Abstract

According to Waters (1999), most Americans have some choice in ethnic identity and the ability to

practice symbolic ethnicity (Gans, 1979). This choice, however, is available to whites only; black

Americans have less choice because their ascribed race trumps any ethnic status. Scholars challenge this

assumption as ‘problematic’ and ‘overly simplistic’, which raises questions: can ethnicity be optional? Do

people practice symbolic ethnicity because it is functional for them to do so? In the literature, I found

that people practice symbolic ethnicity in ways that are intermittent and contextual; they are selective

about in what contexts they express ethnic symbols.

Keywords: race; symbols; ethnicity; identity; symbolic ethnicity.

Ayon kay Waters (1999), karamihan sa mga Amerikano ay maraming maaaring pagpilian sa kanilang

etkong pagkakakilanlan at may kakayahang magsagawa ng simbolikong etnisidad. Gayunpaman, ang

pagpiling ito ay maaari lamang sa mga puti; ang mga itim na Amerikano ay may limitadong pagpipilian

sapagkat ang kanilang lahi ay balakid sa anumang katayuang etniko. Hinamon ng mga iskolar ang

palagay na ito bilang “walang kaytiyakan o nakapagdududa” at “labis na kapagaanan”, na nakapagbigay

katanungan: Ang etnisidad ba ay opsyonal? Isinasagawa ba ng mga tao ang simbolikong etnisidad dahil

pabor ito sa kanila? Sa literatura, napag-alaman ko na na isinasagawa ng mga tao ang simbolikong

etnisidad sa mga paraang intermitente at ayon sa kontekstol; pinipili nila ang sa kung anong konteksto

nila ipapahayag ang kanilang simbolong etniko.

Keywords: lahi; simboliko; etnisidad; pagkakakilanlan; simbolikong pagkakakilanlan

Celebrating ethnic holidays; cooking ethnic foods; dressing in ethnic clothing. Herbert Gans

(1979), asserted that these are some of the ways to practice symbolic ethnicity: a type of ethnicity

expressed through symbols. Ethnic symbols are abstracted from the older ethnic culture, and later-

generation ethnics draw on these symbols as ‘easy and intermittent ways’ of expressing their ethnicities

(Gans 1979).

The availability of choice has been central to the concept of symbolic ethnicity from its outset.

Gans (1979) argued that symbolic ethnicity was characterized by people’s ability to choose when and

how to play ethnic roles, which was possible due to the sharp decline in behavioural expectations

associated with such roles. According to Alba (1990), “choice is probably the key to unlocking the full

implications of the transition underway from community to identity as a basis for ethnicity among

whites” (as cited in Song, 2003). Building on the hypotheses of symbolic ethnicity, Mary Waters coined

the phrase ‘ethnic options’ (1999) to express people’s choices as to whether to identify with an ethnic

grouping as well as how to do so. She argued that for White ‘ethnics’ in America a large number of

choices were available as to which, if any, ethnic group to identify with. Waters asserted, however, that

such options were not available to people who were racially classified as others ascribed identities to

them based on their physical appearance: “[h]istory and current power relations create and shape the

opportunities people face in their day-to-day lives giving some people “ethnic options” and others

“racial labels” (1999).

Like Waters (1999), other scholars have suggested that black Americans possess few, if any,

ethnic options (e.g. Kibria 2000). Miri Song, however, challenges this assumption as ‘problematic’ (2003,

p. 32) and ‘overly simplistic’ (ibid., p. 34), which raises questions like: can ethnicity be optional? Do

people practice symbolic ethnicity because it is functional for them to do so?

Since the latter half of the nineteenth century, social scientists have spent a great deal of time

trying to solve the ‘puzzle’ of ethnicity (Cornell and Hartmann 1998) put simply, is it fixed or fluid? Early

scholars took a primordialist view and described ethnicity as something ‘fixed, fundamental, and rooted

in the unchangeable circumstances of birth’ (as cited in Song, 2003). Hence, characteristics and traits

attributed to ethnic groups were perceived as innate and natural. In the mid-twentieth century,

however, scholars began seriously to question biological theories of ethnicity. Instead of conceptualizing

ethnicity and ethnic boundaries as fixed, they described them as subjective, flexible and dependent

upon circumstance and situation (e.g. Gans 1979).

Building on this work, later scholars similarly argued that ethnicity could be flexible and involve

choice. Waters (1999) finds that ethnicity is flexible and optional, although for whites only. Minorities

have limited ethnic options because their ascribed race trumps any ethnic status; thus, they cannot

practice symbolic ethnicity. For instance, Waters claims that, ‘a person with black skin who had some

Irish ancestry would have to work very hard to decide to present himself or herself as Irish - and in many

important ways he/she would be denied that option’ (1999). Raced as black, any ethnic claims (e.g. Irish)

go unrecognized by larger society. Other scholars have also suggested that black Americans possess few,

if any, ethnic options. Mia Tuan (1998), for example, argues that, for black Americans, ‘the issue of

ethnic options is irrelevant’ (as cited in Song 2003).

Recent work on Asian Americans challenge Water’s (1999) claim that ethnicity is optional for

whites only. Kibria (2000) argues that Asian Americans are able to transcend racialization as Asian by

asserting particular ethnic heritages (e.g. ‘I’m Chinese, not Korean’). They can do this because they have

access to ethnic/national backgrounds (unlike blacks, whose ethnic backgrounds were obliterated over
time), but also because their social mobility has given them ‘some latitude’ to express their ethnic

identities (Kibria, 2000).

Tuan (1998), too, finds ethnic flexibility for Asian Americans and argues that, like white ethnics,

they ‘choose’ the aspects of ethnic culture that they wish to express, while discarding those they do not

(e.g. eating Japanese food, but not speaking Japanese). By practicing symbolic ethnicity, they engage in

the ‘most superficial forms of ethnic identification’ in order to express their ethnic identities in easy and

intermittent ways (Tuan 1998). Moreover, Tuan (1998) finds that, as for white ethnics, symbolic

expression of particular ethnicities can be functional; one respondent described expressing her Japanese

ethnicity in order ‘to feel unique in a social climate that currently celebrates multiculturalism’. Tuan

(1998) discovers, however, that their ethnic choices are largely confined to their personal lives -they

have the ability to exercise their ethnic options, but these options are limited in most public arenas and

in most interactions with non- Asians who continue to race them as Asian.

Despite this limitation, Kibria’s (2000) and Tuan’s (1998) studies suggest that Asian Americans

possess more options than black Americans, and, according to Song (2003), their work is premised on

the notion that black Americans possess no options. This is arguably supported by studies of black

immigrants, which show that their ethnic claims (e.g. Haitian, Jamaican) go unrecognized by larger

society which continues to race them as black (Waters, 1999). Additionally, because of the one-drop

rule, Waters further claims that even multiracial Americans with black ancestry have limited options.

Even if they know that they have many non-black ancestors in their family lines, Waters argues, they are

‘highly constrained to identify as blacks, without other options available to them’ (1999, p. 18). Indeed,

these are claims of limited options for black Americans.

While Waters (1990) argues that symbolic ethnicity is reserved for whites, Khanna (2012), in her

study, finds that some biracial respondents practice symbolic ethnicity, not to identify as white (or with

a particular white ethnic group), but rather to express their biracial identities. However, while she
argues that those biracial respondents have options and practice symbolic ethnicity, her findings also

provide support to Waters’ (1999) claim that minorities have less choice in how they identify as

compared to white ethnics. Given the fact that only one respondent (of forty) identifies as white, shows

that their options are not unbounded. Also, they do not express symbolic white ethnicity, largely

because a white identity remains inaccessible to them. Finally, like white ethnics, those biracial

respondents practice symbolic ethnicity in ways that are intermittent and contextual; they are selective

about in what contexts they express ethnic and racial symbols (e.g. with white or black peers depending

upon their motives).

People tend to express symbols in functional ways. Khanna’s (2012) study provides evidence to

that. Like whites, biracial respondents practice symbolic ethnicity to connect with and/ or to distinguish

themselves from others. Looking more deeply into their underlying motivations, however, one could

argue that they also practice symbolic ethnicity to manage negative black stereotypes, negotiate racial

inequality and, to some degree, access white privilege. In white contexts, they draw attention to their

biracial identities to avoid being marginalized and stereotyped for being black. In black contexts, they

draw attention to their biracial identities in efforts to access white racial privilege because, for some,

being biracial (and having white ancestry) provides them an advantage among their black peers. These

functions clearly distinguish the use of symbols among whites from that of black-white biracial people.

Looking into these issues, I then ask the following questions: what factors affect who will and

who will not use symbols? If one perceives few ethnic options, is he/she less likely to engage in symbolic

ethnicity?
References:

Gans, H.J. (1996 [1979]). Symbolic ethnicity. In J. Hutchinson & A.D. Smith (Eds.), Ethnicity (pp. 147-155).
Oxford: Oxford University Press
Khanna, N. (2012). Passing as black: racial identity work among biracial Americans, Social Psychology
Quarterly, 73 (1), 380-97.
Kibria N. (2000). Race, ethnic options, and ethnic binds: identity negotiations of second generation
Chinese and Korean Americans, Sociological Perspectives, 43 (1), 77-95.
Song, M. (2003). Choosing Ethnic Identity, Malden, MA: Blackwell
Waters M.C. (1999). The costs of a costless community, in Christopher G. Ellison and W. Allen Martin
(eds), Race and Ethnic Relations in the United States (pp. 197-203). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.