ethnic identity by Susannah Fears

ethnic identity

Looking closely at ethnic identity as an affiliative construct, where an individual is viewed by themselves and by others as belonging to a particular ethnic or cultural group. An individual can choose to associate with a group especially if other choices are available (i.e., the person is of mixed ethnic or racial heritage).

BY JOSEPH E. TRIMBLE AND RYAN DICKSON Western Washington University / Applied Developmental Science

e t h n i c identity The construct, ethnic identity, can best be understood through an examination of its etymological origins. The term ethnic has Latin and Greek origins – ethnicus and ethnikas both meaning nation. It can and has been used historically to refer to people as heathens. Ethos, in Greek, means custom, disposition or trait. Ethnikas and ethos taken together therefore can mean a band of people (nation) living together who share and acknowledge common customs. The second part of the construct, identity, has Latin origins and is derived from the word identitas; the word is formed from idem meaning same. Thus, the term is used to express the notion of sameness, likeness, and oneness. More precisely, identity means “the sameness of a person or thing at all times in all circumstances; the condition or fact that a person or thing is itself and not something else” (Simpson & Weiner, 1989, p. 620). Combining the definitions and interpretations of identity and ethnicity it can be concluded that they mean, or at minimum imply, the sameness of a band or nation of people who share common customs, traditions, historical experiences, and in some instances geographical residence. At one level of interpretation the combined definition is sufficient to capture the manner in which the identity is generally conceptualized and used to understand ethno-cultural influences on its formation and development. At another level identity is almost synonymous with ethnicity prompting some sociologists like Herbert Gans (2003) to suggest that identity is no longer a useful term. Additionally, because of it increasing popularity identity is rapidly becoming a cliché and therefore more and more difficult to understand (Gleason, 1996). Definitions of ethnic identity vary according to the underlying theory embraced by researchers’ and scholars’ intent on resolving its conceptual meanings. The fact that there is no widely agreed upon definition of ethnic identity is indicative of the confusion surrounding the topic. Typically, ethnic identity is an affiliate construct, where an individual is viewed by themselves and by others as belonging to a particular ethnic or cultural group. An individual can choose to associate with a group especially if other choices are available (i.e., the person is of mixed ethnic or racial heritage). Affiliation can be influenced by racial, natal, symbolic, and cultural factors (Cheung, 1993). Racial factors involve the use of physiognomic and physical characteristics,

natal factors refer to “homeland” (ancestral home) or origins of individuals, their parents and kin, and symbolic factors include those factors that typify or exemplify an ethnic group (e.g., holidays, foods, clothing, artifacts, etc.). Symbolic ethnic identity usually implies that individuals choose their identity, however to some extent the cultural elements of the ethnic or racial group have a modest influence on their behavior (Kivisto & Nefzger, 1993). Yuet Cheung (1993) defines ethnic identification as “the psychological attachment to an ethnic group or heritage” (p. 1216) and thus centers the construct in the domain of self-perception. The Netherlands sociologist, Sawiti Saharso (1989), extends the definition to include social processes that involve one’s choice of friends, selection of a future partner, perception of their life-chances, and the reactions of others in one’s social environment. Both definitions involve boundaries where one makes a distinction between “self” and “other.” Saharso’s definition extends the “others” boundary to include an attribution component. An individual may strongly identify psychologically with an ethnic group, however, the strength and authenticity of the identity is contingent on the acceptance and acknowledgment of “ingroup” and “outgroup” members. Saharso’s definition is consistent with the writings of the sociologist, Fredrik Barth (1969), who argued that ethnic identity was a means to create boundaries that enabled a group to distance themselves from one another. Barth was quite forceful about his position as he strongly maintained that ethnic boundaries define a group and not the “cultural stuff that encloses it” (Sollars, 1996, p. xxii). The psychologist, Jean Phinney (1990), notes that there are “widely discrepant definitions and measures of ethnic identity, which makes generalizations and comparisons across studies difficult and ambiguous” (p.500). Currently, the most widely used definition of the construct in psychology is the one developed by Phinney (1990, 2000, 2003). She maintains, that,

“ethnic identity is a dynamic, multidimensional construct that refers to one’s identity, or sense of self as a member of an ethnic group” (2003, p. 63). From her perspective one claims an identity within the context of a subgroup that claims a common ancestry and shares at least a similar culture, race, religion, language, kinship, or place of origin. She goes on to add that, “Ethnic identity is not a fixed categorization, but rather is a fluid and dynamic understanding of self and ethnic background. Ethnic identity is constructed and modified as individuals become aware of their ethnicity, with in the large (sociocultural) setting” (2003, p. 63). Phinney (1990, 2000) views subjective identity as a starting point that eventually leads to the development of a social identity based on ethnic group membership. The cross-cultural psychologist Peter Weinreich (1986) not only views self-identity as a starting point, he believes that identity formation and development refers to different identity states where different social contexts will influence the identity state and one’s actions. He asserts that “one’s identity as situated in a specific social context is defined as that part of the totality of one’s self-construal in which how one construes oneself in the situated present expresses the continuity between how one construes oneself as one was in the past and how one construes oneself as one aspires to be in the future.” Moreover, Weinreich maintains that ethnic self-identity is not a static process but one that changes and varies according to particular social contexts. Individuals, for example, may avoid situations where their identity is challenged, threatened, humiliated, and castigated; and seek out and sustain whenever possible settings that favor the identity state. Self-expression, maintenance of ethnic identity, and situated identities offer promise for understanding the complexities and dynamics of ethnic orientations through Weinreich’s theory of Identity Structure Analysis (Weinreich & Saunderson, 2003). Several conceptual approaches to ethnic identity emphasize an individual level of analysis where notions of identity

formation and development are linked to one’s self-concept. Much of the work in this area relies on the social psychologist Henri Tajfel’s (1982) theory of social identity. Tajfel basically maintains that one’s social identity strongly influences self-perception and consequently should be the central locus of evaluation. The strength and weakness of the self is largely determined from our status with our reference groups and how we assess outgroup members. When ethnicity and race form the nexus of an ingroup, then self-identity will be correspondingly influenced. One’s distinctive ethnic characteristics, however, can be restrictive as one may reject external judgments and opinions of their own ethnic group and in turn establish their own criterion to challenge and refute those of the dominant outgroup. Other responses are possible: individuals might withdraw or choose to dissociate with the referent thereby creating added psychological complications for themselves. Tajfel’s social identity theory has generated considerable influence on ethnic identity research; some prefer to carry out the work under the ethnic self-identification rubric. Ethnic identity is usually contextual and situational because it derives from social negotiations where one declares an ethnic identity and then demonstrates acceptable and acknowledged ethnic group markers to others. One’s ethnic declaration often is open to the scrutiny of others who may validate or invalidate the declaration. Ethnic declarations embody an ethnic consciousness that is closely aligned with the cultural elements of the ethnic group with which they affiliate. The ultimate form of one’s ethnic consciousness is the genuine association of one’s personal identification with a communal one. Thus it is logical to assume that a concordance would exist between personal identity and an outsider’s sense of identity where the importance is placed on one’s own categories and intention of self-identification. To promote the union between self and other, individuals often will use ethnological speech patterns

and gestures to promote the authenticity of their claim. If outward physical appearances do not mesh with the standard physical criteria or there is the sense that others doubt the identity claim ethnic actors will tend to exaggerate and give emphasis to mannerisms and speech idiosyncrasies known to be particular and specific to the reference group. This ritual or stylistic emphasis frequently occurs, too, when ethnic group members meet or gather in geographic areas that differ from their homelands or communities of common origin. The distinctive ritual is a prime example of situational ethnicity and situated ethnic identity. At an individual or societal level one may rely on labels to describe their ethnic affiliation and subsequently their identity. Labels assist in classifying and naming people. Thus, ethnic labeling has a sociopolitical value and function, especially for census and demographic studies. At a superficial level, where generalizations about distinct cultural orientations are not used, ethnic labels serve a useful function. However, use of a label is a small part of the identity process, as one is likely to expand the labeling to include other identifiers such as natal background, acculturation status, ego-involvement, and attitudes toward own and other groups; behavioral preferences such as language usage, friendship affiliations, music and food preferences, and participation in cultural and religious activities may be included (Trimble, 2000). People with mixed ethnic backgrounds present interesting ethnic identity cases as they have at least two ethnic groups from which to claim and negotiate an ethnic declaration. Based on extensive interviews with people of mixed-ethnic background the clinical psychologist Maria P. P. Root (1994) identified four basic reasons why a multi-ethnic person would choose to identify with a particular group regardless of how others may view them.

ROOT MAINTAINS THAT: 1.) One enhances their sense of security by understanding a distinct part of their ethnic heritage 2.) Parental influences stimulated by the encouragement of grandparents promote identity, thereby granting permission to the offspring to make a choice; 3.) Racism and prejudice associated with certain groups lead to sharing experiences with family, thereby assisting the individual to develop psychological skills and defenses to protect oneself (the shared experiences helps to build self-confidence and creates the sense that one can cope with the negative elements often associated with the group) 4.) “Gender alignment between parents and children may exert influence on ethnic and racial socialization particularly when they have good relationships and are mutually held in esteem”

The first oblique reference to ethnic identity can be found in the anthropological and sociological literature of the early 20th century, in reference to the field study of non-western cultures. The terms, ethnic groups and ethnicity, were first used in anthropology to refer to a people presumed to affiliate with the same cultural group and who shared the same custom, language and traditions. Over the years the construct seems to have emerged through the combination of ethnic and identity and their meanings, as a reasonably thorough literature search was unable to uncover a coining author or an often-cited definition. Reference to the notion of ethnic identity can be trace back to the early 19th century. In 1808, Hugh Murray (1808), in referring to the influence of mental images on self-recognition, asserted a notably modern view on the construct when he stated, “But I think it evident that the characteristic qualities…are wholly unconnected with those external by races which are distinguished. Mind is more flexible substance and yields more readily to the influence of altered circumstances” (pp. 33-34). Writing about individual and national differences between 1830 and 1835 the naturalist, Alexander Von Humboldt, maintained that, “Language is the outer appearance of the mentalities of peoples;

their language is their mentality and their mentality their language. One can hardly overemphasize their identity. People who share a common language develop a similar subjectivity, a weltanschauung (world view)” (Von Humboldt, 1830-1835/1985), p. 12). In both citations, language and one’s mental images formed the basis of the scholars’ observations about the importance of identity from a nationalistic perspective. When first used, ethnic identity was synonymous with race or racial identity and ethnicity in general. It is likely that ethnicity was first used by the French nationalist and scientist, Georges Vacher de la Pouge, in 1896 to describe the “natural and counterfeit” cultural, psychological and social characteristics of a population, and in order to distinguish the latter from the concept of race which he defined as a series of physical characteristics (Vacher de la Pouge, 1896). Herbert J. Gans (1996) suggests that the sociologist David Riesman gave ethnicity a new and salient meaning in the 20th century. Werner Sollars (1996), on the other hand, attributes the earliest use of the term to Einar Haugen and Joshua Fishman who were likely influenced by the sociologist W. Lloyd Warner (see p. xxxvii) all of whom were writing about the concept in

the 1940’s and 1950s. Race and ethnicity were often used interchangeably in reference to both the physical and cultural characteristics of an individual as a member of his or her ethnic or racial group and the circumstances that influenced its importance. On this point in 1916, the philosopher Horace Kallen wrote that, “When the quarrel (whether they identified with the English or Britons in America) came they remembered how they had left the mother country in search of religious liberty for themselves; how they left Holland, where they had found this liberty, for fear of losing their ethnic and cultural identity and what hardships they had borne for the sake of conserving both the liberty and the identity” (Kallen, 1996, p. 69). In 1922, the sociologist, Max Weber, wrote about ethnic groups in a novel way, including within the definition a subjective element that previously had been absent. Weber also differentiated between racial and ethnic identity by proposing that a blood relationship was necessary for racial identification but not for ethnic identification. He defined ethnic groups as, “…those human groups that entertain a subjective belief in their common descent because of similarities of physical type or of customs or both, or because of memories of colonization and migration; this belief must be important for group formation; furthermore it does not matter whether an objective blood relationship exists.” Although he wrote about the significance of ethnicity in general, Weber never acknowledged the need for an individual’s active participation in their ethnic identity formation, nor did he explore the construct much beyond a definitional conceptualization. The concept of ethnic identity began to reemerge in the social and behavioral sciences literature of the 1960’s and 1970’s. Ethnicity, for example, is more salient today than in prior decades. “Ethnicity,” maintains Daniel Bell, “is a means (now) for disadvantaged groups to claim a set of rights and privileges which the existing power structures have denied them” (1975, p. 174). And for the past few decades America’s ethnic minority groups have been actively asserting their civil rights and demanding privileges heretofore denied them. Several factors have been cited as leading to this renewed interest in ethnicity, arguably the most significant being the civil rights struggle of African Americans in the United States. The beginning of this movement can be characterized as an attempt on the part of African Americans leaders and the African Americans culture in general, to take charge of their ethnic and racial identity and to subsequently redefine their ethnicity at both a societal and cultural level. Consequently, the social movement led to increased discourse on the topics of race and ethnicity in addition to an upsurge in societal awareness regarding these topics (Bourguignon, 1979; Phinney, 1990). More and more it appears that North Americans are realizing that their biological ancestors wittingly and unwittingly influence their lives. To gain some understanding and perhaps to add structure and meaning, many are searching their attics for long lost records describing their social histories. And from the discoveries one constructs a “symbolic identity.” “If you wish to understand persons - their development and their relations with significant others,” maintains Anselm Strauss (1959), “you must be prepared to view them as embedded in historical context” (p. 164). In the course of constructing and maintaining the identity, common historical symbols are identified, shared, and passed along to future generations.

“A man’s ethnic identity has more to do with a personal awareness than with geography.”

WILLIAM SAROYAN AMERICAN DRAMATIST / AUTHOR

( study ) the impact of racial identity, ethnic identity, asian values and race-related stress on asian americans and asian international college studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; psychological well-being

A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH CONDUCTED BY:

DEREK KENJI IWAMOTO AND WILLIAM MING LIU US National Library of Medicine / National Institutes of Health The current study investigated the direct and moderating effects of racial identity, ethnic identity, Asian values, and race-related stress on positive psychological well-being among 402 Asian American and Asian international college students. Results revealed that the racial identity statuses Internalization, Immersion/Emersion, Dissonance, Asian values and Ethnic Identity Affirmation and Belonging were significant predictors of well-being. Asian values, Dissonance and Conformity were found to moderate the relationship between race-related stress on well-being. Specifically, individuals in low race-related stress conditions who had low Asian values, high Conformity and low Dissonance attitudes started high on well being but decreased as race-related stress increased. These findings underscore the importance of how racial identity statuses, Asian values and ethnic identity jointly and uniquely explain and moderate the effects of race-related stress on positive well-being. Implications for future research and clinical practice are discussed.

The daily and lifelong experiences of racism and discrimination have

a deleterious effects on the well being of Asian and Asian Americans (Lee, 2003; Mossakowski, 2003; Wong & Halgin, 2006). Racism may overwhelm the available coping response and resources for Asian Americans, which may lead to psychological distress (Harrell, 2000; Lazaurs & Folkman, 1984). In explaining the ways in which Asian Americans react, understand, and cope with racism, authors have used various theories and methods. Racial identity (Alvarez, Juang, & Liang, 2006; Liu, 2002), ethnic identity (Lee, 2005; Noh, Beiser, Kaspar, Hou, & Rummens, 1999), cultural values (Liu & Iwamoto, 2006), and collective self-esteem (Liang & Fassinger, 2008) are found in the extant empirical literature. These diverse theories and methods highlight the complexity inherent in the Asian and Asian American community that is related to their immigration experiences, population concentrations in certain regions of the United States, and the types of racism they experience. Researchers often assume that Asian Americans have a pan-racial identification which could be assessed by racial identity, and others have focused on specific Asian American ethnic groups and have assessed ethnic identity or cultural values. Yet because of the diverse histories and contexts within the Asian American community, what might psychologists assume about this community? Previous studies have focused on subjective well-being without addressing identity or values or have used only one measure of identity and therefore have been limited (Kang, Shaver, Sue, Mi, & Jing, 2003; Lee, 2005; Lieber, Chin, Nihira, & Mink, 2001; Utsey, Chae, Brown, & Kelly, 2002; Yoo & Lee, 2005). The present study builds upon previous research by investigating how racial identity (Helms, 1995), ethnic identity (Phinney, 1992; Roberts, Phinney, Masse, Chen, Roberts, & Romero, 1999), Asian values (Kim & Hong, 2004), and race-related stress (Liang, Li, & Kim, 2004) are collectively and uniquely associated to eudaimonic psychological well-being (Ryff, 1989) among Asian American and Asian international college students.

____ asians In the United States Census, Asian American is a racial category comprised of at least thirty different ethnic groups and potentially many more cultural groups (Census Bureau, 2002). As a result, the confusion about Asian Americans is often related to the interchangeable use of race, ethnic identity, and culture to describe this community. For the purposes of this research study, we define culture to be the “customs, norms, practices, and social institutions, including psychological processes…[and the] beliefs, values, and practices, including religious and spiritual traditions” (Cooper & Leong, 2008, p. 133). These values and beliefs such as filial piety, deference authority, and saving face often span across many Asian ethnic groups such as Chinese, Japanese and Koreans (Kim & Hong, 2004). Additionally, race is defined as “the category to which others assign individuals on the basis of physical characteristics, such as skin color or hair type, and the generalizations and stereotypes made as a result” (Cooper & Leong, 2008, p. 134). Finally, ethnic identity is reflective of cultural practices as well as the acquisition and maintenance of cultural characteristics (Cokley, 2005). Accordingly, Asian Americans represent approximately 4.2 percent of the total United States population. Over 51% live in California, New York, and Hawaii, and 75% live in these three states and only seven others (Census Bureau, 2002). Moreover, Asian Americans reside in states where there are large ethnic-specific communities (e.g., Chinatown, Little Saigon, Koreatown), and where historically these states served as major ports of entry for early Asian laborers (Chan, 1991; Takaki, 1989). Owing to the uneven history of immigration to the United States because of racial and ethnic specific exclusion laws (e.g., 1882 Chinese Exclusion Law), many Asian American ethnic groups have only recently, since 1965, been allowed to migrate and settle in large numbers (Chan, 1991; Takaki, 1989). Most Asians migrating to the United States are a part of a chain of migration where they come to be reunited with family, to work, or to attend school (Fu & Hatfield, 2008; Zhou & Xiong, 2005). Two contemporary issues arise from this history which is pertinent to this study. First, Asian Americans are a predominantly immigrant community. For instance, in 2006, 76% of Asian Americans adults were immigrants (Ong, Cruz-Viesca, & Nakanishi, 2008). Furthermore, of the adult Asian Americans, between one in twenty-five and one in thirty were United States citizens (Ong et al., 2008). While citizenship rates are not a perfect manner to assess acculturation or assimilation, the lopsided ratio of citizens to non-citizens does suggest the potential salience of culture and ethnicity (i.e., country of origin). The second issue is related to the type of racism Asian Americans may experience. Although the racism, discrimination, prejudice, and harassment Asian Americans experience falls under the umbrella of racism, the racism against Asian Americans might vary from racism against African and Latino Americans. Reported incidents of racism against Asian Americans often confuse an Asian American’s race and ethnicity. For instance, the murder of Vincent Chin in 1982, reportedly started when Chin, who was Chinese, was accused of being a “Jap” and the reason for automobile job losses (U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, USCCR, 1992). Similarly, Jim Loo, who was Chinese, was murdered in 1989, and called a “gook” during his beating (USCCR, 1992). In Loo’s case, “gook” is a slur for Vietnamese. Other differences in the types of racism again Asian Americans arise from their immigrant status as they are often stereotyped as foreigners, exotic, or the perpetual alien (Abreu, Ramirez, Kim, & Haddy,

2003; Lee, 1999; Liang & Fassinger, 2008; Takaki, 1989). While some forms of racism are overtly hostile and aggressive, there are also microaggressions that are seemingly innocuous, are also forms of racism since these comments and descriptors assume that Asians are not-true-Americans (Sue, Bucceri, Lin, Nadal, & Torino, 2007). Remarks about Asian Americans’ proficiency in English or assuming that all Asians are from abroad (“Where are you really from?”) are forms of racism that simultaneously attack the person’s race, ethnicity, culture, and immigration status (Sue et al., 2007). These assumptions perpetuate the stereotype that Americans are always White (Devos & Banaji, 2005) Proposing that Asian Americans may have an important ethnic identity does not diminish the importance of race for Asian Americans. Race, in particular a pan-Asian American identification and affiliation may be important for some Asian Americans. But the historical and sociological research suggests that this process of affiliating with a pan-racial group, such that ethnicities are no longer identifiable or salient, is a long-term process evolving over many generations (Espiritu, 1992; Jacobson, 1998). One variable that may contribute to the development of a pan-Asian American identification is experiences with racism (Espiritu, 1992). That is, over time, Asian and Asian Americans may come to see him/herself as representative of a larger community against whom racism is directed, regardless of ethnicity or country of origin. But at this current point with the Asian American community where the vast majority of the adult population are immigrants, and many of the children and adolescents have been socialized in U.S. schools (Zhou & Xiong, 2005), and some Asian American ethnic groups such as Japanese Americans have longer and stable histories in the United States, what are the best ways to understand how Asian Americans experiences racism?

SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY One theoretical approach to understanding the roles of race, ethnic identity, and culture in moderating the effects of racism is social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 2001). In social identity theory, these variables may help ameliorate and buffer the negative psychological effects of racism but could also potentially exacerbate the affects as well (Yip, Gee, & Takeuchi, 2008). In social identity theory, individuals select from a diverse range of social identity groups and once the individual chooses a group which becomes their in-group, the individual is motivated to focus on the positive aspects of that group (Hornsey, 2008; Trepte, 2006). For those who affiliate and identify with their chosen in-group and experience racism they will focus on positive aspects of their group which might bolster and maintain their psychological well being (Yip, Gee, & Takeuchi, 2008). For instance, if individuals were to select ethnicity as the in-group, ethnic identity may potentially buffer the negative effect of racism on the person’s chosen in-group. Some research already suggests that ethnic identification among Filipino Americans, for instance, may mitigate the impact of racism on depressive symptoms (Mossakowski, 2003). While strong identification with one’s ethnic or racial group may be protective, it is possible the high identification may also increase the negative effects of discrimination and impact an individual’s well being (Yip, Gee, & Takeuchi, 2008). Some research also suggests that individuals who highly affiliate or identify with an in-group may also experience more negative effects of racism. Potentially, individuals who choose an in-group may become highly sensitive to environmental cues related to that aspect of their in-group (Hornsey, 2008; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987). For example, experiences with racism may call attention to an individual’s racial or ethnic group. Because the individual identifies

___ & asian with a particular in-group, and since he/she is sensitive to cues (i.e., racism) against the in-group, the individual is likely to be more sensitive to challenges against the in-group. Some research suggests that for some African Americans who had a strong racial identity, racial discrimination was more likely to be reported (Sellers & Shelton, 2003; Shelton & Sellers, 2000). It might be that for some African Americans, racial identity attitudes are the lens through which many interracial interactions are interpreted. That is, depending on one’s racial identity attitudes, potentially ambiguous situations that may not be explicitly racist are interpreted as being discriminatory (Shelton & Sellers, 2000). While strong identification with one’s ethnic or racial group may be protective, it is possible the high identification may also increase the negative effects of discrimination and impact an individual’s well being (Yip, Gee, & Takeuchi, 2008). Some research also suggests that individuals who highly affiliate or identify with an in-group may also experience more negative effects of racism. Potentially, individuals who choose an in-group may become highly sensitive to environmental cues related to that aspect of their in-group (Hornsey, 2008; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987). For example, experiences with racism may call attention to an individual’s racial or ethnic group. Because the individual identifies with a particular in-group, and since he/she is sensitive to cues (i.e., racism) against the in-group, the individual is likely to be more sensitive to challenges against the in-group. Some research suggests that for some African Americans who had a strong racial identity, racial discrimination was more likely to be reported (Sellers & Shelton, 2003; Shelton & Sellers, 2000). It might be that for some African Americans, racial identity

attitudes are the lens through which many interracial interactions are interpreted. That is, depending on one’s racial identity attitudes, potentially ambiguous situations that may not be explicitly racist are interpreted as being discriminatory (Shelton & Sellers, 2000). It would also follow that potentially having a strong racial or ethnic identity may lead to poorer psychological outcomes related to racism. Some research suggest this possibility that strong identification with a group and experiences with racism are related to increased psychological distress; these were some results found among Latinos (McCoy & Major, 2003), Asian and African Americans (Operario & Fiske, 2001), and among Southeast Asians (Noh et al., 1999). Therefore, it is possible that depending on the identity of the Asian American, racial identity and ethnic identity may moderate the psychological distress related to racism and affect the individual’s psychological well-being. In reviewing the extant literature on racial identity, ethnic identity, and cultural values in relation to racism and psychological well-being are limited (Kang et al., 2003; Lee, 2005; Lieber et al., 2001;Yoo & Lee, 2005; Utsey et al., 2002). Typically these investigations have used only one measure of ethnic identity or racial identity or conceptualized psychological well-being as self-esteem. The conceptualization of well-being as self-esteem is problematic, as psychological well-being is conceptually different from self-esteem. Specifically, the former encompasses optimal experiences, functioning, and self-actualization (Lent, 2004), whereas self-esteem is unidimen-

americans sional in nature and only captures self-worth and self-acceptance. In the present study, eudaimonic psychological well-being is defined as an individual’s openness to growth and personal expressiveness, self-actualization, and the feeling of purpose and meaning in life (Lent, 2004; Ryff, 1989). Ryff’s (1989, 1995) conceptualization of psychological well-being was used in this study because her measure is conceptually appropriate in capturing college students’ cognitive evaluation of their positive psychological adjustment. These factors include personal growth and personal expressiveness, positive relationships with others, self-actualization, and meaning and purpose in life---all of which are salient dimensions of wellness that emerging adults strive to develop (Berk, 2006).

RACE-RELATED STRESS The Surgeon General’s Report underscored racism and intolerance as directly contributing to mental illness by exacerbating anxiety and depression (Department of Health and Human Services, 2001). Harrell (2000) indicates that race-related stress often taxes individuals’ cognitive resources to cope with these experiences, and thus threatens the mental wellness of the individual. Others have also suggested that racism has deleterious psychological and physical consequences as well (Clark, Anderson, Clark, & Williams, 2000). However, there have been scant investigations on race-related stress or the psychological stress resulting from exposure to direct and indirect forms of racism with Asian Americans (Chen, LePhuoc, Guzman, Rude, & Dodd, 2006; Liang et al., 2004). Liang and colleagues postulated that Asian Americans experience unique forms of race-related stress, which include: (a) socio-historical racism, (b) general racism, and (c) perpetual foreigner racism. Examples of socio-historical racism includes the perception of Asian American men as passive and asexual; an example of general racism includes the assumption that all Asians are good at math and know karate; while an example of perpetual foreigner racism is the perception of Asian Americans as foreigners who speak poor English, even if they are American born. Several investigations have found strong associations between perceived racism and depression among Asian Americans. Chen et al.’s (2006) cluster analysis found that the racial identity statuses Dissonance and Immersion characterized high Asian American race-related stress (Liang et al., 2004), while the Conformity status clustered on low race-related stress. These findings emphasize the importance of identifying variables that moderate the effects of race-related stress on the psychological well-being of Asian Americans.

____________ 12

RACIAL IDENTITY THEORY For people of color in the United States, developing a healthy identity and psychological well-being remains a constant challenge in the face of persistent discrimination. Racial identity theory (RIT) describes the process of how “members of racially oppressed groups respond to and internalize race-related stress and discrimination into their overall identity or self-consciousness” (Alvarez & Helms, 2001, p. 218). RIT includes a consideration of the “racialization” of ethnic and cultural groups in America. This racialization and categorization process experienced by Asian Americans and other minority ethnic groups (e.g., Mexican Americans) minimizes ethnic within-group variations while similarities are exaggerated. The racial identity model, according to Helms (1995), is a dynamic and interactive process consisting of the following hypothesized racial-identity-formation statuses: Conformity, Dissonance, Immersion-Emersion, and Internalization. Conformity status reflects a “color blind” worldview whereby the individual identifies only with White Americans and White culture while trivializing the significance of race and racial issues. Dissonance status marks a time of confusion and anxiety about one’s racial affiliation and racial issues. Immersion-Emersion status entails the individuals immersing themselves solely in their own racial group by exclusively socializing with people of the same ethnic or racial belonging. Resentment and resistant attitudes towards Whites and White culture are also present in this status. Internalization status is characterized by integration, acceptance, and appreciation of one’s own culture as well as others (Alvarez & Helms, 2001; Kohatsu et al., 2000). Racial identity reflects a dynamic process in which people of color do not necessarily follow a linear trajectory. Individuals often recycle or move from one status to another (Parham, White & Ajamu, 1999) depending on life events and experiences (e.g., from Dissonance to Internalization). Finally these transitions through statuses are often triggered by experiences of racism and discrimination (Quintana, 2007). Research examining racial identity with Asian Americans illustrates how racial identity is linked to psychological adjustment (Tan & Alvarez, 2004), awareness of racism (Alvarez & Helms, 2001; Chae, 2004b), and collective self-esteem (Alvarez & Helm, 2001). Thus, it is important to examine how racial identity might serve as a moderator of race-related stress on well-being. That is, individuals who report high amounts of race-related stress and who are strongly identified with their racial group might be able to focus on positive characteristics of their racial group and minimize the stigma associated with the discriminatory and racist experience (Sellers & Shelton, 2003). Moreover, individuals who operate in the Immersion-Emersion or Internalization statuses might be more mentally prepared for these racist encounters, thus their foresight might protect against the adverse effects.

ETHNIC IDENTITY Another aspect of identity shaping Asian Americans’ self-concept is ethnic identity. Ethnic identity is considered a multidimensional construct, which includes ethnic group behaviors, knowledge and awareness of cultural beliefs, and traditions of one’s ethnic group (Lee, 2005; Phinney & Ong, 2007). This definition differs from racial identity theory which describes the impact of racism on self-concept (Alvarez & Helms, 2001; Fischer & Moradi, 2001) and social attitudes about one’s race and towards Whites. Several investigations have suggested that higher ethnic identity development is associated with higher levels of quality of life), and satisfaction with life. Given the link between ethnic identity and well-being, research has begun to examine the role of ethnic identity as a moderator of perceived discrimination. Investigations that have studied the effects of ethnic identity on well-being have found disparate results. Two epidemiological studies have indicated that ethnic identity moderated the negative effects of discrimination on depressive symptoms (Yip et al., 2008; Mossakowski, 2003), however, another investigation by Lee and colleagues (Lee, 2005;Yoo & Lee, 2005; Yoo & Lee, 2008) suggested that stronger ethnic identity exacerbated the effects of discrimination on negative affect. These findings suggest the need for exploring the possible moderating effect between ethnic identity and discrimination on psychological well-being.

w h at is et h n ic identi ty a n d why does it m atter? Since the publication of Donald Horowitz’s Ethnic Groups in Conflict, there has been an increasing convergence on the classification of ethnic identities among comparative political scientists. But there is no agreement on the definition that justifies this classification – and the definitions that individual scholars propose do not match their classifications. This article proposes a definition that captures the conventional classification of ethnic identities in comparative political science to a greater degree than the alternatives. According to this definition, “ethnic identities” are a subset of identity categories in which membership is determined by attributes associated with, or believed to be associated with, descent (described in the article simply as “descent-based attributes”). I argue, on the basis of the definition proposed here, that ethnicity either does not matter, or has not been shown to matter, in explaining most outcomes to which it has been causally linked by comparative political scientists, including violence, democratic stability and patronage.

What is ethnic identity? Since the publication of Donald Horowitz’s Ethnic Groups in Conflict in 1985, there has been a convergence among comparative political scientists on which identities we classify as ethnic. For Horowitz, “ethnicity” is an umbrella concept that “easily embraces groups differentiated by color, language, and religion; it covers “tribes,” “races,” “nationalities,” and castes.” (Horowitz 1985, 53). Much of the recent theoretical literature on ethnic politics explicitly follows this umbrella classification (e.g. Varshney 2001, Chandra 2004, Wilkinson 2004, Htun 2004, Posner 2005). Even more importantly, the four principal datasets on ethnic groups that constitute the foundation for cross-national empirical studies of the effect of ethnic identity in comparative politics – the Atlas Narodov Mira (Miklukho-Maklai Ethnological Institute 1964), a dataset on ethnic groups in 190 countries published by Alesina et al in 2003 (Alesina et al 2003), a comparable count of ethnic groups in 160 countries published by James Fearon in the same year (Fearon 2003) and the Minorities at Risk (MAR) project (http:// www.cidcm.umd.edu/inscr/mar/) -- also by and large employ this classification. There remain only some quibbles on the margin about whether “castes” should be excluded (e.g. Fearon 2003) or retained (e.g. Atlas Narodov Mira 1964, Varshney 2001, Chandra 2004, Wilkinson 2004, Sambanis 2004, Htun 2004, Posner 2005) and whether “region” and “clan” should be included in the list . But we do not have a definition which matches this classification. Many comparative political scientists do not define the term before using it. And those that do often classify identities as ethnic even when they do not correspond to their own definitions. Horowitz, for instance, counts Hindus and Muslims in India, Christians and Muslims in Lebanon, and Creoles and Indians in Guyana and Trinidad as ethnic categories even though they do not possess his primary defining characteristic of a myth of common ancestry (Horowitz 1985). Fearon counts “Hindi-speakers” as an ethnic group even though individuals who either speak Hindi or have Hindi as their

mother tongue do not meet his definitional criterion of having a distinct history as a group or a shared culture valued by the majority of members (Fearon 2003). And Chandra often counts categories based on region as ethnic, even though it is not clear whether these groups meet her definition of ethnic groups as “ascriptive” groups (Chandra 2004, Chandra 2005). Why is a definition necessary if we are approaching a consensus on classification? Because a definition tells us how to evaluate and build theories about ethnic identity – and concepts based on ethnic identity, such as ethnic diversity, ethnic riots, ethnic parties, ethnic voting and so on – as an independent variable. We now have a large body of work in comparative political science that argues that ethnicity “matters” – for violence, for democratic stability, for institutional design, for economic growth, for individual well-being and so on – and makes general, cross-country predictions about its effects (e.g. Horowitz 1985, Rabushka and Shepsle 1972, Przeworski et al 2000, Posen 1993, Petersen 2002, Geertz 1973, Dahl 1971, Bates 1974, Landa 1994, Caselli and Coleman 2001, Fearon 1999, Chua 2003, Cox 1997, Kaufmann 1996, Reilly 2001, Toft 2003). Claims that tell us why these variables matter for some outcome are always based on the assumption that ethnic identities have particular properties that explain the outcome. If we are to assess these claims and build new ones, we need some basis on which to judge which properties can reasonably be associated with ethnic identities. A definition provides an analytical basis for making this judgment. This article proposes a definition of the term “ethnic identity” which captures the conventional classification to a greater degree than previous definitions. According to this definition, ethnic identities are a subset of identity categories in which eligibility for membership is determined by attributes associated with, or believed to be associated with, descent (described in the article simply as “descent-based attributes”). This definition differs from previous ones in two ways. First, it

introduces a distinction between categories of membership and the attributes that qualify individuals for membership in that category. The two concepts have been conflated in previous work, but making a consistent distinction between them has large consequences for how we think about ethnic identity. Second, it empties the definition of characteristics such as a common culture, a common history, a common territory and a common language, which are only sometimes associated with the identities that we think of as ethnic and thus cannot be thought of as defining characteristics. My approach to building this definition is to identify the principles underlying the classification of the term ethnic identity in the specialized community of comparative political scientists – not to define ethnicity according to some objective criteria, or to capture broader social scientific usage or everyday usage. The virtue of this approach lies in the opportunities it provides for cumulation of research on ethnic identity as an independent variable. In order to theorize about the effect of ethnic identity in a cumulative fashion, we must evaluate the previous body of work in comparative political science that argues that ethnicity “matters”, retain the insights that survive an evaluation and discard those that do not. And in order to evaluate whether and how ethnicity matters in the way these works propose, we need a definition that tells us what the properties of ethnic identities, as classified by this body of work, are. It would be an added advantage if this definition also captured the way in which the term is understood among other communities but that is not my main concern. I show here that many of the properties commonly associated with ethnic identities in our explanatory theories do not characterize the identities that we classify as ethnic in general, although they may well apply to particular subsets of these identities. These properties include common ancestry, a common myth of ancestry, a common language, a common culture, and a common homeland. Based on the definition proposed here, I also identify two properties that are indeed intrinsic to ethnic identities, on average: “constrained change” and “visibility.” By the property of “constrained change,” I mean that while an individual’s ethnic identities do change in the short term, the pattern of change and the mechanisms driving it are constrained by the underlying set of attributes. By the property of visibility, I mean that some information about an individual’s ethnic identity categories – and the categories to which she does not belong -- can be obtained through superficial observation. But these two properties are not uniquely associated with ethnic identities -they characterize all identity categories in which membership is determined by descent-based attributes. And they are only associated with descent-based identity categories on average. Particular descent-based identities may well resemble particular non-descentbased identities in particular contexts. This forces us to conclude that ethnic identity – and concepts related to ethnic identity such as ethnic diversity, ethnic riots, ethnic parties, ethnic

violence, ethnic conflict and so on – either do not matter or have not been shown to matter by most previous theoretical work on ethnic identity as an independent variable. Only a small subset of our previous claims about why and how ethnic identity matters rely on properties that have been shown to be intrinsic to ethnic identities. In most instances, the mechanisms driving our explanatory theories about the effect of ethnic identity assume properties such as fixedness of identity, cultural homogeneity, and a shared history that are not associated with ethnic identities even as classified by this body of work. The cause of the outcome they seek to explain, thus, must be some other variables that act independently or in interaction with ethnic identity. Thus, these theories must either be reformulated by taking into account the role of one or more omitted variables – or read as theories that are not about the effect of ethnic identities at all. By “identity,” I mean any social category in which an individual is eligible to be a member. Ethnic identity categories, I propose, are a subset of identity categories in

which eligibility for membership is determined by descent-based attributes. By attributes that “determine” eligibility for membership I mean either those that qualify an individual for membership in a category or those that signal such membership. By descent-based attributes, I mean attributes associated with, or believed to be associated with descent. By attributes “associated with descent” I mean attributes that are acquired genetically (e.g. skin colour, gender, hair type, eye color, height, and physical features), or through cultural and historical inheritance (e.g. the names, languages, places of birth and origin of one’s parents and ancestors), or acquired in the course of one’s lifetime as markers of such an inheritance (e.g. last name, or tribal markings). By attributes “believed to be associated with descent,” I mean attributes around which a credible myth of association with descent has been woven, whether or not such an association exists in fact. The definition thus includes both a subjective and an objective element.

The set of identity categories in which membership is determined by descent-based attributes is large. Ethnic identity categories are a subset of this larger set defined by the following restrictions: (1) They are impersonal. (2)They constitute a section of a country’s population rather than the whole. (3) If one sibling is eligible for membership in a category at any given place, then all other siblings would also be eligible in that place. (4) The qualifying attributes for membership are restricted only to one’s own genetically transmitted features or to the language, religion, place of origin, tribe, region, caste, clan, nationality, or race of one’s parents and ancestors. If some of the restrictions that constitute the subset of ethnic identities appear somewhat arbitrary, they are. Why impose a rule that requires siblings to be equally eligible for membership before a category can be called ethnic? Why allow this particular set of descent-based attributes and not others? I do not offer analytical justifications for these restrictions here – indeed, I argue later that there is not so far a good reason to wall off ethnic identities from other types of descent-based identities. But my purpose here is simply to identity those restrictions that we must impose in order to approximate the conventional classification of ethnic identities. Once we have identified these features, we are in a position also to recognize their arbitrariness and discard them where necessary. Let me illustrate this definition using the fictionalized example of Helen, imagined from a mélange of characters in Mary Waters’ study of West-Indian immigrants in New York (Waters 1999). Born in the English-speaking island of Trinidad to parents of African origin, she has dark skin, dark brown eyes and straight hair. She moved to the US after obtaining her high school diploma in Trinidad and works there as a food service employee, earning $25,000 a year. She belongs to, and votes for, the Democratic party there. She married a Haitian man in New York, and learned to speak French,

which is now her primary language of communication with her children and husband. Her brother Derek, who has lighter skin, light brown eyes and otherwise similar features, remained behind in Trinidad. Their parents are well-educated professionals who belong to the People’s National Movement (PNM) in Trinidad. They are Presbyterians, but Helen herself converted to Catholicism after meeting her husband. According to the definition above, Helen’s ethnic identity categories include Black (in which the qualifying attribute, according to current norms, is descent from African parents, signaled by attributes such as the color of her skin and physical features) and West-Indian (in which the qualifying attribute is descent from parents who lived in Trinidad, signaled by her accent among other attributes). Both these categories are determined by attributes associated, or believed to be associated with descent, and both of which place Helen and Derek in the same categories. Her ethnic identity categories also include “African-American” (in which membership is determined by the attribute of descent from African parents, skin color and physical features, in the US). Derek, because he stayed behind in Trinidad, cannot call himself “African-American.” But if he were to move to the US, he would be eligible for membership in this category just like his sibling. Helen’s ethnic identity categories according to this definition do not include several other identity categories also based on descent-based attributes such as “descendant of PNM supporters” (excluded because it is not based on either on physical features or on the language, religion, race, tribe, caste, nationality and place of origin of her parents), “people with dark brown eyes” (excluded because, while it is based on her physical features, it excludes her sibling, Derek), and “female” (also excluded because it excludes Derek). They also do not include “Catholic” (determined not either by descent or a myth of descent, but by conversion, openly

acknowledged, during her lifetime), “French-speaker,” (determined by a language learned during her lifetime rather than her ancestral language), working class (determined by attributes acquired during her lifetime such as her high school diploma and her job as a food service worker), and Democrat (determined by her joining the Democratic party during her lifetime). This definition captures most, but not all, of the categories that comparative political scientists include in the list of ethnic categories. For instance, although that list includes all categories based on language, this definition makes a distinction between categories in which the attribute for membership is an ancestral language (or a language presented as an ancestral language), which it takes to be “ethnic” and categories in which the attribute for membership is the language openly acquired during a lifetime, which it does not take to be “ethnic”. It also provides a decision rule for whether and when to classify ambiguous categories such as those based on clan and region as ethnic categories. A regional category is an ethnic category according to this definition only if the membership rule takes into consideration the region of origin of an individual’s parents and ancestors, rather than the region in which an individual currently resides.

BY STEVEN PETROW Civil Behavior / Booming / New York Times