Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants: E Pluribus Unions (The New Americans: Recent Immigration and American Society)

The New Americans Recent Immigration and American Society

Edited by Steven J. Gold and Rubén G. Rumbaut

A Series from LFB Scholarly

This page intentionally left blank

Intermarriage across Race and Ethnicity among Immigrants E Pluribus Unions

Charlie V. Morgan

LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC El Paso 2009

Copyright © 2009 by LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC All rights reserved. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Morgan, Charlie V., 1972Intermarriage across race and ethnicity among immigrants : E pluribus unions / Charlie V. Morgan. p. cm. -- (The new Americans : recent immigration and American society) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-59332-294-6 (alk. paper) 1. Intermarriage--United States. 2. Interethnic marriage--United States. 3. Interracial marriage--United States. 4. Immigrants--United States. I. Title. HQ1031.M67 2009 306.84'60869120973--dc22 2008043887

ISBN 978-1-59332-294-6 Printed on acid-free 250-year-life paper. Manufactured in the United States of America.

Table of Contents Chapter One Introduction

1

Chapter Two History and Theory

11

Chapter Three Conceptualization and Methodology

37

Chapter Four Deconstructing Intermarriage in the United States

51

Chapter Five Mixed Relationships Among Children of Immigrants in Southern California

83

Chapter Six Clarifying Race and Ethnicity in Mixed Relationships

115

Chapter Seven Gender and Informality in Mixed Relationships

145

Chapter Eight Summary and Conclusions

177

Appendixes

193

References

217

Index

225

v

This page intentionally left blank

Acknowledgments I am most indebted to my mentor Rubén G. Rumbaut. This project was born out of innumerable discussions with Rubén in graduate seminars, while teaching “Race and Ethnicity” as his teaching assistant, while “deeply familiarizing” ourselves with various data sources as his research assistant, over meals, at conferences, and even at the airport when we got snowed in and spent the night there. I express my deepest appreciation to Rubén for the numerous ways in which he taught me the true value and spirit of empirical research, as well as his generous financial support. Most importantly, I thank him for granting me access to his data sets. He not only taught me about the profession of sociology, but also “professionalized” me into the discipline—even if it was more than I wanted to know at times. I would like to thank John M. Liu. He was always there when I needed to talk to someone about particular issues and ideas that I was wrestling with. I am most grateful for his openness, time, and patience. In addition, I would like to thank Linda Vo, Jen’nan Read, Dorothy Fujita-Rony, Ted Fowler, Phil Cohen, David Snow, and Matt Huffman (among other professors in sociology and outside of sociology) for their ideas and encouragement. I treasure the memories and friendships that were formed. I received support from so many people (too numerous to name). Here are some of those people who deserve the most thanks: Monica Trieu, Goldie Komaie, Mark Leach, Roberto Gonzales, Makiko Fuwa, and Yuki Kato. I grew close to all of them and made lifelong friends. I am also grateful for others who supported me in various forms along the way: Danielle Rudes, Becky Trammell, Sabeen Sandhu, Sharon Oselin, Rosie Tafoya-Estrada, Carol Glasser, Diana Pan, Hien Park, and Allen Kim. In addition, I would like to thank Arisbeth Diaz and Lisa Nguyen for their invaluable assistance analyzing and writing up the in-depth interviews. Many of my key insights came during our brainstorming sessions. Finally, I would like to thank my colleagues at Brigham Young University. They have continually encouraged me and made this book possible. vii

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Besides superstardom, Barack Obama, Tiger Woods and Derek Jeter have another common bond: Each is a child of an interracial marriage. —David Crary (2007) Everywhere we turn, we see images of “interracial marriages.” Back in 1967, Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, in which Sidney Poitier’s character falls in love with Katharine Houghton’s character, marked the first time a major film featured an interracial couple. Now it is much more common, as witnessed by the numerous movies featuring interracial couples, such as Die Another Day and Monster’s Ball, where Halle Berry falls for Pierce Brosnan and embraces Billy Bob Thornton. Interracial couples are becoming more popular on TV as well: characters played by Sandra Oh and Isaiah Washington on Grey’s Anatomy are just one example. Recently, popular books such as Interracial Intimacies by Randall Kennedy (2003) and Interracial Intimacy by Rachel Moran (2001) have focused on interracial relationships. Newspaper headlines such as “Blacks, Whites and Love” (Kristof 2005) and “Interracial Marriages Surge Across U.S.” (Crary 2007) are commonplace. Even recent research reports, such as the Pew Research Center’s “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner” (Taylor, Funk, and Craighill 2006) and the Population Reference Bureau’s “New Marriages, New Families: U.S. Racial and Hispanic Intermarriage” (Lee and Edmonston 2005), have focused on interracial marriages.

1

2

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants

What with celebrities such as Barack Obama, Tiger Woods, and Derek Jeter, who are “each . . . a child of an interracial marriage” (Crary 2007), we are continually reminded of intermarriage. It is no wonder there is so much interest in interracial marriages. Most of these examples from media coverage of interracial marriages focus on blackwhite couples. Even Crary’s (2007) article is clearly centered on interracial marriages between blacks and whites: Since the landmark Loving v. Virginia ruling, the number of interracial marriages has soared; for example black-white marriages increased from 65,000 in 1970 to 422,000 in 2005, according to Census Bureau figures. Factoring in all racial combinations, Stanford University sociologist Michael Rosenfeld calculates that more than 7 percent of America’s 59 million couples in 2005 were interracial, compared to less than 2 percent in 1970. However, the story of interracial relationships in the United States is not so simple. What is often left out of these discussions of interracial relationships is that mass waves of immigration started coinciding with the Loving v. Virginia antimiscegenation ruling in the late 1960s. Of the three celebrities mentioned above, Barack Obama is the son of a black Kenyan and a white Kansan. How often do we hear of debates about immigration when discussing Obama? Even more telling is Tiger Woods, the famous “black golfer” who is more Asian than black: Tiger is one-fourth Chinese, one-fourth Thai, one-fourth African American, one-eighth Native American, and one-eighth Dutch (Weisman 2001). In focusing on black-white interracial couples, scholarly and popular interests fail to factor in how the recent immigration patterns impact interracial marriages. First, black-white couples represent only 8 percent of all interracial couples in the United States (Lee and Edmonston 2005). 1 The majority of interracial couples involve a partner from either Asia or Latin America, usually as a direct result of post-1960 immigration. Second, the rate of intermarriage increase

1. This number does not include blacks who identify themselves as multiracial. Including those people would not increase the overall percent by much, since only 4 percent of blacks identified themselves as multiracial in the 2000 Census (Lee and Bean 2003).

Introduction

3

between whites and blacks is minimal, while the rate of intermarriage increase involving Asians and Hispanics accounts for most of the growth in intermarriage from 1990 to 2000 (Lee and Edmonston 2005). Third, the rate of interracial marriages between Hispanics and whites and between Asians and whites actually declined from 1990 to 2000. For Hispanics, and to a lesser extent Asian Americans the 1990s brought unprecedented declines in intermarriage with whites, which is in sharp contrast to the exceptionally large increases in intermarriage observed in prior censuses . . . the retreat from intermarriage largely reflects the growth in the immigrant population; increasing shares of natives are marrying their foreign-born counterparts. (Qian and Lichter 2007) Many of these immigrants are thus turning from interracial marriages to coethnic marriages, or marriages with individuals from within their same ethnic group. Finally, we can project a decline in interracial marriages in the near future, given present trends in immigration and intermarriage. We must also examine how ethnicity and cohabitation impact interracial relationships. How does intermarriage in the United States change when we talk about interracial and interethnic marriages? Studies have shown that interethnic marriages (for example, FilipinoVietnamese, Japanese-Korean, or even Puerto Rican–Dominican) have been on the rise since at least the 1980s (Qian, Blair, and Ruf 2001; Qian and Lichter 2004; Shinagawa and Pang 1988, 1996). We can further complicate discussions of intermarriage by bringing in less formal relationships, such as cohabitation and dating. With cohabitation on the rise in recent decades, it will be increasingly important in discussions of intermarriage to include not only married couples but also cohabiting couples. Additionally, we could examine how interracial and interethnic dating couples might differ from interracial and interethnic cohabiting or married couples. My own interest in this topic was spurred by the lack of discussion on immigration and ethnicity when it comes to intermarriage. While immigration has more recently been picked up by a number of scholars, ethnicity is still ignored for the most part. Even when immigrant groups are brought up, they are generally talked about using catchall terms such as Asian or Hispanic, which are often assumed to have some

4

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants

meaning to the individuals who would find themselves in these racialized categories. But Hispanic, for example, is a contested term given that, according to the census, Hispanics can identify with any racial group. Thus, this study is centrally concerned with the role of ethnicity in discussions of “interracial marriages” among children of immigrants in Southern California. How does the landscape of interracial marriage change when we add interethnic marriages? How does it change if we include cohabiting and dating couples to broaden the scope of interracial and interethnic relationships? More specifically, who enters into mixed relationships and why? One of the central goals of this study is to answer these questions. Another reason I have been interested in intermarriage is that it represents the breaking down of social distances between groups; it indicates weakening boundaries between various racial and ethnic groups (Alba and Nee 2003; Yinger 1994). Furthermore, when we include immigrant groups in our discussion of intermarriage, marrying a member of the dominant group has typically been viewed as a way of assimilating into society (Alba and Nee 2003; Gordon 1964). Given our inclusion of immigration and ethnicity, what implications does this expanded view of intermarriage have on patterns and processes of assimilation? Another goal of this study is to closely examine the relationship between assimilation and intermarriage. POINTS OF DEPARTURE FROM PREVIOUS STUDIES ON INTERMARRIAGE Unlike the many studies on intermarriage that focus on black-white couples (Blumberg and Roye 1979; Larsson 1965; McNamara, Tempenis, and Walton 1999; Rosenblatt, Karis, and Powell 1995), this study differs in three important ways: (a) it will focus on immigrants from Asia and Latin America and their U.S.-born children; (b) it makes a key distinction between interethnic and interracial relationships; and (c) it includes not only married couples, but also cohabiting and dating couples. Changing immigration patterns must be considered in any discussion of influences on the number, composition, and identification—by themselves and others—of mixed couples. Before the 1960s, most immigrants to the United States were of European descent. Therefore, most scholars focused their studies mainly on interethnic and interreligious marriages rather than interracial marriages.

Introduction

5

More recently, however, black-white interracial marriage has become virtually synonymous with intermarriage. Again, this pattern is drastically changing due to increasing immigration, this time from Asia and Latin America (Vermeulen 1999). Based on Current Population Survey (CPS, 2003–2006) data, the U.S. immigrant–stock population (first and second generations) numbers are close to 70 million—almost one quarter of the national population. Of these, over 60 percent were born in Latin America and Asia. Furthermore, this immigrant population is new: among immigrants arriving since 1960, just over 50 percent came from Latin America (more than 25 percent came from Mexico alone) and close to 30 percent came from Asia, together making up 80 percent of first-generation immigration since 1960. Not only is the composition of immigration different from earlier waves of European immigrants, but the context in which they arrive in the United States is also different: Their incorporation has coincided with a period of economic restructuring and rising inequality, during which the returns to education have sharply increased.…Post-secondary schooling significantly lengthened for young people, with the years from 18 to the mid and even late twenties becoming increasingly devoted, often with continuing parental support, to the accumulation of human capital and college credentials. Women entered the labour market in large numbers and worked longer hours, two-income families became the norm, and the baby boom was followed by a baby bust and delayed childbearing—even as non-marital and early childbearing became defined as a social problem of national consequence. (Rumbaut 2005) The context that greets immigrants and their children is important when looking at mixed relationships, especially during the critical time when young adult children of immigrants are experimenting with dating and cohabiting and are making decisions about family formations via marriage. Immigrants and their families are not equally distributed across the country. For example, although California’s population represents only 12 percent of the native-born population of the United States, one-third of the immigrant population resides in California (Foner, Rumbaut, and Gold 2000). This study examines different minority groups involved in

6

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants

intimate relationships in the United States, with a focus on first- and second-generation immigrants from Asia and Latin America living in Southern California, particularly in the San Diego metropolitan area. Mixed couples in San Diego are unique; they differ from those in other parts of the country because of the high proportion of immigrants from the Pacific Rim and their U.S.-born children. In 2000, San Diego was among the top 10 metropolitan areas in the United States in terms of the total number and overall population percentage of first- and secondgeneration immigrants. Specifically, San Diego hosts a wide variety of immigrants from the following Pacific Rim countries: the Philippines, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, and Mexico (and to a lesser extent, China, Taiwan, Japan, Korea, India, and Central/South America). In fact, San Diego is one of the most common destinations for Vietnamese, Laotian, and Cambodian immigrants. Moreover, except for Los Angeles, no other place in the country has a greater number of Filipino immigrants (CPS, 2003–2006). The second way this study differs from previous studies is that I make a distinction between race and ethnicity among mixed couples. Research on intermarriage originated in countries with high rates of immigration, such as the United States, and has focused almost exclusively on “racial” groups. I treat race and ethnicity as two separate but sometimes overlapping phenomena. I refer to racial groups as those groups with an identity that is typically assigned to them by others, based on perceived common physical characteristics that are held to be inherent (e.g., white, Asian, and black). I define ethnic groups as those having common descent, a shared historical past, and a cultural focus on one or more symbolic elements (e.g., Irish, Chinese, Jamaican, and Cuban) (Cornell and Hartmann 2007; Schermerhorn 1978). Most studies on racial intermarriage leave out marriages that I would term interethnic (e.g., Japanese-Korean or Cuban-Mexican). It is therefore imperative that we add interethnic relationships to the category of mixed couples. Finally, I make a distinction between married, cohabiting, and dating couples. In the United States, we have witnessed enormous changes in the realm of marriage and family, including rising divorce rates, growing numbers of women entering the workforce, and increasing non-marital cohabitation and non-marital reproduction. In terms of this study, cohabiting unions are a crucial demographic component of intermarriage. The number of cohabiting couples has been on the rise for decades and now composes 9 percent of all couples

Introduction

7

in the United States (Simmons and O'Connell 2003). Marriage is clearly not the same type of experience as cohabiting; indeed, recent studies point to important differences between marriage and cohabitation (Blackwell and Lichter 2000; Guzzo 2005; Lamanna and Riedmann 2003). The current era has even been described as a “retreat from marriage” (Lichter, McLaughlin, and Ribar 2002). Blackwell and Lichter (2000) concluded that “research can no longer ignore the qualitatively different mate selection processes of cohabiting couples” (275). Furthermore, a look at race and ethnicity shows that cohabiting couples are twice as likely as married couples to be interracial or interethnic (Fields and Casper 2001; Landale, Oropesa, and Bradatan 2006; Simmons and O'Connell 2003). Indeed, it appears that we have to at least consider the possibility that marriage and cohabitation are two separate phenomena, especially when it comes to crossing racial and ethnic lines. To not include cohabiting couples in studies of intermarriage clearly biases our sample in important ways. While the lack of research on cohabitation has left us with little knowledge of the phenomenon, even less is known about people who cross racial and ethnic lines while dating (Joyner and Kao 2005). We do not understand their motivations, nor do we understand the connections between dating, cohabitation, and marriage. Given these complications, it is important to be conceptually clear when defining mixed couples. I use the term intermarried to refer to individuals who are married to individuals of another race or ethnicity, the term cohabiting to refer to individuals are not married but live together, and the term dating to refer to individuals who are in committed relationships (measured either by level of commitment or length of time). Finally, I use the terms mixed relationships, mixed couples, and mixed unions interchangeably to include married, cohabiting, and dating couples—although one of the objectives of this project is to investigate the differences among married, cohabiting, and dating couples. Overall, this research will address the following questions: Who enters into mixed relationships? Why? What are the implications? What role do mixed relationships play in the processes of “assimilation”? Which of the two perspectives of assimilation—a straight-line perspective or a segmented perspective (to be discussed in chapter 2)— will Asian and Latin American immigrants and their children follow (Portes and Rumbaut 2005)? I will use a variety of data—census data,

8

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants

survey questionnaires, and in-depth interviews—to answer these questions. PLAN OF THE BOOK Chapter 2 examines the literature on assimilation in order to theoretically ground this study. I provide a historical overview of the ways that blacks have been racialized and excluded from the model of assimilation, even when they do cross color lines. The discussion proceeds to examine the connection between ethnicity and intermarriage and the focus on European immigrants’ ethnicization and assimilation into society through intermarriage with other European ethnic groups. A subsequent section provides a historical overview of the different types of boundaries that have defined intermarriage over the years. Next, I discuss the meanings of assimilation and dissimilation and the variables that influence these processes. I then discuss where Asian-origin and Latin American–origin groups fit into the picture of intermarriage along racial and ethnic lines. Will they follow the process of racialization like blacks or the process of ethnicization like southern and eastern Europeans? Will they assimilate along a relativity straight-line process, or will they assimilate along a segmented process? This is especially important, as these processes relate to crossing boundaries through intimate relationships. Finally, the chapter offers a look at interethnic couples and their place within the theoretical debates in the literature. Chapter 3 discusses conceptual issues of interethnic relationships and how they differ from the conceptual issues of interracial relationships. I also outline my research questions in more detail and show how my methodology will answer each of the questions I pose. I propose that the consequences of being classified as an interracial and the consequences of being classified as an interethnic couple are very different, even though the two terms are often used synonymously. This conflation leads us to think that they are the same or, even worse, to leave out the entire category of interethnic relationships. By distinguishing between interracial and interethnic relationships, those couples crossing either racial or ethnic boundaries will be included in discussions of mixed relationships. I follow with a discussion of the Current Population Survey (CPS) and the Children of Immigrants Longitudinal Study (CILS). These two data sets examine the key questions raised in this study from different levels of analyses: from the

Introduction

9

quantitative level (CPS), to the survey level (CILS), and finally to the in-depth, open-ended qualitative interviews (also part of CILS). These data sets enable me to look at mixed relationships, at the national level and more specifically at Southern California. Chapter 4 offers a demographic profile of interracial and interethnic relationships in the United States using the CPS. I examine patterns of interethnic and interracial relationships by sex, ethnicity, race, class, education, and generation, using the CPS from 2003 to 2006 to create a demographic profile of mixed unions. First examining “race,” I describe which racial groups exhibit higher percentages of people in mixed relationships. I next use the CPS and its more objective measure of ethnicity—based on national origin—to paint a better picture of mixed relationships. Chapters 5, 6, and 7 offer a more detailed account of mixed relationships in Southern California using the third wave of the CILS. Chapter 5 analyzes the CILS survey to offer a more in-depth look at the characteristics of mixed couples in Southern California and the ways in which people date, cohabitate, and marry across ethnic and racial lines. This level of analysis allows us to look at the processes of assimilation, especially in the area of intimate relationships, through the use of logistic regression models. Chapters 6 and 7 examine a subset of the CILS survey, which includes 134 in-depth interviews, and go beyond the question of who enters into mixed relationships to provide important information about the reasons why and how they enter these relationships. What does it mean to them? What are some of the issues they deal with in negotiating these types of relationships? What implications do these issues have for their assimilation (and dissimilation), in either a straight-line path or a segmented path? Chapter 6 discusses how the couples themselves feel about the supposed racial and ethnic lines they cross. In other words, how do they categorize their relationships? What other lines are important to them, such as class, generation, religion, and language? Chapter 7 examines the role that gender plays in individuals’ decisions to enter into mixed relationships. In addition, the role of informality is investigated among the interviewees; more specifically, the role of dating, cohabiting, and marrying in relation to mixed couples and assimilation paths is discussed. Chapter 8 concludes by questioning the role of mixed unions as it relates to the overall processes of assimilation. We need more studies to

10

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants

closely examine the connection between subprocesses (or types) of assimilation with the overall processes of assimilation and dissimilation. Each level of analysis gives us a much different view of assimilation, so much so that we come away from this analysis with more questions than answers. This calls for future studies to explore in more depth the role of “marital assimilation” in the overall processes of assimilation and to explore the various types of mixed relationships—dating, cohabiting, and marrying—in more detail.

CHAPTER 2

History and Theory

In 1955, Emmett Till, a 14-year-old Chicago boy, was murdered in Mississippi for allegedly “wolf whistling” at a white female. This is one way social status was maintained in the South during this time period, and it provides an extreme example of the brutal enforcement of social-distance norms and the way blacks were racialized and excluded from the paradigm of assimilation. 2 Racialization is the “process by which groups of persons come to be classified as races. Put more precisely, it is the process by which certain bodily features or assumed biological characteristics are used systematically to mark certain persons for differential status or treatment” (Cornell and Hartmann 2007). The polar opposite of what happened to Emmett Till (racialization) is the reduction of social distance. Social distance is reduced when two persons from different racial backgrounds cross a “color line” and form an intimate relationship—in the form of a mixed union, whether it be by marriage or cohabitation. When mixed unions are formed, a social boundary is crossed, which leads to boundary blurring (Alba and Nee 2003; Alba 2005). It is theorized that boundary blurring leads to greater assimilation or is itself an indicator of assimilation to the “mainstream” (Alba and Nee 2003; Gordon 1964). A classic example of boundary blurring, and the opposite process of racialization, is the process of ethnicization: “Ethnicization is the making of an ethnic group. It is the process by which a group of persons comes to see itself as a distinct group linked by bonds of kinship or their equivalents, by a shared 2. Given the many different uses and definitions of assimilation, I will go over specific definitions and processes of assimilation later in this chapter.

11

12

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants

history, or by cultural symbols” (Cornell and Hartmann 2007). Classic examples of this are the Irish, Italians, and Jews, who were once racialized groups that became ethnic groups. One could argue that this is one of the reasons European Americans have assimilated relatively smoothly in the United States. European immigrants, unlike blacks, were closely associated with a straight-line model of assimilation (Omi and Winant 1994). While assimilation and ethnicization have often been linked positively, assimilation and racialization have also been at odds with each other. In other words, racialization has often been discussed in terms of black-white intermarriage in the literature of racial relations, while ethnicization has been discussed in terms of European immigrants coming to the United States in the nineteenth and twentieth century within the literature on immigration. It is imperative that we connect these two bodies of literature in light of the new waves of immigration from Asia and Latin America since the 1960s. The question is whether these groups will experience a process of racialization or ethnicization or if they will initially be racialized and then eventually be seen as ethnic groups in the future. The next two sections discuss each of these bodies of literature as background for my subsequent discussion of the history of intermarriage boundaries. I will then discuss assimilation and dissimilation and place Asian-origin and Latino-origin groups within these processes. RACIALIZATION OF INTIMATE RELATIONS In 1691, Virginia became one of the first colonies to punish interracial sexual relations: “All marriages between a white person and a colored person shall be absolutely void without any decree of divorce or other legal process” (Code Ann. A7 20-57). During the centuries that followed, a “one drop rule” of hypodescent that defined anyone with any trace of African American “blood” as black was established and enforced. This rule was established during the days of slavery and strengthened during the Jim Crow era, forming a dichotomous “color line” between whites and blacks in the United States (Davis 2001). Three centuries after Virginia outlawed interracial marriages, Mildred Loving, a black female, and Richard Loving, a white man, were exiled from the same state for 25 years after being convicted under Virginia’s law in 1958. The decision was eventually overturned and ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1967, along with the

History and Theory

13

miscegenation laws of 15 other states (Kennedy 2003; Moran 2001). It was a long journey—three centuries and more than 12 generations—to overrule the de jure bases of interracial segregation of sexual and marital relationships, if not its de facto consequences as reflected in persistently low black-white intermarriage rates to the present day. In the realm of intimate relations that cross the black-white color line, society as a whole—including its most learned scholars—have been historically obsessed with black men and white women marrying, while at the same time displaying a glaring and utter lack of interest in the much more common instances of white men forcing sexual relations with black women ever since the beginnings of slavery. The difference between these two types of relationships highlights an important point about social distance. The latter intimate relationships—between master and slave—do not represent a reduction in social distance since the sexual relations were coerced (i.e., the women were raped). The former type—of black men marrying white women—however, pose a threat to social distance and to the entire edifice of white supremacy because these couples chose to cross the color line to form an intimate relationship (Davis 2001). Indeed, up until Loving v. Virginia and well beyond it, scholars of intermarriage (not to mention literature and popular culture) have primarily researched interracial marriages between black men and white women, and to a lesser extent between black women and white men (Blumberg and Roye 1979; Larsson 1965; McNamara, Tempenis, and Walton 1999; Rosenblatt, Karis, and Powell 1995). Regarding such relationships, scholars have focused on issues such as passing (and “trespassing”), crossing the color line, ways that others try to prevent these marriages, relations with family members, the offspring of these marriages, and the policing of the black-white boundary. While these works are extremely important to our understanding of interracial relationships, they have a number of limitations. From a theoretical perspective, African Americans are different from immigrants in that the concept of assimilation is not applied equally to them by scholars, either historically or currently. Robert Park pointed out in 1930 that African Americans have been a part of U.S. society for three centuries and are thoroughly acculturated English-only-speaking Protestants, yet are still not assimilated (Park 1930). Furthermore, even though Gordon (1964) states that “once structural assimilation has occurred, either simultaneously with or subsequent to acculturation, all

14

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants

of the other types of assimilation will naturally follow,” he also states that If a minority group is spatially isolated and segregated…the acculturation process will be very slow…Unusually marked discrimination…if it succeeds in keeping vast number of the minority group deprived of educational and occupational opportunities…may indefinitely retard the acculturation process for the group. (78) Thus, while it is acknowledged that blacks do not fit the assimilation model, the straight-line perspective so often attributed to Gordon (1964) remained unquestioned for decades. ETHNICIZATION OF INTIMATE RELATIONS A separate body of literature focused on the role of intermarriage describes the process of assimilation for European immigrants starting in the nineteenth century up to the present (Alba 1990; Gordon 1964; Lieberson and Waters 1988; Waters 1990). The arrival of southern and eastern Europeans in the United States brought new groups that were initially racialized, as is evident by the fact that the Irish, Jews, and Italians were not deemed “white” when they first started coming the United States. When the Irish first came to the United States in the mid-nineteenth century, they worked and lived with African Americans, and thus experienced residential segregation from whites. “Only when these immigrants took their places as the masses of ‘unskilled’ and residentially ghettoized industrial workers did Americans come to believe that Europe was made up of a variety of inferior and superior races” (Brodkin 1998). The Irish immigrants’ phenotype combined with Catholicism did not initially allow them to gain status as whites—precisely because the dominant Protestants saw them as non-white—but their opportunities in the political sphere and in the labor market allowed them to move into ethnic niches. Once in ethnic niches, they were able to gain a “white” status and then completely distance themselves from poor blacks (Brodkin 1998; Ignatiev 1995; Roediger 1991). The implication for this process of becoming an ethnic group (ethnicization)—as opposed to a racial group—is that Irish immigrants as well as other immigrant minority groups can gain “white” status through labor market experiences and

History and Theory

15

then use this status to fully assimilate into the white middle-class stratum. The key to achieving such a status, however, hinges on the fact that they were eventually redefined as “white” by the dominant group in society. Milton Gordon, in Assimilation in American Life (1964), was one of the first scholars to place intermarriage at the heart of the assimilation process. Southern and eastern Europeans became an ethnic group and made the switch from being racialized to being ethnicized. It was intermarriage that then allowed them to go from being an ethnic group to becoming “American.” More recent work on intermarriage among European-ancestry Americans finds that they intermarry with other European-ancestry Americans at a higher rate than we would expect by chance (Lieberson and Waters 1988). In fact, these high rates of intermarriage are often used as evidence for a straight-line perspective in the process of assimilation. We saw an emergence, however, of “white ethnicities” in the 1970s—in an era of civil rights, affirmative action, and “ethnic revivals”—and all of a sudden, even intermarriage among European groups apparently did not transform them into a new kind of American. THE HISTORY OF INTERMARRIAGE BOUNDARIES When it comes to research on assimilation and social distance, the study of intermarriage has always been a central point of interest, and for good reason. Intermarriage is the litmus test of whether or not two groups are integrating, or reducing the social distance between them, especially given that marriage is the most intimate relationship two individuals can share. Most recently, intermarriage studies have focused on racial boundaries and how frequently individuals in the United States are marrying across these racial boundaries. This focus on racial boundaries as being the quintessential boundary that is crossed through intermarriage, however, has not always been the case. For example, in the 1940s, Ruby Jo Reeves Kennedy studied intermarriage in New Haven, Connecticut where the primary boundaries she examined were ethnic and religious boundaries (1944; 1952). She described her intermarriage findings as entailing a “triple-melting-pot.” Various ethnic groups where much less likely to cross religious boundaries than they were to cross ethnic boundaries. For the most part, Catholics, Protestants, and Jews of various

16

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants

nationalities tended to marry within the same religious pot when it came to intermarriage; she predicted that “a triple religious cleavage rather than a multilinear nationality cleavage, therefore, seems likely to characterize American society in the future” (1944). Around this same time, Warner and Srole published The Social Systems of American Ethnic Groups (1945), in which they posited that the American social system was organized in a hierarchy of racial and ethnic subordinate groups. In such a system, the “greater the racial difference between the populations of the immigrant and the host societies, the greater the subordination of the immigrant group” (286). Furthermore, the same could be said about ethnic groups, only the difference was not racial, but cultural. They further distinguished these cultural differences into differences of language and religion. Table 2.1 is recreated from their book (288) and represents their scale of subordination and assimilation, with groups at the top less likely to be subordinated and more likely to assimilate. As seen in this table, Warner and Srole presented a multidimensional scale of subordination and assimilation based on interactions of race, language, and religion. Their prediction for the future of American society looked very different from that proposed by Kennedy: “The future of American ethnic groups seems to be limited; it is likely that they will be quickly absorbed. When this happens one of the great epochs of American history will have ended and another, that of race, will begin” (295). Will Herberg, in his influential book, Protestant—Catholic—Jew (1960), points out that even before intermarriage was synonymous with religious intermarriage (as Kennedy shows), intermarriage meant ethnic intermarriage. Herberg says that this was because, upon arrival in the United States, immigrants were concerned with maintaining their ethnic identities through their native languages and cultures. The second generation then wanted to forget this ethnic identification and become American. It was the third generation, as pointed out by Marcus Hansen’s “principle of third-generation interest” (Hansen 1996), that wanted to remember what the second generation wanted to forget. The problem, as Herberg points out, was that the third generation had already lost their foreignness by shedding their ancestral language and culture and becoming American—but what kind of American? It was at this stage that religion took the place of language and culture and “became the primary context of self-identification and social location for the third generation, as well as for the bulk of the second generation, of America’s immigrants, and that meant, by and large, for the

History and Theory

17

American people” (31). As Herberg correctly notes, part of this change came about because immigration had all but stopped at the time he wrote his book. Ironically, his book was written before the mass waves of immigration from Asia and Latin America in the late 1960s, bringing new groups of immigrants with a renewed sense of religious commitment. And, after all, “the newcomer is expected to change many things about him as he becomes American—nationality, language, culture. One thing, however, he is not expected to change—and that is his religion” (23). Thus, Herberg was justified in seeing religion as a key boundary of intermarriage. Table 2.1 Scale of Subordination and Assimilation Racial Type

Cultural Type

Racial Type I Light Caucasoids

Cultural Type 1 English-speaking Protestants Cultural Type 2 Protestants who do not speak English Cultural Type 3 English-speaking Catholics and other nonProtestants Cultural Type 4 Catholics and other non-Protestants, most of whom speak allied Indo-European languages Cultural Type 5 English-speaking non-Christians Cultural Type 6 Non-Christians who do not speak English

Racial Type II Dark Caucasoids

Cultural typing the same as for Racial Type I

Racial Type III Mongoloid and Caucasoid mixtures wih Caucasoid appearance dominant (appearance of "dark" Mediterranean)

Cultural typing the same as for Racial Type I

Racial Type IV Mongoloid and Caucasoid mixtures that appear Mongoloid

Cultural typing the same as for Racial Type I

Racial Type V Negroes and all Negroid mixtures

Cultural typing the same as for Racial Type I

Source: From W. Lloyd Warner and Leo Srole, The Social Systems of American Ethnic Groups (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1945), 288.

18

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants

Finally, two influential books came out in 1964: Inter-Marriage: Interfaith, Interracial, Interethnic by Albert Gordon and Assimilation in American Life: The Role of Race, Religion, and National Origins by Milton Gordon. Albert Gordon argued that there would be an increase in all forms of intermarriage (i.e., interfaith, interracial, and interethnic). Milton Gordon viewed ethnic groups as those encompassing racial, religious, and national origin groups. Therefore, his view of intermarriage coincided with Albert Gordon in that intermarriage could entail interfaith, interracial, or interethnic marriages. What is clear from this body of research is that race, religion, and national origin have all represented important boundaries of intermarriage in our society at some point. Moreover, the works presented above deal with issues of immigrants incorporating into our society through intermarriage. Presently, some scholars have argued that ethnicity is the most salient boundary among European immigrants and their descendants (Lieberson and Waters 1988; Waters 1990). Conversely, other scholars have argued that race is the most salient boundary among post-1960 immigrants who have come predominantly from Asia and Latin America (Alba and Nee 2003; Bean and Stevens 2003; Waters 1999). Furthermore, a close examination of intermarriage literature reveals that most of the studies focus almost exclusively on racial intermarriage (Alba and Nee 2003; Bean and Stevens 2003; Blumberg and Roye 1979; Larsson 1965; McNamara, Tempenis, and Walton 1999; Rosenblatt, Karis, and Powell 1995), whereas only a small number of studies distinguish between racial and ethnic intermarriages (Gilbertson, Fitzpatrick, and Yang 1996; Jiobu 1988; Perlmann 1997; Qian, Blair, and Ruf 2001; Qian and Lichter 2004; Qian and Lichter 2007; Shinagawa and Pang 1988, 1996). Even rarer are studies of religious intermarriages (Glenn 1982; Johnson 1980; Kalmijn 1991; Sherkat 2004).3 The reason why the boundaries that define intermarriage are so important is that they give us a glimpse into what the future of American society will look like. Just as scholars in the twentieth century disagreed on the most important social boundaries, scholars

3. Another possible reason for a lack of dialogue on religion and intermarriage is the fact that the census does not ask the religion of respondents. I will use the Children of Immigrants Longitudinal Study (CILS) in this study to examine religious diversity and its importance in mixed relationships.

History and Theory

19

today are equally in disagreement over what the critical boundaries are in our society. However, the majority of scholars fall on the side of the racial boundary as being the most important boundary in our present day—especially when it comes to intermarriage. ASSIMILATION (AND DISSIMILATION) VIA MILTON GORDON AND J. MILTON YINGER While we have talked briefly about assimilation and intermarriage, such terms can have multiple meanings and be used in a number of ways. Assimilation is one of those words that changes meanings, comes in and out of style, and is fraught with political values. Although there are any number of definitions we could cite, the classic definition of assimilation comes from Robert Park and Ernest Burgess: Assimilation is a process of interpenetration and fusion in which persons and groups acquire the memories, sentiments, and attitudes of other persons or groups, and, by sharing their experience and history, are incorporated with them in a common cultural life. (1921) Another way we can think about assimilation, via J. Milton Yinger, is by considering it a “process of boundary reduction that can occur when members of two or more societies, ethnic groups, or smaller social groups meet” (1994, 39). While Park and Burgess’s definition focuses on incorporation into a common cultural life, Yinger’s definition focuses on a process of boundary reduction. In addition to this definition, Yinger suggests four principles for using assimilation as an analytic tool: (a) assimilation is a descriptive, not an evaluative, concept; (b) assimilation refers to a variable, not an attribute; (c) assimilation is a multidimensional process; and (d) each process is reversible (1994, 40–41). We can combine these principles using Yinger’s phrase: “the study of assimilation is simultaneously the study of dissimilation” (40). Yinger defines dissimilation as “the process whereby intrasocietal differences are maintained and created around subcultural groups” (41). These definitions allow us to view assimilation as more than a straight-line approach. We can focus on social boundaries and see assimilation as a reduction in the maintenance of boundaries and dissimilation as a sustaining of

20

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants

boundaries. Depending on the historical context and the ethnic group we are focusing on, we could see processes of assimilation and dissimilation occurring simultaneously in different spheres of the ethnic group in question. Surprisingly, J. Milton Yinger’s view of assimilation and dissimilation has not been widely applied to studies on the incorporation into U.S. society of post-1960s immigrants and their children. On the other hand, Milton Gordon’s view of assimilation (1964) has been widely applied to studies on the incorporation of the post-1960s waves of immigrants and their children despite the fact that it was written as an analysis of European immigrants who arrived well before 1960. Milton Gordon had no way of knowing how many immigrants would be coming to the United States just a few years later, nor could he foresee the diversity of immigrants from Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean Islands. Despite the incongruous historical context in which he wrote Assimilation in American Life, it is easily the most cited and widely used theoretical statement of assimilation to date. Gordon (1964) posited seven stages of assimilation: cultural, structural, marital, identificational, attitude receptional, behavior receptional, and civic assimilation. Not all of these stages have been studied equally, nor have all scholars viewed the assimilation process as containing these seven steps. Yinger (1994), for example, sees the attitude receptional, behavior receptional, and civic assimilation steps as consequences of assimilation rather than types of assimilation. Instead, he posits four types of assimilation: cultural, structural, biological (amalgamation), and psychological (identification). Rumbaut (2001) further clarifies Gordon’s last three stages as requisite contextual factors applying to the host society and not to the newcomers; thus, complete assimilation cannot happen without the host society accepting the immigrants: “It takes two to tango—and to assimilate” (159). Moreover, Rumbaut (2001) sees assimilation as involving three interrelated processes: cultural, structural (including intermarriage), and psychological. Jiobu (1988) reduces Gordon’s seven types of assimilation to three: subcultural, structural, and socioeconomic. Clearly, cultural, structural (under which some scholars include marital), and psychological processes are all key types of assimilation processes and outcomes. Cultural assimilation, more commonly referred to as acculturation, is the “process of change toward greater cultural similarity brought about by contact between two or more groups” (Yinger 1994). As this

History and Theory

21

definition highlights, acculturation is not a one-way process, but a twoway process in which both the immigrant group and the “host” society influence each other in the forms of language, food, music, words, and arts and crafts. Furthermore, cultural assimilation is not a zero-sum game, but includes additive and subtractive (or substitutive) elements (Rumbaut 2001; Yinger 1994). Numerous scholars have shown that groups do not have to fully acculturate to go through other processes of assimilation (Gibson 1988; Zhou and Bankston 1998) nor do groups who fully acculturate necessarily proceed through the other processes of assimilation. African Americans are a case in point: there is no doubt that they are as acculturated as any other group, yet they are still faced with various obstacles in the form of prejudice, discrimination, intermarriage, residential segregation, and inaccessibility to educational and occupational opportunities (Gordon 1964; Park 1930). The next process of assimilation is structural assimilation (or integration), which for Gordon (1964) refers to the “large-scale entrance into cliques, clubs, and institutions of [the] host society” and, at the collective level, taking on large-scale primary group relationships. Gordon distinguishes between secondary and primary groups. The secondary group is made up of those people we can characterize as casual and impersonal. The primary group, on the other hand, is “a group in which contact is personal, informal, intimate, and usually faceto-face, and which involves the entire personality, not just a segmentalized part of it” (31). Yinger (1994) expands on this with impersonal contacts (economic and political institutions) and personal contacts (neighborhoods, friendship circles, and marriages). It is thus easy to see why scholars include marital assimilation within structural assimilation. For Gordon, structural assimilation was the key process because he believed that all of the other processes of assimilation would follow. Whether or not we include marital assimilation as a part of structural assimilation is not as important as scholars make it seem. I will be focusing, however, on this key process of assimilation. Either way, marital assimilation involves primary group relationships and does not come about until some degree of structural assimilation has occurred. If marital assimilation, an inevitable by-product of structural assimilation, takes place fully, the minority group loses its

22

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants ethnic identity in the larger host or core society, and identificational assimilation takes place. . . . Once structural assimilation has occurred, either simultaneously with or subsequent to acculturation, all of the other types of assimilation will naturally follow. (Gordon 1964)

So important is this concept of marital assimilation that four decades later, scholars still use intermarriage as a litmus test for patterns of assimilation. Although Gordon himself never described his approach to assimilation as a straight-line approach, it has often been attributed to Gordon (in such forms as Gordon’s “straight-line” theory (Stevens, Ishizawa, and McKillip 2006)). It is, however, not too far of a stretch to see why this is the case, given his statement that once marital assimilation takes place, “the remaining types of assimilation have all taken place like a row of tenpins bowled over in rapid succession by a well placed strike” (Gordon 1964). Herbert Gans (1992) later renames the straight-line approach as a bumpy-line approach to accentuate the various kinds of adaptations in a variety of contexts. I do not agree with this ascription of a straight-line approach (or a bumpy-line approach), which does not account for different paths, but ultimately sees immigrants and their descendants ending up in the same place, nor do I think Gordon would, as I will explain in the next section. Of course, marital assimilation cannot be separated from the other types of assimilation, and it affects or is affected by the other types. For analytical purposes, I will try to isolate this important type. The other types are important, but we need to understand the individual types to some extent in order to better understand the whole. I will expand on Gordon’s conception of marital assimilation to include union formations of marriage, cohabitation, and dating relationships. I will focus in subsequent chapters on the role of union formations in the processes of assimilation. Just as Yinger suggests that the study of assimilation is simultaneously the study of dissimilation, the study of marital assimilation (i.e., intermarriage) is simultaneously the study of homophily. Homophily is the “principle that a contact between similar people occurs at a higher rate than among dissimilar people” (McPherson, Smith-Lovin, and Cook 2001). I will be referring to homophily in relation to union formations as individuals marrying, cohabiting with, and dating people from their own ethnic group. In order to understand union formation and the role it plays in the

History and Theory

23

processes of assimilation, it is crucial that we also understand why people form unions with others from their own ethnic group, especially since this is by far the norm; the majority of individuals do not cross racial or ethnic lines when it comes to forming an intimate relationship with another person. VARIABLES THAT INFLUENCE ASSIMILATION AND DISSIMILATION Before talking about assimilation in terms of the outcomes or processes, perhaps it will be helpful to bring in Yinger’s conception of dissimilation and talk about the factors that affect the extent and speed of assimilation of ethnic groups. Yinger introduces 20 variables that affect the extent and speed of assimilation of ethnic groups. Each variable can exert assimilative influences, mixed or neutral influences, or dissimilative influences (1994, 53). I will not mention all 20 variables, but will briefly introduce the 10 variables that are most relevant to this study. The first set of factors relates to structural factors such as group size, concentration, length of residency, and transnational travel. A small group size (relative to the total population) is likely to be more open to change via assimilative influences, while a large group is likely to exert dissimilative influences. Group size is related to, but is not the same as, group concentration. Living in a residentially concentrated area is more likely to be a dissimilative force than is being scattered spatially by region and community. Length of residency in a country also impacts a group’s assimilation or dissimilation. Long-term residency (or a low proportion of newcomers) has assimilative influences on communities, while short-term residency (or a high proportion of newcomers) has dissimilative influences on the said communities. Finally, in relation to structural factors, especially geographic location, the ease and frequency in which immigrants and their children are able to return to their homelands is a factor in the extent and speed of assimilation. Returns can speed up assimilation if they are difficult and infrequent but will exert dissimilative influences if they are easy and frequent. The next set of factors relates to ascribed statuses such as language, religion, race, and cultural differences. Speaking different languages, belonging to different religions and racial categories (or at least being

24

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants

assigned to different racial categories by the host society), and coming from culturally different societies all have dissimilative influences on ethnic groups. Conversely, those ethnic groups that speak English, share one of the majority religions, are considered “white” by the host society, or come from a society that is culturally similar to the receiving society are likely to assimilate more quickly and more thoroughly. The last set of factors relates to achieved statuses such as social class (as indexed by education, occupation, and income). Diversity in social class is more likely to have assimilative influences on ethnic groups, while homogeneity in social class will have dissimilative influences on ethnic groups. What exactly does “dissimilative influences” mean? What are the implications? What is the end result of assimilation or dissimilation? Aside from the processes of assimilation (whether they be straight-line or segmented), theoretical models also formulate the preferred goals of adjustment for immigrants and their descendants. These goal-systems of assimilation extend beyond the processes of assimilation and gauge how society will look once these newcomers have settled into the host society. Gordon proposed three ideological tendencies for predicting what the larger American society would look like: (1) Angloconformity; (2) the melting pot; and (3) cultural pluralism (1964). Anglo-conformity “demanded the complete renunciation of the immigrant’s ancestral culture in favor of the behavior and values of the Anglo-Saxon core group” (85). Gordon found this dominant position largely unchallenged in 1964, when he wrote his book. His analysis of this position found that there was some validity to the argument as an empirical outcome, but that it was only with respect to acculturation (cultural assimilation). That is, immigrants will, for the most part, acculturate to the language and basic values of American society, but other types of assimilation will not necessarily follow—especially structural assimilation. In fact, Gordon concludes that “acculturation without massive structural intermingling at primary group levels has been the dominant motif in the American experience of creating and developing a nation out of diverse peoples” (114). In the present day, we see vestiges of Anglo-conformity in the way proponents want to make English the official language of the United States. These notions have become more prominent as mass waves of immigrants have come into this country since the 1960s. At the turn of the twentieth century, when the United States saw peak number of immigrants coming from Europe, the ideologically

History and Theory

25

charged image of the “melting pot” became popular with Israel Zangwill’s play The Melting Pot (Gordon 1964; Rumbaut 2005). “To a self-professed nation of immigrants, that vivid and seductive image serves to answer the challenges of social justice and diversity posed by immigration—by offering an inclusionary image of the mechanism by which an unum is forged from the pluribus” (Rumbaut 2005). The metaphor of the melting pot romanticized the ultimate endpoint of assimilation for all of the European immigrant groups that came to the United States. Gordon concluded that this did not match the reality of immigration to the United States and instead proposed that American society has come to be composed of a number of “pots,” or subsocieties, three of which are the religious containers marked Protestant, Catholic, and Jew, which are in the process of melting down the white nationality background communities contained within them; others are racial groups which are not allowed to melt structurally; and still others are substantial remnants of the nationality background communities manned by those members who are either of the first generation, or who, while native born, choose to remain within the ethnic enclosure. (1964, 130) The image of a “melting pot” has become more problematic with the diversity of more recent immigrants, who come predominantly from Latin America and Asia. The view of American society made up of a number of melting pots more closely fits with a segmented model of assimilation, with multiple paths that lead to a variety of melting pots. In Gordon’s view, the melting pots are structural—not cultural—in nature. Horace Kallen largely developed the model of “cultural pluralism” and was a major proponent of its tenets (Gordon 1964). Cultural pluralism saw immigrant groups maintaining the cultural elements they brought from their homelands while still incorporating into American society and saw the host society accepting and embracing these cultural differences. Gordon finds fault with cultural assimilation in the following manner: “A more accurate term for the American situation is structural pluralism rather than cultural pluralism, although some of the latter also remains” (159). This is where Yinger’s term dissimilation fits in. Milton Gordon, in his review of Yinger’s book, described

26

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants

dissimilation as “tendencies toward pluralism” (1995). I agree with this assessment and see dissimilative forces as those forces that direct people along any assimilation path that does not lead to convergence with the dominant majority (i.e., the white middle class). FROM ASIA AND LATIN AMERICA: STRAIGHT-LINE OR SEGMENTED? While it is not clear whether immigrants from Asia and Latin America will eventually intermarry at the same rates as European immigrants once did or at the same rates as their descendants now do, there are those who hypothesize that this will be the case (see Alba and Nee 2003; Bean and Stevens 2003). In other words, these scholars argue that the adaptation process of these immigrants (or at least their children and grandchildren) will follow the expectations of a linear assimilation process. The following quote from Alba and Nee aptly describes the stance that these authors take on immigration and how it will relate to today’s newcomers: [A]ssimilation has been the master trend among the descendants of prior waves of immigration, which originated predominantly in Europe but also in East Asia. Groups once regarded as racial and religious outsiders, such as Jews and Italians, have joined the American institutional mainstream and social majority. Among whites, ethnic boundaries have not entirely disappeared, but they have become so faint as to pale beside other racial/ethnic boundaries. Assimilation is unlikely to achieve the same preeminence among the descendants of contemporary immigrants, but that it will be a force of major consequence we have no doubt. In arguing for the importance of assimilation as a social process, we are not asserting its inevitability, as the early writing on assimilation appeared to. Perhaps in the long run, assimilation will turn out to be as predominant in the future as it has been in the American past. (2003) Alba and Nee also make it clear that the picture is not as simple as it was in the past because of the great diversity that we see in the types of immigrants that are now migrating to the United States and in “the forms of capital immigrants bring, the nature of the communities they

History and Theory

27

enter, and their race and legal status” . They are, however, optimistic that Asians and Latinos will have a good chance at assimilating into the American institutional mainstream—though not necessarily through being included in the white category, but instead by being included in a “non-black” category through a process where racial and ethnic boundaries will eventually break down and become blurred. Bean and Stevens (2003) ask a similar question about the incorporation of new immigrants in contrast to the incorporation of older immigrants: [H]igh levels of intermarriage between Americans of various European nationalities in succeeding generations over the course of the mid-twentieth century were evidence of the diminution of social and cultural distinctions among Americans of European descent. Will the same happen to the different national origin groups that arrived in the latter third of the twentieth century? . This question gets at the heart of the increase in racial and ethnic groups immigrating to the United States starting in the 1960s and asks whether or not they will incorporate into the “mainstream” or at least remain somewhat marginal to the dominant “non-Hispanic white” population. Bean and Stevens use the Current Population Survey (CPS) data to show patterns of intermarriage across generations and suggest that newer immigrants predominantly from Asia and Latin America are assimilating: “The increasing levels of intermarriage across generations strongly suggests that the intermarriage patterns of Asians and of Hispanics will parallel those of European immigrants and their descendants over the course of the twentieth century” . Not everyone is as optimistic as Alba and Nee (2003) and Bean and Stevens (2003) about the position that Asian-origin and Latinoorigin groups will occupy in our society. Hollinger (2003) examines “ethnoracial” groups (the combined term he prefers to racial and ethnic groups) from a macro-historical perspective. He looks at history through an ethnoracial mixture lens and uses amalgamation and the “one-drop rule” to show how blacks have been continually subjugated to the bottom rung of the stratification ladder. Miscegenation (despite antimiscegenation laws) has continually shaped the racial position not only of blacks, but also of Native Americans, Asians, and Latinos,

28

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants

albeit to a lesser degree. Despite the degree of amalgamation that has occurred in the history of these aggregates, they have not fully assimilated and remain racialized. Similarly, Olsen (2001) relies on an ethnographic study of a high school in northern California to provide evidence for what she sees as a racialization of immigrants (Asians and Latinos) as they incorporate into their new environment. The immigrant students are marginalized (in large part because of their language), put in their “place” within a subordinate racial panethnic category (as opposed to their national origin), and sorted and segmented into paths that limit their education opportunities. This line of thinking fits more closely with immigration scholars who see a shift in the role of assimilation among post-1960 immigrants and, especially, their children. Children of immigrants—whether born in the United States or who came to the United States at a young age—account for approximately one out of every five American children. Conditions for the children of post-1960 immigrants are different from those of pre-1960 immigrants in two ways. First, the majority of pre-1960 immigrants was European and white, whereas most post-1960s immigrants are non-European and non-white and to varying degrees experience barriers to adaptation based on their phenotype. Second, as a result of national deindustrialization and global industrial restructuring, the structure of economic opportunities has changed dramatically. This is the society and “context of reception” into which these new immigrants and their children are trying to incorporate. In other words, the new second generation forms a diverse population, which further complicates their adaptation process. Portes and Zhou (1993) propose the idea of segmented assimilation for understanding the process of social adaptation by the immigrant second generation and illustrate it with ethnographic accounts of Mexicans and Mexican Americans, Punjabi Sikhs in California, and Caribbean youths in southern Florida. These case studies point out the different groups’ modes of incorporation and base these differences on resources (such as government programs and the availability of coethnic resources) and their interaction with other negative forces like difference in phenotype, concentration in central cities, and absence of mobility ladders—which create vulnerability to downward assimilation. Therein lies the paradox: “adopting the outlooks and cultural ways of the native-born does not represent, as in the past, the first step toward social and economic mobility but may lead to the exact opposite”

History and Theory

29

(Portes and Zhou 1993). For example, the Cubans who attend private school do very well despite the fact that they are not very likely to leave their coethnic community. On the other hand, the more disadvantaged Haitians are more likely to go outside of their ethnic community. Second generation immigrants are incorporated into society in different ways from their parents. The socioeconomic status of their parents, coethnic resources, and contexts of discrimination all impact the speed in which they will assimilate into society. Rather than just a “straight-line” (or even a “bumpy-line”) model of assimilation (Gans 1979, 1992), the new second generation experiences many different or segmented ways of assimilating. To what sector of American society will a particular immigrant group assimilate? The sectors can vary from “straight-line” assimilation at one extreme to assimilation into the underclass at the other extreme. “[R]apid economic advancement with deliberate preservation of the immigrant community’s values and tight solidarity” (Portes and Zhou 1993) defines the sector that falls in the middle of the two extremes. Portes and Rumbaut (2001) expound on the outline of the process of segmented assimilation, filling in the analytical gaps, and use a wide range of survey and interview data from the census and the Children of Immigrants Longitudinal Study (CILS) conducted in Miami and San Diego to test the various factors with empirical data. These rich sources of data—especially the surveys and in-depth interviews from the CILS—sort through the complex factors that eventually lead to one of three expected outcomes. For example, this can be seen in how Portes and Rumbaut (2001) explain the background factors of parental human capital, family structure, and modes of incorporation in the first generation, which in turn affect the level of acculturation experienced by the second generation. These factors can lead to intergenerational patterns of dissonant, consonant, and selective acculturation. External obstacles such as racial discrimination, the bifurcated labor market, and inner-city subcultures also affect the form of acculturation. Overall, parental human capital and demographic characteristics have positive influences on second-generation outcomes. These factors in turn directly affect the structure and achievement of immigrant families. The ranking of Asian families as most stable, followed by Latin families and then black Caribbean families, illustrates the fact that while parental human capital can explain different family structures,

30

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants

characteristics of their original culture and modes of incorporation also play as important a role in explaining how the second generation will acculturate. Ultimately, and as an ideal type, we can expect one of three outcomes: (a) downward assimilation; (b) mostly upward assimilation, blocked at times by discrimination; and (c) mostly upward assimilation combined with biculturalism (Portes and Rumbaut 2001). Upon a close examination of Gordon (1964), we can see that he was at least open to the possibility of a segmented assimilation process—i.e., different paths to assimilation for different groups. In fact, he never called his assimilation a “straight-line” model as many scholars have claimed—a text search through his book reveals that the word “straight” does not appear once in his book (www.amazon.com). While he saw how European Americans were likely to proceed relatively smoothly through the seven types of assimilation, he also saw that African Americans and Puerto Rican Americans were not following the same path as European Americans. He qualifies his generalizations of assimilation by stating that a minority group that is “spatially isolated or segregated (whether voluntary or not)” or a group that experiences “unusually marked discrimination” will invariably slow down the acculturation process for the group (75–79). Both sides of the argument make important points about whether or not Asian-origin and Latin American–origin immigrants and their children are assimilating (through a process similar to the ethnicization of earlier Europeans) or whether they are remaining a racialized minority in the United States. Rather than arguing for one side or the other, I hypothesize that both processes are going on simultaneously. In other words, the debate is not about whether the adaptation process of assimilation will be linear or segmented. We can see evidence that both processes are valid, depending on which groups we observe intermarrying and in what contexts. More importantly, we can see evidence for both processes when we make a distinction between race and ethnicity. Increased intermarriage rates among the second and third generations of Asian immigrants potentially point to a process of ethnicization, which may eventually lead to a linear process of assimilation. That assumes, however, that all Asians are homogeneous and go through the same processes and, more importantly, that they are not also being racialized. When we break down intermarriage rates by ethnic groups within the Asian category, we find that rates of intermarriage vary greatly (Jiobu 1988; Qian, Blair, and Ruf 2001; Shinagawa and Pang 1996). Thus, while the Japanese (well-known for

History and Theory

31

their high rates of intermarriage) may be following a linear path, other Asian ethnics may be following segmented paths. WHAT ABOUT INTERETHNIC COUPLES? Gordon refers to an ethnic group as “a type of group contained within the national boundaries of America . . . defined or set off by race, religion, or national origin, or some combination of these categories” (1964). In this view, race is essentially seen as a subcategory of ethnicity. Alba and Nee share this same view: “we prefer to cast ‘ethnicity’ as the general concept and to see ‘race’ as a form of ethnicity” (2003). In this view, ethnicity can mean race and thus conflates the two concepts. I argue that the two terms are indeed different and that intermarriage is a good example of how the conflation of these two terms has important consequences. I prefer Schermerhorn’s definition of ethnicity: “a collectivity within a larger society having real or putative common ancestry, memories of a shared historical past, and a cultural focus on one or more symbolic elements defined as the epitome of their peoplehood” (1978). Thus, the key to this definition is a common ancestry (real or imagined), history, and culture. Certainly, “races” of people can exhibit these same characteristics, and thus we would naturally expect there to be some overlap between these two concepts. I use Cornell and Hartmann’s definition of race: We can define a race, then, as a human group defined by itself or others as distinct by virtue of perceived common physical characteristics that are held to be inherent. A race is a group of human beings socially defined on the basis of physical characteristics. Determining which characteristics constitute the race—the selection of markers and therefore the construction of the racial category itself—is a choice human beings make. Neither markers nor categories are predetermined by any biological factors. (2007) The key to this definition is that persons belonging to a race have perceived common physical characteristics. The words perceived and putative are key words that point to the way in which I think of race and ethnicity. I see elements of a primordial approach and a

32

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants

circumstantialist (or instrumentalist) approach in the definition of these terms, but I find that we get the most utility from a constructionist approach that combines both of these approaches (Cornell and Hartmann 2007). Consider two recent examples of how the terms race and ethnicity are operationalized in studies of assimilation and intermarriage and why it matters. First, Alba and Nee argue that 63 percent of children with Japanese ancestry born in the 1980s “have mixed ethnic ancestry, suggesting the erosion of a racial boundary” (2003). This statement appears to be true if we believe that race is merely a subcategory of ethnicity. If we believe otherwise, however, then such a statement begs to be further broken down into ethnic and racial groups. For example, if we break down those of Japanese descent into the different types of groups which they are intermarrying, we could roughly break them into two types of intermarriage: interethnic and interracial marriages. The people involved in interethnic marriages are those that cross an ethnic line and marry other Asians. On the other hand, interracial marriages involve those Japanese who marry whites, blacks, and other races. Indeed, if the trend is reversing from interracial to interethnic marriages, that tells us a lot about the color line and the differences between racial and ethnic identities. In addition, it calls into question the idea that racial boundaries are eroding. Despite their recent prevalence, only a limited number of studies have examined interethnic marriages (Gilbertson, Fitzpatrick, and Yang 1996; Jiobu 1988; Perlmann 1997; Qian, Blair, and Ruf 2001; Qian and Lichter 2004; Qian and Lichter 2007; Shinagawa and Pang 1988, 1996). Indeed, by 2000, a dramatic rise in interethnic marriages, coupled with a relative decrease in interracial marriages, probably indicates that more Asian men and women outmarried across ethnic, as opposed to racial, lines (Shinagawa and Pang 1996). The increase in interethnic marriages can largely be accounted for by significant increases in the size of the foreign-born population and their greater propensity to marry within their own or other Asian groups (Shinagawa and Pang 1996). Alba and Nee to their credit, point out this trend: “The outmarriage rate of the group [Japanese Americans] is such that without sizable new immigration from Japan, which is unlikely, this ethnic group appears to be on the road to amalgamation with whites and, to a lesser but growing extent because of pan-Asian marriages, other Asian groups” (2003). If one views race and ethnicity as basically

History and Theory

33

interchangeable, then this statement makes sense. However, if we do not treat these two terms as one, then we could argue that an increasingly larger percentage of Japanese Americans marrying other Asians could do an about-face “on the road to amalgamation.” Conceptually, this is an example of what Yinger refers to as dissimilation (1981; 1994). In other words, there is evidence to suggest that Asian ethnics are less willing to cross racial lines than to cross ethnic lines. Crossing racial lines clearly denotes a decrease in social distance and a type of assimilation, but crossing ethnic lines might be more closely associated with dissimilation or a segmented assimilation path other than the straight-line path. It is important to note that these points are theoretical and have yet to be tested empirically; in fact, that is what I put to the test in this book. Second, Bean and Stevens (2003) show that 21 percent of “Asian wives” and 18 percent of “Latino wives” have husbands of different “race or ancestry”; they also show that 10 percent of “Asian husbands” and 15 percent of “Latino husbands” have wives of different race or ancestry. Their focus on racial terms, however, also tends to diminish the importance of ethnic distinctions between the various groups that are fitted with such panethnic labels. One of the major issues that needs to be addressed is what the terms “Asian” or “Latino” really mean. Are we really talking about intermarriage among Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, Filipinos, and Mexicans, since these groups dominate the current literature on intermarriage? What about the growing Asian Indian population in the United States—mainly due to recent immigration—or the growing number of immigrants from Central and South America, Cuba, and the Dominican Republic? The complete story of intermarriage is not being told when scholars use panethnic terms such as Asian or Latino. In terms of intermarriage, we do not know how many of them are involved in interethnic marriages (as opposed to interracial marriages). The percentage of Asians and Latinos involved in interethnic marriages could change the picture of social and cultural assimilation—or significantly cloud the picture. As a partial answer to the above questions, recent research suggests that among those Asians that are outmarrying (whether across racial or ethnic lines), there are more Asian ethnics marrying other Asian ethnics than there are Asian ethnics marrying other races (Shinagawa and Pang 1996). While even less is known about Latin American–origin groups, there is evidence that they are also marrying

34

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants

other Latin American–origin groups at high rates (Gilbertson, Fitzpatrick, and Yang 1996; Qian and Lichter 2004). These findings do not discredit Alba and Nee (2003) or Bean and Stevens (2003) but instead make matters of social and cultural assimilation by means of intermarriage more problematic. A large increase in interethnic marriages in the past several decades among ethnic groups in the Asian and Hispanic categories could simply be “viewed as part of a larger process of assimilation in which social barriers created by ethnic boundaries attenuate as social relations expand across ethnic groups” (Alba and Nee 2003), or it could mean that it is easier to cross ethnic lines than racial lines, thus signaling a more difficult assimilation path for these groups than European immigrants in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. As early as 1967, Parkman and Sawyer found that ethnic groups in Hawaii tend to marry within an “East-West” dichotomy (Parkman and Sawyer 1967). Massey adapted this to what he coined a “double melting pot” in which “new immigrants exhibit some tendency to maintain endogamy within ‘Asian’ and ‘Hispanic’ clusters” (1981). Gilbertson, Fitzpatrick, and Yang (1996) found this same thing among Latin American–origin groups in New York City. Furthermore, Qian, Blair, and Ruf (2001) and Qian and Corbas (2004) used the 1990 census to confirm that large numbers of immigrants from Asia and Latin America and their descendants are marrying across ethnic lines within these panethnic racial categories. Finally, Qian and Lichter used the 1990 and 2000 Censuses and saw “declines” in intermarriages with whites and large increases in marriages between native- and foreignborn coethnics: For Hispanics, and to a lesser extent Asian Americans the 1990s brought unprecedented declines in intermarriage with whites, which is in sharp contrast to the exceptionally large increases in intermarriage observed in prior censuses (Qian 1997). This finding represents a significant departure from past trends. As we have shown, the retreat from intermarriage largely reflects the growth in the immigrant population; increasing shares of natives are marrying their foreign-born counterparts. (2007) It is important to note that natives marrying their foreign-born counterparts consist of native ethnic groups marrying foreign-born

History and Theory

35

persons from the same ethnic group or foreign-born persons from different ethnic groups within the same racial categories. In other words, given their reliance upon racial categories, it is impossible to know if they are talking about coethnic marriages or interethnic marriages. What are we to make of these interethnic couples? What are they assimilating or dissimilating to? Minority groups who marry whites are assumed to be integrating into the dominant society at some level, but what about Asian ethnic groups marrying other Asian ethnic groups or Latino ethnic groups marrying other Latino ethnic groups? It could be argued that they are assimilating into the panethnic categories that we often refer to as Asian and Latino (Qian, Blair, and Ruf 2001). In other words, ethnic groups marrying other ethnic groups within the same racial category can be thought of as going through a process of racialization, which tends to slow down or stop the process of assimilation (Gordon 1964). On the other hand, ethnic groups marrying across racial boundaries have traditionally represented a smooth and steady path along the road to assimilation. On the other side of this entire debate lies the vast number of these ethnic groups who are marrying within their ethnic group and possibly going through a process of ethnicization. Homophily is still the norm, and the majority of first- and second-generation immigrants are still entering coethnic relationships. In other words, they are maintaining their parental language and cultural traditions and are staying embedded in extended family networks of coethnics—all signs of dissimilation. It is not clear at what rate the above processes are occurring, for who they are occurring, or what this means for the individuals involved. It is clear that it will have important implications for the way we think about assimilation (and dissimilation) in the years to come; and more importantly, it implies that, at the very least, a segmented perspective of assimilation will more accurately portray the experiences of immigrants and their children from Asia and Latin America in the near future.

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER 3

Conceptualization and Methodology

MIXED COUPLES One of the difficulties in studying a topic such as intermarriage (or what I prefer to call “mixed relationships”) is that of defining exactly what we mean by these terms. These issues of conceptualization are often directly linked to issues of methodology. Furthermore, conceptual issues are directed by the limitations of a data set. For example, it is difficult to measure ethnicity in the decennial census—the closest that we can come to measuring ethnicity is to look at the foreign-born respondents by using their national origin as a proxy—and thus, most studies that look at mixed relationships are in fact studies of interracial relationships (to the exclusion of interethnic relationships). Surely a part of this focus on interracial relationships comes from failure to distinguish between race and ethnicity; for example, using the common expression “race/ethnicity” as if they were the same thing. However, some of this is also driven by methodological limitations. After all, it is much easier to justify reasons for extensive time and effort put into measuring something—even with its limitations—by buying into the categories that are generally only a proxy for other social realities (assuming we can even measure “social realities”). I suspect that similar limitations apply to scholars who study intermarriage yet are reluctant to include a detailed analysis of racially and ethnically mixed, cohabiting couples. Part of this reluctance comes from the fact that until recently, cohabiting couples were relatively rare. But according to the 2000 Census, 10 percent of all couples are now 37

38

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants

cohabiting couples. I learned firsthand while analyzing research on intermarriage that it is much more difficult not only to identify cohabiting couples (i.e., the process of identifying them in the census is complex) but also to analyze what the results mean. Thus, I suspect that some of these methodological issues are central to studying why literature on mixed relationships has been stuck in the same rut for decades. Of course I am not immune to the dialectical relationship between conceptual and methodological issues. I have, however, chosen data sets that allow for the conceptual issues to dictate what methodology I employ (and not the other way around), and how I code and create variables to measure race, ethnicity, marriage, cohabitation, and generational status. In this section I will propose a new way to talk about intermarriage. Instead of intermarriage, the terms interethnic relationships and interracial relationships are more appropriate for a number of reasons. For convenience, I will occasionally refer to interethnic and interracial relationships as mixed couples or mixed unions, which include both interethnic and interracial couples. First, the consequences of being classified as an interracial versus an interethnic couple are very different, even though the two terms are often conflated. If we do not make this distinction, we risk confounding these two different types of couples. This conflation leads us to think that they are the same or, even worse, to leave out the entire category of interethnic relationships. Many studies in the field have pointed out the differences between race and ethnicity (Cornell and Hartmann 2004, 2007). Indeed many studies have pointed out differences between interracial and interethnic couples (Qian, Blair, and Ruf 2001; Qian and Lichter 2004; Qian and Lichter 2007; Shinagawa and Pang 1988, 1996). However, whether or not interracial and interethnic couples are distinct and should be treated as such in research situations is still an empirical question that has not been answered by existent literature. Therefore, I propose a systematic study that clearly distinguishes and compares these two types of mixed relationships to see if these distinctions make sense. I will specifically focus on immigrants from Latin America and Asia and their children. Immigrants from these two areas represent the largest percentage of total immigrant flow to the United States over the past several decades and are increasingly more likely to find themselves in mixed relationships. We can propose three possible conclusions that could result from a close measurement of the number and composition of mixed couples:

Conceptualization and Methodology

39

(1) interethnic couples more closely resemble coethnic couples and thus should not be included in studies of mixed relationships, (2) interethnic and interracial couples are different from each other and from other coethnic couples and should thus be looked at as separate phenomena, and (3) interethnic and interracial couples are similar to each other but different from coethnic couples and should thus be considered together when speaking of mixed unions. Of course it is also possible that the categories of interethnic and interracial couples overlap and could therefore be considered separately in some contexts and considered together in other contexts. In this study I found that interethnic and interracial couples are distinct in many ways; therefore, I will be arguing the second point. Second, I prefer the terms relationship, couple, union, or partner to the often-used term marriage. Marriage is clearly not the same type of experience as cohabiting, and recent studies point to important differences between marriage and cohabitation (Blackwell and Lichter 2000; Guzzo 2005; Lamanna and Riedmann 2003). The current era has even been described as a “retreat from marriage” (Lichter, McLaughlin, and Ribar 2002). Blackwell and Lichter (2000) concluded that “Research can no longer ignore the qualitatively different mate selection processes of cohabiting couples” (275). Furthermore, a look at race and ethnicity shows that cohabiting couples are twice as likely as married couples to be in a relationship with someone of a different racial or ethnic background (Fields and Casper 2001; Landale, Oropesa, and Bradatan 2006; Simmons and O'Connell 2003). Other studies point to important cultural differences among different national-origin groups and their patterns of cohabitation (Manning and Landale 1996; Oropesa 1996), thus underscoring the importance of examining cohabitation and marriage rates by ethnic groups as opposed to one-size-fits-all racial categories. Moreover, a recent study found that 84 percent of married Mexicans are endogamous, while only 74 percent of cohabiting Mexicans are endogamous, thus highlighting important differences between marriage and cohabitation. Cohabiting couples are more likely to cross various ethnic boundaries, as evidenced by the fact that they are more likely to marry Hispanic nationals of different ethnic origin than their own non-Hispanic whites, and non-Hispanic blacks (Landale, Oropesa, and Bradatan 2006). Just as cohabiting unions follow qualitatively different mate-selection processes compared to married unions, the same could be said for dating couples (Joyner and Kao

40

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants

2005). Indeed, it appears that we must at least consider the possibility that marriage, cohabitation, and even dating are separate phenomena, especially when it comes to crossing racial and ethnic lines. As the number of cohabiting couples continues to increase, so will the number of interracial and interethnic relationships. Thus, to continue to use the term intermarriage implies that only married couples matter, and entirely misses those couples that are cohabiting. For example, 10 percent of couples marrying between the years 1965– 1974 cohabitated before marriage, whereas over 50 percent of couples who married between 1990–1994 did so (Smock 2000). Considering that only 10 percent of all cohabiting couples remained in the relationship for more than five years, what implications does this have for cohabiting couples who are already more likely to be in mixed relationships than married couples? Finally, I think it is important to note that many of the ways that I conceptualize interracial and interethnic unions are generalizations and will change vis-à-vis place, groups, and time. I also acknowledge that sometimes it is not as important to distinguish between racial and ethnic differences, as there are also overlapping characteristics. What is crucial is that we carefully study those characteristics within their social, political, and historical contexts before we make that judgment. Obviously geography, group size, and the historical time period will all affect the number and types of mixed relationships that result within any population. Furthermore, I do not expect that all regions in the United States will yield the same results from an in-depth look at mixed couples. Each region of the country has a different makeup of racial and ethnic groups, a different history of migration patterns—both from within the country and from outside of the country—and different sizes of minority populations. All of these factors affect the types of mixed relationships we will see, especially at the macro-structural level (Blau, Beeker, and Fitzpatrick 1984; Blau, Blum, and Schwartz 1982). The historical time period in question will drastically change the context in which people from different racial and ethnic groups will come together. Thus, I do not make claims for all times and places, but locate my study within the present day in Southern California. Given the social context, it is important to have a word that can include both types of couples. Unlike the term intermarriage, which typically refers to married interracial couples, mixed unions, mixed couples, or mixed relationships can include both interracial and interethnic couples. From

Conceptualization and Methodology

41

this point forward, I will use these terms when talking about interracial and interethnic couples, whether married, cohabiting, and dating. RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND METHODOLOGY In this research study I will be examining two general questions, one empirical and the other theoretical. The empirical question addresses who enters into mixed relationships. This allows us to create a demographic profile of mixed couples in the United States. The theoretical question addresses the mechanisms and processes of marital assimilation, especially as they relate to mixed unions. Are these processes best described as a linear or a segmented approach to assimilation in union formation? I chose two data sets that allow us to measure mixed couples according to the conceptual issues related above: (1) the Current Population Survey (CPS) and (2) the Children of Immigrants Longitudinal Study (CILS). These rich data sets examine the above questions from different levels of analyses: from the quantitative level (CPS), then to the survey level (CILS), and finally to in-depth, open-ended interviews (also part of CILS). I will begin by looking at data from the United States and will then focus more specifically on Southern California. Current Population Survey (CPS) Data The CPS is the principal nationwide survey that allows for the breakdown of generations into first, second, and third-plus by racial and ethnic categories. I have broken down my two general questions into four specific questions to match the strengths of the CPS: (a) How many married and cohabiting mixed couples (both interracial and interethnic) are there in the United States and, more specifically, in California?; (b) What are the patterns of mixed couples by sex, race, ethnicity, generation, age cohorts, and type of mixed relationship (i.e., coethnic, mixed with someone outside one’s racial category, or mixed with someone within one’s racial category)?; (c) What do patterns of mixed relationships tell us about the mechanisms of marital assimilation?; and (d) Do these patterns fit a linear or segmented approach to the processes of assimilation? The CPS is a monthly survey of about 50,000 households with a special Annual Social and Economic (ASEC) supplement published

42

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants

every March. The ASEC supplement is a survey of over 200,000 households and is conducted by the Bureau of the Census for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The CPS sample provides estimates for the nation, as well as for states and other geographic areas; it also represents the civilian, non-institutional population. Estimates obtained from the CPS include a variety of demographic characteristics including age, sex, race, marital status, and educational attainment, as well as information about employment, earnings, and occupation, all of which are weighted to produce national-level estimates. I combined the ASEC supplements from 2003 to 2006 to increase the sample sizes (to more than 800,000 potential cases that involve someone in a mixed relationship). Unfortunately, it is not possible to include years prior to 2003 because key variables such as race and occupations changed in 2003 and make any year prior to 2003 incompatible. The key advantage of the CPS is that it is the only nationally representative sample that can estimate numbers of interethnic and interracial relationships by detailed generational breakdowns (first, second, and third-plus). The CPS’s break down for Hispanic nationalities allows respondents to identify their nationality based on a breakdown of only a few of the larger Latino groups from among the possible 19 Spanishspeaking countries in Latin America. While limited in its scope, we can estimate the numbers of Latino interethnic couples as they subjectively responded for these few ethnic groups. The Hispanic question is coded in the following manner: PRDTHSP - Subjective Hispanic Variable 0 1 2 3 4 5

Not in universe Mexican Puerto Rican Cuban Central/South American Other Spanish

The CPS race question is somewhat limited in that it measures race in one way, which is different than the decennial census. The census breaks down most of the larger Asian groups by nationality, so it is possible to compare the ethnicity of couples within Asian groups in a subjective manner—that is, in the way that they choose to define their

Conceptualization and Methodology

43

“race” via nationality. The race question in the CPS is coded in the following manner: PRDTRACE - Subjective Race Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

White only Black only American Indian, Alaskan Native only (AI) Asian only Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (HP) only White-Black White-AI White-Asian White-HP Black-AI Black-Asian Black-HP AI-Asian Asian-HP White-Black-AI White-Black-Asian White-AI-Asian White-Asian-HP White-Black-AI-Asian 2 or 3 races 4 or 5 races

Both of the above variables on Hispanic origin and race are selfreported, subjective questions that allow us to compare the U.S.-born versus the foreign-born respondents. The one element missing from these variables is ethnicity, which would offer additional detail in the breakdown of the Hispanic groups, as well as a breakdown of Asian groups. While there is no perfect variable to measure ethnicity, we have a close proxy in national origin. The CPS is unique from the census data (both the 5 percent Integrated Public Use Microdata Series [IPUMS] and the American Community Survey [ACS]) in that they ask the nativity of the respondents’ parents, which allows us to impute a national origin for the first generation (via where they were born), and more importantly for the second generation (via where their parents were born). The Census Bureau dropped the parental nativity question in the 1980 decennial census, just at a time when the United States

44

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants

started experiencing a mass flow of immigrants from Asia and Latin America—and unfortunately the ACS follows the same practice as the decennial census. I cannot underscore this point enough. Without the parental nativity question, it is impossible to examine the second generation in isolation—we are limited to a breakdown of the foreignborn respondents compared to the U.S.-born respondents. Thus, the CPS is the only nationwide survey that allows us to compare the first, second, and third-plus generations, which is extremely important in trying to determine prospects of assimilation for the various immigrant groups that have migrated since the 1960s. This ethnicity variable—constructed via the respondent’s country of birth and the parental nativity question—is different from the race and Hispanic variables because it is more objective in the sense that we impute the variable based on the place of birth for foreign-born respondents and the parents’ place of birth for U.S.-born respondents. While there are inaccuracies resulting from people of various ethnic groups giving birth to children in countries other than their native country, these inaccuracies represent only a small fraction of the total, making this proxy a reasonable measure of ethnicity. There is also some ambiguity for those respondents who have parents born in different foreign countries—although these cases are also few in number. For these cases I assigned the country of the mother as the respondents’ ethnicity because of the role of the mother in socializing children, as well as the higher percentage of families where the father is absent (see Rumbaut 2004). In cases where only one parent is foreignborn, I assigned the respondent the ethnicity of the one foreign-born parent. In addition to racial and ethnic variables, it was necessary to construct a variable to measure generation. While it is easy to distinguish between first, second, and third-plus generations, we are able to further break down the first generation based on the year they arrived in the United States. We can subtract this from the year they were born to calculate an age of arrival. It is important to study the differences among the foreign-born based on what age they were when they arrived in the United States, as well as to isolate the 1.5 generation. Many scholars lump immigrants who came to the United States at a young age together with U.S.-born children of immigrant parents into a de facto second generation. Empirical evidence suggests that the distinctions between the 1.5 (immigrants who come to the United States at an early age) and the second generation (U.S.-born) are very

Conceptualization and Methodology

45

important (see Rumbaut 2004 for a detailed examination of the definition and empirical identification of immigrant first and second generations in the United States). This project builds on this evidence to see if people are more or less likely to cross generational boundaries, along with racial and ethnic boundaries when it comes to forming intimate relationships. While there are many advantages to using the CPS, there are also clear disadvantages. Because the CPS represents much smaller sample sizes, especially in comparison to the 1 percent or 5 percent IPUMS of the decennial census and the ACS, we must be cautious in interpreting the results of the CPS. Once we start breaking down racial and ethnic groups by generation and age cohorts, we are limited as to which ethnic groups we can analyze because of the small cell sizes. The other major disadvantage of the CPS is that is does not have questions on language as the IPUMS and ACS do. Language is a key indicator of acculturation, which in turn tells us a lot about the processes of assimilation. Furthermore, the CPS does not have data on religion, as the CILS does. Despite these limitations, the advantages of analyzing generational breakdowns (first, second, and third-plus) outweigh the disadvantages for the purposes of this study. I will use the CPS from 2003–2006 to investigate the characteristics of mixed couples in four ways. First, I estimate the numbers of interethnic and interracial couples, both married and cohabiting. This was accomplished by concatenating couples on the same row (see appendix A for how I concatenated the married and cohabiting couples, as each had to be done separately) and allows us to compare their ethnic and racial labels. Second, I will examine patterns of interethnic and interracial relationships by sex, race, ethnicity, generation, age cohorts, and type of mixed relationship (i.e., coethnic, mixed with someone outside one’s racial category, or mixed with someone within one’s racial category). This will give us a more detailed demographic profile of the types of people who choose to enter mixed unions. Third, I examine what these patterns tell us about the mechanisms of marital assimilation. Are Asian and Hispanic ethnic groups assimilating via marriage or cohabitation with other racial and ethnic groups, and which of these ethnic groups are doing so at a faster pace? Are some groups not assimilating, but in fact dissimilating? Fourth, I conjecture as to whether these patterns fit a linear or

46

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants

segmented approach to assimilation, specifically as it relates to marital assimilation. Finally, I will do a similar analysis of mixed relationships in California, which can then be compared to the results of the CILS respondents who reside mostly in the state of California. This bridge will allow me to directly compare the CPS results to the CILS survey. The purpose of this analysis is not to present statistical models, but rather to understand mixed unions at a national and regional level using CPS data. The ultimate goal of this research is to link the CPS findings with the CILS survey in order to compare the CILS sample with the national picture and determine how representative the CILS survey is. Children of Immigrants Longitudinal Study (CILS) Survey Data The CILS is the largest and longest study of its kind conducted in the United States (see Portes and Rumbaut 2001). Once again, I have broken down my two general questions into four specific questions to match the strengths of the CILS: (a) What are the patterns associated with the various types of relationships under examination (in a relationship versus not in a relationship, a mixed relationship versus a coethnic relationship, and an interethnic relationship versus an interracial relationship) based on sex, age, marital status, children, race, ethnicity, generation, parental socioeconomic status, nativity of parents, education, religion, and language for children of immigrants in Southern California? (b) What are the predictors of the various types of relationships (controlling for all of the above mentioned factors using logistic regression models)? (c) What do predictors of mixed relationships tell us about the processes of marital assimilation among children of immigrants in Southern California? and (d) Do these findings fit a linear or segmented approach to assimilation? In California, the CILS baseline sample was drawn from eighth and ninth graders enrolled in all San Diego City schools in 1991–1992, with respondents ranging from thirteen to seventeen years of age. Eligible respondents were either foreign-born youth who had come to the United States before age twelve or U.S.-born children of immigrants with at least one foreign-born parent. The respondents were subsequently surveyed in 1995 and again in 2001–2003. In the qualitative phase of data collection, 134 respondents were interviewed in addition to completing surveys. These in-depth, open-ended interviews were taped, transcribed, and coded for qualitative analysis.

Conceptualization and Methodology

47

The CILS data includes responses from children who were born in or whose parents are from Asia (the Philippines, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, China, Taiwan, and other Asian countries) and from several Latin American countries (overwhelmingly Mexico, with smaller samples from other Latin American countries). The sample composition, combined with its longitudinal aspect (spanning over a decade), makes this one of the best immigration surveys in the country, as well as one of the best for examining mixed relationships. Of key importance to this study is the way that CILS measures race and ethnicity in the longitudinal survey. The CILS survey instruments ask separate questions for both the race and ethnicity of the respondents at three points in time (1991–1992, 1995, and 2001–2003). The race question is self-reported, but the respondents have to choose from structured answers (“forced” choice). The ethnicity question, however, is open ended and allows respondents to write in their ethnicity, thereby enriching the pool of information about racial and ethnic selfidentification. What follows is the exact wording of the race and ethnicity questions from the CILS questionnaires: Which of the following race categories listed do you consider yourself to be? (Circle number or fill in) 1. White 2. Black 3. Asian 4. Multiracial 5. Other (specify): ___________ How do you identify, that is, what do you call yourself? (Examples: Asian, Hispanic, Latino, American, Mexican, Mexican-American, Filipino, Filipino-American, Vietnamese, Vietnamese-American, Lao, Lao-American, Hmong, HmongAmerican, Cambodian, Cambodian-American, Chinese, Chinese-American, Black, African-American, etc.) In the most recent questionnaire (2001–2003), when the respondents were in their mid 20s, respondents were asked to identify the race and ethnicity of their “spouse or partner.” This allows us to ascertain whether or not respondents might be considered a mixed couple. The CILS data set offers a number of advantages and disadvantages. As mentioned above, one of the key advantages is the measure of both a racial and ethnic identity—especially with a write-in option that allows the respondent to self-identify their ethnicity as

48

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants

opposed to limited forced options. To complement this, it also has the partner’s racial (close ended) and ethnic (open ended) identification, which allows us to ascertain whether or not they might be considered an interracial and/or interethnic couple. Respondents in CILS can be either married, cohabiting, dating, or not in a relationship. This allows us to analyze the different stages of relationships they are in, as well as to compare these various groups with each other. Aside from the racial and ethnic questions, the CILS questionnaires ask dozens of questions about sociocultural and economic characteristics, living situation, identity issues, and opinions about various issues (see appendix B for the actual questionnaire used for the third wave), including key questions on generation, language, and religion. On the other hand, one of the key disadvantages is that the CILS does not ask the respondents the generation, language, and religion of their spouse or partner. Finally, CILS is not a nationally representative sample and thus we find different immigrant groups than in other parts of the country. I have tried to balance this disadvantage by supplementing the CILS study with the analysis of the CPS. I will use the CILS questionnaire to illuminate interpretations of the CPS, such as differences in patterns of interethnic or interracial relationships observed by sex, age, marital status, generation, and, most importantly, race and ethnicity. I then extend this analysis using a bivariate analysis (i.e., cross tabulations) to compare the various types of relationships under examination according to parental socioeconomic status, nativity of parents, education, religion, and language for children of immigrants in Southern California. The bivariate analysis will give us a better picture of mixed relationships, but it cannot control for other factors. Finally, I will further extend this analysis by using a multivariate analysis (i.e., logistic regression) to examine the predictors of the various types of relationships. I will control for all of the abovementioned factors using logistic regression models with the various types of relationships as the dependent variables, and the variables used in the bivariate analysis as independent variables. These predictors will give us insights into the mechanisms of assimilation, as well as insights into the most appropriate model of assimilation or dissimilation in order to describe the experiences of these children of immigrants—either a straight-line or segmented approach to assimilation and union formation.

Conceptualization and Methodology

49

CILS Interview Data The CILS data provide important information about who enters into interethnic and interracial relationships, but it does not illuminate the reasons why people enter into these relationships and what this says about the mechanisms and processes of assimilation. What do interracial relationships mean to those engaged in them? What are the key issues children of immigrants deal with in negotiating these types of relationships? In other words, how do the couples themselves feel about the supposed racial and ethnic lines they cross? How do they categorize their relationships, and to what extent are other lines important to them, such as generation, religion, and language? The 134 in-depth interviews were taken from the sample of CILS in 2001–2003, when the respondents’ ages ranged from twenty-three to twenty-seven years of age. The interviews, which form a representative 10 percent sub-sample of the original CILS survey sample, range from one hour to several hours in length and cover a wide variety of questions related to, but not limited to, living conditions, education, work, leisure, family, immigration history, ideas about success and aging, and relationships. The questions about relationships focus on present as well as past relationships and ask questions about the types of people the interviewees became involved with and the issues that came up in these relationships. Many of the interviewees indicate they are dating, cohabiting, marrying, or divorcing across racial and ethnic lines. There are also questions that address the reactions from family members to respondents’ relationships, reasons for entering and exiting mixed relationships, living arrangements, and issues that could come up in the future, such as children (see appendix C for the qualitative interview schedule that was used for the in-depth interviews). The interviews contain a wide range of people in various stages of relationships. In addition to dating, cohabiting, and marrying across racial and ethnic lines, there are also those interviewees who are either not in relationships or who are dating, cohabiting with, or married to someone from their own racial and ethnic group. These coethnic couples offer an important basis for comparison with mixed couples; they also help us see whether or not some of the issues for mixed unions are unique to mixed unions, or whether these are also issues for coethnic unions. For those interviewees not in relationships, we are able to see how they feel about the future possibility of dating across

50

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants

racial and ethnic lines. Furthermore, the interviews also include data about past relationships, enabling us to see how the interviewees’ relationships have changed over time. For the analysis of the in-depth interviews, I used NVivo, a qualitative software program. I entered the transcriptions into the program and proceeded to code each of the interviews individually, line by line. Some of the codes came deductively from my theoretical framework, while other codes came up inductively as I coded the interviews and found issues that I had not previously thought of. NVivo does not help in the actual coding of the interviews—other than making the actual process of coding go smoother—but it does help pull out all of the quotes that were coded similarly throughout the interviews. It is also possible to pull out codes based on attributes of the respondents by age, sex, generation, type of mixed relationship (mixed, coethnic, etc.), and marital status (not dating, dating, cohabiting, married, etc.). It was not until I pulled out all of these codes that I started to see key patterns in the interviews. I will use these patterns and quotes from the interviews to illustrate and understand the patterns and characteristics of mixed couples that we see in the CPS and CILS data. Each data set answers the general questions of who enters into mixed relationships—albeit from different perspectives—and identifies their processes of union formation and marital assimilation. The strengths of both the CPS and the CILS are that they allow for the conceptualization of mixed relationships (married, cohabiting, and dating couples crossing both racial and ethnic lines) to determine which methods we should employ. Together the analyses of these data sets provide for a comprehensive understanding of mixed couples, where the combined explanatory power of the data far exceeds the sum of the individual components. Furthermore, these data allow us to examine processes of assimilation and union formation at both the group level and the individual level for a more comprehensive view of mixed unions and their role in assimilation, whether it be a linear, segmented, or an altogether different process, such as dissimilation.

CHAPTER 4

Deconstructing “Intermarriage” in the United States

How similar is California to the rest of the United States? Before I examine mixed couples in Southern California, it is important to understand how this regional story fits in with the United States as a whole. This chapter will focus on mixed couples—especially those mixed couples that result from newer waves of immigration—at the national level using the Current Population Survey (CPS). “RACE” IN THE CPS Broadly speaking, there are three ways that we can represent the respondents’ racial identities: (a) self-identification, (b) census categories, and (c) reconstituted categories that researchers construct. Self-identification is determined by a question that allows respondents to choose how they would like to identify themselves (typically in the form of a fill-in-the-blank question). Census categories allow respondents to choose their identities, but their choice is from among a limited number of options (rather like a multiple-choice question). Reconstituted categories are those that researchers might construct when the data is not presented in its original form, or when they want to emphasize certain points. For example, rather than list all of the possible racial combinations—especially now that respondents can choose more than one box—it is common to collapse all of these categories into a category labeled “multiracial.” Another example in the census is when researchers put Hispanics—which is a separate question 51

52

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants

from the one about race—as a category along with white, black, Asian, etc. In other words, the data is not presented as it was originally filled out by the respondents, but it is presented in some variation. This chapter will focus on the census and reconstituted categories, while the remaining chapters will analyze the Children of Immigrants Longitudinal Study (CILS) with a focus on self-identification. These different types of racial classifications are important because classifications affect the estimates, patterns, and meanings of mixed relationships. Table 4.1 shows the percentage of respondents from the CPS (2003–2006) who are in an interracial marriage. I chose to break this table into two of the many possible ways to classify race using the CPS, both of which are reconstituted from the census. I did so to illustrate the point that the way we categorize people into fixed “racial” categories determines the percentage of people who will be classified as “outmarrying.” In other words, our view of intermarriage will change dramatically based on which racial category we assign people to. This assignment is done at a number of levels, from the individuals themselves choosing their own racial category to the Census Bureau’s list of possible categories on the census form, and finally to researchers and their categories, which are based on how they recode the race variable. One problematic area is how we categorize Hispanics in the census. Should we assign them to the category they choose, or should we assign them to a new racial category altogether? This becomes especially difficult in the CPS, since 94 percent of all Hispanics in the CPS check or are assigned to only one box—“white.” This differs dramatically from the 2000 decennial census, in which 47.9 percent of Hispanics identify as only white, 2 percent as only black, 6.3 percent as two or more races, and 42.2 percent as “some other race.” This last category, “some other race,” does not exist in the CPS, and thus most of the respondents are “forced” to check the white box or are assigned to that box by the Census Bureau CPS staff. Another example of how this assigning of respondents into racial categories can change our outlook on intermarriage4 is high-lighted by the top two panels in table 4.1. The top panel represents my own truncation of the original CPS race variable (see methodology chapter for how the original variable appears in the CPS). First, I amalgamated the 16 different combinations where the respondents checked two or

4

I use the terms outmarriage, intermarriage, and exogamy interchangeably.

Original CPS Reformulated with

Hispanic separated Hispanic separated

Reformulated with

Racial Categories

Table 4.1 Deconstructing Interracial Marriage and Cohabitation in the United States

White only

Black only

Married Couples Two or more races Asian only

Indigenous a other only

--

Total

% outmarried

2.0

6.4

13.3

64.6

40.1

--

3.8

N outmarried

2,064,021

541,096

740,467

822,680

381,625

--

4,549,889

Total married

102,070,449

8,515,288

5,549,833

1,274,242

951,111

--

118,360,923

Asian only

Two or more races

Indigenous other only

Hispanic

White only

Black only

b

Total

% outmarried

4.1

7.2

13.7

75.9

50.0

15.3

6.9

N outmarried

3,646,731

591,166

753,109

781,317

350,844

2,096,835

8,220,002

Total married

89,251,749

8,203,476

5,504,573

1,029,761

702,118

13,669,245

118,360,922

White only

Black only

Cohabiting Couples Two or more races Asian only

Indigenous other only

Hispanic

Total

9.4

15.3

51.0

26.2

15.0

% mixed

c

N mixed Total cohabiting

46.5

76.0

618,490

176,357

85,871

135,862

68,077

354,643

1,439,300

6,579,960

1,151,173

184,791

178,734

133,431

1,355,865

9,583,954

Source: Numbers represent weighted sample sizes from the Current Population Survey, 2003–06, merged files of the (March) ASEC Supplement. 'Indigenous other only' is a combination of "American Indian only" and "Hawaiian/Pacific Islander only." b According to the Census, Hispanics may be of any race. c Mixed refers to a couple where neither partner is from the same racial category and they can either be married or cohabiting. a

54

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants

more boxes into one category called “two or more races.” The difficulty of examining 16 different categories—not to mention smaller sample sizes—partially justifies making this new category. Second, I combined “American Indian only” and “Hawaiian/Pacific Islander only” into “Indigenous Other only.” I did this partially because my research focuses on immigrant groups, partially because of their small sample sizes, and more importantly because there is not much intermarriage between these two groups—there were only nine couples where one spouse was American Indian only and the other was Hawaiian/Pacific Islander only. Thus what we lose in detail we gain in simplicity of the presentation. I am sympathetic to the number of ways in which researchers re-categorize racial categories depending on methodological, conceptual, and empirical issues. All of this illustrates, however, how difficult it is to capture the nature of race, especially since race is socially constructed at various levels—by individuals, the census, and researchers. The category “two or more races” is especially problematic. The fact that 64.6 percent of individuals who fall under this category are married to someone from a different racial category is somewhat misleading. What exactly does it mean when we say that over 60 percent of those people consider themselves to be multiracial? For example, all of the following combinations would be considered intermarried according to the “two or more races” category: black/black-white, white/white-black, Asian/Asian-white, and American Indian/American Indian-white. Is someone who is a blackwhite multiracial married to a white person really a case of interracial marriage? It can really go either way depending on how we define intermarriage. In fact, if we consider these couples where the multiracial person shares one of the races with their partner as not being a case of interracial marriage, then the final percentage of intermarriage changes from 3.8 percent to 2.7 percent. In other words, approximately 1.4 million intermarried couples would fit this category, which is no insignificant percentage of the total outmarried couples. I have not presented this analysis in table 4.1, but it is an important consideration whenever we see the category “two or more races.” This category is especially important since it is new to the 2000 Census and

Deconstructing “Intermarriage” in the United States

55

we are not sure what meaning it has to those who check more than one racial box.5 A BREAKDOWN OF “RACE” AND MIXED RELATIONSHIPS The top panel of table 4.1 shows that 3.8 percent of all married respondents in the merged CPS (2003–2006) are crossing a racial boundary—at least according to how we defined race in the top panel. This translates into 4.5 million respondents among the total 118 million respondents who are outmarried (these numbers are weighted and thus represent population estimates). If we break this down into the various racial groups, we see that 2 percent of whites, 6.4 percent of blacks, 13.3 percent of Asians, 64.6 percent of those that identify with more than one race, and 40.1 percent of those in the “Indigenous Other only” category are racially intermarried. We see from the second panel, however, that once we exclude Hispanics—predominately from the white category—the picture of racial intermarriage changes dramatically with the total number of respondents almost doubling from 4.5 to 8.2 million. In the second panel, we technically cannot consider those people who outmarry interracial marriages. Just because someone is Hispanic does not mean they are a separate race, especially as Hispanics can identify with any racial category, since the Hispanic question is separate from the racial question in both the 2000 Census and the CPS. Let us look at the example of a Hispanic person married to a white person. In the CPS, most of the Hispanics identify as white or are assigned to the white category, so it is not interracial but a white Hispanic married to a nonHispanic white. Therefore when I examine characteristics of outmarriage using the categories in the second panel of table 4.1, I will refer to these couples using the phrase “outmarriage by race and Hispanic origin.” I present this second panel as another example of how researchers create their own racial categories, and thus affect the way we think about intermarriage. The second panel represents a common way that social scientists racialize Hispanics and thus perpetuate the belief that

5

Despite the importance of this category, going into further detail would take away from the focus of this chapter. In any case, we do not have enough respondents in these categories to perform any kind of systematic analysis.

56

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants

Hispanics represent a different race. I do not agree with this practice and use this method merely to highlight the way that race is socially constructed and the way that Hispanics are often racialized, not only in social science research but also by the media (Chavez 2001; Rodriguez 2000). Notice that while most of the percentages of outmarriage increase only slightly in the second panel, the white percentage doubles from 2.0 percent to 4.1 percent. This is significant when we consider the large number of whites. The white category changed because over 13 million of the “whites only” in the top panel were moved to the “Hispanic” category in the second panel. Thus, instead of the top panel classifying a white Hispanic/white non-Hispanic couple as endogamous, the bottom panel classifies them as exogamous. Aside from the fact that most Hispanics identify themselves as racially white (in the CPS), the catch-all racial category of Hispanic can be very misleading—although this can equally be true of the white, black, and Asian categories. The important question is whether a Mexican-American married to an IrishAmerican can really be classified as a racial intermarriage. If the answer to that question is yes, then we are partially justified in separating Hispanics into their own racial category. However, if the answer is no, then we should assign them into the racial category with which they choose to identify. While I do not agree with the separation of Hispanics into their own racial category, I will use this categorization in this analysis for a number of reasons: (1) This is the conventional way that scholars have characterized intermarriage and thus it offers us a common starting point (Bean and Stevens 2003); (2) This will only be a starting point for my analysis of the CPS and will thus be used as a launching point into a discussion of interethnic relationships; (3) There is no “other” category in the CPS, unlike the 2000 Census, and thus most of the Hispanics in the CPS are forced to answer “white”; and (4) With the focus of this research centered on the “intermarriage” of immigrants from Asian and Latin America and their children, it is crucial that we know what these groups look like before we break them down into interethnic couples. The third and final panel of table 4.1 represents an important element of intermarriage that is often ignored by researchers: cohabiting couples. If we look at the total number of cohabiting individuals in the United States, we see that there are almost 10 million.

Deconstructing “Intermarriage” in the United States

57

Cohabiting individuals make up around 7.5 percent 6 (9,659,302 / 127,944,877) of all people living with a partner (either married or cohabiting). Not only is this a significant number of people, but the percentage of people cohabiting has also been increasing over time and will probably only get larger—especially given this era of a “retreat from marriage” (Lichter, McLaughlin, and Ribar 2002). Even more surprising is the number of cohabiting people who are in mixed relationships, especially compared to married people who are in mixed relationships: 1.4 million people in mixed cohabiting unions compared to 4.5 million people in mixed married unions. Thus, while cohabiters represent only 7.5 percent of all people living together, people in mixed cohabiting unions represent almost a quarter (1,439,300 / 5,989,189 = 24 percent) of all people in mixed unions (married or cohabiting). We would thus be underrepresenting mixed couples if we left out those in cohabiting unions. The more important question is why there are so many people in mixed unions who are cohabiting? This question will be further addressed in later chapters. For the time being, notice that most of the racial categories have higher percentages of people in mixed cohabiting unions than mixed married unions, with most of the percentages doubling. The notable exceptions are those respondents classified as Asians, among whom the percentage more than tripled. Table 4.2 is in the same format as the last two panels of table 4.1 but divides the racial categories into males and females. The differences in percentages of outmarriage between males and females for most of the racial groups are within 2 percentage points. The two exceptions are blacks and Asians. Ten percent of black males marry someone from a different race or Hispanic origin, while only 5 percent of black females marry someone from a different race or Hispanic origin. The exact opposite is true of Asian percentages: 19.1 percent of Asian females outmarry, while only 7.4 percent of Asian males outmarry. Hispanic males and females both outmarry at similar rates, 14.8 percent and 15.8 percent, respectively. When we look at gender differences for cohabiting couples, we see a similar pattern. The notable exception is black males, who are over two times more likely to

6

The percentage of cohabiting couples in the CPS is slightly lower—and thus more conservative—than tin he 2000 Census, which reported the percentage of cohabiting couples at 9 percent of all reported couples (Simmons and O’Connell 2003).

Table 4.2 Deconstructing Interracial Marriage and Cohabitation in the United States, by Gender

Married Couples

White only Male Female

Black only Male Female

Asian only Male Female

% outmarried

4.3

3.8

9.5

4.8

7.4

19.1

N outmarried

1,934,619

1,712,112

399,320

191,846

191,101

562,008

Total married

44,737,128 44,514,621

4,205,475 3,998,001

2,566,833 2,937,740

Two or more races Male Female 76.2

75.5

Indigenous a other only Male Female

Hispanic Female Male

50.5

14.8

49.4

b

15.8

398,376 382,941

179,118 171,726

1,007,467 1,089,368

522,598 507,163

354,755 347,363

6,793,672 6,875,573

Cohabiting Couples

White only Male Female

Black only Male Female

Asian only Male Female

Two or more races Male Female

Indigenous other only Male Female

Hispanic Female Male

% mixed

8.4

10.4

22.3

6.9

27.4

57.6

75.8

76.2

51.0

51.0

27.1

25.2

N mixed

273,677

344,813

139,959

36,398

18,689

67,182

67,221

68,641

34,060

34,017

186,044

168,599

3,254,412

3,325,548

627,367

523,806

68,149

116,642

88,657

90,077

66,737

66,694

686,655

669,210

Total cohabiting

Source: Numbers represent weighted sample sizes from the Current Population Survey, 2003–06, merged files of the (March) ASEC Supplement. 'Indigenous other only' is a combination of "American Indian only" and "Hawaiian/Pacific Islander only." b According to the census, Hispanics may be of any race. c Mixed refers to a couple where neither partner is from the same racial category and they can either be married or cohabiting. a

Deconstructing “Intermarriage” in the United States

59

be in a mixed cohabiting union, while black females are only 1.4 times more likely. A careful study of this table begs the question of which racial groups are marrying or cohabiting with which ethnic groups within each racial category. For example, close to a fourth of all Asian females outmarry and more than half of all Asian females are in mixed cohabiting unions, but this table does not tell us which Asian ethnic groups are more likely to be in a mixed relationship. None of these interracial breakdowns tell us which ethnic groups among these various racial groupings are outmarrying at higher percentages but rather lumps them all together. For example, are Mexicans more likely to be in a mixed relationship than Cubans, or are Asian Indians more likely to be in a mixed relationship than Filipinos? Ultimately, the goal is to answer these more important questions, which will give us a more complete picture of both interracial and interethnic relationships. Table 4.3 examines outmarriage by race and generational status. Looking at the total percentages of outmarriage by generational status, we see that the highest percentages of outmarriage are for the 1.5 (foreign-born who arrived at 12 years of age or younger) and the 2.5 (one foreign-born parent and one U.S.-born parent). Therefore, we see the importance of a more detailed generational breakdown; a simpler breakdown of first, second, and third-plus generations masks this important finding. There are really two ways to view this finding: either we are seeing an increase in outmarriage among the 1.5 and 2.5 generations, or we are seeing a decrease in the 2.0 and 3.0 (or higher) generations. When it comes to generations, we are likely seeing an increase in the 2.5 generations rather than a decrease in the 3.0+ generations. It is not hard to imagine why respondents with parents who are already outmarried—at least according to nativity—are more inclined to outmarry themselves. They are probably more open to dating people of various backgrounds because they themselves grew up in a family with multiple cultural experiences, and studies show that exposure to multiple cultures early on leads to more tolerance of different racial and ethnic backgrounds (Bullock 1976; Wood and Sonleitner 1996). Furthermore, they are less likely to experience outside pressure from their immediate family and more distant relatives, which has been shown to decrease intermarriage rates (Kalmijn 1998).

Table 4.3 Outmarriage by Race and Generational Status in the United States

Racial Categories + Hispanic Origin (Ethrace) Generation Status

White only

Black only

Asian only

Hispanic

a

Total

1.0

Foreign-born 13 or older at arrival

5.2

5.9

10.3

6.0

6.9

1.5

Foreign-born 12 or younger at arrival

6.6

13.9

24.2

15.6

13.7

2.0

U.S.-born 2 foreign-born parents

3.5

--

23.3

19.5

10.7

2.5

U.S.-born 1 foreign-born parent

4.5

--

43.4

38.7

11.4

4.0

7.0

24.9

32.8

5.2

3.0+ U.S.-born 2 U.S.-born parents

Note: "--" = fewer than 50 cases in racial/Hispanic origin-generation group. Source: Current Population Survey, 2003–06, merged files of the (March) ASEC Supplement. a According to the census, Hispanics may be of any race.

Deconstructing “Intermarriage” in the United States

61

Although we know that the respondents’ parents are both born in different countries, we do not know to what extent their parents come from different racial or ethnic backgrounds. For example, many of these couples could be first-generation Mexicans marrying second-, third- or fourth- generation Mexicans. Thus these marriages would be intergenerational marriages, but not interracial or interethnic marriages. Unfortunately, such an analysis is not possible with the CPS. The other query—whether we are seeing an increase in mixed relationships in the 1.5 generation or a decrease in the 2.0 generation— is more difficult to confirm. It is possible that immigrants who come to the United States at a young age (1.5 generation) are also caught between two cultural orientations: that of their parents’ culture and that of the new host society’s culture. This might lead to a higher percentage of intermarrying. This increase alone, however, would not necessarily explain why the 2.0 generation is less likely to intermarry than the 1.5 generation. The 2.0 generation, after all, is also caught between two cultures, and in many ways, they are even more likely to become immersed in the host society (being born and raised in the United States), and thus we would expect them to outmarry at higher rates than the 1.5. A look at the different racial categories reveals some interesting differences in this pattern of 1.5 and 2.5 generation peaks in intermarriage percentages. This same pattern applies to non-Hispanic whites, blacks, and Asians. For blacks, we do not have a large enough sample of 2.0 and 2.5, but we do see a significant increase from 1.0 to 1.5. Furthermore, we see a sharp decrease for blacks in the 3.0-plus generations, which is an indication of not fully integrating into the “core society” (i.e., middle-class white Protestant American 7 ), as underscored by Gordon (1964), who claims that they have not completed the latter stages of assimilation because of segregation and “unusually marked discrimination.” We do not see a peak in the 1.5 generation for Hispanics, but rather a steady increase from the 1.0 to the 2.5, and then a slight decrease in the 3.0 (or higher) generations. Interpreting such trends and patterns from racial categories is almost futile because racial categories cannot account for the historical context of different ethnic groups and different migrations within those ethnic groups.

7

As defined by Gordon (1964) on pages 73–4.

Table 4.4 Outmarriage by Race, Generational Status, and Sex in the United States

Generation Status

White only Male Female

a

Asian only Female Male

Black only Male Female

Hispanic Male Female

Total Female Male

1.0

Foreign-born 13 or older at arrival

5.0

5.4

5.4

6.5

4.3

15.5

***

5.3

6.8

5.0

8.8

1.5

Foreign-born 12 or younger at arrival

8.0

5.4

--

--

15.3

31.0

***

15.8

15.4

13.0

14.3

2.0

U.S.-born 2 foreign-born parents

3.8

3.2

--

--

18.4

28.0

20.4

18.8

10.0

11.4

2.5

U.S.-born 1 foreign-born parent

5.2

3.8

--

--

37.7

47.6

40.8

36.6

11.8

11.0

4.2

3.8

9.6

4.2

18.1

31.1

32.8

32.9

5.6

4.9

3.0+ U.S.-born 2 U.S.-born parents

***

Note: "--" = fewer than 50 cases in racial/Hispanic origin-generation group. Source: Current Population Survey, 2003–06, merged files of the (March) ASEC Supplement. a According to the census, Hispanics may be of any race. ** Significant to the 0.01 level. *** Signifcant to the 0.001 level.

**

Deconstructing “Intermarriage” in the United States

63

Lest we think the results for men and women look the same when it comes to outmarriage by generation, I have broken down the rates we saw in table 4.3 into males and females categories (see table 4.4). Notice how the high rates of outmarriage in the 1.5 generation are limited to non-Hispanic white males and Asian females. In other words, these two groups are mostly responsible for the high rates of outmarriage in the 1.5 generation—this is especially true of the total numbers because of the high proportion of whites. The trend of outmarrying at higher rates over generations holds true except for nonHispanic white females, who are actually reversing the trend: white females are more likely to outmarry in earlier generations than in later generations. Overall, non-Hispanic white males and Hispanic females are slightly more likely to outmarry than their counterparts. On the other hand, non-Hispanic black males and Asian females are much more likely to outmarry than their counterparts. The closest groups that exemplify a linear story of outmarriage over generations are Asian and Hispanic males and females, where we see increases in the percentages of outmarriage, starting with the 1.0 all the way to the 2.5, only to see substantial decreases in the 3.0 (or higher) generations. Given the fact that most immigrants have only recently arrived to the United States, the only ethnic groups likely to be in this 3.0 (or higher) generation are Mexican and Japanese. It is possible that these groups are concentrated in ethnic communities and marrying other Mexicans or Japanese from the 3.0-plus generations, or even marrying within their own racial categories, which would lead to a drop in their interracial marriages. RACE, GENERATION, AND ASSIMILATION I have presented a detailed generational breakdown by racial categories, but this type of generational analysis is rare among scholars who study intermarriage. Allow me to digress slightly to address why they would be less inclined to do so and thus these scholars present a “straightline” picture using only the first, second, and third-plus generations of intermarriage. Indeed, such an analysis offers a much different picture (Stevens, Ishizawa, and McKillip 2006). Figure 4.1a shows the percentages of women outmarrying, broken down by race, Hispanic origin, and generation; a similar breakdown for men is shown in figure 4.1b. I have included only Asians, Hispanics, blacks, and whites as comparison groups. For blacks and whites, we see a slight decrease in outmarriage from the first to the third-plus

64

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants

generations, except for a sharp increase in the U.S.-born children of immigrants from Africa and the Caribbean Islands. The key to this figure, however, is the general increase in outmarriage among Asian and Hispanic women from the first to the third-plus generations. We do see a slight decrease in outmarriage among the third-plus generation Asian women, but this difference is not statistically significant. Thus, at least initially, this figure appears to support Gordon’s “straight-line” assimilation approach. In fact, Stevens and others (2006) found that to be the case in a similar analysis,8 also using the CPS: The low levels of intermarriage in the first generation are followed by higher levels of intermarriage in the second generation for all nonwhite women. Among Asians and Hispanics, the increase in levels of intermarriage continues into the third generation. For Asian and Hispanic women, then, the pattern fits the expectations generated by the “straightline” assimilation theory, with steady increases in intermarriage across generations. Based on a quick glance at figure 4.1a (a replication of the Stevens and others piece), this seems to be a fair assessment of what we are seeing. There are numerous problems, however, with such an analysis. The first problem is conceptual: “the increase of levels of intermarriage” does not continue “into the third generation.” The CPS does not ask about the nativity of grandparents; what Stevens and others

8

The only difference between Stevens and others (2006) and my analysis is that the outmarriage percentage of 3.0-plus-generation Asian women in their study is higher than the 2.0 generation of Asian women. I can think of only two possible reasons why our analyses would be slightly different: (1) a difference of one year in the number of pooled years used (2003–2005 versus 2003– 2006), which may account for the difference, especially when we consider the fact that some of these samples sizes are relatively small; or (2) a difference in the way the couples were concatenated. The simple way to perform the concatenation is to obtain information for married couples where one is the head of the household; the other way is more complicated and involves taking not only the head of the household into account but also other married couples who may be living in the same household. It is possible that Stevens and others computed it the former way, while I used the latter method.

Deconstructing “Intermarriage” in the United States

65

mean to say is that the “third [or higher] generations,” which is very different from the third generation. The third (or higher) generations include third, fourth, fifth, sixth, etc. generations, like MexicanAmericans who have ancestors who were born areas of Mexico that later became part of the United States. Thus, to lump all of these generations into one category and then compare them to the first and second generations of immigrants does not make analytical sense; this type of logic makes it seem as if intermarriage is increasing from the first generation all the way to the third, when in fact all we really know is that intermarriage is increasing from the first generation to the second. To avoid this confusion, I will label the third-plus generations “NBNP,” which stands for “native-born of native parentage” (see figure 4.1a). Figure 4.1a Percentages of Women Outmarrying by Race and Hispanic Origin and Generation 35

Asian 30

Hispanic Black

25

White

20

15

10

5

0

First

Second

NBNP

Source: Current Population Survey, 2003–06; NBNP = native-born of native parentage (i.e., third-plus generations)

The second problem with the Stevens and others (2006) analysis is that they studied only women. While it is true that Hispanic men and women show very similar patterns, Asian men not only have lower percentages of intermarriage, but the second-generation intermarriage percentage is higher for Asian men and thus does not fit the same pattern as for Asian women. The biggest problem with this analysis, however, is that we make the assumption that all age cohorts have the same rates of outmarriage and thus ignore important age-cohort effects

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants

66

(as well as period effects) that have been shown to have significant effects on the percentages of groups outmarrying (Joyner and Kao 2005; Shinagawa and Pang 1996). Waters and Jimenez (2005) argue that generation alone is not a good measure of assimilation during periods of protracted immigrant replenishment. “By using birth cohort in conjunction with generation, sociologists will better capture processes of ethnic change internal to the group that generation captures as well as the historical fluctuations in opportunities and constraints external to groups that birth cohort captures” (121). Figure 4.1b Percentages of Men Outmarrying by Race and Hispanic Origin and Generation 35

Asian 30

Hispanic Black

25

White

20

15

10

5

0

First

Second

NBNP

Source: Current Population Survey, 2003–06; NBNP = native-born of native parentage (i.e., third-plus generations)

Unfortunately, I was not able to break down the age cohorts into more than three categories because of the restriction of sample sizes. I was, however, able to break down the age cohorts into meaningful distinctions that represent “waves” of immigration. Those belonging to the “under age 30” cohort were born between 1975 and 1990 and most likely married between 1995 and 2005 (if they married after the age of 20). Those belonging to the “30–44” age cohort were born between 1960 and 1975 and most likely married between 1980 and 1995. Finally, those belonging to the “45+ years” age cohort were born before 1960 and married before 1980. This means that either those in this age cohort or their parents migrated to the United States before 1960 and thus do not represent the newer waves of immigration, coming in a

Deconstructing “Intermarriage” in the United States

67

different time and under different circumstances. I make this distinction because 1960 is a key division of immigration, since most of the contemporary immigration waves started in the 1960s. The 1960s also brought about the end of anti-miscegenation laws. Thus the 45+ age cohort represents a very different immigration history as well as a different legal view of race relations and interracial marriage in the United States, and we will notice significant differences between this age cohort and the earlier cohorts. Figure 4.2a shows the percentages of women outmarrying by age cohorts. Here we see that black women and white women follow the expected path of straight-line assimilation with younger age cohorts outmarrying at higher percentages. In other words, based on trends of increased intermarriages in every decade since the 1960s (Lee and Edmonston 2005), we would expect more tolerance and acceptance of outmarriage among the younger cohorts. The pattern is different for Asian and Hispanic women, however, with the youngest age cohorts less likely to outmarry. Figure 4.2a Percentages of Women Outmarrying by Race and Hispanic Origin and Age 25

Asian Hispanic 20

Black White

15

10

5

0

Under 30

30-44 years

45+ years

Source: Current Population Survey, 2003–06

We see similar patterns for black and white men, along with the obvious difference of Asian men being much less likely to outmarry than Asian women (see figure 4.2b). Moreover, we see a steady decline in outmarriage in the older cohorts among Asian men, more closely

68

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants

following the pattern of blacks and whites. The results for Hispanics are mixed, meaning we do not see a clear pattern: the percentages do not differ significantly among Hispanic men of all three cohorts. Figure 4.2b Percentages of Men Outmarrying by Race and Hispanic Origin and Age 25

Asian Hispanic 20

Black White

15

10

5

0

Under 30

30-44 years

45+ years

Source: Current Population Survey, 2003–06

What we see in the analysis of age cohort breakdowns appears to be in opposition to the straight-line model for Asian and Hispanic women, with unclear results for Hispanic men, and some support for the straight-line approach among Asian men. The problem with these figures, however, is that we do not know what generation most of the Asian and Hispanic people in these younger cohorts represent, and that would significantly affect the proportions that are outmarried. Thus, looking at age cohorts within each generation will help clarify the results shown in these figures. Since Asian and Hispanic women show the clearest pattern, we will start by looking at their outmarriage by generation and age cohort9 (see figure 4.3a). For the first generation, we see that women from both groups are less likely to outmarry in the youngest cohort, although it is

9

Age at the time of arrival in the United States is especially important for the first generation; unfortunately, we are not able to break these figures down any further because of the restriction of sample sizes.

Figure 4.3a Percentages of Asian and Hispanic Women Outmarrying by Generation and Age 50 45 40

Asian Hispanic

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Under 30 First

30-44 years

45+ years

Under 30 Second

30-44 years

45+ years

Source: Current Population Survey, 2003–06; NBNP = native-born of native parentage (i.e., third-plus generations)

Under 30 NBNP

30-44 years

45+ years

Figure 4.3b Percentages of All Asians and All Hispanics Outmarrying by Generation and Age 50 45

Asian

40

Hispanic

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Under 30 First

30-44 years

45+ years

Under 30 Second

30-44 years

45+ years

Source: Current Population Survey, 2003–06; NBNP = native-born of native parentage (i.e., third-plus generations)

Under 30 NBNP

30-44 years

45+ years

Deconstructing “Intermarriage” in the United States

71

difficult to interpret this data considering that many of the first generation may already be married before they migrate to the United States, and we are not talking about an integration story in the United States. Nonetheless, it is interesting that the younger, the cohort the less likely they are to outmarry. The key finding will be in the second generation. Since we are able to control for generation by looking at just the second generation, we can see that the under 30 cohort is much less likely to outmarry. Notice how sharply the percentages of outmarriage decline for the youngest cohort—those born after 1975 and probably married after 1995—as compared to the 30–44 age cohort—those born between 1960 and 1975 and most likely married between 1995 and 2005. For Asian women it drops from 44 percent to 24 percent, and for Hispanic women we see a similar drop, from 31 percent to 15 percent, which are both statistically significant differences. The 45+ cohort does not fit this pattern, but that is not surprising considering that these people represent the pre-1960 waves of immigration and are coming into the United States in a very different context and marrying at a much earlier time period. For this reason, we will focus mainly on the first two age cohorts, which represent the post-1960 immigration waves. This same pattern for Asian and Hispanic women in the second generation holds for those in the NBNP generations, although the difference between Hispanic women in the two younger cohorts is not statistically significant. This same general pattern of outmarriage also applies to Asian and Hispanic men, although the NBNP generations are slightly different. Again, we must use caution in interpreting the results for the NBNP generations, since this category includes all generations from third and beyond. Even when we include Asian and Hispanic males, we see that the same patterns hold (see figure 4.3b), although Asian females seem to be driving the numbers for the Asians, since they outmarry at much higher percentages than Asian men. The only exception to the pattern for Asian women was the NBNP generations for Asian men, where the under 30 cohort are more likely to outmarry. What are we to make of these patterns? These analyses go against the expected patterns of straight-line assimilation and seem to show a reversal (or at least a stall) in the process of assimilation—if we, in fact, assume that there is only one process and not several. In other words, boundaries between the minority groups and the majority group are being maintained and probably strengthened to the point that these younger cohorts in the second generation are less likely to marry

72

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants

someone outside of their racial category (i.e., a pattern of dissimilation). This is even more important when we consider that these younger cohorts of newer waves of immigrants will make up a significantly large portion of the number of mixed couples in the years to come; as they age, the overall composition of mixed couples in the United States will change. The more difficult question that the CPS cannot answer is why we see such a dramatic trend in decreasing percentages of outmarriage in the younger cohorts. Previous literature suggests that this is most likely due to two important trends among newer immigrant groups: group size and group concentration (Blau and Schwartz 1997). There is abundant evidence to show that immigrants are concentrated in certain locations in the United States. Furthermore, along with this concentration and increased migration comes a larger pool of people to marry from the same racial, and even the same ethnic, group (Portes and Rumbaut 2006). ETHNICITY AND MIXED RELATIONSHIPS What ethnic groups make up the NBNP “native-born of native parentage” category? For Hispanics, it is mostly Mexicans and Puerto Ricans, and for Asians it is mostly Japanese, with some Chinese and Filipinos. Even though these findings clearly put some important doubts into the process of a straight-line assimilation pattern for newer waves of Asian and Hispanic immigrants since the 1960s, we cannot assume that all ethnic groups that fall under the racial umbrella of “Asian” or “Hispanic” exhibit the same outmarriage patterns. As we will see from the figures that follow, the differences in percentages of outmarriage between ethnic groups within racial categories can be as significant as the differences between racial groups. I will now move beyond an analysis of racial categories to an analysis of ethnic categories. I will start with the Hispanic ethnic groups—Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Cubans, and Central/South Americans. When we look at ethnic groups, we are able to look at a much more nuanced picture of mixed relationships. For this analysis, I have divided mixed relationships into four distinct and mutually exclusive categories:

Deconstructing “Intermarriage” in the United States 1. 2.

3.

4.

73

Coethnic relationship—married to or cohabiting with someone from the same ethnic group. Mixed relationship within one’s racial category—married to or cohabiting with someone from the same racial or Hispanic group, but not from the same ethnic category. (For Hispanics, if they are Mexican, then someone who is Puerto Rican, Cuban, or Central/South American. For Asians, if they are Korean, then someone who is Japanese, Filipino, or Asian Indian, etc.) Mixed relationship with white—married to or cohabiting with someone who is non-Hispanic white (the majority of Hispanics identify themselves as white in the CPS). Mixed relationship with black—married to or cohabiting with someone who is non-Hispanic black.

In previous studies, the first category has represented a form of dissimilation (see Yinger 1981, 1994), while the last three categories have represented different paths to assimilation (Qian, Blair, and Ruf 2001; Qian and Lichter 2004). A mixed relationship with someone who is white represents an assimilation path to the white middle class. A mixed relationship within one’s racial category represents a path to an ethnic community or panethnic identification. Finally, a mixed relationship with someone who is black represents a path to an inner city, or in other words, a downward path of assimilation. I find this analysis overly simplistic and furthermore do not think it represents the real-life experiences of these couples. On the other hand, it is easy to see why scholars use this analytical framework when investigating intermarriage, given the severe limitations of census data. I will use this analytical framework only as a starting point and a bridge between the CPS data and the CILS data. Most of my contribution to the literature on intermarriage will come through the CILS in-depth interviews, which allows us to view the mechanisms of assimilation at a very personal and individual level. Among the Hispanic ethnic groups, Puerto Ricans are least likely to be in coethnic relationships (60 percent) and Mexicans are most likely (85 percent), with Cubans and Central/South Americans falling in the middle (see figure 4.4). When it comes to outmarriage, all of the Hispanic ethnic groups were most likely to outmarry with non-Hispanic whites, followed by other Hispanic ethnic groups, and then a much smaller portion with blacks. This is not surprising given that whites are

74

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants

the largest population group, while blacks are a much smaller group. Excluding Mexicans, over 10 percent of all the other groups are married to other Hispanics (and this percentage would be much higher for the Central/South Americans if we disaggregated them). The obvious piece missing from this picture is regional differences in the United States.10 In the future, it will be important to take a closer look at key regional differences, especially since we know that these groups concentrate in different parts of the country. Figure 4.4 Hispanic Intermarriage by Ethnicity and Type of Intermarriage 90

Puerto Rican 80

Central-South American

70

Cuban

60

Mexican

50

40

30

20

10

0

Coethnic Relationship

Mixed Relationship with Hispanic

Mixed Relationship with White Mixed Relationship with Black

Source: Current Population Survey, 2003–06

The problem with figure 4.4, however, is that it is hard to interpret it without breaking each group down by generation and age cohorts. (See table 4.5 in appendix D for a detailed breakdown of Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Cubans, and Central/South Americans by generation for both married and cohabiting couples.) Since we are talking about ethnic groups instead of racial groups, smaller sample sizes will become an issue. Moreover, among the Hispanic groups, only Mexicans and Puerto Ricans have a sizable third-plus generations contingent; for all others, over 90 percent of their population are in the first and second generations. Therefore, I will do the tabulation for Mexicans, who 10

Smaller sample sizes make it difficult to analyze regional differences with the CPS.

Deconstructing “Intermarriage” in the United States

75

represent over 50 percent of all Hispanics, and Puerto Ricans only to show how different these two groups are from other Hispanic groups. Figure 4.5 shows the different types of mixed relationships for Mexicans by generation and age cohort. (I excluded the category “mixed relationship with black” because there were so few respondents in this category.) For the first generation, those in coethnic relationships make up 90 percent of relationships for all three cohorts, with a small percentage in mixed relationships with ethnic Hispanics or with non-Hispanic whites. As in previous figures (4.3a and 4.3b), however, the key finding is in the second generation. Comparing age cohorts among second-generation Mexicans reveal that the “under 30” age cohort has a higher percentage in coethnic relationships and less people marrying non-Hispanic whites than the 30–44 age cohort for both generations. This indicates that the process of assimilation will probably not go in a straight-line for Mexicans as it did for the earlier waves of European immigrants of a century ago. Puerto Ricans exhibit very different intermarriage patterns compared to Mexicans, which indicates that each ethnic group must be considered separately when looking at patterns of marital assimilation and dissimilation. Similar to the figure for Mexicans, figure 4.6 shows a breakdown of generation by age cohorts for Puerto Ricans. Puerto Ricans within every age cohort—regardless of generation—have lower percentages of coethnic relationships and higher percentages of mixed relationships with whites in comparison to Mexicans (as seen in figure 4.5). This likely has to do with the fact that Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States, and Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens by birth (since the 1917 Jones Act) and are able to travel freely between the United States and Puerto Rico. Puerto Ricans are also a much smaller group in comparison to Mexicans and thus have a smaller pool of potential spouses in their local marriage market. One key point from these two figures is that intermarriage looks different for Mexicans and Puerto Ricans, making it difficult to understand whether “Hispanic intermarriage” really helps us understand the processes of assimilation or dissimilation for the groups that fit under this racialized category. We could say the same thing about “Asian intermarriage” not being a concept that aptly applies to or realistically portrays the mixed relationships of the ethnic groups that fit under that racial label. I will now proceed to a breakdown of Asian intermarriage by ethnicity and

Figure 4.5 Intermarriage Among Mexicans by Generation and Age Cohort 100 Coethnic Relationship 90 Mixed Relationship with Hispanic 80

Mixed Relationship with White

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Under 30 First

30-44 years

45+ years

Under 30 Second

30-44 years

45+ years

Under 30 NBNP

Source: Current Population Survey, 2003–06; NBNP = native-born of native parentage (i.e., third-plus generations)

30-44 years

45+ years

Figure 4.6 Intermarriage Among Puerto Ricans by Generation and Age Cohort 80 Endogamous 70 Exogamous Hispanic 60

Exogamous NH White

50

40

30

20

10

0 Under 30 First

30-44 years

45+ years

Under 30 Second

30-44 years

45+ years

Source: Current Population Survey, 2003–06; NBNP = native-born of native parentage (i.e., third-plus generations)

Under 30 NBNP

30-44 years

45+ years

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants

78

type of mixed relationship: coethnic relationship, mixed relationship with Asian, and mixed relationship with white. Figure 4.7 shows that Asian ethnic groups do not share the same patterns between ethnicities for mixed relationships, as is evident by the difference between coethnic relationships among Asian Indians (90 percent, and the most recently arrived group) and Japanese (44 percent, and the only Asian group with a sizable third-plus generation), and mixed relationships with whites (6 percent and 40 percent, respectively). We see a clear pattern of decreasing percentages of endogamous relationships as we move from Asian Indians to Vietnamese to Chinese to Koreans to Filipinos and finally to Japanese. The opposite pattern is true for those outmarrying with whites, with the Japanese outmarrying at a higher percentage than all other groups. The Japanese and the Chinese also have high percentages of respondents marrying into other Asian ethnic groups, thus representing a path that potentially leads to a panethnic category. Figure 4.7 Asian Intermarriage by Ethnicity and Type of Intermarriage 100 Asian Indian 90 Vietnamese 80

Chinese Korean

70

Filipino 60

Japanese

50 40 30 20 10 0

Coethnic Relationship

Mixed Relationship with Asian

Mixed Relationship with White

Source: Current Population Survey, 2003–06

Unfortunately I cannot cross these Asian ethnic groups by generation and age cohort because of the small sample sizes. A generational breakdown, however, shows that in most cases the second generation is less likely to be in coethnic relationships and more likely to outmarry with other Asians as well as with non-Hispanic whites than

Figure 4.8 Asian Intermarriage by Ethnicity, Type of Intermarriage, and Gender 100 Asian Indian

90

Vietnamese 80

Chinese Korean

70

Filipino 60

Japanese

50 40 30 20 10 0 Coethnic Relationship Female

Mixed Relationship with Asian

Mixed Relationship with White

Coethnic Relationship Male

Mixed Relationship with Asian

Source: Current Population Survey, 2003–06; NBNP = native-born of native parentage (i.e., third-plus generations)

Mixed Relationship with White

80

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants

the first generation (see table 4.6, appendix A). The only exception is that second-generation Japanese have the same (if not higher) rate of endogamy as first-generation Japanese. Furthermore, second-generation Japanese appear to be less likely than the first generation to outmarry with non-Hispanic whites. This is surprising, given that the Japanese are often touted as the Asian group most likely to follow a straight-line assimilation model, especially given their long history in the United States (see Alba and Nee 2003). Therefore, it appears that even the Japanese are not following this straight-line model as closely as we would expect. Cohabitation rates exhibit the same patterns as those for outmarriage except that they are more extreme in comparison to the marriage percentages (see table 4.6). A breakdown of these Asian ethnic groups by gender reveals an interesting finding: overall, Asian women participate in coethnic relationships at much lower percentages and in mixed relationships with whites at much higher percentages than Asian men do (see figure 4.8). Explanations for this phenomenon, however, remain rather elusive, especially since we do not find such gender differences among Hispanic ethnic groups. The most common explanation lies in cultural stereotypes—that Asian women are exotic and submissive, characteristics that men from other racial categories find attractive in a partner. On the other side, Asian men are often seen as non-masculine and overbearing or controlling (Espiritu 2000, 2003; Fong and Yung 2000; Fujino 1997; Le 2007; Weiss 1970). I will rely on the in-depth interviews to offer more insight into this pattern of intermarriage that is obviously gendered for Asian ethnic groups. We see similar patterns of mixed relationships when it comes to cohabitation; the main difference being that Asian ethnic groups who are cohabiting do so at much higher rates than those that are married (see table 4.7, appendix A). Overall, the ethnic groups that have higher percentages of males or females outmarried are also the same groups that are cohabiting outside of their ethnic group at higher percentages.11

11

Caution should be used when interpreting the information in tables 4.6 and 4.7, considering that some of the groups have rather small sample sizes, especially among cohabiting couples.

Deconstructing “Intermarriage” in the United States

81

CONCLUSION It is important to look at both race and ethnicity in understanding mixed unions in the United States. We have examined mixed relationships at the national level using the CPS. Given that there are many ways to examine intermarriage, we have looked at two ways of classifying mixed couples: by race and by ethnicity. Each of these two ways of looking at mixed couples portrays a different story. We first looked at race and relied on the CPS definition of race to describe which racial groups exhibit higher percentages of people in mixed relationships. We went beyond married couples to include cohabiting couples. We saw similar patterns of crossing racial lines for both married and cohabiting unions, although cohabiting unions are almost always many times more likely to be mixed relationships—as defined by our way of classifying race using the CPS. At first glance, we see that all racial groups are more likely to be in a mixed relationship in later generations. This appears to support the straightline assimilation process. When we include an analysis of age cohorts and cross generation by age cohort, however, we see almost the opposite pattern: controlling for generation, younger cohorts are less likely to be involved in mixed relationships. This does not support the straight-line assimilation projection and actually seems to offer support for the idea that this assimilation process is reversing, or at least slowing down. I conjecture that this is a function of increased group size and increased concentration of racial groups. The CPS does not offer conclusive evidence—especially considering that we have to be cautious of the smaller sample sizes—but it will be used as an important way for us to see how the CILS compares to the national picture. We next used the CPS and its more objective measure of ethnicity—based on national origin—to paint of a picture of mixed relationships (using both marriage and cohabitation). The most telling finding from this analysis was the great variation in percentages of mixed couples between ethnic groups within the same racial category. In many instances, these ethnic differences were greater than the racial differences in percentages of couples in mixed relationships. Unfortunately, smaller sample sizes did not allow us to cross generations by age cohort. Still, we saw evidence to support an idea of segmented assimilation trajectories, thus more accurately representing the reality of incorporation as opposed to a single path to assimilation.

82

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants

Each ethnic group within the “Asian” or “Hispanic” categories seem to exhibit unique patterns of mixed relationships, which suggests a multitude of assimilation (and even dissimilation) paths. We are limited by the types of questions that are asked of the CPS respondents. All of this, of course, is a descriptive process to lead us into an analysis of the CILS. The CILS is a regional survey in Southern California, which allows us to examine more detailed characteristics of mixed couples in a particular region. Another way of thinking about the differences between the CPS and the CILS is the difference between identification and identity. Identification is the way that outsiders identify a group of people either by race or ethnicity, or the way individuals identify themselves on surveys and censuses where they have to choose from a limited number of categories. Identity, on the other hand, is how individuals identify themselves regardless of what others may call them; they are not forced to choose from a category, but can identify however they wish (Brunsma 2005). Identification personifies the CPS, with its racial categories that the respondents are forced to choose. Even the ethnicity variable that I analyzed is somewhat of a forced choice, because it is not how they identify themselves but is based on nativity—where they or their parents were born. The advantage of the CILS is that while it has a racial identification variable, it also has an open-ended self-identity question: “How do you identify, that is, what do you call yourself?” This allows us the unique opportunity to compare the extent to which the CILS respondents’ identification is the same as their identity, especially given that identity and identification “represent two related yet distinctly different outcomes” (Brunsma 2005). It goes without saying that the way we think about mixed relationships—whether by race or ethnicity—should reflect the way the individuals in those relationships think about their mixed relationships.

CHAPTER 5

Mixed Relationships Among Children of Immigrants in Southern California

This chapter provides a bridge from the interpretation of mixed couples at the national level using the Current Population Survey (CPS) to the interpretation of mixed couples at a regional level using the Children of Immigrants Longitudinal Study (CILS). The CILS study will give us a more nuanced picture of mixed couples that is complementary to what we have already seen from the CPS data presented in the previous chapter. Moreover, the CILS allows us to look at a number of important variables that are not available in the CPS. The CILS is an ideal sample of young adult children of immigrants who are varied in the types of relationships they are in—a portion are not in relationships (which makes for a good comparison group), and the remainder are in coethnic, interethnic, and interracial relationships. COMPARISONS BETWEEN MIXED UNIONS IN THE UNITED STATES AND CALIFORNIA Table 5.1 provides a bridge between the CPS and the CILS. The CPS portion of this table also shows a comparison between California and the United States for a number of important variables that have to do with mixed relationships: generational status, racially mixed couples, and ethnically mixed couples. This table forms a link from the national picture of mixed relationships to the picture in California, and finally to

83

84

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants

the picture in Southern California, via the CILS.12 The main purpose of this table is to show how the CILS sample compares to the United States and more specifically to California. Since the CILS sample is not representative of the United States, it is important to understand how to interpret its findings in relation to other regions of the country, especially given the fact that California has a longer history of mixing than most areas of the country—as evidenced by the fact that the California Supreme Court ruled anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional Perez v. Sharp in 1948, more than 20 years before the United States Supreme in Loving v. Virginia in 1967 (Kennedy 2003; Moran 2001). This first table is only a rough sketch of the comparisons between these various samples and includes only those respondents who are married or cohabiting for both data sets. I have purposely not included those respondents in the CILS who do not fit this criterion so that it can be comparable to the CPS. The CILS sample sizes do become considerably smaller, but even these smaller sample sizes fit the national pattern to a reasonable degree. Only a third of the respondents in the CILS sample are married, with another 10 percent cohabiting, for a combined 40 percent in a married or cohabiting relationship. The rest are in a dating relationship, with 8 percent of those dating also engaged. Obviously, it would not help us to include those people who have a partner in a dating relationship and then compare these people to those who are married and cohabiting. Even though we do not have any information for dating relationships in the CPS, we will be able to look at those people in the CILS who are not married or cohabiting but are in a dating relationship after this initial comparison. Although the California CPS sample and the CILS sample are not the same, Southern California is somewhat comparable to California, especially given that the majority of the population of California lives in the southern half of the state (roughly 70 percent of the 35 million people in California reside in Southern California). At any rate, the CPS is the only data

12

Because the CILS sample was drawn in 1991, some differences are expected due to the fact that we are capturing different groups of immigrants that are coming to the United States, especially compared to the CPS, which was drawn some 12 years later. In addition, all age groups are considered in the CPS sample, while the average age of the CILS respondents is 24.

Table 5.1 Comparisons between Mixed Relationships in the United States and California, and between CPS and CILS

Characteristics

CPS (sample of married & cohabiting persons) Rest of the Number Number California United States (weighted) (weighted) (%)

CILS Southern Number California (%) (sample)

Generations: 1.0 foreign-born, 13+ 1.5 foreign-born, under 13 2.0 U.S.-born, 2 fb parents 2.5 U.S.-born, 1 fb parent 3.0 U.S.-born

11.3 2.2 3.0 3.3 80.2

12,743,455 2,503,238 3,370,922 3,749,886 90,612,118

33.5 5.7 5.7 4.7 50.4

4,887,918 828,795 836,536 679,735 7,336,635

5.1 45.4 30.7 18.9 0.0

18 161 109 67 0

White Female Male

3.9 3.9 3.9

3,418,210 1,716,071 1,702,139

11.4 9.3 13.3

847,011 340,854 506,157

37.5 37.5 0.0

3 3 0

Black Female Male

7.7 4.7 10.5

668,848 197,419 471,429

15.8 10.5 20.5

98,675 30,824 67,851

33.3 50.0 0.0

1 1 0

Asian Female Male

16.4 22.2 9.6

613,752 446,926 166,826

11.6 17.5 4.8

225,229 182,266 42,963

19.8 22.0 14.3

25 20 5

Multiracial Female Male

74.9 74.5 75.4

793,260 386,401 406,859

82.6 83.3 81.8

123,920 65,182 58,738

63.8 62.5 66.7

30 20 10

Hispanic / Other Female Male

17.4 17.4 17.4

1,854,724 927,462 927,262

13.7 15.0 12.4

596,753 330,505 266,248

22.1 25.5 17.4

36 24 12

% of Mixed Couples by Race:

Note: The % of mixed couples by race is the % of females and males by race that are in mixed relationships.

Table 5.1 (continued )

CPS (sample of married & cohabiting persons) Rest of the Number Number California United States (weighted) (weighted) (%)

Characteristics

CILS Southern Number California (%) (sample)

% of Mixed Couples by Ethnicity: a

Coethnic couples Mixed within same race Mixed with White Mixed with Black Mixed with Asian Mixed with multiracial

79.5 15.8 2.5 0.4 1.3 0.5

6,196,118 1,207,916 185,587 31,427 98,121 34,420

81.9 13.1 2.2 0.1 2.1 0.5

2,485,383 384,084 59,083 3,257 60,784 13,310

58.5 20.3 10.6 2.1 3.0 5.5

193 67 35 7 10 18

Mexican Coethnic couple Mixed with Hispanic Mixed with White Mixed with Black

82.7 3.0 12.7 0.7

5,249,796 188,780 806,309 45,785

84.4 3.9 10.0 0.6

3,031,392 139,702 360,682 21,098

64.2 15.2 6.6 2.6

97 23 10 4

Filipino Coethnic couple Mixed with Asian Mixed with White

57.6 4.1 31.1

352,476 25,014 190,154

78.0 4.0 11.4

399,356 20,590 58,150

45.6 14.9 15.8

52 17 18

Vietnamese Coethnic couple Mixed with Asian Mixed with White

85.2 5.2 7.4

292,372 17,881 25,526

86.0 7.9 5.6

241,284 22,035 15,665

40.0 40.0 16.0

10 10 4

Cambodian, Lao, Hmong Coethnic couple Mixed with Asian Mixed with White

81.2 6.4 7.6

109,696 8,662 10,286

78.9 12.5 5.0

55,744 8,814 3,510

67.3 22.4 2.0

33 11 1

Source: Children of Immigrant Longitudinal Study (CILS), third wave. Does not include those couples where one person is 3.0+ because we do not know their ethnic identity.

a

Mixed Relationships Among Children of Immigrants

87

available that allows us to compare the CILS to a nationally representative sample. I will start with a look at generational status because it will show the largest differences between these three samples. Starting with the first generation who arrived in the United States at 13 years or older, we see that they represent 12 percent of the national population, 35 percent of the population of California, and only 5 percent of the CILS sample. On the other end, the third-plus generations represent 80 percent of the national population, 50 percent of the population of California, and 0 percent of the CILS population. This should be evident in the fact that the CILS survey is a survey of children of immigrants. Thus, with the CILS, we are targeting a specific segment of the immigrant generation: the 1.5 (those who arrived under 13), the 2.0 (U.S.-born, with both of the parents foreign-born), and the 2.5 (U.S.-born, with one parent foreign-born and one parent U.S.-born). These three groups represent the de facto “second generation.” This de facto second generation represents 95 percent of the CILS sample, 15 percent of the population of California, and only 8 percent of the U.S. population. The second thing to take note of is the large percentage of the population that is of immigrant stock (first and second generations) in California as compared to the rest of the United States: half of the population of California. Since over one-third of the entire immigrant stock in the United States live in California, we can see how important this state will be for studying mixed relationships. This is perhaps an indicator of future trends, as a lot of this mixing will start in California and spread as immigrants move all over the country. There is ample evidence to show that immigrants and their children are slowly moving away from the main areas of destination (such as New York, Florida, Texas, and Illinois, to name a few of the major destination states) and spreading out all over the country (Brown and Leach Forthcoming; Waters and Jimenez 2005). The second reason that this CILS sample of children of immigrants is particularly important for this study is because these are the people who are not yet married when they come to the United States. They are raised—at least for a significant period of their life—in the United States and they first form significant romantic relationships on U.S. soil. In other words, the future of intermarriage is going to come not from the immigrants, but from among their children (and grandchildren).

88

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants

The next two sections of table 5.1 look at mixed relationships first by race and then by ethnicity. The first panel looks at those respondents who classified themselves in a separate racial category than their partner. Whites, blacks, and multiracials—both males and females—in California are more likely to be in an interracial relationship (either married or cohabiting) than their counterparts in the rest of the United States There is no significant difference for Hispanics, but we do see a decrease in interracial couples for both Asian males and females in California. This is probably due to the opportunity for them to meet other Asians because of the large concentration of Asians in California. This translates into a larger marriage pool of Asians in California, and thus a larger portion of the respondents in California are coethnic couples (couples from the same national origin background) or couples where both partners are from Asia, but have different ethnic origins within Asia—interethnic couples. When we compare these numbers to the CILS sample, we see much higher percentages with a large percent of CILS respondents in mixed relationships—20 percent of Asians and 22 percent of Hispanics. In most cases, females from the CILS sample are more likely than males to be in mixed relationships—although the white and black samples are not large enough to be meaningful. The one surprising finding is the fact that more Hispanic females are in mixed relationships than Hispanic males in the CILS even though they are both equally likely to be in mixed relationships in United States and only slightly more likely in California. In the last panel of table 5.1 we move beyond racial categories and look at ethnic identities. The first breakdown we see is into coethnic couples, and then a breakdown of the various types of mixed relationships. The CPS sample is somewhat skewed because we are not able to include those couples where one of the partners is third-plus generations because we cannot identify their ethnicity. While we are confident in the coethnic percentages, most of the mixed percentages are underrepresented. The number of couples in which someone from the first or second generation is married to a third-plus generation white, black, or other race category is not included in this representation (notice how small the weighted numbers are for these mixed categories).13 Here the United States and California are fairly close in

13

This limitation is unfortunate, but this is the closest data set that allows us to compare the CILS to a national sample.

Mixed Relationships Among Children of Immigrants

89

percentages—the differences we do see are probably not significant. All of the CILS ethnic groups are less likely to be in coethnic relationships than both the United States and California. They are also more likely to be in relationships with people within their same racial group, but not from the same ethnic group—i.e., interethnic relationships. For all of the ethnic groups in the CILS sample, they are more likely to be in interethnic relationships than they are to be in interracial relationships with whites. Previous studies (Qian and Lichter 2004; Qian and Lichter 2007) have shown that a large portion of mixed relationships is with whites, but the data also show that in the region of Southern California, more people are getting into interethnic relationships with someone from their same racial group, rather than an interracial relationship.14 AN ANALYTICAL MAP OF RELATIONSHIPS IN CILS Figure 5.1 gives a detailed breakdown of the types of relationships the CILS respondents are in at the third wave (2001–2003). Of the 1480 respondents in the third wave, 60 percent are in a relationship based on the marital status question (married, cohabiting, engaged, divorced, separated, or single). In addition, the respondents are considered to be in a relationship if they identify their spouse or partner’s racial and ethnic identity. The identity respondents report for their partner is then the basis for determining whether or not they are in a coethnic or a mixed relationship. If the race or ethnicity they report for their partner is different from their own, then they are classified as being in a mixed relationship. Notice that the 843 people in relationships were split evenly between coethnic and mixed relationships. Mixed relationships can then be broken down into interethnic and interracial relationships. Any respondent who identifies the ethnic identity of their partner as different from their own is classified as having an interethnic relationship, whereas any respondent who identifies the racial identification of their partner as different from his or her own is classified as having an interracial relationship. The ethnic identity is open ended and the question asks, “How do you identify, that is, what do you call yourself?” and then gives a list of appropriate choices, such

14

Again, some of these differences are due to the different demographic characteristics of these samples.

Figure 5.1 Mixed Relationships and the Children of Immigrants Longitudinal Study (CILS), Wave III (N=1480)

Coethnic Relationships 50% (N = 422)

Interethnic Relationships 38% (N = 160)

Mixed Relationships 50% (N = 421)

Overlap 54% (N = 226)

In a Relationship 60% (N = 843)

Not in a Relationship 40% (N = 637)

Interracial Relationships 8% (N = 35)

Source: Children of Immigrants Longitudinal Study (CILS), Wave III Survey, San Diego Sample, 2001–2003. Percentages are column percentages for the displayed categories in each column.

Mixed Relationships Among Children of Immigrants

91

as Vietnamese, Mexican-American, etc. The racial identification is a partially forced choice from the following racial categories: white, black, Asian, multiracial, and other. It is easy to see why 54 percent of mixed relationships overlap and are considered both an interethnic and an interracial relationship. Note, however, that 38 percent of the mixed relationships are interethnic relationships but not interracial relationships. These are couples where both are racially Asian or Hispanic, for example, but each partner is from a different ethnic group, Filipino-Chinese, Mexican-Salvadoran, Vietnamese-Cambodian, or Hispanic-Mexican. In this last example of someone who identifies his or her ethnic identity as Hispanic and then identifies his or her partner as Mexican, it is unclear what national origin the respondent identifies with, but we can still consider this an interethnic couple based solely on the fact that the respondent identified his or her own ethnic identity and then chose a different ethnic identity or label for his or her partner. Thus, these classifications are subjective; if the respondent considers his partner’s ethnic identity to be different from his or her own—no matter how someone from the outside might view that person—we will classify them as interethnic. The more unusual subsample comprises 8 percent of mixed relationships where the respondents identify with the same ethnicity as their spouse or partner but identify a different racial category for their partner or themselves. This is the case, for example, for people who may both be Mexican or Cuban but consider themselves as belonging to a different race. Most of these 35 cases were either a Filipino with a Filipino partner or a Mexican with a Mexican partner. For the Filipino couples, respondents would typically identify either themselves (or their partners) as multiracial and their partner (or themselves) as Asian. For Mexican couples, they would typically identify themselves as multiracial, white, or other, with their partner from a different racial category among the three listed. To a European American (i.e., Caucasian) observer, both partners in such a couple might be Mexican and thought of as Hispanic; however, the categories respondents themselves chose mirrored those of the U.S. Census where Hispanics can be of any race. Again this is a subjective identification, but one that was obviously important enough for these 35 people to choose different racial categories. The way these mixed couples are broken down into different types of mixed relationships—according to their own designations—is instructive in showing some important differences

92

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants

between interethnic and interracial relationships. I will further explore these two types of mixed relationships later in this chapter. The main reason why the CILS data set is well suited for examining mixed relationships is that the respondents are allowed to determine whether or not they are in an interethnic or an interracial relationship. It is the respondents who identify themselves and then their partner. No matter how subtle or arbitrary the difference may seem, if they choose something different from their own identity for their partner and label him or her differently, it must have some meaning to them. This is a much better measure than the U.S. Census data, where one member of the household fills in all of the questions relating to race for all of the household members—which may or may not be how the other household members would respond. Typically scholars examine only the interracial relationships, which represent only 62 percent of the CILS respondents, and ignore interethnic relationships, which comprise 38 percent of respondents. This is understandable, given that most nationally representative samples—or even regional samples for that matter—ask about a racial identity only. The CILS is rare among surveys because it asks separately about the race and ethnicity of the respondents and their partners and then explores the content of ethnicity with separate questions on language and religion. Another important feature of the CILS that makes it so well suited to studying mixed relationships is the fact that there are multiple subsamples of people within the study to use as comparison groups. There are people in relationships and people not in relationships; there are people in mixed relationships and people in coethnic relationships; and there are people in interethnic relationships and people in interracial relationships15. All of these subsamples give us a reference group to examine.

15

Technically we have three discrete categories: interracial, interethnic, and those that are both interracial and interethnic (which thus creates an overlapping category). Given the small sample sizes, it is not possible to examine these three categories. Thus, the two non-discrete categories of interracial and interethnic relationships are analyzed even though there is a considerable amount of overlap between these two categories.

Mixed Relationships Among Children of Immigrants

93

BIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF CILS Table 5.2 uses a bivariate analysis to highlight some of the key characteristics by the type of relationship the respondent is in. The first two columns break down the survey into whether or not the respondents are in a relationship. The last two columns identify those reported relationships as either coethnic relationships or mixed relationships. A coethnic relationship is defined as one in which the respondent identified his or her partner as having the same ethnic identity when asked, “How do you (your partner) identify, that is what do you call yourself?” Respondents who were not in a coethnic relationship are labeled as mixed and can be either racially or ethnically mixed. I further break down those mixed couples into interethnic and interracial relationships in table 5.3. An interethnic couple is one where the respondent reported a different ethnic identity for a partner on the ethnic identity question, whereas for an interracial couple, a different racial category was reported for a partner from the following racial categories: white, black, Asian, multiracial, and other. These last two categories can overlap, as it is possible for the respondents to identify their spouse with a different racial identity as well as a different ethnic identity. Conversely, they could identify their partner with the same racial identification and yet a different ethnic identity. In order to understand mixed relationships, there is a need to understand those people who are in relationships versus those who are not in relationships. In the CILS survey, respondents were first asked what type of relationship they were in (married, cohabiting, engaged, single, or divorced, separated, other) and then asked in separate questions to identify the ethnicity and race of their spouse or partner. Obviously someone who is married, cohabiting, or engaged is in a relationship, but because the relationship question and the ethnicity and race of the respondents’ partners were separated in the CILS, it allows us to identify those respondents who are single or divorced or separated yet are still in a relationship. This subjective measure of the type of relationship allows us to include those who are dating but not married or cohabiting. The first two columns show what type of respondent is more likely to be in a relationship, according to the CILS: Mexicans, Filipinos, and

Table 5.2 Type of Mixed Relationship by Key Selected Characteristics in Southern California

Characteristics

Not in a Relationship % (N)

In a a Relationship % (N)

%

(N)

%

(N)

Total:

40

(637)

60

(843)

50

(422)

50

(421)

Sex: Male Female

52 35

(360) (277)

48 65

(328) (515)

56 46

(184) (238)

44 54

(144) (277)

Age: 23 years old 24 years old 25 years old 26 years old 27 years old

46 47 37 32 13

(176) (304) (119) (35) (3)

54 53 63 68 87

(209) (339) (199) (76) (20)

46 51 49 55 60

(97) (173) (98) (42) (12)

54 49 51 45 40

(112) (166) (101) (34) (8)

Marital status: Married Single Engaged Cohabiting Divorced, separated, other

0 62 0 0 21

(0) (629) (0) (0) (8)

100 38 100 100 79

(267) (389) (69) (88) (30)

61 49 41 34 33

(163) (191) (28) (30) (10)

39 51 59 66 67

(104) (198) (41) (58) (20)

Children: Have children No children

10 54

(34) (603)

90 46

(321) (522)

59 45

(188) (234)

41 55

(133) (288)

Race: Other Asian White Black Multiracial

38 47 50 27 43

(216) (330) (10) (4) (77)

62 53 50 73 57

(346) (372) (10) (11) (104)

59 51 50 27 18

(205) (190) (5) (3) (19)

41 49 50 73 82

(141) (182) (5) (8) (85)

Ethnic group: Mexican Cambodian-Lao-Hmong Filipino Vietnamese Chinese Latin, other Asian, other

29 48 43 57 71 43 61

(117) (88) (252) (108) (25) (20) (27)

71 52 57 43 29 57 39

(282) (97) (330) (81) (10) (26) (17)

60 59 46 41 30 23 0

(170) (57) (153) (33) (3) (6) (0)

40 41 54 59 70 77 100

(112) (40) (177) (48) (7) (20) (17)

Coethnic b Couples

Mixed c Couples

Table 5.2 (continued )

Characteristics

Not in a Relationship % (N)

In a a Relationship % (N)

%

(N)

%

(N)

Generation: 1.5 (fb-born, 6+) 1.75 (fb-born, under 6) 2 (U.S.-born, 2 fb parents) 2.5 (U.S.-born, 1 fb parent)

42 44 44 43

(146) (168) (229) (94)

58 56 56 57

(203) (217) (296) (127)

57 53 54 25

(115) (116) (159) (32)

43 47 46 75

(88) (101) (137) (95)

Nativity of parents: Same country Different country One born in U.S.

43 47 43

(495) (48) (94)

57 53 57

(662) (54) (127)

56 41 25

(368) (22) (32)

44 59 75

(294) (32) (95)

Language: Foreign-language dominant Fluent bilingual Limited bilingual English dominant

32 32 49 47

(104) (381) (36) (116)

68 68 51 53

(224) (423) (77) (119)

74 62 50 40

(138) (167) (57) (60)

26 38 50 60

(86) (256) (20) (59)

Religion: Catholic Buddhist Other religion Protestant No religion

37 53 47 50 48

(295) (115) (68) (27) (122)

63 47 53 50 52

(498) (104) (78) (27) (132)

55 53 53 37 31

(274) (55) (41) (10) (41)

45 47 47 63 69

(224) (49) (37) (17) (91)

Education: Some high school High school graduate Some college College graduate Graduate school

23 41 41 52 58

(16) (124) (300) (151) (29)

77 59 59 48 42

(54) (178) (438) (142) (21)

57 54 50 46 24

(31) (96) (219) (65) (5)

43 46 50 54 76

(23) (82) (219) (77) (16)

Parent SES index: Lowest SES quartile Second quartile Third quartile Highest SES quartile

40 38 46 49

(182) (114) (175) (166)

60 62 54 51

(276) (188) (205) (174)

60 48 45 43

(165) (90) (93) (74)

40 52 55 57

(111) (98) (112) (100)

Coethnic b Couples

Mixed c Couples

Source: Children of Immigrants Longitudinal Study (CILS), Wave III Survey, San Diego Sample, 2001–03. Note: Interethnic and interracial couples can overlap, so the row percentages of the last two columns will not add up to 100%. In a relationship = if the respondent identified a race or ethnicity for their "spouse or partner." b Coethnic = same ethnic identity as partner from question "How do you identify, that is what do you call yourself?" c Mixed = different ethnic identity or racial category from partner. d Interethnic = different ethnic identity from partner from question "How do you identify, that is what do you call yourself?" e Interracial = different race category from partner; racial categories - White, Black, Asian, Multiracial and Other. a

96

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants

older Cambodian-Lao-Hmong16 females with children; Catholics; and those who speak a language other than English, are less educated, and have parents with low socioeconomic status. A closer look shows that females are 17 percent more likely to be in a relationship than males. Age obviously makes a large difference, with older respondents (ages 23 to 27 years old) more likely to be in a relationship; by age 27, 87 percent of all respondents are in a relationship. Marital status reveals that close to 40 percent of all singles identify a partner, and a large majority (close to 80 percent) of divorced and separated individuals also identify a partner. While half of all respondents who do not have children are in a relationship, 90 percent of those with children are in a relationship, although perhaps the 10 percent who have children and are not in a relationship is more important, especially given the disadvantages that come from single parenting as a young adult. There are not many differences between races, except for the fact that blacks are more likely to be in a relationship—although this could entirely be due to their smaller sample size of 10. The other racial category is composed mostly of Mexicans (40 percent), Filipinos (30 percent), and Hispanics (20 percent)—this category will become especially important for our multivariate analysis. We see a lot more variation when we look at ethnic groups. This variable is an objective measure of their ethnicity17 based on where the respondents and their parents were born, the language spoken at home, and the last name for those respondents where the other indicators were not immediately clear (e.g., Hmong or Cambodian children born in refugee camps in Thailand in the late 1970s). Moreover, this variable was created to allow us to narrow respondents’ ethnicity into a smaller set of ethnic groups, which was not possible with the varied responses they gave for their own ethnic identity (again, this variable will be important when we look at the multivariate analysis). Mexicans are by far the most likely to be in a relationship (over 70 percent), with the next closest ethnic groups being Filipinos and others from Latin America (57 percent). Chinese respondents were the least likely to be

16

All three of these groups represent their own ethnic category, but they are combined here for the sake of simplicity. 17 The results from this objective measure of ethnicity is similar to their subjective measure of ethnicity. The data is not presented here for the sake of simplicity.

Mixed Relationships Among Children of Immigrants

97

in a relationship (only 29 percent). One possible explanation is class intervention; in other words, Chinese respondents in the CILS, who were more likely to have pursued or be pursuing higher education, may have postponed relationships in order to do so, whereas Mexican respondents were less likely to have gone on to college and therefore more likely to formed relationships earlier than other ethnic groups. Generational status and the nativity of parents does not appear to have any bearing on whether the respondents are in a relationship or not, although language does. Those who speak a foreign language (i.e., are either foreign-language dominant or fluent bilinguals) are much more likely to be in a relationship than those who speak predominantly English (i.e., either limited bilinguals or those where English is the dominant language), although we do not have any clues from previous literature as to why this might be the case. Religious affiliation does not have a bearing except for with Catholics, who are more likely than all other religions—including those who do not identify a religion—to be in a relationship. Finally, those with less education (77 percent of those who have not graduated from high school) and those whose parents are in the two lowest socioeconomic quartiles are more likely to be in a relationship. This finding is probably due to the fact that many of the respondents who come from well-off families are more likely to get an education, and those who are going to college are less likely to be in a relationship—especially given the pressure they feel from their immigrant parents to make the most of education as a way to become upwardly mobile. The last two columns are the key indicators of mixed and coethnic relationships and the key variables that I will be examining in the CILS survey. I begin with the examination of mixed couples—as opposed to breaking them down into interracial and interethnic couples—because it is more inclusive and includes interethnic couples, which, as we will see in table 5.3, exhibit important differences from interracial couples. The first four characteristics show that older married males with children typify respondents in a coethnic relationship; conversely, younger cohabiting females without children typify respondents in a mixed relationship. Age shows a linear relationship with respondents more likely to be in a coethnic relationship the older they get. This is a key finding that is supported by a number of other studies (Fujino 1997; Joyner and Kao 2005). What we are not sure of, however, is why this is the case. I will specifically explore this finding using the indepth interviews.

98

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants

Another interesting finding is that divorced and separated respondents are more likely to be in mixed relationships. We do not have data on the ethnic and racial identities of the respondents’ spouses, so we do not know if their previous marriage was a mixed or coethnic marriage. It is possible that once respondents divorced or separated, thereby breaking the expectation of their parents to marry a certain type of person, especially at a relatively young age, it is easier for them to date people from different racial and ethnic backgrounds—or at least, their parents are less likely to have as much say in who they should partner with. Extreme variation marks mixed relationships among the various racial and ethnic classifications. There is a 30 percentage-point spread between Asians and multiracials, with multiracials much more likely to be in mixed relationships (82 percent to 49 percent for Asians). The other category has the lowest percentage of mixed relationships, followed by Asians and whites (although whites and blacks are smaller samples and therefore unreliable). This other category for the most part consists of Hispanic groups who do not feel that any other category fits them, and it is not surprising given that most of the people who checked this box in the CILS were Mexican—notice how closely the other category matches the Mexican ethnic group. The white and black categories are interesting because all the respondents are children of immigrants and therefore less likely to check the white or black box. A further examination of the responses showed that the majority of respondents who checked the white category were Mexican or Mexican American. Among those who checked the black category, the majority were either from the Caribbean (e.g., Jamaican or Belizian) or had one parent who was African American and thus identified as African American. Another possibly problematic group are those multiracials who were classified as coethnic couples. Are they really coethnic couples, meaning they were with a partner who has the same multiethnic or multiracial heritage? A further look at this group revealed that most of these multiracials (i.e., they checked the multiracial box) identified their ethnicity as Hispanic, Latino, Chicano, or Mexican and identified the same ethnic category for their partner. These multiracials were not multiracials in the sense that we typically think of—as with two parents of different racial backgrounds, but they still saw themselves as multiracial, which is not surprising given the history of mixing in Mexico and Latin America between Europeans and the indigenous

Mixed Relationships Among Children of Immigrants

99

population. This same variation of respondents in mixed relationships that we see in the racial categories is seen in the ethnic groups, with Mexicans and Cambodian-Lao-Hmong hovering at 40 percent and Filipinos and Vietnamese at over 50 percent. The next three variables—generation, nativity of parents, and language—all center on the immigrant experience, namely the degree of acculturation. The generations are all close except for the 2.5 (U.S.born, with one foreign-born parent and one U.S.-born), with 75 percent of the 2.5 generation in mixed relationships. A similar pattern is found in the nativity of the parents, with the respondents being more likely to be in a mixed relationship if their parents are both from different countries. Intuitively this makes sense when we consider that the respondents’ parents’ relationship is “mixed,” and therefore not only are the respondents themselves more likely to feel comfortable dating someone from a different racial or ethnic background, but their parents are less likely to oppose the respondent’s choice of partner. Language acquisition, also directly related to the immigrant experience, appears to play a large role in whether or not the respondents will be in a mixed relationship. The greater dominance that foreign language plays in the respondents’ lives, the less likely they are to be in a mixed relationship; on the other hand, the greater dominance that English plays in the respondents’ lives, the more likely they are to be in a mixed relationship. This is possibly a measure of how close a tie respondents feel to their parents’ country of origin and how closely they relate to their parents’ traditions, which often translates into dating and marrying someone from the same ethnic group. Religious preference seems to play a role only for those who are Protestant and those who have no religious preference: over 60 percent of both these groups are in mixed relationships while 45–47 percent of all the other groups are in mixed relationships. With only survey data, it is impossible to know why Protestants and those with no stated religion are more likely to cross racial and ethnic lines, but the in-depth interviews give us some insight into these important religious differences. Religious preference is similar to interethnic relationships in that neither is measured by the U.S. Census and are thus not talked about much in contemporary research 18 on intermarriage—precisely

18

There is, of course, a large number of scholars who studied this in the middle of the twentieth century (Herberg 1960; Kennedy 1944; Kennedy 1952).

100

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants

because it is not officially measured—but it appears to still play a role in the racial and ethnic lines that these young adult children of immigrants are crossing, especially when it comes to religious rituals and practices that are deeply embedded in their culture and family life. Previous research has clearly shown that the more educated people are, the more likely they are to be in mixed relationships (Kalmijn 1991; Qian 1999; Qian and Lichter 2007). This is true as well for the CILS respondents, with a linear pattern showing that every increase in educational level leads to an increase in the percentage of respondents in mixed relationships. Much of this is likely due to the local marriage market, since many of these people are meeting at college where there are more diverse groups of people with whom they can interact on a daily basis. Educational levels are in turn closely related to parental levels of socioeconomic status (SES). Thus, it is not surprising that the higher the respondents’ parental SES, the more likely they are to cross racial and ethnic lines in relationships. In addition to the local marriage market, it has been found that well-educated and upper-class people are more likely to be tolerant of different racial and ethnic groups (Kalmijn 1991; Qian, Blair, and Ruf 2001). Table 5.3 is an attempt to see if it really matters whether or not we make a distinction between race and ethnicity when talking about intermarriage. The baseline of the percentages presented in table 5.3 is of those in mixed relationships. If the percentages of interethnic and interracial relationships are the same across the characteristics listed, then there is no point in making a distinction, and we are therefore justified in labeling these mixed relationships as “interracial couples” as in the last column. If we do see important differences, then we should either distinguish between interethnic and interracial couples, or at least include interethnic relationships into a category, as we have done with “mixed couples.” These differences could manifest themselves in a number of ways: the size of the difference, whether the differences are significant (both substantively and statistically), and based on the pattern that exists in the data. In other words, we could see important differences, either by the fact that one category—interethnic or interracial relationships—is consistently larger than the other or by the different patterns that emerge between the two categories. The last two columns of table 5.3 highlight the key findings from this table: the percentage of people in interethnic relationships in each category is higher than interracial relationships in all cases except for one—as shown by the percentage of difference. This alone is

Table 5.3 Comparing Interethnic and Interracial Couples in Southern California

Characteristics

Interethnic Couples % (N)

a

Interracial Couples % (N)

b

% difference

significant difference

Total:

92

(386)

62

(261)

30

***

Sex: Male Female

39 50

(128) (258)

25 36

(79) (182)

14 14

* **

Age: 23 years old 24 years old 25 years old 26 years old 27 years old

49 46 48 38 21

(103) (155) (98) (29) (4)

31 34 32 29 26

(61) (110) (63) (22) (5)

19 12 16 9 -5

* * * NS NS

Marital status: Married Single Engaged Cohabiting Divorced, separated, other

34 48 54 64 57

(91) (185) (37) (56) (17)

23 33 39 40 57

(61) (122) (27) (34) (17)

11 14 14 24 0

NS ** NS * NS

Children: Have children No children

36 52

(114) (272)

27 35

(84) (177)

9 17

NS ***

Race: Other Asian White Black Multiracial

37 48 30 55 66

(129) (180) (3) (6) (68)

29 27 30 27 61

(95) (97) (3) (3) (63)

8 22 0 27 5

NS *** NS NS NS

Ethnicity: Mexican Cambodian-Lao-Hmong Filipino Vietnamese Chinese Latin, other Asian, other

35 38 49 58 60 73 94

(99) (37) (162) (47) (6) (19) (16)

26 18 40 26 50 35 71

(70) (17) (127) (21) (5) (9) (12)

9 20 10 32 10 38 24

NS NS NS ** NS * NS

Table 5.3 (continued )

Characteristics

Interethnic Couples % (N)

a

Interracial Couples % (N)

b

% difference

significant difference

Generation: 1.5 (fb-born, 6+) 1.75 (fb-born, under 6) 2 (U.S.-born, 2 fb parents) 2.5 (U.S.-born, 1 fb parent)

38 45 43 68

(77) (97) (126) (86)

29 23 33 51

(57) (48) (93) (63)

9 22 10 16

NS ** NS *

Nativity of parents: Same country Different country One born in U.S.

41 53 68

(272) (28) (86)

28 37 51

(178) (20) (63)

13 16 16

** NS *

Language: Foreign-language dominant Fluent bilingual Limited bilingual English dominant

23 35 47 55

(78) (234) (18) (56)

15 26 24 40

(56) (166) (11) (28)

8 9 23 15

NS NS NS NS

Religion: Catholic Buddhist Other religion Protestant No religion

41 43 44 63 64

(202) (45) (34) (17) (85)

32 18 34 46 39

(154) (18) (25) (12) (51)

8 26 10 17 25

NS * NS NS **

Education: Some high school High school graduate Some college College graduate Graduate school

38 43 45 52 71

(20) (77) (198) (74) (15)

25 27 33 36 52

(13) (46) (140) (49) (11)

13 16 12 17 19

NS NS * NS NS

Parent SES index: Lowest SES quartile Second quartile Third quartile Highest SES quartile

37 47 50 55

(102) (87) (102) (95)

20 36 37 41

(54) (64) (73) (70)

17 11 13 13

* NS NS NS

Source: Children of Immigrants Longitudinal Study (CILS), Wave III Survey, San Diego Sample, 2001–03. Note: Interethnic and interracial couples can overlap, so the row percentages will not add up to 100%. Significance is based on the Z statistic: ***p<0.001, **p<0.01, *p<0.05, NS = not significant. a Interethnic = different ethnic identity from partner from question "How do you identify, that is what do you call yourself?" b Interracial = different race category from partner; racial categories - White, Black, Asian, Multiracial, and Other.

Mixed Relationships Among Children of Immigrants

103

significant and justifies at least the inclusion of interethnic relationships within a “mixed relationship” category, if not the separation of mixed couples into interethnic and interracial categories. Most of the increase of percentages in interethnic relationships is in addition to the interracial couples percentages; figure 5.1 shows how many of the interracial couples can also be classified as interethnic couples. Thus the number of mixed couples is really the increase we see in adding interracial couples to interethnic categories. In the CILS we lose only 35 couples when we talk about interethnic couples alone, but we lose 160 couples when we talk about interracial couples alone. At the very least, a more inclusive category of mixed relationships, one which includes both interethnic and interracial couples, is a more accurate measure of mixed couples in the United States. A cursory look at table 5.3 shows that many of the differences are statistically significant, and for the ones that are not significant, many of the differences are in the double digits. These are not statistically significant because of the smaller samples sizes, although they may likely be substantively significant. We can see that each type of characteristic presented has at least one category that represents a significant difference. Notice that 50 percent of all females are in an interethnic relationship, whereas only 36 percent are in an interracial relationship. Sixty-four percent of respondents cohabiting are in interethnic relationships, whereas only 40 percent are in interracial relationships—a 24 percent difference. Fifty-two percent of those without children are in interethnic relationships, whereas only 35 percent are in interracial relationships. The only significant difference in race is for Asians; an ethnic breakdown shows this in more detail. This is likely due to the fact that there are a number of Asian ethnic groups in Southern California, and individuals from one ethnic group often form relationships with those from other Asian ethnic groups. We can also see important differences in generation, nativity of parents, and language. Religious preference is a good example of different patterns for those in interethnic versus interracial relationships. When we look at the actual percentages of interethnic couples by religion, we see that respondents who identified themselves as Catholics, Buddhists, and other religions all hover around 40 percent, while respondents who identified themselves as Protestants and no religion are over 60 percent. If we now look at interracial couples, we see an entirely different pattern, with Buddhists least likely to be in an interracial relationship

104

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants

(18 percent), followed by Catholics and other religions (both around 30 percent), while Protestants and no religion are most likely to be in an interracial relationship (both around 40 percent). Thus we not only see significant differences between the two types of couples, but we also see that religious preference paints a very different picture of mixed couples—depending on whether we are talking about interracial or interethnic couples. We do, however, see similar patterns for both groups when it comes to education and parental socio-economic status (SES). MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF CILS A bivariate analysis of the CILS is revealing, but it does not allow us to control for certain effects and to know whether or not these differences will be important once we control for variables such as sex and education. The remaining tables use logistic regression to present a multivariate analysis of those in relationships, mixed couples, interethnic couples, and interracial couples. Predictors of the Likelihood of Being in a Relationship I start with a logistic model that predicts whether or not the respondents of CILS will be in a relationship or not. We already saw that 60 percent of the respondents were in relationships (see figure 5.1). I start with this analysis for two reasons: (a) part of understanding who is in a mixed relationship obviously starts with who is in a relationship to begin with, and thus a multivariate analysis on who is in a relationship helps us to understand what is unique about mixed relationships versus what is unique about relationships in general; and (b) it will be a point of comparison to help us make sense of the other models for those in mixed relationships. What predicts the likelihood of being in a relationship? Table 5.4 presents the results of the logistic regression to answer this question. Surprisingly, the strongest determinant is gender (based on the Wald statistic of 62). Females are 2.5 times more likely to be in a relationship than males. Education is a predictor, with respondents less likely to be in a relationship for every year of education they receive. Age is also a predictor of whether the CILS respondents had a spouse or partner: every one year increase in age (the age range for the CILS respondents is 23 to 27 years) makes it 1.3 more times likely that they will be in a

Mixed Relationships Among Children of Immigrants

105

Table 5.4 Determinants of Being in a Relationship: Logistic Regression of Children of Immigrants in Southern California, 2001–03 Being in a Relationship Predictors

B

SE

Wald

Sig.

Odds

0.91 0.01 -0.13 0.25

0.12 0.21 0.04 0.06

62.0 0.0 12.4 16.4

*** NS *** ***

2.50 1.01 0.88 1.29

Panethnic categories: All others Asian panethnicity (Hispanic panethnicity)

-0.53 -0.52

0.22 0.24

5.5 4.5

* *

0.59 0.60

Ethnicity: Asian & Latin other Vietnamese Filipino Cambodian- Lao- Hmong (Mexican)

-0.55 -0.37 -0.10 -0.09

0.27 0.29 0.24 0.32

4.0 1.6 0.2 0.1

* NS NS NS

0.58 0.69 0.90 0.91

Religion: Catholic Other religion Buddhist Protestant (No religion)

0.27 -0.12 -0.24 -0.05

0.18 0.22 0.23 0.32

2.4 0.3 1.1 0.0

NS NS NS NS

1.32 0.89 0.78 0.95

-0.09 0.01

0.13 0.19

0.5 0.0

NS NS

0.91 1.01

5.8

*

0.02

Demographic variables: Gender (1=female) Parental SES Index Years of education completed Age (years)

Acculturation: English dominant U.S.-born parent (2.5 generation) Constant N = 1,448

-4.00 2

1.66 a

b

c

2

R = .08 , .10 , .14 , χ (1)= 159.2

Source: Children of Immigrants Longitudinal Study (CILS), Wave III Survey, San Diego Sample, 2001–03. Note: Reference categories for independent variables are in parentheses. a b c Psuedo R-squares: = (Hosmer & Lemeshow); = (Cox & Snell); = (Nagelkerke). Significance: ***p<0.001, **p<0.01, *p<0.05, NS = not significant.

relationship. Among the racial and ethnic categories, three variables turned out to be significant: “all others,” Asian panethnicity for the panethnic categories and “Asian and Latin other” for ethnicity (all compared to Mexicans). For the panethnic categories, it means that Asian ethnic groups—those that fall under an Asian panethnicity—and all the other people who do not fall under an Asian or Hispanic panethnicity are less likely to be in relationships than Hispanic ethnic groups. This is not surprising considering that over 70 percent of all

106

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants

Mexicans (see table 5.2)—the main group that falls under the Hispanic panethnic category—are in relationships, with the next closest group being Filipinos at 57 percent. For ethnic groups, those Asian and Latin American ethnic groups that do not fit in one of the stated ethnic groups are less likely than Mexicans to be in relationships. What may be equally interesting are those variables that are not significant predictors of whether a respondent will be in a relationship: parental socio-economic status, all of the ethnic categories except for “Asian and Latin other,” religious preference, and the acculturation variables. As we will see in the next logistic models, the acculturation variables will be very important predictors of the various types of mixed relationships. Predictors of the Likelihood of Being in a Mixed Relationship What are the factors that predict whether a person will be in a mixed relationship? Table 5.5 uses the same determinants in the bivariate analysis—with additional dummy variables for marital status and children—to predict whether a person in a relationship will be in a mixed relationship as opposed to a coethnic relationship. In table 5.5, I enter three sets of variables sequentially to form three models: (I) demographic variables, panethnic categories, and ethnic groups; (II) marital status and children; and (III) religious preference and assessments of acculturation—English dominance and a U.S.-born parent (2.5 generation). In the first model in table 2, the strongest determinant of mixed relationships is the catch-all panethnic category “all others.” This is understandable given the fact that all the people who checked the multiracial box were put into this category, and 82 percent of all multiracials are in a mixed relationship (see table 5.2). Controlling for all the demographic variables and the panethnic categories, all the ethnic group variables are significant and help predict whether a respondent will be in a mixed relationship. Notice how all the ethnic groups are anywhere from two to six times more likely to be in a mixed relationship than Mexicans. Among the ethnic groups, Vietnamese, Filipinos, and Cambodian-Lao-Hmong are all less likely to be in mixed relationships than respondents that fit the Asian and Latin others category. Those groups that fit in the Asian and Latino others category have high percentages of mixed relationships, which is understandable

Table 5.5 Determinants of Being in a Mixed Relationship: Logistic Regression of Children of Immigrants in Southern California, 2001–03 I. Mixed Relationships Predictors

III. Mixed Relationships

II. Mixed Relationships

B

SE

Wald

Sig.

Odds

B

SE

Wald

Sig.

Odds

B

SE

Wald

Sig.

Odds

0.36 0.42 0.01 -0.04

0.16 0.27 0.05 0.08

5.4 2.4 0.0 0.2

* NS NS NS

1.43 1.53 1.01 0.96

0.43 0.35 -0.03 -0.01

0.16 0.28 0.05 0.08

7.0 1.5 0.3 0.0

** NS NS NS

1.53 1.42 0.97 0.99

0.44 0.15 -0.04 0.02

0.16 0.29 0.05 0.08

7.1 0.3 0.5 0.1

** NS NS NS

1.55 1.16 0.96 1.02

Panethnic categories: All others Asian panethnicity (Hispanic panethnicity)

1.30 -0.47

0.29 0.34

20.4 1.9

*** NS

3.66 0.62

1.25 -0.51

0.29 0.35

18.6 2.1

*** NS

3.50 0.60

0.99 -0.48

0.31 0.36

10.4 1.8

** NS

2.68 0.62

Ethnicity: Asian & Latin other Vietnamese Filipino Cambodian- Lao- Hmong (Mexican)

1.86 1.32 0.80 0.79

0.44 0.40 0.33 0.39

18.1 11.0 5.8 4.1

*** *** * *

6.42 3.76 2.23 2.19

1.81 1.17 0.80 0.77

0.44 0.41 0.34 0.39

16.8 8.3 5.6 3.9

*** ** * *

6.13 3.24 2.22 2.17

1.35 0.81 0.55 0.28

0.46 0.46 0.36 0.46

8.6 3.1 2.3 0.4

** NS NS NS

3.86 2.25 1.74 1.33

Marital status: Cohabiting Divorced, separated, other Engaged Single (Married)

0.89 0.97 0.58 0.06

0.28 0.44 0.30 0.20

10.0 4.8 3.6 0.1

** * NS NS

2.45 2.64 1.79 1.07

0.85 0.83 0.56 0.09

0.29 0.45 0.31 0.21

8.4 3.4 3.3 0.2

** NS NS NS

2.35 2.29 1.76 1.10

Children (1=yes)

-0.54

0.19

7.7

**

0.58

-0.57

0.20

8.0

**

0.57

-0.82 -0.83 -0.57 -0.22

0.25 0.34 0.34 0.48

10.4 6.1 2.7 0.2

** * NS NS

0.44 0.43 0.57 0.80

0.65 0.62

0.18 0.27

12.6 5.1

*** *

1.91 1.85

0.0

NS

0.71

Demographic variables: Gender (1=female) Parental SES Index Years of education completed Age (years)

Religion: Catholic Other religion Buddhist Protestant (No religion) Acculturation: English dominant U.S.-born parent (2.5 generation) Constant N = 829

-0.19 2

2.02 a

b

0.0 c

2

NS

R = .09 , .12 , .16 , χ (1)= 106.1

0.83

-0.16 2

0.0

2.08 a

b

c

2

NS

R = .11 , .15 , .19 , χ (1)= 130.0

Source: Children of Immigrants Longitudinal Study (CILS), Wave III Survey, San Diego Sample, 2001–03. Note: Reference categories of independent dummy variables are in parentheses. a b c Psuedo R-squares: = (Hosmer & Lemeshow); = (Cox & Snell); = (Nagelkerke). Significance: ***p<0.001, **p<0.01, *p<0.05, NS = not significant.

0.85

-0.34 2

2.14 a

b

c

2

R = .14 , ..18 , .24 , χ (1)= 165.7

108

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants

given their smaller populations and thus smaller marriage pools. Finally, controlling for the panethnic and ethnic categories, females are 1.4 times more likely than males to be in a mixed relationship. Moving now to the second model in table 5, where we added the variables for marital status and children. We see that the strength of association for all of the panethnic and ethnic group variables goes down slightly (as evidenced by the Wald statistics), while the strength of gender as a predictor of mixed relationships goes up slightly. Among the new variables, cohabiting and children are the strongest predictors. Cohabiters—and to a lesser degree those who are divorced or separated—are more than twice as likely as married respondents to be in a mixed relationship. Furthermore, and obviously connected with marital status—especially marriage—respondents with children are much less likely to be in a mixed relationship. This points to the stronger racial and ethnic boundary that a formal link between two people, such as marriage, poses as opposed to a more informal relationship such as cohabitation. The third model in table 5.5 adds the religious preference and acculturation variables and completes the logistic regression for predicting mixed relationships. Religion is a strong predictor of mixed relationships. This is somewhat surprising given the fact that religion has not been the subject of mixed relationships since Ruby Jo Reeves Kennedy (1944; Kennedy 1952) described a triple melting pot wherein Protestants, Catholics, and Jews of different national origins tended to marry within their own religious groups. In the CILS there is some evidence to suggest that religion may be gaining a new stronghold on mixed relationships in response to the increasing diversity of religions held by immigrants from Asia and Latin America. Catholics have the strongest effect, followed by those “other religions” with a moderate effect, although respondents who expressed a religious preference were less likely to be in a mixed relationship than those respondents without a religious preference. Surprisingly, the determinant with the strongest effect in this third and final model (as evident by the Wald score of 12.6) is the dominance of English. Those who use and speak predominantly English are two times more likely to be in a mixed relationship than those who use and speak a foreign language. This is probably closely associated with having a U.S.-born parent, which also has a moderate positive effect on a mixed relationship. The addition of religious preference and acculturation has a large effect on which variables are important in explaining mixed

Mixed Relationships Among Children of Immigrants

109

relationships. As with the second model, the panethnic and ethnic variables weaken considerably in the third model; only the category of Asian and Latin other remains significant, while the Wald statistic for this category is reduced in half compared to the last model. In addition to the identity variables, the marital status-related variables also weaken, with cohabitation the only variable remaining significant at the 0.01 level. It appears that these variables lose strength in their association because of the strong association between religious preference and acculturation. Gender, cohabitation, and children still remain strong predictors of mixed relationships. Females, respondents without children, and those cohabiting have higher odds of being in a mixed relationship than males, respondents with children, and respondents who are married. The fact that just 39 percent of married people in CILS are in mixed relationships compared to 66 percent of cohabiting respondents probably explains why those with children are less likely to be in a mixed relationships, since married people are more likely to have children than their cohabiting counterparts. Between these two variables—marriage and children—marriage probably comes first in order of timing, or at least closely follows the birth of children. The real puzzle of this logistic model is why females and cohabiting respondents are more likely to be in mixed relationships. Previous literature has posited that women—especially Asian women— are more likely to be attractive partners to males because of the widespread stereotypes of submissiveness and exoticism (Espiritu 2000, 2003; Koshy 2004; Le 2007). The problem with this line of reasoning is that it puts the decision in the hands of males and does not give any agency to women, leaving the question, do their preferences for the type of relationship they desire (mixed versus coethnic) coincide with these stereotypes? This is an empirical question that has not been addressed by previous literature. Fujino (1997) posits that Asian males are less likely than Asian females to marry someone from a different racial or ethnic group. Within the Asian community, there is some speculation that parents exert more pressure on sons than on daughters to inmarry. Under patriarchal family structures, daughters are viewed as leaving their family of origin when they marry, whereas sons, along with their wives, stay within their family of origin. Thus, sons are viewed as being more responsible for carrying on the family name and lineage. If this is true, then

110

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants Asian men may participate in interracial dating but usually marry intraracially. (823)

For those cohabiting, it has been posited that young adults are more likely to experiment with less formal arrangements such as dating and cohabitation as opposed to the more formal arrangement of marriage. Again, this is an empirical question that has not gained much attention from the literature and may not entirely explain this phenomenon. These two puzzles—higher mixed relationships for females and cohabiters—will be addressed in the in-depth interviews in chapter 7. Gender stays the same in table 5.5, which suggests that gender is still a significant predictor of mixed relationships. This finding resonates with many previous studies of intermarriage (Espiritu 2000, 2003; Fujino 1997; Weiss 1970). Given this fact, we can further clarify this relationship between gender and mixed relationships by running the same logistic regression as in model three from table 5.5 for females and males separately19. This will help us to see which variables might be more significant for one group as opposed to the other, or whether or not the variables are equally predicting of both sexes. Table 5.6 introduces these models for females and then for males. The most surprising finding from table 5.6 is that it appears that a set of almost completely different variables predict whether females or males will be in a mixed relationship. For females, panethnicity (a moderate positive effect), ethnic groups (strong to moderate positive effects), children (strong negative effect), religion (moderate negative effects), and English dominance (a moderate positive effect) predict mixed relationships, while for males, only English dominance (the strongest effect for either sex) and cohabitation (a moderate positive effect) predict mixed relationships. The only variable that overlaps for both females and males is English dominance. Thus for women, the factors of ethnic group, children, religion, and language acculturation are important predictors of being in a mixed relationship. For males, it appears that only cohabitation and acculturation are important in predicting mixed relationships. This is a key finding because it shows that mixed relationships are highly gendered.

19

Fujino (1997) also follows this practice when using logistic regression models to predict interracial dating.

Table 5.6 Determinants of Being in a Mixed Relationship by Gender: Logistic Regression of Children of Immigrants in Southern California, 2001–03 I. Females in Mixed Relationships Predictors

II. Males in Mixed Relationships

B

SE

Wald

Sig.

Odds

B

SE

Wald

Sig.

Odds

0.23 -0.11 0.05

0.37 0.07 0.11

0.4 2.2 0.2

NS NS NS

1.26 0.90 1.06

0.11 0.03 -0.04

0.48 0.08 0.13

0.1 0.1 0.1

NS NS NS

1.12 1.03 0.96

Panethnic categories: All others Asian panethnicity (Hispanic panethnicity)

0.87 -0.56

0.37 0.49

5.4 1.3

* NS

2.38 0.57

1.12 -0.58

0.58 0.59

3.7 1.0

NS NS

3.05 0.56

Ethnicity: Asian & Latin other Vietnamese Filipino Cambodian- Lao- Hmong (Mexican)

2.07 1.34 0.93 0.53

0.65 0.62 0.48 0.61

10.0 4.7 3.7 0.7

** * NS NS

7.94 3.81 2.53 1.69

0.39 0.35 0.17 0.19

0.71 0.73 0.60 0.76

0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1

NS NS NS NS

1.48 1.41 1.19 1.21

Marital status: Cohabiting Divorced, separated, other Engaged Single (Married)

0.65 0.67 0.31 -0.12

0.38 0.51 0.42 0.26

2.9 1.7 0.6 0.2

NS NS NS NS

1.91 1.95 1.36 0.89

1.21 1.17 0.90 0.50

0.49 1.03 0.49 0.40

6.1 1.3 3.3 1.6

* NS NS NS

3.36 3.23 2.47 1.65

Children (1=yes)

-0.76

0.26

8.7

**

0.47

-0.29

0.35

0.7

NS

0.75

Religion: Catholic Other religion Buddhist Protestant (No religion)

-0.88 -0.99 -1.03 -0.73

0.34 0.44 0.45 0.64

6.5 4.9 5.2 1.3

* * * NS

0.42 0.37 0.36 0.48

-0.68 -0.65 0.23 0.50

0.40 0.56 0.57 0.77

2.8 1.4 0.2 0.4

NS NS NS NS

0.51 0.52 1.26 1.66

0.52 0.51

0.24 0.34

4.6 2.2

* NS

1.68 1.66

0.84 0.84

0.29 0.49

8.4 3.0

** NS

2.32 2.31

NS

1.62

NS

0.93

Demographic variables: Parental SES Index Years of education completed Age (years)

Acculturation: English dominant U.S.-born parent (2.5 generation) Constant

0.48

2.95 2

0.0 a

b

c

2

N = 509; R = .15 , .18 , .25 , χ (1)= 103.5

-0.07

0.0

3.35 2

a

b

c

2

N= 320; R = .16 , .19 , .26 , χ (1)= 68.2

Source: Children of Immigrants Longitudinal Study (CILS), Wave III Survey, San Diego Sample, 2001–03. Note: Reference categories of independent dummy variables are in parentheses. a b c Psuedo R-squares: = (Hosmer & Lemeshow); = (Cox & Snell); = (Nagelkerke). Significance: ***p<0.001, **p<0.01, *p<0.05, NS = not significant.

112

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants

What we do not know is why this is the case. Only qualitative techniques can help us understand this relationship between gender and mixed relationships. In chapter 7 I will turn to the in-depth interviews to answer this question. I will specifically show how cohabitation and acculturation are significant predictors for males but do not predict mixed relationships for females. Predictors of the Likelihood of Being in an Interethnic or Interracial Relationship The last logistic regression models (see table 5.7) refer back to the conceptual and methodological issues of whether interethnic and interracial relationships are indeed separate types of mixed relationships. Employing cross tabulations, I previously showed that there were significant differences in terms of magnitude, direction, and patterns between these two types of relationships (refer to table 5.3). The question then becomes whether these differences will hold up once we control for other variables. Thus the model on the left uses the same predictor variables to explain their effects on interethnic relationships, while the model on the right uses these same variables to explain the effect on interracial relationships. The first thing to point out is that the determinants do a slightly better job of predicting interethnic relationships than interracial relationships—based on the log-likelihood statistic, as well as the pseudo r-squares. The second thing to note is that there are significant differences in which determinants have an effect on the dependent variable. Thus, based on these results there appear to be two different types of mixed relationships. The only two predictors that are equally significant for both interethnic and interracial relationships are gender and language acculturation. These two variables, therefore, are very important factors that need to be explained using the qualitative data in the next chapters. Aside from these two variables, cohabitation, children, the majority of the religion predictors, and a U.S.-born parent have a significant effect on interethnic relationships, whereas the “all other” panethnic category and the divorced and separated status were the only additional predictors to have a significant effect on interracial relationships but not interethnic relationships. It is surprising that cohabitation and children do not have a significant effect on interracial relationships as they do for interethnic relationships. Perhaps even more surprising,

Table 5.7 Determinants of Being in an Interethnic or Interracial Relationship: Logistic Regression of Children of Immigrants in Southern California, 2001–03 I. Interethnic Relationships Predictors

II. Interracial Relationships

B

SE

Wald

Sig.

Odds

B

SE

Wald

Sig.

Odds

0.53 0.32 -0.07 -0.01

0.16 0.28 0.05 0.08

10.3 1.3 1.8 0.0

** NS NS NS

1.69 1.38 0.93 0.99

0.58 0.45 0.01 0.11

0.18 0.31 0.06 0.09

10.7 2.2 0.0 1.5

** NS NS NS

1.79 1.57 1.01 1.11

Panethnic categories: All others Asian panethnicity (Hispanic panethnicity)

0.22 -0.13

0.30 0.34

0.6 0.1

NS NS

1.25 0.88

0.79 -0.59

0.31 0.38

6.6 2.4

* NS

2.20 0.56

Ethnicity: Asian & Latin other Vietnamese Filipino Cambodian- Lao- Hmong (Mexican)

1.24 0.66 0.25 0.11

0.43 0.44 0.34 0.44

8.4 2.2 0.6 0.1

** NS NS NS

3.46 1.93 1.29 1.11

0.23 0.31 0.45 0.07

0.40 0.48 0.36 0.50

0.3 0.4 1.6 0.0

NS NS NS NS

1.26 1.37 1.56 1.07

Marital status: Cohabiting Divorced, separated, other Engaged Single (Married)

0.94 0.70 0.48 0.07

0.29 0.43 0.31 0.21

10.6 2.6 2.5 0.1

** NS NS NS

2.55 2.01 1.62 1.08

0.57 1.37 0.56 0.36

0.30 0.44 0.32 0.23

3.6 9.7 3.1 2.4

NS ** NS NS

1.77 3.92 1.76 1.43

Children (1=yes)

-0.72

0.20

13.2

***

0.49

-0.35

0.21

2.8

NS

0.70

Religion: Catholic Other religion Buddhist Protestant (No religion)

-0.77 -0.80 -0.70 -0.02

0.24 0.33 0.34 0.47

10.1 5.9 4.2 0.0

** * * NS

0.46 0.45 0.50 0.98

-0.27 -0.08 -0.62 0.36

0.25 0.34 0.39 0.47

1.2 0.1 2.6 0.6

NS NS NS NS

0.76 0.93 0.54 1.43

0.50 0.76

0.18 0.26

7.7 8.7

** **

1.65 2.15

0.58 0.11

0.20 0.26

8.6 0.2

** NS

1.78 1.12

NS

2.25

NS

0.01

Demographic variables: Gender (1=female) Parental SES Index Years of education completed Age (years)

Acculturation: English dominant U.S.-born parent (2.5 generation) Constant

0.81

2.13 2

0.1 a

b

c

2

N = 828; R = .12 , .16 , .21 , χ (1)= 140.9

-4.37

3.6

2.32 2

a

b

c

2

N = 802; R = .12 , .14 , .19 , χ (1)= 119.0

Source: Children of Immigrants Longitudinal Study (CILS), Wave III Survey, San Diego Sample, 2001–03. Note: Reference categories for independent variables are in parentheses. a b c Pseudo R-squares: = (Hosmer & Lemeshow); = (Cox & Snell); = (Nagelkerke). Significance: ***p<0.001, **p<0.01, *p<0.05, NS = not significant.

114

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants

however, is that religion has an important effect on interethnic relationships but not on interracial relationships. This has important implications for the future of religion in the United States—reminiscent of the triple melting pot of Catholics, Jews, and Protestants of the early and mid-twentieth century (Herberg 1960; Kennedy 1944, 1952)—and could be a sign of its increased importance among immigrants and their children, especially given the diversity of religions affiliations of people migrating from Asia and Latin America. We need a better explanation for why gender and acculturation are important. What kind of influence do these factors have for the couples who are involved in these relationships? How would they analyze their mixed relationships? The next two chapters will provide empirical evidence found in the 134 in-depth interviews from a representative 10 percent subsample of the CILS survey sample to answer these questions. Table 5.7 is important because it helps us to see why certain variables are important for mixed relationships (interethnic and interracial relationships), as seen in tables 5.5 and 5.6. It should also be apparent that we are going to get a much different picture of mixed relationships if we do not include the interethnic relationship, which is what is typically done in studies of intermarriage. The results from the CILS sample clearly provide motivation for at least the inclusion of interethnic relationships into a broader category of “mixed relationship”—if not an outright call for more studies to investigate the differences between interethnic and interracial couples. This will become even more apparent as we allow the couples to speak for themselves vis-à-vis the in-depth interviews.

CHAPTER 6

Clarifying Race and Ethnicity in Mixed Relationships

As elaborated earlier, there are important differences between interracial and interethnic relationships. However, my analysis of the quantitative Children of Immigrants Longitudinal Study (CILS) surveys offered only one perspective on what these differences actually mean. The next extension of this analysis is to find out what these results mean to the respondents themselves. To accomplish this I will move from the CILS surveys to the CILS in-depth qualitative interviews with a representative subsample of 134 respondents in order to examine the question, does what they say correspond to the logistic regression results, or do the conflicting views of mixed relationships depend on the level of analysis used? Table 6.1 lists selected characteristics of interviewees quoted in chapters 6 and 7. 20 The “nicknames” were chosen by the interviewees themselves at the time of the interviews and are themselves revealing. In this chapter I will first address ethnicity and then race as they relate to forming—or consciously not forming—relationships with people from different racial and ethnic groups.

20

Rather than list the selected characteristics of all 134 interviewees, I have chosen to list the characteristics of the 41 interviewees that I quote or talk about in chapters 6 and 7 to give the reader a glimpse of the diversity of the ethnicities, relationship statuses, and ethnicities of their partners.

115

116

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants

Table 6.1 Selected Characteristics of the Interviewees Quoted in Chapters 6 and 7 # Nickname Gender Age

Ethnicity

1 Uanna Female 24 2 Lynn Female 23 3 Vanessa Female 25 4 Kay Female 24 5 Jessica Female 25 6 Julie Female 25 7 Mickey Female 25 8 Fred Male 25 9 James Male 24 10 Bobo Male 25 11 John Male 26 12 Mike Male 26 13 Phil Male 24 14 Elizabeth Female 23 15 Liz Female 25 16 Sandra Female 25 17 Michelle Female 23 18 Kag Female 24 19 Casey Female 23 20 Austin Male 25 21 Chanthra Female 24 22 Jenny Female 25 23 Susan Female 25 24 Nancy Female 26 25 Blue Female 24 26 Frieda Female 24 27 Maria Female 25 28 Isabelle Female 26 29 Mary Female 25 30 Linda Female 24 31 Ethan Male 25 32 Chris Male 25 33 Grace Female 26 34 Sanhya Female 25 35 Linh Female 23 36 Bre Female 26 37 Rob Male 26 38 Billy Male 25 39 Toto Male 24 40 Jimmy Male 24 41 Alex Male 25

Chinese Filipino Filipino Lao-Chinese Mexican Vietnamese Vietnamese Chinese Filipino Filipino Filipino Irish-Chinese Mexican Chilean Filipino Mexican Mexican-Filipino Vietnamese Vietnamese Vietnamese Cambodian Filipino Lao Mexican Mexican Mexican Mexican Mexican Mexican Vietnamese-Cambodian Chinese-Vietnamese Filipino Lao Asian Indian Chinese-Vietnamese Mexican Asian Indian Chinese Chinese Lao Mexican

Relationship Status1

Ethnicity of Partner2

Dating Chinese Dating Filipino Dating Colombian Dating Chinese Dating Mexican Dating Vietnamese Dating European American female Dating Vietnamese Dating Filipino Dating Filipino Dating Filipino Dating Indonesian Dating Mexican Cohabiting European American Cohabiting Lao Cohabiting Asian Indian Cohabiting Mexican Cohabiting European American Cohabiting Dominican Cohabiting Vietnamese Married Filipino Married Vietnamese Married Filipino-Chinese Married Mexican Married Mexican Married Mexican Married Mexican Married Mexican Married European American Married Lao Married Hmong Married Filipino Divorced Lao Not in a relationship -Not in a relationship -Not in a relationship -Not in a relationship -Not in a relationship -Not in a relationship -Not in a relationship -Not in a relationship --

Source: 134 in-depth interviews, CILS-III, San Diego Note: A hyphen indicates a respondent with two ethnic identities. 1

The relationship status will be divorced only if they are not currently in a relationship.

2

The gender will be noted if it is a same-sex couple.

ETHNIC BOUNDARIES IN MIXED RELATIONSHIPS

Clarifying Race and Ethnicity Among Mixed Relationships

117

When it comes to social boundaries such as race and ethnicity, the CILS interviewees clearly placed more importance on ethnicity than race—this extends not only to the use of the words themselves but also to the many nuanced ways the interviewees talked about issues that related to either ethnicity or race. Although the interviewees do not talk about ethnicity in the ways that social scientists do, they do commonly talk about “cultural clashes” when it comes to dating people from different racial and ethnic groups. The most common ways in which interviewees express cultural differences is through language and religious differences—both of which can be thought of as proxies for ethnic differences. Language Influences Language is one of the most important issues that comes up in interracial and interethnic relationships. This designation as one of the most important issues is based on how often language is brought up as an issue (quantity) and how serious an issue it is for them (quality). Furthermore, language influences different ethnic groups in different ways. In most cases, language differences are highlighted as issues that cause friction or conflict within the relationship—or at least within the interviewees’ extended families. In other cases, however, the inability of the second generation to speak their native tongue says a lot about the way that language influences ethnic identities. Mike, a secondgeneration mixed interviewee (Irish and Chinese), describes his relationship with a second-generation Indonesian female in the following manner: Q: Mike:

Q:

Mike:

How do you feel about dating or marrying someone from a different background? I really don’t see it that way because she also cannot speak any of the language. She’s completely like, the term is used, “whitewashed.” How would you feel about dating or marrying someone from a totally different race or ethnicity? I would have problems with it.

118

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants Q: Mike:

And what is the ethnicity of different people you have dated? I guess Caucasian. Almost everyone I’ve dated has been American. I mean I can’t really put a race on someone who wasn’t born in a different country, who can’t speak a different language. (Mike, age 26)

Mike not only sees his Indonesian girlfriend as “whitewashed” because she cannot speak her parents’ native language but he also appears to have the same view of himself. He has dated only Caucasians or Americans. Indeed, Mike considers Caucasians and Americans synonymous but says that he would have a hard time dating someone from a different race or ethnicity. He even goes as far as to say that he “can’t put a race on someone who wasn’t born in a different country, who can’t speak a different language,” which applies to both Mike and his girlfriend, since they were born in the United States and speak only English. Based on the analysis of their comments, mixed couples in Southern California do not talk about language in the same way. Some of them talk about language as an issue with their parents, others talk about language as a personal issue between them and their partner, and still others talk about passing on their ancestral language to their children. Of course, many of them talk about these issues in combination. Furthermore, language can be thought of as a matter of practicality or as a matter of symbolic identity: some interviewees talk about language as it affects their daily lives while other interviewees talk about language as a key aspect of their identity. I will briefly address each of the three areas in which language plays a role: parents, partners, and children. Each area paints its own picture of language as a social factor and discusses the relevance of language to the interviewees’ practicality and identity. Young adults perceive a hierarchy in their parents’ concerns about language. Language becomes an issue for the parents of those who are in relationships with people from different racial groups, from different ethnic groups, and even from the same ethnic group but from a different region within their country of origin. In general, I found that many of the parental expectations concerning language occurred among the Asian nationalities.

Clarifying Race and Ethnicity Among Mixed Relationships

119

This next quote, from Linda, a Cambodian and Vietnamese female married to a Lao man, reveals how language can become an issue even within racial categories. Q: Linda:

Q: Linda:

How about who you should marry? Did they [your parents] have ideas about that? And with regard to me, like who I’m supposed to marry, marriage never really popped up just because we never really talked about anything. But it never really popped up. And then finally when we were discussing like, marriage with him, I think I realized that they didn’t expect me to marry somebody that wasn’t either Vietnamese or Cambodian, and I think it was really hard for them because of the difference in the culture. Even though the cultures are similar, there’s lots of differences, and it was a big shock to them that we got married. And I think the fact that they can’t really talk to him, I mean my mom can talk to him a little bit more than my dad can, but it’s hard for them to get along with him just because they can’t communicate that good. We actually eloped. You eloped? Yeah. We told them after we were married. (Linda, age 24)

Linda’s parents would have been satisfied if their daughter’s partner were either Vietnamese or Cambodian because this would have allowed them to communicate with him. Instead Linda married a Lao male who also immigrated to the United States at a young age. While Linda’s husband speaks English, as do her parents, who have been in the United States for close to two decades, the key here is not just the ability to communicate in English but also in their native language. This interview also reveals the way in which language conflicts can arise even among Asians, who are so often stereotypically viewed as being all the same. The next quote hints at another trend that kept appearing in the interviews: the close connection between the parents’ wishes and the

120

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants

interviewees’ wishes. Uanna is a Chinese female dating a “not-sofluent” Chinese male: Q: Uanna:

Q: Uanna: Q: Uanna:

So Chinese is important to you—for the language. Important to my parents, I think. Not just for myself. I mean I wouldn’t date—I mean I would—I wouldn’t mind dating other races. And come marriage, then I would want to marry someone that is close to my background. Yeah. Just for my parents. Or for my relatives. It’s easier for them to communicate and understand. So why bother to date? Exactly. Why bother to screw around? Why bother? Because you know that’s not the one you’re looking for. (Uanna, age 24)

Uanna makes several important distinctions. First, when it comes to dating, she says that Chinese is important to her parents. Second, she makes a clear distinction between dating and marriage. While she does not mind dating someone who does not speak Chinese, she would rather marry someone who can speak at least some Chinese. Third, Uanna does not feel the same as her parents about the importance that language plays in her relationship. At the same time, she does want to marry someone who speaks Chinese for the sake of her parents and relatives and seems to contradict herself toward the end of the passage once she realizes how large a role her family will play in her choice of whom she marries. The final and most important difference is between thought and behavior. Uanna has never dated anyone who was not Chinese and is currently in her first serious relationship with an American-born Chinese who is “not so fluent” in Chinese. The second major way in which the interviewees talk about language concerns their partner, usually in practical ways. The following quote from Chanthra, a Cambodian female who is married to a Filipino male, shows how language affects individuals at a very personal level in their day-to-day relationships: Q:

How do you feel about marrying someone from a different background?

Clarifying Race and Ethnicity Among Mixed Relationships Chanthra: Q: Chanthra:

121

It’s not, I mean, it’s just that the language . . . To communicate? Yeah, like when he’s around his friends, sometimes he speaks Tagalog. And then I don’t understand. And just those kinds of things. (Chanthra, age 24)

Language usage has always presented a potential basis of conflict in relationships; that is the case even when partners speak the same language. Chanthra shows her concerns about marrying someone from a different background because she cannot understand her Filipino husband when he speaks Tagalog to his friends. Still, personal issues concerning language did not come up nearly as often as parental concerns or concerns for their children. Many of the people in Southern California who are most concerned with language retention for their children are Mexicans. Language in relation to one’s children did not come up among the majority of the Asian nationalities—probably because many of them do not retain their parents’ language in the first place. For example, analyses of the Chinese interviewees pointed to their limited ability to speak Chinese fluently, and thus their resistance to marry Chinese who had recently migrated to the United States. This trend was also seen among other Asian ethnic groups. Another factor to consider is the number of interviewees who actually had children. Mexicans have the highest percentage of respondents with children (42 percent), followed by Cambodians and Laotians (25 percent), Filipinos (20 percent), and Vietnamese (9 percent). Remarkably, not one of the 35 Chinese respondents had a child. Not only were Mexicans, Cambodians, and Laotians—the poorest group by far—more likely to have children, but they were also more likely to be single parents. Not coincidently, these groups also ranked the lowest in educational attainment and family socioeconomic status among all of the other ethnic groups (Rumbaut 2005). Thus, class is also an important factor when thinking about how language will influence these children. I will first address the question of why the Mexicans that were interviewed are more concerned with passing on their language to their children. While direct references were rare in the interviews, two factors explain why Spanish retention is a concern among the Mexicans: proximity and concentration. The following quotes from two

122

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants

Mexican women, Sandra (cohabiting with an Asian Indian man) and Bre (a single mother), illustrate this point. Q:

Sandra:

Q: Sandra: Q: Sandra: Q: Sandra: Q: Sandra:

Q:

Bre:

Because your partner is of a different ethnicity, how do you think your children would identify if you guys married? My way of thinking, I think they’re going to identify more with the Mexican side since it’s a bigger population here in San Diego and since you have the border so close. Versus his country [India] being so far and not having that many people around. So I think that’s going to be an influence for them. Having the, how do you say, just the distance to Mexico being so close. But you never know, you know? I don’t know if they’re going to identify more with the Indian side or the Mexican side. Can you speak Spanish fluently? Yes. So how will you plan on speaking Spanish with them? Yes. That’s something that I really want to do— for them to speak Spanish. How about your partner? What does he think? He also wants them—he speaks very little Spanish, but he also wants them to know Spanish. What about his language? Will he speak that language to them? He also wants them to speak his language. It’s Urdu. That’s what their language is. But more Spanish because it’s going to be more help for them here. (Sandra, age 25) Do you think you’re raising your children the same way you were raised? Are you raising them to speak Spanish right now? Or both? I wish I could raise them with both. But most of the time she’s [my daughter] with only Spanish speaking. Only when she’s with the kids, she speaks to them English. And with her father’s

Clarifying Race and Ethnicity Among Mixed Relationships

Q: Bre:

123

side, all of them speak English. So yeah. With my family, they speak English, except my mom and dad. My sisters and nephews, they all speak English. But sometimes when she’s around, the oldest people, because the kids are in school, they always [speak] Spanish. So yeah. So they’re actually kind of bilingual. Uh huh. (Bre, age 26)

The first quote shows a conflict between the native language of each partner and which language will ultimately be spoken by their children. Sandra met her partner, who is from India, while they worked at a restaurant together, and they have been cohabiting for five years. She hopes to get married before they have children but does not have any immediate plans. Ideally, there is a desire to have their children speak both Spanish and Urdu; realistically, with the “border so close” and “many people around,” they will probably learn Spanish before Urdu, what with “his country being so far.” Her partner also recognizes the usefulness of Spanish in the ways that it could help their children— probably in the area of finding employment in the future. The second Mexican female, Bre, says that she is raising her daughter to speak Spanish but that most of that influence appears to be coming from her immediate family and the ethnic community. Bre is a single mother living with her parents and gets help with child care from her mother and sister while she works. Both of these Mexican females talk about how language will benefit their children in practical matters such as getting a job or communicating with the predominantly Spanish- speaking community. Gender is a key component of language-related issues. Gender proved to be a large factor in parental influences on language, with immigrant mothers showing more concern than immigrant fathers for what language their children’s partners would speak. Gender also proved to be a large factor when it came to children and language: mothers showed much more concern than fathers for raising their children with the language of their immigrant parents and in some cases had most of the responsibility for raising their children—in Bre’s case, the sole responsibility as she is a single mother. The following quote from Jessica, a Mexican single parent, further explores this idea of raising children as single mothers.

124

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants Q:

Jessica:

How is it you raise your daughter? I take it she is learning Spanish. She is bilingual by now. And that’s about it. Culture—I haven’t really taught it to her because I wasn’t really into culture myself. I really don’t, maybe it’s because I never took the time, it’s why I don’t understand it all. (Jessica, age 25)

Jessica does not understand her culture and is not even “into her culture,” but she still managed to raise her seven-year-old daughter to be bilingual. This was possible through the support network of the Mexican community and her extended family. Remember that Bre is also a single mother who relies on her extended family to take care of her daughter. Since they speak only Spanish, her child is mostly around Spanish speakers to the point that Bre is a little worried about her daughter’s English. Bre’s case—and many others like it—highlight the importance of extended family as caretakers among immigrant families. This is true not only for Mexican families but also for Asian families. Jenny, a Filipino female married to a Vietnamese male, and Ethan, a ChineseVietnamese male married to a Hmong female, talk about the role of caretakers: Q: Jenny: Q:

Jenny: Q: Jenny:

So what language do you use at home? English. My husband talks to my kids in Vietnamese sometimes. Only when they’re bad. So he [speaks] sometimes in Vietnamese. And then their grandparents speak Vietnamese to them. Yeah. And their aunts, too? Well, their aunts speak, well it depends. I guess it depends on what the situation is. Sometimes they choose to speak in Vietnamese, sometimes they don’t. You know what I mean? And Emily, when she was born, was watched by his aunt. So she only speaks Vietnamese. So she learned Vietnamese from when she was small. I think he does it on purpose, to speak to her in Vietnamese so that she doesn’t forget it. And they all do, I

Clarifying Race and Ethnicity Among Mixed Relationships

125

think, they try to do that to her. Even his friends talk to her in Vietnamese. (Jenny, age 25) Q:

Ethan: Q: Ethan: Q: Ethan: Q: Ethan: Q: Ethan: Q: Ethan: Q:

Ethan:

How do you teach your kids about their ethnicity, their ancestry? And what language do you use at home? Three different languages. So you would teach them the three different languages? I’ll teach her English. Chinese? A little bit. And then Hmong. Hmong. Okay. And how do you teach your kids about their ethnicity? I guess by having her play with her cousin. Staying with her grandma and grandpa. You mean her Hmong cousin. Right. Cause I’m the eldest. Yeah. And you don’t, nobody else except your wife’s family. Staying with Grandma and Grandpa. Both sides. Your wife’s side and your mom and dad’s side. Right. (Ethan, age 25)

Notice that Jenny’s children do not speak Tagalog they speak her husband’s ancestral language (Vietnamese). This has more to do with her husband’s parents and aunts than her husband. Ethan states that he plans to pass on not only his ethnicity but also his wife’s ethnicity to his children through spending time with cousins and both of their parents. Another interviewee (not quoted above), Liz, a Filipino female cohabiting with a male of Lao descent, practices Tagalog with her mother and even took classes to keep up her language. When asked about passing on Tagalog to her future children, she said, “I will try to pass on as much as I can. I’ll probably have my mom help me out on that one. Since I speak some Tagalog, but not, you know [fluently].” Females play a central role in the maintenance of languages. It is no coincidence that most of the people mentioned among the extended family members are female. This is understandable since females are

126

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants

agents for cultural reproduction (i.e., cultural carriers) (Ebaugh and Chafetz 1999), as illustrated by the next quote by Chris, a Filipino male married to a Filipino female: Q: Chris: Q: Chris: Q: Chris: Q: Chris:

Q: Chris: Q: Chris: Q: Chris:

Does your mother still speak Tagalog to you? Either Tagalog or Ilocano [both Filipino languages]. Okay. Only mom or both mom and dad? My dad also does that. So mom and dad. Yeah. Still speak to you in . . . Sometimes in Ilocano or Tagalog and my dad sometimes in Pangasinan [also a Filipino language]. And you understand? I understand. Wow. Sometimes I get all mixed up and [laughs] . . . That’s wonderful. Will you pass these traditions to your own children? My wife will do that. (Chris, age 25)

Here the husband, Chris, puts all the burden of passing the language to their children on his wife. To them, language is an important part of their culture; Chris hinted at this when he talked about his children and the tie between language and learning about her ethnicity. Language is an important way to identify with a particular culture for many interviewees, such as Kag, a Vietnamese female cohabiting with a mixed German and Irish male. Q: Kag:

How do you think your children will identify? Definitely the Vietnamese will be. I’m not going to be like my aunts where, “Oh, they’ll speak English,” and then go home, “Speak in English!” Now they’re like ten, thirteen. “Answer me in Vietnamese.” And they can’t! I have no shame where I came from and neither should my children. And they should not only learn how to speak it but also read it. Read and write. The

Clarifying Race and Ethnicity Among Mixed Relationships

Q: Kag:

127

other thing is my mom can’t speak English that well, so it’s going to be a requirement. Yeah. So they’re going to be required to do that. I want them to learn all cultures. The food, my mom’s food from the village. Do you still cook that food? I do. Yeah.

Kag offers important insight into how second-generation parents want their children to identify. For her, identifying as Vietnamese is closely associated with the ability to speak, read, and write Vietnamese. She apparently is going to rely heavily upon her mother’s help in teaching her children the language, again emphasizing the gendered way in which language is thought about and passed on in immigrant families. Kag’s comments also tie into the importance of parental influences on language. She wants her children to be able to speak with her mother, since her mother does not speak English well. Although separated here to illustrate key issues, parent-related issues, partner-related issues, and child-related issues cannot be thought of as separate dimensions within language. In reality, they are interconnected issues that often become so entangled as to make it impossible to think of them separately. Religious Influences While language differences came up much more frequently, religious differences—although not as frequent—were much more important when they did come up. Language and religion are both important aspects of ethnicity for the respondents that were interviewed, as expressed in this next passage from Maria, a Mexican female married to a Mexican male: Q: Maria:

Q: Maria:

How do you teach you son about his background, his ethnicity and language? Um . . . well, I only talk to him in Spanish. I don’t teach him that much about ethnic, or I just think about the Catholic and some of that stuff. But not that much. So, do you only speak Spanish at home? Spanish and English. My husband speaks English to him.

128

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants Q: Maria:

And um . . . you do go to church. And is that because of your son. Or would you go anyway? I love going to church every Sunday. (Maria, age 25)

For Maria, Spanish and Catholicism go hand in hand. This is a common expression among the Mexican interviewees. Even for those who are not particularly religious, culture and ethnicity are often directly linked to religious traditions and practices. Interviewees often report that religious preference is more important than a particular racial or ethnic background. Among the CILS respondents, religion played out in a similar way to language as far as its influence on respondents’ attitudes toward relationships— along the dimensions of their parents’ expectations, their own preferences, and how they wanted to raise their children. Nancy and Phil—both Mexicans, she married to and he dating a Mexican— express this preference in regard to their parents’ expectations and their own expectations: Q:

Nancy:

Q: Phil:

Did you think your parents expected you to marry a certain type of person? Was it important to them that the person be of your ethnic, racial, or religious background? No, I don’t think they really cared. Just about religious. It wouldn’t have mattered to them, I don’t think, if the person was not Mexican. They only wanted me to marry someone of the same religion. (Nancy, age 26) How do you feel about dating or marrying someone from a different background? Um . . . well, I know I wouldn’t date anyone outside of my religion. But race, I don’t know. I mean I really don’t have a preference. (Phil, age 24)

In both of these cases—whether it is the parents’ preference or the interviewees’ preference—religion is more important than racial or ethnic background. Both Nancy and Phil attend church on a weekly

Clarifying Race and Ethnicity Among Mixed Relationships

129

basis and are in a relationship with someone who goes to church with them. Even when both of the partners have a similar racial or ethnic background, they may experience religious conflicts. For example, one male Vietnamese described his five-year relationship with his Vietnamese girlfriend in the following manner: “Well, I guess the thing that I like most about it is that she’s Vietnamese also and so that she can communicate with my parents. That is one of the most important things. And the thing that I hate about it is I guess our religious difference.” His family is Catholic and her family is Buddhist, and despite living together for four years, he is hoping his girlfriend will convert to Catholicism before they marry. He also wants to raise his children Catholic. Religious preference alone is not enough for some of the interviewees. A number of them are not looking just for someone who identifies with a religion as a cultural tradition but for someone who believes in the religion, follows its teachings, and devotes his or her life to it. The importance of this aspect of religious belief is illustrated in the following excerpt from an interview with Toto, a Chinese male who is looking for a devoted Christian: Q: Toto: Q: Toto:

So what kind of things would you look for in a relationship? Oh, well she has to be a Christian. Not just claiming to be a Christian. But really devoted. Practicing. Yeah. Because it wouldn’t be fair to her because it’s something very important to me. And if we get married, like, I’m going to spend all that time doing something that she feels indifferent about. That would be bad. It’s more of a practical thing, too. It’s practical as well as religious. (Toto, age 24)

While he describes his devotion as a “practical thing,” he does not specify how that devotion will translate into certain beliefs or actions. Both of the following interviewees, Lynn (dating a Filipino man) and Austin (cohabiting with a Vietnamese female), specify the ways in which religion plays a role in their relationships with their significant other.

130

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants Lynn:

Q:

Lynn:

Q: Austin: Q: Austin:

Q: Austin:

Expectations, especially from my mom, was for me to marry a Filipino. You know. [Q: Why?] Because she just feels that you’re Filipino, so you should be with a Filipino. You know? And also, what she expected for me, which I didn’t do, was like, you’re not supposed to live with them until you get married. That was one of their things. But I mean, I don’t know. Sometimes I just don’t agree to that. Why do you think this is so important to them? You marrying your own kind? Or not moving in until you get married? Why do you think they feel so strongly about that? I guess also because of our religion, you know. Cause we’re Christian. So that’s really strong. They believe in God and stuff like that and that you should follow, you know, like commandments and stuff like that. But like with my mom, being with a Filipino person is important to her because she feels like they could understand you more than maybe another culture could. (Lynn, age 23) What will be the deciding factor? I mean, you’re definitely going to get married? Yeah. What’s going to be the, that moment that . . . We haven’t, you know, I mean we had him [my son] baptized already. So eventually, you know. And we told them all “yeah” because the priest asked us, “If your son’s going to be baptized, are you guys planning to get married?” I said, “Yes, definitely.” I mean that’s why she’s like in between like Catholic and Buddha. Yeah. So now she’s, we [pray] pretty much every night, I mean as a family. And we go to church. And she’s trying to get herself into a, one of the religion class so that she can be baptized as Catholic and on Easter because they usually, a

Clarifying Race and Ethnicity Among Mixed Relationships

131

class starts September and then every Sunday. And then in Easter, that’s when a newcomer and you know you’re baptized and become a Catholic. And that’s what she’s working on because before, when we get married, she wants to be, you know, I want to get married in a church where I have family and stuff like that. (Austin, age 25) Lynn’s parents raised her with religious beliefs, but she did not closely follow them until later in life. Even though she did not always follow the religious beliefs of her parents, her mother has certain expectations about what a relationship should or should not entail based on religious beliefs. Austin has been living with his Vietnamese girlfriend and their son for a couple of years and wants his girlfriend to be baptized as a Catholic so they can get married in the church. The baptism of his son and his girlfriend appear to be an important part of his relationship with his immediate family. Even though religion may not play a large role in the lives of many of the interviewees, they talk about how it will play a large role for their children. Bobo, a Filipino male dating a Filipino female, and Mary, a Mexican female married to a European American male, discuss their children: Q: Bobo: Q: Bobo: Q: Bobo:

Mary:

How involved are you at present? Well, I attend religious services every Sunday with my family. Are there any church or religious groups or activities that you are involved with? No. Do you think religion will be important in your children’s lives? How so? Yes, I want my children to like believe in God too and just have, like, an understanding. Especially, like, my tradition is based on a lot of Catholic beliefs. (Bobo, age 25) I think my values and beliefs are still kind of the same, but I think I have more like a religion burn

132

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants

Q: Mary: Q: Mary:

Q: Mary: Q: Mary: Q: Mary: Q: Mary:

out. With everything, I felt like everything was pressured for me to do and I had to do it. And so now it’s the kind of, I’ve just taken a break from a lot of things. What role would you say religion or spirituality plays in your life now? How important is it? Right. I think it’s important. I don’t think I let it run my life. So, how involved are you at present? How often do you attend religious services? I think about every Sunday. That’s about it. Versus when I was younger, my mom would take me every morning. Really? Yeah. She still goes every day. Are there any church or religious groups or activities that you are involved with? No. Do you think religion will be important in your children’s lives? How so? I think so. How so? I think I want them to make their sacraments and to learn about their faith, but I don’t think I’ll go to the extent or extreme that my mom did. (Mary, age 25)

Bobo and Mary want their children to grow up with religion in their lives, both mentioning a specific religion. And even though Mary is “burned out,” she still thinks religion will be important to her children. In some cases, however, the religious preference is not as important as having at least some religious background or knowledge. Such was the case for Susan, a Lao female married to a FilipinoChinese man: Q: Susan:

Do you think when you have children that religion will be an important part of their lives? Yes it will. It’s going to teach them a sense of value, respect, harmony.

Clarifying Race and Ethnicity Among Mixed Relationships Q:

Susan:

133

You haven’t quite decided yet if you’re going to go one way or the other [Catholic of Buddhist]? Are you going to try both? I like it both ways. Maybe when I pass away I’ll have to negotiate something with God. “Come on God. I lived a good life. I know it was only 50 percent, but now I know you’re real, I believe!” (Susan, age 25)

Susan is herself caught between two religions but still wants to pass on some sort of religious belief to her children because it will teach them a sense of value, respect, and harmony. RACIAL BOUNDARIES IN MIXED RELATIONSHIPS Not only do immigrants bring with them notions of “race” from their homelands, but they also quickly adopt notions of “racism” in the United States. Many interviewees brought up made-in-the-USA stereotypes in the same breath as made-in-the-homeland stereotypes. Since children are socialized mainly by their parents, it seems reasonable to assume that the prejudices and stereotypes their parents have will influence their dating patterns. Race clearly underlies the interviewees’ views of mixed relationships. The issue is not whether race is important but rather in what form race is mentioned. Race is more important for some interviewees than for others; in addition, race comes up in some contexts during the interviews while not at all under different contexts. Moreover, race may be a significant factor even though it may not be mentioned by the respondents in the interview. However, it is clear from the number of times that race did come up—in a wide variety of forms—that race permeates the intimate relationships of the children of immigrants in Southern California. Race is most commonly expressed in relation to parental prejudices and pressures. What became apparent after analyzing 134 indepth interviews was that there is a hierarchy of prejudices, with African Americans clearly the most discriminated against. Parents of the interviewees prefer that their children marry someone from the same region of their homeland, or if that is not possible, someone from the same country. Next they prefer someone within the same racial group. If their children are going to marry out of their race, the

134

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants

preferential order is first white, then Asian or Hispanic, followed by blacks. It is clear from the interviews that blacks usually occupied the lowest rung on the social ladder. Comments such as the following by a Vietnamese female, Mickey, are typical: “Yeah. My mom specifically told me not to date black males because they’re criminally inclined.” Because these interviewees are all children of immigrants, it is important to remember that the parents are coming from homelands that are themselves riddled with stereotypes and prejudices. These old prejudices combine with newly learned prejudices in the United States. Toto, a Chinese man, describes his mother’s prejudices: Q: Toto:

Yeah. [your mom wants you to marry] . . . somebody who can communicate in Chinese. Cause she wants to be, you know, part of my family when she grows old. She wants to be able to talk to my wife. And I guess reputation too. Like, she doesn’t want people to say I married some black, black girl. Or American I guess, people will talk about it in Taiwan. That’s why. I don’t know. (Toto, age 24)

While Toto mentions language above, it is more of a smokescreen for the real reason: reputation. Not only do these immigrant parents deal with prejudices in two different lands, but it also appears that some of these prejudices—namely against blacks—transcend international borders. The implication is that it is bad enough to marry a black person in the United States, but what will people back in Taiwan think when they hear about it? This implies that there would be a negative impact for these immigrant parents if their son or daughter were to marry an American, although Toto’s mom does no specify what American means: does “American” refer to European Americans alone or would Chinese Americans also fit this category? It also appears that some immigrants come to the United States with prejudices already formed; in this case, blacks apparently also occupy a low social status in Taiwan. Interviewees said blacks occupied a lower social status in their parents’ homeland often enough to suggest that blacks are relegated to the bottom of the social ladder in many parts of the world. While many of the interviewees’ parents came with stereotypes already developed from their country of origin, many of these

Clarifying Race and Ethnicity Among Mixed Relationships

135

stereotypes change once they live in the United States. The following interview highlights how attitudes are not constant but are continually changing based on the groups that the immigrants and their children come in contact with. Q:

Jimmy: Q: Jimmy: Q: Jimmy: Q: Jimmy:

You said that they [your parents] were very liberal as long as you don’t go out with a black girl. Yeah. They think like black is like lazy and stuff like that. Now they know better. Now they do know better? Yeah. It’s like any girl could be lazy. Like my ex-girlfriend. Uh huh. And she was Filipino. Yeah. Okay [laughs]. So right now they say it’s okay if you do marry a black girl. Yeah. They really don’t care as long as I’m happy. (Jimmy, age 24)

In this instance, it is a personal experience with another group that dispels the initial stereotype. They realized that anybody can be lazy and that it is more important to find someone who is not lazy rather than assume that only blacks fit this category. These stereotypes of and prejudices against blacks can turn into discrimination—acting based on prejudice. Besides just saying things against blacks, parents can also threaten their children if they do get into such a relationship, as with Casey, a Vietnamese female cohabiting with a black man: I think we’re very close. We’re serious. We’re very exclusive. He’s the kind of person I can imagine myself marrying and settling down with. Like, I don’t see the color everybody else sees. Like when we walk around the streets, everybody sees it and you can tell on their face when they look at you all weird. But I don’t care about that. It’s just that I tried to bring that up. That was a big mistake. I brought it up with my parents and family just to see how they were. I knew they weren’t going to agree with it, but it was really, really bad when I brought it up. I stopped at “black.” Like, I didn’t even get to go anywhere. I

136

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants didn’t get to describe anything, just “black.” And it was horrible at that time. So um, it’s like being with a black person is taboo for Asian people. So um, I just base it you have to leave him or if you don’t leave him then you’re out of the family pretty much. I say, “Fine, I’ll leave him.” But I didn’t leave him. I’m still with him. I told them that in the end it’s my happiness. You know I’m going to be living with the person, whoever it is, him or anybody else. I’m going to be married to him. If I have kids, I’ll have kids with him. It’s not like he’s going to be married to the family. Cause if anything happens, like if he were to beat me or anything, he’d be beating me not my family. And if they were to have the choice to choose who I would marry or who I would go with, they don’t know how he is. You know they don’t know how anybody is if they present to them, like, a good face, you know. I feel like Vietnamese people, they’re always trying to present good faces in front of other people’s parents to get accepted, and I think that’s fraud, you know. And if I let them choose a guy for me, you know like deep down he’d have, like, an ugly face. I don’t want to get beaten. I don’t want to be left. I don’t want to be cheated on. I’d rather have my own choice and do it you know. And it’s unfortunate that he’s black, but I feel I know him enough that I can trust that much. I’ve explained that, but they don’t want to listen to me. Just the fact that he is black is bad already. So I just decided to let it go cause it was hurting the whole family already too . . . So I figured, you know, just to quiet everything down and to make everything look better and fine I’ll just say I broke up with him. And then that was it, I just said, “Okay, fine, I’ll break up with him.” . . . I hope to God there’s no surprise visits cause I don’t know how I’m going to handle that. That’s why I feel that it’s safer for me to move away too because I don’t want that to happen. Cause I feel like I’m living in such a dangerous situation right now. I need to be away. I don’t want to shock them, and it’s better for me to be very far away. (Casey, age 23)

Casey has accepted “the color that everybody else sees” in her boyfriend and all of the strange looks she got from others, but a problem came up when she told her parents about her relationship with a black man. Her live-in boyfriend is from the Dominican Republic

Clarifying Race and Ethnicity Among Mixed Relationships

137

(and thus Hispanic), but that does not seem to matter to her parents. Casey feels that he has three strikes against him: he’s black, Baptist, and served in the military. Casey must feel a lot of pressure from her parents to tell them that she has broken off the relationship while fearing the day her parents might stop in for a surprise visit only to find that she is still living with her boyfriend. All of this points to the real consequences that parental prejudices can have on their children’s lives. While not brought up nearly as frequently as prejudices against blacks, prejudices against whites also came up. For example, Alex reported how his mother expressed a prejudice against whites: She [my mother] was like, she was like, “That girl’s too white for you. Look what happened to your aunt. She married that white guy. Look what happened to her! She can’t go out no more!” Or I remember I had a cousin who dated a white girl, and she was treating him wrong. (Alex, age 25) Alex’s mother seems to imply that his aunt cannot go out because her husband’s skin tone is different. In addition, the fact that a white girl treated his cousin wrong is attributed to the fact that she was white. Thus, the same thing would happen to him if he married a girl who was “too white.” Despite this view, it is clear from the interviews that white is almost always preferred to black. At times the interviewees’ parents express stereotypes about an ethnic group within the same racial category. We know that different countries think of race in different ways, and in many countries— especially Asian countries—different ethnic groups are often thought of as different racial groups. The following quote from Jenny, a Filipino female, illustrates this point: The first time I talked to him [my boyfriend], I talked to my parents about him, and they asked me what he was, and I was like, “Oh, he’s Vietnamese.” And he’s [my father] all, “I heard they smell.” I was like, “What?!” I was so pissed. I was so mad. And they had so many stereotypes for Vietnamese. . . . It was just because he was Vietnamese. And there’s no other reason. It was just strange. And it was just like, “Are you crazy?” That’s all I kept saying. Like, “What? You’re joking, right?” You know, you think that your parents are supposed to teach you, like, not to judge a book by its cover, but they

138

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants totally do the opposite. So at least you learn that in school. And then you go home and your parents are teaching you the other way. So I don’t know. I thought that was strange. (Jenny, age 25)

Whether her parents see this stereotype as racial or ethnic is not as significant as their expression of such a prejudice against a group seen as different from their own group. Other times, however, the interviewees’ parents may not be expressing racial prejudices against a separate ethnic group but against a perceived difference in groups within their own ethnic group (intraethnic). This next passage from Grace, a Lao female divorced from a Lao man, points to another dimension of intra-ethnic differences that seem to be important: regional differences. Q: Grace:

Q: Grace: Q:

Grace:

Q: Grace:

Did your mother or your father expect you to marry or date a certain type of person? Yeah, they always expected me to marry a Lao, but they always told me about the northerners in Laos and the difference between north and the south. At that time, I didn’t care. I’m like, “What do you mean?” So they wanted you to marry northern. No, south . . . south Laos, that’s where I am from —the south. Okay, and the northern is the communist Laos. [Grace: Yeah] So you can only marry somebody who is from south Laos? No. I mean they didn’t care. They just preferred me to marry someone from the south because the guys in the south, they tend to not, um, take advantage of their wife. They tend to listen to their wife more. Is your husband from the south? The north. . . . I didn’t listen. . . . Yeah, before I got married she asked me if he was from the north, and I said, “Yeah,” and she got mad at me. She tried to stop me, but I still went for it. She just told me, “Well maybe he’s not the typical north guy. Maybe he might be different because

Clarifying Race and Ethnicity Among Mixed Relationships

139

he was in the service and he should know better.” (Grace, age 26) These regional differences cross international boundaries and are still important to these parents in the United States. In the above case, Grace’s mother is later able to reason that Grace’s ex-husband was not a “typical north guy.” Moreover, these regional differences are not found in Laos alone. This next passage is about regional differences in Vietnam and actually comes from Casey’s parents, the same parents who threatened to disown her if she continues to see her black, Dominican, Baptist boyfriend. Q: Casey:

What’s that ideal person for your parents? Vietnamese, preferably in Na/Mai Dong or Nam [southerner] because those are like the best two [laughter]. Hue and Muki [northerners] are just out of the question [laughter]. My older sister is with a Bac Hai [northerner] husband, and my oldest brother is with a Hue girl. He’s been with that girl for more than ten years, and there’s a reason why they’re not getting married [laughter]. Vietnamese in those two regions and preferable somebody who will be subservient to my parents. Like [spoke Vietnamese] just like the typical Vietnamese boy who is hardworking and cares about me and that’s about it. Who has parents. No Ma Goi [orphan] people. (Casey, age 23)

As it turns out, Casey is not the only sibling who is crossing racial and ethnic lines in the family. Even her eldest sister, with whom her “parents got along most . . . because they felt she understood what they want,” married a northerner. Her eldest brother has been with a girl for ten years but has yet to marry her because she is a northern girl and a Catholic. Notice how the eldest sister was able to marry but the eldest brother was not because his girlfriend is not only from a “bad” region but she also does not follow their religion. Furthermore, another of Casey’s sisters is secretly cohabiting with a Lao boyfriend. The interviewees said they heard these prejudices or stereotypes from their parents, and it would be foolish to think that some of these prejudices do not get passed on to the interviewees themselves. Such

140

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants

expressions of prejudice, however, were extremely rare. There are a number of possible reasons for this, including the fact that they live in such a diverse region. Conversely, it is probably safe to assume that in a “politically correct” world, some interviewees hold covert prejudices but were not willing to bring them up. Indeed, even when prejudices did come up, they seemed to come out by accident, almost as a “Freudian slip,” as in the case of Billy, a Chinese male: Q:

Billy:

Q: Billy: Q: Billy: Q: Billy: Q: Billy: Q: Billy: Q: Billy:

Ideally, what kind of person would you like to commit to or marry to? Like in terms of your ideal person, what kind of ethnicity, religion, social class, background? Religion is not that big a deal to me. And background is really not that—however, I guess what race they are doesn’t really matter that much either. I don’t really know how to say it. But just if it happens, it happens. You have no preferences? Not really. Not really. I really can’t think of any. So this person could be black, white, or blue. It doesn’t matter. No. Probably not black, though. I mean I’m not against them or anything but probably not. Why? But the chances are probably low. Because why? I don’t know. It’s just, I don’t know. I probably find them a little less attractive. Less attractive? I mean I don’t know how to say it. It’s just that way. I don’t know. You just don’t think you would be attracted to a black person? I wouldn’t say that. I don’t know. It could happen. But it’s still, I don’t know. (Billy, age 25)

The more the interviewer attempts to understand why Billy would not marry someone who is black, the more flustered he appears to become.

Clarifying Race and Ethnicity Among Mixed Relationships

141

This next interviewee also expresses reservations against marrying blacks and Arabs but does so more openly. Toto, a Chinese man, does not hide it but attributes his opposition to the way that others would feel about that relationship. This is a common reason given for opposition to mixed relationships (Rosenblatt, Karis, and Powell 1995). Q: Toto:

Q: Toto: Q:

Toto:

How do you feel about dating or marrying someone from a different background? I feel totally okay. Yeah. I feel that whatever God wants me to do is fine with me. I mean I think it would be more challenging if she were from, like, if she were black or like if she were from Arabian countries. That would be a little difficult because I’ve never been, I don’t know about their culture. But to be honest with you, for black people, socially it’s very hard for Chinese to be with a black person. Yeah, cause I mean like I know someone who married a black man, and she doesn’t even want to be in a public place with him, you know, Chinese—in a place where there’s a lot of Chinese. It’s a lot of social pressure. And the same with people from Middle East or India. Uh huh. I see. Developing countries, I say. That’s what I was actually going to question. So when you said Middle East, Arabs, and you didn’t think exclusively Islamic countries. Just people, you know, any developing countries. (Toto, age 24)

Toto expresses reservations about dating blacks, Arabs, and anyone from a developing country, citing the difficulties that could arise by staying in the Chinese community. Just as with his parents, his stereotypes are not limited only to blacks but also extend to other racial and ethnic groups. One Vietnamese female, Julie, stated that she does not want to date or marry someone from a different racial or ethnic background “because I don’t think that there are a lot of Vietnamese inside this world. So I would like to produce some more.” She has never dated anyone other than Vietnamese men.

142

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants

Such instances of prejudices expressed by the interviewees themselves are rather rare. No doubt there are some interviewees who would not date certain types of people, probably as a result of their socialization; most interviewees, however, are open-minded and do not seem to object to relationships with people from other races or ethnicities as much as their parents do. Indeed, many of the interviewees have dated people from various racial and ethnic backgrounds, reflecting the unique nature of the population in Southern California. Such opportunities in the local marriage market undoubtedly have an effect on dating across racial and ethnic lines (Kalmijn 1998). Other than the excerpts above, discussions of race were relatively rare in the interviews. Again, this does not mean that race is not an important issue: rather, it clouds our view of other, possibly more important factors, such as language and religion. While race is important, ethnicity is clearly a much more important factor than race. As noted above in the discussion of the Lao interviewee whose parents stated that Vietnamese “smelled,” there are many instances of the interviewees’ parents expressing prejudices against and stereotypes of other ethnic groups within their own racial groups as well as stereotypes against subgroups within their own ethnic groups. CONCLUSION Just as Milton Gordon’s book Assimilation in American Life (1964) was concerned with “problems of prejudice and discrimination arising out of differences in race, religion, and national background among the various groups which make up the American people” (3), this book is also concerned with the social boundaries of race, ethnicity, region of country of origin, language, and religion that can hinder groups of people from forming intimate relationships. It is clear from the number of times that race came up in the indepth interviews that race permeates the intimate relationships of the children of immigrants in Southern California; the most common way that race was mentioned was in the form of parental prejudices, with blacks clearly at the bottom of the hierarchy with respect to desirable mates. While race was an important factor, ethnicity was clearly a more important factor. The most common ways in which the interviewees expressed cultural differences was in the form of language and religion—both of which can be thought of as proxies for ethnic

Clarifying Race and Ethnicity Among Mixed Relationships

143

differences. While language differences—in the form of parent-related issues, partner-related issues, and child-related issues—came up much more frequently, religious differences were much more important when they did come up. In many instances, interviewees reported that religious preference was more important than a particular racial or ethnic background. In sum, race and ethnicity are both important social boundaries for understanding mixed relationships. These terms denote different types of mixed relationships—interracial versus interethnic relationships— and different types of experiences. I allowed the respondents to describe their own experiences with mixed relationships, and it became clear that ethnicity was a much more important factor than race in understanding their mixed relationships.

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER 7

Gender and Informality in Mixed Relationships

The findings from the Children of Immigrants Longitudinal Study (CILS) survey reveal that females and cohabiting respondents are more likely to be in mixed relationships. For those cohabiting, it has been posited that young adults are more likely to experiment with less formal arrangements such as dating and cohabitation as opposed to the more formal arrangement of marriage; that is, preferences for mixed relationships become more restrictive the more intimate (and formal) a relationship becomes (Fujino 1997; Joyner and Kao 2005). These are empirical questions that have not been sufficiently answered. These two puzzles—higher likelihood of mixed relationships for females and higher likelihood of mixed relationships for cohabiters—will be addressed using the in-depth interviews. Even more revealing was what we found once we separated males and females and predicted their likelihood of being in a mixed relationship (see chapter 5). For females, the factors of ethnic group, children, religion, and language acculturation are important predictors of being in a mixed relationship. For males, only cohabitation and acculturation are important in predicting mixed relationships. Table 7.1 presents the gender dynamics for those in mixed relationships versus those in coethnic relationships. I selected a sample from the CILS survey (N = 1480), included only those people who were cohabiting or married (N = 355), and tabulated sex (female or male) by marital status (cohabiting or married) and by type of relationship (mixed or coethnic). We see that 70 percent of cohabiting females are in mixed relationships compared to only 60 percent of cohabiting males. Furthermore, these percentages drop to 43 percent of married females in mixed 145

146

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants

relationships compared to only 30 percent of married males. Three key points from this table stand out: (a) overall, females are more likely to be in mixed relationships than males (49 percent to 39 percent); (b) both females and males who are married are much less likely to be in mixed relationships than those who are cohabiting (these first two points were further confirmed once I controlled for other variables using a logistic regression; see table 5.5 in chapter 5); and (c) married females are more likely to be in mixed relationships than married males (43 percent to 30 percent). Again, this last point was further confirmed once I separated males and females and predicted their likelihood of being in a mixed relationship using logistic regressions (see table 5.6 in chapter 5). In other words, controlling for all other factors in the regression model, cohabiting males are more likely to be in mixed relationships. For females, however, once I controlled for all other factors, whether they are married or cohabiting is not associated with being in a mixed relationship. Table 7.1 Mixed Relationships for Cohabiting and Married Males and Females

Type of Relationship Mixed Coethnic Couples (%) Couples (%)

Sex

Marital Status

Females

Cohabiting

70

Married

Males

Total %

(N)

30

100

(53)

43

57

100

(181)

Total

49

51

100

(234)

Cohabiting

60

40

100

(35)

Married

30

70

100

(86)

Total

39

61

100

(121)

Source: Children of Immigrants Longitudinal Study (CILS), Wave III Survey, San Diego Sample, 2001–2003. Note: This is a selected sample of married and cohabiting respondents only (N = 355) .

Gender and Informality in Mixed Relationships

147

This leaves us with two key questions that will be addressed in this chapter: (a) Why are females more likely to be in mixed relationships? and (b) Why is cohabitation a factor associated with mixed relationships for males but not for females? These key findings are important because they reveal that mixed relationships are highly gendered and tend to be more informal. Only qualitative data can help us understand the relationship between gender, informality, and mixed relationships. PERCEPTIONS OF PATRIARCHY There are many cases of female interviewees reporting that they have purposely rejected their parents’ culture and sought a partner from a different racial or ethnic background. Most of these respondents claimed they did so because they wanted an equal relationship and felt like someone from their own ethnic background would be too controlling. (I am not saying that the male counterparts of these adult daughters of immigrants in Southern California are “controlling”; I am only stating that this is the perception of a number of the female interviewees.) There was not one case of a male interviewee rejecting his parents’ culture for reasons of perceived inequality, and thus this phenomenon appears to be purely a female one. Furthermore, I assert that this is one of the key reasons why mixed relationships are so highly gendered. Here is how a Filipino female interviewee, Vanessa, describes this perception of patriarchy: Filipino women are supposed to be more like shy and quiet and timid. You know, step back, and are supposed to let the man a little bit more ahead. The role of being helpless, kind of, and I’m totally not that. I’m, I’ve been independent in more ways than one. I pay my way through school. I joined the military, and that was a big change for my parents. But my dad was actually for it. It was my mother had a hard time with that. (Vanessa, age 25) Vanessa has had three serious relationships but none with a Filipino. She says that she “just doesn’t find them attractive” and would date males of any background except Filipino. In a similar case, a Vietnamese female interviewee has had four serious relationships with white males. When asked about the characteristics that she likes about

148

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants

white males, she responds, “They want to do better and not just, they don’t want to control me. That’s another thing. That’s a big one! There’s no control issue. It’s not, ‘Oh, I’m in charge. You’re in charge.’ It’s an equal, equal everything. But I think that’s a big one.” She does not like Asian males because she feels that they are too controlling. Both of the above comments are fairly typical among the female interviewees that describe their parents’ culture as being male chauvinistic. These female perceptions of patriarchy come from a number of factors: (a) from what their fathers told them; (b) from observing their fathers’ behavior; and (c) from negative dating experiences with males from their own ethnic groups. The first factor correlates with the experience of Blue, a Mexican female married to a Mexican man, who had this perception of patriarchy because her own father told her about his culture. Q:

Blue:

How about the race or ethnicity, was he [your father] concerned that you should marry someone from Mexico, or did he care? He didn’t really, well yeah, actually he did care. He always said, “Never marry a Mexican cause Mexican are too machismo. Never, never marry a Mexican.” No, but I guess it’s because he came from that culture and he thought of the way they were. (Blue, age 24)

It is clear that Blue did not heed her father’s advice not to marry a Mexican man. In fact, she dated two Mexican men—a previous Mexican American boyfriend and her eventual husband. Blue had known her previous boyfriend since kindergarten. They started dating after high school, and she describes him as having “the same customs and everything,” but she called off the relationship after he became “too jealous, too obsessive,” apparently confirming what her father had been concerned about as far as "machismo." But Blue’s expectation that Mexicans are too macho was challenged through her relationship with her husband, a recent immigrant who came from the same village in Mexico as her parents. She notes that her husband is different from the Mexican Americans, like her former boyfriend, in the United States. “He’s really nice to me. He tries to help me out as much as he can. He’s very different from the males here, like the Chicanos and all that. He

Gender and Informality in Mixed Relationships

149

has different customs. He thinks very differently. He wants the best for me.” Although Blue’s father represents a rare instance of instilling a perception of patriarchy directly in one’s child, the second factor that contributes to this perception was more common and was formed through respondents’ observation of their fathers, whom they describe as controlling and abusive. One Mexican female said she does not like the male her sister is going to marry because “he’s from Mexico. And he’s like, he has his traditions from Mexico. So it’s going to be, you know, I must say that might be the same way as my dad.” Susan, a Lao female, expresses a similar sentiment: I always knew I wasn’t going to marry someone from my culture even when I was young. That’s being hypocritical to think someone from my culture might be bad, but I think what I saw with my father. Sometimes to deal with Laotians you have to deal with the whole community. They’re always talking. Even if I marry somebody else, everybody’s going to be talking. I just want to stay away from that. I knew when I was probably in my adolescence that I would marry somebody from outside of my culture. I just had that feeling. (Susan, age 25) Susan also associates her culture with the abusive nature of her father: “There would be fights. I would see them fighting. My mom crying and my dad would hit her. At first I didn’t know that was wrong. I just looked, and then I cried when my mom did. But I didn’t know what to do, so I just closed my eyes.” This probably initially drove Susan into a mixed relationship with a Filipino-Chinese man, but that relationship also turned out to be abusive, and she had to call the police on her boyfriend. Nevertheless, Susan is currently married to another FilipinoChinese. Thus, it appears that ethnicity alone did not play the biggest role in her perception of inequality. Third, just as Susan experienced an abusive relationship with her first boyfriend, many of the female interviewees develop a perception of patriarchy precisely because of their negative dating experiences with males from their own ethnic background, as is the case with Isabelle, a Mexican female married to a Mexican man.

150

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants

Q: Isabelle:

Q: Isabelle:

How would you describe your relationship? We have a good relationship. He’s really helpful towards me, and um, he’s not the typical Mexican husband. That it’s like, “Oh, you have to cook and clean and do like all the domestic stuff along with work and everything.” What do you like most about your relationship? Probably just that he’s different. I mean he’s really helpful to me. I mean I’ve always dated boys who were more macho and more controlling, and he’s not like that. (Isabelle, age 26)

This is an interesting case because even though the boys Isabelle dated were “more macho and controlling,” it did not led her to date and marry someone outside of her ethnic group. Clearly her perception of patriarchy came from her previous dating experiences and not her father because she mentioned that he is a lot like her spouse. More often than not, however, this perception of patriarchy led female interviewees to date outside of their ethnic group. Sometimes negative experiences can lead interviewees not only to date outside of their ethnic group but also to date outside of their racial group. Ariel, a Filipino female, has been married to a white male of Irish heritage for four years. She was 18 when she started dating only white males. She had previously dated Cambodian males and was raped by a Lao male and had her first child as a result. She consciously decided to date not only outside her ethnic group but also her racial group. “Like now, I can’t even picture myself with an Asian guy, you know . . . I tried to stick to Asian. I really tried, but I found that, uh, the best respect I got was from my white boys, you know?” Mickey, a Vietnamese female, was in a three-year relationship with a Vietnamese male when she was in high school. While she may have had expectations about how a coethnic relationship would be, her experience with this boyfriend drastically changed that. Q:

Mickey: Q:

Do you think the different ethnicities tend to create more problems in your relationship? Or do they tend to contribute to more harmony? Harmony. How so?

Gender and Informality in Mixed Relationships Mickey:

151

Because we see our differences and realize that we do have differences and accept it. I think when I was with Nick—he was Vietnamese, we both were Vietnamese—and he had all these traditional Vietnamese expectations. He wanted me to iron his clothes and cook and clean for him—be subservient. And I thought that was really bullshit. And like being with my girlfriend, who’s American, she understands that we do have our differences. Our life is different and there’s a mutual communication. We compromise and it creates harmony. It’s a very fair and mutual relationship but being with someone of the same ethnicity, they have their own terms that they expect you to agree and follow their terms. (Mickey, age 25)

Mickey’s story shows how gender expectations can affect a relationship. She resented her boyfriend’s “traditional Vietnamese expectations,” and this led her to seek opportunities not only with someone outside her ethnic group but also with someone not male. Her second relationship was with an American female, and her current relationship is with a female she describes as a “German European mutt.” Mickey’s experience is like many other females in this study who were repelled by traditional expectations that males from their homelands had about the role of females in a relationship. Many other females from this study did as Mickey and soon found themselves in mixed relationships. As Mickey’s story highlights, the most common reason among the CILS interviewees for this perception of patriarchy came about because of negative experiences while dating someone from their own ethnic group, as was also the case for Liz, a Filipino female cohabiting with a Lao man. Q: Liz: Q: Liz:

Okay. How do you feel about dating someone from a different background? I have absolutely no problem with that. If anything, I prefer not to date a Filipino. Why? I had a negative experience when I was sixteen. And that experience was with the mother. I

152

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants quickly learned that a lot of Filipino parents, when a male and female date each other, oftentimes the mother of the male wants to know the background of the female to see if her background makes her worthy of dating her son. Does that make sense? And if my parents’ jobs don’t fit the expectations of the parents, then the mother will not even respect me or look me eye to eye like I’m worthy of dating her son. And that was the experience I had at sixteen. And I dated this guy for only three months, but I felt like I was dating the mother because she was always asking me about my family: where I came from, what my parents do for a living. “Oh, what part are you from in the Philippines?” And depending on my answers, she would either, “ooh,” “oh,” you know, have some kind of expression whether of acceptance or rejection. And I didn’t like that part of the culture. Knowing that people were in constant comparison. So by me dating somebody outside of my race, whether they make a comparison or not, for one thing, it’s probably in a language I don’t understand. . . . And secondly, just being of two different cultures, you learn a lot more is my, is my experience. I learn a lot more when I’m dating somebody that’s not Filipino cause I can teach them everything about being Filipino. And they can teach me about their culture. I just think it makes for an interesting twist in a relationship. (Liz, age 25)

Liz provides a very clear example of how her previous dating experience with a Filipino made her not want to date another Filipino. Liz’s perception of patriarchy does not have to do with a controlling partner but a controlling mother-in-law, which is attributed to a patriarchal Filipino culture in which wives and mothers-in-law often experience conflict. However, Liz also states she can learn about other cultures through a mixed relationship and that makes the relationship more interesting.

Gender and Informality in Mixed Relationships

153

This second reason falls more closely in line with experimentation, often cited by social scientists as a key reason why young adults are more likely to enter into mixed relationships. Studies show that as young adults become older, they are less likely to enter into mixed relationships. Very few interviewees mentioned experimentation— wanting to see what it would be like to be with someone from a different group or wanting to learn about someone else’s culture—as a reason for why they dated, cohabited, or married across racial and ethnic lines. There are interviewees who mentioned both of these reasons, but there were probably less than half a dozen cases. Thus, the perception of patriarchy is the strongest factor in explaining why females are more likely to enter into mixed relationships than males. GENDER DIFFERENCES Although interviewees who were cohabiting were more likely to be in mixed relationships, once we analyzed females and males separately, it turned out that cohabitation was no longer a predictor of females being in mixed relationships. Why would cohabitation be a factor for males but not females? As the interviews show, CILS female interviewees reported much more parental pressure than the male interviewees to (a) complete their education before they date seriously and (b) live at home until they get married. Part of this pressure comes from the ways that males and females are treated differently, especially by immigrant parents and grandparents. This is illustrated by Linh, a ChineseVietnamese female who is currently not in a relationship. Q: Linh: Q: Linh: Q: Linh:

Would you like to be in a steady relationship right now? No. Why not? Because I live at home. Why would that be an obstacle? Boys are still bad. I’m twenty-three years old, and boys are still bad. My mom still gets on my case if I get a phone call from a guy. She’s wondering who it is. So sometimes, not as much any more, sometimes tries and listen in and think that I don’t know she’s on the other line. . . . My grandpa welcomes my brother’s friends,

154

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants whoever they are, but when it comes to my friends, he’s not very welcoming, and it’s not a situation that I want my friends to walk into. I don’t want them to be in my house and be uncomfortable, so I don’t invite people over a lot. And I think if I were to get into a relationship, I don’t think that’s fair. (Linh, age 23)

Apparently there is a double standard in the ways that immigrants in Southern California treat their male and female adult children who range from ages 23 to 27. This is probably even more relevant since 53 percent of them still lived at home at the time of the third CILS survey, and thus their parents still have an influence on their personal relationships. One of the reasons that this double standard appears in the interviews has something to do with education, although it is not clear why more pressure is put on females than males to get an education. Jenny is a Filipino female married to a Vietnamese man: Q:

Jenny:

What did your parents want for you, in terms of education, work, who to marry, your future career? They’re old-fashioned, you know. “Don’t date when you’re in college.” And we’re like, “Are you crazy?” [laughs] Of course they wanted me to finish school. My brother didn’t do any of that, so they were kind of relying on me to finish everything. And I don’t know. Their main focus was for me to go to school. They didn’t want me to work when I was sixteen because they wanted me to concentrate on school. I got good grades since forever, so that didn’t affect me very much. Dating was a big issue. In sixth grade when you’re like, when you have that boyfriend, you’re holding hands. In sixth grade, nothing happens, nothing. My dad, they called the school and told my teacher that I couldn’t sit next to this guy because he saw me holding hands. I don’t know. He was very overprotective when it comes to boys, and that’s it. You know what I mean? I

Gender and Informality in Mixed Relationships

155

can’t imagine what would make him think that. That was only, like I remember that. That was like the biggest focus for him. But school was important. My grades were always, you know, higher. I never had problems at school, and my brother did. So it would be like, “Hide your report card. I can’t show mine.” But it was okay. I mean, I think I did okay when it comes to school, I mean. (Jenny, age 25) Jenny’s father made a big issue out of her holding hands when she was in sixth grade and even had an issue with her dating in college. Maybe there was even more pressure put on her because her brother did not do well in school or finish school, and thus she was their last hope for one of their children to get a good education. This is not an unrealistic expectation; many immigrants migrate to the United States precisely to give their children opportunities for a better education than they would be able to get in their native countries (Portes and Rumbaut 2001, 2006). What is interesting is how all of these expectations got piled on the daughter because the son failed. The expectations of Jenny’s father for her not to date had real consequences: he called the school and made sure she did not sit next to her boyfriend. This was, however, in the sixth grade. What are other real consequences resulting from this double standard of protecting females? While this next example may be extreme, it is telling that the parents’ treatment of their daughter compared to their son could go this far, as described by the boyfriend, Fred: Q: Fred:

You’ve known her [your girlfriend] a long time? Yeah, nine-and-a-half years almost. No, in March of ’94, so it’s been over nine years since I’ve been with her. And uh, she’s Vietnamese— so she’s Vietnamese and she’s Christian, so it’s kind of like she has this whole thing. She listens to her parents quite a lot, so she can’t get married or anything like that until she’s graduated from school. And she’s not allowed to have a boyfriend until she’s graduated from college, established a career.

156

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants Q:

Fred: Q: Fred: Q: Fred: Q: Fred:

Oh, so she has rules at home that she has to follow. And you’re going along with them because you— I mean, we’ve been together for so long, but you know, her parents . . . They don’t accept you? She hasn’t told her parents about me, which is kind of weird. Because she’s not supposed to have a boyfriend? Is she the only daughter? She is one of two daughters. Do they treat the girls different than the boys? Yes. The eldest son has a girlfriend and the parents know about it, but he is allowed. So there is a double standard. (Fred, age 25)

Fred describes how his girlfriend’s brother is allowed to have a girlfriend, but his girlfriend is not supposed to have a boyfriend until she graduates from college. Thus for over nine years they have been hiding their relationship. He sometimes even goes to her family functions but is always introduced as “This is my friend.” Fred further states that all of her sisters and brothers know; it is just her parents who are clueless. It is quite remarkable that this has been going on for over nine years, but it shows how strong these double standards can be and how strongly they can affect the female interviewees. Many of the female interviewees are expected to live at home until they get married even though this is not a common expectation for the male interviewees. Kay is a Lao-Chinese female dating a Chinese man: Q: Kay:

And now do you want to move out from your parents? I would like to move out, but my parents find that disrespectful, like I don’t love them. I have to get married before I move out. (Kay, age 24)

Kay says that she will not move out until she is married, and she still lives at home with her parents even though she has been dating her boyfriend for five years. They are very serious and expect to get married. In another instance, a Mexican female interviewee, Sandra, moved out of her parents’ house to cohabit with her Asian-Indian

Gender and Informality in Mixed Relationships

157

boyfriend and met disapproval: “At first my parents were not very happy cause we didn’t have any plans to get married. And we just felt that we just wanted to live together and see where the relationship went.” While few interviewees are married and it is typically the Mexican interviewees who are married, several Mexican females lived with their parents until they married (such as Isabelle, Frieda, and Maria below). This is relatively rare since the majority of married interviewees lived together before they decided to marry. Isabelle:

We thought about living together, but my parents would never accept me having a roommate, or just live like that. We thought it was easier. So we got married. (Isabelle, age 24)

Q:

When did you first move out of your parent’s home? And why? I was 25 and it was because I got married in 2002. (Frieda, age 26)

Frieda:

Q: Maria: Q: Maria:

How did you decide to get married? You’d known each other a long time. And then I got pregnant and then we decided to get married. Were you living together at all before you got married? No. Well, we got married and then we just moved to live together. (Maria, age 25)

These females started living with their partners only after they got married, respecting the wishes of their parents. In the last example, Maria got pregnant, and rather than living together after pregnancy—a very common reason for cohabitation among CILS interviewees—they got married and then moved in together. As the interviews show, there is much more pressure on the female interviewees to live at home, complete their education before they date seriously, and marry before they cohabit. No male interviewees said their parents forbade them to date before they finished school or disapproved of their cohabiting before marriage. In fact, no male interviewee, as a result of parental pressure, shunned cohabitation

158

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants

before marriage or married before cohabitation even though there were numerous cases of female interviewees doing so. This partially explains why cohabitation was not associated with mixed relationships for the females, but it does not explain why males are more likely to cross racial and ethnic lines in cohabitation even though they are much less likely to cross these same lines when it comes to marriage. In order to make this clear, we must first examine the reasons why both male and female interviewees entered and exited mixed relationships. CULTURAL CLASHES Males and females frequently mention “cultural clashes” when talking about having a relationship with someone from a different racial or ethnic group. This is not surprising given that the norm for crossing racial and ethnic lines is homophily, or as the adage says, “birds of a feather flock together.” Furthermore, as the previous chapter mentioned, ethnic differences are much more salient among these interviewees than racial differences. Many of the examples of “cultural clashes” will be directly in line with the discussion on language and religion in the previous chapter. The number of times the interviewees mentioned “cultural differences” in the interviews equaled—if not surpassed—the number of times they specifically mentioned language or religion. This claim is based on both the number of times this phrase “cultural differences” was brought up as well as the perceived weight of cultural differences. Although we can define culture in a number of ways, I chose not to restrict culture to a set definition but rather to allow the interviewees to define it in their own terms. Table 7.2 lists the numerous ways in which the interviewees talk about differences in their relationships. Many of the interviewees use terms such as culture, culture clashing, cultural thing, cultural difference, traditional, Americanized, customs, ethnic background, and ethnicity to describe the differences they experience in their mixed relationships—or even in their coethnic relationships if they still experience “cultural differences.” The following example of a Filipino man, nicknamed Bobo, who was dating a Filipino female at the time of the interview, illustrates this point: Q:

How do you feel about dating or marrying someone from a different background?

Gender and Informality in Mixed Relationships Bobo:

159

Sometimes I think it would be difficult because of cultural clashes, I guess. Especially like maybe the in-laws or something like that. I wouldn’t see a problem with like my wife or whatever. It’s just kind of a generalized thing. (Bobo, age 25)

Even though Bobo is currently in a coethnic relationship, he talks about how it would be to marry someone from a different racial or ethnic background. He uses the phrase “cultural clashes” to describe anticipated problems not with his future wife but with his future wife’s extended family. Table 7.2 Different Types of "Cultural" Differences family structure household how they were raised family aspects how strict parents are common background different background traditional expectations Americanized traditions and customs raising children interactions with others religious values history food (dishes) language educated

different perspectives ways we think thinks differently communication things in common common ground understanding characteristics habits what they do for fun living style music beliefs pride superstition machismo passion

Source: 134 in-depth interviews, CILS-III, San Diego

Talk of cultural differences frequently came up after questions that asked specifically for information about what it is like to date someone

160

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants

from a different racial or ethnic group (e.g., “How do you feel about dating someone from a different background?” or “Do you think the different ethnicities tend to create more problems in your relationship?”). John, a Filipino male dating a Filipino female, talks about cultural differences when around extended family members: Q: John:

How do you feel about dating or marrying someone from a different background? I think it would be, you know, you can’t choose who you love, who you marry. But I’ve thought about it, and I can say it would be a lot more difficult marrying someone that wasn’t in my culture and having to work things out. Like, “Okay, this is what we do at a party. This is the kind of food that’s going to be there. This is what’s in this dish. Uh, this is how you interact with these elders. This is what you say.” Rather than if I was with somebody that was already in my culture, you know, none of that would happen. (John, age 26)

John’s insightful comment points out the role of love in whether these interviewees get involved in mixed relationships. John believes that in the end you cannot choose whom you will love and marry. Even so, he can imagine how a mixed relationship could complicate the relationship because he would have to explain his culture. Quite opposite from John—who has little experience dating outside his ethnicity—and also quite opposite from Bobo—who is in a coethnic relationship—Eva, a Chilean female, has been cohabiting with her “Euromutt” boyfriend for 18 months. Q: Eva:

How do you feel about interracial dating? You know, on some level it’s cool to be with somebody who has similar backgrounds to you because they will understand a lot of your traditions and customs. My boyfriend understands, well he doesn’t personally understand why I have to visit home so much, why I have to talk to my parents so much. I can’t say for sure because I’m not in that situation, but

Gender and Informality in Mixed Relationships

161

I would think if he was from the same background that he would understand why. But as far as right or wrong or that sort of thing, I don’t think it really matters. (Eva, age 23) Eva expresses some dissatisfaction with her boyfriend, but justifies—or amends—her expectations by saying that while her boyfriend cannot “personally understand” that he does understand. This type of justification or rationalization is common among the interviewees: their partner does not meet certain expectations, but the interviewees state that their partner either is an exception and can relate to them, or merely state that it is no longer as important as they once thought. What I did not find—except in rare instances—were interviewees who said that cultural differences in their relationships were great opportunities for them to learn about another culture. They were realistic about the difficulty of dealing with cultural differences and changed their expectations about what it is like to be in a mixed relationship. In many other instances, however, their experiences with other racial and ethnic groups did not change their expectations but actually led them back to relationships with people from their own ethnic group. James, a Filipino male, had many opportunities to date people from various racial and ethnic backgrounds. Q: James: Q: James: Q: James:

Q: James:

Q:

Okay. Now you say you dated before from different ethnic background and stuff. Yes. Such as what? Caucasian? Or? Caucasian. Japanese. And there was mestizos. I’ve dated mestizos. Half/half. Half/half. Half African-American, half Filipino. Half German, half Filipino. And I’ve gone out several times with girls who were Korean. And what is the difference? Between all of them, I’d have to say, well I’m most comfortable dating girls who have Filipino background because there’s no culture clash. So with these people here, there’s kind of like a difference?

162

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants James:

Q: James:

Yeah. You have to sort of explain certain things to them, especially when they visit your parents or your family. Or they want to know more about your culture, and they don’t necessarily understand why you do things in a certain way. It’s much better if you’re dating somebody that knows about your culture, your [everything]. Yeah. That’s why it’s much easier. (James, age 24)

Experiences with dating people from various racial and ethnic groups changed James’s expectations for the type of females he would like to be with, specifically citing that there would be no “culture clash” with females who have a Filipino background. These new expectations likely led not only to his moving to the Philippines to go to school (although money also appeared to be a factor) but also led to his current two-year relationship with a Filipino female who was raised in the United States and is attending the same medical school. He describes this relationship as “ideal,” and they plan to marry after they finish medical school. “We come from the same background, similar background. She has the same ethics and morals that I do.” They are both Catholic, and that is an important part of why he feels that they are so compatible. Another important factor in his expectations to be with a Filipino female is that his parents taught him the importance of Filipino culture. They taught him about his ethnic background through food, talk over the dinner table, and weekends and holidays with relatives. The point of bringing up all of these cultural differences is to show that the interviewees think of cultural differences as a variety of thoughts and actions in addition to language and religious differences. All of the cultural differences discussed above lead to the key reason why acculturation was the largest factor in predicting mixed relationships for the CILS respondents (see table 5.5). This is important because it helps us understand why adults are less likely to get into mixed relationships as they get older (Fujino 1997; Joyner and Kao 2005; Landale, Oropesa, and Bradatan 2006). While these cultural differences do not directly answer one of this chapter’s key questions— why female and male cohabiters are more likely to be in a mixed relationship—they will prove to be a crucial piece in the puzzle of gender and informality.

Gender and Informality in Mixed Relationships

163

IMAGINING THE FUTURE The main factors in mixed relationships that I have addressed thus far are religion, language, perceptions of patriarchy, gender differences, and cultural clashes. All of these factors influence whether the interviewees choose coethnic or mixed relationships. The in-depth interviews provide support for the concept of “imagining the future.” This is the same idea that Joyner and Kao (2005) term anticipatory mate selection: “As individuals get older, they may be decreasingly likely to form an interracial relationship because of greater anticipation that their relationships will eventuate in marriage” (565). I prefer the term imagining the future as a powerful explanation for why involvement in mixed relationships declines with increasing age among young adult children of immigrants. Phrases such as “in the long run,” “down the road,” and “in terms of marriage” all signal anticipation that their relationships will eventuate in marriage. Furthermore, imagining the future also ties in with the idea of homophily, or a kind of anticipated homophily. This idea was expressed by Alex, a male interviewee who was raised by a Mexican mother and Caucasian father: Q: Alex: Q: Alex: Q: Alex: Q: Alex:

Would that really make a big difference to you? To go out with somebody that’s not Mexican? No, no. It wouldn’t make, no, no. No. It won’t matter. No, it won’t matter. I’m sorry. But then . . . I’m thinking for long term. You’ll be more comfortable to marry a Mexican. Yeah. (Alex, age 25)

Alex exemplifies other interviewees who say that they do not have an issue with dating someone outside of their ethnic group, but when it comes to long-term relationships, they would prefer to date someone from their own ethnic background. There were a number of interviewees that dated individuals from different racial and ethnic groups but ended up in a coethnic relationship as a result of this idea of imagining their future. These young adults talk about language, religion, and other cultural differences as the major factors that they take into account when they imagine what their future life will be like when they get married.

164

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants

Most of the interviewees have had some dating experience, regardless of whether they are currently in a relationship. Thus, even those not in relationships form ideas about the type of person they want to marry and settle down with. This future involves not only themselves but also extended family members. I will illustrate the concept of imagining the future through five vignettes. These vignettes not only illustrate this concept but also bring together all of the other issues involving mixed couples that have been introduced up to this point. Sanhya is a single Asian Indian female who migrated to the United States with her family when she was 12 years old. She lived on her own for a while but soon moved back in with her parents to finish her college degree. Her father has always feared that she will lose her Indian culture and has thus prevented her from dating in her teenage years. Sanhya has been to India three times and speaks Gujarati with her parents. Her father also expects her to marry an Indian Hindu from their same caste (a royal caste) and has even tried to set her up on some dates. Sanhya has not only rejected these dates but has already had two serious relationships with people who did not meet her father’s expectations even though she is currently not seeing anyone. Sanhya had her first serious relationship when she was 19, but she said it does not count because she was young and immature. At 21 she had her second serious relationship, this time with an Asian Indian who was Christian. She said the religious difference and the fact that it was a long-distance relationship did not work. She is dating people now but wants to finish her education first; she is talking with an Indian male who is Christian, but he lives out of state. She is obviously thinking about her future with him as evidenced by the following quote: “The people I’m talking to, like would, I would have a future plan with.” She prefers to find someone who is educated (“education is the number one thing”), Hindu, and someone who grew up in the United States but also “knows both cultures at the same time.” When asked how she feels about dating someone from a different background, she responds: Sanhya:

Q:

I have no problem with it. I mean as long as I click and am at their level, and this is what I’m looking for. And we get along good and everything, that’s fine. But in terms of marriage?

Gender and Informality in Mixed Relationships Sanhya:

Q: Sanhya:

165

Mm, it depends, you know. It’s kind of like, I’m like risking my life at the same time. I’m taking a big risk, you know. If you marry someone outside? Yeah, because, it’s because, you know, I don’t know their culture. We come from totally different, I’m not saying it’s impossible, but I’m just like taking big, greater risks. You know? Like we come from totally different culture, and a whole lot of things, like religion, you know, is going to be an issue. And a lot of things. Like family issues. You know? Even though at the end you are marrying the individual, but at the same time, the family values and everything is going to be different. Like I was with more with somebody like Caucasian. I mean most of them, they don’t have no family values. Don’t get me wrong, not the majority are like that. But you know, this is my opinion. But like, you know the divorce rate and everything. And this society is like, cheating is okay, and they’re having affairs. It’s like, whoa. It’s all these things, make me want to block out. Like, you know, and that goes away my interest and attraction at the same time. And I’m not saying that somebody from my culture, Indian culture, is possible. But at the same time, you know, I know how the family values culture, religion, comes from. So I kind of know. Like, I’m not going to be like, completely going, like going in a blind thing, you know. And just taking a big old risk, you know? But it is possible in my culture, too. (Sanhya, age 25)

As illustrated by Sanhya’s vignette, her father’s expectations have had a large impact on her own expectations. She has had experiences dating people outside of her ethnicity and religion but has also experienced some difficulty in those relationships. While she is still open to relationships that may not meet her complete expectations (educated, Asian Indian, Hindu, same caste, and bicultural), she is also not about to jump into a relationship without realizing what implications it has

166

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants

for her future life as well as the future life she will have with her parents. It is also interesting to note how many different “lines” Sanhya talks about crossing: racial, ethnic, religious, class (education and caste), and generational. A similar sentiment toward a coethnic relationship was expressed by Rob, an Asian Indian male: Rob:

Q: Rob:

I think someone Indian is what I would want. But if it doesn’t happen, I’m not going to try to force it. And why would they [your parents] like you to marry someone Indian? I think for a lot of the same reasons that I’d like to marry someone Indian, which is a certain common values and a certain common background that just helps down the road when issues come up. You have an understanding, you know. The idea that—just a hypothetical situation—like if a family member gets sick, you know, it’s not like nursing homes are unheard of in India, you know. Like that. The fact that you know, the way you arrange priorities. Like again, I always put my family ahead of myself, and I would expect my spouse to do the same. You know, to be able to do things like that, I think. And just the culture. I’d still like to be able to go to like, these functions that I went to as I grew up. And there’s just so many things about the culture and the values and the background thing I’d like to try to preserve. (Rob, age 26)

Rob wants to preserve his culture and believes that the best way to do that is to marry someone Indian who has a common background, understands family matters, would attend cultural functions, and has similar values. Chris, a Filipino and Caucasian male, is similar to Sanhya and Rob in that he is currently not in a serious relationship. His ethnic identity is more complex, however, because he has a mixed heritage. For multiracial or multiethnic individuals, mixed relationships can take on different meanings. Chris was born in the United States to a mother

Gender and Informality in Mixed Relationships

167

born in the Philippines and a father born in the United States (Caucasian). Chris identifies himself as Filipino American, sometimes uses the term mestizo, but usually just says he is Caucasian unless someone asks him. Chris just graduated, got a full-time job, and purchased his own condo. Now all he needs to do, as he stated, is find a girlfriend and start a serious relationship. Chris is a self-described “late bloomer” and says that his first serious relationship was just last year; it was with a girl of mixed Filipino and Caucasian heritage. This relationship did not work out, but he does not seem to be completely over her. When asked what type of person he would like to marry, he responded, “Ideally it would be someone who’s mix like me, Filipino and white. I think I would, it would be nice if I met some girl who was Filipino just, or someone who had grown up here, but was Filipino.” Aside from this one serious relationship, Chris has dated a number of people from various racial and ethnic backgrounds. These experiences appear to have shaped his expectations for the type of person he sees himself marrying. “I almost dated an Indian girl, or I did, but it’s like, ‘Do I really want to marry this person? We’re so different culturally.’ That would be confusing for our kids, you know. What religion would they be? Would they be Catholic? Would they be Hindu? Would they be nothing? That would be the worst. So, I don’t think I want to do that, but I can’t say for sure.” Chris’s vignette offers a valuable look into some of the issues that people of mixed heritage grapple with, and with the recent increase in mixing among children of recent immigrants, this is a serious issue. He makes it clear that he would like to marry someone with the same mix as himself. Chris also places a lot of importance on “culture” and how that would affect his children in the future—not to mention their relationship. Notice that he is mainly referring to religion when talking about cultural differences. He is not particularly set on raising his children as Catholic, although he does go to church regularly. Instead, he wants them to be able to decide for themselves although he will start them out as Catholic. While Chris is looking for someone with a similar mix, other mixed heritage interviewees do not think of their relationship as a mixed relationship if their partner matches one of their ethnic identities. Michelle identifies as Mexican and Filipino and has been cohabiting with her Mexican boyfriend for the past four months. She describes how her current relationship compares to her past relationships:

168

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants

Michelle:

Q: Michelle:

This is a lot more serious than any of the other relationships I’ve ever had. Actually I was seeing somebody for three years. Um, we weren’t living together, but that was probably the closest thing to what I have with Jaime right now. It’s just completely different. I mean we’re so much closer, especially because we live together, and um, it’s nice because the guy that I was with for three years was white. And although he went to Hoover and he kind of experienced a lot of the same things that I experienced growing up, um, I still feel with Jaime that there are things that I could never really relate with the guy that I was with for three years. I couldn’t really relate on the comfort level that I relate with somebody of my ethnicity or a portion of it. Like what level? When he and I were together I got, I received a lot of respect from people that I don’t really receive right now because we’re both dark. Um, and I’m not saying that that’s here, but in certain times, like when we were in Santa Cruz, there were a couple of places where we were just treated differently. And when my ex-boyfriend had come up there, you know when I was going to school in Santa Cruz, you know, I was treated different. So I guess the amount of respect that I get now is completely different than, unless I’m around Mexican people or people of color. Then the respect is, I don’t know. It’s weird. . . . Now it’s not really an issue for me as far as other people, but as far as myself, you know, going from dating somebody that’s white to dating somebody of the same ethnicity or partial ethnicity, um, a difference. It’s a big difference. Before I never really thought about it. And now I do. I’m very sensitive to it. Um, you know, my parents were a different ethnicity, so interracial dating is fine, but as far as me, I think I’m at a point in my life where I think I need to be with

Gender and Informality in Mixed Relationships

169

somebody I can relate to on that level, you know, versus, maybe on an educational level or you know, another level. I feel like, you know, that there’s a part of me that seeks validation and the respect that I’m receiving as a person of color right now, and he does that for me. You know, I feel like I’m not going crazy. (Michelle, age 23) Michelle describes the difference in treatment she got when she was with her Caucasian boyfriend for three years compared to her current boyfriend. Michelle clearly sees their relationship as similar in terms of ethnicity and race—as people of color. For Michelle, relating on a racial level is more important than education or anything else. In her eyes, the racial line is the most important. While this is not the same for most of the interviewees—for different interviewees different lines are important—it is interesting that she mentions that “I’m at that point in my life where I think I need to be with somebody I can relate to on that level.” She is imaging her future and sees herself ultimately with a “person of color.” Again and again the interviewees described dating people from various racial and ethnic backgrounds early on, but many of them consciously decided that they wanted to get into a serious relationship with someone from their own ethnic group by their mid-twenties. One such Mexican female, when asked if she ever dated someone who was not of her same background, responded, “Uh, huh. At first I didn’t think there was anything, but I think getting more into the relationship as time’s gone on, I saw that there was a lot of different ideas and a lot of different values that we didn’t share.” A male interviewee gives some important details as to why this is the case. Austin is a 25-yearold Vietnamese male who is currently cohabiting with his future Vietnamese wife and seven-month-old son. When asked if he had only dated Vietnamese females, Austin replied: I date pretty much all kind[s]. But I think it’s down the road, when I, you know, when I become serious, I wanted to be with, you know, because I feel more comfortable because I can speak both language[s] with her. And if I happen to go over to a relative’s, and you know, I can speak. Sometimes they might see me as, you know, since I came here so young, I lost my

170

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants [Vietnamese]. Not knowing how to speak. But I surprise them. That’s one thing, you know. (Austin, age 25)

For Austin, the main boundary he is concerned about crossing is linguistic. This is also a good example of someone who, despite having dated females of different racial and ethnic backgrounds, ended up in a coethnic relationship. His insight into imagining the future comes through clearly with his choice of words—“down the road.” There is also the close connection between his language and family networks. He obviously feels more comfortable being able to speak Vietnamese, and it appears that having a partner who grew up in Vietnam helps him to maintain his language. For many male and female interviewees, there may have been periods of time where they did not pay much attention to the racial and ethnic backgrounds of their partners, but they came to a point in their lives when they started imagining what their future lives would be like and decided that they wanted to be with someone from their own ethnic background. Furthermore, this helps explain why young adults are less likely to enter mixed relationships as they transition to adulthood. Obviously this was not the case for all of the respondents—half of the respondents in relationships were in mixed relationships—but it was the case for many of the respondents in coethnic relationships. Even among those in mixed relationships, the importance of a similar racial and ethnic background was commonly acknowledged as being an issue in the relationship. This interview data help us understand how and why they are imagining a future with someone who shares a similar ethnic background. Imagining the future is a powerful explanation for why involvement in mixed relationships declines with increasing age among young adult children of immigrants. However, this still does not explain why males and females would differ. Gender is a key factor that comes out in the in-depth interviews as an explanation for why females get into mixed relationships. Both males and females described imagining a future with someone like themselves, but for some females this option was less desirable if they perceived that the males in their own group were patriarchal. This perception certainly does not apply to all males in their ethnic group, but it does affect their choices of whom they date, cohabit with, or marry. Even informality in the type of relationship—dating, cohabiting, and marriage—appears to affect males and females differently. We saw

Gender and Informality in Mixed Relationships

171

in chapter 5 that cohabitation helps predict whether males will be in mixed relationships, but cohabitation is not a predictor for females being in mixed relationships. In other words, cohabiting males are more likely to be in mixed relationships, whereas cohabiting females are not. Once I started analyzing the in-depth interviews, it became clear that males are freer to experiment with mixed relationships while females are more restricted because of gender roles and strict monitoring by their parents. For females, getting into mixed relationships is not so much about experimenting but about escaping patriarchy. Females are more likely to be consistent with the racial and ethnic lines they cross whereas males are more likely to experiment with crossing racial and ethnic lines in less formal relationships—dating and cohabiting—and males are also more likely to settle down with coethnics as they imagine their future married life, especially the role that extended family will play in that marriage. Another way of summarizing these findings is by adding to the adage I cited earlier: Birds of a feather flock together—except when the males want to rule the roost. In other words, both males and females imagine their future and that affects the types of relationships they will be in, but it is the females who, in the more egalitarian contexts of Southern California, are more likely to choose mixed relationships because of their aversion to perceived patriarchal relationships with coethnics. They want their say in the roost and are not about to be ruled. In this they are becoming quintessentially American. CONCLUSION Of the 843 CILS survey respondents that were in relationships at the last survey (2001–2003), half were in mixed relationships while the other half were in coethnic relationships. How do we explain this pattern? The survey questions can reveal only so much, but it is the indepth interviews that illuminate in the interviewees’ own words what is going on in these relationships. Clearly there are forces that bring mixed couples together and forces that bring coethnic couples together. We can think of these forces as centrifugal21 and centripetal22 forces (see figure 7.1).

21

The root word centri means “center” and fugal means “to flee,” so a centrifugal force is one that forces or pushes away from the center.

172

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants

Figure 7.1 Centripetal Forces That Bring Coethnic Couples Together and Centrifugal Forces That Bring Mixed Couples Together

mixed couples

Centrifugal forces * interest in other racial and ethnic groups * perceptions of patriarchy

coethnic couples Centripetal forces * parental prejudices and pressure * cultural clashes (language & religion) * imagining the future

mixed couples

Source: 134 in-depth interviews, CILS-III

In figure 7.1, the key centrifugal forces are (1) perceptions of patriarchy and (2) interest in other racial and ethnic groups. We are defining the outer circle as mixed relationships, a circle that represents a minority of couples in the United States (7.5 percent of all couples are mixed, according to the CPS [2003–2006]). While there were some interviewees who cited interest in other racial and ethnic groups as a reason for entering into mixed relationships, they were clearly in the minority. The key finding from this study is that females are more

22

The root word petal means “to go to, seek,” so a centripetal force is one that pushes or draws to the center.

Gender and Informality in Mixed Relationships

173

likely than males to enter into mixed relationships and that perceptions of patriarchy are a key reason why. On the other hand, the key centripetal forces are (1) imagining the future and (2) cultural clashes (see figure 7.1). We are defining the center circle as coethnic couples since homophily is the norm in the United States, with over 92 percent of all couples classified as coethnic couples (CPS, 2003–2006). Moreover, even though only half of the respondents who were in relationships were coethnic couples, we can expect that they will become less and less likely to be in mixed relationships as they approach their thirties (Joyner and Kao 2005). This is also true when we consider our finding of the interviewees imagining the future, which in most cases means that they were more likely to gravitate toward a coethnic relationship. Cultural clashes (including lingual and religious clashes) were key factors that contributed to their imagining a future with other coethnics. Finally, what are we to make of the processes of assimilation at the individual level through the in-depth interviews? It is much easier to gauge this question at the census level or even the survey level given all of the research that has been done at these levels. There is much less literature to rely on when addressing how assimilation processes affect respondents as individuals. Nonetheless, I came up with four observations about assimilation from the 134 in-depth CILS interviews. First, assimilation, defined as a “process of boundary reduction that can occur when members of two or more societies, ethnic groups, or smaller social groups meet” (Yinger 1994), is not applicable to all of the interviewees, especially subprocesses of assimilation such as “marital assimilation.” The traditional interpretation has been that groups will assimilate as substantial numbers marry into the dominant group. What does it mean if large numbers of the group are marrying members from the same ethnic group or members outside of their ethnic group but from the same racial group? In such cases, dissimilation, “the process whereby intrasocietal differences are maintained and created around subcultural groups” (Yinger 1994), seems more applicable to some of the CILS interviewees. Yinger (1994) suggests four principles that help us to use assimilation as an analytical tool across time and groups: (a) the study of assimilation is simultaneously the study of dissimilation; (b) assimilation refers to a variable and not an attribute; (c) assimilation is a multidimensional process; and (d) each process is reversible. This last principle is especially applicable to this study:

174

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants

Although there are powerful forces toward assimilation in many societies, groups can become more dissimilar under some conditions. Cultural lines of distinction that seemed to be fading are sometimes renewed; language differences can increase; and identities can shift back toward ancestral groups. (41) At the heart of assimilation lies intimate relationships. Whether individuals marry someone from their ethnic group or someone outside their ethnic group shows whether the CILS interviewees are reducing the boundaries between themselves and other groups in society. Part of the confusion lies at the level that we examine these issues. It is one thing to consider the ethnic group as a whole—which is often done with census data—and it is an entirely different thing to consider individuals within that ethnic group, which is the task I am attempting in using the in-depth interviews. What is clear from the CILS interviews is that not all of the interviewees are assimilating or dissimilating in the same ways. Some are assimilating through forming relationships with whites, others are dissimilating through forming relationships strictly with members of their own ethnic group, and the majority probably fall somewhere in the middle. The second observation addresses the following question: What, if anything, can be said from these interviews concerning the whole process of assimilation as a straight-line or segmented process? These findings support Qian, Blair, and Ruf (2001) and Qian and Lichter (2004) that ethnic groups fall into segmented paths of assimilation based on the types of groups they intermarry with. The hypothesis posits that Asian ethnic groups and Hispanic ethnic groups that marry outside of their ethnic groups but within their same pan-ethnic “Asian” and “Hispanic” group will assimilate more into a pan-ethnic category than the traditional white middle-class mainstream of society. While this is certainly a better description of how “assimilation” is lived by the interviewees, it is much more complex than even Qian and others three segments or paths of assimilation. The third observation has to do with the desirability of assimilation among the CILS interviewees. Rarely did I hear anyone say they decided to marry someone outside of their ethnic group as a way to assimilate—unless we view the conscious decision by many females to exchange perceived patriarchal relationships with more egalitarian

Gender and Informality in Mixed Relationships

175

relationships as a form of assimilation. Quite often interviewees expressed the desire to hang onto their parents’ language, teach it to their children, and maintain strong ties with their extended family. Thus, the question of “to what end are people assimilating” becomes applicable (Alba and Nee 2003). The final observation concerns the strength of the connection between “marital assimilation” and the other subprocesses of assimilation. Gordon (1964) outlined a strong connection between marital assimilation and the other six types of assimilation, citing it as the key step to fully assimilating into society. This connection has been relied upon repeatedly but rarely questioned (Williams and Ortega 1990; Yinger 1994). For the CILS interviewees, the fact that they decided to form intimate relationships with people outside of their racial and ethnic group does not appear to either hinder or better their chances of assimilating in other areas of their lives, such as socioeconomic and political incorporation.

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER 8

Summary and Conclusions

Throughout this study I have been broadly concerned with two key questions: (a) Who enters into mixed relationships and why? and (b) What is the role of mixed relationships in the overall processes of assimilation (often described as segmented or straight-line)? These two questions capture the lure of studying intermarriage. Social scientists have been studying mixed relationships for decades, with the majority of the studies conducted at a quantitative level using the census data. In addition, the studies that have been done at a qualitative level have centered on black-white relationships. Since the 1960s, however, the nature of mixed relationships has been changing with the mass waves of immigrants coming predominantly from Asia and Latin America. While the number of black-white relationships has remained fairly constant over the past 50 years—with only slight increases despite the social changes, such as the civil right movement, that have somewhat leveled the playing field for blacks in the United States—the number of mixed relationships involving immigrants and their children have increased dramatically. Despite these changes, we still know relatively little about who is entering into mixed relationships, and more importantly why they are entering (or not entering) into mixed relationships. Furthermore, we do not know what meaning these mixed relationships will have for the larger society in terms of immigrants assimilating into the American society. Previous scholars have posited that increases in mixed relationships will lead to faster assimilation and ultimately full incorporation into the mainstream society. Other scholars have speculated about what the implications of these increases in mixed relationships will mean for the future color line of our society, 177

178

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants

but they have at the same time relied on census estimates of the number of people crossing the color line through intimate relationships as a basis for their speculation. However, before we make claims about the future of intermarriage and its implications for society as far as a measure of the overall processes of immigrant assimilation, we first need to clarify what exactly we mean by mixed relationships and then learn more about who is entering into mixed. In this study I have expanded the definition of mixed relationships to include interracial and interethnic couples, which include those who are dating or cohabiting, as well as those who are married. I found that the differences in percentages of outmarriage between ethnic groups within racial categories can be as significant as the differences between racial groups. Moreover, there are significant differences between dating, cohabitation, and marriage. Each view of these mixed couples will vary depending on the level of analysis that we undertake; a quantitative view of mixed couples will differ drastically from a qualitative view. In this study I have employed three distinct levels of analysis from the quantitative to the qualitative level: (a) the merged 2003–2006 Current Population Survey (CPS), which surveyed 185,164 couples; (b) the Children of Immigrants Longitudinal Study (CILS), which is a survey (questionnaire) administered to a panel of eligible respondents over a 10-year period, specifically 1,480 respondents at T3 (2001–2003); and (c) in-depth interviews taken as a representative sample of the CILS survey participants in which 134 respondents were interviewed. Each level offered a different perspective on the two key questions of this study (as mentioned in the beginning of this chapter). In addition, the goal of this study was to integrate all three levels of analysis to illuminate the reasons why children of immigrants enter into mixed relationships and to help us understand the role of mixed couples in the processes of assimilation. I will briefly summarize my findings on these two questions. I will then conclude with some lessons for theory and methodology, and finally with some lessons for policy. WHO ENTERS INTO MIXED RELATIONSHIPS? Based on the CPS data at the national level, the number of interracial couples varies depending on how one treats racial categories in the CPS (anywhere from 4.5 million to over 8 million), and that roughly 20 percent of all interracial couples (married and cohabiting) live in California. Cohabiting couples are an important inclusion because they

Summary and Conclusions

179

make up around 7.5 percent of all people living with a partner (either married or cohabiting), but almost 25 percent of all mixed couples. A breakdown by gender reveals that black males and Asian females are much more likely than black females and Asian males to marry someone from a different racial group (we saw a similar pattern for mixed cohabiting unions). Aside from looking strictly at how respondents identified themselves racially, there are important differences in how they identified ethnically. Among the Hispanic ethnic groups, Puerto Ricans are least likely to be in coethnic relationships (60 percent) and Mexicans most likely (85 percent), with Cubans and Central/South Americans falling in the middle. When it comes to outmarriage, all of the Hispanic ethnic groups were most likely to outmarry with whites, followed by other Hispanic ethnic groups, and then a much smaller portion with blacks. Asian ethnic groups do not share similar patterns for mixed relationships. Among Asian ethnic groups, Asian Indians are most likely to be in coethnic relationships (90 percent) and also least likely to be in a relationship with a white (6 percent); Japanese are least likely to be in coethnic relationships (44 percent) and also most likely to be in a relationship with a white (40 percent). Based on the CILS at the regional level, I investigated the predictors of who enters an interracial or an interethnic relationship for a sample of respondents living in Southern California. The strongest predictors of being in a relationship (as opposed to not being in a relationship) are gender, age, and education, with older uneducated females being most likely to be in a relationship. Controlling for panethnic (i.e., Asian and Hispanic) and ethnic categories, gender, cohabitation, children, religion, and language are strong predictors of mixed relationships. Females are 1.5 times more likely than males to be in a mixed relationship. Cohabiters—and to a lesser degree those who are divorced or separated, and even those who are engaged—are more than twice as likely as married respondents to be in a mixed relationship. Among religious groups, Catholics are least likely to be in a mixed relationship, followed by those who identified themselves under “other religions,” and Buddhists. All of these groups are less likely to be in a mixed relationship, however, than those respondents without a religious preference. Surprisingly, the determinant with the strongest effect is the dominance of English. Those who use and speak predominantly English have odds two times higher of being in a mixed relationship than those who speak and use a foreign language. For

180

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants

females, the factors of ethnic group, children, religion, and language acculturation are important predictors of being in a mixed relationship. For males, however, only cohabitation and language acculturation are important in predicting mixed relationships. This is a key finding because it shows that mixed relationships are highly gendered. Finally, separate logistic regressions for interethnic and interracial relationships revealed different predictors for each of these types of relationships. The only two predictors that are equally significant for both interethnic and interracial relationships are gender and language. Aside from these two variables, cohabitation, children, the majority of religion predictors, and a U.S.-born parent have a significant effect on interethnic relationships, whereas the “all other” panethnic category and the divorced and separated status were the only additional predictors to have significant effects on interracial relationships, but not interethnic relationships. This provides empirical evidence to support the idea that interracial and interethnic relationships are two different types of intermarriage—of mixed unions. While the CILS survey gives us a better idea of who is entering mixed relationships, it cannot ascertain the important question of why they are entering into mixed relationships. The CILS in-depth interviews allowed us to address the key issues that adult children of immigrants deal with in negotiating mixed relationships. How do the couples themselves feel about the supposed racial and ethnic lines they cross? How do they categorize their relationships, and what other lines are important to them, such as class, generation, religion, and language? In the Southern California interviews, race was most commonly expressed in the form of parental prejudices, most often reflecting prejudices or stereotypes interviewees heard from their parents. Many of these immigrant parents expressed a hierarchy of prejudices, with African Americans clearly at the bottom of this hierarchy. Instances of prejudices expressed by the respondents themselves were rather rare; most of the interviewees were openminded and dated people from various racial and ethnic backgrounds. Race did, however, underline almost all of their discussions of mixed relationships. While race is important for these children of immigrants, ethnicity is clearly a much more important factor. Racism has a way of clouding our view of other possibly more important factors, such as religion and language (as well as other cultural differences). Indeed, the most common ways in which the interviewees expressed cultural differences

Summary and Conclusions

181

was in reference to language and religious differences in their discussions of mixed relationships. Regarding language as a cultural issue, mixed couples approached the differences from a variety of perspectives. Some of them talk about language as an issue with their parents, others talk about language as a personal issue between them and their partner, and still others talk about passing on their ancestral language to their children. Of course, many of them talk about these issues in combination. Finally, religious differences—although not as frequent—were much more important when they did come up. Among the CILS interviewees, religion played out in their parents’ expectations, their own personal preferences, and how they wanted to raise their children. Thus, the lived experience of being in an interethnic versus an interracial relationship is different. When addressing the question of who enters into mixed relationships, first, females are more likely than males to enter into mixed relationships, and second, females and males alike are less likely to become involved in mixed relationships as they become older or as they became serious about marriage (i.e., transitioned to adulthood). The answers to these puzzling questions turned out to be important findings of this study. The explanation for the first question centers on the fact that mixed relationships are highly gendered. There is much more pressure placed on the CILS female interviewees than on male respondents to live at home, complete their education before they get serious about dating, and get married before they live together. In addition—and possibly as a result of being closely monitored—there were many cases of female interviewees rejecting their parents’ culture and seeking a partner from a different racial or ethnic background. Many of these interviewees wanted an equal relationship and felt like someone from their own ethnic background would be too controlling and would not allow for equality in the relationship. This perception of patriarchy, which originated from what their fathers told them, from observing their fathers’ behavior, and from previous negative dating experiences with males from their own ethnic group, is a key explanation for why females are more likely to enter into mixed relationships than males. As for age, cultural differences become key to answering why males and females are less likely to become involved in mixed relationships the older they become. For many of the male and female interviewees, there may have been a period of time where they did not pay much attention to the racial and ethnic backgrounds of their

182

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants

partners, but when they came to a point in their lives when they started imagining what their future lives would be like when they got married, they decided to be with someone from their own ethnic background. Imagining the future was a powerful explanation for why involvement in mixed relationships declines with increasing age among young adults. Phrases such as “in the long run,” “down the road,” and “in terms of marriage” all signal this anticipation that their relationships will eventuate in marriage. What has hitherto been left unanswered is why this is the case. These young adults talked about parental prejudices, language, religion, and other cultural clashes as the major factors they took into account when they imagined the course of their future life after marriage. When it comes to informality, a higher percentage of females and cohabiters were in mixed relationships. On further examination, however, cohabitation was a predictor for males but not females, while religion was a predictor for females but not males. Moreover, acculturation—in the form of which language they used themselves— turned out to be a key factor for both males and females. Over time males and females were more likely to find themselves in a coethnic relationship as they imagined the future of marriage and the role that extended family would play in their marriage. They wanted to marry someone more like themselves, especially when it came to cultural factors in the form of language and religion. In other words, the old adage of homophily fits their reality: “Birds of a feather flock together.” My adaptation to this old adage summarizes what I conclude about who enters into mixed relationships and why: Birds of a feather flock together, except when the males want to rule the roost. While females also talked about imagining their future, there were many females who did not follow this pattern because of perceptions of patriarchy. Many of them avoided coethnic relationships because they wanted a partner who would think of them as an equal rather than as a subordinate in a patriarchal relationship. Males and females tended toward homophily, except when the females, in the more egalitarian normative contexts of Southern California, perceived that their coethnic male counterparts wanted to rule the household. They want their say in the roost and are not about to be ruled. In this too they are becoming, quintessentially, American. We would not have come to this conclusion had we not examined multiple levels of data; the integration of the different levels of analysis was key to understanding the complex

Summary and Conclusions

183

dynamics of gender, race, ethnicity, and informality within mixed relationships. MIXED UNIONS AND ASSIMILATION At the CPS level, an analysis of first, second, and third-plus generations of Asian and Hispanic males and females show a general pattern of increased outmarriage across generations. This initially appears to support Gordon’s “straight-line” assimilation approach. A more detailed analysis of first, second, and third-plus generations of Asians and Hispanics by age cohorts, however, reveals a different picture. Younger cohorts of Asians and Hispanics in the second generation are less likely to outmarry than older cohorts in the second generation. For example, the percentages of outmarriage sharply decline for Asians and Hispanics in the youngest age cohort (the “under 30” age cohort were born between 1975 and 1990 and most likely married between 1995 and 2005) compared to the “30–44” age cohort (born between 1960 and 1975 and most likely married between 1980 and 1995). For secondgeneration Asian females, racial outmarriage drops from 44 percent to 24 percent, and for second-generation Hispanic females we see a similar drop from 31 percent to 15 percent. This analysis goes against the pattern of straight-line assimilation and shows a reversal (or at least a stall) in the process of assimilation through marriage—as measured by percentages of outmarriage. In other words, boundaries between minority groups and the majority group are being maintained and probably strengthened to the point that the younger cohorts in the second generation are less likely to marry someone outside of their racial category (i.e., a pattern of dissimilation). Previous literature suggests that this is most likely due to two important trends among newer immigrant groups: group size and group concentration Comparing age cohorts among second-generation Mexicans reveals that the Under-30 age cohort has a higher percentage in coethnic relationships and fewer people marrying non-Hispanic whites than the 30–44 age cohort. For this to be happening indicates that the process of assimilation will probably not go in a straight-line for Mexicans as it did for the earlier waves of European immigrants from a century ago. At the same time, Puerto Ricans exhibit very different intermarriage patterns compared to Mexicans, which implies that we must consider each ethnic group separately when looking at patterns of marital assimilation and dissimilation.

184

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants

A generational breakdown of Asian ethnic groups shows that in most cases the second generation are less likely to be in coethnic relationships, more likely to outmarry with other Asians, and also more likely to outmarry with non-Hispanic whites than the first generation. The only exceptions are second-generation Japanese, who have the same rate of endogamy as first-generation Japanese. Second-generation Japanese appear to be less likely than the first-generation to outmarry with non-Hispanic whites. This is surprising given that the Japanese are often touted as the Asian group most likely to follow a straight-line assimilation model, especially given their long history in the United States. Thus it appears that even the Japanese are not following the straight-line model as closely as we would expect. In conclusion, although we must be cautious when interpreting findings from the CPS because of the small sample sizes, we saw enough evidence to support the claim of segmented assimilation more accurately representing the reality of assimilation as opposed to a single path to assimilation. Each ethnic group within the Asian or Hispanic categories exhibit their own unique patterns of mixed relationships and suggest a multitude of assimilation (and even dissimilation) processes. At the CILS survey level of analysis we move not only from the national level to Southern California, but also from the general population to adult children of immigrants. Given the patterns of interethnic and interracial relationships, it appears that the processes underlying marital assimilation (at least among children of immigrants in Southern California) are different depending on whether or not the respondent crossed a racial line versus an ethnic line. The type of relationship is also important, especially given the fact that cohabitation was an important predictor of mixed relationships. If cohabitation signifies an informal relationship that is less bounded to relatives from both sides of the family, and if the respondents are less likely to be in mixed relationships as they marry, then this implies that there is still a significant boundary between cohabitation and marriage. In other words, cohabitational assimilation is not synonymous with marital assimilation. The CILS survey data show that acculturated individuals are more likely to be involved in mixed relationships. Along these lines, religion is also an important predictor of mixed relationships. This finding stirs up notions of the triple melting pot (Catholics, Protestants, and Jews) as proposed by Ruby Jo Kennedy in the middle of the twentieth century. The implication is that religious differences can at times be as

Summary and Conclusions

185

important as racial and ethnic differences. Moreover, language was one of the most important predictors of mixed relationships for both females and males. The implication is that groups that quickly adopt the English language will follow a more traditional straight-line approach to assimilation. On the other hand, continued immigration and language retention (as evidenced by Mexicans) will either slow this process down or even reverse it—leading to a number of segmented paths to assimilation. In sum, the analysis of the CILS shows a number of possible paths to assimilation (segmented approach) based on a number of factors such as gender, marital status, religion, and language. Finally, when it came to the CILS in-depth interviews, it quickly became clear that the way we define mixed couples will dramatically alter the picture of whether mixed relationships promote assimilation. Interracial and interethnic relationships denote different types of mixed relationships and different types of lived experiences. Aside from how we define mixed couples, we also saw that the CILS interviewees choose different types of partners, and thus not all of the respondents are assimilating or dissimilating in the same ways. Some appear to be assimilating through forming relationships with whites; others are dissimilating through forming relationships strictly with members of their own ethnic group; and the remainder fall somewhere in the middle. Given the variety of relationships that the interviewees are involved in—from mixed relationships to coethnic relationships—segmented assimilation appears to be closer to the experience that the CILS interviewees are going through rather than a straight-line approach to assimilation, especially when it comes to forming intimate relationships. However, the question of “to what end” are people assimilating is a key question that we must ask when looking at mixed relationships. We cannot assume that adult children of immigrants want to assimilate into the majority white group. For the CILS respondents living in Southern California, the decision to form intimate relationships with individuals outside of their racial and ethnic groups does not appear to hinder or better their chances of assimilating in other areas of their lives, such as socioeconomic and political incorporation. LESSONS FOR THEORY AND METHODOLOGY What, then, can we conclude about the role of mixed unions as it relates to the overall processes of assimilation? One thing we can definitely say is that for mixed couples, a segmented approach rather than a

186

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants

straight-line approach mirrors their assimilative experiences more closely. It also appears that the three segmented paths discussed by scholars (Portes and Zhou 1993; Qian, Blair, and Ruf 2001; Qian and Lichter 2004) do not accurately represent the reality of the CILS respondents. In fact, it is unclear what role, if any, marriage or cohabitation plays in the assimilation processes. We need more empirical studies to examine the connection between the subprocesses (or types) and the overall processes of assimilation. This was not the explicit purpose of this study, but this study certainly points to several gaps in the analytical and theoretical landscape of assimilation. While we were able to answer the question of who enters into mixed relationships through using different levels of analysis in a complimentary fashion, such was not the case for the question of the role of marital assimilation. Here, each level of analysis gave us a much different view of assimilation, so much so that we come away from this analysis with more questions than answers. We need more studies to interrogate the processes of assimilation and dissimilation using multiple levels of analyses. Another area that needs further study has to do with methodological approaches to studying mixed relationships. The majority of studies on intermarriage select a sample of people marrying across racial lines and then analyzes these couples. One of the problems with this method of study is that there is a selection bias because we have selected only those people who have crossed a social boundary through marriage. In other words, we do not have another population of people to compare them to; we do not know how they are different or similar to people who are not crossing racial, ethnic, or religious lines when it comes to intimate relationships. This study included a wide range of respondents, from those not currently in relationships to those dating, cohabiting, and married, and from those in mixed relationships to those in coethnic relationships. Future studies need to explore these various types of mixed relationships—dating, cohabiting, and marriage—in more depth. Finally, there is a need to study mixed relationships in other parts of the country to see if what we are finding in Southern California compares with other parts of the country. Surely immigrant reception centers such as New York and Miami, with a substantially different influx of immigrants, will be more similar to Southern California than parts of the country with lower proportions of immigrants (i.e., nontraditional destination sites). However, with more immigrants and their

Summary and Conclusions

187

families migrating to less traditional destination sites, it will be increasingly important to see how mixed relationships—especially among those immigrant families—will affect these communities. LESSONS FOR POLICY As I write this conclusion, the United States is once more embattled in a debate about immigration policy and reform. Democrats and Republicans alike are looking to pass a comprehensive immigration law that will address the needs and problems of our society and of existing policies. It was during such a hearing on “Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Becoming Americans-US Immigrant Integration” that Representative Steve King (2007), making reference to a research article by Qian and Lichter (2007) that was recently published in the American Sociological Review, questioned a key statement about the nature of assimilation and cohesiveness in the larger society: The reduction in the amount of . . . interracial intermarriage, could that be . . . the result of the effects of multiculturalism that might tend to isolate young Americans in those ethnic enclaves rather than being further assimilated into the broader society where they have contact with people of different areas of society. (King 2007) Notice how the issue of intermarriage is not far from the query of who is American and who—among the mass waves of immigrants from Asia and Latin America and their children—is assimilating. More specifically, what do mixed unions say about the cohesiveness of society and what people are assimilating to? John Fonte (2007), Director of the Center for American Common Culture, responded to King’s statement at the hearing in the following manner: Traditionally the greatest indicator of assimilation is intermarriage among ethnic groups and between immigrants and native-born. Unfortunately a new major study published in the American Sociological Review by Ohio State Professor Zhenchao Qian found a big decline in inter-ethnic marriage. Professor Qian declared, “These declines . . . are a significant departure from past trends” and “reflect the growth in the immigrant population” with Latinos marrying Latinos and

188

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants Asians marrying Asians. The survey found that even as recently as the 1970s and 1980s there was an increase in intermarriage between immigrants and native born citizens. In the 1990s however, this situation was reversed with intermarriage between immigrants and native-born declining.

There are a number of problems with Fonte’s response to King’s question—problems that come about because of false assumptions. First, Fonte misrepresents Qian and Lichter’s work. He states that there is a big decline in “inter-ethnic marriage” (notice how King says “interracial intermarriage” in reference to the same research article). This conflation of race and ethnicity is problematic. Qian and Lichter use racial categories—white, African American, American Indian, Asian, and Hispanic—which means they are only looking at interracial marriages and not interethnic marriages. My research has clearly shown that there are vast differences between these two types of intermarriage, not only in the numbers of people entering into either type of union and in terms of key characteristics, but also in terms of the lived experiences of the mixed couples themselves. Second, Fonte claims that there is a decrease in intermarriage between “immigrants and native-born citizens.” This is the exact opposite of what Qian and Lichter actually found: For Hispanics, and to a lesser extent Asian Americans the 1990s brought unprecedented declines in intermarriage with whites, which is in sharp contrast to the exceptionally large increases in intermarriage observed in prior censuses (Qian 1997). This finding represents a significant departure from past trends. As we have shown, the retreat from intermarriage largely reflects the growth in the immigrant population; increasing shares of natives are marrying their foreign-born counterparts. (2007) Thus, from 1990 to 2000 we saw a decrease in intermarriage (i.e., fewer Hispanics and Asian Americans marrying whites) and an increase in Hispanics and Asian Americans born in the United States marrying foreign-born Hispanics and Asians. When Fonte says there is less intermarriage “between immigrants and native-born [citizens],” he is really referring to native-born citizens as white native-born citizens. This conflation of terms results in people talking past each other,

Summary and Conclusions

189

misrepresentation of the data, and most importantly, a misrepresentation of reality. In Fonte’s defense, Qian and Lichter’s (2007) article shed light on only part of the true nature of intermarriage by conflating race and ethnicity. When Qian and Lichter say intermarriage, they really mean interracial marriage. They are presenting data on racial categories and have no way of knowing the true nature of interethnic marriages. They are only partially correct when they say that natives are marrying their foreign-born counterparts. There are ethnic groups within both the Hispanic and Asian racial categories that are marrying coethnics (from the same ethnic group), but there are also ethnic groups intermarrying with different ethnic groups within the same racial categories. The former case does not represent intermarriage (unless we consider generational lines as a form of intermarriage), while the latter case represents interethnic marriage but not interracial marriage. The differences may seem trivial at first, but my study has clearly shown otherwise. Third, even if we ignore race and ethnicity in this discussion of intermarriage, Fonte is still wrong in his assessment of assimilation. For example, if a foreign-born Filipino marries a native-born Filipino, or a foreign-born Mexican marries a native-born Mexican, then this would be a sign of assimilation—if we see assimilation as involving segmented paths and not just a straight-line path to a white middle-class mainstream. If immigrants are marrying other immigrants, then we could argue that they are creating strong networks among themselves and weak connections with other networks. This is not the case, however, as immigrants are marrying those who are well-established in the society. They may not be well-established in the white middle-class mainstream, but they are established in subgroups within the larger society. What Fonte is arguing is that immigrants are not following a straight-line assimilation model into the white upper and middle class; what he is arguing for is Anglo conformity. At a different level, even some social scientists are concerned with ethnic groups retaining their language, traditions, and customs (i.e., cultural pluralism) to the detriment of society. We can see this in a critique of Yinger’s idea of dissimilation by Milton Gordon in a review of Yinger’s book Ethnicity: Sources of Strength? Sources of Conflict? Gordon finds fault with Yinger’s “tendencies toward pluralism”:

190

Intermarriage Across Race and Ethnicity Among Immigrants My major reservations about this book (which have implications for several of Yinger's policy positions) concern…issues that I have dealt with at length elsewhere . . . persistent and insistent cultural pluralism of a substantial degree has unavoidable consequences for social structure. It leads to social separation and the buildup of ethnic enclosures whose members have little contact with members of other enclosures. Cross-cutting loyalties along occupational and interest lines are thus not formed. I hypothesize that these conditions form the optimum breeding ground for continued prejudice and discrimination. To be sure, too little cultural pluralism has negative aspects. But too much brings on its own severe problems in social separation and its sociological consequences. (340)

I see assimilative influences as those forces that push immigrants and their children along a path to the majority middle-class society (straight-line) assimilation. On the other hand, I see dissimilative influences as those forces that steer them away from straight-line assimilation and take them along other segmented paths to assimilation (segmented assimilation). I have argued that segmented paths of assimilation more closely represent the experiences of the adult children of immigrants in Southern California. Do these segmented paths represent a lack of cohesion or a fragmented society? The majority of the couples that I looked at in this study, with all of their diversity, are part of institutions, such as higher educational institutions; are getting good jobs; and are becoming involved in politics and voting (at least at proportions similar to the national average). Yet they still have preferences for being with certain types of peoples and networks. Going back to the immigration hearing, I will give my answer to King’s question about whether a reduction in interracial marriages with whites among immigrants and their children will hinder them from assimilating into the broader society. My study is particularly revealing because I am focusing on the very group that King is concerned about: the adult children of immigrants. At a structural level they all participate in the national economy; they are not creating separate economic forms that apply only to them. The same is true politically; they are not creating separate political forms that apply only to them. Therefore, at a political-economic level, it is clear that they are

Summary and Conclusions

191

participating in these societal structures. In terms of their primary intimate relationships, many children of immigrants still prefer to relate to coethnics, but that does not challenge the cohesiveness of the larger society. In many cases structural assimilation is taking place before cultural assimilation. For the most part, they participate in the larger society structurally, all the while maintaining their own cultural distinctions (i.e., selective acculturation). The difference between now and when Gordon was writing Assimilation in American Life is the presence of sustained immigration. As long as immigration continues, we are going to have cultural pluralism, but this does not mean that structural assimilation is not taking place—at least in a multitude of segmented paths. We are incorporating more diversity now than ever before in the history of the United States. This diversity is seen in the waves of immigration coming from a multitude of national origins and from various social classes within these countries of origin. To add to this diversity, the adult children of these immigrants (the second generation) are forming mixed relationships across racial, ethnic, and religious lines. The question of their desire to incorporate into American society is not so much the issue; rather, whether or not the desire exists in the majority mainstream (i.e., “American,” Englishspeaking Protestants) to accept them and their segmented paths of incorporation into U.S. society.

This page intentionally left blank

APPENDIX A

Concatenating Couples in the CPS Using SPSS This is how I concatenated cohabiting couples in the Current Population Survey (CPS) in five steps: Step 1: "Get file" retrieves the file we want, "select if" selects out the reference person (perrp = 1 or 2) and the unmarried partner (perrp = 13 or 14); then we run a frequency to make sure it performed the commands correctly. Step 2: This step creates (or more correctly “recodes”) a new variable that combines the reference persons (the reference person is divided into those with and without relatives living in the same household) into one category, and also combines the unmarried partner (those with and those without relatives living in the same household) into one category. Again we run a frequency to make sure it recoded it correctly. This step is crucial (as we shall see later) because it allows us to create new variables for the householder and the partner. Step 3: This step creates a unique ID number for each household in the data set. It is necessary to add the year because we have combined 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006. The same household sequence numbers (h_seq) numbers are used in different years. Thus, if we were not combining years, we could skip this step. Step 4: This is the key step that concatenates the householder and unmarried partner on the same line. We first have to sort the file by the new household ID number (hseqyear) and our new variable that simplifies the relationship (relate). The command "casestovars" makes cases that we specify into new variables. The "id = hseqyear" command tells SPSS to combine cases with the same hseqyear. The "index = relate" command tells SPSS to concatenate the people within the household based on this variable. Thus there will be two cohabiting people (1 = 193

194

Appendix

householder, 2 = unmarried partner) who will be put on the same line. The problem is that many (though not all) of the variables have different values. SPSS renames all variables for the householder with a ".1" attached on the end, and a ".2" for the unmarried partner. For example, whereas both partners had the same "race" variable, the race variable for the householder will become "race.1" and the unmarried partner’s will become "race.2". This is the beauty of this syntax: Because this step automatically renames all of the variables, there is no need to manually rename variables and thus you are able to keep all of the variables for possible future use. Note that all of the variables that do not vary in the data set will retain the original variable name since it the same for both partners in the couple. Step 5: This final step retains all of the cohabiting couples (by deleting all other persons) and saves the file under a new name. Since "sex.2" is the new variable for the unmarried partner, we are keeping all of those householders where the unmarried partner is either a male (sex.2 = 1) or a female (sex.2 = 0). Notice that "sex.2" will be missing for the rest of the people since they did not have an unmarried partner. Again, we run a frequency of "sex.1" and "sex.2" to make sure everything came out correctly. Finally we give the data set a new name and save it in the desired folder. This new file will contain only cohabiting couples. ********************************************************* get file='E:\CPS\CPS 2003-06 (March).sav' . select if (perrp=1 or perrp=2 or perrp=13 or perrp=14) . frequencies perrp . recode perrp (1,2=1) (13,14=2) into relate . formats relate (f1) . value labels relate 1 'householder' 2 'unmarried partner' . frequencies perrp relate . compute hseqyear = (h_seq * 10000) + h_year .

Appendix

195

formats hseqyear (f9) . sort cases by hseqyear relate . casestovars / id = hseqyear / index = relate / groupby = variable . select if (sex.2=0 or sex.2=1) . frequencies sex.1 sex.2 . save outfile='E:\CPS\cpsmar03-06_cohabiting couples.sav' . ********************************************************* This is how I concatenated married couples in the CPS in four steps: Step 1: "Get file" retrieves the file we want, "select if" selects out those families that have a spouse present; then we run a frequency to make sure it performed the commands correctly. Step 2: This step creates a unique ID number for each family (not household) in the data set. We have to use the family household number because some households have more than one married couple. This will allow us to pull out these subfamilies. Again, it is necessary to add the year because we have combined 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006. In order to create a unique family ID number, all we have to do is combine "h_seq" with "h_year" and "ffpos" ("ffpos" is the number of the family in each household). Step 3: This is the key step that concatenates the householder and spouse on the same line. We first have to sort the file by the new household ID number (fseqyear) and the sex of the respondents (a_sex). The command "casestovars" makes cases that we specify into new variables. The "id = fseqyear" command tells SPSS to combine cases with the same fseqyear. The "index = a_sex" command tells SPSS to concatenate the people within the household based on this variable.

196

Appendix

Thus there will be two married people (1 = male, 2 = female) who will be put on the same line. SPSS renames all variables for the male with a ".1" attached on the end, and a ".2" for the female (See step 4 above for a more detailed description). Step 4: This final step is to run a frequency of "sex.1" and "sex.2" to make sure everything came out correctly. Finally we give the data set a new name and save it in the desired folder. This new file will contain only married couples. ********************************************************* get file='E:\CPS\ CPS 2003-06 (March).sav' . select if (a_spouse ge 1) . frequencies a_spouse . compute fseqyear = ((h_seq * 10000) + h_year) * 10 + ffpos . formats fseqyear (f10) . sort cases by fseqyear a_sex . casestovars / id = fseqyear / index = a_sex / groupby = variable . frequencies sex.1 sex.2 . save outfile='E:\CPS\cpsmar03-06_married couples.sav' . ********************************************************* The final step is to merge the cohabiting couples with the married couples. We do one final frequency check and then save the file under a new name . ********************************************************* ADD FILES /FILE=* /FILE='E:\CPS\cpsmar03-06_cohabiting couples.sav'.

Appendix

197

EXECUTE. frequencies sex.1 sex.2 h_year married married.1 married.2 prdthsp.1 prdthsp.2 perrp.1 perrp.2 ethrace.1 ethrace.2 generag9.1 generag9.2 . save outfile='E:\CPS\cpsmar03-06_master couples.sav' .

This page intentionally left blank

APPENDIX B

CILS III Survey Questionnaire for San Diego The CILS III Survey Questionnaire can be found at the following website: http://cmd.princeton.edu/papers/CILS-IIIqs.pdf

199

This page intentionally left blank

APPENDIX C

CILS Qualitative Interview Guide for Southern California Rubén G. Rumbaut Introduction: Today we would like to talk about your life as an adult. Before we start, let me check the information I have [check personal info and summary fact sheet]… CURRENT HOUSEHOLD/LIVING ARRANGEMENTS 1.

Please tell me about your present living situation?

2.

And since you left high school, where have you lived and with whom? (when: approximate years?)

3.

IF NOT LIVING WITH PARENT(S): When did you move out of your parents’ home? Why? How old were you then?

4.

IF STILL LIVING WITH PARENT(S): What has it been like/how have you felt about living with your parent(s) as an adult? What are the best/worst aspects? What are the main reasons you live with your parents now? Rent or own?

5.

Did you ever worry about your living arrangements? (e.g., were you ever without a home or did not have a place to stay? or trouble with who you were living with?) What happened? What did you do about that? Did you ever have to return home/live with family or friends? What was/is that like?

6.

Would you like to stay here or would you rather live elsewhere?

7.

Tell me about your community/neighborhood (or principal place where you live, if group quarters).

8.

Did you grow up here? If not, can you describe where you grew up? How is it different or similar? 201

202

Appendix

FAMILY OF ORIGIN 1.

Tell me about the family you grew up in.

2.

Are both of your parents still alive? Step-parent? (Discuss parental loss here; when did parent die?)

3.

Describe your current relationship with your parents (as applicable)?

4.

Tell me about your siblings.

5.

Could you tell me about any other family members or people in your life that you talk with regularly and that you depend on for help or support, or that you help and support? How have relationships with other family members changed over the years? (e.g., grandparents, uncles, aunts, cousins?) Do any of them live nearby?

6.

What do you expect/hope for in your relationships with your family (of origin) in the future?

7.

Who of your parents and grandparents immigrated to the United States?

8.

[WHETHER THE RESPONDENT WAS BORN IN ANOTHER COUNTRY OR NOT, ask:]

RELATIONSHIPS Now I would like to catch up on your personal relationships. 1.

Are you now… (never married) (engaged) (married) (living with someone) (separated) (divorced) (widowed)? Is this correct? (Probe: If change in status, why?)

2.

[IF NOT NOW PARTNERED (whether never married or formerly married):] Would you like to have a steady relationship, or not? [IF YES]: What kind of things would you look for in a relationship? Ideally, what kind of person would you like to commit to/marry? When would you like that to happen?

Appendix

203

[IF NO]: Why not? What has dating been like? How would you feel if you never got married or find a life partner? (OR if R does not want to get married:) Why do you prefer not to marry? 3.

[IF PARTNERED (whether currently married, cohabiting, engaged, or seeing someone steadily):] Tell me about your significant other/boyfriend/girlfriend/husband/wife/partner.

4.

[IF MARRIED OR LIVE TOGETHER:]

5.

Did your mother or father expect you to marry or date a certain type of person? Did they say you should or shouldn’t marry or date a person of your own ethnic/racial/cultural/religious background? What was important for them about these issues? Why?

6.

And how do YOU feel about these issues? (i.e., of the importance of your partner’s ethnicity-race-religion-culture being the same as or different than yours in long-term intimate relationships?)

7.

What kinds of pressure did you ever feel to have—or not to have— children? From whom?

8.

How many children would you like to have, if any? And how many do you realistically expect to have? By when?

CHILDREN 1.

Do you have any children now?

2.

What do you think about having children?

3.

How many children do you have?

4.

How do you plan to raise your children?

5.

What is your relationship like with your children?

6.

Who is the primary caretaker of your children? Do the children live with you?

204

Appendix

7.

In what ways are you involved with your children’s school or day care? What do you do?

8.

What was going on in your life when you found out you were going to be a parent?

9.

How did having a child change your life? Did it change your plans? Did it make things better/worse?

10. What would help you balance family and work better? 11. What would your life be like now if you had never had children? EDUCATION 1.

Have you been to school at all since high school? Where, when?

2.

What is your current highest level of education? What degrees or diplomas have you have earned?

3.

Are you currently in school?

A. HIGH SCHOOL EXPERIENCES 4.

Tell me about your high school?

5.

[IF DROPPED OUT:] Did you leave your high school at any time? When? For how long?

6.

Tell me about your friends in high school?

7.

Tell me about the kinds of activities you were involved in while you were in high school?

8.

How successful would you say you were academically in high school?

9.

Did you have any problems in high school?

10. How helpful was your high school experience in terms of all that you’ve done since?

Appendix

205

11. Looking back what is your overall impression about your high school experience? B. POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION AND TRAINING (Distinguish clearly 2- and 4-year colleges, vocational schools, professional schools, post-graduate training) 12. Tell me about the college/university/vocational school you attended, and the years you were there. 13. How did you decide to go there? 14. Was that your dream school? If not, what was and why? 15. What is/was you major or area of study? How did you settle on that major? Did you change majors? 16. What did/do you like most about your college/training institute? What did/do you like least? 17. What were the main obstacles you encountered towards finishing your degree (or certificate)? 18. What degree did you earn? How long did it take you to get the diploma? How successful would you say you were academically in college? Did you graduate with honors? 19. What made it possible for you to finish college? What helped you/would have helped you the most? 20. How did college/vocational training prepare you for full-time work? For your future career goals? 21. How did college/vocational training help, influence, or change you in other ways? 22. Looking back, what is your overall impression about your college experience/vocational training? 23. What are your future educational goals and plans (if any)?

206

Appendix

WORK 1.

Did you work in high school (and college if applicable)—could you describe those jobs to me?

2.

How many different full-time jobs have you had that lasted more than 6 months?

3.

Are you now… (employed full-time) (employed part-time) (unemployed and looking for work) (unemployed and not looking for work) (attending school full-time and not working) (full-time homemaker and not working) (on maternity/parental leave) (disabled and not able to work) ? Is this correct?

4.

[IF UNEMPLOYED AND NOT LOOKING FOR A JOB: exclude full-time students or homemakers]

5.

[IF WORKING:] Tell me about the job you have now. [IF NOT NOW WORKING: ask the questions below of the last job R held.]

6.

How did you get that job?

7.

What is it like to work there/for yourself? Are you satisfied with your work?

8.

How well prepared did/do you feel for this job?

9.

Tell me about your co-workers? What are they like? How do you get along with them?

10. What are the things you want most from your job [or, IF NOT WORKING: …from a job]? 11. Do you think of your work as a career or a job? Why? 12. Are there any jobs you would refuse to do? Why? 13. What is the lowest wage (or salary) that you would accept? Has that changed as you’ve gotten older?

Appendix

207

14. What are your future work/job plans? 15. What do you hope for most in terms of your work? MILITARY [Ask the first question of all respondents; if NOT military, skip to next section, VIII; for those with MILITARY experience, continue asking questions 2 to 6] 1.

Have you ever thought about going into the military? Why or why not?

2.

How and when did you decide to go in the military?

3.

Tell me about your experiences in the military.

4.

What was the best part about being in the military? And the toughest part?

5.

How did/will your training help you in civilian life?

6.

What would your life be like now if you hadn’t gone into the military?

LEISURE AND TIME USE 1.

How do you spend your free time? What do you do? With whom? How often?

2.

How much of your free time do you spend with… your partner? Family? Friends? Alone?

3.

How much of your free time is spent in organized activities? What kinds of organized activities?

4.

If you had a free weekend, what do you think would be a really great way to spend it? Why?

208

Appendix

RELIGION 1.

What role did religion/spirituality play in your parents’ life? And in your upbringing?

2.

When you were growing up, how important were/was:

3.

What role would you say religion/spirituality plays in your life now? How important is it?

4.

How involved are you at present?

5.

Do you think religion will be important in your children’s lives? How so?

IDENTITY 1.

What is your family’s heritage/ethnic background? On your mother’s side? your father’s?

2.

What do you call yourself, that is, how do you identify? What does it mean to you to say that you are … [ETHNIC]? (e.g. of ethnicities: Mexican, Vietnamese, Jamaican, Filipino, Chinese, German, Irish, Puerto Rican, Hispanic, Latino, Asian American, African American...) Or that you are an American?

3.

[IF MIXED ANCESTRY:] Do you identify with one ethnicity more than the other? How so?

4.

Has your ethnic (or American) self-identity changed over time as you left high school, went to college, became an adult? How did it change? Do you sometimes use different ethnic or racial labels in different situations (e.g., in filling out forms, with your friends, with family)? Why?

5.

When you were growing up were most of your friends from the same ethnic group? Tell me about any good friends you have had that are of different racial or ethnic groups.

6.

When you were growing up in what ways did your parents teach you about your ancestral (ethnic) background and history?

Appendix

209

7.

What customs or traditions do you keep or practice from your background?

8.

Will you pass on these traditions to your own children? How?

TRANSNATIONAL TIES 1.

Do you have relatives still living in your parents’ home country? Who? About how many?

2.

Have you been back to visit your parents’ home country?

3.

Do you or your parents send money to people still living in the home country? To whom? About how often? [PROBE: Tell me about that. Do they depend on your help? Do you feel responsible for helping them out financially?]

4.

Do your parents plan to return to the home country? Would you ever consider living there? Why or why not?

CIVIC ENGAGEMENT AND POLITICS Now I want to ask you some questions about things you may do to help others or make your community (or the world) a better place to live. 1.

Do you belong to any groups or clubs where you do things like that?

2.

How did you get involved in this/these organization(s)? [PROBE: Who asked you to get involved?]

3.

Now let’s talk about issues that really matter to you. When you think about the world we live in, does something upset you or really make you angry? What? Can you tell me about it?

4.

How do you feel about voting?

5.

Did you ever work for a candidate or on an issue that was going to be on the ballot? What happened?

210

Appendix

6.

These days, a lot of people, especially young people, do not vote. Why do you think that is?

7.

What things most concern people your age? What image do you think most people in the United States have about the generation of people your age today? Is that accurate? Why or why not?

SEPTEMBER 11 1.

Can you tell me how you personally responded to the September 11 attacks?

2.

What about how you feel about the country? Did you feel anger, or a sense of patriotism, or what?

3.

Do you feel any conflict between being American and coming from [R’s national origin or ancestry]?

4.

What about how you feel about other people. Did September 11th change how you feel about Muslims or Arab immigrants? What do you think about the experiences of Arab-Americans or Muslim Americans since that day? Did it make you feel worried about attacks on immigrants?

5.

Have you personally experienced any prejudice or discrimination related to September 11?

6.

Some people feel that September 11 was a turning point for the country. What would you say the United States should learn as a country from the attacks?

7.

Did the events change how you think of the United States? Of the U.S. government? In light of what has happened, how do you view the future now?

Appendix

211

JUSTICE SYSTEM 1.

Tell me about any times you ever had to call the police. What happened?

2.

What would make you call the police?

3.

Has anyone close to you been a victim of crime? What has been the effect on them?

4.

Has anyone close to you ever been arrested or done time in prison? What was the effect on them?

5.

Have you ever had a run-in with the police? [IF YES:] What happened?

6.

Have you ever been to jail or prison? [IF YES:] Why? What happened?

7.

Where would you be now if you hadn’t gotten in trouble?

SUBJECTIVE AGING, SUCCESS, TURNING POINTS, AND HEALTH 1.

Some people have the idea that young adults should achieve certain milestones in order: first finishing school, then getting a job, setting up their own home, getting married, and having children. Is that realistic? In your own life, how are you following this order? How about your friends? Your brothers/sisters?

2.

In what ways do you wish you had done things in a different order? Or would you do it again the same way?

3.

At what age did you start thinking of yourself as an adult? [PROBE: What led to that change?]

4.

When did your parents start to consider you as an adult? What were the new rights or responsibilities associated with this change?

5.

How do you feel about getting older? Are you looking forward to it? Why or why not?

212

Appendix

6.

How would you define “success” for someone your age? For yourself?

7.

Sometimes things happen that can make a big difference in people’s lives. Can you talk a little bit…:

8.

Are there any people that have had a major impact on your life? How did they influence you?

9.

Any other important personal experiences or traits that you feel have helped you or that you have struggled with over the years?

10. And with regard to your health: THE FUTURE 1.

What do you think life will be like for you over the next 5–10 years?

2.

Summing up, what would help you the most to achieve your plans and hopes for the future? What will be the main obstacles that can get in the way of your achieving them?

3.

Is there anything else that I haven’t asked about that you feel is important for me to know about your life, who you are, and where you’re going? Anything you would like to stress?

Thank you very much.

APPENDIX D

Tables on Outmarriage by Ethnicity and with Cohabitation

213

Table 4.5 Outmarriage by Hispanic Ethnic Group and Generation

Ethnic Group

Generation Endogamy

Mexican

Puerto Rican

Cuban

Central/ South American

Married Couples Exogamy Exogamy Hispanic NH White

Exogamy NH Black

Endogamy

Cohabiting Couples Exogamy Exogamy Hispanic NH White

Exogamy NH Black

Total

84.3

3.2

11.1

0.6

73.3

4.7

18.4

1.9

1st (foreign-born) 2nd (U.S.-born) 3rd+

92.6 76.7 67.3

3.3 3.6 2.7

3.6 17.6 26.7

0.2 0.8 1.4

88.5 74.6 53.0

6.4 4.8 2.5

4.5 17.5 36.8

0.2 1.3 4.4

Total

60.9

13.8

20.1

2.9

44.2

12.4

32.7

8.7

1st (foreign-born) 2nd (U.S.-born) 3rd+

68.7 53.8 47.0

14.5 14.8 9.3

14.1 23.9 34.7

1.8 4.2 4.4

62.6 50.4 20.3

14.6 19.3 4.2

15.7 24.8 56.6

6.2 4.4 15.2

Total

72.2

11.9

13.4

1.7

37.3

21.4

37.9

0.8

1st (foreign-born) 2nd (U.S.-born) 3rd+

79.2 38.6 30.0

11.0 16.9 16.0

7.8 40.8 46.8

1.4 2.9 4.8

58.2 20.8 4.1

22.8 32.7 9.5

15.3 45.3 82.1

0.0 0.0 3.1

Total

69.9

14.8

13.0

1.4

60.7

19.2

16.3

1.7

1st (foreign-born) 2nd (U.S.-born) 3rd+

73.2 34.4 38.8

14.4 20.3 15.0

10.5 38.5 39.2

1.2 3.6 5.3

73.1 18.4 9.6

18.2 36.8 9.9

5.9 34.9 75.3

1.7 0.0 3.3

Source: Current Population Survey, 2003–06, merged files of the (March) ASEC Supplement.

Table 4.6 Outmarriage by Asian Ethnic Group and Generation

Ethnic Group

Generation Endogamy

Chinese

Filipino

Asian Indian

74.9

13.8

9.7

0.4

0.6

32.4

28.1

29.7

1.7

6.6

1st (foreign-born) 2nd (U.S.-born)

79.7 40.2

12.2 25.7

7.0 29.4

0.4 0.3

0.3 2.2

44.2 4.9

33.8 15.1

14.9 63.7

2.4 0.0

2.4 16.3

Total

68.7

4.1

21.1

1.3

3.1

33.2

3.7

39.7

6.9

11.5

1st (foreign-born) 2nd (U.S.-born)

74.7 33.5

3.6 7.0

17.8 40.9

1.2 1.7

1.9 10.0

40.7 19.0

1.9 7.1

33.1 52.1

6.5 7.7

13.2 8.2

Total

90.3

3.1

5.6

0.2

0.6

27.9

3.7

64.3

4.0

0.0

1st (foreign-born) 2nd (U.S.-born)

91.9 52.4

3.1 1.3

4.1 40.3

0.2 0.0

0.5 3.5

36.7 14.2

6.0 0.0

50.7 85.8

6.6 0.0

0.0 0.0

1st (foreign-born) 2nd (U.S.-born)

Japanese

Endogamy

Cohabiting Couples Exogamy Exogamy Exogamy Exogamy Asian NH White NH Black Hispanic

Total

Vietnamese Total

Korean

Married Couples Exogamy Exogamy Exogamy Exogamy Asian NH White NH Black Hispanic

87.3

5.9

5.5

0.2

0.8

47.9

16.2

30.6

2.1

3.3

88.3 50.2

5.7 16.3

5.1 20.0

0.1 2.8

0.6 8.2

60.7 12.3

8.2 38.5

23.9 49.1

2.8 0.0

4.5 0.0

Total

77.1

3.0

18.0

0.6

0.6

3.9

16.2

62.4

9.7

3.9

1st (foreign-born) 2nd (U.S.-born)

80.5 25.6

2.6 9.0

15.6 55.9

0.4 4.4

0.4 4.2

5.8 0.0

14.1 20.6

59.6 68.2

10.9 7.1

5.9 0.0

Total

43.8

8.9

39.8

1.5

3.0

49.5

1.1

43.0

1.8

3.3

1st (foreign-born) 2nd (U.S.-born)

43.0 45.1

6.4 12.9

42.1 36.2

2.5 0.0

3.0 3.1

55.2 43.7

1.3 0.9

37.9 48.3

3.5 0.0

1.3 5.2

Source: Current Population Survey, 2003–06, merged files of the (March) ASEC Supplement.

Table 4.7 Outmarriage by Asian Ethnic Group and Generation

Ethnic Group

Generation Endogamy

Married Couples Exogamy Exogamy Exogamy Exogamy Asian NH White NH Black Hispanic

Endogamy

Cohabiting Couples Exogamy Exogamy Exogamy Exogamy Asian NH White NH Black Hispanic

Chinese

Female Male

71.3 79.0

13.8 13.9

13.2 5.8

0.4 0.4

0.6 0.6

26.2 42.3

28.1 28.2

34.5 21.9

0.0 4.4

10.7 0.0

Filipino

Female Male

60.1 80.2

4.3 3.8

27.8 12.3

2.1 0.2

3.7 2.2

26.7 44.0

4.3 2.8

42.0 35.9

9.1 3.3

12.2 10.2

Asian Indian

Female Male

92.2 88.5

2.4 3.7

4.5 6.7

0.4 0.0

0.4 0.8

34.1 23.7

9.0 0.0

47.1 76.3

9.8 0.0

0.0 0.0

Vietnamese Female Male

85.7 89.0

4.5 7.4

8.8 2.1

0.1 0.2

0.6 1.1

40.3 59.0

6.0 31.1

44.6 9.9

3.5 0.0

5.5 0.0

Korean

Female Male

67.2 90.6

4.7 0.8

26.3 6.8

0.7 0.6

0.5 0.9

2.8 6.4

18.8 10.4

56.3 76.3

13.9 0.0

2.7 6.8

Japanese

Female Male

36.0 55.9

8.0 10.3

46.9 28.8

2.5 0.1

2.7 3.6

57.2 37.3

1.1 1.1

39.7 48.3

1.3 2.5

0.0 8.4

Source: Current Population Survey, 2003–06, merged files of the (March) ASEC Supplement.

References Alba, Richard. 1990. Ethnic Identity: The Transformation of White America. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. ——. 2005. Bright vs. Blurred Boundaries: Second-Generation Assimilation and Exclusion in France, Germany, and the United States. Ethnic and Racial Studies 28 (1):20–49. Alba, Richard, and Victor Nee. 2003. Remaking the American Mainstream. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Bean, Frank, and Gillian Stevens. 2003. America’s Newcomers and the Dynamics of Diversity. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Blackwell, Debra L., and Daniel T. Lichter. 2000. Mate Selection Among Married and Cohabiting Couples. Journal of Family Issues 21 (3):275–302. Blau, Peter M., Carolyn Beeker, and Kevin M. Fitzpatrick. 1984. Intersecting Social Affiliations and Intermarriage. Social Forces 62:3 (March):585– 606. Blau, Peter M., Terry C. Blum, and Joseph E. Schwartz. 1982. Heterogeneity and Intermarriage. American Sociological Review 47 (February):45–62. Blau, Peter Michael, and Joseph E. Schwartz. 1997. Crosscutting Social Circles: Testing a Macrostructural Theory of Intergroup Relations. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Blumberg, Rhoda Lois, and Wendell James Roye. 1979. Interracial Bonds. Bayside, NY: General Hall. Brodkin, Karen. 1998. How Jews Became White Folks: and What That Says about Race in America. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Brown, Susan K., and Mark Leach. Forthcoming. The Implications of Intermetropolitan Mobility for the Study of Immigrant Incorporation. In The Immigrant Metropolis: The Dynamics of Intergenerational Mobility in Los Angeles and New York, ed. S. K. Brown, F. D. Bean and R. G. Rumbaut. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Brunsma, David L. 2005. Interracial Families and the Racial Identification of Mixed-Race Children: Evidence from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study. Social Forces 84 (2):1131–1157. Bullock, Charles S. 1976. Interracial Contact and Student Prejudice, the Impact of Southern School Desegregation. Youth & Society 7 (3):271–310. Chavez, Leo R. 2001. Covering Immigration: Popular Images and the Politics of the Nation. Berkeley: University of California Press. Cornell, Stephen, and Douglas Hartmann. 2004. Conceptual Confusions and Divides: Race, Ethnicity, and the Study of Immigration. In Not Just Black and White: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on Immigration,

217

218

References

Race, and Ethnicity in the United States, ed. N. Foner and G. M. Fredrickson, 23-41. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. ——. 2007. Ethnicity and Race: Making Identities in a Changing World. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press. Crary, David. 2007. Interracial Marriages Surge Across U.S. Washington Post, April 13, 2007. Davis, F. James. 2001. Who Is Black?: One Nation's Definition. 10th anniversary ed. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press. Ebaugh, Helen Rose Fuchs, and Janet Saltzman Chafetz. 1999. Agents for Cultural Reproduction and Structural Change: The Ironic Role of Women in Immigrant Religious Institutions. Social Forces 78:585–612. Espiritu, Yen Le. 2000. Asian American Women and Men: Labor, Laws and Love. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira. ——. 2003. Home Bound: Filipino Lives across Cultures, Communities, and Countries. Berkeley: University of California Press. Fields, Jason, and Lynne M. Casper. 2001. America’s Families and Living Arrangements: March 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Foner, Nancy, Rubén G. Rumbaut, and Steven J. Gold. 2000. Immigration and Immigration Research in the United States. In Immigration Research for a New Century, edited by N. Foner, R. G. Rumbaut and S. J. Gold. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Fong, Colleen, and Judy Yung. 2000. In Search of the Right Spouse: Interracial Marriage among Chinese and Japanese Americans. In Contemporary Asian America: A Multidisciplinary Reader, edited by M. Zhou and J. V. Gatewood. New York: New York University Press. Fujino, Diane C. 1997. The Rates, Patterns and Reasons for Forming Heterosexual Interacial Dating Relationships among Asian Americans. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 14 (6):809–828. Gans, Herbert. 1979. Symbolic Ethnicity: The Future of Ethnic Groups and Cultures in America. Ethnic and Racial Studies 2 (1):1–20. ——. 1992. Comment: Ethnic Invention and Acculturation, A Bumpy-Line Approach. Journal of American Ethnic History 12 (1):42–52. Gibson, Margaret A. 1988. Accommodation Without Assimilation: Sikh Immigrants in an American High School. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Gilbertson, Greta A., Joseph P. Fitzpatrick, and Lijun Yang. 1996. Hispanic Intermarriage in New York City: New Evidence from 1991. International Migration Review 30 (2):445–459. Glenn, N.D. 1982. Interreligious Marriage in the United States: Patterns and Recent Trends. Journal of Marriage and Family 44:555–566.

References

219

Gordon, Milton M. 1964. Assimilation in American Life. New York: Oxford University Press. ——. 1995. Review of Ethnicity: Source of Strength? Source of Conflict? by J. Milton Yinger. Contemporary Sociology 24 (4):339–341. Guzzo, Karen Benjamin. 2005. How Do Marriage Market Conditions Affect Entrance into Cohabitation vs. Marriage? Social Science Research 35 (2):332–355. Hansen, Marcus Lee. 1996. The Problem of the Third Generation Immigrant. In Theories of Ethnicity: A Classical Reader, edited by W. Sollers. New York: New York University Press. Herberg, Will. 1960. Protestant, Catholic, Jew: An Essay in American Religious Sociology. New ed. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books. Hollinger, David A. 2003. Amalgamation and Hypodescent: The Question of Ethnoracial Mixture in the History of the United States. The American Historical Review 108 (5):1363-1390. House Judiciary Committee, Immigration Subcommittee. 2007. Hearing on “Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Becoming Americans-US Immigrant Integration.” May 16, 2007. Ignatiev, Noel. 1995. How the Irish Became White. New York: Routledge. Jiobu, Robert M. 1988. Ethnicity and Assimilation. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Johnson, R.A. 1980. Religious Assortative Mating the in the United States. New York: Academic. Joyner, Kara, and Grace Kao. 2005. Interracial Relationships and the Transition to Adulthood. American Sociological Review 70 (4):563–581. Kalmijn, Matthijs. 1991. Shifting Boundaries: Trends in Religious and Educational Homogamy. American Sociological Review 56:786–800. ——. 1998. Intermarriage and Homogomy: Causes, Patterns, Trends. Annual Review of Sociology 24:395–421. Kennedy, Randall. 2003. Interracial Intimacies: Sex, Marriage, Identity, and Adoption. 1st ed. New York: Pantheon. Kennedy, Ruby Jo Reeves. 1944. Single or Triple Melting-Pot: Intermarriage Trends in New Haven, 1870–1940. American Journal of Sociology 49 (4):331–339. ——. 1952. Single or Triple Melting-Pot: Intermarriage in New Haven, 1870– 1950. American Journal of Sociology 58 (1):56–59. Koshy, Susan. 2004. Sexual Naturalization: Asian Americans and Miscegenation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Kristof, Nicholas D. 2005. Blacks, Whites and Love. New York Times, April 24, 2005.

220

References

Lamanna, Mary Ann, and Agnes Riedmann. 2003. Marriages and Families: Making Choices in a Diverse Society. 8th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson. Landale, Nancy S., R. Salvador Oropesa, and Cristina Bradatan. 2006. Hispanic Families in the United States: Family Structure and Process in an Era of Family Change. In Hispanics and the Future of America, edited by M. Tienda and F. Mitchell. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Larsson, Clotye Murdock. 1965. Marriage Across the Color Line. Chicago: Johnson. Le, C. N. 2007. Interracial Dating and Marriage: U.S.-Raised Asian Americans. Asian-Nation: The Landscape of Asian America, http://www.asiannation.org/interracial2.shtml. Lee, Jennifer, and Frank D. Bean. 2003. Beyond Black and White: Remaking Race in America. Contexts 2 (3):26–33. Lee, Sharon M., and Barry Edmonston. 2005. New Marriages, New Families: U.S. Racial and Hispanic Intermarriage. Population Bulletin 60 (2):1–36. Lichter, Daniel T., Diane K. McLaughlin, and David C. Ribar. 2002. Economic Restructuring and the Retreat from Marriage. Social Science Research 31 (2):230–256. Lieberson, Stanley, and Mary C. Waters. 1988. From Many Strands: Ethnic and Racial Groups in Contemporary America, The Population of the United States in the 1980s. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Manning, Wendy D., and Nancy S. Landale. 1996. Racial and Ethnic Differences in the Role of Cohabitation in Premarital Childbearing. Journal of Marriage and Family 58 (February):63–77. Massey, Douglas S. 1981. Dimensions of the New Immigration to the United States and the Prospects for Assimilation. Annual Review of Sociology 7:57–85. McNamara, Robert P., Maria Tempenis, and Beth Walton. 1999. Crossing the Line: Interracial Couples in the South. Westort, CT: Geenwood Press. McPherson, Miller, Lynn Smith-Lovin, and James M. Cook. 2001. Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks. Annual Review of Sociology 27:415–444. Moran, Rachel F. 2001. Interracial Intimacy: The Regulation of Race & Romance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Olsen, Laurie. 2001. Public Education, Immigrants, and Racialization: The Contemporary Americanization Project. In E Pluribus Unum? Contemporary and Historical Perspectives on Immigrant Political Incorporation, edited by G. Gerstle and J. Mollenkopf. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

References

221

Omi, Michael, and Howard Winant. 1994. Racial Formation in the United States: From the 1960s to the 1990s. Second ed. New York: Routledge. Oropesa, R. Salvador. 1996. Normative Beliefs about Marriage and Cohabitation: A Comparison of Non-Latino Whites, Mexican Americans, and Puerto Ricans. Journal of Marriage and Family 58 (February):49–62. Park, Robert E. 1930. Assimilation, Social. In Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, edited by E. R. A. Seligman and A. Johnson. New York: Macmillan. Park, Robert E., and Ernest W. Burgess. 1921. Introduction to the Science of Sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Parkman, Margaret A., and Jack Sawyer. 1967. Dimensions of Ethnic Intermarriage in Hawaii. American Sociological Review 32 (August):593– 607. Perlmann, Joel. 1997. Reflecting the Changing Face of America: Multiracials, Racial Classification, and American Intermarriage. Annandale-on-Hudson, NY: Jerome Levy Economics Institution. Portes, Alejandro, and Rubén G. Rumbaut. 2001. Legacies: The Story of the Immigrant Second Generation. Berkeley and New York: University of California Press and Russell Sage Foundation. ——. 2005. Introduction: The Second Generation and the Children of Immigrants Longitudinal Study. Ethnic and Racial Studies 28 (6):983–999. ——. 2006. Immigrant America: A Portrait. 3rd ed. Berkeley: University of California Press. Portes, Alejandro, and Min Zhou. 1993. The New 2nd-Generation: Segmented Assimilation and Its Variants. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 530:74–96. Qian, Zhenchao. 1999. Who Intermarries? Education, Nativity, Region, and Interracial Marriage,1980 and 1990. Journal of Comparative Family Studies 30 (4):579–597. Qian, Zhenchao, Sampson Lee Blair, and Stacey Ruf. 2001. Asian American Interracial and Interethnic Marriages: Differences by Education and Nativity. International Migration Review 35 (1):557–586. Qian, Zhenchao, and Daniel T. Lichter. 2004. Latinos' Mate Selection: National Origin, Racial, and Nativity Differences. Social Science Research 33:225– 247. Qian, Zhenchao, and Daniel. T. Lichter. 2007. Social Boundaries and Marital Assimilation: Interpreting Trends in Racial and Ethnic Intermarriage. American Sociological Review 72 (1):68–94.

222

References

Rodriguez, Clara E. 2000. Changing Race: Latinos, the Census, and the History of Ethnicity in the United States, Critical America. New York: New York University Press. Roediger, David R. 1991. The Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the American Working Class. London: Verso. Rosenblatt, Paul C., Terri A. Karis, and Richard A. Powell. 1995. Multiracial Couples: Black and White Voices. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Rumbaut, Rubén G. 2001. Social Assimilation of Immigrants. In Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Elsevier Science. ——. 2004. Ages, Life Stages, and Generational Cohorts: Decomposing the Immigrant First and Second Generations in the United States. International Migration Review 38 (3):1160. ——. 2005. The Melting and the Pot: Assimilation and Variety in American Life. In Incorporating Diversity: Rethinking Assimilation in a Multicultural Age, edited by P. Kivisto. Boulder, CO: Paradigm. ——. 2005. Sites of Belonging: Acculturation, Discrimination, and Ethnic Identity among Children of Immigrants. In Discovering Successful Pathways in Children’s Development: New Methods in the Study of Childhood and Family Life, edited by T. S. Weisner. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ——. 2005. Turning Points in the Transition to Adulthood: Determinants of Educational Attainment, Incarceration, and Early Childbearing Among Children of Immigrants. Ethnic and Racial Studies 28 (6):1041–1086. Schermerhorn, R. A. 1978. Comparative Ethnic Relations: A Framework for Theory and Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Sherkat, Darren E. 2004. Religious Intermarriage in the United States: Trends, Patterns, and Predictors. Social Science Research 33 (4):606–625. Shinagawa, Larry Hajime, and Gin Yong Pang. 1988. Intraethnic, Interethnic, and Interracial Marriages Among Asian Americans in California, 1980. Berkeley Journal of Sociology 33:950–1104. ——. 1996. Asian American Panethnicity and Intermarriage. Amerasia Journal 22:127–152. Simmons, Tavia, and Martin O'Connell. 2003. Married-Couple and UnmarriedPartner Households: 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Smock, Pamela J. 2000. Cohabitation in the United States: An Appraisal of Research Themes, Findings, and Implications. Annual Review of Sociology 26:1–20. Stevens, Gillian, Hiromi Ishizawa, and Mary M. McKillip. 2006. Intermarriage and the Second Generation: Choosing between Newcomers and Natives. Migration Policy Institute (October).

References

223

Taylor, Paul, Cary Funk, and Peyton Craighill. 2006. Guess Who's Coming to Dinner. Pew Research Center. Vermeulen, H. 1999. Essentializing Difference?: The Census, Multiculturalism and the Multiracials in the USA. In Cultuur, Etniciteit en Migratie/Culture, Ethnicity and Migration. Liber Amicorum E. Roosens, edited by M. C. Foblets and P. C. Lin. Leuven, Acco. Warner, W. Lloyd, and Leo Srole. 1945. The Social Systems of American Ethnic Groups, Yankee City Series ;. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Waters, Mary C. 1990. Ethnic Options: Choosing Identities in America. Berkeley: University of California Press. ——. 1999. Black Identities: West Indian Immigrant Dreams and American Realities. New York and Cambridge, MA: Russell Sage Foundation and Harvard University Press. Waters, Mary C., and Tomas R. Jimenez. 2005. Assessing Immigrant Assimilation: New Empirical and Theoretical Challenges. Annual Review of Sociology 31:105. Weisman, J. R. 2001. The Tiger and His Stripes: Thai and American Reactions to Tiger Woods’s Multi-Racial Self. In The Sum of Our Parts: Mixed Heritage Asian Americans, edited by T. Williams-Leon and C. L. Nakashima. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Weiss, Melford S. 1970. Selective Acculturation and the Dating Process: The Patterning of Chinese-Caucasian Interracial Dating. Journal of Marriage and Family 32 (2):273–278. Williams, J. Allen, and Suzanne T. Ortega. 1990. Dimensions of Ethnic Assimilation: An Empirical Appraisal of Gordon's Typology. Social Science Quarterly 74 (4):697–710. Wood, Peter B., and Nancy Sonleitner. 1996. The Effect of Childhood Interracial Contact on Adult Antiblack Prejudice. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 20 (1):1–17. Yinger, J. Milton. 1981. Toward a Theory of Assimilation and Dissimilation. Ethnic and Racial Studies 4 (3):249–264. ——. 1994. Ethnicity: Source of Strength? Source of Conflict? Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Zhou, Min, and Carl L. Bankston. 1998. Growing Up American: How the Vietnamese Children Adapt to Life in the United States. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

This page intentionally left blank

Index acculturation, 13-14, 20-22, 24, 29-30, 45, 99, 106, 108114, 145, 162, 180, 182, 191 Alba, Richard, 26-27, 32-34, 175 Asian Indians, 33, 59, 73, 78, 122, 164-166, 179 Asians (racial group), 2-4, 6-8, 12, 22-35, 42-45, 47, 52, 54-73, 75, 78-80, 82, 88, 91, 93-95, 98, 103, 105107, 109-111, 118-121, 124, 134, 136-137, 148, 150, 156, 174, 179, 183185, 188-189 assimilation, 4, 7-35, 41, 44-50, 61, 63-73, 75, 80-82, 142, 173-175, 177-179, 183-191 Bean, Frank, 27, 33-34 blacks (racial group), 1-6, 8, 1114, 27, 29, 32, 39, 47, 52-63, 67-68, 73-75, 88, 91, 93-96, 98, 134-137, 139-142, 177, 179 Brunsma, David, 82

(CILS), 8-9, 29, 41, 4550, 52, 73, 81-118, 128, 145, 151, 153-154, 157, 162, 171, 173-175, 178181, 184-186, 193-212 Chinese, 2, 6, 33, 47, 72, 78-79, 91, 96-97, 117, 120-121, 124, 125, 129, 132, 134, 140-141, 149, 153, 156 cohabitation, 3-7, 9-11, 22, 37-41, 45, 48-50, 56, 59, 73-74, 80-81, 84, 88-89, 93, 97, 103, 108-112, 122-123, 125-126, 129, 135, 139, 145-147, 151, 153, 156158, 160-162, 167, 169171, 178-180, 182, 184186 Cornell, Stephen, 6, 11-12, 31-32 Cubans, 6, 29, 59, 72-74, 91, 179 culture, 13, 16-17, 24, 29-31, 59, 61, 100, 119, 124, 126128, 130, 141, 147-149, 152-153, 158-162, 164167, 181, 187 Current Population Survey (CPS), 8-9, 25, 41-88, 172-173, 178, 183-184, 193-197

Cambodians, 6, 47, 91, 96, 99, 106, 119-121, 150 dating, 3-7, 9-10, 22, 39-41, 48census data, 2-4, 7, 29, 34, 37-38, 50, 59, 84, 93, 99, 110, 42-45, 51-56, 73, 82, 91, 117-118, 120, 128-129, 99, 173-174, 177-178, 131, 133, 141-142, 145188 148, 152, 154-158, 160Central/South Americans, 6, 33, 166, 168-171, 178, 181, 72-74, 179 186 Children of Immigrants discrimination, 14, 21, 29-30, 61, Longitudinal Study 135, 142, 190 225

226 education, 5, 9, 14, 21, 24, 28, 42, 46, 48-49, 97, 100, 104, 121, 153-155, 157, 164, 166, 169, 179, 181, 190 endogamy (also coethnic relationships), 3, 28, 3435, 39, 41, 45, 49-50, 73, 75, 78, 80, 83, 88-89, 92-93, 97-98, 106, 109, 145, 149, 158-160, 163, 166, 170-171, 173, 179, 182-191 ethnicity, 3-4, 6-9, 18, 30-32, 3748, 72-82, 88-96, 98, 100, 105, 115, 117-118, 122, 125, 126-128, 140, 142-143, 148-149, 151, 158, 160, 165, 168-169, 180, 183, 188-189 exogamy (also outmarriage), 52, 55-57, 59, 63-65, 67-73, 80, 178-179, 183, 213216 Filipinos, 3, 6, 33, 47, 59, 72-73, 78, 91, 93, 96, 99, 106, 120-121, 124-126, 129132, 135, 137, 147, 149152, 154, 158, 160-162, 166-167, 190 first generation (also 1.0), 25, 29, 43-45, 61, 63-66, 68-71, 74, 75, 80, 87, 184 1.5 generation, 44, 59-63, 87, 179 Fujino, Diane, 97, 109-110, 145 Gans, Herbert, 22

Index gender, 9, 57, 80, 104, 108, 114, 123, 127, 145-175, 179181, 183, 185 Gordon, Albert, 18 Gordon, Milton, 13-14, 15, 18, 20-22, 25, 30-31, 61, 142, 175 group concentration, 23, 28, 72, 81, 88, 121, 183 group size, 23, 32, 40, 72, 81, 183 Hartmann, Douglass, 6, 11-12, 31-32 Herberg, Will, 16-17, 114 Hispanics (racial group), 1, 3-4, 27, 34, 39, 42-45, 47, 51-54, 55-58, 61-65, 6775, 78, 80, 82, 88, 91, 96, 98, 105-106, 134, 137, 174, 179, 183-184, 188-189 Hmong, 47, 96, 99, 106, 124-125 Hollinger, David, 27-28 imagining the future, 163-171, 173, 182 immigration, 2-6, 12, 17, 25-26, 28, 32-33, 47, 49, 51, 66-67, 71, 185, 187, 190-191 interethnic relationships, 3-4, 6-9, 18, 31-35, 37-42, 45-49, 56, 59, 61, 83, 88-95, 97, 99-104, 112-115, 117, 143, 178-181, 184-185, 188-189 intermarriage, 1-8, 12-22, 27, 3034, 37-38, 40, 51-56, 59-65, 67, 73, 75, 80-81,

Index 87, 99-100, 110, 114, 177-178, 180, 183, 186189 interracial relationships, 1-9, 12, 18, 32-33, 37-42, 45-49, 52-55, 59-63, 67, 83, 88-95, 97, 100-104, 110-115, 117, 143, 160, 163, 168, 178-181, 184185, 187-190 Japanese, 3, 6, 30, 32-33, 63, 7273, 78-80, 161, 179, 184 Jiobu, Robert, 20 Joyner, Kara, 97, 145, 163

227 157-158, 163-164, 170171, 178, 181-184, 186191 Mexicans, 6, 28, 33, 39, 47, 56, 59, 61, 63, 65, 72-76, 91, 93-99, 105-107, 121124, 127-128, 131, 148150, 156-157, 163, 167169, 179, 183, 185, 189 multiracial, 47, 51, 54, 88, 91, 93-95, 98, 106, 166 Nee, Victor, 11, 26-27, 32-34, 175 Olsen, Laurie, 27-28

Kallen, Horace, 25 Kao, Grace, 97, 145, 163 Kennedy, Ruby Jo, 15-16, 114, 184-185 Koreans, 3, 6, 33, 73, 78-79, 161 language, 9, 16-17, 21, 23-24, 28, 35, 45-46, 48-49, 92, 96-97, 99, 103, 108, 110-112, 117-128, 134, 142-143, 145, 152, 158, 162-163, 169-170, 174175, 179-182, 185, 189 Lao, 6, 47, 96, 99, 106, 119, 121, 125, 132, 138-139, 142, 149-151, 156 Lichter, Daniel, 3, 34, 89, 174, 186-189 marriage, 1-7, 11-13, 15, 18, 2122, 32-35, 38-40, 45, 52-55, 57, 61, 63, 67, 75, 80-82, 88, 98, 100, 108, 110, 119-120, 142, 145,

Park, Robert, 13, 19 patriarchy, 147-153, 163, 171173, 181-183 Portes, Alejandro, 28-30, 186 prejudice, 21, 133-135, 137-138, 140, 142, 180, 182, 190 Puerto Ricans, 3, 30, 72-75, 77, 179, 183 Qian, Zhenchao, 3, 34, 73, 89, 174, 186-189 race, 1, 6-7, 9, 11-12, 14, 16, 18, 23, 27, 30-33, 37-39, 41-48, 51-72, 81-82, 8896, 100-103, 115, 117118, 120, 128, 133-134, 137-140, 142-143, 148, 152, 169, 180, 183, 188189 religion, 9, 16-18, 23-24, 31, 4546, 48-49, 92, 97, 99, 103-105, 108, 110-114,

228 127-133, 139-140, 142143, 145, 158, 163, 165, 167, 179-182, 184-185 Rumbaut, Rubén, 5, 20, 25, 2930, 45, 201 Shermerhorn, R. A., 31 second generation (also 2.0), 5, 16, 28-30, 43-45, 61-62, 64-66, 71, 74-80, 87-88, 117, 183-184, 191 2.5 generation, 59-63, 87, 99, 106 segmented assimilation, 7-9, 2431, 33, 35, 41, 46, 48, 50, 81, 174, 177, 184186, 189-191 Srole, Leo, 16 stereotypes, 80, 109, 133-135, 137-138, 140-142, 180 Stevens, Gillian, 27, 33-34, 6466 straight-line assimilation, 7-9, 12, 14-15, 19, 22, 24, 26-31, 33, 48,63-64, 67-68, 7172, 75, 80-81, 174, 177, 183-186, 189-190

Index third generations (also third-plus, 3.0), 16, 30, 41-42, 4445, 48, 56, 59-66, 71, 74, 78, 84, 87-89, 108, 183 Vietnamese, 3, 6, 47, 78-79, 91, 99, 106, 119, 121, 124127, 129, 131, 134-137, 139, 141-142, 147, 150151, 153-154, 156, 169170 Warner, Lloyd, 16 Waters, Mary, 66 whites (racial group; also Caucasians), 1-6, 11-15, 24-28, 32, 34-35, 39, 47, 52-56, 61-63, 67-68, 73, 75-80, 88-89, 91, 93, 98, 117-118, 134, 137, 140, 147-148, 150, 161, 163, 165, 167-168, 174, 177, 179, 183-185, 188-190 Yinger, J. Milton, 19-26, 73, 173-174, 189-190 Zhou, Min, 28-29, 186