The issue of two interwoven entities - personal identity and ethnicity - in the UK's Multicultural Society
Word count: 3,994
INTRODUCTION
This essay is devoted to the specific problem presently current in the multicultural societies - the issue of two interwoven entities - personal identity and ethnicity. In the following essay, I am going to locate the focal point of this problem in the one particular community - Highland Park High School. Highland Park is a small town in New Jersey, Middlesex County, where many emigrants from Eastern Europe, Asia, and Latin America are there. At the Highland Park High School, although not apparently seen, the question of identity and ethnic belonging is still a problem among the American youths. While staying a year at Highland Park, I have been thinking a lot about the problems characteristic for the multicultural societies. All the questions I have asked myself may be boiled down to one single question - namely, whether ethnicity and identity should be treated as interdependent variables, or rather one of them is more fundamental?
ON 'IDENTITY' - ITS MALLEABILITY AND FIXITY
To begin with some conceptual clarification, what is needed is to disclose possible ramifications of the problem of identity, and its transformation under contemporary conditions. Hence, I am going to devote this section on discussing the descriptive and explanatory power of 'identity' concept. Needless to say, the "identity" concept is embroiled in many controversies and especially recently encourages many debates. However, within the confines of my present essay, I will restrain my analysis to two basic dimensions usually linked to this category. As I see it there are two crucial features attributed to identity expressed by pairs of oppositions: the opposition of solidity and fluidity as regards its nature which seems to be parallel to fixity vs. changeability of identity, to its uniformity vs. its variability, etc.
Identities: Collective or individual?
It is important to mention that the different uses of the identity should be singled out. The term "identity" is usually used in reference to three aspects of human experience: firstly, to individuals, human persons; secondly, to the collectivities or groups that are supposed to be individuated (regarded as discrete one from another); and thirdly, to the relationship between these two categories of "identity-bearers," in particular, to the ways in which individuals are thought to incorporate elements of "collective selves" into their unique personal identities (Handler 1994).
One can claim that, from the most general point of view, identity is a result of permanent classification imposed upon the world. To answer the question of "Who am I" and "Who are we?" we have to draw boundaries between 'I' and 'the other', 'us' and 'them'. This is why the idea of the collective identity involves shared characteristics of the individual and the group (either its "objective" physical characteristics or their tradition, history, language, religion, political-economic circumstances). Hence, the contextual character of identity should be exposed both as far as the collective and individual identities are concerned. However, it is important to indicate here that in my studies I will refer to identity as the individual, not collective characteristic.
Identities: weak or strong?
As in previous section, I have touched upon the 'collective' and 'individual' nature of identity, now I am going to discuss how 'collectivity' and 'individuality' could be related to 'weakness' or 'strength' of identity.
One can assume that structural conditions decide about the shape individual or collective identities take. When the individual's bonds within the group are strong, then it is rather difficult to withdraw from this group. To single out only one dimension of social organization crucial for multiethnic societies, which I have regarded as constitutive for my approach, it is the existence of the dominant and minority groups and ethnic stratification that lead to formulation of collective identity in ethnic groups as powerful and totalizing.
This might explain why, even in culturally diversified societies collective identities seem to be more rigid, fixed, and stable in comparison with individual identities that may be regarded as weak and freely changed. Then as far as the level of collective identity is concerned, strong identity implies the notions of boundedness and homogeneity. For instance, this is clearly seen today when the spread and revival of religious, nationalist, or ethnic identities is omnipresent. This tendency seems to explain the homogeneity of ethnic groups in a shrinking but increasingly diverse contemporary world in terms of ethnicity as a force forging the malleable individual identities.
ETHNICITY - SOCIALLY DETERMINED IDENTITY
As holds Janusz Mucha (1996), while regarding the issue of ethnicity one should be aware that its essence consists in the individual sense of belonging, in another words in the awareness of "we" as a distinct entity. Consequently, the ethnicity concept is related to the group of people, who themselves hold to be a distinctive unit and thus they draw a borderline between themselves and "the others". The boundaries between the members of the ethnic groups and "the others" can be formed as the result of existing social and cultural differences, but they also can be imposed on them as a kind of "kinship-like" unity. Hence, ethnicity may be regarded as the 'objective' and 'subjective' trait at the same time. The objectivity of ethnicity is understood as a material basis of belonging to the specific group while its subjectivity can be defined by personal feelings of one's pride and the sense of belonging to the certain group.
There are many "objective" characteristics that have been ascribed to ethnicity. They are as follows: the common origins (whether this is understood by one's nationality or geographic origin), traditions and culture, religion, the same race, the common language, the common values and ethos, or the same minority status. However, in my essay I conceive ethnicity of studied as reflected by their origins.
THE METHODS AND MAIN FINDINGS
While assuming that there is interdependence between these variables, one should investigate their mutual relationships. To examine potential causal links we should look at all the possible ways ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
There are many "objective" characteristics that have been ascribed to ethnicity. They are as follows: the common origins (whether this is understood by one's nationality or geographic origin), traditions and culture, religion, the same race, the common language, the common values and ethos, or the same minority status. However, in my essay I conceive ethnicity of studied as reflected by their origins.
THE METHODS AND MAIN FINDINGS
While assuming that there is interdependence between these variables, one should investigate their mutual relationships. To examine potential causal links we should look at all the possible ways in which they influence each other. This is why, in the following essay, I am going to study both the ethnicity as a determinant of identity and the other way around. First of all, one should be mindful that these two, are not tangible entities, but should be regarded as conceptual categories that reflect a specific socio-psychological realm. As a result, they should be translated into empirically-grounded ideas. Thus in my essay I am going to consider ethnicity as something that exhibits its nature in its two dimensions that can be empirically grasped - namely, the ethnic ideologies, and the ethnic stratification. I will dwell upon understanding of these concepts below. Similarly, I am going to deal with identity by referring to its empirically observable traits - solidity and flexibility. It is important to stress I am able to deal only with the basic aspects of these two concepts, while many other dimensions have to be set aside.
The research tool I used to collect the date in my empirical study is a questionnaire that I distributed among the teenagers at the Highland Park High School. The questionnaires were distributed at random and filled out by the children of the newcomers to US (mostly from Latin America, Asia, Europe, which reflects the ethnic pattern of immigration specific for New Jersey), and the native-born Americans, whom I treated as a sort of control group. They returned the total number of 68 questionnaires, among which 47 were answered by the newcomers and 21 by the Americans from families living in the US for more than two generations.
In my survey, I mostly included the questions for which the answers would serve me as inferential indicators of the traits of personal identities and beliefs concerning the students' views on ethnic diversity. Especially, in order to find out what kind of ethnic ideology the surveyed students stood for, I asked them the following questions: "What is the attitude of Americans toward the foreigners?" "Do you agree with the Pledge of Allegiance?" Also to find out whether they have strong national identity I asked them: "What can your native country can be proud of?"; "Would you like to go back to your native country if you could?" However, it is important to mention that the 'unity' in the last question could be understood by some of them as a kind of harmony within the nation, but for the purpose of my studies, I assumed that it was a strong indicator of ethnic ideology preferred.
At the same time, I assume by definition that the information about the national origins of the students indicates their ethnicity and hence their place on the ethnic stratification ladder.
Identity vs. ethnic ideologies
As stated above I will examine interplay between identity and ethnicity by making use of the empirical data gathered in the survey. The first hypothesis I am going to test is this connecting the shape of personal identities with the ethnic ideologies accepted. Therefore, in the following section, I concentrate on the basic types of ethnic ideologies.
At this point, it is important to remark that in the following the concept of 'ethnic ideology' is understood as a variety of popular approaches to explicate - how the various ethnic groups should co-exist in the multicultural society. Before I will delve into the very problem, it is worthwhile to stress that the findings reveal that most of the teenagers surveyed express their support for a general idea of a 'good society'. This idea is well illustrated in the following statements: "(...) society needs to unite (...) instead fighting with each other and making (...) problems" "there should be unity, but more of the mankind" "(...) it's important for people to have a bond with their country (...)" This is related to the tendency to avoid clashes and to live within the harmonious nation. However, everyone has a different idea how to obtain this kind of unity. This is when the ethnic ideologies come into sight. Among the variety of ethnic ideologies being in use, I select three basic powerful and overspread types, namely "melting pot", "salad bowl" and "stew and stir fry"
The first and the most fundamental ideology is the ethnic ideology often referred to as 'melting pot'. This metaphor reflects the crucial idea that is veiled under that ideology. That is to say, the pot is expected to melt away all of the differences, and all people would become the Americans, without respect to their ethnicity. In order, to obtain this aim the policy of 'Americanization' has been introduced, "(...) by which various levels of US government, employers and an array of voluntary organizations, sought to introduce immigrants to the benefits of American culture, persuading them at the same time to jettison their old-world loyalties and cultural attachments". (Kahn 1995, p.106)
By the 1920s, there was a great deal of opposition to this ideology of the melting pot. This is well reflected in Konrad Bercovici's "Around the World in New York" (1942). The author maintains that that taken together the culturally distinctive groups that lived together in New York were producing a new civilization, not homogeneous or 'Americanized', but one in which each group has a full awareness of its culture. This type of the ethnic ideology could be named by the term "Salad bowl". It is important to emphasize, that this "Salad bowl" ideology stresses the separateness of the ethnic groups.
This ideology put together with the melting pot ideology gave birth to another ethnic ideology often described as "Stew and Stir Fry". This is a metaphor by which one should understand that "the ethnic groups when blend together or come in contact with each other, they are better than all original ingredients alone"(Kelley). Based on the "Stew and Stir Fry" metaphor, the main goal is that each group will become richer and more resourceful, and yet each will maintain the integrity of the original group.
However, what is significant here is not the exact description of each ideology itself, but an attempt to associate these ethnic ideologies with the features of one's identity i.e. its weakness and strength. I assume that teens have been equally exposed on these dominant societal ideologies, but their influence on students depends on their individual profiles of identity.
Thus, the 'melting pot' ideology can be attributed to a very weak, flexible identity as far as newcomers are concerned. Those, who are characterized by such an identity, do not form strong bonds with their ethnic group they belong to. Their goal is to become a member of the society as whole and to avoid being stigmatized as 'the other'. As one of the students, a newcomer from Ukraine expresses it aptly: "We should all be able to live within the united nation, (...) the point to which we all are leading to, is the assimilation of the representatives of another cultures (...)"
In the contrary, the 'salad bowl' ideology may be linked to a very strong identity as far as newcomers are concerned. The individuals, to whom such a type of identity could be attributed, often give emphasis to their difference, by closing themselves in kind of groups of the same origin, at the same time drawing the visible boundaries between them and the other ethnic groups. While this ideology reaches its extreme, the newcomers do not consider themselves Americans, and they want to preserve their distinctiveness and separateness. As a high school student from Bangladesh points it out: "I think individually everyone is proud of their cultures. No one can compare that among other cultures". To take another example, the other student from China, shows a great deal of national proud, yet at the same time making clear that he would rather hem in himself in the ethnic group he belongs to by stating: "They only have very little history. Can't compare at all". A Columbian student answering the question "Do you think that the Americans have more things to be proud of than the inhabitants of your native country?" gives a firm statement "No, because America is made up of other cultures". Likewise, an Indian student claims: " There are many things I'm proud of my culture. (...) There isn't any contribution so great".
Finally, 'Stew and Stir Fry' ideology is more in-between those two. Hence, it is more complex to ascribe to it a clear-cut type of identity. Its main idea is reflected in the words spoken out by the American student: "I wouldn't want to live in nation that consisted of people who all had the same culture". The other student pinpoints the essence of this ideology: "Some form of unity should exist because it reduces problems and increases awareness and respectfulness towards other cultures". In addition, an Irish student notices: "Diversity is good because people are more accepting of other cultures when they have constant exposure to them". On the one hand, this type of ideology may be recognized as the one preferred by people with a strong, fixed identity who tend to stress their diversity but at the same time, they want to integrate with the other ethnicities, trying to avoid being lagged behind the rest. On the other hand, however, a caveat is necessary - in this case, belonging to a certain ethnic group does not necessarily have to be linked to the matter of strong identity. One may belong to the group, because of the family tradition, while his identity may be weak, but he himself may feel somehow imposed to continue on the cultural practices of the parents.
In the light of the above, it seems that the shape of one's identity can strongly influence the ethnic ideologies one stands for. Another words, the identity's features play a significant role in the process of establishing the ethnic ideologies one favors.
Ethnic stratification and the way it influences the shape of one's identity
Now I turn into the second part of my essay, namely, I am going to discuss how the ethnicity-linked factors can influence the features of one's identity.
To begin with, I will bring into the light the concept I will deal with in this section that is the ethnic stratification. The problem stratification refers to:
"... the ways in which inequality is institutionalized, in other words, the ways by which socially defined categories of persons are unevenly rewarded for their social contributions. These are the criteria by which the social worthiness of individuals is judged and discriminations made, such as the classifications of gender, ethnicity, race, religion, age and generation. These vary, in part, on the basis of a society's stratification order (...) and its cultural history (...). And the "rewards" come in a number of forms: power, wealth, social power, prestige in the eyes of others, self-esteem and sense of personal efficacy, the number and welfare of one's progeny, and one's satisfaction and happiness with life." (Kearl)
In this essay, I am focused on a certain type of stratification, namely, the ethnic stratification.
While considering the ethnic stratification phenomenon, it is important to realize that the shape of the ethnic stratification model is not permanent and it undergoes changes that should be seen against the background of the migratory movements. To explain my point firstly I will refer to the Warner's model of ethnic stratification. It goes as follows:
Source: W. Lloyd Warner, "American class and caste", American Journal of Sociology, 42 (September 1936), 235
The reason for the shape of this model is explained by R.A. Schermerhorn in his book entitled "Comparative ethnic relations": "Although the cultural differences between Negroes and whites are minimal, the structural separation is highly pronounced by the reason of formal or informal segregation imposed by whites (...)" (p.262). Of course, since the time this article has been published, many things have changed. The new waves of newcomers from Latin America have approached the Unites States. "The Latino population has increased 38 percent since 1990, becoming the nation's fastest growing ethnic group" (Vilbig, 1999, p.18) Also "the Census Bureau reported in 1990 that the Asian population grew nearly seven times as fast as the general American population and three times as fast as the black population" (p.19). The projections for 2050 as is estimated by the US Bureau of Census broken down by race and ethnic origin are as follows:
Source: New York Times upfront 1999
This migration wave has influenced the shape of stratification model. Although, I didn't come across any data that illustrates these changes, this is more less how I see it judging by my personal observations of interethnic contacts among HPHS students. The Black Americans and Latinos occupy the ones of the lowest places in the stratification ladder, then higher ones are taken by Asians and finally Europeans are at the very top of this ladder. This can be illustrated by a very simplified model:
A point I am trying to make is that a position taken at the stratification model can determine the shape of one's identity. For example, one can assume that once one takes the lowest place at the stratification model, he or she is more likely to generate weak and flexible identity. At the same time, the members of these ethnicities will try to mingle in the American society. They are more likely to wear a kind of camouflage, which blends them with environment. This idea is manifested in the following declaration made by the Mexican: "Yeah, I guess I became more Americanized. I wear the same clothes (...) I think more like Americans do". Sometimes developing of such a weak identity may even lead to the situations in which people try to point the border line between him and the other members of the ethnic group he belongs to. He also prefers to identify with those who belong to the higher level of the ethnic stratification model. For example, a Japanese student claims: "I think of myself more American than Japanese".
However, a caveat is necessary. This situation is evident to take place only when one treats the ethnic stratification as a feature determined by objective stimuli. When it's treated as subjective entity, then the situation may be slightly different: although the ethnic group takes a low place on the stratification level, its members may regard their common culture as something they should be very proud of. This kind of thinking may evolve strong identities, which can be a reason for ghettoization. This is well reflected in the statement made by the Mexican student: " Americans are dumb. If not the bad situation in Mexico I would go back there". The ghettoization phenomenon can be easily observable as it comes to finding a perfect match. Usually, the emigrants stick together not necessarily with the representatives of their own culture, but in general of 'non-American' origin. Let me quote a Mexican American, who confessed: "I would never go out with an American girl". However, one should realize that it often comes to clashes between the representatives of different cultures, which derives from a problem that could be displayed in the words "I don't know your culture" and this often leads the couple to split up.
The other side of the same problem is when the high situation at the stratification ladder generates the strong and fixed identity. Contrary to the ethnic groups, which take a low place at the stratification ladder, the members of the high-situated groups tend to be strongly linked with the country of origin. This is in the case of the newcomers from Europe. As a student from Ukraine claims: "I am proud of my cultural heritage". The other student from Germany adds: "(...) I think diversity is good. Everybody should be allowed to have their own culture and traditions (...)". In addition, an Italian student agrees upon this statement. Asked, whether unity that is presented in the Declaration of Independence should exist, gives a strong answer: "No - it should not exist. It would take away a lot of diversity" Thus, people, who have a strong identity, are proud of their cultural heritage and they are more likely to take an active part in the cultural events. It has been shown in the questionnaires when a Hungarian student claimed: "I am glad I can still take part in Hungarian festivals organized in New Brunswick". The cultural events can be performed on a large scale as in the case of the Irish, who every year organize Saint Patrick's Day Parade, which takes place in New York City or Polish Americans who organize Pulaski's Parade to highlight their contribution to the American War for Independence and to show the might of the Polish nation.
In this particular case, ethnic stratification is meaningful in a way that it either strengthens the bonds that link the individual with the ethnic group he or she belongs to or on the contrary, it weakens these bonds. In general, ethnicity-linked factors often influence the process of developing social bonds. This directly refers to the process of shaping one's identity.
CONCLUSIONS
The question, which entity of those two is more fundamental - 'ethnicity' or 'identity' has been a topic of many discussions among the social scientists. "Some assume that identity (...) is the most basic aspect of ethnicity (...)" (Eriksen 1995, p. 255). The others agree with Abner Cohen (1974) that ethnic organization - the pursuit of group interests - is the very raison d'être of ethnic identity. They also stuck up for his theory that identity would vanish if it had no organizational focus. From my case study, it is clearly seen that neither of them is more fundamental.
I have managed to show in this essay that 'identity' and 'ethnicity' are interdependent entities. They mutually influence each other and they are both complementary expressions of each other.
To my mind, this observation might be seen as a tentative answer to the research question formulated at the very beginning. Needless to say, the area of 'ethnicity' and 'identity' studies is very diffuse and ramified, which makes the outcome of my research only perspectival and provisional. This is also, why I had to curtail the discussion of 'ethnicity' and 'identity' to the needed minimum, while both of them clearly deserves a bulky volume themselves.
Bibliography:
Berkovici, K.1924, Around the world in New York. Century: New York
Cohen, A.1974, Two dimensional man. Tavistock: London
Eriksen, T.H.1995, Small places, large issues. An introduction to social and cultural anthropology. Pluto Press: London, East Heaven, Connecticut
Handler, R. 1994, 'Is 'identity' a useful cross-cultural concept?', in J. Gallin (ed.) Commemorations: The politics of national identity, Princeton University Press: Princeton, pp.27-40
Kahn, J.S. 1995, Culture, muliticulturalism, postculture. Sage Publications: London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi.
Kearl, M. An overview of social inequality. Sociological tour trough cyberspace. Available: http://www.trinity.edu/~mkearl/race.html [11 July 2000]
Kelley, P. M. Cultural Discovery and Identity. Cultural Discovery and Identity Project Generation Journey. 6 Apr. 1997. Yale University. Available: http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1997/4/97.04.06.x.html#a [3 July 2000]
Mucha, J.1996, Codziennosc i odswietnosc [Everyday life and festivity]. Oficyna naukowa: Warszawa.
Schermerhorn, R.A. 1970, Comparative ethnic relations. A framework for theory and research. Random House: New York
Vilbig P. 1999, 'The Latino New Wave', The New York Times upfront 1 November 1999, pp. 16-21.
APPENDIX
Questionnaire
Hi,
I am a Polish student, Marta Kempny and I would like you to help me in my research concerning the interethnic relations in the United States. I will be happy to return the results of this questionnaire to you. It is anonymous.
Please answer the following questions. I really need them to be answered!!!!!
. Tell me something about your roots.
A) What country are you/ are your parents originally from?
B) Are your both parents from the same country?
C) How long have you been in the United States?
D) Do you visit the country your family lived in the past?
2. What do you think is the attitude of Americans toward foreigners?
3. If you had to choose, would you go back to your original country or you would rather stay here? Why?
4. If you could change something in the American society, what would it be?
5. Each culture has something to be proud of. What would you consider as the greatest contribution of your culture to humanity?
6. Do you think the Americans have more things to be proud of than the inhabitants of your native country?
7. The Pledge of Allegiance says: "(...) One nation under one God, indivisible (...)". Do you think that this kind of unity really exists in the US? Do you think it should exist or not? Why?
Thank you for your cooperation.
Candidate's number: D0703009
1
