative some currency in the larger society.
Directions for future research
This research raises a number of important questions for consideration in
future research. A rst question relates to social policy. I show that multi-
ethnic Mexican Americans ethnic identity develops not just in social
94
spaces, but also in a policy space. Respondents must make choices about
how their own biography intersects with the narrative of disadvantage that
social policies, like afrmative action, uphold. These policies help to dictate
what it means to be a member of a particular group and shape the advan-
tages and disadvantages associated with being a member of this group. As
researchers study the factors that determine identity choice, they should
look to determine how identity develops in these policy spaces as well.
A second question relates to how we think of the Mexican origin popu-
lations place in the American racial and ethnic system. Some scholars
present the Mexican origin population as a race, whose experiences are
dened by systematic discrimination and blocked mobility (Acua, 2000;
Ortiz. 1996). Yet others believe that the Mexican-origin population is an
immigrant ethnic group, with assimilation patterns that are on par with
other ethnic groups (Chavez, 1992; Skerry, 1993; Smith, 2003). In adjudi-
cating between these two polar understandings of the Mexican-origin popu-
lation, scholars must also keep in mind the multiethnic Mexican American
population. What do the experiences of the multiethnic Mexican Ameri-
cans suggest about the Mexican-origin population as a racialized group or
as an immigrant ethnic group?
Finally, future research must look more closely at the role that gender,
spatial location, and class play in how multiethnics choose identities. Does
gender inuence how multiethnics choose their identity? Likewise, does the
parent-combination of racial and ethnic backgrounds differentially inu-
ence men and women? Another important area of research is on how
neighborhood racial and ethnic composition inuences how multiethnics
make identity choices. Do multiethnics who live in mixed neighborhoods
gravitate toward a multiethnic identity? Social class may also be an import-
ant determinant of identity choice, but one about which we know little. The
multiethnic and multiracial movement has been particularly vibrant on
college campuses and among middle class families, but are middle class
individuals the only ones opting for a multiethnic or multiracial identity?
How does class shape their choices? How do poorer multiethnics identify?
Are they more likely to simplify their identity compared to their middle-
and upper class counterparts?
These questions are central as scholars look to understand this new
frontier in the study of race and ethnicity.
Acknowledgement
This research was made possible by a grant from Harvard Universitys Multidisci-
plinary Program on Inequality and Social policy, funded by the National Science
Foundation (grant 9870661) and by a grant from the Minority Affairs Program of
the American Sociological Association. The author also wishes to acknowledge
Mary C. Waters, Katherine Newman, Lawrence Bobo, Mario Small, Karyn Lacy,
ETHNI CI TI ES 4(1)
95
Irene Bloemraad, Christopher Jencks and two anonymous reviewers for their
helpful suggestions and guidance.
Notes
1 A copy of the interview protocol is available upon request from the author.
2 MEChA is a student organization, which stands for movimiento estudiantil
Chicano de Aztln, or Chicano student movement of Aztln. MEChA was
founded during the Chicano movement of the 1960s and 1970s and has chapters
on high school and college campuses throughout the US. See Muoz (1989) for
more a more detailed account of MEChAs rise.
3 Mexican Americans are considered underrepresented and historically disadvan-
taged under US federal and some state afrmative action programs.
4 For an extensive discussion of the various approaches to multiethnicity among
multiethnics and multiracials see Nakshima (1996).
5 For example, there are a number of websites that describe various organizations
for multiracials and multiethnics. These include: The Association for Multieth-
nic Americans (http://www.ameasite.org/) and Multiracial Family Circle (http://
www.cdiversity.com/mfc/).
References
Acua, Rodolfo (2000) Occupied America: A History of Chicanos. New York:
Longman.
Alba, Richard D. (1990) Ethnic Identity: The Transformation of White America.
New Haven: Yale University Press.
Alonso, William and Mary Waters (1993) The Future Composition of the American
Population: An Illustrative Projection, paper presented at Winter Meetings of
the American Statistical Association conference, Fort Lauderdale, FL.
Bean, Frank D., Jorge Chapa, Ruth R. Berg, and Kathryn A. Sowards (1994)
Educational and Sociodemographic Incorporation among Hispanic Immigrants
in the United States. in B. Edmonston and J. Passel (eds) Immigration and
Ethnicity: The Integration of Americas Newest Arrivals, pp. 7396. Washington,
DC: The Urban Institute.
Chavez, Linda (1992) Out of the Barrio: Toward a New Politics of Hispanic Assimi-
lation. New York, NY: BasicBooks.
Cornell, Stephan (2000) Thats the Story of Our Life, in P.R. Spickard and W.J.
Burroughs (eds) Narrative and Multiplicity in Constructing Ethnic Identities,
pp. 4153. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Davis, James (1995) The Hawaiian Alternative to the One-Drop Rule, in N. Zack
(ed.) American Mixed Race: The Culture of Microdiversity, pp. 11531. Lanham,
MD: Rowan and Littleeld.
de la Garza, Rodolfo O. and Louis DeSipio (1998) Interests Not Passions: Mexican-
American Attitudes toward Mexico, Immigration from Mexico, and Other Issues
Shaping USMexico Relations, International Migration Review 32(2): 40122.
Executive Ofce of Management and Budget (1996) Statistical Directive 15, in
96
M.P.P. Root (ed.), The Multiracial Experience: Racial Borders as the New
Frontier, pp. 44114. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Frankenberg, Ruth (1993) White Women, Race Matters: The Social Construction of
Whiteness. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Gans, Herbert J. (1979) Symbolic Ethnicity: The Future of Ethnic Groups and
Cultures in America, Ethnic and Racial Studies 2(1): 120.
Gordon, Milton Myron (1964) Assimilation in American Life: The Role of Race,
Religion, and National Origins. New York: Oxford University Press.
Harris, David R. and Jeremiah Joseph Sim (2002) Who is Multiracial? Assessing
the Complexity of Lived Race, American Sociological Review 67(4): 61427.
Iijima Hall, C and T. Cooke Turner (2001) The Diversity of Biracial Individuals:
Asian-white and Asian-minority Biracial Identity, in T. Williams-Len and C.L.
Nakashima (eds) The Sum of our Parts: Mixed Heritage Asian Americans,
pp. 8191. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Kalmijn, M. (1998) Intermarriage and Homogamy: Causes, Patterns, and Trends,
Annual Review of Sociology 24: 395421.
Lacy, Karyn (2000) Negotiating Black Identities: The Construction and Use of
Social Boundaries Among Middle-Class Black Suburbanites, unpublished
dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Massey, Douglas S. and Nancy A. Denton (1992) Racial Identity and the Spatial
Assimilation of Mexicans in the United States, Social Science Research 21:
23560.
Montalvo, Frank F and G. Edward Codina (2001) Skin Color and Latinos in the
United States, Ethnicities 1(3): 32141.
Muoz, Carlos (1989) Youth, Identity, Power: The Chicano Movement. London, New
York: Verso.
Murgua, Edward (1982) Chicano Intermarriage: A Theoretical and Empirical Study.
San Antonio, TX: Trinity University Press.
Murgua, Edward and Edward Telles (1996) Phenotype and Schooling Among
Mexican Americans, Sociology of Education 69(4): 27689.
Nakashima, Cynthia L. (1996) Voices from the Movement: Approaches to Multira-
ciality, in M.P.P. Root (ed.) The Multiracial Experience: Racial Borders as the
New Frontier, pp. 7997. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Ortiz, Vilma (1996) The Mexican-Origin Population: Permanent Working Class or
Emerging Middle Class? in R.D. Waldinger and M. Bozorgmehr (eds), Ethnic
Los Angeles, pp. 24777. New York: Russell Sage.
Portes, Alejandro and Rubn G. Rumbaut (2001) Legacies: The Story of the
Immigrant Second Generation. Berkeley, CA, New York: University of Cali-
fornia Press and Russell Sage Foundation.
Portes, Alejandro and Min Zhou (1993) The New Second Generation: Segmented
Assimilation and its Variants, Annals of the American Academy of Political and
Social Science 530(Nov): 7496.
Root, Maria P.P. (1992) Racially Mixed People in America. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.
Root, Maria P.P. (1996) The Multiracial Experience: Racial Borders as the New
Frontier. London, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rumbaut, Rubn G. and Alejandro Portes (2001) Ethnicities: Children of
Immigrants in America. Berkeley, CA, New York: University of California Press
ETHNI CI TI ES 4(1)
97
and Russell Sage Foundation.
Skerry, Peter (1993) Mexican Americans: The Ambivalent Minority. New York: Free
Press.
Smith, James P. (2003) Assimilation Across the Latino Generations, American
Economic Review 93(2): 31519.
Spickard, Paul R. and Rowena Fong (1995) Pacic Islander Americans and Multi-
ethnicity: A Vision of Americas Future? Social Forces 73(4): 136583.
State of California, Department of Finance (2003) Race/Ethnic Population
Estimates: Components of Change for California Counties, April 1990 to April
2000, March, Sacramento, California.
Stephan, Cookie White (1991) Ethnic Identity Among Mixed-Heritage People in
Hawaii, Symbolic Interaction 14(3): 26177.
Stephan, Cookie White and William Stephan (1989) After Intermarriage: Ethnic
Identity Among Mixed Heritage Japanese-Americans and Hispanics, Journal of
Marriage and the Family 51(May): 50719.
Tafoya, Sonya M. (2000) Check One or More . . . Mixed Race and Ethnicity, Cali-
fornia Public Policy Institute, San Francisco.
Telles, Edward and Edward Murguia (1990) Phenotype Discrimination and Income
Differences Among Mexican Americans, Social Science Quarterly 71(4): 68296.
Thorton, Michael C. and Harold Gates (2001) Black, Japanese, and American: An
Asian American Identity Yesterday and Today, in T. Williams-Len and C.L.
Nakashima (eds) The Sum of Our Parts: Mixed Heritage Asian Americans,
pp. 93103. Philadelphia, PA: Tempe University Press.
US Bureau of the Census (2001) US Census 2000 Redistricting Data.
Waters, Mary C. (1990) Ethnic Options: Choosing Identities in America. Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press.
Waters, Mary C. (1999) Black Identities: West Indian Immigrant Dreams and
American Realities. New York and Cambridge, MA: Russell Sage Foundation
and Harvard University Press.
Zhou, Min and Carl L. Bankston (1998) Growing up American: How Vietnamese
Children Adapt to Life in the United States. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
TOMS R. JIMNEZ is a PhD candidate in the Department of Soci-
ology at Harvard University. He is currently working on an ethnographic
project examining how Mexican immigrants inuence the ethnic identity
of established Mexican Americans. Additionally, he, along with Mary C.
Waters, is authoring a review of relevant literature on the immigrant
experience that will appear in the 2005 edition of the Annual Review of
Sociology. Address: Department of Sociology, Harvard University, 517
Lowell Mail Center, Cambridge, MA. [email: tjimenez@wjh.harvard.edu]

Negotiating Ethnic Boundaries

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Negotiating Ethnic Boundaries

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

http://etn.sagepub.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi