The functions of ethnic identity: A New Mexico Hispanic example

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.07.009Get rights and content

Abstract

This study explores the reasons for the choice of ethnic identity labels, using a New Mexico Hispanic population. The goal is to understand the specific functions of the identity labels that individuals choose. The results suggest that individuals select labels that they believe confer rewards, such as positive identity with family cultural heritage, and do not choose labels they think confer losses, such as those perceived to evoke negative ethnic stereotypes. Surprisingly, most participants used negative ethnic stereotyping to describe their own views of some members of their ethnic in-group. This negative stereotyping appears to serve the function of differentiation of the self from other in-group members who are perceived to attract negative stereotypes.

Introduction

This study explores the functions of ethnic identity by examining the reasons for the selection of particular identity labels by New Mexico Hispanics. The word “Hispanic” is used here as an overall term to refer to Americans of Latin American descent born in the US irrespective of the specific ethnic identity labels (e.g., “Mexican-American,” “Hispanic”) they use to identify themselves. It is argued that individuals select identity labels they believe confer rewards and avoid costs. The functions of ethnic identity labels are important, in part, because they inform us about the ways that individuals’ self-attitudes and identities are used to bolster self-esteem, and conversely, are negatively affected by ethnic stereotyping, racism, and discrimination.

Ethnic identity can be defined as the identification of an individual or group of individuals with a particular ethnic group or groups (Sanders, 2002; Stephan & Stephan, 1989). Ethnic identity labels are convenient signs of ethnic membership (Evans-Pritchard, 1945). One's racial or ethnic identity is an important source of self-identification for many individuals (Alba & Chamlin, 1983; Phinney, 1991; Sellers, Smith, Shelton, Rowley, & Chavous, 1998). A positive and personal identification with a group also provides a way for members of devalued racial or ethnic groups to reject the stereotypes and discrimination of the larger culture (Arce, 1981; Crocker, Luhtanen, Blaine, & Broadnax, 1994; Phinney, 1991). Further, ethnicity and race are important social constructs, used worldwide by international agencies, governments, and individuals (Stephan & Stephan, 2000a).

Research examining the characteristics of ethnic identity has shown it to be subjective and unstable. It is created through a joint process by which the individual or group and relevant outsiders together determine ethnic identity (Barth, 1969; Hecht, Collier, & Ribeau, 1993; van den Berghe & Primov, 1974). Because ethnic identity is subjective and unstable, it is not surprising that inconsistencies in the labels used to report ethnic identity are common. For example, 17% of high school participants who reported an Hispanic identity in one study chose a non-Hispanic identity two years later (Eschbach & Gómez, 1998). Similarly, only 59% of Hispanic participants who were given two surveys administered several months apart identified themselves as Hispanic in both surveys (Johnson, 1990).

One focus of ethnic identity research has been on the antecedents of ethnic identity, especially language usage and other aspects of culture (Alba & Chamlin, 1983; Eschbach & Gomez, 1998; Pizarro & Vera, 2001; Sanders, 2002) and physical appearance (Roberts et al., 1999; van den Berghe & Primov, 1974). However, in previous work we have established that, with the exception of cultural exposure, the antecedents of ethnic identity vary by ethnic group (see, for example, the different antecedents of part-Japanese and part-Hispanic participants in Stephan and Stephan (1989)).

An attempt to compile a list of ethnic identities by ethnic group would be misguided. In any group, the use of ethnic self-labels varies by situation, as well as other structural and contextual factors, such as social class, legal residence, geography, and religion. For example, Hispanic ethnic identity is particularly subject to geographical factors (Bernal & Martinelli, 1993). “Chicano,” a label used widely in California and Texas, is virtually never used in New Mexico; “Hispanic,” a label disparaged in many communities, is the label of choice in much of New Mexico; and “Spanish American,” a common ethnic identity label throughout New Mexico, refers to a subgroup—descendants of the first Spanish conquistadores in the American Southwest—and is a strictly regional identity.

In previous work, we have found that participants spontaneously mention functions or purposes when asked why they use a particular ethnic identity label (Stephan, 1991; Stephan & Stephan, 1989). These functions include positive ones, such as identification with a high-status group and increasing self-esteem, and negative ones, such as minimizing discrimination and avoiding identification with a disliked individual or group. On the basis of this work, we have argued that a simple economic or exchange analysis provides a useful starting point for assessing the functions of ethnic identity (Stephan & Stephan, 2000b).

Exchange theorists argue that people are motivated to obtain rewards and avoid costs. Exchange relationships between interdependent, interacting individuals endure when the individuals provide reciprocal benefits to each other, through increased rewards or decreased costs (Cook & Rice, 2003; Kelley & Thibault, 1978). It seems likely that the rewards and costs of various potential identities are weighed when selecting an ethnic identity among the available options in a particular context. These calculations are likely to be non-conscious, especially when the identities have become routine in particular contexts.

To understand ethnic identity choices, it seems useful to attend to the purposes for which ethnic identity labels are selected. In addition, an analysis of the functions of ethnic identity should increase our understanding of the roles of context (e.g., historical time, situation, geographic location) and individual needs in determining the purposes to which ethnic identity is put. Furthermore, a functional analysis should provide additional insights into the dynamic nature of ethnic identity that is ignored in most conceptions of ethnic identity.

Previous research has indicated that choices regarding ethnic identity are influenced by a desire to avoid negative associations, such as negative ethnic stereotypes. For example, Waters (1990) suggests that certain ethnic identities are selected because they are considered to be more socially accepted and respected than other available options. Such choices seem particularly amendable to a functional analysis. In the case of Hispanics in New Mexico, some claim to have Spanish rather than Mexican ethnicity because they believe it carries more social status and respect (Zavella, 1993). Conversely, a study of Hispanic adolescents found that the process of identification can be undermined by the outside society's negative portrayal of their ethnic group, leading to self-hate, self-blame, and aggression turned against themselves and against others in their group (Mendelberg, 1986).

Other ethnic identity theories are amenable to a functional approach. For example, Phinney's developmental model (Phinney, 1993; Phinney & Kohatsu, 1997) presumes that a stable ethnic identity is desired because it provides a sense of belonging and psychological well-being, two obvious rewards. Identity research with a broader focus is also consistent with a functional approach to ethnic identity. To provide just a few examples, both social identity theory and social categorization theory emphasize one overriding function for social identities: ingroup–outgroup distinctions (Tajfel, 1978; Turner, 1985). These theorists argue that such distinctions create and maintain attitudinal and behavioral ingroup favoritism, with the ultimate goals of experiencing positive ingroup identity and maximizing self-esteem. Callero's (1994) self-theory views roles as resources that are used to create positions in the social structure and establish access to other resources, thus illustrating two other functions of ethnic identities.

Considerable recent research on ethnic minorities has focused on embracing ethnic identity, a process that typically takes place through enculturation (Phinney, 1991; Vera & Quintana, 2004). However, other research on language usage, residential patterns, employment, and intermarriage has shown that assimilation continues to be a process through which many ethnic minorities improve their social and economic standing in the US (Alba & Nee, 2003; Cook, 2003). Since assimilation and enculturation are both important forces in minority life, we recruited participants who have chosen both paths of identity.

Stephan and Stephan (2000a) have argued that ethnic identity can accurately be determined only by self-designation (see Roberts et al. (1999) for an opposing view). Studies of ethnic identity using self-identification are particularly important in the Hispanic population, given the variety of available ethnic labels and the political purposes to which they have been put (Gimenez, 1989). In this study, self-designation was critical to the recruitment of participants because it was the basis for their selection.

To further explore the functions of ethnic identity, these issues were examined in a sample of Hispanic college students. Participants asked which ethnic identity labels they use to identify themselves and, to uncover the underlying functions directing these choices, they were asked to state their reasons for choosing particular Hispanic ethnic identity labels and not selecting others.

Section snippets

Participants

Participants in this study were 20 females and 10 males of Hispanic origin between the ages of 19 and 58 attending New Mexico State University. The majority of the students were in their mid-twenties; only nine were over the age of 25. The participants met three criteria: (1) their biological parents were both Hispanic; (2) they were born in the US; (3) they had a strong preference for a small number of Hispanic identity labels (e.g., “Mexican-American,” “Hispanic”) over all others.

Labels

Not surprisingly, the participants’ chosen labels reflected regional labeling preferences. The term “Hispanic” was the most commonly used label among the participants, with 70% preferring it as their primary or secondary ethnic identity label (see Table 1 for more detail). “Mexican-American” was the second most commonly used label; 53% preferred it as their first or second ethnic identity label. “The label “American” was the first or second choice of 12% of the participants. Four percent of the

Discussion

The results verify other research on the characteristics of ethnic identity. The participants’ identities were influenced by cultural exposure through family members and family cultural rituals. They were also influenced by their physical appearance. The participants’ identities were also subjective—participants with exactly the same backgrounds chose very different labels to describe themselves. In addition, the ethnic identities were unstable—many told stories of change from past to current

Acknowledgement

The authors thank Walter G. Stephan for comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. Funding for this study was provided by the Ronald E. McNair Post-Baccalaureate Achievement Program at New Mexico State University. Requests for reprints should be sent to Cookie White Stephan, 2097 Aliali Place, Honolulu, HI 96821, 808-373-2391, [email protected].

References (36)

  • C.W. Stephan et al.

    The measurement of ethnic identity

    International Journal of Intercultural Relation

    (2000)
  • R.D. Alba et al.

    Ethnic identification among Whites

    American Sociological Review

    (1983)
  • R.D. Alba et al.

    Remaking the American mainstream

    (2003)
  • F.H. Allport

    The effects of segregation and the consequences of desegregation: A social science statement

    Minnesota Law Review

    (1953)
  • C. Arce

    A reconsideration of Chicano culture and identity

    Daedalus

    (1981)
  • M.B. Brewer

    The social self: On being the same and different

    Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

    (1991)
  • P. Callero

    From role-playing to role-using: Understanding role as resource

    Social Psychology Quarterly

    (1994)
  • K.B. Clark

    Dark ghetto: Dilemmas of social power

    (1965)
  • T.E. Cook

    Separation, assimilation, or accommodation

    (2003)
  • K.S. Cook et al.

    Social exchange theory

  • J. Crocker et al.

    Collective self-esteem and psychological well-being among White, Black, and Asian college students

    Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

    (1994)
  • K. Eschbach et al.

    Choosing Hispanic identity: Ethnic identity switching among respondents to High School and Beyond

    Social Science Quarterly

    (1998)
  • E.E. Evans-Pritchard

    The Nuer

    (1945)
  • M.E. Gimenez

    Latino/“Hispanic”—Who needs a name? The case against a standardized terminology

    International Journal of Health Services

    (1989)
  • M.L. Hecht et al.

    African American communication: Ethnic identity and cultural interpretation

    (1993)
  • R.A. Johnson

    Measurement of Hispanic ethnicity in the US Census: An evaluation based on latent-class analysis

    Journal of the American Statistical Association

    (1990)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text