I Married Someone Not the Same As Me”

“I married someone not the same as me”

Narratives of lived identity experiences of second- generation Mexican Americans and White Americans and the role of race, power, and interracial relationships

Ebru Calin

International Migration and Ethnic Relations Master Thesis 30 credits Spring 2020: IM639L Supervisor: Margareta Popoola Word Count: 21.934

Abstract Leaning on the framework of Critical Race and Whiteness Theory, this qualitative study draws on semi-structured interviews with second-generation Mexican Americans and White Americans to offer a yet untaken perspective on the fragmented nature of identity. It also sheds light on the ways racism and interracial relationships shape individuals’ notions of race and privilege. The study’s findings indicate that Mexicans perceive themselves as a distinct racial group situated in a “third space,” marked by a dialectic between externally ascribed and internally attributed racial identity categories. White individuals use color and power-evasion strategies to avoid cognizance of their own racial identities. However, their interracial relationships provide a meaningful premise altering the ways they perceive notions of race and White privilege. Shifts in White individuals’ perspectives occur in relation to heightened race consciousness, acknowledging White privilege, and racial inequality and includes behavioral changes resulting from their interactions with their significant others.

Keywords: Identity; Race; Whiteness; Mexican-Americans; interracial relationships

TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract i Acknowledgments ii 1. INTRODUCTION TO THE RESEARCH PROBLEM 1 2. AIM AND OBJECTIVES 3 2.1 Research Scope and Delimitations 4 2.2 Contribution of the thesis 4 2.3 Thesis outline 5 3. CLARIFYING TERMINOLOGY 6 3.1 Race, ethnicity 6 3.2 Gender 7 3.3 Culture 7 3.4 ‘Indian,’ ‘mestizo’ 7 4. CONTEXTUAL BACKGROUND 9 4.1 Legal constructions of racial boundaries 9 4.1.1 Anti-miscegenation laws 9 4.2 Resisting classifications 10 4.2.1 The Chicano movement 10 4.2.2 The US Census 11 5. MAPPING THE RESEARCH FIELD 12 5.1 On Mexican Identity 12 5.2 On White identity 15 6. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 18 6.1. Interlocking systems of domination 18 6.1.1 Critical Race Theory 18 6.1.2 Critical Whiteness Theory 19 6.1.3 Intersectionality Theory 20 6.2 Identity 21 6.2.1 Hybridity 21 6.2.2 Hyphenated Selves Framework 22 6.2.3 Identification and Categorization 23

7. METHODOLOGY 24 7.1 Philosophical considerations 24 7.2 Research Design 25 7.2.1 Approach 25 7.2.2 Material 25 7.2.2.1 Sample 26 7.2.2.2 Access 27 7.2.3 Method 28 7.2.3.1 Semi-structured interviews 28 7.2.4 Analyzing data 30 7.2.4.1 Coding 30 7.2.4.2 Narrative Analysis 30 7.3 Final methodological reflections 32 7.3.1 Ethical considerations 32 7.3.2 Role as a researcher 33 7.3.3 Dependability, credibility, and transferability 35 8. DESCRIPTIVE FINDINGS 36 8.1 On Ethnicity, Race, and belonging: “I am Mexican-American 36 8.2. On choice and free will: “ The only box I could ever punch is …” 38 8.3 Somewhere in between or part of both worlds? 39 8.4 ‘Us versus them’ 40 8.5 “I got treated like a gangster” 41 8.6 “I am not the cleaning lady” 42 8.7 “I am just White” 44 8.8 “ I don’t see color” 44 8.9. Reflecting upon race and privilege 45 9. ANALYSIS 47 9.1 Mexican-American Identity 47 9.1.1 “Hyphenated Selves”: Subjective Identifications and 47 Political Constraints 9.1.2 Transcending binaries through “hybrid identities” 49

9.1.3 Racial Discrimination as external markers for ‘the other’ 50 9.1.4 Racialized masculinities, racialized femininities 52 9.2 White-American Identity 55 9.2.1 Color evasion: Rejecting difference 55 9.2.2 Awoken Awareness: Rethinking Power, Rethinking 57 Race 10. CONCLUSION 60 11. FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS 62 12. BIBLIOGRAPHY 13. APPENDICES 13.1 Appendix 1: Invitation to participate in the study 13.2 Appendix 2: Interview guide 13.3 Appendix 3: Introducing the interviewees 13.4 Appendix 4: Interviewees Demographic information 13.5 Appendix 5: Information on the US Census 13.6 Appendix 6: Consent form 13.7 Appendix 7: Further information on the European Caste system and the Mexican-American war 13.8 Appendix 8: Information on Marital Act

Acknowledgments I would like to thank my esteemed supervisor – Dr. Margareta Popoola, for her continuous support throughout the writing process of this Master thesis, her patience, and her invaluable supervision throughout all the research stages.

I am further deeply indebted to all individuals who participated in my study and trusted me with their intimate and striking stories. It is because of their dedicated involvement that I could breathe life into this project.

I would also like to extend my deepest gratitude to Dimosthenis Chatzoglakis – one of the most inspirational academics I have had the privilege of meeting. It was a true honor to listen to his captivating lectures, which were really influential in reflecting on the implications of my research results.

As a child, I continuously searched for ways to get sucked into Jumanji– a world where anything is possible. Little did I know, when I started writing this thesis, that each and every month of 2020 would cry out loud: WELCOME to the next level. Yes, we are still standing, despite it all. Therefore, the completion of my thesis would not have been possible without the unconditional support of my mothers, Matylda Jonas-Kowalik, and my loyal Labrador Doğa.

Most importantly, none of this could have happened without my partner. The English language does not have enough words to express my gratitude. This thesis stands as a testament to his unconditional love, encouragement and support.

“WE ARE A SOCIETY THAT HAS BEEN STRUCTURED FROM TOP TO BOTTOM BY RACE. YOU DON'T

GET BEYOND THAT BY DECIDING NOT TO TALK ABOUT IT ANYMORE. IT WILL ALWAYS COME

BACK; IT WILL ALWAYS REASSERT ITSELF OVER AND OVER AGAIN”

- KIMBERLE CRENSHAW, 1991

1. Introduction to the research problem

In many aspects, the field of critical race theory and critical Whiteness studies is marked by a “habitual anxiety” about the terms race, racism and what it means to take up the category of ‘Whiteness’ as a primary object of knowledge in the field of racial identity (Sarah Ahmed, 2007). Much scholarly writing has portrayed White1 racial identity as an invisible default category, equating the term ‘Whiteness’ with notions of racial domination (McDermott and Samson, 2005). This study challenges this notion by taking on a different point of departure. It draws on the argument that “racial identities are not only black, Latino, [...]; they are also White [...] without specifically addressing White identity there can be no critical evaluation of the construction of the other” (Fusco, 1988: 7). In other words, the phenomenon of Whiteness - if understood as a site of unearned structural privilege (Frankenberg, 1993) - affects everyone, Whites and non-Whites alike. Concerning the gaps in the current literature, this study illuminates how race, racism, and interracial interactions shape the identities of White Americans and Mexican Americans. The lingering influence of white ideologies such as El Sistema de las Casas2 (the European caste system which derived from the Spanish invasion of 1519) is manifested in the ways individuals of Mexican3-origin have been denied access to first-class US citizenship, and thus, kept segregated by law, and categorized as others. These phenomena reach as far back as to anti-miscegenation4 laws - meaning legislations that criminalized the cohabitation of Mexicans and Whites (Gomez, 2007). These factors necessitate the illumination of Mexican Americans’ identity experiences - as they navigate through US racial hierarchies. Given its contextual significance, there is also the requirement to understand how race, racism, and interracial interactions shape White Americans and Mexican Americans’ identities, alike. At its core, racism is “an ideology of racial domination,” in which the presumed biological superiority of one racial group is used to justify the inferior treatment and social ordering of other racial groups. Racialization implies mechanisms of constructing racial meaning through which perceived patterns of physical difference are used to

1 Throughout the study, I the term White(s) implies non-Hispanic White individuals. From an ethical and philosophical standpoint, the color-coded terminology, ‘whites’ is negatively connotated. However, within the scope of this thesis the term is sociologically important because of the way it is routinely utilized by self-defined whites 2 For further information on the caste system and the Mexican-American war, see Appendix 7 3 Within the scope of this paper, the reference Mexican-origin individuals – henceforth - Mexicans refers to second generation individuals who are of Mexican descent. 4 See chapter 4 for further elaborations

differentiate groups of people, thereby constituting them as ‘races’ (Murji and Solomos, 2005; Satzewich, 2011). Whereas I understand race to be a socially constructed concept that has no scientific basis, racism is accompanied by life-altering consequences. As the largest subgroup among Latinos, Americans of Mexican descent figure prominently in debates about their position in the racial hierarchy. Recent statistics have demonstrated that out of 35 million Americans of Mexican origin, 2.5 million Americans of Mexican origin changed their race from “some other race” in 2000 to “white” in 2010 (Chavez-Dueñas et al., 2014). An additional 1.3 million people of this group switched in the other direction (ibid.). Accordingly, researchers have theorized that the boundaries of Whiteness will expand to include Mexican Americans (Alba 2009; Yancey 2003; Bonilla-Silva, 2004), essentially positioning them as “honorary whites.” However, such limited and reductionist accounts operate along the dichotomous Census lines of white and black. Hence, they fail to illuminate the enduring question of how far self-identified labels are informed by choice, white privilege5, and intertwined notions of gender and class. By limiting how Mexican people can categorize themselves in the United States, their relationships with their cultural background may become ambiguous or problematic since individuals might not attach a definite sense of belonging to the given racial categories. This calls into question two puzzling but yet unspecified concerns: How do experiences of such categorizations affect lived experiences of race? Does being Mexican constitute a matter of ethnic ties, race, or something else altogether? Given this puzzle and the point of departure of this thesis, I strive to engage with a more complex discursive repertoire surrounding Mexican and White identities.

5 White privilege refers to “unearned power conferred systematically” and implies an institutional set of benefits granted to those who, by race, resemble the people who dominate powerful positions and institutions (McIntosh, 1995: 82-83).

2. Aims and Objectives

With this research, I aim to illuminate the complexity of lived race and ethnicity by exploring patterns of self-identification processes among White Americans and second-generation Mexican Americans in San Diego. Specifically, I am interested in understanding if and how internally attributed racial identities, externally ascribed racial categories, and gender subdivide the terrain of lived identity. By looking at the dynamics of interracial relationships between Mexicans and Whites, I further seek to enhance our understanding of the ways these interactions shape perceptions of lived race, power, and privilege.

The central research question of this study is as follows:

How do Mexican Americans and White Americans understand their own racial6 identities, and how do they believe others perceive them?

Employing an intersectional lens, the following specific points of interest navigated the research process:

1. If Mexican Americans see themselves as part of a racial category and are treated mostly as non-White7, what implications does this have for their identity experiences? 2. Do interracial relationships influence how White individuals understand notions of race and privilege? If so, how? 3. Are there any other factors of intersectional relevance that shape the interplay between power, race, and identity?

6 The use of ‘racial identity’ and the term ‘interracial’ in this paper employs the complex intertwining of ethnicity and race (Song, 2003). See more in Chapter 3.

7 Here, racial treatment implies experiences of stereotyping and discrimination.

2.1 Research Scope and Delimitations The first delimitation concerns the geographic location, previously pointed out as San Diego. The focus on San Diego is grounded as it has historically served as the principal gateway for migration from Mexico into the United States (Gomez, 2007) The San Diego-Tijuana border is further recognized as the busiest international border in the world (ibid.) Thus, the diversity San Diego fosters allows for greater flexibility of racial and ethnic identification patterns and high levels of interracial relationships. Therefore, my ambition is not to grasp the individuals' realities in their entirety but to explicitly illuminate their lived experiences of race embedded in a specific point and place in time. The second delimitation concerns the research subjects, namely people who self- identify as ‘White American’ and ‘Mexican-American.’ Statistics show that California has the largest population of both Mexicans and Americans of European descent (Census.gov, 2020). To understand the ways racial boundaries and racial hierarchies inform identity experiences of lived race, I deemed it essential to engage with individuals from these particular two prominent communities. The specification of White Americans served to limit the focus of this research to people who are commonly recognized and treated as racially White and hence, subject to benefit from certain privileges8 (Frankenberg, 1993). Thus, the choice to focus on second-generation Mexicans is closely tied to the notion that these individuals may be particularly affected by racialized, othering 9 processes (Bonilla-Silva, 2014). Immigration policies under Trump’s administration were also not foregrounded in this research and intentionally so, as it would go beyond the scope of this paper.

2.2 Contribution of the thesis The contribution of this study is threefold. Empirically, this thesis produces and explores new empirical material on the identities of Mexicans and Whites. Drawing on semi-structured in-depth interviews, this study offers a deeper understanding of the layered complexities and material reality of race in the construction of identity, connecting the research fields on Mexican American and

8 Privilege, in the context of this research is understood as inhibiting a race privileged position that affords those categorized as White with invisible advantages that are not given to racialized others (Frankenberg, 1993: 199). 9 “Othering”, within the scope of this study, is understood as the process by which certain characteristics, whether real or imagined, discursively attributed to particular groups, lead to the production of an excluded out-group, often subject to criminalization and victimization (Staszak, 2009: 2).

White identity. By taking into account Mexican-White couple interviews alongside single interviews, this research contributes to the current state of knowledge by producing observational data. As most scholarly work evades to illuminate the location of Whiteness, consequently normalizing Whiteness as the default identity, this thesis also offers a theoretical contribution. In this sense, I engage with ‘Whiteness’ as a visible racial identity that foregrounds a more complex discursive terrain surrounding notions of power and privilege, shifting the discourse from an invisible group to one that is equally structured by race relations. Therefore, this paper enhances our understanding of White identity by illuminating whether romantic interracial relationships impact White individuals’ sense of self. Third, building upon an intersectional perspective, this research illuminates how racialized and gendered power relations traverse in White individuals’ and Mexicans' lives and govern their identity experiences.

2.3 Thesis Outline Chapter three proceeds with an elucidation of the most relevant terminology employed in this study. Chapter four continues with an outline of the contextual background, aiming to provide a general overview of the research field. Chapter five is dedicated to previous research on Mexican and White identity and delineates opposing views and the gaps in the current academic debate. Chapter six addresses the theoretical concepts which informed the data collection and the forthcoming analysis. Chapter seven consists of significant methodological considerations, which addresses the philosophical positioning underpinning this research and outlines the practicalities of data collection and the analysis. Chapter eight is comprised of an overview of relevant thematic findings. Chapter nine offers a thorough analysis that is supported by the theoretical underpinnings of this research. Chapter ten offers concluding remarks. Finally, this study is concluded with reflections upon future research directions.

3. Clarifying Terminology

Before proceeding to the contextual background, I wish to clarify certain concepts employed in this study. It is crucial to note that these concepts, as defined within the scope of this paper, are socially constructed, contextually and temporally bound, and hence, subject to change.

3.1 Race, ethnicity

10 Race is traditionally conceptualized as distinct from ethnicity; a significant difference is the assumption of a biological basis in the case of race (Clair and Denis, 2015). Hence, whereas races are distinguished by perceived common physical characteristics, such as skin color and facial features, which are assumed to be fixed, ethnicities are defined by perceived common ancestry, a shared history, and cultural practices, which are understood as more fluid and self-asserted rather than externally ascribed (Cornell and Hartmann, 2006: 35-36). However, following Cornell and Hartmann’s definition, both categories – race and ethnicity - are socially constructed and may overlap. There are no claims that assert that a race cannot be an ethnic group, or vice versa (ibid). As suggested by Song (2003: 9-13), the meanings of race and ethnicity overlap as processes by which the institutionalization of ‘race’ navigates the categorization of ethnic minority people. From a sociological perspective, it is this social construction of race – not the fixed notion of its ‘natural’ and isolated existence, that informs the primary object of my inquiry in the study of racial identities.

10 Source of the image: Cornell and Hartmann, 2006.

3.2 Gender Drawing on Judith Butler's definition of gender, the term is consensually referred to as the socially constructed roles, behaviors, expressions, and identities of girls, women, boys, men, and gender diverse people (Butler, 2008). Thus, gender is understood to be performative in nature (ibid.). In this sense, it influences how people perceive themselves and each other, how they act and interact while severely impacting the distribution of power and resources in society. Within the scope of this paper, gender is employed as a lens deeply interwoven with power dynamics as the inhabitation of “feminine or masculine role expectations entail very different approaches to power” (Burns and Kinder, 2012: 140).

3.3 Culture11 Leaning on R. Williams’ (1961) social definition12 of culture, the term culture implies specific implicit and explicit meanings and values in a particular way of life (Williams, 1961: 57). This premise encompasses specific traditions, practices, the structure of the family, the structure of certain institutions that govern social relationships, and how members of society communicate (ibid.). In this sense, culture acts as a symbolic terrain that articulates individuals' reality and configures values and manners, which are “an indispensable precondition to any individual’s existence in the world” (Frankenberg, 1993: 202).

3.4 ‘ ‘Indian,’ ‘Mestizo’ The term ‘mestizo’ implies having a White and Black or White and indigenous background and is closely tied to the reality of Mexico’s colonial history (Britannica, 2019). An indigenous Mexican identity (identidad indígena Mexicana) – also indicated as ‘Indian’ refers to individuals who trace their roots back to communities that existed in what is now Mexico prior to the arrival of

11 Within academic scholarship, the link between nature and culture has been long debated. Jules Pretty (2008) argues that nature provides the setting in which cultural processes, and belief systems develop, as the way people know the world governs behavior, understandings, and values which in turn shape human interactions with nature. A range of further arguments, which are beyond the scope of this paper, present themselves with respect to the link between culture and nature. 12 R. Williams (1961) definition of culture is comprised of three general categories. The first two consists of the ‘ideal’ dimension - in which culture is a state or process of human perfection in terms of universal values and the ‘documentary’ - in which human experience is variously recorded. In light of the objective of this study, only the third dimensions is of particular relevance.

Europeans. Colonial Mexico had a legal racial caste system 13 that defined different racial categories, whereby “the general hierarchy placed Spaniards at the top, Indian/Spanish mestizos in the middle, and Indians, blacks, and Indian/black mestizos at the bottom” (Gomez, 2018: 53).

13 The lingering effects of this former caste system are evident in the ways it affects racial and ethnic self-identification of Mexican Americans today. Section 5.1. contextualizes this phenomenon.

4. Contextual Background

A discussion on lived identity experiences of Mexicans and Whites urges us to be sensitive to the possibility that such illumination if framed in overly simplistic ways, can be seen as an expression of ignorance. To map out past and present race-relations, this section proceeds by briefly delineating legal constructions of racial boundaries and the ways individuals resisted externally ascribed classifications within the context of the United States.

4.1 Legal constructions of racial boundaries

4.1.1 Anti-miscegenation laws14 This section intends to contribute to a better understanding of the subjective experiences of racial treatment by illustrating how racial ideologies, when inscribed into law, have the power to regulate behavior and shape society. Anti-miscegenation laws became instrumental social policies used by government officials to maintain and reproduce a segregated society. Government officials justified the separation of the races by advocating that segregation at the level of intimacy prohibiting marriage between non-Whites and Whites was necessary to protect Whites' social welfare and their presumed biological superiority (Gomez, 2018). The history of anti- miscegenation laws in California began in 1850, two years after the United States acquired California due to the Mexican-American War of 1846-1848 (Marital Rights, art. 4670, 2466, in Paschal, 1878: 783). The new legal codes on marriage allowed Indians and mestizos to marry any race. In contrast, Mexicans who were classified as White were prohibited from marrying those classified as “negroes15” or “mulattos” (Act of 1850, ch. 35,s.3, in Comp. Laws of the State of Cal. 1850-1853, pp. 175-6). During the legalization of these codes, the legislators drafted blood quantum policies as the Mexican population had always been racially diverse (ibid.). People were considered White if they had less than one-half Indian ancestry or less than one-eighth “Negro” ancestry (Act of 1859, ch. 99, sec. 14, in Comp. Laws of the State of Cal.1850–1853, p. 230; Act of 1850, ch. 142, s. 306, 455). Although the political status of Mexicans improved after the Civil

14 See Appendix 8 for Marital Rights Article 15 As defined by the Act of 1850, “negroe’ refers to individual of African lineage, whereas “mulatto” refers to individuals of mixed European and African lineage.

War (1861-1865), they were still subjected to segregationist and anti-miscegenation statutes. In 1959, California ruled its anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional (Stat. of Cal., vol. 1, 1959: 2043). This ruling was accompanied by the passage of the 1969 Civil Rights Act prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations and real estate dealings. However, the United States continued to oppose racial intermixture; hence segregation at the level of education and employment practices persisted, giving momentum to the Chicano movement.

4.2 Resisting classification

4.2.1 The Chicano movement The Chicano civil rights movement was a reform movement for Mexican ethnic empowerment beginning in the 1960s. Prior to the Movement, Chicano/a was a classist term of ridicule, reclaimed only by those who adopted it as an expression of defiance to Anglo-American society (Lopez, 1992). However, throughout the Chicano movement, Chicano/a was generally reclaimed to express political autonomy, ethnic and cultural solidarity, and pride in being of Indigenous/non- White descent, diverging from the assimilationist Mexican American identity (ibid.). The movement was strongly influenced by and entwined with the Black Power movement and represented a convergence of multiple movements that defied structural racism, encouraged cultural revitalization, and achieved community empowerment by rejecting assimilation (ibid.). The most significant movements can be broken down into at least four components: A youth movement represented in the struggle against discrimination in schools; the farmworkers movement; the movement for political empowerment, and the struggle for control and ownership over "homelands" in the US Southwest (ibid.). Politics of identity were at the heart of the movement; activists, particularly working-class activists, attempted at shaping a politics of unification based on non-White identity and culture, rejecting all previously imposed identities while advocating for equal opportunity for all (Mufioz, 1990: 12). While activists were able to increase awareness concerning discriminatory housing practices and the desegregation of public places, it is argued that the movement was only able to saturate the most basic of equities concerning labor and land issues and political representation (Gomez-Quiniones, 1990). Consequently, scholars conclude that although the movement “achieved several breakthroughs, it

[...] failed to capture first-class citizenship for its people,” allowing for deeply rooted class and racial limitations to persist (ibid.: 29). The socio-historical achievements and identified ‘failures’ surrounding the Chicano movement necessitate an illumination of how Mexicans were racially and legally categorized throughout the last decades. 4.2.2 The US Census16 Ten years have passed since the last Census. April of 2020 required US Americans by law to submit the Census forms to the U.S. Census Bureau. There are two key issues about the classification of Mexicans: one is whether individuals are asked directly about being of Mexican origin, and the other is how the census collects and analyzes racial information on Mexicans. The latter is a rather complex matter (Gibson and Jung, 2005). Over time, there has been a shift from no classification to Mexican as a race, to Mexicans as White, to Mexicans as any race (ibid.). Mexicans have been residing in what became the United States of America since the mid- nineteenth century; however, up to the 1920s Census, the Census Bureau made no mention of categorizing them (ibid.). In 1930, Mexican was officially listed as a racial category on the Census. However, the 1940s and 1950s Census changed the official designation of Mexicans to White, “unless definitely of Indian or other non-White race” (IPUM website as accessed 2020). In the next couple of decades, the Census Bureau continued to define Mexicans as racially White; consequently, Mexicans who responded other to the race question had their answers changed to White. Starting in the 1980s, the Bureau began defining Mexicans as being of any race (Gibson and Jung, 2005). In the year 2000, more than 45% of Mexicans reported that they are of other race (Bonilla-Silva, 2003). What is rarely emphasized is that when Mexicans report their race as other, they subsequently add Mexican in the explanation to this response – de facto, naming Mexican as their race (Rodriguez, 2000).

16 See Appendix 5 for an excerpt of the 2010 Census and further elucidation on the 2020 Census race questions.

5. Mapping the research field

This chapter intends to provide an account of the most influential strands of literature that tackle discussions in light of the specific points of interest raised in this research. Differing approaches and angles underlying understandings of Mexican and White identity constructions are outlined to provide a further understanding of the development of academic debates in the field of sociology and beyond.

5.1 On Mexican Identity In the current sociological debate, two points of interest are of particular importance: One is whether Mexican is a racial category, and the other is whether Mexicans are White or non-White. Gomez (1992) argues that Mexican Americans provide ambiguous responses to race questions, perhaps reflecting their uncertainty about their race and ambivalence about being non-White. In contemporary society, it appears that many political elites position themselves as Hispanic and White, whereas academics, legal scholars, and activists position themselves as Chicano, Latino, non-White and other (Haney-Lopez, 2003, Delgado, 2004). The academic discussion about racial identification and perception finds that among the general population, Mexican is often used as a response to the question: “What is your race?”, hence reflecting an understanding that Mexican is a racial category distinct from Whites, blacks, or Asians (ibid.). Nevertheless, this literature does not take up the underlying dynamics that allow fathoming various identification patterns. There exist several studies that examine the relationship between skin color and socio-economic outcomes. These studies show that ‘darker-skinned’17 Americans of Mexican descent have lower education and earnings (Arce et al., 1987; Murguia and Telles, 1996; Telles and Murguia, 1990). However, the question remains if the occupation and level of education affect racial perceptions and racial treatment. Suitably, this thesis aims to complement the existing literature by illuminating whether Mexican origin individuals with occupational prestige experience less racial treatment than their working-class counterparts.

17 I as the researcher, believe that the way we see and understand all color is relative, temporally and contextually bound.

So far, previous research on identity labels identifies four self-identities among second- generation Mexicans in California: national origin identity (Mexican), hyphenated identity (Mexican-American), unhyphenated identity (American), and racial identity (Hispanic, Latino, Chicano) (Portes et al., 1996). In doing so, scholars take several factors such as linguistic ability and economic background into account (ibid.). Even though these findings are indispensable in identity research, the dynamics and patterns involved in both the individual intentions and the variety of these different identifications are not the focal points in these studies. (Dyer, 1999). As far as identity labels are concerned, it appears that in previous years, scholars have elucidated the specific experiences and assimilation patterns for Mexicans in the United States as potential factors that influence the diversity of these labels (Golash-Boza, 2006). Golash-Boza (2006) found that racial discrimination discourages Mexican immigrants and their offspring to self-identify with the unhyphenated label American despite the fact of possessing U.S. citizenship. Thus, the decision to hold on to national origin identifiers, in the form of the hyphenated label Mexican- American, is made in light of exclusion experiences in the United States (ibid.). However, this theorization appears to be based on a rather simplistic notion. The question that requires illumination is concerned with whether there are other reasons other than discrimination or exclusion that elucidate why Americans of Mexican descent choose to identify as Mexican- Americans. In this regard, it is crucial to shed light on whether the label Mexican-American implies an interplay of racial and ethnic identities. Of particular interest concerning this matter is whether Americans of Mexican descent who are born in the United States also perceive their identities differently in the context of Mexico. Anzaldua (1987) illuminates the phenomenon of “plural personalities,” asserting that racial identity is both relational and situational – meaning that people can amplify or downplay specific attributes of their identity (Jimenez, 2004; Root, 1996; Zavella, 1994). Accordingly, Clara Rodriguez (2000) finds that “one has a plurality of selves, each of which surfaces in a particular situation” (11-12). Thus, the way Mexicans choose to racially and ethnically identify themselves is not consistent with how they are perceived and treated by others. The volitional nature of racial identity is constrained by phenotype, accessibility of one’s nation-origin group, and surname (2000). Hence, “one’s race performance [is] expected to correspond to a perceived racial ‘essence,’ marked by color and surname” (Bettie, 2003; Jimenez, 2004). Accordingly, work that examines skin color stratification among Mexican Americans understands phenotype as an attribute that

significantly contributes to the broad spectrum of racial identification (Hunter, 2002; Espino and Franz, 2002; Murguia and Telles, 1996). Hunter (2002) argues that “skin color modifies outcomes and produces advantages for the light-skinned,” whereby phenotype acts as a sorting mechanism that is associated with occupational prestige and, thus, higher education (190). Concerning these aforementioned ‘hybrid identities,’ it is crucial to contextualize where Mexicans are positioned within the racial hierarchy of the US. Contemporary academic scholarship has offered different hypotheses about the place of Hispanics in the racial order (Frank et al., 2010). One tradition, as highlighted by Eduardo Bonilla-Silva (2004), views Mexicans in racial stratification terms. Bonilla-Silva's idea of racial stratification within the US context emphasizes that the Mexican American population is internally stratified by racial identity – meaning some individuals are accepted into the White majority, whereas others are categorized as non-White. One prominent hypothesis within the scope of this research asserts that being Mexican emerges as a racial and ethnic category in itself, such as Black or White (Brown et al., 2007; Campbell and Rogalin 2006; Golash-Boza, 2006). Relatedly, the scholars as mentioned above have shown that Mexican individuals often struggle with locating themselves in the U.S. racial stratification system as the given racial categories in the way they appear on US Census forms, for instance, do not translate to the multiplicity of internally attributed identifications (Dowling, 2014; Rodriguez et al., 1992). Integral to the discourse on Mexican identities in the US are political constructions of masculinities and femininities along racially differentiated lines. Frankenberg, who has given much thought to gender as another axis of differentiation in the construction of White identities, illuminates racist discourses of the portrayal of the sexuality of men and women of color as ‘excessive,’ ‘animalistic,’ or ‘exotic’ in contrast to the ostensibly restrained or "civilized" sexuality of White women and men (1993: 75). Accordingly, Carter has focused on the notion of “controlling images” – meaning racialized and gendered cultural representations that strongly affect the beliefs of those who lack knowledge on the group represented. She theorizes Latino men are perceived as inhabiting “hard” masculinity (Carter, 2007; Ferguson, 2000; Rivadeneyra, 2006). Similarly, other studies that have focused on controlling images that pertain to Latino men find that their masculinity is coded as violent, criminal, and dangerous (Vasquez, 2010; Vasquez- Tokos and Norton-Smith, 2016). Most of these controlling images depicting Latino men as either mediocre athletes or violent gang members are found to systematically restrict their life chances

in economic terms and hinder them from establishing an accurate self-definition (ibid.). These controlling images are often argued to influence not only interactions between Mexicans and Whites but also to affect the ethnic and racial identifications of Mexicans (ibid.). Since controlling images are intersectional, this study seeks to contribute to the gaps in the current academic discourse by identifying how controlling images pertain to both women and men. It is crucial to illuminate how gender intervenes in racialized controlling images and creates distinct experiences for women and men, respectively.

5.2 On White Identity The field of psychology has only recently started to focus on White Americans’ racial identity experiences (Knowles and Peng, 2005; Phinney, 1996; Wong and Cho, 2005). Thus, as an unexamined default racial category, Whiteness has held a status of ‘race-lessness’ (Ahmed, 2007; Watson and Scraton, 2018; Hyde, 1995). Scholars from the field of sociology (Frankenberg, 1993; Perry, 2002), law (Haney-Lopez, 1996; Harris, 1993), and history (Roediger, 1991), however, have long documented the central role of Whiteness in creating and reproducing racial inequality. According to scholars of ‘critical Whiteness studies’(Delgado and Stefancic, 1997), White individuals are uniquely positioned at the top of the racial hierarchy with access to structural advantage at the expense of non-White groups. According to traditional Whiteness theory, Whiteness is thought to be powerful precisely because it is invisible – a social condition that “never has to speak its name, never has to acknowledge its role as an organizing principle in social and cultural relations” (Lipsitz, 1998: 1). Accordingly, the most common argument in favor of the ‘invisibility thesis’ foregrounds that Whiteness is seldomly acknowledged as a racial identity by White Americans (McDermott and Samson, 2005). In other words, Whites do not understand themselves as members of a racial group or to benefit from any privileges, which in turn is assumed to be the reason why Whites do not have a sense of racial identity (McIntosh, 2004). On the other end of the spectrum, it is argued that many Whites who adhere to color-blind norms become practiced at avoiding thoughts about their own racial identity, as noticing race is understood to be inherently racist itself (Apfelbaum et al., 2010; Apfelbaum et al., 2008; Norton et al., 2006; Hartmann et al., 2009; Frankenberg, 1993). In this regard, many other scholars have found that individuals who equate White identity with racism may become too adept at avoiding thoughts of race, that such aversion becomes second nature (Macrea et al., 1994). This notion is

consistent with scholarship emphasizing that ideologies such as color-blind racism may be internalized so thoroughly that they prevent counter normative thoughts in the absence of awareness and cognitive reflection (Glaser and Banaji, 1999; Moskowitz et al., 1999; Wegner and Zanakos, 1994). In recent years, however, it has become evident that arguments positioning Whiteness as an invisible and inconsequential identity are rather one-dimensional and must rest on a questionable assumption. Racial inequality and the dynamics underlying the racial hierarchy cannot be adequately addressed without illuminating White individuals’ perceptions and reactions to race and their privileged position in the social order. Thus, some scholars argue that White individuals recognize the privileges their Whiteness confers (Chow et al., 2013; Frankenberg, 2001; Knowles and Peng, 2005). Much of the scholarship on Whiteness finds that privileges associated with White identities remain invisible to many Whites. It is theorized that the root problem is limited interracial contact (Delgado and Stefancic, 1997; Lipsitz, 1998). Thus, contemporary research accentuates the substantial role of the racial composition of geographic regions in the internal acknowledgment of Whiteness as a racial identity (Knowles and Peng, 2005). For instance, Knowles and Peng argue that exposure to racial and ethnic outgroups is more likely to amplify White individuals’ race consciousness (ibid.). Thus, diverse demographic contexts are to be understood as variables that increase the probability of cross-race interpersonal interactions, which have been shown to make Whites highly aware of their membership in the dominant racial group and the associated privileges (Goff et al., 2008; Plant and Butz, 2006; Shelton et al., 2006; Vorauer et al., 2000). An illustrative study carried out by Perry (2002) examined White students' identities at two California high schools: one in which Whites were the minority, the other the majority. Whereas respondents at the majority-White school appeared to struggle with a “cognitive gap” concerning racial identity, students in the minority-White school seemed to be highly aware of being White and its implications (ibid.). Such findings suggest that interethnic contact allows White individuals to perceive their racial identity as distinctive, enabling them to reflect upon their self-understandings in given social contexts. When taking the influence of social environment on identity into account, it appears that much of the literature on interethnic/interracial relationships in the US context pertains to Black/White and Asian/White unions (Mok 1999, Yancey 2002, Steinbugler 2015; Karis and Powell, 1995). Furthermore, most thought in this field has been given to external attitudes towards interracial

unions rather than subjective experiences (Herman and Campbell, 2012; Field et al., 2013; Helbert et al., 2018). Thus, this paper draws on this prominent neglect by accounting for the role of interracial unions, particularly in the lived experiences of White individuals. Concerning the ways, White individuals manage their identities, Knowles et al. (2014) have proposed the “3D model” - meaning the interplay of three distinct identity management strategies White individuals apply when confronted with varied facets of their racial identity. The three strategies are identified as 1) denial – meaning rejecting the notion that individuals benefit from White privilege; 2) distancing – meaning separating oneself from Whiteness; 3) dismantling – meaning awareness of privilege and the commitment to militate against these privileges. Hypothesizing that Whiteness is a critically important racial identity not because Whites cannot see it but because they can – given they have been exposed to ethnically diverse contexts and demographic regions, stresses the potential value and significance of my study. Illuminating the experiences of Whites, whose lives are equally embedded within the material reality of the US racial order, is a prerequisite in understanding these individuals’ senses of selves, others, and notions of privilege.

6. Theoretical Framework

In this chapter, I address the theoretical concepts and theories which underpin this research project. Firstly, Critical Race and Whiteness Theory, as well as Intersectionality, are discussed. This is followed by an in-depth section contextualizing identity in light of the concept of hybridity and the hyphenated selves framework. This chapter concludes with an elucidation of the entwined relationship between identification and categorization as proposed by Brubaker and Cooper (2000) and further expanded by Jenkins (2008).

6.1 Interlocking systems of domination In light of this study’s aims and objectives, the following theories delineate sociological paradigms that frame different angles of domination and oppression coded by axes of race, gender, and class.

6.1.1 Critical Race Theory Critical race theory – henceforth CRT engages the application of critical theory to race-based human injustice (Matsuda et al., 1993; Milner, 2008). Since the early work of twentieth-century legal scholars, critical race theory has been applied to understand the ways oppression and marginalization of non-White communities play out in American society. CRT provides a framework “or set of basic perspectives” that seeks to identify, analyze and transform structural aspects of society that “maintain the subordination and marginalization of people of color” (Solorzano, 1997: 6). The foundation of CRT can be traced back to work by W.E.B. Du Bois (1903/1989). Du Bois proposes the notion of double consciousness, which involves a rupture of identity from being both of color and American, which can cause conflicted feelings (1903). As part of CRT, double consciousness is a phenomenological description of identity formation under conditions of racialization. It proposes that the color line creates different processes of identity formation among racializing and racialized groups. Hence, double consciousness implies “this sense of always looking at one’s self through the eyes of others” (Du Bois, 1903: 2). Referring to the lived experiences of non-Whites, the concept of ‘twoness,’ as one of the major elements of Du Bois theorization, implies the notion of being positioned in two different worlds: The colored world and the White world, whereby one has “two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings [...]” (ibid. 2). The concept of Double Consciousness, which

is embedded within the framework of CRT, allows addressing gaps in the theorizing of identity as it considers the role of recognition, communication, and relationships between subjects. This study draws on three premises of CRT as proposed by Delgado and Stefancic (2001): 1. Racism continues to be normalized in society, whereby expressions of racism have evolved into more subtle representations. 2. CRT involves acknowledging that being White carries with it rights and privileges, which are often unacknowledged, particularly to White individuals. This lack of awareness reproduces the myth that success if merely judged by ambition, omitting social lubrication underlying White privilege 3. Interracial contact can reveal racism’s harmful effects so that harmful consequences are better understood. More subtle and indirect forms of racism are often unrecognized and unacknowledged by Whites. Through interracial interactions and counter-narratives, people of color can share their experiences with marginalization (Solorzano, 1997). These actions include racial microaggression and acts of colorblindness18 (Pierce, 1970). In applying CRT, I hope to shed light on structural and societal constraints that maintain inequities in everyday life and influence individuals’ self-understanding.

6.1.2 Critical Whiteness Theory As an extension of critical race theory, critical Whiteness theory – henceforth CWT, sheds light on “behaviors that signify what it means to be White in our society” (Charbeneau, 2009: 2). In this manner, Frankenberg asserts that both people of color and White people live racially structured lives (1993). CWT stresses that Whiteness “has a set of linked dimensions” that include racial advantage and oblivion to Whiteness as a race. Three dimensions underlying the construction of Whiteness are of significant importance for this study; these dimensions are historically, socially, politically, and culturally produced and are intrinsically linked to unfolding relations of domination (Frankenberg, 1993: 6): I. Whiteness refers to a location of structural privilege, also known as ‘race privilege,’ whether realized or unrealized by Whites

18 An example of colorblindness includes someone White claiming that race is irrelevant, whereas an example of microaggression includes being accused of benefitting from affirmative action in response to a promotion (ibid.).

II. Whiteness refers to a specific perspective from which White people look at themselves, others, and society. III. Whiteness refers to cultural practices that thus far have remained unmarked and unnamed At the core of critical Whiteness studies lies “a set of normative cultural practices, [which] is visible most clearly to those it excludes and those to whom it does violence” (Frankenberg, 1993: 229). The same is true of Americanness in relation to those whom it marginalizes or excludes (ibid.). Looking at individual stories through the lens of CWT allows us to gain a better understanding of how power dynamics are conceptualized and play out in individuals’ lives. Hence, the added value of CWT to this study lies in its interdisciplinary nature (Morris & Kahlor, 2014).

6.1.3 Intersectionality Theory Rooted in black feminism, intersectionality theory has become a theoretical and political way of conceptualizing the relation between systems of oppression that construct our multiple identities and our social locations in hierarchies of power and privilege (Crenshaw, 1989). Drawing on the scholarship of black feminists, including Crenshaw (1989), the term intersectionality refers to ‘interlocking oppressions’ – meaning interlocking inequalities between race and gender with related identities and other forms of oppression such as class (Collins, 1989; Zinn and Dill, 1996). People of the same race will experience race differently depending upon their location in the hierarchical class structure and, accordingly, in the gender structure as female or male (ibid.). Within the framework of intersectionality, scholars emphasize the relational nature of dominance and subordination, with power being the cornerstone of differences in identity experiences of men and women (ibid.). Central to the way intersectionality theory is employed in this research is ‘controlling images 19 ’ that constitute ideological justifications of oppression and collective representations of certain groups central to the reproduction of racial, class, and gender inequality (Collins, 1991: 68). Regarded as “major instruments of power,” the purpose of controlling images is ‘to dehumanize and control’ subordinated groups (Collins, 1986: 17). The social institutions that

19 It is crucial to note, however, that controlling images are conceptually different from prejudice. Whereas prejudice is psychological, involving negative emotion and stereotypes (Quillian 2006) controlling images are ideological collective representations, transcending the affective. Controlling images, prejudice, and discrimination are interconnected in that controlling images provide a ‘strategy of action’ (Swidler 1986) for prejudice and discrimination.

circulate controlling images suppress less privileged groups, restricting minorities’ power of self- identification and access to upward mobility (Collins 1991). Furthermore, they are perceived as symbols of systemic racism, justifying “the creation, development, and maintenance of White privilege, economic wealth, and sociopolitical power...[rooted in] hierarchical interaction and dominance” (Feagin and Hernan, 2000: 14). Applying an intersectional lens allows to locate and elucidate dynamics that facilitate racialized and gendered experiences that are deeply interwoven with notions of unequal power.

6.2 Identity As Stuart Hall (1990: 25) suggests, identity is dynamic, multiple, fluid, and “subject to continuous play of history, culture, and power […] like everything historical, identities undergo constant transformations (ibid.) How then can we then understand the sometimes-coercive force of either internal or external identity production? To understand the individuals’ mapping of the human world, I engage with the concept of hybridity, and the hyphenated selves framework as well as Roger Brubaker and Frederick Cooper’s (2000) distinction between identification and categorization. This is further revised by Jenkins’ (2008) understanding of the internal-external dialectics model. Conceptualizing identities through a multiplicity of theoretical frameworks allows us to attend to the concept of identity despite its multifaceted, abstract, and, at times, paradoxical nature.

6.2.1 Hybridity The concept of hybridity is predominantly coined by the postcolonial theorist Homi K. Bhabha who asserts that hybrid identities are constituted within a “third space” – a symbolic location in which individuals and cultures meet (2004). According to Bhabha, this “third space” allows individuals to perform and recognize their identities in ways that may not be feasible in the larger society (Bhabha, 2004). Stressing that identities are fluid, multiple, and constituted within particular social and political contexts, Bhabha’s hybrid theorization of identity challenges notions about homogeneity and binary assumptions about social groups (ibid.). Hybrid identities can be conceptualized in the following two ways:

I. Hybrid identities are a conceptualized response to binary assumptions about belonging to a particular social and cultural group and draws attention to dynamics processes of power, exclusion, and intergenerational relationships in our understanding of being and belonging. II. The theorization of hybridity challenges reductionist notions of ‘ethnicity’ and promotes a fluid, multifaceted, and often contradictory understanding of identities.

6.2.2 Hyphenated Selves Framework Departing from Du Bois’ eloquent contribution of ‘double consciousness’ emerges the hyphenated selves framework. This framework is a departure from ‘fixed’ and dichotomous notions of identity that favor ‘group comparisons’ in favor of more fluid and contextual notions of identity (Collins, 2006; Bhabha, 2004). Thus, hyphenated identity expressions refer to identity labels that are not reduced to a single referent (Hamann and England, 2011). Often, these identities invoke ideas about “one’s place of origin” as well as “one’s present home,” highlighting individuals’ multiple simultaneous relationships with different places (Radhakrishnan, 1996). The framework is often applied to an intergenerational perspective, focusing on second-or third-generation individuals (Kustatscher et al., 2015). Two dimensions of this framework, as established by Hamann and England (2011), are of particular importance for this study: I. Hyphenated identities can be an agentive construction to resist a nation’s insistence on assimilation by asserting ties to a geographically distant nation. II. Hyphenated selves can also be agentive construction contesting the dichotomizing pressures of choosing between nationalities. While hyphens can be used to draw attention to the multiplicity of identities, they also constitute a political space that draws attention to asymmetries in power.

Within the scope of this paper, the theory of the hyphenated selves framework and hybridity allows us to deconstruct simplistic binaries about identity and to attend to the complexity and paradox nature of identification patterns that have not been the focal point in previous research.

6.2.3 Identification and categorization The process of identification alters the notion of identity as a static state of mind and being, as something that one has (Jenkins, 2008). The processual nature identification stresses the significance of analyzing the underlying dynamics of identity construction, shifting one’s attention towards what we do (Brubaker and Cooper, 2000: 14; Jenkins, 2008: 5). As Butler (2006; 2009), Jenkins (2008), and Hall (1990) emphasize: identity is not merely out there; it is a process of being and becoming and, thus, must always be created. Jenkins asserts that both individual and collective identifications follow a model of internal-external dialectics (2008: 46). This study draws on Jenkins’ (2008: 39) mapping of three distinctive orders of the world as constructed and experienced by human beings: 1. the individual order – meaning individuals and their perceptions of the world around them 2. the interaction order – meaning the world as organized by relationships between individuals 3. the institutional order – meaning the world as organized by institutions and organizations Concerning the first order, individual identification is understood to be socially constructed. Thus, it is informed by a continuous dialectic of self-identification (internally attributed) and descriptions of oneself by others (external ascription) (Jenkins, 2000; 7-8; 2008: 40). The notion of dialectics shifts the attention to the interaction order: human beings do not only take into account how they perceive themselves but also validate their self-understandings against what others think of them. Hence, the internal-external dialectic logic applies to how we identify ourselves and how we identify others (Jenkins, 2008: 42). The institutional order represents a means of categorization (ibid.: 45). According to Jenkins, categorization implies external processes of identification, i.e., the process when people categorize others (ibid.: 8-12). Yet, others do not specifically necessitate the acts of individuals as it can occur through, e.g., public political discourses (ibid.). While categorization processes play a role on all three levels of the human world, categorizations processes that occur on the institutional level (e.g., the government) are distinct (Brubaker and Cooper, 2000: 15). As one of the most prominent agents of categorization, the modern state has “the power to name, identify, categorize, to state what is what and who is who” (ibid.).

7. Methodology

In the following chapter, I address the philosophical underpinnings supporting the selection of the chosen methods and the practical approaches to research design, data collection, and analysis. Before I present the employed material and methods, I will proceed with my ontological and epistemological standing within the philosophy of social science research.

7.1 Philosophical Considerations Given that this study focuses on subjective experiences of lived race, this research project ontologically falls into the relativist spectrum. As the objective of relativist ontology is grounded in the belief that there are as many different realities as there are people (ibid.) - with the nature of reality being subjectively and socially constructed – the theoretical framework grounding this research is well-fitting in this approach. Epistemologically speaking, this study fits in a social constructivist perspective, which foregrounds an “understanding of the social world through an examination of the interpretation of that world by its participants” (Bryman, 2012: 380). By turning the gaze to a constructivist philosophy of science, the primary focus of the research lies on the micro-level of analysis, whereby the nature of knowledge is subjective, depending on individuals’ lived experiences and feelings (6 & Bellamy, 2012: 57-59). This implies that social phenomena - as objects of social science’s inquiry – do not exist a priori but occur only through people’s own definitions, beliefs, and actions (Charmaz, 2006: 10; Rosenberg, 2012: 134-235). This has a twofold implication for my scientific undertakings. Firstly, there exists no reality about what it means to be a second-generation American of Mexican descent or White American detached from individuals’ own perceptions. In this sense, the narratives of members of a social group must always be understood in terms of the specific environment in which they operate, as each reality is relational and contextual (Bryman 2014: 401). Secondly, the knowledge produced through the interviews is not merely found or given but actively constructed through conversation whereby the product is “co-authored by interviewer and interviewee” (Kvale and Brinkmann, 2009: 54). In this sense, I, myself as a researcher, am a part of the world I study (see Section 7.3.2). My constructivist positioning implies that my analytical endeavor with the social matter can offer merely an interpretation of the studied phenomena. Consequently, I can understand individuals’

conversational reality by giving meaning to it that claims no objectivity and offers no predictability or generalizability (6 & Bellamy, 2012: 57-58; Charmaz, 2006: 10; Rosenberg, 2012: 31, 118-119, 134-135).

7.2 Research Design

7.2.1 Approach This study is based on a narrative research study approach. Employing a qualitative study approach in the form of narrative analysis20 is particularly useful for the aim of this thesis as it can give us compelling close-up descriptions of individuals’ qualitative human world (Kvale and Brinkmann, 2009: 47). Shifting our focus away from the notion of generalizability, the strength of narrative research lies in the depth of the knowledge it produces (ibid.). Detaching itself from a postpositivist paradigm, this study was material-driven - meaning that an understanding of the empirical phenomena at hand was generated once categories had emerged through the data analysis (Ponterotto, 2005; Bryman, 2012). The multiplicity of realities that emerged through a continuous dialogue between researcher and the interviewees, and a constant moving back and forth between theory and analysis, data and interpretation, followed the nature of an approach that is both iterative and inductive (Bryman, 2012: 26; O’Reilly, 2008). As such, this study represents a voyage of discovery rather than an examination (O’Reilly, 2008).

7.2.2 Material21 I illuminated the ethnic and racial identity experiences of Mexican individuals and White individuals using rich qualitative data that I collected through semi-structured interviews.

20 See section 7.2.4.2 for further elaboration on narrative analysis. 21 The transcripts are available upon request.

7.2.2.1 Sample This research is based on a purposive sample of 23 individuals in total. Leaning on Bryman (2014: 428), purposive sampling aims to sample participants strategically so that those sampled are relevant to the research questions posed. The sample consists of eight self-identified White American individuals and 15 second-generation self-identified second-generation Mexicans, including those born in Mexico but immigrated to the United States before the age of twelve. The latter is often referred to as the 1.5 generation and consists of individuals who arrived before the age of twelve, thus obtaining most of their education and socialization in the United States (Rumbaut, 1991). This way, it was ensured that participants had had exposure to U.S.-based understandings of race and ethnicity, particularly in the context of US Census forms. Out of the Mexican participants, nine identified as female, and six as male. Out of the White individuals, seven identified as female, and one individual identified as male. The interviewees were all US citizens, fluent in English, and based in San Diego. They ranged in age from 22 and 65 years. The interviewees were from various economic backgrounds ranging from federal state employees to housekeepers. I met none of the interviewees before the interview. The initial aim was to base this research exclusively on couple interviews, to gather as much observational data as possible. Yet, due to the recruitment difficulties surrounding the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic (see Section 7.2.3.1), I was unable to conduct more than six couple interviews in the given timeframe. However, the reoccurrence of specific narrative topics and themes suggested that the overall sample composition allowed me to reach an adequate level of data saturation (Bryman, 2012). The six couples consisted of Mexican men and White women involved in a non- long-distance heterosexual relationship for several years. Hoping to have a fairly consistent sample, my initial intention was to focus on second-generation Mexican American women involved in relationships with White American men to account for the differences and similarities in racial identity and communication patterns as navigated by race. Fearing the inconsistent composition of my sample and the limited time at my disposal, I debated whether or not to dispose of either the single interviews or the couple interviews. However, at a very early stage of the coding process, I realized a reoccurrence of specific themes. A careful consideration of the significance of this phenomenon for the inference of this study supported the justifiability of my decision. Since the purpose of this thesis was to tease out how both Mexican American and White individuals understand their identities while shedding light on potential axes of differentiation, the

consideration to dispose of some of the data seemed unwarranted, and the usage of all the data at hand justifiable. The delimitation of my study sample to San Diego was further grounded in my wish to conduct the interviews in person – something that would have been financially and temporally infeasible if I had traveled across the United States. Also, interviewing individuals living in the same geographical area allowed me to avoid possible regional differences. Thus. It is crucial to mention that the narratives may have read differently had they been gathered in the Southern part of the US, where politics and race relations differ from those of the West Coast. Insomuch as I do take full account of the interviewees’ perspectives and mine, I must assert the importance of using the terminology White and Whiteness. Throughout the interviews with European Americans, who have all referred to themselves as ‘White,’ I realized that using the term “European American” would deracialize and thus, falsely equalize communities who are unequally positioned in the racial hierarchy. In this sense, the terminology “European American” is not used as an alternative to “White” as it would foreground the notion of heritage rather than race and thus, neglect the ways White individuals’ lives are equally structured by race.

7.2.2.2 Access To get in contact with potential interviewees, I used several strategies. First and foremost, I relied on my personal connections. This recruitment strategy has proven to be most effective since personal connection facilitated a mutual bond of trust. Secondly, I established an initial social network of people by contacting local churches and attending Sunday masses held in both English and Spanish. I initially sampled a small group of people who seemed to be genuinely interested in my research and further met the criteria relevant to my research. The primary sample proposed other interviewees who have had the characteristics pertinent to my research (Bryman, 2012: 424). This helped me expand my social network and established the most fitting approach as the state of California went on lockdown in mid-March 2020. Hence, my initial approach was followed by snowball sampling. Thirdly, I used Facebook and posted my research flyer in various groups related to cultural exchange and language cafes, such as San Diego Friendship Circle and San Diego Social Network. This approach has proven to be another suitable means of reaching out to individuals interested in participating in the research. It was of uttermost significance to get the approval and the support of the founders of these groups first - in research jargon, also known as gatekeepers (Bryman, 2012: 435).

7.2.3 Method

7.2.3.1 Semi-Structured Interviews With given consent, I conducted 17 separate interviews, out of which were six interviews with couples and eleven individual interviews. It was anticipated for the study to be conducted vis a vis with interviewees; however, due to the unforeseen circumstances surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, I was restricted from interviewing in person and thus, had to conduct most of the interviews via Facetime or Skype. Accordingly, four interviews took place in person, and 13 interviews were conducted via the applications as mentioned above. The interviews lasted between 30 and 90 minutes. There are several disadvantages to being restricted from interviewing interviewees vis-à-vis (e.g., difficulties in establishing rapport, technical issues interrupting the flow of the interview, and the inability to take into account interviewees’ body language). Yet six of the Facetime/Skype interviews were conducted with the camera on - two of them being interviews with couples and four single interviews - which allowed for the observation of non- verbal interaction. With a signed consent form sent via email to participants prior to the interviews, I audio recorded all interviews with a phone app, which allowed me to pay full attention to the interviewees’ narratives. The interviews that took place in person were set up at the participants' homes in different areas of San Diego, where they felt most comfortable. The empirical data were collected from February 28th to April 30th, 2020, with a previous agreement on (place), date, and time with participants. Social contact was established a month prior. All of the interviews took place in English; only some minor terminologies were mentioned in Spanish as respondents felt they could express the impact of specific intimate experiences better in Spanish. Though my active knowledge of Spanish is not nearly sufficient to conduct a whole interview in Spanish, my passive skills allowed me to understand the general meaning of certain sentences and the particularities, which enabled me to ask (in English) specific follow up questions. Certain terms the interviewees chose to use in Spanish were later translated into English. The interview guide22 was segmented into four different parts, which did not have a finite set of predetermined questions. The set of questions increased in sensitivity and commenced with

22 see Appendix 2

more general questions pertaining to their education, family history, the US Census, and their understanding of race and ethnicity, followed by their subjective perceptions of how certain life experiences made them feel and shaped the person they understand themselves to be today. The use of specific follow-up questions allowed to expand on particular points raised by the interviewees, hence establishing room for verbalized self-reflection. On the one hand, follow-ups further enabled participants to voice in-depth experiences when needed; on the other hand, they enabled me to map out individuals’ self-understandings versus the way they believe to be perceived by others. The semi-structured nature of the interviews suited the purpose of my interview perfectly. It allowed the interviewees to navigate the ways in which they view their social world with much greater flexibility. Most importantly, without imposing a specific direction, it allowed for the development of personal and ‘intimate’ narratives, emphasizing the internal psychological processes involved in identity experiences (Weeks et al., 2001: 201). Similarly, it opened up the field for the interviewees to express their stories and perspectives and pursue the topics they deemed most significant (Bryman, 2012: 470-471). The in-depth interviews had traits of life-story and narrative interviews: the interviewees were invited to talk about their parents’ migrant trajectories, their childhood, the way they were raised, and their experiences of living amongst two cultures. I conducted some pilot interviews prior to talking to the interviewees of this study. This allowed me “to move forward, with [...] sensitivity” regarding the intimacy of life experiences (Squire et al., 2014: 108). Of particular concern in the methodology literature has been the hierarchical relations of power between researchers and interviewees in qualitative research paradigms (Raheim et al., 2016: 1). It would be myopic to claim that it is feasible to overcome the power imbalance in the research relationship. However, I avoided leading questions and always proceeded with the strategy of asking very open questions (Goodwin et al., 2003: 576). Hereby, I hoped to act more as a listener than an intrusive questioner, meaning that I was cautious of being supportive when interviewees felt uncomfortable to give further information on specific moments of their life. Caution and sensitivity were of uttermost importance, as the interviews touched upon intimate matters. Thus, my ethical commitment was guided by efforts to create and sustain a friendly rapport that was neither overtly supportive nor dismissive to any of the answers. Through the transcription and analysis, I understand that I recast the narratives into a new historical, political,

and cultural context (Gready, 2008: 138-139; Plummer, 2001: 216-217). Thus, it is with genuine respect that I focus on staying true to people's intimate narratives.

7.2.4 Analyzing Data

7.2.4.1 Coding One of the most central processes of my analysis was the process of coding using nVivo12, a computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software that helped me look for emerging and relevant themes and patterns. The full transcription of the interviews also took place with nVivo12. Upon reading the transcripts, the obtained material was sorted and synthesized through qualitative coding. By attaching labels to data segments, the codes were not just about labeling but rather about exploring interrelationships and linking specific segments to an analytical idea to all the data pertaining to such segments (Charmaz, 2006: 3, 44). There are two main steps underlying the coding process: initial and focused coding (Charmaz, 2006; Saldana, 2009). During the initial coding process, I discovered particular ‘in- vivo’ codes (e.g., ‘race’ ‘Census’) and descriptive codes (e.g., ‘feeling somewhere in between’). During the focused coding stage, I categorized the codes into families of related codes and hence, started to find corresponding thematic patterns. I then applied focused codes to the selected sections of the text to determine the reoccurring topics and possible analytical issues (e.g. ‘discrimination’ ‘free will’ ‘color evasion’). The process further allowed me to make more concrete connections between different themes and to draw upon existing literature to analyze the extent to which my analysis supported or contradicted what is already known about Mexican American and White American identities.

7.2.4.2 Narrative analysis To analyze the gathered material, I drew on narrative analysis, an approach sensitive to the narratives that individuals recount when opening up about themselves and sharing particular live events (Bryman, 2012: 582, 584). The first step of my narrative research involved gathering the spoken narratives obtained through the interviews with Mexicans and White individuals in San Diego. Even though the collected material did not fully represent chronological life history events, they followed the way interviewees’ remembered growing up and hence, captured accounts of

certain moments and their connection to the way interviewees understand their identities today. Moreover, I encouraged the individuals to recount certain moments that appeared significant by consciously choosing questions that elicited certain moments in time (e.g., “How did it make you feel when…” or “Can you recall a specific incident when…”). The second step of the analysis consisted of the coding process, as mentioned earlier, which categorized the gathered material and thus facilitated its interpretation (Bryman, 2012; Chattoo, 2015). Within narrative research, there are several points of interest, however (Squireet et al., 2014,) in light of this study’s primary objective, I was primarily interested in the narrative content – meaning themes and meanings that developed throughout the interviewees’ narratives. Finally, it is crucial to keep in mind that narratives do not mirror ‘reality’ or subjective truth (Good, 1994: 139). Instead, “narrative is a form in which experience is represented without a fixed beginning and an end” (ibid.). Thus, the gathered narratives unfolded in a subjunctive mode that allowed for subjective and individual interpretations (ibid.).

7.3 Final methodological reflections

7.3.1 Ethical Considerations Being theoretically and culturally sensitive, particularly when doing research with people, is of uttermost importance. This particularly implies being sensitive to the interviewees’ concerns that may differ from those of the researcher’s (Yip, 2007 and Sieber, 1993). Though the final outcome of the research might be vaguely different from what the interviewees agreed upon23, I created a research flyer24 to be as transparent as possible from the beginning of the study. The flyer was distributed to potential interviewees prior to the interviews and included information about the nature of the study. Each informant was sent a consent form25 prior to the interviews seeking their signature and, thus, permission to audio record the interview and use the data gained for research purposes. To ensure greater anonymity, real names were replaced with fictitious ones. Additionally, interviewees were assured that any information that might enable a third party to trace back their identity would only be presented in a very general manner to protect their privacy. The ambition to configure anonymity and confidentiality standards was motivated by the commitment to warrant an adequate degree of privacy and create mutual trust (Taylor & Bogdan, 1998: 48; Bryman, 2012: 142). At the same time, individuals were informed thoroughly about the nature and intentions of the project before conducting interviews with them. The consent form also informed them about their right to skip questions if considered too personal and to withdraw from the study at any point in the research. Furthermore, I am aware of the new regulations in qualitative research; accordingly, I will destroy any data that could disclose the interviewees' identities upon receiving my grade. Another pivotal point of discussion concerning ethical codes of research conduct relates to the fact that a social platform was employed as a means of getting in touch with potential interviewees (Lunnay et al., 2015). It is of uttermost importance to mention that while scholars are concerned with the private nature of Facebook, I never recruited potential interviewees via private messages. Being aware of the ethical codes of research, I posted the information flyer only to

23 See e.g. “Consenting to what? Issues of Access, Gate-Keeping, and ‘Informed’ Consent” (Miller and Bell, 2012). 24 See Appendix 1. 25 See Appendix 6.

designated groups26 and did not go through individuals’ profiles. The only time interviewees and I exchanged messages was when potential candidates showed interest in the study and were willing to arrange a time for the interview. At the same time, my privacy settings did not allow anyone I am not ‘friends’ with, to access any of my personal information.

7.3.2 Role as a Researcher I acknowledge that my research is unavoidably influenced by my personality, world view, race, and my perception of the respondents in the research process (Berg and Smith, 1985; Clifford and Marcus, 1986; Ely et al.,1991; Woods, 1986). To ensure trustworthy research and transparency (Creswell, 2014: 187; Bryman: 393 ), I understand myself to have an ethical duty to account for potential biases since they were, in fact, a steppingstone for the knowledge produced through this study. As in all qualitative research paradigms, establishing the interviewees’ trust was of primary relevance. To gain this confidence, I chose to be open about my personal history when asked. Identifying as a second-generation, non-White immigrant woman of Turkish and Kurdish descent who was born and raised in Germany was something that turned out to be pivotal for the data collection process. In many aspects, it positioned me as an ‘insider’27 in terms of having first-hand experience with the implications of occupying several cultural spaces. I found that this opened up doors to individuals who would initially be hesitant to share information regarding their racial identity experiences with someone who did not share this experience. Being in an interracial relationship with a White American individual myself proved to be an essential factor, allowing me to gain access to Mexican-White interracial couples. However, as a European, I remained an outsider on a cultural level. Being highly aware that the insider/outsider status (Yip, 2008b) may affect the data collection as well as how a researcher enters the field (Sherry, 2008: 434; Dwyer and Buckle, 2009: 55), I initially had expected my outsider position to present a potential impediment. On the contrary, being positioned as an outsider gave me the advantage of being viewed as someone who was respected for illuminating identity experiences situated in the US context. Thus, as both an ‘insider’ and an ‘outsider,’ I acknowledge my role as part and parcel of the generated knowledge.

26 see section 7.2.2.2 27 The positionality of the researcher and the methodological, epistemological, and ethical implications of the insider- outsider dynamic naturally deserve more elaboration than space allows here. These issues, with regard to research on ethnic minorities and sensitive material in general, have been interestingly explored by some sociologists (Yip 2008b).

Since I have acquired most of my education in Western Europe, the need for a perspectival approach towards concepts of race and gender was a lesson learned during my time in San Diego. This is certainly not limited to geographical or cultural differences, but it was highlighted for me specifically in this context. Throughout the interview processes with White and Mexican American individuals in San Diego, I was reminded that categories of gender and race are polysemic and culturally, socially, and historically positioned and contextually bound. My previous research, particularly in Germany and Sweden, has often demanded that I distance myself from employing the terminology ‘race’ as it is often associated with a Nationalistic Socialist and ideological tenet of the existence of ‘blood purity.’ However, at an empirical level, the meaning of race depends on how it is used in a specific context situated within specific sociopolitical relationships. Specifically, in light of my commitment to staying truthful to the interviewees’ accounts, it was with utter caution that I revisited and, to some extent, reevaluated the term race to rebalance any potential bias. Thus, the interviewees’ stories accentuated that race and ethnicity are complexly intertwined and continually transformed by socio-political struggles. Therefore, even though races are socially constructed categories, racism and racial categories have a material and consequential reality, facilitating the production and reproduction of systemic racial advantage for some and disadvantages for others.

7.3.3 Dependability, credibility, and transferability I hoped to achieve dependability of my research design by documenting the whole research process ranging from concepts, interview questions, the operationalization of theories to the description of the sample transparently. Thereby, by paying attention to “methodical detail,” I enable any third party to access and view the interview questions, as well as the acquired material (6 and Bellamy, 2012: 21). This further allows for tracking and reconstructing the different stages of the research. Moreover, I openly reflect on the difficulties I encountered during the research process. When presenting the results, I draw on the original transcripts and provide accurate descriptions of the interviewees’ demographics (6 & Bellamy, 2012: 261-262). The establishment of credibility standards entails that this research is carried out according to the canons of good practice, requiring me to reflect and minimize any bias throughout the analysis of the collected data and appropriately present the social world as narrated by the interviewees (Bryman, 2016: 390). The credibility of the research process and obtained data was further achieved by two essential processes, namely, precise definition and verification. The precise definition and operationalization of the theoretical framework and the transparent display of all the research steps bears witness to the legitimacy of the study’s conclusion and contributes to its credibility. Concerning the transferability of the research process and the results, it is crucial to emphasize that there is no guarantee that other researchers who use the same methodical tools will obtain similar results (Guba, 1985; Guba and Lincoln, 1994). As previously mentioned, interview knowledge is the product of a co-authored process affected by both parties' sex, gender, race, cultural background, etc. Furthermore, it is crucial to consider that the interview knowledge produced about human life is always contextual. Being set in a specific geographic location and temporal dimension implies that knowledge obtained within one situation is neither automatically transferable nor quantifiable across contexts and temporal modalities (Kvale and Brinkmann, 2009: 55). Thus, standards of transferability in this research are not established through ambitions to generalize the results but rather to produce an in-depth and interpretative understanding of the empirical phenomena at hand (Cook and Fonow, 1986; Ollivier and Tremblay, 2000).

8. Descriptive Findings

Before proceeding to the descriptive findings, I would like to point to Appendix 3 and 4 for an in- depth introduction of the interviewees, including the couples, and an overview of relevant demographic information.

This chapter focuses on reporting the thematic findings drawn from the 17 qualitative semi- structured interviews. Nine central themes emerged from the data. This section firstly proceeds with an outline of the findings that emerged from the interviews with Mexican-American individuals and goes on to present the findings that emerged from the interviews with White Americans.

8.1 On Ethnicity, Race, and Belonging: “I am Mexican -American” Several interviewees mentioned place of birth, parents’ migrant trajectories from Mexico, loyalty to the United States of America, cultural practices such as speaking Spanish while growing up – all these and more as reasons for identifying with the hyphenated label Mexican-American. Lisandro (58), an electrical engineer at NASA who has spent most of his life in San Diego and was interviewed with his wife Caroline, explained that he refers to himself as Mexican-American. When asked about the specifics underlying such identification, Lisandro, like many other interviewees, explains that Mexican signalizes his “roots” to other people questioning his appearance, whereas American represents his birthplace. Deep down, however, he “feels” American. As a lot of interaction was involved in the couple interviews, Lisandro’s wife, Caroline (56), whom he has been married to for over 20 years, claims: “I don’t think you’ve ever told anybody you’re American,” whereupon Lisandro, clarified the inherent struggles as to why identifying as American does not suffice, particularly, among others: I just tell people I’m Mexican, just so they’re not confused because well… [pointing at his face and body]. So, in some contexts, I say I’m an American because this is where my loyalty lies. So, in the context of when over in Mexico, and people ask me, I say, yeah. I’m Mexican. So that they understand that I’m not trying to take away any of their own. But my parents come from Mexico, so there is no way getting around that. Following this, for many other individuals, such as Camila (50), who runs a private daycare, the racial composition of particular contexts, the perception of their skin colors, their ties to Mexico through culture and language, and an effort to “make it easier for people” also emerge as an

important factor in identifying as Mexican American, paralleling Lisandro’s concerns. Following up on the aspect of ‘loyalty,’ as mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, Rico (61), a Senior Manager at an electrical company who has been in an interracial relationship with his wife Jane (57) for 22 years, explains that identifying as Mexican-American is sometimes “confusing” for many, including himself. Even though he openly acknowledges his Mexican roots, his loyalty appears to lay with the US. As such, he takes pride in his patriotism: “I get very emotional about America. I’ve known too many, including my own brother who served and died in the military”. However, American patriotism, language, and their parents’ migrant trajectories are not the only factors that shape these individuals’ decision to identify as both Mexican and American. For many, including Lisandro and Rico, identifying as American serves to justify that they are not as accustomed to Mexican culture and traditions as Mexicans who were raised in Mexico would expect them to be. When asked if the assertion of Mexican as part of their identities is a means of expressing belonging, Lisandro explains that he could never fully belong. In the same manner, in which he is perceived as a pocho28 by other Mexicans, he understands himself to be one without being offended by it. Lisandro accentuates that he could only fully be Mexican if he “reimbursed” himself in the culture. Despite its derogatory connotation, Rico also states to be “proud” to be pocho, a “half-breed,” and hence, a Mexican-American as growing up in the US has offered him many opportunities. So far, the findings show that there are no clear-cut lines between racial and ethnic identity amongst Mexican-American interviewees. Almost all of the respondents perceive their Mexican/Hispanic heritage as both their race and ethnicity not only because they feel they “were born with a very rich culture, tradition and family unity,” as Ella (45), a naturalized US citizen, states, but also, as Lale (45) emphasizes because their traditions and heritage is “a race [...] it’s how people mark us”. Taking pride in one’s identified racial community, along with a sense of solidarity with fellow Mexicans, also plays an important role in asserting a Mexican-American identity. Take the example of Axel, a 32-year-old construction worker who often is assumed to be White due to his lighter complexion. Explaining that people often mistake him for White, Axel has often witnessed Mexicans around him being discriminated against. As such, he asserts that “racism and the way people treat Hispanics” is the reason he feels obligated to declare his Mexican identity alongside

28 Pocho/Pocha – derogatory term. Literal definition: diluted, watered down (derogatory); undersized (clothing).

his American identity: “I’m feeling it’s my job to put them [the ones who discriminate] in their place.”

8.2 On choice and free will: “The only box I could ever punch is …” Asking the interviewees about the 2020 US Census and the racial categories offered on the forms revealed that choice and free will are two aspects the individuals continuously feel excluded from. Leandro (65), a retired US Veteran, recalls his time during the military where everything was labeled. Thus, he often left the forms blank, which, to this day, irritates people: The only box I could ever punch is Hispanic. [...] And they go: ‘Quit giving me trouble, just check Hispanic and let’s go.’ So, you have no choice but fill it out in some way. There’s no way of getting around it”. When asked how such situations make him feel, he did not hesitate to critique the government for their binary understanding of peoples’ identifications: Well, they’re [the government] mistaken [...] It’s leaving more room for racism and people being persecuted [...] We’re all humans [...] It’s very binary, there is no in-between [...] They need the American button. Camila’s (50) experience with the US Census is similar regarding the resistance Leandro experienced. In this regard, Camila, who was born in Mexico and came to the US at a fairly early age, openly shares calling out the system several times regarding the “narrow path” of racial categories. According to Camila, who runs a private daycare, none of the categories fit her: “I am brown, American, and Mexican; I can’t pick that. It’s a sense I am being ignored”. The sense of being ignored also constitutes a key problem for many others, such as Helena (41), an Office Assistant and Cosmetologist, who often feels forced to pick White even though she feels “definitely not White.” Claiming that “everyone else” – meaning primarily White people and the government - just perceive her as Mexican, she asserts that there is “no space” for her as a Mexican-American. However, hesitating to - or feeling forced to check any box that comes vaguely close to the way interviewees identify is not the only apparent struggle they feel confronted with. Many other interviewees, such as Rico, who understand their identities to go beyond the binaries of White and black, find themselves choosing other, feeling that it is still “not satisfying,” claiming that there is always “more involved.”

8.3 Somewhere in between or part of both worlds? Having to pick a racial category on the US Census forms is problematic in terms of the dichotomous polarity of the given categories and in terms of multiple notions of “belonging.” Camilo (45), for instance, a federal employee who was interviewed with his wife Sandy, refers to himself as a “chameleon”: [...]when I'm with relatives on my father's side, it's almost like there is no question: I am Mexican. Sometimes I'll start speaking like with an American accent. So, in a way, it's almost like something that happens when you're not even really being aware of it. You're just kind of like switching gears and not on a conscious level. And then when I'm with my relatives on my mother's side, it's almost like I am less Mexican. So how I identify does change [...] The narratives further show that being born in Mexico or being of Native Mexican descent does not imply a straightforward answer to where individuals locate their identities. Take for instance the example of Alberto, who, as someone who would be labeled indigenous Mexican – or in his words, an “Indian” understands his identity as part of two worlds; Alberto claims to be from ‘there’ and from ‘here’ and hence, as much Mexican as he is US American: I am the same person here and there. I am not different. I just am. Because when we die, we go to the same place, you know. Similarly, Ella, a housekeeper who was born in Mexico and immigrated to California at a fairly young age, asserts: “I am second generation, and I belong to both worlds.” However, elaborating on the nexus between skin color and racial identity, some of the interviewees’ identities appear to be located “somewhere in between.” Even though Ella situates her sense of belonging as a part of “both worlds,” the fact that she perceives herself “not White, not black either” makes her long for a more situated sense of belonging: I feel that there is not a place to belong for me, especially for my color [...] Then I wonder. Where do I belong? I would like something in between. A somewhat different perspective on being situated ‘somewhere in between” is shared by Helena and Janice, who both at times feel “neither Mexican nor American.” Recalling an incident during the time she was working as a service advisor at Volkswagen, Helena remembered a Mexican co- worker who would refer to her as pocha, questioning her authenticity as a Mexican and thus, leaving her to feel defeated: I cannot even be Mexican. It’s degrading. [...] you are not from anywhere. It’s like there’s no definition of you. [...] It does take my identity away because this is my belief. I just

mean I look Mexican. I’m not like dark brown, but I am in between. And there is no way I can pass as American. [...].

8.4 ‘Us versus them’ Going through their everyday lives is, according to many interviewees, is filled with situations that require them to reflect upon and question their racial and ethnic identities in ways they would prefer not to. Rico, for instance, mentions that his approach in life is not rooted in ‘race thinking,’ which he asserts as the reason he always feels caught off guard when society reminds him of his race: when it comes to workplace issues [...] in my career where people got suspicious about my promotions or raises [...]they remind me ‘hey Rico, you're not White.’ Recalling an incident during his football career, Rico shares a specific moment that made him realize that society is split between people like him and people like them: Well, I used to be a big athlete. I was very much involved in football. So [...] I was at practice [...], and he [the coach] grabs my facemask which I had on, so he pulls me towards him, and he said you ******* wetback 29 [...] The next day I had announced I had quit the team. Breaching the topic of being feared, a similar notion of ‘us versus them’ is shared by Elizabeth, a Mexican-American retired Veteran who claims that “people […] live with their guns because they’re scared of us”. The topic of ‘us versus them’ as a result of being viewed as others is also featured in a many other accounts. As echoed by Helena, The feelings that many interviewees associated with racist encounters oscillate between frustration, anger, and ambivalence: I feel this hate from certain White people here in the United States where they look at you, and you know, and just by the look, you can feel different. [...] it doesn’t bug me anymore ‘cause I mean, I’m used to this hate [...] it’s something normal living in this country. The depiction of Mexicans in the media furthermore frames the way interviewees reflect not only about their own racial identities but also about a “new racism” disproportionately affecting Mexicans. Camilo elucidates that media coverage about ‘his’ race is often oversimplified, leaving him and many others feeling not only depicted as criminals but also isolated and “without a voice.” For instance, let us just remember Axel, who, despite the fact that he could pass as White, places great significance on his Mexican identity. Talking about the role of the media, he mentions that

29 Wetback is a derogatory term used in the context of the United States to refer to foreign nationals, particularly Mexicans, residing in the U.S. The word mostly is used to refer to Mexicans’ ‘illegal’ status in the US.

Hispanic people in history have “always been closeted and word off” and seen as “ the help and perpetrators of violence” instead of “the victims.” Thus, media coverage that dehumanizes Mexicans emerges as another factor for interviewees like Axel to distinguish themselves from White individuals: We (Mexicans) have more rights of belonging here than you (Whites) do because my ancestors lived here before your ancestors [...]. In the same manner, Ella asserts, when hearing that disturbances are mentioned in the media, that “her people” take the forefront: “Race defines us. It puts the difference in how they perceive us [...]”. However, other individuals, including Helena, share a different perspective with regard to the media coverage on Mexicans. On the one hand, Helena mentions being frustrated about the depictions of Mexicans as “illegal people that come and do the work, White people don’t wanna do”; on the other hand, Helena claims that Mexicans exclude themselves from being accepted as Americans by disrespecting certain laws and regulations. Consequently, she asserts that “good” Mexican-American citizens end up paying for such behavior: And then how do you expect to be treated like a normal human being if you come to this country and you act like a damn monkey? We do give ourselves such a bad reputation. It’s not fair because I am a Mexican woman, a woman that works, works, works. I am a good citizen, I obey the law, and I end up paying for other peoples’ bad behavior. But because of my color, my features, I am not American to them. Researcher: Who is ‘them’? Helena: The White people, White Americans.

8.5 “I got treated like a gangster” Though a lot of what has been outlined till now speaks of factors that validate or constrain the way Mexican interviewees understand their identities, it also becomes clear that racial treatment is often tied to individuals’ perceived gender. When reflecting upon their experiences with discrimination, many male interviewees, including Lisandro, and Rico continuously underline the role their perceived gender inhabit when facing racial discrimination. During the interview, Lisandro, for instance, was often reminded of certain instances at his and Caroline’s “super White” friends’ house: Joe [the friend] looks at me, and he goes: wey, ese [Mexican ‘cartel’ slang], how’s it going, homie? [...] He stereotyped me as a cholo30, you know what a cholo is? Like

30 Within the scope of Lisandro’s experience, cholo is a derogatory term for men of Mexican descent who are categorized as both part of a subclass and members of street gangs.

a low rider. Cholos are [...] gang members and stuff like that. So, he kind of treated me like a gang member. [...] He was trying to point out you know, you are just nothing but a Cholo, you know? When asked if such experiences would have been different if Lisandro had not happened to be perceived as a Mexican male, he emphasizes that with his level of intelligence and education, “doors would have opened up more.” The topic of education and intelligence is also breached by Rico, who remembers occasions where people wondered why his manager position was not “filled by an old White guy,” questioning his authenticity and consequently his hard-earned education. Sharing this experience, Rico further underlines that his race trumps and eradicates the aspects that should define him as an equally worthy citizen: “So, it occurs to me as: ‘Rico, as successful as you are, as educated as you are, as smart as you are, as good a person as you are – You’re still Mexican.’”

8.6 “I am not the cleaning lady” Mexican-American males were not the only individuals that understand their perceived gender to play a pivotal role in racial treatment. The females’ experiences with gendered racial treatment encompass long sections within the interviews. Take, for example, Ella, who, like many other female interviewees, recalls several occasions where expected gender roles, such as being a babysitter or generally less educated, cause a lot of turmoil with White others. Recalling a rather recent experience which made Ella “feel less” tied her perceived race and gender to an anticipated occupation: My friend and I, we are crossing the border. She is like wide eyed, White American freckles - and my daughter who is vanilla is with me. The officer asks my friend who was driving: ‘Oh, so that’s your daughter and she is your babysitter’ about my baby and me. And my friend goes: Oh, no, no, no, that’s my friend, and that’s her baby. Incidents at the border are recalled quite frequently by female interviewees. Beatrice (51), a preschool teacher, recalls witnessing two officers abusing teenagers while she was waiting in line to cross the border. Once one of the officers noticed her, they took away her SENTRI31 card. After two hours had passed, Beatrice asked if she could have her card back, whereupon the officers

31 SENTRI stands for Secure Electronic Network for Travelers Rapid Inspection. A SENTRI card provides expedited U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) processing, at the U.S.-Mexico border, of pre-approved travelers.

threatened to suspend her SENTRI card indefinitely: “I am a Mexican woman. They totally abused that and abused their power over me.” Similarly, Camila (50), who owns a house with her White husband, remembers several incidents in which she perceived her race and gender as obstacles to equal treatment. Recalling a time when construction workers who were getting paid to work on her house refused to take instructions from her, Camila asserts that her race and gender are two factors often “weaponized” against her: “[...] because I am a Mexican woman, I was treated differently, like I was there cleaning, not living at my own home.” In consensus with many other female interviewees, Camila explains: “The problem is ethnocentric people. So we [Mexican women] have the need to work harder. It’s a scary situation”. Beatrice, a preschool teacher who has often been categorized as a cleaning lady, added that such instances serve the sole purpose of asserting power over women ‘like her’, who are indeed “productive” and “independent”: They want to take advantage like ‘oh, it’s a Mexican, a woman, she won’t say anything if it bothers her [...].” Janice (39), who is a bilingual marriage and family therapist, recalls several incidents that make her feel like she was treated “like another statistic” and consequently, making her doubt her level of education. Remembering her role in court, she shared that her race and skin color coupled with her gender, often trump her self-worth as a successful woman, particularly at her workplace: I was recently in court in front of a judge, and I was trying to advocate [...] for my people. [...] I started coming out feeling very vulnerable because I was mostly thinking about that I'm an educated woman [...] and the judge that was taking my case was White and very dismissive of the concerns of my community. [...] But in my situation, I need to probably seek a second degree in law, but even then, I would still feel frustrated and vulnerable [...].

In the following section, I present the thematic findings that emerged from the interviews with White interviewees.

8.7 “I am just White” Many White interviewees, such as Caroline, Sandy, and Liz, were interviewed with their significant other. One recurring topic throughout these interviews is the difficulty of naming their racial identities and associating certain practices with them. Caroline, and Liz, for instance, assert that they are “just White” or “just a mutt,” without further explanation as to what “mutt” implies. The absence of racial self-reflection was another very prominent aspect. For instance, Diego openly shares that he “never really thought about it [being White].” Although most of his friends were “brown” growing up, he accentuates that he never actively encountered situations that made him actively think about how he identifies in a group of people. When asked if his self- understanding ever changes, Diego emphasizes that the way he sees himself is static: “I’m White all the time, but I don’t actively think about my Whiteness, ever. I just am”.

8.8 “I don’t see color” Seeing color- or the lack thereof occurs as quite a prominent theme throughout the interviews with all White respondents. Thus, most of the interviewees, whether or not they were interviewed with their significant other, paradoxically emphasize the notion not to ‘see’ race while at the same time admitting to acknowledging differences in the form of skin color gradations and facial features. Take, for example, Caroline, who asserts not to see ‘race’ while recognizing that her husband is yet, “not the same”: I really don’t see color. I think everybody is the same. But obviously, I married someone not the same as me. So I see it [race]”. Often, White individuals evade or struggle to provide direct answers to inquiries related to race or their Mexican partners’ experiences with racial treatment. For example, Sandy openly shares that the word race alone makes her immediately think of “racial tension” and, thus, does not feel comfortable elaborating on the topic. When Jane is asked if she has any ideas as to why people would treat her partner Rico (who, as we can recall, talked about the fact that certain people “think through race”) differently, she appears to seem puzzled and uncomfortable with specifying a direct answer: “That’s a really good question, and it makes me think of the virus right now [...] A virus is not racist”. As her partner Rico talks about privilege – or the absence thereof in his life, it appears plausible to ask Jane if she believes in the material reality of such privilege. However, while on the one hand, she lists the different “races” she went to school with, on the other hand, she

instantaneously stresses her belief in “sameness.” What is very noteworthy, however, is the fact that in some of these instances, non-White partners follow up on open questions that are evaded by their White counterparts. Doing so, they urge their partners to recognize the reality of race privilege. Take, for example, the interaction between Rico and Jane: Jane: I wouldn’t think of myself as White privilege. Rico: But you might have benefited from White privilege without knowing. Jane: I don’t know. Rico: Exactly, you don’t know. Jane: Right now, I think it’s (White privilege) a real thing, and I hate it.

8.9. Reflecting upon Race and Privilege While official racial identification and self-understandings in everyday life emerged as prominent topics in White interviewees’ stories, another very noticeable topic featured increased awareness of other cultures and worldviews. Upon reflecting on her relationship with Camilo, Sandy (42), a high school teacher, asserts that she is more open to “reflect,” “ compare,” and “contrast” her beliefs and opinions with Camilo’s which helped her to “expand” her understanding of Mexican culture. Heightened awareness of the United States' racial order is also recalled as a new perspective gained through interviewees’ interracial relationship. When asked if certain perceptions of race in the United States had changed throughout the interactions with their partners, Alyssa shares one of her more recent realizations: There’s still the superior White race. They say there’s no racism. There is. There always will be. I don’t see when it’s ever going to end because I can be driving the same car, I could be doing 75 miles an hour in a 55 zone and not get stopped. You watch him [Alberto] drive 75 miles an hour in a 55 zone, and he’ll get stopped by police officers, and you’ll see it [racism]. Diego (29,) who has been married to his Mexican wife for over two years, recalls a dinner with his family and his wife, stating that his aunt verbally attacked his wife for being Mexican, which he perceives as an “awful” and immediate attack on himself. According to Diego, this experience allows him to reflect upon his privilege and see beyond the surface of discussions involving race by continuously educating himself. According to Diego, discussing race with his wife and living side by side also helps him recognize that life as a White man “is generally easier,” as he is afforded privileges non-White others cannot benefit from.

Interestingly, in some stories that involved their interracial relationships, significant White others were treated as non-White, which causes them to be more cautious of people. Alyssa, for instance, recalls a couple of times where real estate agents would not rent certain places to her and her partner because they are a mixed couple. Similarly, Alison shares several incidents where she and her family feel unsafe and anxious: [...]we fear ICE32 for our family. We fear it for being mistaken for someone that’s undocumented because [...]my kids are [...]we’re Hispanic. They’re like ‘well, all Hispanics are undocumented’ you know [...]. In light of the current Black Lives Matter movement, Nina shares that her relationship motivates her to contribute to positive change by “using” her privilege.

32 ICE is an acronym and stands for US Immigration and Customs Enforcement

9. Analysis

To address the central research question, i.e., how Americans of Mexican descent understand their racial and ethnic identities, the following analysis foregrounds four analytical dimensions in light of the theoretical framework that has underpinned this study: (1) Hyphenated Selves, (2) Hybrid identities, (3) Discrimination as an external marker for the ‘other’ (4) Intersectionality as a filter for perception and experience. The following inferences evolve from the preceding thematic findings and further address the points of interest that navigated the research process. The analysis concerning the identities of White individuals is presented in the second part of this chapter.

9.1 Mexican-American Identity

9.1.1 “Hyphenated Selves”: Subjective Identifications and Political Constraints With reference to the hyphenated selves framework, CRT, and Jenkins’ theory on identification and categorization (2008), it is apparent that the interviewees understand both their racial and ethnic identification as ‘Mexican-American.’ Hence, interviewees capture the duality of their identity experiences through a hyphen that asserts both their Mexican and US American ties. As my material shows, however, the hyphen constitutes more than just a mere insistence on displaying that individuals feel “equally both of those [Mexican and American] things.” As illustrated by the findings, the hyphen is predominantly understood as a resource to negotiate dilemmas of racial identity, belonging, and being different (Hamann and England, 2011). The way individuals negotiate the nexus between belonging and difference through the hyphen is best exemplified by Lisandro’s and Rico’s narratives. Both interviewees place great emphasis on their US American patriotic perspective while at the same time acknowledging their parents’ birthplace and external perceptions of their phenotype that categorize them as ‘different.’ The complexity of the hyphen and how it is negotiated differently in different situations is illustrated through the specific intent underlying the choice to move either American or Mexican to the front in particular contexts. Thus, depending on the context, the hyphen is either used as a means to verbalize pride in Mexican heritage and culture or to direct attention to the US American aspects of individuals’ lives. As illustrated by the findings, the ladder often serves as a means to escape judgment from Mexicans who were born and raised in Mexico and hence, are considered more “authentic.” This

explains why both Lisandro and Rico regard themselves as “halfbreeds” and “pochos” who could only call themselves ‘Mexicans’ if they ‘reimbursed’ themselves in the Mexican culture. These individuals construct and challenge their multiple identities in complex and shifting ways, depending on their situated relationships with people and places. This observation also mirrors Jenkins’ (2008) theory as most of the respondents, in asserting a hyphenated identity, not only consider how they perceive themselves but also validate their self-understanding against the way others – both fellow Americans and Mexicans recognize them. As the hyphen is negotiated differently in different contexts, it constitutes a deeply relational concept (Hamann and England, 2011). Furthermore, individuals’ hyphenated identities emerge both as a space for negative experiences and assertive confrontations. Thus, while some individuals are concerned about people being “confused” if they identified only as ‘American,’ as they are “Mexican by color,” others, like Axel, see it as their responsibility to actively counter racial injustice directed against Mexicans by asserting their Mexican identity. Questions about identity were not only questions of self-identification for Mexican- American individuals but also about being positioned by others and given access to certain forms of belonging. Thus, talking about the 2020 US Census and the available racial categories reveals feeling ‘choiceless’ and “ignored” as most interviewees continuously feel pressured to either tick ‘White’ or ‘other’ on the forms, illustrating the tension between the individual order and the institutional order and how this predicament is negotiated in situated contexts (Jenkins, 2008). Regarding Jenkins’s (2008) theorization on ‘categorization,’ it is evident that the modern US state visibly emerges as one of the most prominent agents that categorizes the individuals in ways that are inconsistent with internally attributed identifications. This is most clearly exemplified by Leandro’s and Camila’s statements. Both of them feel that the government “is mistaken” as the polarity of the categories on Census forms leaves room for “racism and people being persecuted” and in turn “ignores” and “offends” and thus, excludes citizens that identify as “brown, American, and Mexican.” Accordingly, it appears that the hyphenated term ‘Mexican-American’ is an equivalent level of social identity and, thus, perceived as a quasi-racial term. This is because the lived experience of such categorizations in individuals' lives prove to be more valid than a theoretical distinction between race and ethnicity. However, the state is not the only agent that imposes external identity categories on individuals; the findings illustrate that the media also plays a prominent role in categorizing and

“isolating” individuals. Suppose we recall, for instance, the interview with Camilo. In that case, we remember that he compares the media with a “monolithic force,” which makes him feel like a “minority within a minority, within a minority,” who goes unrecognized and is without “a voice.” Similarly, Helena explains that portrayals of Mexicans in the “White” media categorize “all Mexicans” as “illegal” immigrants, as single adverse incidents are immediately generalized. This asserts that the ways Mexican Americans see themselves and are perceived by others involve active negotiations and renegotiations between the individual order, the interaction order, and the institutional order (Jenkins, 2008). Even though - as illustrated by the following sections - neither the state nor the media are the only agents that impose external identity categories on individuals, the material demonstrates the power of authoritative institutions over the individual and emphasizes the deceptive nature of choice and free will in the realm of US identity politics. (ibid.).

9.1.2 Transcending binaries through “hybrid identities” So far, we have established that the interviewees’ hyphenated identities serve as a resource that allows them to grasp the nexus between their Mexican and US American identities. However, the question that arises from the findings is concerned with where Mexican- American individuals manifest their sense of belonging. Leaning on Bhabha’s (2004) theory on ‘hybridity,’ the material shows that the identities of Mexican-American individuals are, in fact, “hybrid identities” as they are neither simply American nor Mexican. Thus, their belonging is situated “somewhere in between,” “from there, from here,” and sometimes located in “both worlds.” These phrases manifest a metaphorical ‘third space’ that allows for a multiplicity of ambiguous identities to co- exist. We remember that Ella, for instance, understands her status as a second-generation individual as a door allowing her to “belong to both worlds,” which elucidates that individuals sense of belonging is performed and confirmed in an in-between space of culture, which enables individuals to resist the binary and reductionist notion of fixed identities (Bhabha, 2004). Theorizing that the identities of second-generation Mexicans are “hybrid identities” that are constructed within a third space further allows to analytically capture Camilo’s experiences, who describes himself as a ‘chameleon.’ Comparing the fluidity of his identity with “switching gears,” Camilo states how he behaves and talks changes, depending on whether he is surrounded predominantly by Mexicans or US Americans. Accordingly, identity and belonging are

constituted through the third space, allowing individuals to temporarily re-appropriate and transform cultural symbols, including language (Bhabha 1994/2004). Following further statements such as “I don’t need to be Mexican or American” contributes to the understanding that Mexican-American individuals never occupy a single space in their social environment. Instead, the hybrid nature of individuals’ sense of belonging is situational and dynamic, transcending a mere fusion of the categories ‘Mexican’ and ‘American’. The third space, however, is not limited to being a part of ‘both worlds.’ Some individuals’ narratives reflect constant (re)negotiations between different forms of belonging, which are being scrutinized by others around them. Thus, a duality of the ‘third space’ emerges. On the one hand, Helena and Janice, for instance, embrace both their American and Mexican culture; on the other hand, they feel falsely categorized by US Americans and Mexicans alike, which makes them feel as if they are “neither Mexican nor American.” Leaning on Bhabha’s (2004) theorization of ‘hybridity,’ this observation corroborates that individuals’ sense of belonging mirrors a response to being marginalized. Thus, in light of this study’s findings, one can infer that the third space emerges as an abstract manifestation of the consequences of social exclusion. However, as the following section shows, the picture is more complicated than that. One cannot disregard the influence of racism that facilitates the reproduction of an ‘us versus them’ mentality, compromising the ways Mexican Americans understand their identities.

9.1.3 Racial Discrimination as an external marker for ‘the other’ After discussing how Mexican-Americans understand their own identities and how they believe others perceive them, this section turns to the first point of interest of this research. The following parts account for the implications of being perceived and treated as non-White. To what extent racial treatment influences individual identity experiences can be best understood following the framework of CRT while paying particular attention to Du Bois’ stance on ‘double consciousness’(1903), as well as Jenkins’ (2008) theory on the interactional order. The findings illustrate that Mexican-American individuals continuously validate their self-understandings against the ways other people perceive them (Jenkins, 2008). Rico, for example, explains that he does not attend to his job though ‘race thinking’; however, as people have called him out with derogatory words and gotten suspicious about his promotions, he asserts that he is constantly reminded of the fact that he is not White, which makes him feel Mexican first

and American second. Many stories, including Rico’s story, correspond to Du Bois’ (1903) perspective on ‘double consciousness’ and ‘twoness.’ Being located in ‘two worlds’ and subject to various forms of racism, Rico experiences a rupture of identity from being both American and Mexican which in fact, causes conflicted feelings, pressuring him at times to feel ‘less’ American. Thus, a continuous and simultaneous dialectic between an internally asserted and externally ascribed identity emerges– with the workplace being an ‘alibi’ for external ascriptions. A closer look at the findings demonstrates that internal and external processes of identification concerning active responses to racism and racial treatment involve an active “we” and “they,” which constitutes a significant aspect of why individuals locate themselves as a distinct racial group. Phrases such as “we have more rights of belonging here than you [White individuals]” emphasize that identities in a racialized society are affected by the lack of mutual recognition (Du Bois, 1903). Above all, this affirms that both non-White individuals and Whites, even if unacknowledged, partake in the continuous reproduction of the US color line. This is an observation that, thus far, has not been adequately problematized by previous research. There is another equally important but more complex observation to which we must allude within the dimension of racial treatment. Mexican-American identity constructions encompass complex and ambivalent forms of ‘othering,’ which involve two subdimensions: Firstly, racist incidents make individuals feel like ‘the other’ who is precisely non-White. Secondly, individuals split the group they feel they are a part of into ‘good’ and ‘bad’ citizens. The first subdimension, which is in consensus with previous studies, was displayed in most of the narratives and encompassed experiences where individuals were directly discriminated against on the basis of their perceived race. The second sub-dimension is of a more complex nature. However, CRT (Delgado and Stefancic, 2011) allows us to understand the splitting of one’s own group into ‘good’ and ‘bad’ citizens as a variety of internalized racism. Both Helena and Lale, for instance, emphasize that Mexicans assign themselves “a bad reputation” and thus, should not expect to be treated like a “normal human being[s].” In Helena’s story, we get to grasp a more detailed account: Differentiating herself from Mexicans who behave like “monkeys” by disrespecting the law, she describes herself as a hard-working woman and hence, a “good citizen” who, in contrast, does “obey the law” and “end[s] up paying for other peoples’ bad behavior” in ways that exclude her from ‘Americanness.’ Not only does this form of ‘othering’ illustrate the acceptance of the

negative societal beliefs and stereotypes about Mexicans as covered by the media, but it also accentuates the salience of a ‘double consciousness’ (Delgado and Stefancic, 2011; Du Bois, 1903). Helena looks at herself “through the eyes of others,” realizing that her skin color will “never” allow her to “pass” as White. This sheds light on the presence of “two unreconciled strivings” (Du Bois, 1903) that illustrate the paradoxical nature of racialized identities. As much as some of the interviewees realize that racial injustice can never be justified, they simultaneously appear to have internalized certain attitudes reflected on themselves and on members of the same group. Internalized racism constitutes a multifaceted picture. On the one hand, it appears Helena’s negative perspective on members of her own group allows her to free herself from emotional agitation caused by racial treatment. On the other hand, her story illuminates the meaning of ‘Americanness’ is deeply interwoven with being a ‘good’ and ‘White’ citizen’ – categories many second-generation Mexican-Americans feel expelled from.

9.1.4 Racialized masculinities, racialized femininities Several elements mark the third point of interest of this research, pertaining to additional variables that shape the interplay between power, race, and identity. Leaning on intersectionality as a lens (Crenshaw, 1989; Collins, 1989; Zinn and Drill, 1996), the findings show that multiple categories of difference interlock in the lives of Mexican men and women, respectively, whereby the intersections between race and gender emerge as a filter for both external perceptions and individual experiences. However, the gender structure as female or male governs the difference in experiencing race as a Mexican-American; thus, the following paragraphs are subdivided into two sections: Racialized masculinities and racialized femininities. The interviews entail a range of controlling images – meaning ideological justifications of what it means to be a racialized man or woman. Mexican-American men's identity experiences illustrate one common theme, namely that of being treated as an undocumented ‘criminal’ and ‘gangster.’ These specific controlling images require a particular display of masculinity: being a man, a Mexican, and of color. In this regard, several male interviewees complain about the difficulty of shirking the expectation of gang membership. For instance, Lisandro emphasizes that despite him being a highly salaried and educated professional, he has been treated numerous times as someone who is “nothing but a cholo [gangster].” The question that arises here is concerned with whether controlling images of Mexican men as gang members regulate equal access to

opportunities. Believing that “a lot more doors” would have “opened up” if Lisandro passed as White illustrates that he understands his upward mobility to be impeded through the intersection between his gender and race. Hence, the social location in the racial hierarchy is not ultimately determined by a single variable, such as class, but by interlocking inequalities mediated through the mechanism of controlling images (Collins, 1989). As mentioned at the beginning of this section, being a Mexican American woman is not the same as being a Mexican American man. Even though the identity experiences of women are also conjugated through gender and race and reproduced via racialized ‘controlling images,’ the findings demonstrate that Mexican-American women often had to negotiate a more complicated terrain replete with gendered and racialized controlling images that encompass the ideological depiction of “the cleaning lady,” “the housekeeper,” “the nanny,” and “the statistic.” Often these women mention a dual identification as ‘Mexican’ and ‘women’ when reflecting upon past incidents. Beatrice, a preschool teacher, and Camila, who runs a private daycare, both recall being treated as the ‘cleaning lady’ in several incidents, elucidating that White men often perceive them as subservient and less educated individuals as they are ‘Mexican’ and ‘women.’ Here we see that controlling images allow us to locate unequal power relations as the cornerstone of differences in identity experiences of Mexican women (Collins, 1989; Zinn and Drill, 1996). Furthermore, controlling images that position Mexican women as subordinate subjects serve to contain women’s voices. Hence, believing that there is nothing she could do as a “Mexican woman” when officers at the Mexican Border threatened her and “abused their power” over her, Beatrice explains that she “just kept quiet.” This clearly illustrates that controlling images serve as “strategies of action” and instruments of power that dehumanize and control non-White subjects (Collins, 1991: 68). Many other aspects of the women’s stories further allow for linking every-day identity experiences with the wider social and structural relations within which they are situated. For example, Janice, a family and marriage therapist, describes that she sees herself as a highly “educated” woman who lives a financially comfortable life. However, as she has often been treated “like another statistic,” based on her “look[s],” she states feeling “vulnerable” whenever she has to advocate for her clients in front of a “White male” judge. Thus, she is convinced that even a second degree in law would not change feeling more confident in front of a “White male” judge. This demonstrates that neither high levels of education nor occupational prestige qualify

these women to be treated as equals as their gender and perceived race appear incompatible with racialized and externally assigned gender roles. Hence, the complex relational dynamics of positioning oneself and being positioned by others ultimately control these women’s self-esteem and how they approach life.

9.2 White-American identity To discuss the central research question in light of White individuals' experiences, the second part of this analysis foregrounds the following two analytical dimensions: (1) Color and power evasion (2) Awoken race consciousness. The following inferences evolve from the thematic findings of White interviewees’ narratives and are embedded in light of the theoretical framework underpinning this research,

9.2.1 Color evasion: Rejecting difference In light of Frankenberg’s contribution to CWT (Frankenberg, 1993: 192), my material shows that most White interviewees cannot name or define specific cultural practices or traditions they associate with their racial identities. Hence, their stories are predominantly marked by avoiding cognizance of racial identity as noticing race is equated with complicity in racism. However, rather than viewing White identities as ‘raceless’ or ‘cultureless,’ one needs to foreground a more complex picture and which necessitates the prerequisite to illuminate the specific contexts in which White identity, like race privilege, emerges as a non-defined and thus, normative space. It appears that within political contexts, particularly that of the US Census, there is an axiomatic link between Whiteness marking out an invisible and inconsequential racial identity and the notion of ‘choice’: Liz, for instance, asserts that the category she chooses often depends on her mood, particularly on “how bored” she is. While Whiteness emerges as an undesirable racial terrain, through the ability to regard a racial category as an insignificant aspect of life, Whiteness emerges as a “location of structural advantage” that individuals can neither see nor name (Frankenberg, 1993:1). The implication of such privilege is best exemplified by Diego, who emphasizes that his White identity has never constituted a site he ever actively thought about, reflected on, or questioned. This concurrently signalizes that the boundaries of Americanness for Whites are much more fluid. Drawing on CRT and CWT, one can theorize that distancing oneself from the word race and denying White privilege through its connection to race-blind ideologies not only desensitize Whites to racial inequality, but it may allude to the reason why Whites appears to display lower levels of racial identity in this study. It seems that the aversion to acknowledge and talk about race and White identity is an effortful avoidance by Whites wishing to protect themselves from challenge or criticism (Frankenberg, 2001). Hence, whereas most Mexican-American

interviewees’ reality of race is a consequential and integral part in their lives, which is navigated through experiences that place them differently in the racial hierarchy, most White interviewees reacted to certain questions (e.g., Do you think race is real? How do you think others perceive you?) in ways through which being caught in the act of seeing race meant to be caught being prejudiced or even racist. This primary concern formed the basis of two different strategies individuals apply for talking about race differences in relation to their own identities. The first is centered on ‘sameness’ and denying privilege (i.e., power evasion), and the second is centered on ‘not seeing color’ (i.e., color evasion).With regard to the first dimension, several interviewees place great emphasis on ‘sameness’ as a way of rejecting the idea of race privilege, racial superiority, and any complicity with racism. This strategy illustrates the benchmark against which the discourse on difference is articulated by many. For instance, Jane places a strong emphasis on ‘sameness’ and maneuvers to evade questions of race difference by navigating the focus of the interview to the ongoing health pandemic, stating that the virus “is not racist.” This illustrates that Jane is deeply concerned with being labeled as ‘racist’ if she affirmed seeing a difference between her and others. Her unease with the topic of race difference and her concern of being perceived as racist is further manifested by referring to the racial diversity of her environment, consisting of individuals whom she regards “the same.” However, as a consequence of rhetorical shields that redirect the attention away from the topic of race, the experiences and struggles of non-White groups are made invisible. At the same time, Jane racializes other groups to be ontologically different from herself by listing “African, Asian, Mexican” and ascribing generally “darker skin” to these groups. Consequently, through such racialized generalizations, socially significant differences through which these groups potentially define themselves are camouflaged, ultimately deeming other interlocking struggles that may be closely linked to perceived group differences as insignificant. What was striking is that Rico, Jane’s husband, intervened when Jane denied having benefitted from White privilege. Jane’s involvement with a partner who is outspoken about being positioned differently in the racial order of the United States puts into perspective her own viewpoint. Verbalizing his understanding of White privilege – as something that could never be afforded to him, Jane acknowledges that she might have benefitted from unacknowledged White privilege. If one assumes that the emphasis on ‘sameness’ represents a denial of any difference that race assumes in people's lives, then one can assume that power evasion is a variation of that

denial (Frankenberg, 1993: 156). This further supports the argument that distancing and denial allow White individuals to detach themselves from reflecting upon their own racial identities. The excerpts taken from Jane’s interview illustrate that rather than complete non-acknowledgment of any kind of difference, power evasion involves selective attention to difference”, allowing into conscious scrutiny [...] those differences that make the speaker feel good but continuing to evade by means of [...] self-contradiction those that make the speaker feel bad (ibid). Another prominent strategy, when discussing race, is concerned with color evasion. This strategy is conveyed through phrases such as “I don’t see color,” as mentioned by Caroline. Consequently, color-blindness, as defined by CRT (Delgado and Stefancic, 2011), despite the best objectives of its believers and their intention to distance themselves from ‘racism’, ultimately preserves the power structure inherent in essentialist discourses on race. Paradoxically, Caroline actively racializes her partner by stating that she did marry someone “not the same” as her. As evidence shows, the two strategies that are primarily applied in discussing the reality of race in the lives of White individuals consist of multiple and complex layers of contradiction. Yet, we should not make the mistake of regarding such paradox strategies as unconscious ones. To see these contradictions as a sign of not giving these matters enough thought would be inaccurate. More than anything else, this would suggest a conscious way to deal with collective guilt resulting from overt unequal treatment of minorities. The apparent acceptance of contradictory understandings of race – mediated through denying race difference, yet “seeing” it, may be seen as consequent and rational responses within White individuals’ lives. However, the picture is more complicated than that. The following section maps the terrain in which White individuals’ identities are, in fact, transformable, and inextricably connected to their social interactions.

9.2.2 Awoken Awareness: Rethinking Power, Rethinking Race The second point of interest of this research was further concerned with if and how interracial relationships shape notions of race and privilege in the lives of White interviewees. The answer to this inquiry is closely linked to the third premise of CRT, which asserts that interracial contact enables individuals to understand better the harmful consequences of racism (Delgado and Stefancic, 2011). The answer, however, is more complex than that. Being situated in an interracial relationship provides a context in which White individuals are much more conscious of society's

racial ordering and more open to reflect upon race privilege. Thus, the effects of discrimination and racism within the US are experienced much more directly than the absence of such context would show. Both the couple interviews that allow tracking the interaction between individuals as well the single interviews where a lot of attention was placed on the role of relationships in interviewees’ lives, allows to recognize a heightened race consciousness, and shifting attitudes regarding matters of race privilege in the lives of White individuals. Reflecting on certain racist incidents in retrospect, Diego, for instance, goes on to explain how “terrible” and “awful” it was for him to witness his wife being verbally attacked by one of his family members. The articulation of these emotions elucidates that the impact of racism on White counterparts is strongly influenced by its effects on their significant others. However, rather than regarding the impact as identical, it is crucial to note that the impact and the emotions generating from such instances are qualitatively new. Even though there is no proxy to measure emotional pain, several other White interviewees also openly share that they deeply emphasize with their partner’s pain. This is best exemplified by Alison, who states that she “fears” US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for her family, particularly her kids, due to incidents that depict her and her family as “undocumented” immigrants. Thus, racial boundaries also showed to be blurry and transformable. In this particular instance, Alison, who is categorized as White, recalled, in effect, being treated as non-White. Certainly, such instances and these individuals’ emotional retreat from their own racial identities must be understood in purely performative and temporary manners, as there is not enough data on the possibilities of being ‘transracial.’ Nonetheless, this observation is very significant as it appears to comprise an additional constituent of the influence of interracial relationships. Concerning the relationship between racism and unequal access to power, Nina, Diego, and Alyssa, for instance, describe themselves as being on trajectories from lesser to greater awareness of racism attributing their journeys to the positive influence their partners have on them. Thus, White individuals are partaking in the construction of an identity, which is as Hall (1990: 225) suggests: a dynamic process […] a matter of being and becoming […] and therefore, [f]ar from being eternally fixed in some essentialist past”. Using words such as “reflect,” “understand,” and “see,” these interviewees elaborate on their newfound understanding of race privilege and structural advantage. They also acknowledge that their lives are affected by racism in ways that normalize their privilege from their position as

beneficiaries of that privilege (Delgado and Stefancic, 2011). Their awareness of Whiteness, however, is inhabited in strikingly divergent ways. Take, for instance, Alyssa, who goes on to explain that being with Alberto, has allowed her to recognize that many Mexicans’ everyday lives, including her husband’s, are, in contrast to hers, marked by racial profiling. Whereas Alyssa regards the power and privilege associated with Whiteness in merely negative terms, Nina sees it as the cornerstone of “getting involved in politics,” emphasizing that White people are obligated to “address” their Whiteness and “accept the fact that White privilege is real” to help others “in the ways that they can’t.” Hence, reflecting on racist incidents experienced as an interracial couple allows interviewees to link their past lack of awareness of racism with previously unacknowledged race privilege. To Diego, the only White male interviewee, benefitting from race privilege constitutes more of an existential matter than a political one, and one that is strongly tied to his gender privilege. Stating that his privileges as a White man have “rubbed off” on his wife, Diego explains that whereas his partner often is subject to racial treatment when she is by herself, people treat her with much more respect when seen with him. He goes on to mention that talking about these experiences with his wife helped him realize that life as a White man is “generally easier” as he has “higher status than a woman or a colored man.” In light of intersectionality theory, this emphasizes that intersecting forms of domination do not only produce oppression, as seen in Mexican-American interviewees’ experiences but also an opportunity (Zinn and Dill, 1996: 327). Thus, the in-depth introspection that occurred through open questions relating to the lived experiences of interracial couples allowed for the deconstruction of many interviewees’ entitlements granted to them as individuals who are perceived as White.

10. Conclusion

In light of the existing blind spots that, thus far, have underestimated the complex, fragmented, and volitional nature of identity, I strived to generate a complex discursive repertoire surrounding Mexican and White identities by offering a yet untaken perspective. Therefore, I focused on mapping the terrain of lived identity experiences as shaped by the dialectic between externally ascribed and internally asserted racial identity categories, notions of race, power, and the role of interracial relationships. Shedding light on the interactions between Mexican-White couples allowed us to crystallize the ways interracial interactions shape notions of race and privilege. Contrary to the findings of previous studies that have theorized that Mexicans will assimilate as “honorary whites,” my analysis indicates that second-generation Americans of Mexican descent, despite high levels of education, or educational prestige, are not afforded the same privileges as Whites. Hence, their identities are located in a ‘third space,’ situating their lived identity experiences far beyond the margins of Whiteness. Thus, Whiteness– as a location of structural, unearned privilege - emerged in Mexicans-Americans’ lives as an apparatus of exclusion that mediated internally attributed racial categories, racist encounters, and the racialization of Mexican masculinities and femininities. As indicated by the findings, interracial relationships did not alter notions of race and ethnicity in the lives of Mexicans-Americans, which can be attributed to the overweighing magnitude of marginalization and exclusion processes. In light of the hyphenated selves framework, my findings illustrated that Mexicans of American descent capture the duality of their experiences through a hyphenated identity as Mexican-Americans. Seeing themselves as closer to ‘non-white’ and ‘brown,’ the term Mexican- American constitutes an equivalent level of racial identity and a resource to negotiate dilemmas of racial identity, belonging, and being different. Through the concept of hybridity, we can situate feelings of belonging as oscillating between ‘somewhere in between” and “part of both worlds.” This ‘third space’ particularly enables Mexican-Americans to reconcile conflicting demands on their lives constituted by the tension between politically ascribed - with Census forms as the ‘alibi’ for that ascription - and internally asserted racial identities. The hybrid nature of the third space further allows the existence of contradictory understandings of their identities that sometimes were also asserted as “neither Mexican” “nor American,” and as such transgressing the reductionist notion of fixed and essentialized identities.

The intersectional approach of this study is among the most comprehensive in documenting how the flexibility of traversing certain racial and socioeconomic terrains is systematically navigated and constrained by the ways individuals’ gender is racially marked by others. In correspondence with previous work on ‘controlling images,’ the racialization of Mexican masculinities is primarily facilitated through the controlling image of the ‘gang member.’ Previous research has omitted to consider the dynamics underlying the racialization of femininities. My research intervened at this juncture, illuminating that the gender structure as female or male governs the difference in experiencing race as a Mexican-American. The findings demonstrate that Mexican-American women have to negotiate a more complex terrain replete with controlling images that encompass various ideological depictions, namely: “the cleaning lady,” “the housekeeper,” “the nanny,” and “the statistic.” This study’s point of departure alluded to the significance of understanding the phenomenon of Whiteness - if understood as a site of unearned structural privilege (Frankenberg, 1993) - to affect everyone, whites and non-whites alike. Thus, in light of CWT and CRT, my findings demonstrated that essentializing of Whiteness as centrally about structural privilege and a project of race dominance – as presented by several studies, is based on a faulty understanding of how white identities operate and further marked by the absence of interracial contact. On the one hand, my analysis indicated that interracial relationships alone, in White individuals’ lives, are not sufficient to disrupt racial boundaries and fully deconstruct the meaning of lived white racial identity. In this regard, as most White interviewees viewed recognition of race as itself racist, evading both notions of color and power. On the other hand, however, it was illustrated that interactions with their Mexican partners allow for the emergence of a newfound realization. Hence, in light of their relationships, white interviewees recognized the ontological weight of race differences as they shaped their partners’ lives in ways that manifested a newfound awareness, heightened race consciousness, empathy, and critical engagement with White privilege. Thus, previous theories that have essentialized white racial identity as invisible and monolithic are conceptually misguided and politically counterproductive to progressive antiracist work. This contribution is a first insight that allows us to infer that Whiteness – under specific conditions - can productively be inhabited as a positive identity that is not immediately tied to ignorance or racism.

11. Future research directions

A range of further questions, most of which are beyond the scope of this study, present themselves. One of these questions is concerned with the concept of racial passing: Under what conditions can members of racialized groups traverse an array of racial terrains and pass as White? In light of this question, there is an urgent need for race-conscious intersectional analysis that accounts for the role of intergenerational differences pertaining to third- and fourth-generation Mexican Americans. With regard to the role of interracial intimacies, future theorizing and research should draw on comparative case studies and illuminate how key themes discussed in this thesis play out within other ethnoracial combinations, e.g., Asian-black or Latinx-Asian. Contrasting and comparing such cases will provide further insight into the permeability of racial boundaries for different racial groups and help us better understand the ways various forms of interactions can challenge racial boundaries. In this regard, it is equally important to further our understandings of the ways Whites actively deconstruct how Whiteness shapes their relationships but also the lives of individuals around them.

Bibliography 6, P. and Bellamy, C., 2012. Principles Of Methodology. Los Angeles: SAGE. Adames, H., Chavez-Dueñas, N. and Organista, K., 2016. Skin color matters in Latino/a communities: Identifying, understanding, and addressing Mestizaje racial ideologies in clinical practice. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 47(1), pp.46-55. Ahmed, S. (2007) ‘A phenomenology of whiteness’, Feminist Theory, 8(2), pp. 149–168. doi: 10.1177/1464700107078139. Alba, R. and Islam, T., 2009. The Case of the Disappearing Mexican Americans: An Ethnic- Identity Mystery. Population Research and Policy Review, 28(2), pp.109-121. Anzaldúa, G. 1987. Borderlands: The new mestiza. Aunt Lute Books. Applebaum, B., 2004. Response: Vigilant Uncertainty, Discomfort, and White Complicity: Who Are Your Students?. Philosophy of Education Archive, pp.317-320. Applebaum, B., 2008. White Privilege/White Complicity: Connecting" Benefiting From" to" Contributing To". Philosophy of Education Archive, pp.292-300. Applebaum, B., 2010. Being white, being good: White complicity, white moral responsibility, and social justice pedagogy. Lexington Books. Apfelbaum, E.P., Pauker, K., Sommers, S.R. and Ambady, N., 2010. In blind pursuit of racial equality?. Psychological science, 21(11), pp.1587-1592. Apfelbaum, E., Sommers, S. and Norton, M., 2008. Seeing race and seeming racist? Evaluating strategic colorblindness in social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(4), pp.918-932. Arce, C.H., Murguia, E. and Frisbie, W.P., 1987. Phenotype and life chances among Chicanos. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 9(1), pp.19-32. Bettie, J., 2003. Women Without Class: Girls. Race, and Identity. Bhabha, H., 2004. The location of culture. 1994. London and New York: Routledge, pp.5-6. Bonilla-Silva, E., 2004. Racism Without Racists. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. Bonilla-Silva, E., 2014. Racism without racists: color-blind racism and the persistence of racial inequality in America. Choice Reviews Online, 51(05), pp.51-2956-51-2956. Brubaker, R. and Cooper, F., 2000. Beyond" identity". Theory and society, 29(1), pp.1-47. Bryman, A., 2012. Social research methods. Oxford university press. Burns, N. and Kinder, D., 2012. Categorical politics: Gender, race, and public opinion. New Directions in Public Opinion, p.140. Butler, J., 2006. Gender Trouble. Taylor and Francis. Butler, J., 2009. Undoing Gender. New York, NY: Routledge. Campbell, M.E. and Rogalin, C.L., 2006. Categorical imperatives: The interaction of Latino and racial identification. Social Science Quarterly, 87(5), pp.1030-1052.

Carter, R.T., 2007. Racism and psychological and emotional injury: Recognizing and assessing race-based traumatic stress. The Counseling Psychologist, 35(1), pp.13-105. Charbeneau, J.M., 2009. Enactments of Whiteness in Pedagogical Practice: Reproducing and Transforming White Hegemoney in the University Classroom (Doctoral dissertation). Charmaz, K., 2006. Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. sage. Chattoo, S., 2015. Interactional analysis of in-depth interviews: interpreting ideas and experiences of genetic risk. SAGE Publications, Ltd.. Clair, M. and Dennis, J., 2015. Sociology of Racism. Collins, P.H., 1986. Learning from the outsider within: The sociological significance of Black feminist thought. Social problems, 33(6), pp.s14-s32. Collins, P.H., 1989. The social construction of black feminist thought. Signs: Journal of women in culture and society, 14(4), pp.745-773. Collins, P.H., 1991. The politics of Black feminist thought. Cleveland State University, Graduation and Assembly Committee. Collins, P.H., 2006. A Telling Difference: Dominance, Strength, and Black Masculinities. In Progressive Black Masculinities? (pp. 95-119). Routledge. Cook, J.A. and Fonow, M.M., 1986. Knowledge and women's interests: Issues of epistemology and methodology in feminist sociological research. Sociological inquiry, 56(1), pp.2-29. Cornell, S. and Hartmann, D., 2007. Ethnicity And Race. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Pine Forge Press, pp.35-36. Crenshaw, K., 1989. Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. u. Chi. Legal f., p.139. Creswell, J.W., 2014. A concise introduction to mixed methods research. SAGE publications. Delgado, R. and Stefancic, J. eds., 1997. Critical white studies: Looking behind the mirror. Temple University Press. Delgado, R. and Stefancic, J., 2011. Critical Race Theory: An Introduction. Dovidio, J.F. and Gaertner, S.L., 2000. Aversive racism and selection decisions: 1989 and 1999. Psychological science, 11(4), pp.315-319. Dowling, J.A., 2014. Mexican Americans and the question of race. University of Texas Press. Du Bois, W.E.B., 1989. The souls of Black folk (Bantam classic ed.). New York: Bantam.(Original work published 1903). Dwyer, S.C. and Buckle, J.L., 2009. The space between: On being an insider-outsider in qualitative research. International journal of qualitative methods, 8(1), pp.54-63. Dyer, R., 1999. The role of stereotypes. Media studies: A reader, 2, pp.1-6. Espino, R. and Franz, M.M., 2002. Latino phenotypic discrimination revisited: The impact of skin color on occupational status. Social Science Quarterly, 83(2), pp.612-623.

Feagin, J.R. and Hernan, V., 2000. White racism: The basics. Routledge. Field, C.J., Kimuna, S.R. and Straus, M.A., 2013. Attitudes toward interracial relationships among college students: Race, class, gender, and perceptions of parental views. Journal of Black Studies, 44(7), pp.741-776. Frank, R., Akresh, I.R. and Lu, B., 2010. Latino immigrants and the US racial order: How and where do they fit in?. American Sociological Review, 75(3), pp.378-401. Frankenberg, R., 1993. White Women, Race Matters. University of Minnesota Press. Frankenberg, R., 2001. The mirage of an unmarked whiteness. The making and unmaking of whiteness, 75. Gibson, C. and Jung, K., 2005. Historical Census Statistics On Population Totals By Race, 1790 To 1990, And By Hispanic Origin, 1970 To 1990, For Large Cities And Other Urban Places In The United States. U.S. Census Bureau. Glaser, J. and Banaji, M.R., 1999. When fair is foul and foul is fair: reverse priming in automatic evaluation. Journal of personality and social psychology, 77(4), p.669. Goff, P.A., Eberhardt, J.L., Williams, M.J. and Jackson, M.C., 2008. Not yet human: implicit knowledge, historical dehumanization, and contemporary consequences. Journal of personality and social psychology, 94(2), p.292. Golash-Boza, T., 2006. Dropping the hyphen? Becoming Latino (a)-American through racialized assimilation. Social Forces, 85(1), pp.27-55. Gómez, L. E., 2007. Manifest destinies: the making of the Mexican American race. New York, New York University. Gómez-Quiñones, J., 1990. Chicano Politics: Reality And Promise. Albuquerque, NM: Univ. of New Mexico Press. Gómez, L.E., 1992. The birth of the" Hispanic" generation: Attitudes of Mexican-American political elites toward the Hispanic label. Latin American Perspectives, 19(4), pp.45-58. Gómez, L. E., 2018. Manifest Destinies, Second Edition. New York University Press. Good, M.I., 1994. The reconstruction of early childhood trauma: Fantasy, reality, and verification. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 42(1), pp.79-101. Goodwin, D., Pope, C., Mort, M. and Smith, A., 2003. Ethics and ethnography: An experiential account. Qualitative health research, 13(4), pp.567-577. Gready, P., 2008. The public life of narratives: Ethics, politics, methods. Doing narrative research, pp.137-150. Guba, E.G. and Lincoln, Y.S., 1994. Competing paradigms in qualitative research. Handbook of qualitative research, 2(163-194), p.105. Hall, S., 1990. Cultural identity and diaspora. Hamann, E.T. and England, W., 2011. Hyphenated Identities as a Challenge to Nation-State School Practice?. Haney-Lopez, I., 2006. White by law: The legal construction of race. NYU Press.

Hartmann, D., Gerteis, J. and Croll, P.R., 2009. An empirical assessment of whiteness theory: Hidden from how many?. Social Problems, 56(3), pp.403-424. Harris, C.I., 1993. Whiteness as property. Harvard law review, pp.1707-1791. Helbert, J. and Kim, S.H., 2018. Assessing attitudes of college students toward cross-cultural relationships: Implications for social work practice, research, and education. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 28(5), pp.647-663. Herman, M.R. and Campbell, M.E., 2012. I wouldn’t, but you can: Attitudes toward interracial relationships. Social Science Research, 41(2), pp.343-358. Hunter, M.L., 2002. “If you're light you're alright” light skin color as social capital for women of color. Gender & society, 16(2), pp.175-193. Hyde, C., 1995. The meanings of whiteness. Qualitative Sociology, 18(1), pp.87-95. In: Encyclopedia Britannica. 2019. Mestizo. Jenkins, R., 2000. Categorization: Identity, social process and epistemology. Current sociology, 48(3), pp.7-25. Jenkins, R., 2008. Rethinking ethnicity. Sage. Jimenez, T. R. (2004) ‘Negotiating Ethnic Boundaries: Multiethnic Mexican Americans and Ethnic Identity in the United States’, Ethnicities, 4(1), pp. 75–97. doi: 10.1177/1468796804040329. Karis, T.A. and Powell, R.D., 1995. Multiracial couples: Black & white voices. Sage Publications, Inc. Knowles, E.D. and Peng, K., 2005. White selves: conceptualizing and measuring a dominant- group identity. Journal of personality and social psychology, 89(2), p.223. Knowles, E.D., Lowery, B.S., Chow, R.M. and Unzueta, M.M., 2014. Deny, distance, or dismantle? How white Americans manage a privileged identity. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(6), pp.594-609. Kustatscher, M., Konstantoni, K. and Emejulu, A., 2015. Hybridity, hyphens, and intersectionality: Relational understandings of children and young people’s social identities. Families, intergenerationality, and peer group relations, pp.1-19. Kvale, S. and Brinkmann, S., 2009. Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. sage. Lincoln, Y.S., 2007. Naturalistic inquiry. The Blackwell encyclopedia of sociology. Lipsitz, G., 1998. The possessive investment in whiteness: How white people profit from identity politics. Temple University Press. Loh, J., 2013. Inquiry into Issues of Trustworthiness and Quality in Narrative Studies: A Perspective. Qualitative Report, 18(33). López, G., 1992. Rebellious Lawyering. Boulder: Westview Press. López, I.H., 2003. White Latinos. Harv. Latino L. Rev., 6, p.1.

Lunnay, B., Borlagdan, J., McNaughton, D. and Ward, P., 2015. Ethical use of social media to facilitate qualitative research. Qualitative health research, 25(1), pp.99-109. Macrae, C.N., Stangor, C. and Milne, A.B., 1994. Activating social stereotypes: A functional analysis. Journal of experimental social psychology, 30(4), pp.370-389. Matsuda, M.J., 2018. Words that wound: Critical race theory, assaultive speech, and the first amendment. Routledge. McDermott, M & Samson, FL 2005, 'White racial and ethnic identity in the United States', Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 31, pp. 245- 261. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.31.041304.122322 McIntosh, P., 2004. White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack. Race, class, and gender in the United States: An integrated study, pp.177-182. Milner IV, H.R., 2008. Critical race theory and interest convergence as analytic tools in teacher education policies and practices. Journal of teacher education, 59(4), pp.332-346. Mok, T.A., 1999. Asian American dating: Important factors in partner choice. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 5(2), p.103. Morris, A. and Kahlor, L.A., 2014. Whiteness theory in advertising: Racial beliefs and attitudes toward ads. Howard Journal of Communications, 25(4), pp.415-430. Moskowitz, G.B., Gollwitzer, P.M., Wasel, W. and Schaal, B., 1999. Preconscious control of stereotype activation through chronic egalitarian goals. Journal of personality and social psychology, 77(1), p.167. Muñoz, C., 1990. Youth, Identity, Power. London: Verso. Murguia, E. and Telles, E.E., 1996. Phenotype and schooling among Mexican Americans. Sociology of Education, pp.276-289. Murji, K. and Solomos, J., 2005. Racialization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Norton, M.I., Sommers, S.R., Apfelbaum, E.P., Pura, N. and Ariely, D., 2006. Color blindness and interracial interaction: Playing the political correctness game. Psychological Science, 17(11), pp.949-953. Ollivier, M. and Tremblay, M., 2000. Questionnements féministes et méthodologie de la recherche. Editions L'Harmattan. O'Reilly, K., 2008. Key concepts in ethnography. Sage. Perry, P., 2002. Shades of white: White kids and racial identities in high school. Duke University Press. Phinney, J.S., 1996. Understanding ethnic diversity: The role of ethnic identity. American Behavioral Scientist, 40(2), pp.143-152. Pierce, C., 1970. Offensive mechanisms. The black seventies, pp.265-282. Plant, E.A. and Butz, D.A., 2006. The causes and consequences of an avoidance-focus for interracial interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(6), pp.833-846.

Plummer, K., 2001. The call of life stories in ethnographic research. Handbook of ethnography, pp.395-406. Ponterotto, J.G., 2005. Qualitative research in counseling psychology: A primer on research paradigms and philosophy of science. Journal of counseling psychology, 52(2), p.126. Portes, A. and MacLeod, D., 1996. What shall I call myself? Hispanic identity formation in the second generation. Ethnic and racial studies, 19(3), pp.523-547. Radhakrishnan, R., 1996. Diasporic mediations: Between home and location. U of Minnesota Press. Råheim, M., Magnussen, L.H., Sekse, R.J.T., Lunde, Å., Jacobsen, T. and Blystad, A., 2016. Researcher–researched relationship in qualitative research: Shifts in positions and researcher vulnerability. International journal of qualitative studies on health and well- being, 11(1), p.30996. Rodriguez, C.E. and Cordero‐Guzman, H., 1992. Placing race in context. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 15(4), pp.523-542. Rodriguez, C.E., 2000. Changing race: Latinos, the census, and the history of ethnicity in the United States (Vol. 41). NYU Press. Rodriguez, R., 2000. “Blaxicans” and Other Reinvented Americans. Roediger, D.R., 1999. The wages of whiteness: Race and the making of the American working class. Verso. Root, M.P., 1996. The multiracial experience: Racial borders as the new frontier. Sage. Rosenberg, A., 2012. Philosophy Of Social Science. 4th ed. New York: Routledge. Rumbaut, R.G., 1991. Migration, adaptation, and mental health: The experience of Southeast Asian refugees in the United States. Refugee policy: Canada and the United States, pp.383- 427. Saldaña, J., 2009. An introduction to codes and coding. The coding manual for qualitative researchers, 3. Satzewich, V., 2011. Racism In Canada. Don Mills, Ont.: Oxford University Press. Seale, C., 1999. Quality in qualitative research. Qualitative inquiry, 5(4), pp.465-478. Shelton, J.N. and Richeson, J.A., 2006. Interracial interactions: A relational approach. Advances in experimental social psychology, 38, pp.121-181. Sherry, M., 2008. Insider/outsider status. The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods, pp.433-434. Sieber, J., 1993. The ethics and politics of sensitive research'in Renzetti C & Lee RM (eds) Researching sensitive topics. Solorzano, D.G., 1997. Images and words that wound: Critical race theory, racial stereotyping, and teacher education. Teacher education quarterly, pp.5-19.Steinbugler, A., 2015. ‘I'm black and I'll always be that way’: black identities through the lens of interracial intimacy. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 38(10), pp.1690-1706.

Squire, C., Andrews, M., Davis, M., Esin, C., Harrison, B., Hyden, L.C. and Hyden, M., 2014. What is narrative research?. Bloomsbury Publishing. Taylor, S.J. and Bogdan, R., 1998. Working with data: data analysis in qualitative research. Introduction to qualitative research methods, 3(1998), pp.134-163. Telles, E.E. and Murguia, E., 1988. Phenotypic discrimination and income differences among Mexican Americans. University of Arizona, Mexican American Studies and Research Center. Vasquez, J.M., 2014. Gender across family generations: Change in Mexican American masculinities and femininities. Identities, 21(5), pp.532-550. Vasquez-Tokos, J. and Norton-Smith, K., 2017. Talking back to controlling images: Latinos’ changing responses to racism over the life course. Ethnic and racial studies, 40(6), pp.912- 930. Vorauer, J.D., Hunter, A.J., Main, K.J. and Roy, S.A., 2000. Meta-stereotype activation: Evidence from indirect measures for specific evaluative concerns experienced by members of dominant groups in intergroup interaction. Journal of personality and social psychology, 78(4), p.690. Watson, B. and Scraton, S., 2018. Re-confronting whiteness. Race, gender and sport: The politics of ethnic ‘other’girls and women, pp.85-106. Weeks, J., Heaphy, B. and Donovan, C., 2001. Same sex intimacies: Families of choice and other life experiments. Psychology Press. Wegner, D.M. and Zanakos, S., 1994. Chronic thought suppression. Journal of personality, 62(4), pp.615-640. Williams, R., 1961. Culture & Society. London: Hogarth. Wong, C. and Cho, G.E., 2005. Two‐headed coins or Kandinskys: White racial identification. Political Psychology, 26(5), pp.699-720. Yancey, G., 2002. Who interracially dates: An examination of the characteristics of those who have interracially dated. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 33(2), pp.179-190. Yancey, G., 2003. Who Is White?: Latinos, Asians, And The New Black/Nonblack Divide. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Yip, A.K., 2007. Sexual orientation discrimination in religious communities. Sexual orientation discrimination: An international perspective, 4, p.209. Yip, A.K., 2008. Researching lesbian, gay, and bisexual Christians and Muslims: Some thematic reflections. Sociological Research Online, 13(1), pp.116-129. Zavella, P., 1994. Reflections on Diversity of Chicanas. Race, Rutgers University Press, Piscataway, New Jersey, pp.199-212. Zinn, M.B. and Dill, B.T., 1996. Theorizing difference from multiracial feminism. Feminist studies, 22(2), pp.321-331.

12. Appendices

12.1 Appendix 1 - Invitation to participate in the study

Looking for Research Participants

Influence of Interracial/ Interethnic Dating on Racial and Ethnic Identities of Mexican- White Couples: The Role of Race, Privilege, and Power

What is the purpose of this research? This research aims to explore how and if different contexts and ideological dimensions of power and privilege affect identity formation of individuals in Mexican-White relationships. Why is this research important? So far, sociological research has neglected the consideration of gender differences as well as the role of power and privilege among individuals in Mexican-White interracial relationships. It is this neglect that necessitates this research.

What does participation in this study involve? • A one-time in person- interview • time commitment of 60 to 90 minutes • location is negotiable • share experiences of identity development/formation throughout your interracial relationship

Are you eligible? • 1.5 to 2nd generation Mexican American woman in an interracial relationship with a White European American man OR 1.5 to 2nd generation Mexican man in an interracial This research is being conducted by relationship with a White European woman Ebru Rose Calin (MA Student and • involved in a non-long-distance heterosexual relationship principal researcher) of Malmö of at least 12 months University, Sweden. Please contact me • English speaking by emailing me at • between 20 and 35 years of age [email protected] OR text at • live in San Diego 406-304-5333 to learn more and/or to • both partners must be willing to participate set up an interview. • pervious chronic pain treatment

As a participant you will be sent a consent form prior to the interviews seeking your permission to use the data gained for research purposes. In order to ensure greater anonymity, your real names will be replaced with fictitious ones. Hence, your identity will remain confidential. You will also be given the right to access and view the acquired material. Furthermore, participation will be out of pure will and as an interviewee you will be granted the right to exit at any point in the research.

12.2 Appendix 2 – Interview Guide

Section 1: Personal Information, Family, Upbringing • Name, age, identified racial label, area of origin, education, occupation • Ancestry/Background (parents/grandparents) • Family history (immigration) • Holidays • Religion • Language • Self-categorization (personal, collective as well as by others – Racial awareness) o Do you think race is real? o How do you identify racially and why? o Is there any difference when you identify and x but people label you as y? How does that make you feel? o How do you define race/ethnicity? Meaning? o experiences o Do you identify as the same in all contexts? White/Mexican or does that change? Section 2: Information Concerning interracial Relationship (given the interview is with a couple) • Relationship status, length of relationship, How did you meet? children? How do they identify? • What were your parents’ and friends’ reactions to the relationship? Who are your friends? • Holidays • Race, racism • worldview • How does it feel to date someone who identifies themselves as White/Mexican? • How does your everyday environment affect your relationship? • How has your worldview/interaction with others changed? Section 3: Information on Race/Ethnicity • How would you identify your partner racially? o Is this identity consistent or does it change depending on the context? • Is your self-identification consistent with how your partner/ others identify you? How does that make you feel? • What are your thoughts/emotions on living between two cultures?

Section 4: Potential Experiences with Discrimination • Have you (and your partner) ever discussed/reflected upon issues of race, ethnicity, or discrimination? • Could you tell me more about what was discussed and how you felt about it? • Media? • Why do you think people treat others differently? • Can you recall a specific incident/moment when… ? • How did that make you feel? • If you have ever had an experience with discrimination how did you handle it?

12.3 Appendix 3 – Introducing the interviewees The subsequent section serves to introduce the interviewees. All names and details that would disclose their identities are changed in order to protect the informants’ anonymity and privacy. Elizabeth (49) is a US Veteran who was born and raised in San Diego. She identifies as Mexican- American. She grew up in an upper middle-class household and went to private schools. Elizabeth and her (White) high school sweetheart moved in together, still in the same neighborhood, in her early twenties. Elizabeth’s (now) husband owns several businesses across the United States. According to Elizabeth, he is a dedicated Trump supporter whose parents did not initially support their relationship. Camila (50) runs a private day care at her house in San Diego. She was born in Mexico and was raised in a working-class family in a border town between Mexico and California known as Mexicali until she was ten. After that she moved to San Diego where she attended high school and underwent training to receive a license to run a private daycare. Camila obtained her U.S. citizenship by naturalization after 1998 and thus, was allowed to hold dual citizenship. She identifies as Mexican-American. Ella (45) was born in Mexico and moved to San Diego when she was nine years old. She grew up in a working-class household, sharing a single room with several of her siblings. Ella became a U.S. citizen in 2006 and holds dual citizenship. Her and her (white) husband have two kids and consider themselves working class. Ella works as a housekeeper. She identifies as Mexican- American. Lale (45) was born in Mexico City and moved to San Diego when she was ten years old. She is currently working as a housekeeper. Her and her (white) husband have two kids. She considers herself as much US American as Mexican. Janice (39) is a bilingual licensed marriage and family therapist who specializes in treating first and second generation Mexican American individuals. She was born and raised in Long Beach California in a working-class household. She holds a master’s degree and considers herself middle class. Janice identifies as Mexican-American. Helena (41) was born in Torrance, California and was raised in lower working-class family in San Diego. Both of her parents moved to the United States in their mid-twenties and thus, are not fluent in English. She recalls helping her parents, who struggled with speaking and understanding

English, filing legal paperwork while she was growing up. Helena holds a bachelor’s degree and is currently working as an Office Assistant. She identifies as Mexican-American. Beatrice (51) was born in Mexico City and moved to California when she was nine years old. She remembers spending long summers in Mexico City while getting most of her education and work experience in California. She works as a preschool teacher in a Spanish/English bilingual school. All of her students have Latinx background. Beatrice primarily identifies as Mexican-American. Nina (23) was born in San Diego and moved to Hawaii after attending middle school. She recently moved back to San Diego and works for her (Mexican) boyfriends’ family’s real estate company as an assistant. She was raised in a middle-class family household and lives with her parents. Her mother is a hotel manager, and her father is a US Veteran. She identifies as White. Diego (29) was born and raised in San Diego and currently lives with his (Mexican) girlfriend in a small apartment. He holds an Associate Degree in Information Technology. Diego grew up in a one-bedroom working-class household with his two other siblings. His mother was attending nursing school while him and his siblings were attending middle school. Diego recently lost his job as an IT technician at a public library. He identifies as White. Caroline (56) & Lisandro (58) have been married for 37 years and have four kids together. Both Caroline and Lisandro were born in California and met in high school. Lisandro and his family moved to Mexico for a couple of years when he was 10 years old. He recalls living under rather poor conditions in Mexico while in the United States, he recalls growing up under middle class conditions. He moved back to San Diego when he was 14 years old. Currently, Caroline, who grew up in upper middle-class conditions works as a freelance photographer and Lisandro is employed as an electrical engineer at NASA. They own several buildings in San Diego and consider themselves to be upper middle class. Caroline identifies as White and Lisandro identifies as Mexican-American. Their families initially were not supportive of the match. Sandy (42) and Camilo (45) have been married for 22 years. They have two kids together and own their own house in San Diego. They met through mutual friends during their first years in college. Sandy works as a high school teacher and Camilo is a federal state employee. Both of them grew up in upper middle-class conditions in San Diego. Sandy identifies as White but places importance to refer to her 1/32 Native American ancestry when meeting new people. Camilo identifies as Mexican American. Both their families were supportive of the match.

Liz (52) and Leandro (65) have been married for 33 years. Both of them were born in San Diego where they have spent most of their lives. Both of them hold a bachelor’s degree in applied mathematics scientific programming – the same program through with they’ve met. Today, both of them are retired US Veterans who consider themselves to live under upper middle-class conditions. Liz who racially identifies as White places emphasis on her 1/36 Native American ancestry. Leandro identifies as Mexican-American. They have no children together. Jane (57) and Rico (61) have been married for 22 years and both work as Senior Managers at an Electrical company. Both of them were born and raised in San Diego where they attended college. Jane and Rico both hold a bachelor’s degree in accounting and met through their current workplace. Jane has Polish roots and identifies as White. Rico, who used to be on his path of becoming a star athlete identifies as Mexican-American. They have no children together. Alyssa (57) and Alberto (58) met through mutual friends in San Francisco and have been married for 36 years. They have one child together. They currently live in a two-bedroom apartment in Central San Diego and consider themselves to be working class. Alyssa, who grew up with a single mom whom identifies racially as White. She was born and raised in San Diego and works as a housekeeper. Alberto, who was born in Mexico, moved to California when he was 11 years old. He identifies as ‘Indian’ referring to his native Mexican heritage and Mexican-American. He owns a construction company. Alison (32) and Axel (32) have been together for 17 years and have four kids together. They met while attending high school. Axel who identifies as Mexican was born and raised in San Diego under working class conditions with a single dad who is a construction worker. Growing up he recalls helping his dad with filing legal papers as his dad immigrated to the United States in his late 20s and had a hard time learning English. Alison was born to White parents in San Diego. However, her biological dad died when she was young, and her mother got remarried to an African American man. She was raised in a predominantly Black household and even though the understands herself to be White, she places great importance on her ties to the Mexican and Afro- American culture. The couple initially experienced opposition to their relationship from Alison’s family.

12.4 Appendix 4 – Interviewees Demographic Information Table 1 Name Age Gender Self-Identified Self- Education Occupation Place Racial Label Identified of Racial Birth Appearance Elizabeth 49 Female Mexican/Hispanic Brown Bachelor’s US Veteran CA degree

Camila 50 Female Mexican Brown High Runs a Mexico American school private diploma daycare Ella 45 Female Mexican Brown High housekeeper Mexico School diploma Lale 45 Female Mexican Brown High housekeeper Mexico American school diploma Janice 39 Female Mexican Brown Master’s Licensed CA American degree Marriage and Family therapist Helena 41 Female Mexican Brown Bachelor’s Office CA American Degree Assistant

Beatrice 51 Female Mexican Brown Bachelor’s Preschool Mexico degree Teacher

Nina 23 Female White White High Real Estate CA school Assistant diploma

Diego 29 Male White White Associate IT CA degree technician, currently unemployed

Table 1 continued

Name Age Gender Self- Self-Identified Education Occupation Place Identified Racial of Racial Appearance Birth Label Caroline 56 Female White White High School Photographer CA diploma Lisandro 58 male Mexican Brown Bachelor’s Electrical CA American degree Engineer at NASA Sandy 42 Female White White Bachelor’s teacher CA Degree Camilo 45 male Mexican Brown Master’s Federal Mexico American degree employee Liz 52 female White White Bachelor’s US Veteran CA degree Leandro 65 male Mexican non-White Bachelor’s US Veteran CA American Degree Jane 57 female White White Bachelor’s Senior CA degree Manager at Electrical Company

Rico 61 male Mexican Brown Bachelor’s Senior CA American degree Manager at Electrical Company Alyssa 57 female White White High school housekeeper CA diploma Alberto 58 male Mexican Brown High school Owner of a Mexico diploma construction agency Alison 32 female White White Associate Social Worker CA Degree Axel 32 male Mexican White High school Construction CA transcript worker

Table 2 – Demographic information on the couples

Couple Relationship status Length of Relationship Children from this relationship Caroline & Lisandro married 37 years Four

Sandy & Camilo married 22 years two

Liz & Leandro married 33 years none

Jane & Rico married 22 years none

Alyssa & Alberto married 36 years one

Alison & Axel dating 17 years four

12.5 Appendix 5 – Information on the US Census

The 2010/ 2020 Census forms asked the following of everyone: name, age, birth date, sex (male or female), whether they are of Hispanic origin, and their race. The race question on the US Census forms is not open-ended, requiring individuals to fit the racial categories of White and non-White or to choose other (Rodriguez, 2000). The specific U.S. Census categories for self-identified Hispanics/Latinos in 2010 included Hispanic and Latino, Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, and other, distilling ethnic identity choices for Hispanic/Latino respondents into five categories. Hispanic or Latino as displayed by Table 1 refers to a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race (census.gov, 2020). Information on the latest forms (2020) will be available May 2021. Hence, the most recent table refers to 2010.

12.6 - Appendix 6 - Consent form

12.7 Appendix 7 – Further information on the European Caste system and the Mexican-American war

European Caste System El sistema de las castas (the European caste system) was a social stratification system derived from religion and the theocratic rule of Spanish Church (“LibreTexts,” 2019). When the Spanish invaded (1519) Mexico, they established their own influence on those territories, including white ideologies like the caste system (las castas) to ‘whiten’ races as a motive for Spanish survival, an idea that would eventually spread in Mexico. It was a new wave of classifications implemented during the colonization of Mexico with extremes from white skinned to black skinned peoples and it worked as a racial measurement system of systemic oppression (Montalvo & Codina, 2001). The case system was established with the aim to dominate and even erase non- white cultural groups (Truett & Young, 2004).

The Mexican American War Mexicans have lived in and migrated to the American West and Southwest for centuries. When the U.S. annexed a full half of Mexico’s territory by 1848 during the Mexican-American War (1846-1848), over 70,000 Mexicans became “foreigners in their own land” and consequently were forced to accommodate and adapt to the U.S. American cultural, economic, and social norms (Gomez, 2018). This ultimately transformed the ethnic and racial landscape of the United States as well as the identities of Mexicans who have been classified as aliens ever since. (Gomez, 2018). In the 19th century, the image of the 'American' became racialized as ‘White’, granting, or denying citizenship rights to different ethnic groups (Omi and Winant, 1986). This created a diverse racial group with fluid boundaries (ibid.). The Mexican American war has been further referred to as the era of 'double colonization,' implying the ways Mexicans had to navigate both Spanish and American racial hierarchies that were imposed on them (Gomez, 2018). This double colonization caused Mexicans to occupy a liminal space in the racial hierarchy between White and non-White racial categories (ibid.). In legal terms, Mexican Americans have been treated as a separate group that has been protected by the Civil Rights legislation and the 1975 extension of the Voting Rights Act, which legally ended discrimination against racialized 'language minorities' – that is

individuals whose race or ethnicity constituted grounds for implicit and explicit discrimination. Therefore, Mexican-Americans, amongst other minorities, have been aggregated into a distinct racial category by the U.S. government (ibid.). Furthermore, measures ranging from “Operation Wetback” in the 1950s to the 700-mile security fence that has been under construction along the U.S.–Mexican border today have contributed to the plurality of Mexican-American identities and the complexity of lived race (ibid.). An outline of anti-miscegenation laws, in in the state of California, as presented in the research, exemplifies how state government officials transformed popular racial ideologies into legal codes to ensure Mexicans were kept separate.

12.8 Appendix - Information on Marital Acts Marital Rights, art. 4670, 2466, in Paschal, 1878: 783 Act of 1850, ch. 35,s.3, in Comp. Laws of the State of Cal. 1850-1853, pp. 175-6 (Act of 1859, ch. 99, sec. 14, in Comp. Laws of the State of Cal.1850–1853, p. 230; Act of 1850, ch. 142, s. 306, 455 Stat. of Cal., vol. 1, 1959: 2043