Balancing Acts: Youth Culture in the Global City

Balancing Acts

Balancing Acts

Youth Culture in the Global City

Natasha K. Warikoo

University of California Press, one of the most distinguished university presses in the United States, enriches lives around the world by advancing scholarship in the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences. Its activities are supported by the UC Press Foundation and by philanthropic contributions from individuals and institutions. For more information, visit www.ucpress.edu.

University of California Press

Berkeley and Los Angeles, California

University of California Press, Ltd.

London, England

© 2011 by The Regents of the University of California

Portions of chapter 3 appeared in Racial Authenticity among Second Generation Youth in Multiethnic New York and London, Poetics: Journal of Empirical Research on Culture, the Media, and the Arts 35, no. 6 (2007): 388–408. Portions of chapter 7 appeared in Symbolic Boundaries and School Structure in Multiethnic Schools, American Journal of Education 116, no. 3 (2010): 423–51. Portions of the book appeared in Youth Culture and Peer Status among Children of Immigrants in New York and London: Assessing the Cultural Explanation for Downward Assimilation, in Beyond Stereotype: Minority Children of Immigrants in Urban Schools, ed. R. Saran and R. Diaz (Rotterdam: Sense, 2010).

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Warikoo, Natasha Kumar.

Balancing acts: youth culture in the global city / Natasha Kumar

Warikoo.

    p.    cm.

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 978-0-520-26210-2 (cloth : alk. paper)

ISBN 978-0-520-26211-9 (pbk. : alk. paper)

1. Youth—Social life and customs—Cross-cultural studies. 2. Children of immigrants—Cross-cultural studies. 3. High school students—Social life and customs—Cross-cultural studies. 4. Assimilation (Sociology). 5. Academic achievement—Cross-cultural studies. 6. Group identity—Cross-cultural studies. I. Title.

HQ796.W267    2011

305.235086′91209421—dc22                                                        2010013984

Manufactured in the United States of America

20   19   18   17   16   15   14   13   12   11

10   9   8   7    6   5   4   3   2   1

This book is printed on Cascades Enviro 100, a 100% post consumer waste, recycled, de-inked fiber. FSC recycled certified and processed chlorine free. It is acid free, Ecologo certified, and manufactured by BioGas energy.

For my parents, for pushing me to aim high

And for Ramesh, because you’ve made me a

better person

Contents

Preface

Acknowledgments

1. Understanding Cultural Incorporation

2. Music and Style: Americanization or Globalization?

3. Racial Authenticity, Acting Black, and Cultural Consumption

4. Two Types of Racial Discrimination: Adult Exclusion and Peer Bullying

5. Positive Attitudes and (Some) Negative Behaviors

6. Balancing Acts: Peer Status and Academic Orientations

7. Ethnic and Racial Boundaries

8. Explaining Youth Cultures, Improving Academic Achievement

Appendix: Research Sites and Methods

Notes

Works Cited

Index

Preface

Growing up with immigrant parents in a small steel town in Pennsylvania, I knew I was different from my peers. For starters, I looked different, and at that time the contemporary Indo-chic had not made it big, so it wasn’t cool to be Indian, or even ethnically ambiguous, as it is today. Also, my brother and I were ace students. We attributed this to our parents’ Indian background and culture, rather than to their professional status in comparison to our peers’ fathers, most of whom worked in the steel mills of my town—and, sadly, eventually became unemployed as we grew and the mills closed during the 1980s. Ours was an easy enough assumption: the most obvious difference between us and our peers was our Indian culture, so culture seemed a likely explanation for our high academic achievement. Of course, it helped that our parents drilled it into our heads that excellence in education was expected in our culture. They saw American culture as something that we should stay away from, lest it steer us in the wrong direction. Even school-organized parties were prohibited by my strict parents, my mother frequently reminding me that we are different. Friends (female only, boys not being allowed to call me until I got my own phone in college) often remarked on how intimidating it was to call me at home and deal with my father’s stern Who is calling?

In contrast to my parents’ fears of American culture, today Indians are, by many measures, one of the most assimilated ethnic groups in the United States. Indians have a high rate of intermarriage with whites; we are more likely to live among whites than are blacks and Latinos; and we have high incomes and levels of education (Frey and Myers, 2005; C. N. Lee, 2007; U.S. Census Bureau, 2000c). These measures of assimilation are seen by many to signal success in American society—we have successfully assimilated into the mainstream, just as the Italians, Jews, Irish, Germans, and others did before us.

So did I excel in school by staying away from American culture? Or did academic excellence lead me to become more American? My experiences as a second-generation Indian American first sparked my interest in understanding how ethnic groups assimilate and experience academic and socioeconomic success and failure, and eventually led me to study the children of immigrants as a Ph.D. student. Cultural explanations for ethnic incorporation abound in popular discourse as well as among journalists and scholars. Asian Americans are commonly seen as model minorities, their Asian cultures supposedly explaining success in school and work. African Americans and many Latino groups, on the other hand, are often stereotyped as lazy, culturally insular, and prone to undervaluing education, explaining lower-than-average outcomes.

As I began my Ph.D., I intuitively bristled at cultural explanations for ethnic and racial stratification, believing that scholars should instead focus on social structures that reproduce inequality and prevent social mobility. In my mind, the shift from my early understandings of my successes in school was due to a more complex perception of how disadvantage in American society negatively affects those at the bottom. I was not alone; sociologists after the 1970s grew leery of cultural explanations for inequality, scarred by the politics of earlier culture of poverty arguments that blamed African American culture for black disadvantage in American society, rather than historical discrimination and disadvantage, social policies that disproportionately disadvantage blacks, residential segregation, racism, and other structural constraints.

I later realized, however, that it is impossible to study the process of ethnic mobility in American society without talking about culture and how it matters, if only to discredit folk theories about why certain groups do better than others. I saw that ethnic identities evolve quite differently for different ethnic groups, depending on their race, structural constraints, modes of adaptation, and other factors. I had to take more seriously the diverse ways in which individuals and groups respond to structural constraints, and the fact that these variations matter for future outcomes. Just before I started the Ph.D. program, my adviser, Mary Waters, published a book that analyzed, among other things, the multiple ways in which black New Yorkers responded to racial discrimination (1999). African Americans emphasized experiences with interpersonal racism, while Afro-Caribbeans emphasized structural racism. These different cultural orientations, rooted in upbringings in different racial orders, in turn had implications for these black New Yorkers’ success in the workforce. I also read studies by social psychologists that analyzed which types of group identities correlate with high self-esteem and school success (Phinney, 1991). I began to realize that I had to think about culture when trying to understand how ethnic groups adapt.

Culture, in fact, plays a key role in the predominant theory of ethnic incorporation in the United States today: segmented assimilation. This theory suggests that ethnic groups differ in their patterns of assimilation into U.S. society, in part because they assimilate into different segments of a highly stratified American society (Portes, Fernández-Kelly, and Haller, 2005; Portes and Rumbaut, 2001; Portes and Zhou, 1993). On the one hand, higher-skilled immigrants living in middle- to upper-class areas are reported to upwardly assimilate over generations, just as Italians and Jews did in previous generations. On the other hand, low-skilled minority groups in the inner city are reported to assimilate into the urban underclass; the second generation of these groups may experience second-generation decline (Gans, 1992), due in part to an oppositional culture that youth pick up from their African American peers. This oppositional culture includes anti-school attitudes and behaviors, as well as tastes for music and styles highly critical of mainstream society. Lastly, segmented assimilation theory suggests that living in an ethnic enclave can shield minority children of low-skilled immigrants from the problems and culture of the inner city, in part through an emphasis on ethnic culture and networks. Each of these assimilation trajectories results in part from a cultural orientation that immigrants and their children pick up from their surroundings: immigrants and their children in middle- to upper-class, predominantly white areas adopt mainstream American culture and values; those in the inner city adopt the counterculture of the urban underclass; and those in ethnic enclaves retain ethnic ties and ethnic culture, which promote high academic achievement.

The cultural explanations that this theory suggests never quite resonated with my own experiences as a second-generation young adult, nor with my experiences teaching children of immigrants in New York City public schools. As a teacher, I found that even the most poorly behaved students, when sat down and confronted, confessed sincere desires to straighten up, to earn better grades, and to finish school on time; these conversations were often heartfelt, and I truly believed most were not simply telling me what I wanted to hear, even when their behaviors in school compromised those aspirations. In terms of my personal experiences growing up, assimilation into the popular culture of my town meant watching the Pittsburgh Steelers play football and listening to Bruce Springsteen. Growing up in the late 1970s and early 1980s in small-town Pennsylvania, we had nothing like today’s Bollywood–hip-hop remix music that blends popular urban music with Indian film songs. Instead, we enjoyed Springsteen’s music about blue-collar America, especially appreciating the songs that mentioned our hometown and the industries that were closing in places like ours, even while our parents enjoyed job security as doctors. However, we pulled away from the crowd when it came to post–high school plans, choosing to apply to and attend Ivy League institutions far away from home. Most of our peers looked for work locally after high school, ending their formal education.

When I looked more carefully at what scholars had previously written about the second generation, I found that although many employed theories of culture to explain patterns of success and decline, none had taken an in-depth look at culture among the second generation. Instead, many drew a stereotype about a putative inner-city culture, whose adoption leads second-generation teens to oppose all that their parents and teachers hold near and dear with respect to academic achievement. Others idealized ethnic cultures and used them to explain why some Asian groups did better than black Americans and sometimes even white Americans. Both of these explanations resonated with my parents’ explanations for our success and others’ failures, but I found them lacking in evidence. In-depth studies of second-generation cultures—especially beyond the influence of their parents’ ethnic cultures—were scant, and I had a hunch that such a project would improve our understanding of immigrant incorporation into American society. So I embarked on this study of youth culture among second-generation teens in New York City and London. I wondered: What meanings do teens see in their tastes in music and style? To what extent are second-generation youth influenced by popular culture and peer culture, and how? How does peer culture influence attitudes toward academic achievement? How do ethnicity and popular culture influence peer status groups? How do all of these cultural adaptations differ between ethnic and racial groups? What aspects of these cultural adaptations are uniquely American? In addition to my U.S.-based research, I decided to step out of the American context to understand what aspects of urban America affect these cultural adaptations uniquely.

I spent a year in two high schools with diverse student bodies and low achievement among students, one in New York and one in London. In the schools, I observed, talked to, and gathered data on children of immigrants, both formally—through in-depth interviews, a survey, and classroom observations—and informally—in the schoolyard, after school, and when I bumped into students on the subway or at corner shops. I found that children of immigrants attending these poor-performing schools nevertheless believe in the immigrant dream: they think that if they work hard, they’ll get ahead; they don’t think that racism is holding them back; and they don’t think that peers will shun them if they do well in school. Becoming American and becoming British for children of immigrants, even in disadvantaged areas, did not lead to rebellion against and rejection of conventional success such as academic achievement. Still, the children of immigrants I encountered sometimes dressed and behaved in ways that could impede their academic achievement. In New York, seemingly oppositional styles, music, and behaviors, however, stemmed not from an anti-school orientation picked up from African American peers, but rather from all teens’ desires for peer status. London youth also prioritized peer status. That is, while they cared about academic success, they also cared about success among their peers—being cool, maintaining self-respect and pride, and being popular. I found remarkably similar tastes in music and style among children of immigrants in New York and London, which led me to conclude that today a taste for hip-hop and rap—assumed by many adults to signify rebellion—is actually a global, media-driven phenomenon rather than one adopted by local peers and rooted in critiques of mainstream society.

At times, engaging with peer culture came into conflict with the dominant culture’s expectations, so that youth who focused exclusively on peer status sometimes found themselves slipping in school despite their best intentions. For example, defending one’s pride by responding to bullying with shouts or even physical violence may maintain status among peers, but it can also lead to school suspension. This conflict between maintaining peer status and achieving school success explains cultural influences on underachievement among some minority youth. Still, the youth culture is not opposed to school norms.

The most successful children were those able to engage in balancing acts: maintaining status in their youth subcultures while also maintaining focus on behaviors conducive to academic achievement. This skill in code-switching is what most youth strive for. I am not suggesting that downward assimilation does not happen. Both schools I studied have low rates of academic success. Rather, I show in this book that the mechanism for underachievement among some ethnic groups cannot be explained through oppositional youth cultures. The conflict between peer culture and dominant school norms can lead to downward assimilation, especially among youth who emphasize peer culture to the detriment of school success and among those who have not developed the skills to balance their two social worlds. Furthermore, structural factors such as underresourced schools, tracking, low parental education, and discrimination may further lead poor and working-class immigrant communities to poor academic outcomes.

Acknowledgments

The publication of this book marks the end of a long journey, and I was fortunate to have much support—intellectual and emotional—along the way. Central to this project was the guidance of my excellent Ph.D. committee. Mary Waters was an incredibly supportive adviser whose calm way often convinced me that everything was fine and would get done, even when I couldn’t see the forest for the trees. Michele Lamont assiduously reads everything I send her, always providing detailed, insightful comments that improve my work immensely. The intellectual influence of Prudence Carter will be apparent to readers of this book. Her questions always push my thinking on matters of youth culture, race, and education, and for this I am grateful. All three continue to be outstanding mentors and colleagues, and I feel lucky to have had such brilliant and supportive women to work with. While I was at Harvard, Kathy Newman encouraged me to develop my then-fleeting interest in culture and helped me to shape my research questions during the early stages of this project. Harvard colleagues on the other side of Cambridge Common at the Graduate School of Education have also been very helpful, including Meira Levinson, Michal Kurlaender, Kay Merseth, and Marcelo Suarez-Orozco. Others at Harvard who pushed my thinking include Chris Bail, Patricia Banks, Irene Bloemraad, Michael Fortner, Renee Richardson Gosline, Corina Graif, Luisa Heredia, Richard Mora, Orlando Patterson, Wendy Roth, Bill Wilson, and Scott Winship. I am especially indebted to Cybelle Fox, who read numerous drafts of this manuscript in its many stages as a project proposal, dissertation, and finally as a completed book manuscript. Tomás Jiménez, Helen Marrow, and Laurel Cadwallader Stolte also generously read the manuscript in its entirety, helping me to clarify my ideas and tighten my writing. In Cambridge my friends Para Ambardar and Amit Rajparia often made me laugh and think outside the box as I planned this project and the rest of my life.

My two institutional homes in London provided intellectual support as well. John Hills, Jason Strelitz, Robert Cassen, and Ruth Lupton helped me think through my nascent ideas while I did my research and writing at the Centre for the Analysis of Social Exclusion (CASE) at the London School of Economics. At the University of London’s Institute for the Study of the Americas (ISA), James Dunkerley and Iwan Morgan generously provided me with time to complete the dissertation and begin its evolution into this book. Outside CASE and ISA in Britain, Fiona Adamson, Claire Dwyer, Rahsaan Maxwell, Ephraim Nimni, Bhikhu Parekh, Eiko Thielemann, and Susanne Wessendorf all helped me develop my ideas.

Colleagues at Barnard College, UC Berkeley, Harvard, Hunter College, ISA, NYU, Queens College, University of Manchester, and University of Sussex all provided helpful feedback at talks I gave, as did participants in numerous conferences and seminars, including those of the American Sociological Association; the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research; the Council for European Studies; the Harvard-Manchester Summer Workshop on Immigration and Social Change; the London Migration Research Group; and Oxford University’s Centre on Migration Policy and Society. Gilberto Conchas and Margaret Chin provided helpful comments as reviewers of this book, as did an anonymous reviewer. Naomi Schneider at the University of California Press provided continued support, and Steven Baker’s copyediting made this manuscript more readable.

Generous funding allowed me to complete this project without delay. The NSF-IGERT Multidisciplinary Program in Inequality and Social Policy at Harvard University (Grant No. 9870661) provided funding during the year I did this research; Harvard’s Center for European Studies provided funding for me to write the dissertation that became this book; and the National Science Foundation Dissertation Improvement Award (SES-0402248) saved time that would otherwise have been spent transcribing the interviews I conducted.

Qualitative research relies on supportive hosts, and in this project I had three generous ones. In London, Gerard McKenna made my research possible from the start: he welcomed a stranger from across the pond into his school; he responded almost immediately to my many requests for information; and he generously shared his personal office with me during my time at his school. In New York, Bernadette O’Reiley was a wonderful and warm host. She went out of her way to make me comfortable and to accommodate my research needs. Also in New York, when I needed another school at which to conduct research, Jonathan Barnett welcomed me back to his institution, and Kaiquon King introduced me to many thoughtful young men and women there.

Most important of all, the students and teachers at the schools where I conducted my research generously opened their classrooms and lives to me. I sincerely thank the dozens of teachers who allowed me into their classrooms. I was inspired by wonderful teaching, modeling, and mentorship by teachers I encountered on both sides of the pond. The candor with which the teens I met spoke and wrote was a gift for which I am immensely grateful. Their words, as you will read, are inspiring, heartbreaking, sincere, funny, insecure, and sweet. Many went out of their way to make my research easy and to make me comfortable, inviting me to sit with them during lunchtime, to join their conversations, to attend their school and community events, and even to join their classes.

Finally, my family. My in-laws, the Kumar family, have taught me to relax and laugh about most things in life. My parents, Shiban and Nanna Warikoo, provided my first encounter with immigrants, and I owe most of my life’s accomplishments to their thoughtful parenting. My father’s broad perspective on the world and talk of injustice developed my interest in fighting inequality at a young age. My mother has spent much of her vacation time with my children since they were born, taking care of them as I stole away to write and rewrite this book. My mother-in-law has done the same. Many years ago my brother Niraj taught me to be independent, to defend my ideas, and to pay attention to the world around me. I owe much of my intellectual development to him. My maternal grandmother, Jaikishori Mirakhur, or Nani as we affectionately called her, left this world as I put the finishing touches on this book. She gave me, my brother and cousins, and all our children unconditional love, and her sweet smile will remain in my heart forever.

The writing of this book spanned the births of my two wonderful children, Zoya and Kavi. They simultaneously bring deep meaning to my life and teach me to put less stake in worldly accomplishments. Coming home to their smiling faces puts everything in perspective. Their father, Ramesh Kumar, continues to be a wonderful partner with whom to share life’s journey. Ramesh has pushed me to focus, to believe in myself and in my work, and to always remember the larger picture—of what I am doing, of why I’m doing it, and of why it matters. His infectious energy brings great joy to my life. Every morning when the four of us gather for a morning cuddle, I believe I am the luckiest woman in the world.

CHAPTER 1

Understanding Cultural Incorporation

A simple explanation—offered by scholars, policy makers, and educators alike—for seemingly self-defeating youth behaviors such as fighting in school and talking back to teachers is that they stem from a rejection of the dominant ideology of equal opportunity and education as keys to success. This oppositional stance is thought to embody itself in hip-hop and rap music and style among minority youth. Using this logic, a bill passed in 2005 by the Virginia State House of Delegates would have fined the display of undergarments, a style popular with both boys and girls, especially in urban areas (the bill died in the senate). Similarly, a few months after Virginia’s Droopy Drawers Bill, a shopping mall in Kent, England, seeking to curb anti-social behaviors at the mall, banned the wearing of hoodies—hooded sweatshirts often worn by young men. These acts show that adults think that youth styles matter and that they believe styles can symbolize antisocial behaviors and outlooks. Theorists of immigration have applied these kinds of theories about oppositional culture to their analyses of ethnic assimilation, suggesting that the adoption of American youth cultures among the children of immigrants can lead to poor school outcomes. But, what do the cultural practices and outlooks of children of immigrants really look like? This is the central question of this book.

In the following pages I unpack the cultural lives of children of immigrants in multiethnic schools in two global cities, New York and London. I describe and analyze the aspects of youth cultures that adults most worry about: attitudes, music tastes and clothing styles, behaviors related to conflict, and influences on peer status. These are dimensions of children’s cultural worlds that immigrants are most concerned about and that academics emphasize when trying to understand the second generation’s incorporation into U.S. society. Parents, policymakers, and academics alike hope that children of immigrants will not develop negative attitudes toward schooling, that they won’t learn to listen to music and don styles that signal a counterculture or rebellion, and that they won’t get into fights and become as outspoken and defiant as many of their American peers. These behaviors, according to both conventional wisdom and some academic writing, are the determinants of whether children of immigrants will succeed in their lives. So I took some time to focus on the cultural lives of second-generation teenagers to find out what their attitudes are, what music and styles they prefer, what their tastes mean to them, how they deal with conflict, and what determines peer status. By delving deeply into not only what students are doing, listening to, and wearing but also why they make the choices they make and what meanings those cultural symbols have to them, I paint a picture of urban youth cultures very different from the one perceived by advocates of the Droopy Drawers bills.

I found little evidence for oppositional peer cultures, and no evidence that perceptions of discrimination lead to low aspirations. Academic achievement is quite low in both high schools of my research: less than half of students graduate in the New York school, and less than half in the London site leave school eligible to apply to university. Although a minority of students did have some negative perceptions of opportunities, those cannot account for the predominant patterns of academic failure in both schools. Students engaged in behaviors thought to signify disinterest in education—they got into fights, talked back to teachers, and came late to class. These behaviors, however, coincided with positive orientations toward school. What explained the behaviors was the high importance teens placed on peer status, for which they needed to socialize, defend self-pride, show toughness among peers, wear the right clothing, and listen to the right music. This was especially true for boys. The similarity between taste cultures in New York and London suggests that the local influence of African American peers cannot explain the cultural adaptation process for children of immigrants in these low-performing schools; rather, there appears to be a global urban youth culture in which American hip-hop and rap are popular and that leads to black racial identity having high peer status in both urban settings.

UNDERSTANDING ASSIMILATION

The predominant theory of assimilation in the United States today concerning the immigrant second generation (U.S.-born children of immigrants) is segmented assimilation theory (Portes et al., 2005; Portes and Rumbaut, 2001; Portes and Zhou, 1993). Segmented assimilation theory provides an explanation for divergent outcomes. Using an integrated structural-cultural explanation, it argues that the trajectory of ethnic communities depends on which segment of U.S. society—the upper-middle class, the ethnic enclave, or disadvantaged minority communities—families are incorporated into (Portes et al., 2005; Portes and Zhou, 1993). The theory suggests that three factors differentiate the post-1965 wave of immigrants from prior waves, leading to the possibility of downward assimilation: (1) a predominance of immigrants who are racial minorities in the United States; (2) a bifurcated labor market in which most jobs for the low-skilled are low-paying service-sector jobs rather than the unionized manufacturing jobs that many earlier immigrants were able to take; and (3) proximity (of some) to the problems of the urban inner city. The first two factors are structural explanations; the third includes a cultural explanation, suggesting that cultural influences, not just the structural hazards of