Yesterday's class discussion was really interesting. Thanks for that! One of the topics that I'm still thinking about is this question of who controls ethnic and racial identity. Conventional wisdom says that the more marked the identity, the less individual control one has over it. In other words, ethnic and racial identities both have internal and external factors, but the more marked the group (i.e., the more "racialized" the group), the more external factors control the identity, and the less marked the group (i.e., ethnic groups, particularly European ethnic groups), the more internal factors are allowed to control the identity. Okay -- that's what a lot of people think.
But the thing is, in this class, we are supposed to be questioning the conventional wisdom. In so doing we may discover that it is correct, but then again, maybe it's not.
What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
To clarify: group identity is thought to be controlled internally or externally by the group or by society as a whole. That is entirely separate from the question of individual control over how people categorize you.
ReplyDeleteWe should think about these separately.
Regarding the internal and external factors—I completely agree. It seems that the one external factor that is the driving force behind determining one’s race is skin tone. Of course, it is not the only one, but it is the most apparent. And more “racialized” groups are based on the basis of their skin tones. But I would also have to say that perhaps the situations where the skin tone of a person is used to classify them occur in places rich in diversity—as ironic as that may sound, since people are always praising and striving to achieve diversity. I would agree with John Hartigan when he says that “the meaning of race varies by location” (Hartigan 25). Absolutely. Take the European and the African continents, for examples.
ReplyDeleteThe majority of people in Europe share a light skin tone. Similarly, the majority of people in Africa have darker skin tones. Here, the definition of race and ethnicity is probably not solely based upon skin tone.
It is in situations like these that internal factors have to come into play. For me, these factors could include tradition, religion, or culture in general.
I was in a really interesting position this weekend. I went out to dinner with a few friends and one of our classmates met up with a buddy from high school. Most of the friends that I was with were “brown” (as in, they were Indian and Pakistani). The guy that our friend was talking to had pale skin and hazel eyes. One of my friends asked where he was from and the other replied that the boy was from Northern Pakistan. Two of my Indian friends COULD NOT believe it. They couldn’t believe it because the boy wasn’t “brown” enough in skin tone! I wonder if that discrepancy would be as apparent if this light-skinned boy was in Northern Pakistan, or whether it was a big deal this weekend because there are white people in America that have darker skin tones than this boy. Interesting?
That is interesting. Ihave a blond, blue-eyed cousin who was living in northern India for a while, and was traveling across borders into Tibet and Nepal. At one point there was some possibility that he would be stopped and possibly detained if the border patrol suspected he was American, so the people he was traveling with told him to say he was Afghani. They dressed him up to look the part, and he aparently passed.
ReplyDeleteWhich brings up the interesting question (espcially in our society -- more so historically, I would say) of "passing" or of black people "passing" as white. If someone sees you and identifies you as belonging to some racial or ethnic category that you yourself do not identify with, how can you manage or control the outward appearance and align it with the inward identity? In the case of "passing" the point, in fact, IS to get others to identify you as belonging to a category that you do not believe you are a part of.
Context is a very important factor in all this.
I believe that external factors are important when you are observing racialized groups. It is the easiest way to label people and people in America seem to have a necessity of labeling everything, not just people. But I believe that internal factors come into play in specific groups, such as African Americans. African Americans skin tone can be really light or really dark and sometimes the only way to determine their race is to have a direct conversation with them.
ReplyDeleteFor example, my mother is biracial (Italian and African American) and often found it hard to fit in with either community when she was younger. Although she had the same physical appearance of an Italian (blue eyes), they could not get pass her internal characteristics. She had the same internal characteristics of an African American, but the community would not accept her as part of the group because her physical appearance was different.
While discussing the topics of belonging, being marked, and the idea of individualism, it caused me to raise the question that as long as there is groups within groups, will anyone ever really belong? This is not just considering race. For example, for an African American that identifies themselves as homosexual, it is hard to say this person will ever belong to a specific group because their internal and external factors will never exactly match up with someone else. This is why I completely believe this idea of individualism.
I think to a degree that conventional wisdom is not true. For example, a white person, who is a less marked individual, can claim to be the variety of European ethnic groups such as a combination of Polish, French, and Irish, but institutions will always identify him or her as plainly “white, non-Hispanic.” People in public would often identify the person as white as well, no further question asked. However, in another instant, if one claim to be Asian American (a more marked individual), one can typically further identify oneself with an ethnic group such as Chinese, Japanese, Indian, or Vietnamese. As a Asian American, I am often asked what my ethnicity is. It is a given that I am Asian; that is indicated by my skin tone, general facial features, and dark hair, but because people are more curious about my background, I get to control my ethnic identity by choosing to tell them that I am Vietnamese.
ReplyDeleteAnother example is a biracial person. The person can identify himself or herself with one race or another when asked by an institution. That’s a choice that others don’t have.
Of course, this is not true in every case. Like a white person, a Black American, a marked individual, will be identified plainly as “black.” Because blacks often do not know their ancestors’ ethnicity, they would not be able to identify themselves ethnically as whites sometimes can.
Overall, I think the control people have over their ethnic and racial identities depend on how accurately society wants to classify them, which may sounds contrary, but race and ethnicity themselves are cultural constructs influenced by society so external factors and internal factors determining one’s control over one’s identity are inevitable mingled. At times, this may means that the more marked the individual is, the more control they have over their racial and ethnic claims.
In response to Thoa, I feel what you said kind of solidified the conventional wisdom instead of arguing against it. For example, your reasoning for saying that you, as an Asian American, have more control over how people categorize you is more a question of how an *individual* has control over how others see them, not how the group is seen. While I find this completely legitimate, I think you are still pigeonholed into being just "Asian American" to many people in society. That's because for us, boundaries are so clear cut and based on physical and/or linguistic differences.
ReplyDeleteFor example, my sophomore year an Asian American named Shasha (read: Sha-sha) moved into a room across the hall from me. Interested in learning more about her, I asked her where she was from - as an American I subconsciously marked her by her linguistic and physical features. However, instead of delving into the normal conversations of who, what, where, why, etc., she responded with, "Well, guess." This put me completely on the spot. I turned bright red because I remembered not wanting to offend her by saying Korean, Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese, etc., because [to my eyes], she could have been any of those. And I didn't want to just say Asia for a lack of respect of putting her into the category of everyone else with those physical features. However, unfortunate or not, that's how I was raised (even subconsciously) - I believe the first thing we all do is recognize facial features and skin color, and instantly categorize people into a certain group.
Therefore, in our society, I'm going to agree that the more marked someone is, the less control they have over their racial and ethnic identity - at *least* from a viewpoint of others: like I had with Shasha. And again, this applies to the general population of European-American societies. Of course (at least obviously in my mind), this doesn't determine their *actual* identity. The person still maintains a degree of who they are at the individual level. Whether I categorized Shasha as anything other than Chinese - as most Americans casually glancing on the streets would say Asian - she's still obviously Chinese in the end. If someone's curious, this may prompt them into a conversation with her in which they then learn her individual racial and ethnic identity. But on the group level, I feel the majority of society would still categorize her as simple Asian.
I think you really touch on and may agree with what I'm saying, as you said, "Of course, this is not true in every case. Like a white person, a Black American, a marked individual, will be identified plainly as “black.”" However, I think "the more marked the individual is, the more control they have over their racial and ethnic claims," requires more of a developmental aspect - conversation and questioning that applies more to the individual level... an individual level of how one is categorized by other individuals and not society as a whole.
(Please note, I went through circles in my head as I thought this out and wrote it. I feel what I said may be obvious to us all, and I think I probably got a little confused as I wrote it. I hope it spurs discussion).
Woops - comment fix: Shasha is Asian, not Asian American. D'oh.
ReplyDeleteWhen I consider what or who controls racial identity, I think of whomever is in a position of power controls the label. In order to alter ones perception, your influence and control over what they hear, see, taste and smell will also affects their perception. Presently, our lives are so bombarded with images that shape our perception, sometimes it is hard to determine what is our actual opinion. Was this my original thought or was it influenced by external factors. When media images were not the norm, historically religious beliefs determined the labels for a group no matter what the color.
ReplyDeleteI think about how different ethnic groups have to correct the labels we've assigned them like Hispanic, Oriental, Indians. These terms are labels used by colonizers that are now being rejected. Internally individuals wear these labels comfortably or maybe not so comfortably which depends on their level of exposure to historical knowledge, etc.
Black people have gone through so many different names that we have rejected, i.e., Colored, Negro, and the decision of whether to call ourselves African American or Black. I particularly say I am Black because it doesn't just limit my link to Africa, but to other racial groups that look just like myself and may not be particularly from Africa.
So the marked individual doesn't have the control over their identity because they usually are not coming from a position of power. My professor told me that the term Hispanic came from the Nixon administration when they were trying to categorize how to count ethnic groups from Latin America. The term Negro is an adjective used to describe the color of an object or living thing. No one was trying to consider the appropriate name based on their culture and place of origin.
When a people come of age intellectually after subjugation, their collective cultural influence can determine how they see themselves and label themselves. In Asian cultures, they are better able to determine the regions they come from Korea, China, Japan. We see a person from a part of Asia, we don't have the same tools, it is not our culture.
The internal factor of race within an ethnic group is another level of labeling which generally a person on the outside is not aware. Within cultures from Latin America, Mexicans generally don't like to be confused with Puerto Ricans. Mexicans don't like to be necessarily be associated with indigenous peoples we call Indians. I find that interesting since they both have the same blood, the difference is they rather use the name Mexican as opposed to the names indigenous peoples have utilized. It appears that the internalization of labels are very hard to break away from because one perceives their title carries more civilization, culture, etc., while the other term may carry something perceived to be more shameful.