Influences of Intergenerational Transmission of Autobiographical Memories on Identity
Formation in Immigrant Children
Dissertation
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree
in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University
By
Yuliya Illinichna Buquoi, M.A.
Slavic and East European Languages and Cultures
The Ohio State University
2019
Dissertation Committee
Dr. Ludmila Isurin, Advisor
Dr. Jennifer Suchland
Dr. Leslie Moore
Copyright by
Yuliya Illinichna Buquoi
2019
Abstract
Our memories define the way we perceive our world; they help us think about the past, live our present, and construe our future. Memories also reflect a cultural way of being in the world that is inextricably linked to our identity construction, goals, and self- appraisal. Parents use intergenerational transmission of personal memories and family stories to help socialize their children into communities, rooted in worldviews, relationships, history, geography, and culture. This socialization helps them develop their own self-story, reflect on their past, shape their identities, and orient their future.
This study investigated the relationship between identity and intergenerational transmission of memories through the platform of autobiographical memories shared by immigrant parents with their children. By virtue, the process of adaptation to a new way of life in a new country enables immigrants to renegotiate new identities, goals, and attitudes; however, this process is particularly important for immigrant children who have a multiple identities to blend into a hyphenated self-concept and relatively few tools for self-evaluation. Both the sociocultural environment of the host country as well as the transmission of cultural values and capital through parental interactions play important roles in shaping young immigrants’ attitudes and behaviors. As a result, most immigrant children retain both their native and host cultures, but construct their own unique culture and hyphenated identity, lifestyle, and language.
This dissertation examines how parental sharing of autobiographical memories with their children influences the children’s identity in adulthood. It looks at children’s
iii data in three ways: first, within the context of transmission of sentiments, values, and ideals between parents and children in aggregate; second, focusing on intergenerational transmission within families, linking specific parents to their specific children; and third, through a comparative examination of whether there is a difference in sentiments between children who arrived either very young or were born shortly after immigration and those who arrived as older children or adolescents, having a more mature cognitive structure and a fair amount of their own memories from their native country.
Since this was an exploratory study with a very broad scope, findings were not limited to one or two areas. Rather they told a story of a journey 32 Russian Jewish immigrant parents experienced in the course of going from a highly persecuted group in the former Soviet Union (FSU) to a successful diasporic group in the U.S., and how that journey was conveyed to and internalized by their 23 children. Findings centered on topics of children’s identity negotiation, relationships with the FSU, U.S., and Israel,
Judaism, and discrimination. Findings also addressed language attitudes, frequent topics of discussion parents and children engaged in with different subsets of interlocutors, prevailing themes in participant responses, comparative analysis of parent and child metrics in aggregate and within families, and an examination of worldview trends children exhibited by age at immigration.
This study adopted a mixed-methods, interdisciplinary approach with a very broad scope, creating tangential ties to and generalizability in fields like developmental cognition, immigration, identity, autobiographical memory, history, social psychology, and diasporic Russian Jewish studies. It also helped forge a way forward in burgeoning
iv topics of intergenerational transmission and Generation 1.5 identity negotiation; providing a few new data points into these young disciplines.
v
Dedication
To the home team
You guy made this thing happen.
vi
Acknowledgements
Reflecting on my PhD journey over the last three years, there were so many people who helped me get to this point. I would not be writing this acknowledgement right now without all of you encouraged me, easing my path, and challenged me to be a better version of myself, so I’d like to extend a big collective thank you to all my family, friends, professors, and colleagues for being a part of my journey.
Earning a PhD is not easy, but it is even harder while raising four small children.
My first thank you is to my family, who have been an invaluable source of support throughout this whole process. Quentin, thank you for being my partner in crime in this silly journey called life: for taking the kids out when I needed the space to work, for helping me get through the roller coaster these last few years have been, for being my sounding board, and being the yang to my yin to balance out my crazy ideas. Looking forward to forever, Shug. Ada, thank you for taking one for the team so many times, with keeping the house running while I had my head in the books and wrangling the kids alone for days at a time so I could work. Ethan, Nicky, Charley, and Zoe, thank you for giving me a good reason to take on this project and for giving up our time on weekends so I could write.
A special thank you to my California, Georgia, and Louisiana family, who were always there to lend an ear, provide practical support, and urge me to keep plugging away. Mama and Fim, thank you for always being there to bounce off ideas, for helping me coordinate research participants, and for helping us in many other ways. Tash and
vii Vadim, thank you for always checking on us. Mary Kay and Stephanie, thanks for the getaway when I needed a brain break. Michael, Renata, Desi, Carl, Johnny, Hope, Matt, and Shelby, thank you for your continued support.
Dr. Isurin, my sincere gratitude goes out to you for your tireless efforts in guiding me, proofreading thousands of pages of manuscripts, and being not just a top-notch advisor, but a great friend. I very much appreciate your bearing with my chaotic lifestyle and giving me a kick in the butt when I needed it. You expanded my horizons, introducing me to new fields of study I would never have considered without your mentorship, and helped me grow both as an academic and as a human. Odd to say, but you also gave me the perspective to become a better Jew. I hope someday I can be half as good of an advisor to my advisees as you have been to me.
To all the folks at OSU, you guys are nothing short of amazing. I genuinely do not think I would have had nearly as enjoyable of a journey at any other school. Dr
Burry, and Dr Hashamova, thank you for allowing me to apply late, taking a chance on me, putting up with my unconventional military requirements, and giving me a home these last three and a half years; Derek, for always being there to help with logistical and administrative issues; Dr. Stepanova for helping me become a better educator and a better
Russian speaker; and to all of my fellow grad students for your friendship and support. I would also like to extend my gratitude to my candidacy and dissertation committee, Dr.
Moore, Dr. Suchland, Dr. Bloome, and Dr. Goscilo, for taking the time read my work, learning a whole new topic just to administer my exams, and challenging me to become a better scholar.
viii Of course all of this would have been a non-starter without support from my Air
Force community, who helped me get this opportunity and supported me in the course of my degree. The good folks from A3Q (Dog, Max, Binjo, Rage, Pete, Blummer, and so many others) who cashed in so many favors to get me an audience with AFPC; Col Farrar who took a chance on releasing me to pursue this opportunity; and the USAFA Foreign
Language department (Col Steeves, Col Peltier, Col Uribe) who volunteered to take me back me back, even after I was such a pain in the butt the first time. Thank you to the
AFIT/CI team (Lt Col Chandler, Maj Ruyle, Mr. Whitney) for always helping me with my random 2% issues and to the OSU AFROTC Det: Mr. Gooden, Sgt Duthoy, Col
Cullen, Capt Elles, and company, for keeping me connected to the military while taking this little break. And of course, to Lt Col Tendetnik, who started the ball rolling on all of this academic stuff and has been the little devil on my shoulder since basic. All of this is your fault, Pash, just saying.
Amira, Stephen, Susan, Abe, Evan, Brandon, Maria, Jennifer, and Tracy, thank you for your friendship, and for the insightful conversation and for always being there to let me vent; this process, especially the first year, would have been infinitely tougher without you. Thank you for proofreading my work, listening to me rant, and helping me get perspective. Shelley, thank you for your formatting superpowers. Megan and Sarah, thanks for creating our little TKD PTA; you’ve made my evenings so much more enjoyable. Pam and Allen, thanks for the great discussions, I look forward to having more time for them now.
And last but not least, to all of my extended Russian Jewish community, who took the time to share with me their interesting and often difficult experiences in the Former
ix Soviet Union; they helped me do more than just write a dissertation, but to understand my roots. Thank you for sharing your stories with me and for the delicious soup.
x
Vita
The Ohio State University Ph.D. Program…….………...……………Anticipated 2019
American Military University M.A. in Public Administration..…………....2007 – 2010
California State University, Long Beach B.S. in Criminal Justice..…….…1999 – 2003
Fields of Study
Major Field: Slavic and East European Languages and Cultures Tracks: Slavic Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition Specialization: Autobiographical Memory
xi
Table of Contents
Abstract ...... iii Dedication ...... vi Acknowledgements ...... vii Vita ...... xi Table of Contents ...... xii List of Tables ...... xviii List of Figures...... xviii Introduction ...... 1 Chapter 1: Autobiographical Memory ...... 11 1. Lifetime distribution,utilization, and development ...... 13 1.1 Autobiographical memory overview...... 13 1.2 Lifetime development and utilization of autobiographical memory ...... 16 1.3 Lifetime memory distribution and the reminiscence bump ...... 19 2. Culture ...... 21 2.1 Collectivism and individualism ...... 22 2.2 Language ...... 28 3 Summary ...... 32 Chapter 2: Identity and Autobiographical Memory ...... 34 1. The relationship between autobiographical memory and identity...... 36 2. Maturation and identity ...... 38 3. Role of culture in identity negotiation ...... 40 4. Bilingual considerations in self-construal and cultural frame switching ...... 42 5. Revisionism and temporal self-perception ...... 46 5.1 Self-revision in immigrant populations ...... 49 6. Summary ...... 51 Chapter 3: Intergenerational Transmission of Memories ...... 54 1. Goals of intergenerrational transmission ...... 56 2. Family identity building through memory sharing ...... 59 3. Age effects in intergenerational transmission of memories ...... 61 3.1 Age effects in childhood...... 61 3.2 Age effects in adolescence ...... 65 4. Gender effects in intergenerational transmission of memories ...... 68 4.1 Gender effects in childhood ...... 68 4.2 Gender effects in adolescence ...... 70 5. Immigration considerations in intergenerational transmission of memoreis ...... 73 xii 6. Summary ...... 76 Chapter 4: Russian Immigration ...... 78 1. History of Soviet immigration ...... 79 2. Acculturation and transnationalism patterns ...... 82 3. Sense of belonging and ethnic identity in the United States ...... 87 3.1 Ethnic identity in the United States...... 89 3.2 Language attitudes ...... 93 4. Stigmatization and identity construction ...... 95 4.1 USSR Jewish discrimination ...... 95 4.2 Grand narrative of 'victim' ...... 96 4.3 Acculturative hassles ...... 98 5. Generation 1.5 ...... 99 5.1 Intergenerational dynamics in immigrant families ...... 103 6. Overall global similarities ...... 105 7. Summary ...... 107 Chapter 5: Methodology ...... 109 1. Research Objectives ...... 109 2. Participants ...... 110 2.1 Division by Generation 1.5 versus Generation 2 ...... 112 2.2 Division by cognitive group ...... 113 3. Materials/stimuli ...... 114 4. Procedure ...... 115 5. Coding ...... 117 6. Data Analysis...... 117 Chapter 6: Comparison of Parents and Children - Identity ...... 118 1. Results ...... 118 1.1 Pubic and private identity ...... 118 1.2 Hyphenated identity ...... 121 1.3 Similarities in identity between children and parents ...... 123 1.4 Parental teachings about identity in the FSU and U.S...... 126 1.5 Avoidance, distancing, and belonging ...... 129 1.6 Group affinity ...... 133 1.7 Family identity ...... 135 1.8 Language ...... 137 2. Discussion ...... 139 Chapter 7: Conversations about the FSU...... 151 1. Results ...... 152 1.1 Conversations with Americans versus FSU immigrant peers ...... 152 1.2 Conversations between parents and their children...... 159 1.3 Memory sharing practices ...... 165 1.4 Patterns in storytelling ...... 167 1.5 Subtexts ...... 168 1.6 Influences of storytelling ...... 170 xiii 2. Discussion ...... 173 Chapter 8: Parent-Child Comparison - Themes ...... 183 1. Results ...... 183 1.1 Oral interview themes ...... 183 1.2 Written memory-identity questionnaire themes ...... 188 1.3 Spotlights ...... 191 1.3.1 Jewish themes ...... 192 Jewish acculturation ...... 192 Global Jewish connection ...... 193 1.3.2 Discrimination ...... 194 Opportunities ...... 198 1.3.3 Pragmatic themes ...... 199 ………… ….Education ...... 199 ………… ….Fiscal practicality ...... 200 Negative sentiment about the FSU ...... 201 Skepticism ...... 202 2. Discussion ...... 203 2.1 Summary...... 209 Chapter 9: Parent-Child Correlation Analysis Within Families...... 211 1. Results ...... 212 1.1 Identity-related data ...... 212 1.1.1 Comfort with Jewish identity and relevance of Judaism ...... 212 1.1.2 Childrens spontaneous mention of Judaism and discrimination ...... 214 1.1.3 Childrens connections and influences ...... 216 1.1.4 Language ...... 218 1.2 Memory sharing ...... 220 1.2.1 Postitivity in parental stories ...... 220 1.2.2 Transmitted memories and family stories ...... 223 1.2.3 Socialism factors ...... 225 1.2.4 Childrens concept of FSU life ...... 227 2. Discussion ...... 227 2.1 Identity topics ...... 228 2.2 Memory sharing topics ...... 232 2.3 Methodology considerations...... 237 Chapter 10: Age-Specific Results ...... 240 1. Results ...... 241 1.1 Memory sharing ...... 241 1.1.1 Number of memories ...... 241 1.1.2 Positivity in reminiscence and parental stories ...... 242 1.1.3 Accuracy of mental picture ...... 243 1.2 Judaism topics and intergenerational transmission ...... 244 1.2.1 Jewish ties and relevance of Judaism ...... 246 1.2.2 Intergenerational transmission and ancestor detail ...... 247 1.2.3 Socialism ...... 248 xiv 1.2.4 Discrimination ...... 249 1.3 Formative influences ...... 250 1.4 Affiliations ...... 252 1.5 Language ...... 255 2. Discussion ...... 260 2.1 Memory sharing ...... 260 2.2 Judaism and discrimination ...... 262 2.3 Formative influences ...... 267 2.4 Affiliations ...... 268 2.5 Language dominance ...... 270 Conclusion ...... 272 References ...... 281 Appendix A: Experimental Stimuli ...... 291 1. Step 1 - Parents' interview ...... 291 2. Step 1 - Children's interview ...... 291 3. Step 2- Parents' Memory Identity qustionnaire ...... 292 4. Step 2- Children's Memory Identity qustionnaire...... 293 5. Step 3 - Parents' demographic questionnaire ...... 294 6. Step 3 - Children's demographic questionnaire ...... 296 Appendix B: Images and Words Used in the Study...... 299 1. Demographic worksheet coding ...... 299 1.1 Basic demographics ...... 299 1.2 Parents' demographic questionnaire ...... 299 1.2.1 Language ...... 299 1.2.2 Memories of the FSU ...... 300 1.2.3 Affinity ...... 300 1.2.4 Jewish identitfication/discrimination...... 301 1.3 Children's demographic questionnaire ...... 301 1.3.1 Language ...... 301 1.3.2 Memories of the FSU ...... 302 1.3.3 Affinity ...... 302 1.3.4 Meaningful influences ...... 302 2. Interview coding ...... 303 2.1 Overall impression coding ...... 303 2.2 Individual question coding ...... 304 2.3 Alignment within familiy coding ...... 304 3. Memory Identity Questionnaire coding ...... 305 3.1 Identites coding ...... 305 3.2 Themes coding ...... 306 3.3 How sharing memories is different by interlocutor ...... 307 3.4 Parental teachings about identity ...... 308 3.5 Parental tactics for teaching their children about the FSU ...... 309 3.6 What children learned from parents' stories ...... 310 xv 3.7 Other coding on the Memory Identity questionnaire ...... 310 4. Composite quantifier scores ...... 311 4.1 Russian proficiency combination score...... 311 4.2 Discrimination combination score ...... 311 5. Operational definitions ...... 312 Appendix C: Parent interview responses dealing with anti-Semitism ...... 316
xvi
List of Tables
Table 5.1: Parents' demographic information ...... 111 Table 5.2: Children's demographic information...... 114 Table 6.1:Frequency of identity hyphenation ...... 122 Table 6.2: Parental teachings about identity in the FSU ...... 128 Table 6.3: Aspects central to family identity in the FSU and U.S...... 136 Table 6.4: Languages spoken by parents and children ...... 138 Table 6.5: Children's language proficiency by position ...... 139 Table 7.1: Parental memory sharing practices ...... 166 Table 8.1: High frequency themes ...... 185 Table 8.2: High frequency themes by interview question ...... 186 Table 8.3: High frequency memory-identity queationnaire themes ...... 189 Table 8.4: Child-only high frequency items on memory-identity questionnaires...... 190 Table 8.5: Theme frequency comparison between interview and questionnaire ...... 191 Table 10.1: Child participant description ...... 241 Table 10.2: Childen's attitudes about memories, FSU, U.S., and Israel ...... 242 Table 10.3: Children's influences ...... 251 Table 10.4: Children's affiliations with FSU, Israel and the U.S...... 253 Table 10.5: Children's Russian proficiency by skill ...... 258 Table 10.6: Russian usage and proficiency by position ...... 259
xvii
List of Figures
Figure 6.1: Public and private identity in the FSU ...... 120 Figure 6.2: Public and private identity in the U.S...... 120 Figure 6.3: Number of identities in oral interview ...... 123 Figure 6.4: Subjective identity resemblance between children and parents ...... 125 Figure 6.5: Parents projections of childrens identities ...... 125 Figure 6.6: Overlay of child and parent identities ...... 126 Figure 6.7: Parental teachings about identity in the FSU and U.S...... 128 Figure 6.8: Ethnic identity avoidance in the FSU ...... 129 Figure 6.9: Ethnic identity avoidance in the U.S...... 130 Figure 6.10: Group identity affiliations ...... 134 Figure 6.11: Number of identity affiliations reported ...... 135 Figure 6.12: Methods of teaching identity to children ...... 137 Figure 6.13: Methods of language retention in children...... 138 Figure 7.1: Topics discussed with Americans...... 152 Figure 7.2: Topics discussed with FSU immigrant peers ...... 154 Figure 7.3: Differences between speaking with Americans and immigrants ...... 156 Figure 7.4: Parental teachings and child perception ...... 160 Figure 7.5: Child perception of positivity in parental memories ...... 163 Figure 7.6: Child perception of parental experience ...... 165 Figure 7.7: Parent storytelling patterns with children versus other interlocutors ...... 167 Figure 7.8: Parental stories as a possible source for child storytelling ...... 168 Figure 7.9: Interview subtexts in parents and children ...... 170 Figure 7.10: Influences of parent storytelling on children...... 171 Figure 8.1: Themes in FSU memories ...... 187 Figure 8.2: Themes in U.S. memories ...... 188 Figure 8.3: Parental discrimination ratings ...... 195 Figure 8.4: Parent and child composite discrimination scores ...... 196 Figure 10.1: Judaism and memory sharing by Generation 1.5 versus 2 ...... 245
xviii Figure 10.2: Judaism and memory sharing by Cognitive Group 1,2, or 3 ...... 245 Figure 10.3: Judaism and memory sharing by gender ...... 246 Figure 10.4: Child affiliations by sub-group ...... 254 Figure 10.5: Russian speakers in social network ...... 255 Figure 10.6: Languages spoken by children by cognitive group ...... 256 Figure 10.7: Languages spoken by children by generation ...... 257 Figure 10.8: Children’s Russian proficiency ...... 258
xix
Introduction
Immigration is a life-changing event. Not only is leaving a life in the native country a traumatic personal experience, but arrival in a new country is also incredibly trying. It forces individuals to reinvent themselves and adapt to a new culture, career, social network, language, routine, and way of life. It also affords them an opportunity to renegotiate a new identity, goals, and attitudes that they feel fit them best in their new setting (Isurin, 2014; Birman, et al., 2010; Isurin, 2011 p. 129-133). This begs an interesting question: if a person lives within a culture that defines what it means to be a competent member of that culture, what happens when that individual moves to a different culture, with different cultural norms? How does this affect the interpretation of their memories from the home-country? Isurin (2017) suggests that as a result of re- establishing themselves in their adopted country, immigrants construct a new identity and may view themselves with a new sense of accomplishment in a new land (Isurin, 2017, p.
47-51).
An autobiographical memory (ABM) is a memory of the self engaging in past events that is linked in consciousness to the present (Fivush, 2012, p. 226-227; Haslam et al., 2011). It is the means by which individuals construct a coherent life story that describes who they are and create a sense of self as continuous and coherent in time, with a past that explains the present and projects into future in a social context (Fivush,
Habermas, Waters, & Zaman, 2011; Knez, 2014; McAdams, 2003, p. 194-195; Fivush,
1 2004, p. 75). Reminiscing with others is a critical part of our autobiographical memory.
While autobiographical memories are private and uniquely our own, they are simultaneously public property, shared with others (Reese & Farrant, 2003, p. 29).
Acquired cultural frameworks guide the content and style of remembering one’s autobiographical past, which then is used to create a self-narrative, the link between autographical memory and self-concept (Fivush & Haden, 2003, p. vii).
Autobiographical memory and identity share a symbiotic relationship. Our sense of self is based on our memories and our memories are tailored at recall to reflect the goals of our current self. Autobiographical memories play a vital role in our identity construction. They define the way we think about the past, live our present, and construe our future (Isurin, 2017, p. 44). Our self-concept is contingent on ABM, however what we recall and tell others about our experiences is not the actual account of what happened, but is influenced by the self-concept when event occurred, changes to self- concept over time, and self-concept at the time of retrieval. The self and autobiographical memory (ABM) remain a fluid, continuous, self-correcting system driven by the rememberer’s current goals, needs, wishes, and aspirations. Recollections of ourselves in context of our past shape how we conceptualize and understand who we are today (Howe, 2004, p.44-47; McAdams, 2003, p. 190-195).
Early childhood narratives, mediated by parents, start as soon as children start producing their first words; parents show their children an appropriate way to build a story with a beginning, middle, and end. Children internalize the modeled example and use it as template to produce similar stories of their own as they grow up (Fivush, 2012, p. 228-229). Parents teach their children culturally appropriate reminiscence that in turn
2 helps them develop their own self story and reflect on their past. As children transition from adolescence into adulthood, their memories form into themes and begin to shape their sense of self (McAdams, 2003, p. 190-195).
Families are situated in a sociocultural context that influence the content, function, and meaning of the stories they tell (Raffelli, et al., 2017). These stories describe family-unique identities that reflect values and ideals that the family considers important (Taylor, et al., 2013), with cultural and linguistic factors playing a critical role in how life events are remembered, passed on across generations, and drawn upon to aid in identity construction (Wilson & Ross, 2003). Historical knowledge is transmitted by parents and vicariously absorbed by children, even when they are removed from historical events by time, geography, or culture (Isurin, 2017, p. 40-56). In the case of immigration, the process of adaptation to a new way of life in a new country affords immigrants the opportunity to renegotiate a new identity, goals, and attitudes that they feel fit them best in their new setting (Isurin, 2014; Birman, et al., 2010; Isurin, 2011 p.
129-133). This process is particularly important in the hyphenated identity construction of immigrant children, as it facilitates better balance of their multiple identities
(Remmenick, 2003).
Russian Jewish immigrants, in particular, present an interesting case. Since
Russian Jews emigrated because of government persecution, being Jewish is an important part of the refugees’ identity, which is distinctly different from other immigrants from the
Former Soviet Union as well as American Jews (Roytburd & Friedlander, 2008). This drives unique acculturation and identity negotiation patterns for this diasporic group. In immigrant populations, school-age children are in effect promoters of parental
3 integration; they help bridge the cultural gap and push parental involvement in host culture (Shulova-Piryatinsky & Harkins, 2009). For young immigrants, the age of immigration is a big determiner of ultimate language attainment, education level, job success, and social patterns. Having spent a portion of their formative years in each country, they provide an important link between partially assimilated immigrants and the native hosts (Remennick, 2003). Both the sociocultural environment of the host country as well as the transmission of cultural values and capital through parental interactions play a role in shaping young immigrants’ attitudes and behaviors, and as a result, most immigrant children retain both their native and host cultures, but construct their own unique culture and hyphenated identity, lifestyle, and language (Prashizky & Remennick,
2015).
The population I will focus on in this study is Russian Jewish immigrants who emigrated from the Former Soviet Union (FSU) to America with small children in the
1990’s. This study aims to investigate the relationship between identity and intergenerational transmission of memories through the platform of autobiographical memories shared by immigrant parents with their children. This dissertation examines how parental sharing of autobiographical memories with their children influences the children’s identity in adulthood. It looks at children’s data in three ways: first, within the context of transmission of sentiments, values, and ideals between parents and children in aggregate; second, focusing on such transmission within families, linking parents to their specific children; and third, through a comparative examination of whether there is a difference in sentiments between children who arrived either very young or were born shortly after immigration and those who arrived as older children or adolescents, having a
4 more mature cognitive structure and a fair amount of their own memories from their native country.
A participant in my earlier study captured the essence of this project perfectly; in his response to a question about intergenerational transmission of memories from immigrants to their children he said:
“Immigration is a complicated process. It by virtue includes forsaking of your existing way of life, geographical location, friends, food, society, air…and adaptation to a different society with the exact same parameters. Language, mentality, societal customs, reconciling the new with the old. Adaptation is necessary. We all adapt in our own ways: some people want a clean break from their previous life and to dive head first into their new identity, conversely others want to hold firmly onto their old culture and not absorb any of the new…to live in their own world and they don’t need anything else. Reality is somewhere in the middle. You don’t need to forget who you are and where you came from, but at the same time you need to acknowledge that if you entered a new society, please be so kind as to become an adequately productive and understanding member of the society that took you in. The adaptation must be adequate. The process is long and can be subdivided into multiple stages. Children who were born here don’t have that perspective in the same way, because they were already born here and see it differently. But it’s necessary to explain the home country worldview to them, to tell them about their past culture, so that they could not only understand their parents better, but when the time comes, find themselves. They will choose later if they want it or not, but our job [as immigrant parents] is to tell them, explain to them, show them. That creates the necessary attributes for them to find themselves in whatever way they deem necessary, when they are old enough to do so. For example, some early generation kids couldn’t care less about their family heritage while a couple of generations later someone may aggressively pursue that identity. The immigration issue is very complicated, but the most important thing is to convey knowledge and opportunity to choose and children will choose what’s right for them.” (M, 46)
However in order to discuss how autobiographical memory is related to intergenerational transmission and identity construction within our population, it is first necessary to provide a baseline of relevant empirical work amassed within the individual fields that bear influence on the conceptualization, methodology, and findings of this project. There are several central themes interwoven throughout the literature review,
5 such as maturational milestones, the contributions of culture and language, socialization effects, and immigrant considerations. Though these themes may be addressed in multiple chapters, they will be discussed through the specific perspective of relevance within that chapter and will build upon each other to provide a multifaceted, interdisciplinary understanding of the nuances involved.
Chapter 1 begins with an overview of pertinent information about ABM in general, then provides a thorough discussion of how ABM is developed within an individual and changes throughout his/ her lifespan. Afterwards it conducts an examination of research on language and culture effects unique to bilingual reminiscence and discusses immigrant-specific considerations in ABM research. This chapter shows major age-appropriate milestones in ABM development, the profound influences of collectivist and individualist cultures on establishment of individual values and preferences, and agentive selection of memories that will be carried by immigrants over to their new country to serve as a foundation for their new identity.
Chapter 2 discusses ABM as it relates to identity development. It addresses the relationship between ABM and identity, maturational identity milestones with relevance to this study, the influences of culture and language, revisionism and temporal self- perception, and finally, immigration-specific factors. In this chapter, we see how deeply intertwined ABM is with identity, examine large-scale differences in cultural ideology and the impact bilingualism and biculturalism has on individual reminiscence. We also discuss the shifting roles and self-perceptions as speakers tap into their various cultural expectations via language and look at revision of memories to construct a new identity in a new country.
6 Chapter 3 brings the previous two chapters together in exploring the role parental
ABM contributions play in the identity development of children. It explores the topic of intergenerational transmission, discusses maturational considerations by both age and gender, and closes with immigrant-specific concerns. This chapter explains the processes involved in intergenerational transmission of memories, impact of parental interactions with their children, differences in outcomes based on socialization styles, and transfer of cultural capital through family interactions.
The final chapter of the literature review examines the specific cultural background of the immigrant population featured in this study, that is, Jews who immigrated to the United States from the former Soviet Union (FSU) in the early 1990s.
This chapter details the unique history and demographic characteristics of this ethnic group, explores acculturative condition and identity negotiation factors that drive the way they express their new selves in their new country, looks at different types of stigmatization this group may have encountered, and discusses parental interactions, and language attitudes.
After providing relevant background literature, Chapter 5 begins a methodological explanation of the current research project. The methodology chapter features two appendices one with samples of participant stimuli used in data collection, and the second explaining the coding scheme used for this complex project.
There are five ‘Results and Discussion’ chapters, each focusing on a small targeted area. Chapters 6 through 8 all feature aggregate findings, explaining ways in which the parents generation is different from their children. All three of these chapters adopt a mixed methods approach, presenting not only formal quantitative statistics, but
7 also rich qualitative excerpts from participants’ interviews. Chapter 6 examines the differences between children and their parents on topics pertaining to identity negotiation.
It begins with an analysis of participant self-concept in public versus private identity, negotiation of multiple relevant identities at once, and similarities in identity between parents and children. It also addresses identity in the FSU versus the U.S., issues of avoidance, distancing, and belonging, and affiliations with different ethnic groups. The chapter closes by looking at family identity and language as a marker of identity.
Chapter 7 also addresses aggregate findings between parents’ and children’s generations, however it looks at the topic of memory sharing: how, when, with whom memories are shared and what influences storytelling. The chapter begins by examining how participants talk about their past to other immigrants, American peers, and within families. It then looks at which memories are shared, and the patterns of family reminiscence as compared to in-group and out-group memory sharing. It also discusses a few subtexts noted in interviews and spotlights a few topics which were noted to be relevant to storytelling.
Chapter 8 continues to explore parent-child aggregate data, but with an emphasis on frequent themes that emerged in participant responses. It first looks at thematic trends observed in oral interviews for both children and parents, then compares them to the themes that frequently arose in written short-answer questionnaires. It also discusses noteworthy thematic spotlights, which were organized into three categories: the Jewish themes spotlights Jewish acculturation and global Jewish connection; the discrimination category presents quantitative and qualitative discrimination data as well as discusses the topic of ‘opportunities’ which prompted immigration for these participants; and Chapter
8 8 includes pragmatic spotlights exploring commonly-mentioned topics of education, fiscal practicality, negative attitudes towards socialism, and themes of skepticism or mistrust.
Chapters 9 and 10 shift the direction of the study. The data in this study give us a unique opportunity not just to examine the differences between adult and child immigrants, but to link the attitudes and behaviors of individual parents to the outcomes of their children; thus, Chapter 9 focus heavily on quantitative findings to examine correlations between parents and their own children. It first looks at identity-related data, such as comfort with Jewish identity and spontaneous mention of Judaism and discrimination. Following that, it examines children’s connections, influences, and language, as well as findings related to memory sharing, to include positivity in parental
FSU stories, transmitted memories and family stories, socialism factors, children’s concept of life in the FSU, and personal relevance of children’s American memories.
Finally, Chapter 10 addresses the differences in the children’s generation, by age at immigration. Zeltzer-Zubida and Kasinitz (2005) contend that Generation 2 children of immigrants (those who arrived before age 6 or were born in the U.S. shortly after immigration) share many more characteristics with Generation 1.5 children (those who immigrated between the ages of 6 and 16) than their host-country peers, and Chapter 10 of this study attempts to tease apart exactly where those similarities and differences lie and discuss possible contributing factors to the observed patterns. It subdivides child participants in two different ways: by immigration generation and into three cognitive groups. The immigration generation division (Generation 1.5 or Generation 2) aligns with major maturational milestones affecting both identity and memory development,
9 however, since there is a big difference between the cognitive maturity of a 7-year-old and a 14-year-old, Generation 1.5 participants are further subdivided one more time, with a cut-off of 10 years old at immigration: all children who were 10 or below at the time of immigration were analyzed separately from those who were 11 or above. This chapter first examines findings in memory sharing, such as quantity of personal memories, positivity of memories, and accuracy of mental picture. It then looks at Judaism and intergenerational transmission, specifically addressing Jewish ties and relevance, importance attributed to family stories, strength of memory content transmitted to children, socialism, and discrimination. Other topics addressed in this chapter are formative influences, participant affiliations, and language.
Though it is somewhat unconventional, since this study presents a very large amount of data, each of the results chapters is directly followed by an-in-depth discussion of the data presented in that chapter.
10
Chapter 1: Autobiographical Memory
People experience their world from a unique perspective and must actively organize their autobiographical memories (ABM) to construct personal meaning. ABM is the way individuals create a sense of self as continuous and coherent in time with a past that explains the present and projects into the future in a social context. It goes beyond recalling the basics of who, what, where, when, and how, to integrate multifaceted thoughts, emotions, evaluations, explanations, and motivations that comprise a meaningful life story. Personal memory is structured to facilitate subjective reflection necessary to make sense of life, which is critical to identity development
(Fivush et al., 2011).
Autobiographical memory takes on a different focus at different stages in life. As children, we learn how to reminisce in talking about the past with adults; as adults, sharing memories with others modulates how we think about our experiences and ultimately ourselves (Fivush & Haden, 2003, p. viii). McAdams (2003) explains that parental interactions teach children what a life story should include and how it should be presented to others. As they cross into adolescence, they look to memories for causal and thematic coherence, to understand the organization of the world around them and negotiate their place in it (p.190-194). Adults, on the other hand, use ABM for problem solving, interpersonal relationships, legacy-building, and in old age life review (Cohen,
1998, p. 107; McAdams, 2003, p. 190-194).
11 Culture and language also play a critical role in this process; culture essentially defines the skills and activities deemed important to become a competent member of it.
Culture establishes canonical frameworks that shape how individuals narrate their personal experience (Fivush et al., 2011; Isurin, 2017, p. 48-49). In fact, all actions of an individual are situated within specific social and cultural frameworks that define the form and meaning of their actions, and critical cultural skills are learned through participation in day-to-day cultural activities, such as literacy and co-construction of self through joint reminiscence. Thus, culture and ABM have a symbiotic relationship: individual memories reflect cultural forms, and culture shapes memories (Fivush et al., 2011;
Fivush, 2012, p. 228-229).
Immigrants form a unique population that is immersed in cultural influences from two different, often conflicting, worldviews. As they immigrate to a new culture with a different sociocultural perspective, their memory construction starts filtering through a different lens (Isurin, 2017, p. 48-49). While adult immigrants find themselves having to negotiate a new identity upon immigration, immigrant children present an even more interesting dynamic because they receive formative input from two different societies, which contributes to the construction of their hyphenated identity (Prashizky &
Remennick, 2015). Rappaport, Lomsky-Feder, and Heider (2002) assert that immigration breaks up continuity of life events, widening the space for selection of memories to be included in an immigrant’s “memory kit,” to take into their new society, assembling which is an agentive action that feeds into identity construction. The narrator can choose which memories to tell and how to tell them, to reconstruct their personal story in such a way that it supports their present identity goals and subjective sense of self.
12 This chapter will address autobiographical memory in two large sub-sections.
The first part will concentrate on lifetime development, distribution, and utilization of
ABM, beginning with an overview of areas in ABM that are relevant to understanding this research effort, followed by a discussion of how ABM changes and matures throughout an individual’s life. This section will close with a brief discussion of lifetime distribution of ABM and the reminiscence bump. The second part will address cultural and linguistic influences on ABM: first, it will interweave immigrant-specific considerations into an in-depth discussion of the influences of collectivism and individualism and then review the influences of language in memory encoding and decoding.
1. Lifetime distribution, utilization, and development
1.1 Autobiographical memory overview
Autobiographical memory is defined as an autonoetic recollection of episodes and events experienced over the course of a person’s life; it is different from other types of long-term knowledge, is the only kind of memory that enables a sense of reliving, and is closely related to personality (Conway & Pleydell-Pearce, 2000; Isurin, 2017, p. 40;
Wilson & Ross, 2003). ABM is built on culturally-transmitted structures that ensure social and cultural coherence (Berntsen & Rubin, 2012b, p. 333-350;); it not only helps people participate in complex communities, draw from the past, plan the future, and define themselves as a person in a society with roles, obligations, and commitments, but also places individuals in time, society, social groups, and constitutes the content and
13 definition of the self (Berntsen & Rubin, 2012a, p. 1-7; Nelson 2003, p. 15; Isurin, 2017, p. 44 ).
This type of memory relies heavily on narrative schema to organize individual experiences into a coherent life story (Conway, 2005; Nelson,2006, as summarized in
Pavlenko, 2014, p. 173); in fact, it is crucial for a sense of identity, continuity, and direction. Most personal memories do not retain perceptually-rich information, but are transformed and assimilated into higher-order autobiographical representations so that they can become schematic and semantic over time (Moscovitch, 2012, p.107-108).
Individuals treasure their personal memories because it is their story, which keeps traces of special people and moments in their lives (Isurin, 2017, p. 44).
ABM serves three main functions; directive, which is used to guide problem- solving, thinking, and behavior; self, which helps build identity and self-definition; and social, which is used to establish closeness and intersubjectivity in interpersonal relationships (Rasmussen & Berntsen, 2010; Ross & Wang, 2010; Wilson & Ross, 2003).
The intrapersonal (identity) functions of ABM are inwardly focused; they include mood regulation, reconciling between actual and ideal self, orientation, as well as generation of past and future event representations (Berntsen & Rubin, 2012b, p. 333-350; Cohen,
1998, p. 107). The directive function of ABM involves the ability to recall detail in knowledge-based ABM that helps provide inductive inference, problem-solving, and a guide for behavior (Moscovitch, 2012, p.107-108); this is the function that reminds us of the expensive ticket we got while speeding or how difficult working with self-mix adhesive was when tiling the kitchen floor, and prompts us to make the choice to drive slower or use pre-mixed adhesive when faced with a similar situation.
14 However, Reese and Farrant (2003) feel that the primary function of reminiscing is social, as it enables us to talk with others about our past to highlight meaningful events and illustrate characteristics of our own personality (Reese & Farrant, 2003, p. 29).
These interpersonal applications help individuals find conversation topics for social interactions, facilitate intimacy-building through self-disclosure, enable empathy through inferred emotions, allow people to remember and build upon past history in future interactions, and reach consensus or cohesion (Berntsen & Rubin, 2012b, p. 333-350;
Cohen, 1998, p. 107). Fivush (1998) explains that the ways in which individuals experience and understand the events of their lives is an integral part of who they are;
ABM in context of social interaction constructs the narrative self. Reminiscing with others about their life experiences influences how individuals come to understand and represent those experiences to themselves. In that sense ABM can be said to be socially- constructed (Fivush, 1998, p. 79).
Autobiographical memory is not a passive recorder of actual events, but an expression of an individual’s current needs, wishes, and aspirations. It is linked tightly to a sense of self, which is an ever-evolving concept constantly renegotiated in identity construction; thus personal memories are continuously reconstructed to better fit the current self. ABM is influenced by self-conceptualization at the time an event occurred, the evolution of the self over time, and the sense of self at the time of retrieval (Wilson &
Ross, 2003; Howe, 2004, p.44-47). Isurin (2017) concurs that autobiographical memories are not an objective reflection of events as they actually happened, but rather a reconstructed version of them, filtered by current goals, motives, and theories. So in
15 effect, while remembering, individuals are not retrieving factual events from the past, but their needs, wishes, and aspirations related to them (p. 46-48).
1.2 Lifetime development and utilization of autobiographical memory
ABM is dynamic, developing and shifting focus as an individual progresses through life. For children, conversation with parents provides important opportunities to comprehend and remember their experiences. At first, the structure of a memory is supplied almost entirely by a parent, but as children gain linguistic and cognitive skills, they contribute more to it themselves. In parent-child reminiscing, parents are not just teaching children how to tell their stories, but which stories are important to attend to.
Consequently, topics that receive attention are remembered, and those that are remembered prominently are included in the identity schema (Haden, 2003, p. 50-57).
Younger children forget faster and have poorer consolidation; their remembering is more involuntary compared to the strategy-based reminiscence in older children (Berntsen &
Rubin, 2012b, p. 347-349).
Personal timelines develop fairly late and involve an understanding of calendar time and cultural time milestones. Age seven is considered to be the inflection point where richness of encoding outstrips the rate of forgetting, slowing forgetting to an adult- like rate. Between seven and twelve, narratives double in length and complexity, and children begin to understand temporality and life scripts. These skills are interrelated and are generally acquired at the same time; they enable the child to start dividing their life into chapters and constructing their socially-influenced master narrative. Adult-like narrative breadth is achieved by age nine, changing very little after that, while narratives
16 of 10-12 year-olds are able to effectively orient the listener to the time and place of an event, as well as elaborate more coherently (Bauer, 2012, p. 205-222; Fivush, 2012, p.
236-239).
During adolescence, reminiscence and memory sharing intersect with the understanding of personhood and identity. This is when two important evaluative mechanisms for ABM develop: causal and thematic coherence. Causal coherence helps explain how different events link together in context and accounts for personal traits, beliefs, and preferences in terms of the life events that may have caused them. Thematic coherence explains how themes fit together and convey who a person is and what they are all about (McAdams, 2003, p. 190-194).
Developmental sequencing of stories in time, space, and relationship to other objects is another area where adolescents gain proficiency as they get older. It emerges around eight years of age, with a child mentally compiling an unorganized list of self- relevant ABM events. These events gain a skeletal organization around age 12 and continue to gain sequencing, detail, psychological considerations, motives, and subjectivity factors until the age of 16. Around 20 years of age, young adults incorporate anticipated future perspectives into their narratives (Fivush, et al., 2011).
Additionally, as they grow, adolescents also increasingly conduct self-reflection and create integrated storied accounts that put events in their lives in a historical past that allows them to understand the present and anticipate the future; it also enables them to create an account of their self that has temporal, thematic, and causal coherence. This interpretive training of ABM starts in childhood, when parents help children assemble personal schema and negotiate theory of mind. Here children gain the ability to form
17 intentional stories, which coordinate characters with intangible things such as intentions, desires, thoughts, and feelings. During middle childhood, individuals become better at integrating landscapes and consciousness. At 10 years of age, children begin to focus on proximal intentions and mental states, and at 12, they begin to see mental states as objects of reflection through interpretive thought. So, while a 10-year-old is able to recognize that a girl is shy, a 12-year-old will be able to link her shyness to events in her personal history to gain a better understanding of the overall picture. In effect, they are able to extract higher order meaning making (with enduring traits and psychological states) to better understand an experience, observation, or a story. Interpretive thought becomes more complex in the teen years. At 14, individuals gain bifocal structure, where they can recognize the struggle within a character, of being torn between two desirable things
(such as being popular, yet doing the right thing), and start to hone their ability to coordinate competing desires. At 17, adolescents are able to reason how a character transforms as a result of their struggles and understand how they have come to be the way they are (McKeough & Malcom, 2010).
Young adults under 30 largely use autobiographical memory for problem solving and identity construction, middle aged people use it for problem solving, while the elderly use it most frequently for interpersonal functions. In very old age it is used for life review and death preparation (Cohen, 1998, p. 107). McAdams (2003) adds that in middle adulthood, people endeavor to refine their idealized personification of self as the protagonist in their narrative and delve deeply into trying to define their identities.
During this stage in life they start looking towards generativity, or leaving a positive
18 legacy and giving back. They also start looking towards desired “endings” to their life story, which are then recycled back to influence the beginnings and middles (p. 190-194).
1.3 Lifetime distribution and the reminiscence bump
Schrauf and Rubin (1998) explain that there are three prominent memory lifespan distribution features that have been reproduced reliably across a range of study conditions. Infantile amnesia is the inability to remember early childhood memories as an adult, the reminiscence bump is a disproportionately large number of memories that are recalled from between the ages of 13 and 30, and the forgetting curve, which begins after the end of the reminiscence bump period, extends to old age (Schrauf & Rubin,
1998). The reminiscence bump is possibly the best-researched phenomenon in ABM.
According to Conway (2005), (as summarized in Isurin, 2017), there are four possible explanations for this reminiscence bump. The maturational hypothesis proposes that 13-30 is the optimal time for a reminiscence bump because cognitive abilities are at their peak. The social perspective suggests that it coincides with a time of highest personal significance, when people are making goals and shaping their lives. The theoretical perspective posits that more cognitive effort is needed to understand the world during this critical identity formation time, thus more memories are recalled with greater ease. Finally, the cognitive perspective explanation contends that rapid changes of young adulthood followed by a period of relative stability allow for after-the-fact processing and repeated rehearsal of all of the “firsts” the individual encountered (Isurin, 2017, p. 53-54;
Schrauf & Rubin, 2001).
19 Incidentally, there are a couple of interesting findings surrounding the reminiscence bump that are pertinent to the current participant population. In a study where college students were asked about stories told to them by their parents, the reminiscence bump for parental memories mirrored the children’s own (Svob and Brown,
2012). As an additional consideration for immigrants, an immigration bump (increased quantity of memories around the time of immigration) was observed when immigration did not coincide with the traditional reminiscence bump, however, the traditional bump was amplified when it did (Scharuf & Rubin, 1998; Shi & Brown, 2016).
Holmes and Conway (1999) explain that the reminiscence bump should command our attention not just because of its regularity, but also because it shows a clear connection to multiple issues with wide-ranging significance; most importantly, because studying the bump provides a window into understanding maturation of the self. Since the reminiscence bump aligns with both generational identity and the formation of meaningful relationships, they contend that knowledge gained during this time serves to form the foundation of autobiographical knowledge structures that will support ABM over the entire life. Rubin, Schrauf, Golgoz, and Naka (1998) also make a case for why it is important to continue to learn about the reminiscence bump, explaining that individuals show the most preference for books, movies, and music that they were exposed to during their reminiscence bump timeframe and consider public life events that happened at that time to be the most impactful and meaningful historical events. It is also the time for which individuals show the most nostalgia, which they identify as the most personally- meaningful time of “coming of age”, and when they discover their place in society.
Rubin and his colleagues assert that it is important to thoroughly understand the
20 reminiscence bump period specifically because every facet of society has greater meaning during that time than at any other period in a person’s life (Rubin, et al., 1998).
2. Culture
Conway and Jobson (2012) posit that people and their cultural worlds are not separate entities, and autobiographical remembering is rooted in the brain, body, and sociocultural context; people are shaped by culture and at the same time are also shapers of culture (Conway and Jobson, 2012, p. 59-65). The culture people grow up in influences how they remember their past in terms of narrative styles, self-construal, emotion, and beliefs. It also plays a role in how they perceive events and helps predict likely cultural mindsets (Leichtman, Wang, Pillemer, 2003, p 74-86; Wang, Shao, Li,
2010; Isurin, 2017, p. 50-51).
Culture is learned through parent-child reminiscence as well as through many other contexts, such as fairy tales, songs, folktales, music, movies, and games (Haden,
2003, p. 50-57; Berntsen & Rubin, 2012b, p. 347-349). To preserve culture, group members must remember the values, customs, rituals, and history of their group. Culture influences what members remember and what they use in everyday life, drawing on the differences in physical environments, self-views, behavior regulation, socialization, and language to highlight the variation in content and function of ABM. In fact, cultural differences are ingrained in cognitive schemata and memory strategies at both individual and societal levels of daily practices, showing ABM to be categorically cultural (Ross &
Wang, 2010). Immigrants, by virtue of participating in both of their cultures develop at least two linguistic and cultural frameworks (Schrauf & Rubin, 2003, p. 121). Language
21 is also important in mediating sociocultural influence on ABM. In addition to increased accessibility with language congruency, language also activates social and cultural beliefs and self-views (Ross & Wang, 2010).
This section will examine the large-scale differences in cultural ideology and the impact bilingualism and biculturalism has on individual reminiscence. It will also discuss differences in accessibility, frequency, and patterns of reminiscence according to which culture and language are accessed.
2.1 Collectivism and individualism
The construct of individualism versus collectivism enables researchers to understand, predict, and explain human behavior across cultures; in fact, it is arguably the most important dimension of cross-cultural psychology. This concept differentiates individualist cultures that value autonomy, personal uniqueness, and focus on individual preferences or motives from collectivist cultures where an individual is embedded into a larger social structure and their behavior can be explained by interactions between members of society. Triandis (2001) explains that each culture has certain traits it holds valuable for defining its relationships, values, and goals. Though these traits in each culture are slightly different, for the most part they align with either individualist or collectivist ideology. Individualist cultures, like American, place high value on individuality, independence, success, self-goals, and uniqueness, while the collectivist mindset (like Russian or Chinese culture), prioritizes in-group goals, interdependence, and social coherence (Isurin, 2017, p. 50-51; Triandis, 2001, p. 35-47; Marian &
Kushanskaya, 2004).
22 Research in this arena manipulates language and context cues to draw out how self-presentation changes in different frames of mind, showing sizeable collectivist or individualist influence on changes in memories and identity perception (Isurin, 2017, p.
50). As relevant to this specific research project, this dissertation will examine memory sharing and self-construal in immigrants from the former Soviet Union (FSU) to the
United States. The former Soviet Union (FSU), even post-communism, promotes a collectivist culture, whereas the United States maintains strongly individualist values
(Triandis, 2001; Marian & Kushanskaya, 2004).
However individualism and collectivism are not opposites, but multidimensional constructs with independent psychological processes that correspond more to either individualist or collectivist values; cultures are not all individualist or all collectivist, they are a mix of both. Different cultures produce different foci in memories, and each person has both components – individualist and collectivist – and can access them through primes or language triggers. Allocentrics (members of collectivist cultures) and idiocentrics (members of individualist cultures) show subtle differences in all aspects of daily life, communication preferences, professional behavior, negotiation styles, the way news is reported, and many other daily interactions, causing members of different cultures to prioritize different things in the same situation. For example, an allocentric prospective employer may place greater emphasis on letters of recommendation, whereas an idiocentric employer may pay more attention to a candidate’s internal attributes, such as beliefs and emotions, rather than input from others. In a similar vein, the same concept may be interpreted differently depending on cultural ideology; self-reliance, for instance, is valued in both types of cultures, however it has a different meaning in each.
23 Individualists think of it as being able to follow their dreams, whereas collectivists see it as not being a burden on their in-group. In this way, cultural differences shape the nature of the relationship between the self and others (Triandis, 2001).
Autobiographical memory skills develop in response to specific cultural task demands and habits. People living in different physical environments learn to use their world differently and have different input perception. For example, a culture like
Japanese, where much of social context is implied, focuses more on background contexts while Americans focus more on objects within a space. Thus, members of the two cultures experiencing the same scene are likely to attend to different aspects, and encode it differently in memory, demonstrating that ABM and perception are intimately related
(Ross & Wang, 2010).
Cultural differences also influence other areas of ABM content. While Europeans remember successes, failures, hopes and fears more, Asians remember relationships, school, and family interactions. Westerners have more memory specificity which reflects a unique, autonomous sense of self, and are more likely to visualize memories from personal perspective, whereas Easterners have more generic memories that feature social convention and relations as well as a higher likelihood to visualize from the perspective of others. Westerners recall the past in ways that support an unrealistically positive, preferred view of themselves, pushing failures subjectively further in the past and successes closer, however Asians are less likely to flatter their current selves, instead using memory to attain self-criticism and self-reflection (Conway & Jobson, 2012, p. 59-
65; Ross & Wang, 2010; Herlihy, Jobson & Turner, 2012; Wang, Shao, & Li, 2010).
Additionally, individualist members generally think in specific, detailed, self-focused life
24 episodes that they provide upon request, whereas collectivist members tend to provide a much more superficial, skeletal outline of events that focuses more on getting the “right answer” to transactional questions (Leightman, Wang, & Pillamer, 2003, p. 74-84).
There has been substantial ABM research under the collectivist/individualist framework. For example, Wang and Conway (2004) looked at ABM trends by type of culture, finding that when asked to recall memories from the personal past, Americans tended to produce agentive experiences and Chinese talked more about social and historical events that emphasized interactions. Ross and Wang (2010) found that even among individuals living in the same country, emotional impact of an event depends on cultural differences. They identified that European Americans put a retrospective gloss on the past, recalling mostly positive, happy memories, whereas Asian Americans have an equal balance of happy and sad memories (Ross & Wang, 2010). Oishi (2002) pointed out through daily experience reports in diary studies that while there were no actual differences in the level of on-line life satisfaction between individuals in the two types of cultures, the emotionality of remembered events diverged drastically. He also noted that European Americans tended to remember positive experiences more accurately and frequently than negative ones and showed more optimism of memory, while Asian
Americans tended to remember both positive and negative experiences equally (Oishi,
2002). These findings clearly show the effects of cultural socialization in overcoming the influences of the immediate physical environmental. To explain this discrepancy, Ross and Wang (2010) proposed that retrospective reports of emotions are driven by an individual’s values and goals. Western cultures hold personal happiness in much higher
25 regard than Eastern cultures, thus a difference in the qualities of memories is registered
(Ross & Wang, 2010).
ABM develops through both social language practices and the context of cultural values held in esteem by its members. Cultural models provide the “ideal self” that children begin to use as a comparative metric when evaluating their actual self (Nelson,
2003, p. 18-22). In teaching reminiscence, Western parents focus on the child, encouraging active participation and expression of feelings in reminiscence. They help children organize their narratives in ways that distinguish them from others. Eastern parents, on the other hand, tend to take a more authoritative approach, telling their child what they should think and feel about a given event with a focus on relational and group actions. In Eastern cultures, ABM serves a directive function to guide everyday decisions and improve their current selves; parents are more likely to use ABM to change mores, world views, behaviors, and draw on past wisdom. Children acquire the pattern they are socialized into, and by preschool are able to display it independently. For example, American preschoolers produce more autonomous narratives and personal preferences, whereas Chinese preschoolers discuss authority, social relationships and responsibilities (Herlihy, et al., 2012; Wang, et al., 2010; Ross & Wang, 2010; Fivush,
2012, p. 232-239; Leightman, et al., 2003, p. 74-84).
Use of memories for emotional regulation in families also differs by culture.
When talking to a child about a distressing event, a Western parent may identify how a child feels, discuss consequences of their emotional states, and provide reassurance.
Conversely, Eastern cultures emphasize negative effects of the child’s wrongdoing and encourage them to promote social harmony through emotional restraint; an Eastern parent
26 would define the event in terms of social conflict and use the conversation to resolve the conflict and emphasize the child’s proper role and appropriate behavior (Ross & Wang,
2010).
Culture also plays an instrumental role in aligning appropriate emotions to a given situation, which in turn, influences the way someone remembers an event. Leichtman,
Wang, and Pillemer (2003) showed that American children were better than Chinese children at rating emotions of a character in a way that matches with adult cultural responses, but interestingly, both groups rated negative emotions to have lower valence than situationally appropriate or positive emotions. In individualist cultures, this could be explained through subconscious self-enhancement to maintain positive self-regard, whereas collectivist cultures consider negative emotions to be dangerous because they may disrupt social relationships (p. 89-90).
ABM influences how an individual relates to others, makes decisions, and conceptualizes their self, all of which shape culture by input of what is good, bad, and normal. Since individualists aspire to be unique while collectivists seek to belong, individualist and collectivist cultures play a major role in socialization and reminiscence style (Conway and Jobson, 2012, p. 59-65). Learned cultural frameworks guide the content and style of remembering one’s autobiographical past, which then is used to create a self-narrative, the link between autobiographical memory and self-concept
(Fivush & Haden, 2003, p. vii).
27 2.2 Language
Language reflects the world, and it also has the power to shape the world; each culture that a language is associated with has its own unique way to present reality. The meaning gleaned from an experience is deeply dependent on the situation or context given to the event by the culture where the individual was raised or where she/he resides.
Even isolated words carry associations of the whole discourse history, enabling language to influence the context for interpretation, speaker position, and vantage point. Therefore as children learn language, they are learning it in a context-specific, socially-mediated way that gives them an inside perspective of their society and linguaculture (Schrauf &
Rubin, 2003, p. 132-134).
Language of encoding has been shown to become part of the memory trace itself, enabling privileged retrieval and associations with specific periods in an individual’s life.
Bilinguals have two sets of lexical and semantic components represented in memory that are encoded and accessed in two different languages (Schrauf & Rubin, 1998).
Immigrants also have co-existing sets of ABM representations at the conceptual level: one in their native language and one in their host language. Though ABM is recalled in a specific language, it can be reported in any language. Usually, the language of recall is the language of encoding, however in the event where language of recall and report do not match, inner speech mechanisms are used to translate the memory into the desired language (Larsen et al., 2002). Immigration involves acculturation and learning a new, sometimes dominant language, and since ABM is encoded mostly linguistically, old memories may no longer be triggered by the new environment, which requires greater cognitive acculturation effort (Isurin, 2017, p. 49).
28 Learning a second language provides a new cognitive system and schema with different ways of constructing the self and its relationship to the world. In bilinguals, hearing or speaking a different language activates perception of different cultural norms which guide behavior, affect expression of personality, and grant preferential access to relevant ABM. Languages may also influence cognitive styles to the point that an individual could align with individualist personality traits when speaking one language and collectivist traits when speaking another. These effects have been noted in studies related to self-identity, self-esteem, self-descriptions, cultural views, and patterns of memory retrieval; however there seems to be some disagreement in research about the expression of value and self-construal through language (Marian & Kushanskaya, 2004;
Wang, Shao, & Li, 2010; Chen & Bond, 2010; Nelson, 2003, p. 18-22).
The aforementioned phenomenon is called cultural frame switching; it refers to a bilingual’s subconscious cultural accommodation (via a shift of values and attributions) in the presence of culturally-relevant stimuli such as switching from one language to another. In other words, when bilinguals recount the same events in each of their languages, they cast themselves in different roles that reflect the cultures associated with those respective languages (Schrauf & Rubin, 2003, p. 121-124; Wang, 2004, as summarized in Pavlenko, 2014, p. 187, Wang et al 2010, summarized in Pavlenko 2014, p. 196). Many researchers have been able to trigger role or behavior shifts linguistically
(Marian & Kushanskaya 2004; Ozanska-Ponikwia, 2012; Chen & Bond, 2010; Ramirez-
Esparza et al, 2006). To illustrate, participants were rated as more agreeable when answering personality questions in Spanish rather than English (Ramirez Esparza, et al.,
2008) and Chinese speakers were more extroverted, open, and assertive when speaking
29 English (Chen & Bond, 2010). However, Ramirez-Esparza and Garcia-Sierra (2014) also noted that both personality and emotion changes exhibited in bilinguals telling the same story in their two languages could be attributed to a bilingual using language as a cultural prime to activate a cultural identity (Ramirez-Esparza and Garcia-Sierra, 2014, p. 46-52).
Bilinguals experience some life events in one language and some in another, which is especially true for immigrants. The match in context of both encoding and retrieval plays a role in making ABM not only more accessible in the language of origin, but also richer and more numerous (Marian and Neisser, 2000; Marian & Kushanskaya,
2004; Mortensen, Berntsen, & Bohn 2015; Schrauf & Rubin, 2000; Pavlenko, 2014, p.
191-200; Matsumoto & Stanny, 2006; Wang, Shao, & Li, 2010; Isurin, 2017, p. 50-51).
Memories where language congruency was maintained also had more intense affect
(Marian & Kushanskaya, 2004). Marian and Neisser (2000) explained language congruency by the association of specific words to the overall linguacultural ambiance: the language of mental activity at the time of encoding creates an internal context and facilitates mood-state dependent recall, thus reinstatement of an earlier linguistic environment produces increased recall (Marian & Neisser, 2000). However Marian and
Kushanskaya (2004) found that it is the physical cultural environment, not language, that is more important to the way memories are recalled. In interviews with 47 Russian-
English bilinguals, assessed in both of their languages, they found that regardless of the language of encoding, the language a bilingual was speaking at the time of retrieval prompted their cognitive style to align with an individualist or collectivist framework, influencing elicited narratives. Memories were more agentive and self-oriented when speaking English and more group-oriented when speaking Russian. The researchers
30 propose that ABM in bilinguals is mediated by the language spoken at any given time and that language functions as a vehicle for culture, and that cultural differences, in turn, drive variation in conceptualizations of the self in the same person (Marian &
Kushanskaya, 2004).
Multiple studies were also able to show that language grants preferential access to life periods, with the first language triggering earlier memories and shorter recall latencies in congruent retrieval (Marian & Kushanskaya, 2004; Mortensen, et al., 2015;
Matsumoto & Stanny, 2006; Wang, et al., 2010). However, Ross and Wang (2010) suggest that it is the cultural influence in ABM and the physical environment (rather than language) that shapes memories, self- views, schema, and perceived importance. They propose that culture has a bi-directional influence on memory; it shapes everything from language to perception, self-views and physical environment, and that these facets morph as one gains a second language and becomes acculturated to a new country (Ross &
Wang, 2010).
Language congruence in autobiographical reminiscence of bilinguals has also been noted in several other studies. Matsumoto and Stanny (2006) looked at language- dependent access to memories, finding that cuing in one’s first language (L1) yielded more and earlier memories (Matsumoto & Stanny, 2006; Mortensen, et al., 2015) and
Schrauf and Rubin (2000) noted that memories tended to be retrieved in the language of encoding. Altman, Schrauf, and Walters (2013) found more code switching (switching between languages mid-conversation among bilinguals) in crossover memories
(memories that were encoded in one language and retrieved in another) than memories that were encoded and retrieved in the same language, showing cognitive interference in
31 bilingual reminiscence. However, Schrauf and Rubin (1998) also examined autobiographical memory access in the bilingual’s two languages, but were unable to show a relationship between the language of encoding and the language of retrieval
(Schrauf & Rubin, 1998).
3. Summary
Who we are is defined by how we remember and reconstruct our past; individuals rely on canonical cultural narrative form for coherently representing their experience.
Narratives provide a chronological sequence for the teller and listener to place events on a timeline both internal to an event and within a larger temporal framework; they include evaluation of the narrator’s thoughts, feelings, causality, and meaning. While some narratives are just fun stories, many define the self, relationships, regulate emotions, and draw morals. Narratives provide a frame for understanding and evaluating human experience and bring personal meaning to events, carried through thematic and temporal coherence that links events to causes, motives, and consequences. Congruence with cultural concept also contributes to coherence. A mature autobiography is more than an assembly of unrelated memories, it shows how individuals understand their own development and meaning. ABM episodes are interwoven together into overarching life narratives that explain the course of life and create our sense of self (Fivush et al., 2011).
This chapter summarized key theoretical research in the field of autobiographical memory, explored maturational factors in how memory develops, and touched on the reminiscence bump. It also identified major sociocultural and linguistic influences that
32 contextualize personal memories. The next chapter will address identity construction, as it relates to ABM, revisionism, bilingual self-construal, and temporal self-perception.
.
33
Chapter 2: Identity and Autobiographical Memory
An identity is an internalized, unique, and evolving self-concept, which gives an individual psychological unity, purpose, and distinguishes him/ her from others. It can also help reconstruct the past, perceive the present, and anticipate the future. While the identity formation and negotiation rely heavily on autobiographical memory (ABM), it only takes selected memories and weaves them together to create coherence, meaning, and individuality (McAdams, 2003, p. 187). At the abstract level, personal identity integrates past behavior, social roles, skills, and attitudes across different situations to provide a sense of who we are. At a more specific level, it reflects concrete relationships with specific people (Berntsen & Rubin, 2012b, p. 337-342).
ABM is the story of our lives; the way we construct a coherent narrative that describes who we are. It helps locate and define the self within an ongoing life story, which is simultaneously oriented towards future goals (McAdams, 2003, p. 194-195).
Identity is the cornerstone of the study of autobiographical memory, forming a close, intimate, symbiotic link between our ‘self’ and our unique memories. Our self defines the way we remember the past, think about future, and live the present and at the same time the nature of one’s self is defined by autobiographical memories unique to that person (Isurin, 2017, p. 42-44). In constructing and recounting our past, we are simultaneously constructing and recounting ourselves; who we are is created through
34 autobiographical narratives, which are not just a means of telling someone else about ourselves, but a way to fashion our own identity (Fivush & Buckner, 2003, p. 149).
Cultural and linguistic factors play a particularly important role in both how life events are remembered and how they are drawn on to aid in identity construction (Wilson
& Ross, 2003); individuals create life narratives within sociocultural frameworks that define what is appropriate to remember, how to remember it and what it means to be a self with an autobiographical past. Narratives are also influenced by gender, class, ethnicity, religion, history, and sociology issues (Fivush & Haden, 2003, p. ii-viii).
Additionally, in the case of immigration, the process of adaptation to a new culture, career, social network, language, routine, and way of life affords immigrants the opportunity to renegotiate a new identity, goals, and attitudes that they feel fit them best in their new setting (Isurin, 2014; Birman, et al., 2010; Isurin, 2011 p. 129-133).
Through memories of the past as well as hopes and fears for the future, we consciously construct and reconstruct our self to meet the needs of situations we encounter; and by sharing our story, we are also discovering pieces of ourselves.
Memories may not be true to the word but they are true to the self; they are generally only partly what actually happened during the event, the other part is the individual’s perspective from the present. For example, by telling a story about our 12-year-old self, the story is shaped as much by what happened then as what has happened since then
(Bruner, 2003, p. 190-210; Fivush, 2012, p. 230-231). Using present to reconstruct the past helps people get support in past ABM for present beliefs and ideals, as well as promote stability in the self over time (Cameron, et al., 2004, p. 207-222).
35 The previous chapter presented a thorough overview of several important ABM topics, such as how it changes throughout an individual’s lifetime, the effects of culture and language on ABM, a highlight of the collectivist and individualist distinction, and some immigration considerations. This chapter will first discuss the close relationship between our personal memories and the conceptualization of our identity, followed by identity-related maturational considerations. Afterwards, it will conduct an in-depth discussion of the role of culture in identity formation, paying particular attention to cultural and linguistic self-construal factors cogent for immigrants and the phenomenon of cultural frame switching in bilinguals. The chapter will close with a detailed overview of revisionism in both the self and ABM, addressing the evolving nature of both, temporal self-perception, and exploring studies of self-revision considerations in immigrants.
1. The Relationship between autobiographical memory (ABM) and identity
Our unique memories and our self are interdependent, entwined structures that link our past, present, and future in a continuous story of who we are and how we see the world (Isurin, 2017, p. 42-44; Howe, 2004, p.44-47; Conway & Jobson, 2012, p. 59-65).
Both goals and self-knowledge act as control processes and sources for regulation of memory (Knez, 2014; Conway & Pleydell-Pearce, 2000). While there is a lack of concurrence in the field of identity as to what the key elements for defining the self are, it is widely agreed that the self and ABM are related; personal memory is not only a record, but a resource for insight into the self. The two interlace to form the core of the human experience, with ABM providing information about our own lives so we could make
36 judgements about personalities and behaviors as well as maintain a sense of identity and continuity (Beike, et al., 2004, p. 5-8).
Our identity is at least partly socially constructed: as we share personal stories with others, we reconstruct and redefine both our experiences and our self (Fivush, 2004, p. 75). ABM serves as an experiential foundation for the self, performs social functions, and directs current and future behavior. It is modulated by factual autobiographical knowledge with the assistance of schemas, scripts, values, attitudes, and beliefs (Knez,
2014; Conway & Pleydell-Pearce, 2000). An individual can have more than one identity domain, and each is context-dependent (gender, ethnicity, language, ability, etc.).
Different memories are included in different contexts, and shared discriminately, depending on the interlocutor (Fitzgerald & Broadbridge, 2012, p. 259).
There is an integrated process of identity building through ABM. As people accumulate life experiences, they create autobiographical memories. Autobiographical memories pertinent to critical life goals fall into a special category of life story memories, and when linked with enduring concerns become self-defining memories. Groups of self- defining memories that share emotion-outcome themes generate templates, which help filter cognitive-affective processing. Repetitive linking of associated scenes helps develop a script, or a mental shortcut for predicting, interpreting, responding to, and controlling a magnified set of scenes; there may be a common theme connecting multiple scripts (Singer, et al., 2013). Thus, the autobiographical memories people recall play a crucial role in maintenance of self-continuity and construction of personal identity
(Demiray & Bluck, 2011; Wilson & Ross, 2003).
37 2. Maturation and identity
As mentioned in the previous chapter, the two pivotal cognitive leaps in ABM and identity formation occur during childhood and adolescence, with childhood being a time when individuals begin to compile their story, and adolescence being the time when they assemble and prioritize the various parts to form a coherent whole of an identity.
McAdams (2003) elaborates that while life story making and telling within relevant cultural patterns starts in childhood, actual identity does not begin to form until adolescence, when people start to realize that they can prioritize several different directions in their identity construction to align with their values, beliefs, and personal ideologies. The role of ABM in this process is to help define the self in an ongoing life story and orient towards future goals. To those ends, vivid, affectively charged, thematically repetitive memories generally occupy a more prominent place in a life story than pedestrian ones (McAdams, 2003, p. 188-194).
The prerequisites to the creation of subjective perspective are a representation of self, an understanding that the self has internal states (beliefs, emotions, and desires), and that others have internal states that may be same or different than your own. Babies start developing intersubjectivity from birth, with looking where people point, mirror self- recognition, and others taking toys away; as they grow up, they also develop subjective perspective across time. Children learn that internal states persist or evolve over time, that a person’s position on an issue may change over time, and that other people have dynamic mental states that may be different from their own. Parents who scaffold emotional discussion help their children develop theory of mind faster and better express their emotions, even with strangers (Fivush, 2012, p. 232-239).
38 Children make big cognitive leaps between two and six years of age; once children have the ability to hold an image of themselves in their mind, they can explore the self and subsequent changes. While toddlers and preschoolers can recognize themselves in real time, they could not recognize their selves in delayed video recordings.
This means that young children were able to recognized ‘me’ (the object) but had trouble connecting it to ‘I’ (the agent) until about four years of age, which aligns with the age of emergence of ABM. Children do not see themselves in time or differentiate past versus present until four or five years of age. Around that time they develop narrative self- understanding, which integrates action and consciousness into a whole sense of self and a unique self-history. Incidentally, the understanding of cultural framework also emerges around five to seven years of age (Nelson, 2003, p. 3-13; Barth, Povinelli, & Cant, 2004, p. 23).
Identity becomes a consideration when adolescents start to realize that they can take many possible (and sometimes mutually exclusive) paths, but feel societal pressure to integrate their potential selves into one coherent identity. Whereas younger children do not feel the urge to arrange ‘me’ into a unified purposeful whole, late teens and young adults do. In Western societies, adolescence and young adulthood is considered to be the right time to take stock of the world and of the self and try to find a niche. It forces adolescents to start exploring options and making tentative commitments to niches in the adult world, and through continued self-reflection, an individual begins to coordinate all the abstract niches into one (McAdams, 2003, p. 188-190; McAdams, 2004, p. 96-101).
This self-exploration also enables young adults to mentally organize their lives into self-defining stories, which start off incremental and uneven, but eventually smooth
39 out the inconsistencies. These efforts mold their past ABM into an internalized evolving story of self that provides synchronic and diachronic integration to explain personality, behavior, and thoughts (McAdams, 2003, p. 188-190; McAdams, 2004, p. 96-101). In sharing self-defining memories, (typically unique, one-time events which become instrumental in identity formation) adolescents confirm and strengthen their insights about their self. As adolescents start to create life narratives, they have to select personally-salient themes, which are usually generated by transitions, choices, and turning points (Fivush et al., 2011).
3. Role of culture in identity negotiation
Social and cultural context defines how life should be lived via cultural life scripts, or culturally-shared expectations about when things should happen. Cultural scripts do more than just reflect life, they predict and enforce (with a fair amount of stability within culture) which events will be self-defining. Society outlines its expectations for its in-group members of when major life events should occur and demands an explanation of deviations (Fivush,et al., 2011); so in effect, construction of life stories is always a social enterprise because an individual’s family, friends, and community influence self-making. The resulting memories mirror the culture where they were made and told as well as grant social and political power (Fivush, et al., 2011;
McAdams, 2003, p. 200-202).
ABM is motivated by the goals of the conceptual self to shape information in culturally appropriate ways (Conway& Jobson, 2012, p. 59-65); in fact, language and culture play a critical role in developing culturally prescribed forms for organizing events
40 (through canonical linguistic frameworks) that link ABM and self-concept. Individuals use subjective evaluation to make thematic links through spatially and temporally- separated events, to create meanings within the contents of their narrative (Fivush &
Haden, 2003, p. ii-viii; McAdams, 2004, p. 96-112). Fivush and her colleagues (2011) elaborate that culture provides the organizational and evaluative frameworks for narrating the lives of its members (canon, life scripts, master narratives) and shapes how individuals narrate their personal experience. Thus, the construction of a life story narrative is influenced by cultural frameworks for understanding what a self is and what it means to remember one’s past (Fivush, et al., 2011).
Bruner (2003) highlights the important contribution of both internal and external environmental factors in the construction of a self-narrative. He explains that in addition to establishing our own uniqueness, self-making is guided by implicit cultural models.
Internal factors are partially innate and include memories, feelings, ideas, beliefs, and subjectivity. Some examples of external factors are esteem of others, and cultural expectations. In telling others about ourselves, we remain mindful of what we think our interlocutor’s expectations of us are and tend to tailor our narrative to the socially appropriate parameters. Interestingly, we tend to follow these guidelines even when rehearsing our own story privately in inner speech (Bruner, 2003, p. 210-211).
The individualist-collectivist framework (see Chapter 1) presents a great example of how cultural concepts of selfhood influence the accessibility and perceived importance of ABM. By the same token, ABM also influences the conceptualization of the self.
ABM affects how individuals relate to others, make decisions, and visualize their self -- all of which shape culture by input about acceptability and timeliness of personal events.
41 The goal of an individualist self is to be unique while the goal of collectivist self is to belong (Conway & Jobson, 2012, p. 59-65). To those ends, collectivist normative self- construal teaches that each person has a social network, social roles, and expectations.
Members do not seek differentiation and their sense of self comes from performing those roles. Conversely, individualist self-construal teaches that each person has a collection of individual attributes that makes them unique and that they should cultivate and express individuality. Furthermore, in Western cultures construction of accounts of one’s unique experiences is important in achieving personal goals, whereas in Eastern cultures self- focused memories are viewed as immodest, and memory is instead used to teach morals and reinforce group goals (Leichtman, et al., 2003, p 86). Research has been able to manipulate language and context cues to draw out how the self changes in different frames of mind, showing sizeable collectivist or individualist influence on changes in memories and identity perception (Isurin, 2017, p. 50).
4. Bilingual considerations in self-construal and cultural frame switching
Identity and affiliations, play a crucial role in how humans justify the present sense of themselves (Demiray & Bluck 2011; Wilson & Ross 2003; Conway & Pleydell-
Pearce, 2000; Conway, et al., 2005). Schrauf and Rubin (2003) equate bilingual- biculturals 1(in this case synonymous with immigrants) to living in two worlds and being a different person in each. They explain that immigrants do not belong to any one culture, they have two distinct sets of mental organizations, encodings, and retrievals;
1 While these data are especially applicable to immigrants, they may also pertain to non-immigrants carrying more than one language or culture. Thus mention of the nouns ‘bilingual’ or ‘bicultural’ in this section will be used interchangeably with the term ‘immigrant’. 42 essentially that they have two different conceptualizations of the self and of the world; one in each language. Furthermore, that a bilingual’s experience simultaneously takes place in two cultural contexts, giving meaning through each linguacultural world.
Autobiographical memory preserves all the micro contexts (sounds, sights, emotions), which is critical, because the context in which an event is encoded will dictate how it will be remembered later. The language bilinguals are speaking reflects different cultural roles they perceive themselves to have in that culture, and even the meaning of the same sentence is deeply dependent on the situation or context (Schrauf & Rubin, 2003, p. 124-
140). Noels and Clement (2015) similarly add that identity is actually fairly multidimensional, with both stable and variable aspects. Immigrants engage with at least two ethnic groups, their heritage group and the mainstream host society. Ethnic identity is more salient when immigrants are in their heritage group or using their heritage language. Some immigrants choose one identity over another and some embrace or reject both (Noels & Clement, 2015).
Language gives stability to the human experience, developing, expressing, and reconstructing the self through narrative. It serves as a cultural prime that influences values, self-concept, relationality, and cognition of the speaker (Nelson, 2003, p. 18-22).
Language also has a profound influence on ABM and identity construction and has the power to shape its sphere of influence through a unique cultural perspective of reality
(Schrauf & Rubin, 2003, p. 121-140). When children learn language, they are learning it in a context-specific, socially mediated way that gives them an emic perspective of their specific linguacultural world. Similarly, immigrants learning a second language also learn a new cognitive system and schema with different ways of constructing the self and
43 its relationship to their new world. A fully assimilated immigrant is one who possesses both communicative and cultural competence in both of their cultures and languages, with dual associational networks of meaning in both sociocultural worlds, where language is not a just code (though it could be reduced to one), but a linguaculture. The language immigrants are speaking at any given time reflects distinct cultural roles they perceive themselves to have in that culture, making their speech acts reflections of the social identity that they wish to effect (Schrauf & Rubin, 2003, p. 121-140).
To further this point, Pavlenko (2014), in her discussion of a bilingual’s systems of coherence, points out that bilingual participants cast themselves in a different role as they retell the same story in their two languages and emphasizes that one language may better access a bilingual’s true identity than another (Pavlenko, 2014, p. 216-218, 267).
This cultural frame switch has been reliably evidenced in multiple studies. For example, through a series of four studies, Ramirez-Esparza et al. (2006) explored the language- culture relationship in bilingual cultural frame switching, finding that individuals displayed strong differences in personality tendencies in each of their languages. Their data also indicate that for most traits, individual personality characteristics of a bilingual while speaking a specific language align with the monolingual community that uses that language (Ramierz-Esparza et al., 2006).
Wang, Shao, and Li (2010) corroborated this conclusion, finding that self- descriptions and self-reported personal values of children in Hong Kong depended on whether they were speaking Chinese or English during the interview. In Chinese, children came up with more family focused descriptions and collectivist values, whereas interviews in English yielded longer, more self-focused narratives and a preference for
44 individualist values (Wang, et al., 2010). Marian and Kushanskaya’s (2004) research also indicated coexistence of multiple frames and self-schemas in the same person. They highlighted the role of language in negotiating the two identities, suggesting that a bilingual’s self is an amalgam of both cultures (Marian & Kushanskaya, 2004).
Similarly, Ramirez-Esparza and Garcia-Sierra (2014) noted that both personality and emotion changes exhibited in bilinguals telling the same story in their two languages could be attributed to a bilingual using language as a cultural prime to activate a cultural identity (Ramirez-Esparza & Garcia-Sierra, 2014, p. 46-52).
Chen and Bond (2010) attempted to separate effects of language and culture on personality of bilinguals by investigating how bilinguals view their own personality traits compared to the prototypical cultural traits. Though distinct personality differences between a bilingual’s two languages were observed, the researchers were unable to tease apart whether language, culture or social roles influenced the change, concluding that the personality shift is a function of social roles across languages. Their research also examined the role ethnicity plays in the perception of others, finding that the ethnicity of the interlocutor alone was sufficient to trigger perceivable personality differences in the demeanor of bilingual participants, clearly demonstrating cultural frame switching and cultural accommodation (Chen & Bond, 2010). It is possible that only self-presentation
(not self-concept) is affected by language, but the distinction between the two is blurry
(Marian & Kushanskaya, 2004).
45 5. Revisionism and temporal self-perception
As mentioned earlier, our autobiographical memories are linked tightly to our sense of self, which is an ever-evolving concept we constantly renegotiate in the construction of our identity. Thus our personal memories are continuously reconstructed to better fit our current self. ABM is influenced by self-conceptualization at the time an event occurred, the evolution of our self over time, and our sense of self at the time of retrieval. However, it is important to remember that neither memory nor the self is a static system, both change between encoding and recall, and ABM is not a reliable, passive recorder. Rather than being an objective reflection of events as they actually happened, it is a reconstructed version, filtered by current goals, motives, and theories.
So in effect, while remembering, individuals are not retrieving factual events from the past, but are reconstructing the memory filtered through their needs, wishes, and aspirations related to the current situation. Existing ABM is reorganized and changed as individuals gain new experiences and knowledge; even false memories that are constrained by our self-concept could appear authentic and believable. With that in mind, Isurin (2017) maintains that autobiographical memory and identity must be examined in the context of the sociocultural setting where the memory was initially encoded (Isurin, 2017, p. 46-48; Wilson & Ross, 2003, Chapter 1).
Recollections of past events are consistent with an individual’s current self-views, guided by the stipulation that the current self should be better than a former self.
Reactions to a former self are dictated by subjective temporal distance, or how far away an individual feels from their past selves. It is possible to feel close to a past self from 10 years ago but far from a past self from one year ago. In fact, the subjective perception of
46 closeness of past selves is more important than actual closeness; not only does recent success or failure have the greatest impact on one’s self views, but one’s opinion of their own dominance (subjective feeling of being better at something) over others also increases with recency (Ross & Wilson, 2003, Cameron, et al., 2004, p. 207-222).
There are several interesting trends in temporal self-appraisal that appear consistently throughout research. Individuals tend to create more subjective distance between negative events and the current self, even if actual temporal distance between a positive and a negative event is the same. They also evaluate recent past selves more favorably than distant selves, especially on important attributes, and judge themselves to be continuously improving, at a greater rate than their peers. However, the subjective sense of improvement is frequently exaggerated to create a perception of an enhanced improvement trajectory, whether it is accurate or not. This tendency could be motivated by either self-enhancement or subjective temporal distance between positive and negative memories: as a subconscious protective measure to maintain a more positive current self, individuals attribute failure to inferior former selves, but claim credit for past successes in the present (Ross & Wilson, 2003, Cameron, et al., 2004, p. 207-222).
Change over time represents a threat to self-consistency, and constructing personal narratives to explain and justify the changes not only enables individuals to maintain temporal coherence, but also to achieve a sense of growth and improvement over time. Wilson and Ross (2003) explain that ABM serves the identity function by enhancing individual feelings of consistency over time, which causes individuals to subconsciously align reconstruction of past memories with their present self-views. In an oversimplified explanation of this process, an individual evaluates their present situation,
47 judging whether there is a reason for their views to have shifted over time, and if their views are determined to be stable, their conceptual self constructs the memory of the past reflected on views of the present. However if they determine their views have indeed shifted, they will retrospectively revise the memory in a manner that presents their current self as an improvement over their past self (Wilson & Ross, 2003; Ross &
Wilson, 2003; Ritchie, et al., 2014). Since immigrants undergo such a pronounced life change, this tendency may be especially relevant in the way they remember their past
(Schrauf & Hoffman, 2007).
It is psychologically advantageous to manipulate the past self rather than the present self because the present is constrained by societal objectivity metrics, and an accurate self-picture in the present allows for better social function. An improvement trajectory, however, can be achieved through disparaging the past self to make the present self appear to be improved (Wilson & Ross, 2003; Ross & Wilson, 2003; Ritchie, et al., 2014). Interestingly, Wilson and Ross (2003) point out that the happiest adults are the ones who had a somewhat unhappy childhood, because it allows for comparative sense of improvement (Wilson & Ross, 2003).
As established, people reconstruct their past based on their current knowledge, using excerpts they possess in memory combined with their present-day understanding of their self and their social world. When an individual’s self-understanding changes, the way they assemble their memory puzzle may also change (Cameron, et al., 2004, p. 207-
222). Distortion happens in all memories, but for life stories, it usually affects selection of interpretation rather than distortion of historical facts (McAdams, 2004, p. 105).
However, even though past episodes are reconstructed to justify and enhance the present
48 self, reconstruction does not necessarily mean that a memory is inaccurate. It may simply be approached from a new vantage point (Cameron, et al., 2004, p. 207-208).
5.1 Self-revision in immigrant populations
Immigrants present a particularly interesting case for self-revision. They arrive in a new country where they must learn an entirely new culture, language, and environment, as well as assimilate into a new career, social network, and system of social norms. This forces an individual to assimilate into two different socialization systems, that may be at odds with one another. While this type of a situation affords newcomers an opportunity to negotiate a new identity in a new country (Isurin, 2014; Birman, et al., 2010; Isurin,
2011 p. 129-133; Isurin, 2017, p. 47-51), it also mandates them to prioritize their goals and reconcile their former identity with a new one.
When people revise past ABM, it is in terms of their current situation and beliefs about change, which may influence how immigrants remember their past. The natural tendency is to align past appraisals of emotional events with current appraisals of self to achieve a feeling of consistency over time, however if an individual believes that present conditions should be different form past, they will show the past more at variance with the present than it actually was. This may cause immigrants to rate pre-migration past more negatively than it actually was or than current conditions are, whether that is the case or not (Schrauf & Hoffman, 2007). Additionally, meaningful transitions such as immigration might increase subjective distance between pre-transition selves. Just like visiting familiar places from the past or reunions with old friends creates nostalgia and subjective closeness, people who remember the process of immigration or change well
49 feel more distant from an old self than those who do not (Ross & Wilson, 2003; Wilson
& Ross, 2003).
In their study on revisionism in remembered emotion, Schrauf and Hoffman
(2007) compared the emotionality and positivity of memories in immigrants who left their homeland as a result of economic hardship and non-immigrants who remained in their homeland despite impoverished conditions. The study examined emotionality of native-country ABM in both groups, finding that both groups had fading affect bias
(greater fading of negative emotion than positive over time) and positivity bias
(preferential recall for positive emotions), however despite the hardships of immigration, immigrants remodeled childhood and youth more negatively than non-immigrants. The authors concluded that the hardships that triggered an individual to emigrate from a long- established home would likely cause the person to prefer a chosen present over a negatively-viewed past. They also noted that immigrants’ memories before immigration were rated as less significant than those after, and less significant than those of the non- immigrant groups, demonstrating normalization, or attempts to diminish feelings of intensity for a painful past (Schrauf & Hoffman, 2007). Isurin (2017) explains that immigrants leaving their homeland may have pushed ABM of home country events much further down the temporal line than those who stayed. As a result of re-establishing themselves in their adopted country, immigrants construct a new identity and may view themselves with a new sense of accomplishment in a new land (Isurin, 2017, p. 47-51).
Another powerful example of immigration-related reconstruction is a study by
Rapaport, et al. (2002), which investigated how memories of past experience of discrimination informed immigrant identity construction within the host society. The
50 researchers examined how Jews from the former Soviet Union, a highly persecuted group, reconstructed their anti-Semitic experiences of discrimination after immigration, finding that the vast majority of immigrants in this demographic group reconstructed their autobiographical memory to agentively whitewash the discrimination they experienced out of their life narrative and self-concept. The most common normalizing strategies used were obscuring (“I’m not sure that was anti-Semitism”), self-exclusion (“It happened to others, but I was lucky”), vindication (“The perpetrators just don’t know any better, it’s not their fault”), and essentialized stigma (“I can’t get away from my nationality”). Rappaport and his colleagues (2002) posit that by portraying difficult past experiences as relatively insignificant, secondary events, individuals subconsciously attempted to remove themselves from a role of a victim and actively reshape their memories and identities. Thus, through deciding to highlight or normalize a negative past, immigrants took an active role in shaping their identity based on their goals
(Rapaport,et al., 2002).
6. Summary
There is a tight, bi-directional link between our self and our unique memories; our self drives the way we recollect our past, think about future, and make decisions in the present, while at the same time, the nature of our self is defined by our autobiographical memories. Essentially, we are what we remember (Isurin, 2017, p. 42-44; Howe, 2004, p.44-47; Conway & Jobson, 2012, p. 59-65). Since humans derive meaning from events through narrative, in constructing and recounting our past, we are simultaneously constructing and recounting ourselves. However autobiographical narratives are not just
51 a means of telling someone else about ourselves, they are a way to fashion our own identity. Looking at individuals’ autobiographical narratives (what they choose to tell, supporting evidence, how they view themselves) provides a window into how they construct their identity. Narratives are a living evolving thing, both developmentally and situationally, and it is possible to look not only at the highlighted content but also to derive from it trends about current self-goals (Fivush & Buckner, 2003, p. 149).
A bidirectional relationship between identity and ABM is the way individuals create a sense of self as continuous and coherent in time with a past that explains the present and projects into future in a social context. Furthermore, ABM helps the self integrate multifaceted thoughts, emotions, evaluations, explanations, and motivations to comprise a meaningful life story. It is structured to facilitate subjective reflection to make sense of life, which is critical to identity development (Fivush, et al., 2011). ABM is fundamental for the self, emotions, an overall experience of personhood, and for enduring as an individual in culture over time (Conway & Pleydell-Pearce, 2000).
Altogether, the self and ABM remain a fluid, continuous, self-correcting system driven by the rememberer’s goals (McAdams, 2003, p. 190-195), and changing in accordance with the needs of the present self (Wilson & Ross, 2003). The sociocultural self influences how an individual will remember their own experience and uses language as a symbolic representation of culture. In fact, the way people talk about themselves and their personal experiences affects how they will remember events, with the past continuously rewritten to accommodate self-construal and memory. Essentially, self- construal influences (and is at the same time influenced by) how individuals tell stories, both mediated by language and culture (Marian & Kushanskaya, 2004).
52 The present draws on the past selectively; memory is anchored in the past, but reflects current needs. For immigrants starting anew, revisionism affords an opportunity to construct a new identity based on their new goals, resulting in (sometimes) drastic alterations to their pre-immigration memories; as immigrants construct themselves in their new country, they can choose the reconstruction they want to present based on their goals (Rapaport, Lomsky-Feder, & Heider, 2002). Revising memories enables immigrants to reinvent themselves as a new, more accomplished people in their new country (Isurin, 2017, p. 47-51), however reconstruction does not necessarily indicate a lack of accuracy of memory, but possibly change in interpretation as a result of new experiences (Cameron, et al., 2004, p. 207-208).
This chapter addressed important considerations in identity construction, linking them to autobiographical memory. The next chapter will discuss how parental sharing of memories influences the identity construction of their children, specifically focusing on this process in immigrant populations.
53
Chapter 3: Intergenerational Transmission of Memories
Stories connect people - binding them together in communities and provide the basis for answering experiential questions about life and ideology. They are not just how we make sense of the world around us, but how we communicate that understanding to each other. All families have stories to tell that define and shape them, fostering common values and creating a link between members. Knowing those stories creates meaning that goes beyond an individual to establish a sense of self through time in relation to family, provides larger context for dealing with life experiences, creates the intergenerational self, and grounds an individual (Driessnack, 2017). Telling stories about who we are is an essential cultural skill that serves self-defining, social bonding, and directive functions
(Fivush, et al., 2011). In fact, it is believed that intergenerational transmission of memories (familial memories parents share with their children as they are growing up) is one of the major mechanisms of cultural continuity (Nauck, 2001).
Families reminisce frequently; research shows that the past (including family stories) comes up approximately 12 times an hour and that 12% of dinner table conversation involves family history stories. Even babies are told stories about their parents and grandparents from birth, integrating the infant into an ongoing family narrative. These familial reminiscence experiences are culturally dependent, becoming a part of daily life before a child is old enough to remember or fully understand them, and focusing not just on the child, but on the whole family (Fivush, et al., 2011). Children 54 also receive exposure to cultural artifacts from the first days of life, through books, media, family interactions, and event participation. Though they initially do not understand the significance of the input, the frequency of exposure signals the cultural artifacts as important (Fivush, 2012, p. 228-229).
Parent-child narratives are instrumental in transmitting cultural values, which are reflected in discourse style, authority indoctrination, content, purpose, and length of a narrative (Shulova-Piryatinsky & Harkins, 2009); they also provide models for a child to analyze their own experience and use their brain to make sense of their world
(Driessnack, 2017). However, stories that were not personally experienced can still provide frameworks to understand personal experiences, especially when they are family stories (Fivush, et al., 2011). Age of the child drives content and internalization of parental memories; for instance, in childhood parents scaffold memory construction and selection of meaningful memory content, while in adolescence the amassed memories are organized into a coherent whole of a personal identity. Family stories are critical to this process, as they enable an individual to anchor their identity into their ancestral heritage and culture (Fivush, et al., 2011).
Gender is also an extremely important component which is not only central to parent-child interactions, but affects how individuals perceive and interpret their world.
Parents react differently (both physically and emotionally) to children of opposite genders, thus family dynamics directly influences gender development. Family stories parents tell their children also display these differences, highlighting values and salient identity lessons to socialize gender-appropriate roles and perspectives. Unique impact of
55 gendered storytelling can be observed through both the gender of the storyteller and that of the audience (Taylor, et al., 2013).
There are many factors that contribute to the development of a young person’s identity. This chapter will build upon the foundation provided in the previous chapters on autobiographical memory (ABM) and identity to discuss the influences of intergenerational transmission of parental memories and cultural socialization on the development of the self-concept of their child. To those ends, this chapter will address the goals and functions of memory sharing in families and cross-generational family identity construction via memories. It will also discuss in depth the effects of age and gender on memory sharing and identity development, during two highly formative times when identity building and memory intersect: childhood and adolescence. Finally, this chapter will close with a brief discussion of immigrant considerations (such as parental cultural capital and interactions) and the role they play in helping shape a child’s identity.
1. Goals of intergenerational transmission (IT)
Family storytelling is a multidimensional and multifunctional discursive practice used by elders to socialize children into a culture and convey powerful, often long- remembered messages. Thematic content, structure, and topic reflect the caregiver’s socialization goals to teach the child desired values, behaviors, and lessons; they also serve to deepen the affective connection through a discussion of common experiences.
Stories differ by gender, age, and other demographic attributes of both teller and recipient
(Raffelli, et al., 2017), and the meaning created by familial memory sharing helps in the
56 creation of an intergenerational self, an expanded sense of self that goes beyond an individual to create a sense of self through time, in relation to family. An intergenerational sense of self helps children understand life experiences, feel connected to their ancestors, gain a sense of being a part of something larger than themselves, increase the likelihood of them finding ‘home,’ and successfully negotiate challenges
(Driessnack, 2017).
Family stories have many of same elements as fictional stories, except they are structured and organized for the listener, usually by an older family member, and have similar functions as ABM: to teach, explain, promote psychological states, and enhance closeness. They generally depict features that are integrated into the schema used for perceiving or interpreting the social world, such as normative themes or breaches of canon (McKeough & Malcom, 2010).
One of the ways cultures attribute meaning to experience is through stories that examine cultural models of human actions and intentions. They help people order life events into meaningful experiences, define purpose, connect with others, and form identities. Stories not only help us understand intentions and motivations of others, but also our own actions, desires, and wishes; they enable us to construct culturally shaped narratives that give meaning to events in our own lives (McKeough & Malcom, 2010).
Furthermore, in reminiscing with others, we create memories that are simultaneously personal and social, individual and collective (shared by a group of people, passed from one generation to the next). Family stories contribute to self-discovery in a way that is broader than just group identity; they are a means for parents to explain to children the details of an event and help them evaluate it in a personally-relevant way, which fosters
57 the beginnings of personal identity development. The details parents choose to include or omit in their storytelling impact how much a story will help youth understand their self and their world; it could even be said that the mental constructs one uses to interpret the world may stem from values and beliefs highlighted in family stories (Taylor, et al.,
2013).
However, the way a family uses stories to influence the younger generation is just as informative as the content of the narrative itself. Though these stories can be just recreational, most have greater purpose, such as to help adolescents construct a concept of themselves, learn about their families, aid in maintaining relationships, or teach important behaviors. They also serve to transmit important themes (such as intimacy, power, and responsibility), establish boundaries, teach morals, create links between generations, and build group and individual identities. The function of a story reflects its genre: for example, courtship stories teach relationships, struggle stories teach emotions or hardship management, and creation (birth) stories teach how the child fits into the family. Interestingly, hearing birth stories actually helps children begin to form a self- concept and an identity (Taylor, et al., 2013). Sharing and remembering family stories is important for cognitive and psychological functions, such as emotional regulation, self- esteem, problem-solving, anxiety reduction, better school performance, and better interpersonal relationships (Svob & Brown, 2012).
These narratives enable both the teller and the listener of a story to bypass simple linear thinking to access whole brain learning, because they help activate multiple areas of the brain (i.e., facts, motor, sensory, language) simultaneously. When an individual shares their stories, they are not just letting someone else into their world by sharing 58 things that give their life meaning, but also providing an organizational framework for understanding the message. The teller had to have organized and made sense of the experience beforehand to offer connections that enable the listener to link their mind map to the teller’s. In a matter of speaking, the teller extends a welcome to the listener, to share the experience and make their own connections (Driessnack, 2017).
2. Family identity building through memory-sharing
Identity is comprised of a combination of internal and external knowledge about oneself, with some of that knowledge generated through the lens of others. It includes values and attitudes, internal understandings of personal identity as well as external behaviors. The environment that contributes to identity may inform things such as personality, society, individual strengths and weaknesses. Interestingly, the clearest depiction of family-unique identity is described in family stories passed down through generations; these stories are reflections of values and ideals that the family holds in esteem. Family stories connect the younger generations with their historical roots by linking individual identity with the collective identity of their culture and family. With that said, a person is shaped by familial notions of group identity whether they engage in collaborative memory sharing with their family or not, especially on identity parameters that exist beyond reach of measurement (Taylor, et al., 2013).
Components of autobiographical and collective memory are actually heavily intertwined; historical knowledge is vicariously absorbed by children and is transmitted across generations, even when children are removed from historical events by time, space, and culture (Isurin, 2017, p. 40-56). In fact, the way children understand and
59 remember their parents’ experiences gives insight into how history is understood and transmitted. This is especially salient for those parents who had experienced living in history effect (tendency for people who have undergone major collective transitions to make frequent references to it) where the child had not (Svob & Brown, 2012).
However, it is important to keep in mind that personal memories are different from cross- generational memories in terms of encoding, decoding, and transmission; lived-through events are remembered better and contain greater recency effects and reminiscence bumps2 (Isurin, 2017, p. 57).
Most family stories feature one’s ancestors as primary characters and the plotline is centered on a specific event with a dramatic or comedic component. Family protagonists help children make connection to the story and provide insight into personal and emotional lives of their ancestors. Similarly, telling stories enables older generations to impart wisdom and family values to developing young adults. In this way, sharing of family stories forms vital connections between grandparents and grandchildren
(Driessnack, 2017). Unsurprisingly, grandparents most often play the central figures in family narratives, possibly be due to a desire to honor ancestors, a need to draw personal connections with past generations, or a desire to explore the family legacy. However, research on the impact of grandparent stories on young adults shows that grandparent stories had more impact on attitudes and values rather than behaviors and identity
(Taylor, et al., 2013).
2 Recency effect is the preferential recall for events that happened recently and the reminiscence bump is a disproportionately large number of memories between the ages of 13 and 30. It is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 1.
60 Even though the lifespan and themes of individual stories vary, they all give insight into how the group constructs and maintains social relationships; and while a story may only last a few generations, its impact can indirectly influence many generations after that (Taylor, et al., 2013).
3. Age effects in intergenerational transmission
As discussed previously, the two pivotal cognitive leaps in ABM and identity formation occur during childhood and adolescence, with childhood being a time when individuals begin to compile their story, and adolescence being the time when they assemble and prioritize the various parts to form a coherent whole of an identity
(McAdams, 2003, p. 188-194, Chapter 1, Chapter 2). Since ABM narrating connects an individual’s self with their family, community, and culture, memory-sharing has a very important function during both of these milestones. More specifically, parents begin to actively scaffold children’s ability to narrate their own past as early as 16 months of age using elaborative questions, and in adolescence, young adults rely on cultural scripts and master narratives acquired through every day interaction as well as draw on stories about parental and family history to construct the content and structure of their own identity
(Fivush, et al. 2011).
3.1 Age effects in childhood
Parent-child conversation provides critical opportunities for children to make sense of and remember their experience. Since remembering an event begins with
61 understanding it, how a person initially makes sense of an event is very important.
Parent-child conversation about an event as it occurs draws attention to meaningful aspects and helps interpret the nuances, affecting what is remembered and how. Parental discussion of mutual experiences also helps elicit meaningful, causal, and temporal connections that may not have been obvious or understood fully without assistance. This enables children to learn not just how to tell their story, but influences how they remember and understand themselves across time and their relationships with others. It also prompts them to attend to things that they discuss with parents, encoding richer, interconnected, personally meaningful memories that are useful for constructing a self- narrative (Haden, 2003, p. 50-65; Fivush & Haden, 2003, p. viii; Fivush, et al., 2011).
During co-reminiscence, parents teach their children that sharing their past is an important social activity, that there are certain culturally-relevant ways to tell their story, and urge children to practice sharing their experiences via everyday conversation. In this way, language and narrative play a critical role in development of ABM. Differences could be seen in the way children as young as three years of age narrate, evaluate events, express emotion, and focus on similar aspects of experience. Children’s reminiscence style reflects the parental example, maintaining a constant trajectory as the child ages.
Consequently, children whose mothers focus on constructing meaning in memories are better able to draw on ABM when constructing their self-concept, a skill that becomes very important in situations of high emotional content (Fivush, et al., 2011).
Fivush and her colleagues (2011) also point out that elaboration style is culturally- dependent, and children generally acquire it between four and six years of age. Parental
62 reminiscence methods propagate collectivist or individualist tendencies 3(discussed in
Chapters 1 and 2), with the Eastern reminiscence style featuring skeletal descriptions with little child contribution, and Western reminiscence containing more detail, co- construction, and reflection on internal states, opinions, and preferences (Fivush et al.,
2011). Greater amount of elaboration, rather than the frequency of repetition, in family stories parents told their children produced more complete and detailed child narratives upon retelling (Larkina & Bauer, 2012).
Studies show that high and low elaborative conversations with mothers produce longitudinal differences in children. The more parents elaborate in their modeling, the more children elaborate in their own narratives (Fivush, 2012, p. 228-229). High level of parental elaboration about shared autobiographical memories during parent-child reminiscing (providing rich, structured context) helped teach children not only how to examine human thoughts and emotions, deduce what may happen next, and identify motivations, but also to represent and interpret their experience for themselves. High- elaborative parents essentially teach their children how to construct interesting, coherent narratives independently as well as to create interconnected memories rich with personal meaning. In contrast, children growing up in low-elaborative households, where parents did not engage in context-oriented discussion were less capable along all those metrics as they grew up (Haden, 2003, p. 52-65). Similarly, Reese and Farrant (2003) found that children growing up in high-elaborative households had better orienting and evaluating skills, as well as better overall language skills than children growing up in low-
3 Greater detail on the collectivist-individualist concept can be found in Chapters 1 and 2 of this literature review as well as in Triandis, 2001. 63 elaborative households. They also found that children in low-elaborative households had lower levels of attachment and participation in meaningful discussion, but mentioned that this was not necessarily maladaptive; it was more a function of cultural communicative norms (Reese & Farrant, 2003, p. 32-37).
Frequently-told family stories were found to be beneficial for both accessibility of early memories and sense of self-continuity because they connected a child’s life to the lives of other relatives, past and future. Families that told more stories to children had adolescents who knew more about their family history and displayed a higher sense of self-esteem and wellbeing. Larkina and Bauer (2012) explored whether repeated recounting of memories, such as seen in family memories, makes a difference for the way preschoolers access and retell their experience. Their findings showed that while memories that are shared frequently have greater accessibility, the narrative contains very similar properties to low-frequency memories. The characteristics of how children reported family stories and other events did not differ in terms of the amount of unique content and narrative elements; once memory trace was retrieved, there was no difference in the way the story was told. However, not only did the number of conversations about a family story affect recall, the role children took within those conversations was also important. When children initiated conversations about family stories or made unique verbal contributions to them, stories were remembered better and longer narratives were produced a year later, illustrating that children have an important role in creation of their personal memories (Larkina & Bauer, 2012).
64 Driessnack (2017) posits that knowing family stories is the single best predictor of a child’s emotional health and happiness; it is associated with higher self-esteem, sense of control, resilience, and fewer behavioral issues. There is speculation that sharing family stories may even serve as a protective factor on a cellular level as well, by preserving length of telomeres4. She elaborates that accurate retelling of familial memories is not important; the key component is that children have answers to questions and share them
(Driessnack, 2017).
3.2 Age effects in adolescence
Adolescence and young adulthood is a critical time for identity development; a time when young adults must formulate a cohesive image of their self while recognizing their relationship to and distinction from others. Intergenerational narratives become particularly instrumental to identity exploration during adolescence, when young adults are negotiating their individuality and family connectedness. Family stories preserve generations of family identity and allow adolescents to develop an identity that is embedded in both personal and family history. The impact of those stories is especially meaningful in the areas of personal identity, values, and attitudes. Adolescents draw on these stories about parental and family history as well as rely on cultural scripts and master narratives acquired through everyday interaction to construct the content and
4 Telomeres are proteins at ends of chromosomes that protect genetic info during cell division. They degenerate with time, but degeneration rate depends on many factors, level of stress among them. When telomeres reach critical point, cells are no longer able to divide and begin to make errors, associated with the effects of aging, chronic disease, cancer, heart disease. Research shows that resiliency benefits as a result of shared family stories also aid in telomere preservation. Though discussing genetic factors is outside the scope of this chapter, more information could be found in Driessnack (2017). 65 structure of their own identity. In this way, ABM connects an individual’s self, with their family, community, and culture (Fivush et al., 2011; Taylor, et al., 2013).
Family stories are also a window into generational changes within families which facilitates discussions that allow adolescents to compare themselves to their parents and to distance or assimilate desired aspects of themselves. Since retelling stories about family members is a way young adults can continue to integrate familial values and roles into individual self-concept, these stories play a critical role in shaping the development of a sense of communal identity (Fivush et al., 2011; Taylor, et al., 2013).
Understanding past events is critical to identity construction, and adolescents build identity through finding meaning in shared experiences with family. As children become adolescents, they begin to recognize that their identity exists in context of family and society, which enables them to integrate their own history with family stories, widening the definition of who they are (Taylor, et al., 2013). By 12 years of age, they start to develop the capacity to begin to interpret family stories on a psychological level, which increases as they continue to mature (McKeough & Malcom, 2010). Mid-teens is the time for individuals to call forth family stories, because that is when young adults are beginning to understand the impact of events on their lives and shaping themselves as people (Driessnack, 2017). However, it is also important to keep in mind that children are not passive recipients of intended parental messages, but active meaning makers; particularly adolescents, who can use their emerging cognitive, social, emotional capacities to interpret the story they hear and construct personal meaning. Adolescents can empathize, evaluate character actions, reflect on the relevance of the story to their
66 life, and extract useful lessons learned. However what adolescents take from stories and later retell differs by listener demographics (Raffelli, et al., 2017, Chapter 1, Chapter 2).
The increase in personal salience of family stories during adolescence happens for three reasons: parental narratives serve as a model for teenagers to emulate when constructing their own identity, stories help maintain a family connection while exploring individuality, and they enable comparison of family similarities (Fivush et al., 2011).
Family stories were found to have impact on personal (values, morals, standards, self- knowledge, dreams), collective (involvement in a generation, race, religion), relational
(close relationships, commitments, bonds with others) and social (popularity, physical appearance, reputation) identities. However just like in grandparent stories, values and attitudes of the adolescents are impacted more by family stories than an individual’s overall identity (Taylor, et al., 2013).
Stories of difficult times provide insight into belief and meaning systems; parents tell stories of challenges to prepare children for their own future challenges as well as to motivate them to pursue goals. Raffelli and her colleagues (2017) examined how youth recalled and interpreted family stories of hardship they heard from their caregivers. The main topics addressed in family stories included family hardship, caregiver’s personal problems, family interactions or dynamics, and interpersonal situation outside of the family. Findings showed that the main takeaways adolescents gained from listening to parental stories had themes of hard work, perseverance, doing the right thing, gratitude for what they had, independence, and treating others well (Raffelli, et al., 2017).
Driessnack (2017) maintains that tough stories are just as important as the good ones,
67 however they are more beneficial if parents emphasize how the protagonist overcame the challenge and what was learned from the experience.
4. Gender effects on intergenerational transmission of memories
Gender also plays a role in childhood reminiscence and parent-child interactions; it is perhaps the most salient component of identity. Through social interactions, children learn which experiences are appropriate to report or include in their self-concept and develop evaluative frameworks for interpreting them. In essence, interacting with parents helps them learn gendered ways of being in the world (Fivush & Buckner, 2003, p. 155-
162; Fivush, 2004, p. 80-81; Fivush et al., 2011). When examining intergenerational transmission of memories, several important gender socialization trends become relevant in childhood and adolescence that shape reminiscence and identity construction for children as they grow up. Not only is the gender of the parent relevant for presentation of experiences and communication styles, but the gender of the child matters for how a story is perceived and internalized (Fivush, et al, 2011). Furthermore, the relationship between children and parents also plays an important role in accessibility of childhood memories for adults (Peterson, et al., 2008).
4.1 Gender effects in childhood
Individual life narratives are heavily influenced by parentally-scaffolded interactions and stories of others, especially family members. Fathers generally tell stories that have more autonomy and achievement themes, whereas mothers favor social
68 and affiliation themes; as a result, daughters focus on more social themes than sons
(Fivush et al., 2011). Interestingly, children also show more explicit verbalization of emotions in reminiscence with fathers rather than mothers, because they can intuit that mothers are able to better read non-verbal cues (Fivush, 1998, p. 79-99).
Children learn autobiographical recall skills through participating in early adult- guided conversation about the past. In essence, parent-child reminiscence socializes children to implement on-line judgement about which details of their past are relevant and deserve to be remembered. Parents also adhere to very different patterns in the way they talk to their daughters as opposed to their sons in areas of elaboration, coherent structure, and emotional content; daughters are encouraged more to share personal memories than sons are, and as a result become more proficient at elaboration; boys, on the other hand, are expected to show more autonomous and agentive trends.
Additionally, both parents use a broader range of context and emotion language in co- reminiscence with daughters than with sons, and as a consequence of this practical and social reinforcement, females are better at reminiscing and emotional processing: they also define themselves more in autobiographical experiences than males (Fivush, 1998, p.
79-99).
Children begin to show these qualities by age four and carry them throughout adulthood, and as a result, females rely on emotional and relational experiences for identity construction whereas males utilize autonomous and achievement-oriented events
(Fivush et al., 2011). Parents attend to and elaborate on emotions with daughters while sons are seen as having emotions as a side effect in a behavioral issue: the message it
69 sends to girls is that emotional experience is important and self-defining, whereas little boys are urged to suppress them, making emotional experience sparse and isolating. By preschool children are already socialized into this cultural construct (Fivush & Buckner,
2003, p. 155-162; Fivush, 2004, p. 80-81).
Interestingly, Peterson, et al. (2008) explain that childhood relationships with parents play an important role in an individual’s adult memories of their early life. In a study examining memories that were specifically related to the participants’ interactions with their parents, Peterson and her colleagues found that the closer females were with their mothers, the more early, positive episodic memories they were able to recall as adults. For males the effect carried for both mothers and fathers. The study also found that while elementary school children do not have gendered differences in terms of accessibility to early memories, adults do, suggesting that gendered access to memories develops in adolescence (Peterson, et al, 2008).
4.2 Gender effects in adolescence
Adolescents emulate parental models of narration and integrate them into their own autonomous identity construction. For example, parents who narrate negative or dramatic experiences have children who emphasize negative or dramatic content in their own stories. However, gender of the child also plays a critical role in personal identity construction based on parental identity presentation and offers a fascinating consideration in intergenerational reminiscence as a tool in identity construction of adolescents (Fivush, et al., 2011).
70 Adolescents use intergenerational discussion of memories to create meaning from experiences and glean guidance on how to explore alternative values and cultivate worldviews that reflect their individual identity and family connectedness. Parental stories are especially useful for teenage girls to develop self-understanding and explore personal values. Girls exhibit greater self-esteem when they can connect their parents’ identity to their own and positively correlate personal identity sophistication with the meaning construction in intergenerational memories. Conversely, adolescent boys show lower identity development when correlated with increased intergenerational connection; they require more autonomy and individuation to explore alternative values (Fivush, et al,
2011).
Peterson et al. (2008) explain that adolescents reinterpret and reconstruct their personal pasts in order to create meaningful life stories that reflect their cultural values, social roles, and gender. Their life story incorporates their remembered past, current self- views, and future aspirations. When males do this self-reflective reconstruction, a positive affective relationship with their parents may counteract the tendency to selectively forget early family experiences as inappropriate to their emergent life story.
Females, on the other hand, do not require this type of filtering, as they are expected to remember family relationships and interactions, hence the gender stereotype that women have better memories for personal events is perpetuated (Peterson, et al., 2008).
In addition to child and adolescent -specific trends, Taylor and his colleagues
(2013) also noted a few broader gendered reminiscence trends as they were related to intergenerational transmission of memories. They found that women tended to tell more
71 family stories with morals of appreciation, care for others, and courage, whereas men told more funny family stories with themes of a strong work ethic, appreciation, and respect.
The researchers also noted that individuals tended to match the gender of the protagonist in their stories to their own gender, demonstrating a subconscious gender connection with ancestors of the same gender. Furthermore, they found that men reported most often receiving stories during gatherings of extended family members, such as a large dinner, supporting generalized gender reminiscence findings that boys’ exposure to family stories was more limited than that of girls (Taylor, et al., 2013). Gender separation peaks in middle school, then declines again in college students, possibly because preparation for the start of a career becomes more important, so gender moves into the background
(Fivush & Buckner, 2003, p. 150-155).
To summarize, women tend to be tuned into relationships, associations, and nurturing, with group membership presenting the basis for identity-building. Conversely, male self-concept is defined more through autonomy and individuation from groups. As a result, when storytellers are women, they produce longer, more emotion-aware stories featuring relationships, and girls are more attuned to emotion and relationship themes in parental discussions. Men focus their stories on personal achievement, mastery, and people who help them succeed, and as a result, boys receive more stories with references to other people. Thus, it could be asserted that gender variation in content and perception of family stories differentially affects identity development in young adults.
72 5. Immigrant considerations in intergenerational transmission of memories
Families are situated in a sociocultural context that influence the function, content, and meaning of the stories they tell. For example, Taiwanese parents tell family stories to instruct and motivate, whereas U.S. parents tell family stories to enhance the child’s wellbeing. Other demographic factors affect parental stories as well: working class mothers narrate more negative experiences than middle class, potentially to prepare their children to tackle future challenges. The same reasoning could be abstracted for the themes dominating the stories told by ethnic minorities and immigrants; stories about difficult times are used by parents to prepare their children to confront life challenges and overcome barriers. Immigrants generally tell family stories of how to behave, of working through problems, of parental sacrifice on behalf of the children, stories that foster trust or understanding, and stories that address the culture clash an immigrant child may be experiencing. Immigrant youth recall many themes of difficulty earning a living and assimilation in parental stories. Interestingly, they also elaborate more than non- immigrants while retelling stories of their ancestors (Raffelli, et al., 2017).
In immigrants, specifically, intergenerational transmission teaches not only personal beliefs and values, but also serves as a mechanism of social control and a vehicle for initial structural and social placement in the receiving society. Parental identification is a strong influence in a child’s social and ethnic identification, shaping adolescent intra and interethnic social contact. In his study looking at the role of intergenerational transmission in social incorporation of second-generation adolescents,
Nauck (2001) found evidence of transmission of parental perceptions and values on their children’s acculturation and language retention. He also found that parental transmission 73 indirectly influences children’s assimilation in the areas of informal contact with the native culture and predominant identification with the receiving society (Nauck, 2001).
Svob and Brown (2012) postulated that characteristics observed in personal memories might also extend to biographical recall of parental life events, conveyed through intergenerational transmission. They compared the influence of parental experiences in the identities of second-generation immigrant youth whose parents had come from violent political conflict regions and those whose parents had not, finding that family historical events in the conflict regions remain particularly salient in subsequent generation’s memory and are understood to have had a personally relevant, life-altering effect. They also noted that the transitional impact and perceived importance of a parental event determines what children recall from parents’ lives (Svob & Brown, 2012).
Remennick (2012) looked at intergenerational transfer of cultural capital from upwardly mobile (professionally successful) and professionally downgraded immigrant parents to their second-generation children in Russian Jewish immigrant families in
Israel, finding a strong causal relationship between parental social mobility and children’s trajectories. She explains that part of the issue is opportunity: the trajectory of immigrant children depends on educational and social opportunities they receive from family.
Parents who have more means can provide better neighborhoods, schools, parenting time, native peer interaction, language skill-building in both languages, and enrichment activities to focus an upwardly mobile trajectory for their children. Conversely, children of parents who are struggling financially and are working multiple jobs generally live in ethnically-concentrated neighborhoods, go to poorer schools, have fewer enrichment
74 opportunities, struggle more with language skills, and participate in fewer family outings; all of which reduces motivation for academic success. Children in this demographic also have higher school drop-out rates, lower-wage jobs, and more trouble with the law.
Seeing their well-educated parents not being able to utilize their education devalues higher education in the eyes of their children (Remennick, 2012).
Parental quality time and supervision make the most important difference between blue, white, and pink collar (service industry) families. Leisure time together is extremely important, as it facilitates mentoring, enrichment, values, and cultural education. Children of parents who are constantly working tend to watch television instead of participating in enrichment activities, thus do not have these initial advantages or opportunities for immersion in either native or ethnic culture. But not all children of blue-collar parents ‘fall through the cracks.’ Many recognize parental efforts and sacrifices, which adds to their personal motivation to succeed in school and attend college. Remennick (2012) found that for many children of struggling immigrant families, parental decline actually boosted their children’s ambition to overcome their challenges, and in all cases, familial transfer of social and cultural capital as well as parental social adjustment shaped children’s attitudes and facilitated successful transition into adulthood (Remennick, 2012).
However, Vedder and his colleagues (2009) suggest that correspondence between parents and their adolescent children may not be due to parental intergenerational transmission of memories, but to absorption of general values in their ethnic or national society. They examine the process and outcomes of transmission of values within
75 families by trying to separate parental versus societal contributions, finding that adolescents hold parental values less strongly than their parents do. In the case of immigrants, ethnic communities are much more salient than host communities, however social climate is particularly influential for adolescents because they place very high value on peer group relationships. Therefore, the more time children spend with their host-country peers, the more effort parents must put into socialization of ethnic values.
Incidentally, non-related adults were also found have a major formative impact on development of an immigrant adolescent’s values system (Vedder, et al, 2009).
6. Summary
Family stories communicate who we are, what we value, and how we should live our lives (Taylor, et al., 2013). Transforming a historical event into a narrative story is a collaborative process, with each member shaping it through their own perspective. Each person’s contribution of events and themes gives the story a flavor unique to that person.
Families use these stories to understand their own identity, values, and beliefs that should be considered important; however different themes can become more salient with age, gender, or developmental milestones. Stories that are significant in a family are repeated frequently and are instrumental in imparting family values; they are especially useful as a means for older generations to share family lessons with their offspring. When stories are a consistent part of a family routine, they can be a means of connecting to better understand each other (Taylor, et al., 2013).
This chapter built on the memory and identity findings presented in Chapters 1 and 2, to address multiple topics pertinent to the effects of intergenerational transmission
76 of parental memories on their children’s identity construction. The next chapter will examine in depth the specific population involved in this study, Jewish immigrants from the Former Soviet Union who immigrated to the United States in the early 1990s. It will look at sociopolitical environment and cultural preference of this nuanced group.
77
Chapter 4: Russian Immigration
As discussed in previous chapters of this literature review, parental influence in child reminiscence is extremely important, not just to impart cultural norms and reminiscence skills (Rubin, 1998, p. 54), but also to foster key intricacies of family history in future generations. Sharing familial and collective autobiographical memories plays a key role in establishing a connection with a specific culture, family, and heritage.
In parent-child interactions, parents teach their children about their own lives and the lives of the generations before them: where they come from as a family, who they are, what they experienced, and why the way they define themselves is uniquely important to their family identity (Svob & Brown, 2012; Nauck, 2001; Fivush, 1998, p. 79).
Historical family events remain particularly salient in subsequent generation’s memory and are understood to have had a personally relevant, life-altering effect (Svob & Brown,
2012).
Russian Jewish immigrants present a particularly interesting case for study of intergenerational transmission of memories and identity development, as they must negotiate three distinctly separate and unique identities (‘Russian’, ‘Jewish’, and
‘American’) upon arrival to their new country. Since Russian Jews emigrated because of government persecution, being Jewish is an important part of the refugees’ identities, and is markedly different from other immigrants from the Former Soviet Union as well as
78 American Jews (Roytburd & Friedlander, 2008). The specific population I will focus on in this research is Russian Jewish families who emigrated from the Former Soviet Union
(FSU) to the U.S. in the 1980’s or early 1990’s. My goal is to examine how the autobiographical memories of events experienced by the parents in the Soviet Union affected their identity construction in the United States and how intergenerational transmission of these memories to their children shaped those children’s adult identities.
In order to adequately explore this topic, it is necessary to examine the full range of unique sociopolitical influences affecting both the parents’ and children’s generations in the FSU as well as the United States. Thus, history of immigration, acculturative conditions, identity negotiation, stigmatization, parental interactions, and language attitudes all serve as important contextual factors for this discussion. This chapter will provide an overview of Russian immigration and address the realities and perceptions of being Jewish in the USSR, sociopolitical immigration issues, the evolution of those dynamics since the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the undercurrents that give these
Russian Jewish immigrants their unique identity.
1. History of Soviet immigration
To understand Russian emigration from the Former Soviet Union (FSU) 5better, first, it is necessary to provide a brief sociopolitical and historical overview. The vast majority of Soviet Jews also belonged to the most educated and professionally successful group, known in Russia as Intelligentsia, a unique Russian social class of highly educated
5 To mitigate confusion, I use both the acronyms FSU and USSR in this chapter to refer to the former Russian territories. I use Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) when discussing the place before 1991 and Former Soviet Union (FSU) when referring to the time after the dissolution of the USSR. 79 people who form an artistic, social, cultural, or political vanguard or elite (Intelligetnsia, n.d.). It includes individuals in academic, scientific, technical, and creative spheres
(professors, teachers, artists, engineers, doctors) who work to shape culture and politics of their society. However, Soviet Jews were also the most heavily persecuted6 ethnic group in the USSR, causing many to desire to emigrate. The USSR did not want to lose the intellectual capital represented by this group, nor did they want to show the world that people wanted to leave the “best country;” however in 1968, their desire for a trade relationship with the Western World led to brokering an agreement where trade was contingent upon permission for Jews to emigrate (Remennick, 2009).
During the Soviet times travel out of the USSR was extremely difficult: people needed special permission to leave (even as tourists), which was very challenging to obtain, and emigration out of the USSR was exceptionally limited. Thought over the last century there were three waves 7of Russian emigration, this discussion will focus solely on the third wave which went from the 1970’s to the 1990’s and early 2000s8. This wave
6 Further discussion on this topic will occur in the stigmatization section of this paper. 7 A discussion of the three waves of Russian immigration was omitted due to space and direct relevance, however it is important to provide a very brief description of the three waves. The first happened around the Russian Revolution, in 1917, when dissidents of the communist regime left to wait the political upheaval out in exile. This wave ended in the 1930’s, when the totalitarian regime was established; it is unclear how many had actually emigrated, because reports of the estimated total number of emigrants varied greatly. The second wave happened around WWII, however its description is fairly amorphous with varying accounts. These waves were not limited to Jews. The third, predominantly Jewish wave, consisted of a smaller cohort in the 1970s-1980s and a much larger one, which departed in the 1990s (Isurin, 2011, p. 5-7). The latest, massive departure in the 1990s and early 2000s is the focus of this paper, however for comparative reasons, there are also occasional references to the 1970s emigrants. 8 There were two other host countries that accepted large groups of Russian Jewish immigrants during this time period, Germany and Israel. While there are many shared characteristics among the FSU Jews across immigration locations, each host country provided a unique, distinctive social climate that largely shaped the acculturative trajectories of its FSU Jewish immigrants and their children. However for the sake of relevance, comparative analysis of the three major recipient countries is left out, but it can be found in references Shneer (2011), Roberman (2014), Isurin (2011), Remennick, (2003), Remennick (2009) and can be further discussed at the oral portion of the defense if desired. 80 was predominantly Jewish, because legitimate emigration out of the FSU at the time was mostly limited to ethnic Jews and their non-Jewish immediate family (Isurin, 2011, p. 5-
8). It was comprised of two cohorts of Russian Jewish emigrants, a smaller, ideologically-motivated departure of about 300,000 in the 1970s and a much larger, pragmatically motivated surge of well over a million in the 1990’s (Remennick, 2009).
Of those, approximately 200,000 went to the United States in the 1970’s (Isurin, 2011, p.
15-19) and another 326,000 in the 1990s (Markowitz, 2009).
The ideologies and sociopolitical environments were quite different during the two cohorts of third wave emigrants, setting the stage for different acculturation patterns.
Many Soviet Jews in the 1970’s to1980’s emigration generation had strong Zionist ideals and requested permission to emigrate at great personal risk. They often faced severe societal backlash and were treated as traitors. Sanctions, job termination, public reproach, social exclusion, denial of higher education, lack of professional promotion, and revocation of Soviet citizenship were all commonplace for applicants to emigrate, even for those whose petitions were denied. They saw themselves as political dissidents and often felt forced to cut all ties with their native homeland as a result of their revoked citizenship and reaching the point of no return in their immigration journey. Though there were some ideology-based emigrants in the late 1980’s -early 1990’s as well, the predominant majority of this cohort was motivated by pragmatic reasons, such as generativity (commitment to the well-being of the next generation as evidenced in life activities such as parenting, teaching, mentoring, as discussed in McAdams, 2004, p. 109) or increased socioeconomic opportunities. While the 1970’s cohort desired to fully acculturate as soon as possible, the 1990’s cohort had a much more transnational mindset
81 in their assimilation; they saw their Russianness as a resource, not a liability, and were correspondingly reluctant to forfeit it. These sentiments influenced not only personal assimilation but also intergenerational transmission of language and cultural attitudes to children (Remennick, 2009). Over time, as the economic situation in Russia stabilized and anti-Semitism reduced, people were choosing to stay in their native homeland and emigration tapered off (Isurin, 2011, p. 15-19).
2. Acculturation and transnationalism patterns
Birman, Persky, and Chan (2010) define acculturation as a broad construct, encompassing behaviors, attitudes, and values that change with cultural contact. They point out that acculturation is not a unidirectional process with a one-for-one swap on cultural parameters, but instead a bi-directional framework where the old and new cultures are potentially coexisting independently (Birman, et al., 2010). Integration into a host society represents a multifaceted process involving numerous socio-cultural, socio- linguistic and psychological factors; the integration process encompasses not only cultural adaptation, but also identity negotiation, and linguistic and cultural maintenance
(Isurin, 2017b, p. 137).
Change in the perception of differences between native and host cultures is based on second language proficiency, age, and ethnicity; thus in order to understand acculturation, it is important to understand each culture involved individually. For example, in the case of Russian Jews in America, even the word ‘culture’ encompasses meaningful conceptual non-equivalence. In Russia, culture includes a broad range of topics, including politeness, thinking, engagement in the world, higher education, and
82 high culture. The Intelligentsia are the fundamental possessors of such viewpoints and have strong opinions on host culture and behaviors of people considered to be cultured.
The U.S., however sees it much more simply: just a way someone lives (Isurin, 2011, 56-
63). Russian Jewish immigrant children who immigrated with their parents or were born shortly after immigration generally retain similar cultural perspectives as their parents, which is evident not only in personal habits of individuals, but also in immigrant youth social organizations, which exhibit similar high culture, arts, and intelligence pursuits reminiscent of Russian Intelligentsia.
There are about 750,000 FSU Jewish immigrants currently living in the United
States (Markowitz, 2009), most of whom found the environment in the U.S. to be positive and hospitable, with no waiting period to re-qualify to white collar jobs, little professional downgrading, a friendly social climate, and reasonable assimilation aid.
Though the Russian Jewish population in the U.S. comprises a much smaller percentage of the overall population and is therefore not as visible as it is in Israel, many cities in the
U.S. have large Russian-speaking immigrant communities (Isurin, 2011, p. 15-19). With that said, the transition was still not an easy one, and oftentimes reality did not measure up to expectation. In the U.S., FSU immigrants expected a prosperous, friendly beautiful place that looked like Beverly Hills or Manhattan in movies, and were disappointed to find it to be a was a village-like, ugly, unpainted, scary place where outcomes were dependent on resources. But eventually immigrants became accustomed to the landscape and no longer saw the same things as they first did (Isurin, 2011, p. 63-78).
The ‘cultural profile’ of FSU Jews is pretty consistent across studies. In the U.S., they are generally highly educated, hold white collar managerial or entrepreneurial
83 occupations, and experience relatively little professional downgrading. They value high culture, the arts, and literature and frequently participate in Russian cultural events. They also speak Russian at home, take pride in their Russian heritage, and place great importance on passing the Russian language and culture to future generations. At the same time, they have a high proficiency in the English language, an ideological commitment to the U.S., and a sense of American pride. While ‘Jewish’, ‘Russian’, and
‘American’ are all important and self-defining aspects of their identities, they enact their
Jewish identity in a more secular context, participating in cultural programs, like Jewish- run summer camps for children, but not in religion practice, which they cannot relate to due to the ban of any religious practices in the USSR. Though most Russian Jewish immigrants were initially funded by American Jewish communities that hoped that FSU
Jews would bolster and revitalize declining Jewish neighborhoods (Markowitz, 2009),
FSU Jews do not feel they have much in common with either ethnic Russians in the U.S. or American Jews and instead of integrating into existing Jewish communities, most prefer their own brand of Russianized Jewish traditions that best reflect their multifaceted culture (Markowitz, 2009; Morawska, 2004; Zeltzer-Zubida & Kasinitz, 2005; Birman, et al., 2010; Isurin, 2014).
In contrast with the Israeli immigrants in this cohort, the U.S. immigrants have a much more positive relationship with their adopted country. In her study examining the assimilative outcomes created by micro- and macro-level circumstances in sending and receiving societies, Morawska (2004) compared the transnational and assimilative behaviors of Russian Jews and Polish immigrants in the U.S. She found that FSU Jews
84 display a host-society focused ethnic adhesive path 9(as opposed to a home-society focused path, like their Israeli peers) with social circles composed largely of other
Russian Jewish immigrants. She further noted that younger members of the FSU Jewish community justify a common identity not by a common past but a shared present in ethnic social circles, and tend to favor an informal cultural structure with cultural events that have a host-country (not home-country) emphasis (Morawska, 2004; Markowitz,
2009). Morawska (2004) attributes the U.S.-focused Russian Jewish mentality of this group to a variety of factors: outcast minority status of this group in the USSR, civic- political reasons for immigration with no intention to return, a sense of freedom in the
U.S., pride in the U.S. citizenship, membership in a high status ethnic group that has a drive to succeed, shared distancing towards American born Jews, and the need for ethnic expression (Morawska, 2004).
Immigrant opinions of their host countries vary greatly, however on the whole, immigrants value the traits in their host country that were denied in their native country.
In America, FSU immigrants appreciate freedom (to travel, choose, speak), lawfulness, and respect for individual opinions, but find high societal individualism to be a negative feature. Interpersonal features were considered very important and they found Americans to be inconsistent and insincere; warm yet cold, friendly yet distant, open yet hypocritical. They felt that Americans lacked honest communication and the desire to engage in high culture (Isurin, 2011, p. 79-90, 101). They also reported missing the sense
9 Some immigrants adopt a host -society focused ethnic adhesive lifestyle, which involves embracing and participating in host culture while also retaining their ethnic customs and worldviews, while others adopt a home-society ethnic focused path, where immigrants mostly participate in ethnic social events and limit their social circle and employment choices to ethnic options. 85 of friendship and camaraderie that they had in Russia as a central theme in their immigration experience (Isurin, 2011, p. 63-78). Many Jewish immigrants expressed a great desire for a platform to meet like-minded articulate, intellectual, creative people looking for high standards, self-expression, and deep conversation (Prashizky &
Remennick, 2015).
American FSU Jewish immigrants do not exhibit transnational behaviors as much as Israeli FSU Jews might. Most do not feel nostalgia about leaving the FSU, obligation to Russia, or a connection to Zionist ideology and to the people of Israel. To them, Israel is viewed as a politically-imposed, symbolic Jewish homeland, rather than a personally meaningful source of identity. However, though they do not engage in regular transnational contact with either FSU or Israel, they frequently contribute financially to
Jewish and Israeli causes (Morawska, 2004; Markowitz, 2009). As far as their relationship with the FSU, unlike Remennick (2009) who notes positive relationships with the FSU in Israeli immigrants of this cohort and Isurin (2011) who reports ambivalently positive relationships among American FSU Jewish immigrants with the
FSU, Morawska (2004) reports resentment towards the home country in American
Russian Jewish immigrants (Morawska, 2004). However Isurin (2011) elaborates that most FSU Jews in America do not harbor a grudge against their former homeland, but feel sorry for the people and are thankful for the culture and values they gained in their time in the USSR. While many FSU immigrants enjoy the initial nostalgia of visiting familiar places from their personal past, they no longer feel a sense of belonging in the
FSU and often find visiting to be a somewhat uncomfortable experience (Isurin, 2011, p.
191-200).
86 In their political ideology, FSU Jews in America tend to hold conservative
Republican political views. Collectively, they show strong, stable pro-abortion views, as well as a tendency to oppose homosexual and female equality activism. Goldberg and
Saxe (1996) found that as acculturation increased, views on gender equality and homosexuality showed a shift towards a more neutral position; however, strong pro- abortion sentiment10 was retained despite the length of residence in the U.S. or acculturation level. Conversely, their opinion of African American racial issues, while non-existent in the FSU, became more salient and negative with assimilation. This is potentially attributed to not having personal experience with diverse populations or adequate racial sensitivity training to guide the formation of an opinion outside of the social and media portrayal (Goldberg & Saxe, 1996).
3. Sense of belonging and ethnic identity in the United States
Birman, et al. (2010) explain that identity is an aspect of acculturation that focuses on subjective sense of belonging to a culture. Ethnic identity, more precisely, is an individual’s sense of self in terms of belonging to a certain group and is distinctly different from national identity (identifying with the country where one lives). Contact with a new culture creates development of complex identities that undergo continual change, as well as frequent switching and evolution of self-labels and affiliations that
10 In the USSR abortions were legal, religion was banned and there were no politically or religiously motivated public debates surrounding abortions. On the other hand, homosexuality was considered a crime and homosexuals faced imprisonment. This may explain the persistent unchanged attitude to abortions and homosexuality about the FSU immigrants. 87 allows for exploration of belonging, commitment, and shared values (Birman, et al.,
2010).
There is a clear distinction between home as a place where one resides and feeling of belonging; renegotiating a sense of ‘home’ is an emotional process that involves nostalgia for what was lost and developing intimacy with the new environment. While immigrants can be torn between two homes, people who were pushed out may feel less connection with their native homeland. Younger age at immigration and subjective voluntariness can facilitate a greater sense of host-country belonging as well. Isurin
(2011) found that unlike FSU immigrants in Israel and Germany, American FSU immigrants have a lot of emotional nomadism, in terms of the word ‘home.’ Her study showed pronoun use to be an excellent indicator of sense of belonging; most immigrants used ‘they’ for Russia and ‘we’ for host country, although many did not take either FSU or host country ownership, using ‘they’ in reference to both (Isurin, 2011, p. 166-183).
Isurin (2011) further explains that having a sense of home is crucial for psychological maintenance, especially when surrounded by instability common in immigration. Factors that push individuals away from the old home and those that pull them towards the new both play a role in the sense of belonging. Thus, immigrants can feel at home in the new country yet still long for certain cultural elements of the old, explaining why all FSU immigrants seek out participation in Russian culture on some level. However the more comfortable they feel in their adopted country, the more discomfort they will likely feel in their native country. Despite the longing for certain
Russian cultural elements, they often feel like outsiders on visits back and are relieved to return to their FSU immigrant communities (Isurin, 2001, p. 201-203).
88 3.1 Ethnic identity in the United States
Americans and Eastern Europeans are generally confused about why Russian
Jews consider ‘Jewish’ an ethnicity, a concept distinctly separate from religion. As a social engineering practice in the USSR targeted towards ostracizing minorities, an official nationality was ascribed at birth and placed on all official documents as a marker of identity. Since most of the FSU Jews were secular, the term ‘Jewish’ represented specifically ethnic heritage (similar to race), not religious belief. Consequently, the ethnic expression of Jewish nationality carries deep social and political connotation
(Isurin, 2014; Birman, et al., 2010). Jewish ethnicity is becoming a topic of discussion in the U.S. as well; just recently, in 2018, a Louisiana judge delivered a precedent-setting ruling in a civil employment discrimination case, declaring that Jews are a protected
‘race’ under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, thus must be granted protection against employer discrimination (Associated Press, 2018). When Jews immigrated, they were able to shed their officially-ascribed identity and negotiate a new identity they feel fits them best in their new setting (Isurin, 2014; Birman, et al., 2010).
FSU Jewish immigrants have very nuanced identity negotiation because they have worn a lot of often-contradictory labels. In the FSU, Jews were an ethnically distinct and stigmatized ethnic minority, however in the United States they are considered ‘white’ and are a part of the ethnic majority. Russian cultural and linguistic background is the salient factor that separates FSU Jews from the dominant American culture. Ironically, while in the native country FSU Jews were not considered ‘Russian,’ in America anyone with a cultural and linguistic Russian background, regardless of ethnicity or republic they emigrated from, is labeled ‘Russian.’ Additionally, though Americans consider FSU
89 Jews to be Russian, ethnic Russians do not, and may show discriminatory behavior even after resettlement (Birman, et al., 2010; Isurin, 2014).
Isurin (2011) explains that identity is tied inextricably to social group, which allows members to construct group identity that excludes others and simultaneously facilitates both a need to be unique and a need to belong (Isurin, 2011 p. 129-133). This creates an interesting challenge for FSU immigrants to negotiate ways of identifying with their host country while maintaining their Russian and Jewish identities: these choices are not explicit or mutually exclusive, and identities fluctuate (Zeltzer-Zubida & Kasinitz,
2005). As a result, FSU Jews get generalized under many different monikers in their adopted countries. A single good term to define Ashkenazi (Eastern European) FSU
Jews actually does not exist; they are more defined by sustaining multiple, partially- overlapping identities and transnational experiences. Markowitz (2009) asserts that
‘Russian speaking Jewish diaspora’ sounds like a mix of incompatible elements and contradictions, but it allows members to simultaneously represent themselves and their heritage in culture and time. He explains that for the Russian Jewish diaspora11, the identifying as ‘Russian’ is a particularly Ashkenazi Jewish way of being in the world, with a common worldview that unifies FSU Jewish immigrants across host countries.
The diasporic identity connects individual Russian speaking Jews to the fate of the entire
FSU Jewish population (Markowitz, 2009).
Unlike Israeli FSU Jews, American FSU Jews are comfortable identifying themselves as ‘Russian’ or as ‘Russian American Jews’ along their sociolinguistic
11 The term diaspora refers to the dispersion of the Jewish people away from their ‘original homeland’ of Israel. 90 background and take pride in their Russianness, however they pointedly differentiate themselves from both ethnic Russians and American-born Jews, both symbolically and socially (Morawska, 2004; Isurin, 2011, p. 157-160 ). However, Isurin (2014) cautions that comfort level with the label ‘Russian’ and preferred identification vary greatly across the Russian-speaking immigrants in the U.S., both personally and socially, and that many prefer not to be generalized as ‘Russian.’ Oftentimes individuals have strong opinions about their identity but cannot find a fitting term to adequately express their hybrid concept of self (Isurin, 2014).
The construct of Jewish identity is another challenging one to neatly define.
While most Russian Jewish immigrants consider themselves Jewish, there is no clear consensus as to what that actually means. About half of the FSU Jews who identify as
Jewish are non-religious and non-affiliated with Jewish organizations, but still express a strong Jewish identity. To them, a sense of Jewishness is more salient than religion and they take great pride in their Jewish identity, history, and unique cultural Jewish practice, which is very different from that of American Jews. Russian Jews tend to redefine
‘Jewish’ on their own terms, finding creative, personalized twists on Jewish rituals
(Zeltzer-Zubida & Kasinitz, 2005). Whereas American Jews find common ground on a religious platform, FSU Jews are secular, thus they have a difficult time relating to the
American Jewish community on either cultural or religious grounds, which may account for their poor participation in American Jewish circles and events (Birman, et al., 2010).
Simon and Simon (1982) add that while most FSU Jews express that Judaism is very important to them and place great pride in being Jewish, the strength of their religious
91 beliefs fluctuates strongly. In fact, less than 10% of the families surveyed in their research were affiliated with Jewish religious and cultural organizations.
Whereas in the FSU Russian Jews were forced to adopt an officially-ascribed identity as a stigmatized ethnic minority, immigrating to the U.S. gave them the freedom to negotiate a new identity that fit them best (Isurin, 2014). There were many labels FSU
Jews in America adopted (such as American, Jewish, American Jew, Russian, Soviet
Jew, Russian American), however just plain ‘Jewish’ seemed to be the preferred label
(Simon & Simon, 1982). American Jews do consider FSU Jews ‘Jewish,’ however, it is because they self-identify so, not because they fit into the American definition of what
Jewish is. Nevertheless, ‘Jewish’ is a critical aspect of identity for FSU Jewish immigrants: in fact, Roytburd and Friedlander (2008) found that FSU Jews considered their Jewish identity to be more salient than either their American or Russian identities
(Roytburd & Friedlander, 2008).
Prescher (2007) offered an interesting take on identity and immigration, asserting that as more time passes after the time of immigration, the pendulum of identity and language adaptation actually swings back, saying:
“the more participants try to assimilate in host Dutch society, the more problems
they perceive concerning their identity: [despite] wanting to integrate completely,
they have to accept that they will remain different, resulting in disinclination to
adapt any further. In the end, immigrants are used to being different; they accept
their ‘nationlessness’ and imperfect language because they have created their
‘home’ in their own transcultural selves.” (p. 201)
92 3.2. Language attitudes
There is a close relationship between language and identity; shared language connects collective and historical events, public and private life, past and present to create an invisible national borders that unite its speakers (Ben-Rafel & Schmid, 2007).
Shulova-Piryatinsky and Harkins (2009) explain that language is one of most important ways in which immigrants mold culture and create a community, because orally constructed narratives are a critical tool in parent-child socialization efforts. In the case of immigrant narratives, the influence of immigration on an individual’s emotional, psychological, and cognitive well-being also helps shape the resulting narrative (Shulova-
Piryatinsky & Harkins, 2009).
Isurin (2011) adds that language attrition is associated with prolonged stay in the host country and high exposure to the host language, but points out that there is very little consensus on what constitutes language attrition and that there is no reliable objective measuring tool for the amount of attrition sustained. Age at immigration, literacy, native language, role in identity construction, co-ethnic contact, and length of stay in the host country are all factors in language attrition. She also explains that language attitudes are inseparable from acculturation because linguistic contact inevitably causes some level of native language attrition and influences language attitudes. However, native language can be preserved through motivation to maintain it and pass it onto future generations, attitudes towards bilingualism, and comfort in language use (Isurin, 2011, p. 208-209).
In a study comparing linguistic patterns in ideologically-motivated French immigrants to those of pragmatically-motivated FSU Jewish immigrants in Israel, Ben-
Rafel and Schmid (2007) found that while French immigrants prioritized integration and
93 placed little value on passing French to their children, Russian speakers made proactive efforts to pass on both language and culture to their children because they consider it essential to maintaining a link to their Russian identity. As a result, unlike the French immigrants who experienced more first language attrition, the Russians utilized little code switching and limited the use of Hebrew to that of an economic tool. These efforts resulted in a high level of second generation bilingualism (Ben-Rafel & Schmid, 2007).
However, Isurin and Wilson (in press) propose that while parents’ desire to keep the native language for the younger generation seems to reinforce language maintenance in immigrant families, emotional affiliation with the native language may not necessarily stem from the immigrant’s nostalgic feelings about the “home” left behind, but rather the strong rejection of the host culture, such as the case of Russian immigrants in Israel
(Isurin, 2011).
Schwartz (2008) examined the relationship between heritage language learning and family policy on first language maintenance, discovering that availability of formal and informal bilingual settings as well as non-linguistic factors all played a role in second generation bilingualism. First language use in the community was found to be extremely important; the presence of a big FSU Jewish population with positive attitudes about the use of Russian, supplementary language education opportunities, as well as media and cultural sources were all found to be critical for language retention. Home language policy also played a role: a Russian-only rule in the home and teaching literacy were found to be extremely beneficial to language retention while code mixing was noted as a precursor to first language attrition. Approximately half of the bi-literate children
94 Schwartz evaluated in the course of her research had acquired first language literacy in non-formal settings (Schwartz, 2008).
4. Stigmatization and identity construction
There are three types of stigma surrounding FSU Jews. The first is the stigmatization the label ‘Jewish’ held in the Soviet Union, which was touched upon in the section on history of immigration, but will be discussed in greater detail below. The second is an internationally-scoped grand-narrative defining FSU Jews as helpless, oppressed victims of Soviet anti-Semitism, and the third is stigmatization that happens in their host countries, that drives acculturative processes and attitudes of FSU immigrants.
4.1 USSR Jewish discrimination
Isurin (2011) explains that in the USSR, nationality was imposed at birth, preventing people from healthy negotiation of their own identity and facilitating institutional stigma and anti-Semitism. Though anti-Semitism was more common in
Russia than in other Soviet republics, the majority of FSU Jews have experienced some form of discrimination, mostly at the domestic level. It was seen through social interactions in childhood, then university acceptance, and professional barriers. Many normalized their discriminative experiences, which caused them to adopt survival strategies, created a self-perception of being a second-class citizen, and increased feelings of vulnerability (Isurin, 2011, p. 132-138). Anti-Semitism was so widespread that Jews in the USSR took a certain amount of daily discrimination for granted and perceived it as normal (Rapaport, et al., 2002).
95 Padilla and Perez (2003) explain that stigmatized individuals have awareness of the existing stigma and its consequences, but are generally reluctant to blame it on prejudice or discrimination because the psychological costs to making that attribution are decreased self-esteem and a perceived lack of control. They add that while it is unclear at what age awareness of personal stigmatization develops, it happens well before adolescence (Padilla & Perez, 2003), indicating that many immigrant children were consciously aware of discrimination they may have personally experienced. Thus, Soviet discrimination was likely not just anecdotally, but personally relevant to them. Bruner
(2003) adds that individuals are mindful of the stigmas associated with various aspects of themselves and are deliberate in revealing information about themselves to others. On a subconscious level, individual narratives generally try to align with the cultural constructs of what is appropriate in public storytelling, thus the narratives individuals share do not necessarily reflect completely accurate accounts, but accommodate societal expectation
(Bruner, 2003, p. 210 – 211).
4.2 Grand Narrative of ‘victim’
A grand narrative is a widely-held, stipulated belief about a group of people or an event and a means through which society at large constructs a canned ‘understanding’ of how an immigrant lived and what they experienced. For instance, a grand narrative of
“there are children starving in Ethiopia” used by American mothers to coax their children to eat dinner creates a pre-judgement about how Ethiopian immigrants lived prior to immigration. It is imposing, fixed, and morally charged; it also underlies national identity, constructs collective identity, influences collective memory, and guides a
96 nation’s morality. The Russian Jewish grand narrative stipulates that anti-Semitism causes personal trauma on the collective level and is inseparable from Jewish history, and the promotion of this view has inspired multiple nations to open their borders to mass
FSU Jewish immigration (Rapaport, et al., 2002).
Unintentional imposition of this grand narrative leaves FSU Jews little leeway to find themselves outside of it; immigrants are seen as innocent victims and the host nation seen as the rescuer, which comes with certain implications and expectations that make immigrants feel vulnerable. Rapaport, Lomsky-Feder, and Heider (2002) explain that normalization is an individual symbolic action, a coping mechanism used in social interactions to lessen disruptive effect of a past situation, thus facilitating avoidance of pain, stigmas, and other threatening psychological consequences while preserving self- continuity, social relationships, and social order. There are many ways to normalize a traumatic situation, such as justification, impression management, passing, disassociation, vindication, and presenting a normal front. By deliberately downplaying or highlighting past trauma, individuals take an active role in shaping their personal identity and challenging the FSU Jewish collective stereotype they felt was imposed on them by their receiving nations. In their 2002 study, Rappaport and his colleagues examined how FSU Jews in Israel and Germany discuss their anti-Semitic experiences, finding that 87 of their 89 participants reconstructed their autobiographical memory to normalize the discrimination they experienced (Rappaport et al., 2002).
97 4.3 Acculturative hassles
The third type of stigma is the acculturative challenges immigrants experience upon arrival in their host country. Moving to a new country is stressful, as it requires a steep learning curve to simultaneously master a variety of new cultural, linguistic, contextual, identity, educational, and social parameters. An immigrant’s assimilative experience is generally fraught with acculturation hassles, or minor events, thoughts, or situations that produce negative feelings of annoyance, worry, or frustration, which are correlated with interpersonal relationships, negative emotions, and personal competencies. Discrimination and language hassles are among the more frequent ones that immigrants face, with discrimination being a powerful predictor of increasing maladjustment. Oftentimes, for youth there are also family-related hassles that occur when parents object to the adaptation of their children. Immigration hassles during the teenage years are particularly difficult, as they exacerbate an already emotionally challenging and confusing coming of age process and can contribute to delinquency and depression (Titzman, et al., 2011).
Stereotypes that drive stigma make mental representations of how individuals are seen by others, thus coping strategies come from social contexts. When facing stigma, newcomers can distance themselves from their ethnic group, reinterpret attributes to justify stigma, or engage in social action to promote a desirable change. However because consciousness of discrimination contributes to social identity as ‘members of stigmatized group,’ perceived discrimination would likely increase closeness with the minority group. With that said, generally the attitude of the dominant group dictates whether it will allow subordinate groups to retain their own culture while also
98 participating in theirs; the more power an immigrant group has in its new setting the less it will accommodate. However, despite the stigma of the out-group, the stigmatized group members still evaluate their group positively; in fact, consciousness of a stigma may even motivate some stigmatized groups to display their stigmas publicly to raise social awareness, as demonstrated by events such as gay pride parades (Padilla & Perez,
2003).
Titzmann and his colleagues (2011) assert that while diaspora immigrants may have some inherent advantages over other immigrant groups, their assimilation is just as challenging. Diasporic immigrants may have the same religious, ethnic, and cultural roots as the receiving society, and may be eligible for accelerated citizenship processing or financial assistance upon arrival, yet they must still negotiate all of the same language, discrimination, cultural, societal, and integrative challenges as other immigrant groups
(Titzmann, et al, 2011).
5. Generation 1.5 (G1.5)
Children between 8-1812 years of age who immigrated with their families (known as Generation 1.5/G1.5), are at a crossroads between two cultures both linguistically and socially. This demographic group of FSU immigrants faces unique difficulties of negotiating the maturational pitfalls of coming of age while integrating their three identities (e.g., Russian, Jewish, and host country) and negotiating the cultural, linguistic,
12 Some scholars include children as young as 4-5 within the Generation 1.5 demographic; the definition is flexible and each researcher defines it slightly differently. This study includes children from 6-16 years of age in the G1.5 population; all of the children who were five years old or younger at the time of immigration were categorized as Generation 2. 99 psychological, and environmental challenges of resettlement all at the same time. Some fully assimilate into the host culture, others embrace both cultures as bilingual biculturals, yet others live in limbo, not feeling like they belong to either culture. It could be said that
G1.5 FSU Jews have hyphenated identities: they feel their ‘otherness’ keenly and often have trouble relating to their peers born in the host country (Remennick, 2003; Prashizky
& Remennick, 2015). Prashizky and Remennick (2015) found that most G1.5 immigrants retain both their native and host cultures, but construct their own unique culture and hyphenated identity, lifestyle, and language. Other considerations, such as parental sociocultural trajectory and involvement as well as familial boundary and normative role challenges13 also play a pivotal role in the trajectory and assimilation of
FSU Jewish immigrant families raising adolescents (Roytburd & Friedlander, 2008;
Remennick, 2012).
Remennick (2003) explains that older children and adolescents who immigrate to a new country follow a unique acculturative pathway, attaining only partial assimilation.
Adolescents retain the core mindset and outlook shaped during formative years in the
USSR, while adopting many local lifestyle elements of the host country. As a result, they consume (and are influenced by) the media, culture, cuisine, and other artifacts that are native to the host country as well as those of co-ethnic origin. For young immigrants, age of immigration is a big determiner of ultimate language attainment, education level, job success, and social patterns. Having spent a portion of their formative years in each
13 Normative role challenges refers to departures from conventional family norms and relationships, where parents facilitate certain societal transactions for their children, such as coordination with official sources. In immigrant families, children often gain host language proficiency faster than parents, which puts them in a position to instead help their parents with official paperwork or translation during doctors visits, causing normative family roles to shift. This concept is discussed in greater detail below. 100 country, Generation 1.5 bridges the gap between partially assimilated immigrants and the native hosts (Remennick, 2003). Interestingly, Generation 2.0 FSU Jews, those who were born in the host country, tend to retain all of the key identifying characteristics typical of Generation 1.5, even though they are well-integrated into their host society from birth (Zeltzer-Zubida & Kasinitz, 2005).
Birman, et al. (2010) explored the coexistence and negotiation of the three FSU
Jewish immigrant identities (‘Russian’, ‘Jewish’, and ‘American’) in Russian Jewish adolescents in America, and how integrating them affects psychological adaptation to their host country. The overall trend in their study shows that FSU Jewish immigrants gravitated towards ‘American’ as their national identity and ‘Russian’ as their ethnic identity. However, they chose ‘Jewish’ from a list of labels as the most preferred label to describe themselves and 90% of the interviewees were happy with their Jewish heritage.
Of the three identities, ‘Jewish’ also appeared to be the most salient for FSU Jewish adults; however, FSU Jewish adolescents indicated a lower Jewish affiliation than their parents’ generation. Moreover, FSU Jewish adolescents indicated less affiliation with their Russian identity and greater affiliation with their American identity than their ethnic
Russian immigrant peers (Birman, et al., 2010).
Prashizky and Remennick (2015) spotlight an Israeli social organization aimed at facilitating peer interaction that promotes integration of multiple identities and development of hybrid cultural capital in FSU G1.5 youth. It provides social environments where individuals who immigrated as children and adolescents can co- construct their sense of Russian cultural pride while exploring their Jewish identity and building bridges with their host culture and peers. Through a variety of events, classes,
101 and lectures it helps FSU G1.5 members (who are now in their 20s and 30s) find outlets for activism and creativity to express their common hybrid experience, form professional and social networks, and negotiate complex identities as Russians, Israelis, and Jews. It also enables young people who do not feel like they belong in either culture meet like- minded others and build a coherent self-narrative (Prashizky & Remennick, 2015).
Though this appears to be the only scholarly article discussing this type of organizations, anecdotal evidence and personal experience suggest that very similar organizations are widespread throughout the United States and enjoy high participation among the local
G1.5 populations. Prashizky and Remennick (2015) also point out that while it could be argued that in Israel high Russian cultural involvement among FSU Jews is retained by critical mass alone, countries and cities with much smaller FSU Jewish populations, such as in the U.S., display similar cultural patterns (Prashizky & Remennick, 2015).
As an interesting observation, Zeltzer-Zubida and Kasinitz (2005) noted that while G1.5 FSU Jews in America are highly educated and have good jobs, they opt not to leave their parents’ home to establish themselves as adults until marriage, for pragmatic reasons. Most also prefer co-ethnic marriage and use Russian as the dominant language in their households. Even though their Russian proficiency declines with time, they feel it is important to raise their own children bilingual (Zeltzer-Zubida & Kasinitz, 2005).
Finally, Noels and Clement (2015) assessed cultural identity in first (G1, born abroad), second (G2, parents born abroad, but child born in host country), and 2.5 generation (G2.5, one parent born abroad the other in the host country) children across four domains: family, friends, community, and school. The participant pool in this study was composed of immigrants from various countries, such as China, India, Pakistan, and
102 Philippines who had immigrated to Canada or were born to immigrant parents. Their findings showed that variability in cross-cultural adjustment is related more to the perceived quality of everyday engagement in the social world rather than psychological well-being; identity variability was not found to be related directly to adjustment.
Interestingly, G2.5 participant identity showed not to align with either of their parents’ identities, exhibiting more sensitivity to rejection by both host and ethnic groups because they did not feel like they fully belonged in either. The researchers concluded that acculturation is a situational phenomenon and acculturative change happens in public domains first, then extends to the private (Noels & Clement, 2015).
5.1 Intergenerational dynamics in immigrant families
A phenomenon seen in immigrant families with G1.5 children is normative role reversal. Immigrant children oftentimes learn language and customs faster than their parents and become the only literate member of the household: this is especially true for downwardly mobile families, where parents are limited to more co-ethnic interactions.
This forces the children to take on more adult roles (such as interpreting and facilitating official transactions) to help their parents navigate the world. While on the surface that does not seem like a problem, it causes normative role reversal. Parents feel ashamed that they cannot handle their parental responsibilities without the help of their child, and adolescents feel overwhelmed by their added adult duties, resulting in a power shift that may be used as a stepping stone to challenge parental disciplinary roles and boundaries
(Remennick, 2012).
103 Roytburd and Friedlander (2008) explore family relations in acculturation of FSU
Jews, finding that emotional boundaries between immigrant parents and adolescent children also tend to be fairly diffuse. Large extended families often live together, which precipitates conflict, dependence, and blurred boundaries, especially when adolescents are at an age where they are trying to assert their own independence and identity.
Adolescents with more self-differentiation (mature, well balanced, personal identity separate from family origin) tend to achieve greater U.S. acculturation, have better ability to balance intimacy and autonomy with family members, and grow up to be highly differentiated adults who are better able to cope with stress, maintain intimacy, negotiate problems, and think rationally. Less differentiated adolescents, on the other hand, tend to experience more stress (especially during turning points) and reduce anxiety by staying close to family and ethnic culture (Roytburd & Friedlander, 2008).
Language socialization research also shows interesting effects, demonstrating that the concept of stable and coherent culture becomes irrelevant in an inter-connected world. Stories told by immigrants reflect transitioning values, beliefs, and attitudes, but when two cultures are in close contact, cultural ideology shifts regionally and temporally, with both sets of life experiences as well as reflections providing important insight into values and belief structures. Shulova-Piryatinsky and Harkins (2009) examined language socialization in Ashkenazi Jews across the world via mother-child storytelling of The
Frog Story14. Through narratives they looked at how Jewish parents used facilitation and
14 The frog story is a series of illustrations depicting tale about a boy who captures a frog and keeps it as a pet. When the frog escapes, the boy and his dog journey to find it, finding the frog with his family. The story ends with a boy taking one of the baby frogs home with him. This story is used for a variety of empirical studies, from assessing children’s language skills at different ages to evaluating mental states and narrative construction. 104 obstruction to socialize their children to the theme of home. This study investigated 5 groups of Ashkenazi Jews: 3 monocultural controls (Ukranian, Israeli, American) and two FSU immigrant groups (in Israel and in America). They found that immigrant linguistic choices, goals, and narrative styles reflected the immigration experience. Not only did immigrants attempt to balance native and host values in their narratives, but also showed defense mechanisms and themes of stress resulting from leaving an established life for an uncertain future. One fascinating difference between immigrants and non- immigrants was the strong negative reaction immigrants had to the removal of the baby frog from his family at the end of the story, whereas monolingual participants viewed it more positively. The immigrant samples saw a sense of abandonment and trauma and attempted to restore family cohesiveness in their narratives. Based on these data, the researchers posit that mothers retaining native linguistic goals, styles, and thematic expression may actually hinder child adjustment (Shulova-Piryatinsky & Harkins, 2009).
6. Overall global similarities
As noted in the beginning of this chapter, there are three countries which received the predominant majority of the FSU Jewish immigrants at the turn of this century: Israel,
United States, and Germany. Though a direct comparison of the three immigration locations is outside the scope of this chapter, this section provides an important perspective on a broader reach of the common diasporic trends found within this group; that similar characteristics are found not just in the narrowly defined population discussed in this chapter, but across host country locations, FSU origination points, and life
105 experiences. Having such homogeneous global demographic data presents a strong case for possible broader applicability of the findings in this study.
While there are many socio-politically driven differences in the FSU Jewish immigrants who went to the different countries, there are also a couple of common themes that appear to be present across diasporic FSU Jewish populations, regardless of host country. Not only do FSU Jews seem to exhibit many shared ethnic characteristics, but they also show a marked resistance to ‘come into the Jewish fold’ of the host-nation
Jewish communities (Shneer, 2011; Remennick, 2009; Birman, et al., 2010; Roytburd &
Friedlander, 2008).
In the United States, Germany, and Israel, the host Jewish community had an expectation that the FSU immigrant Jews would assimilate into existing religion-based
Jewish communities, and in each instance they were disappointed when the FSU Jews chose not to participate in religion, but instead to maintain some distance from local
Jewish communities and practice their own version of Jewish customs in their own way
(Birman, et al., 2010; Roytburd & Friedlander, 2008; Simon & Simon, 1982; Zeltzer-
Zubida & Kasinitz, 2005; Remennick, 2009). Religious beliefs and practices are at the heart of this issue: Jewish communities construct a shared identity based on their common religious beliefs, however FSU Jews are predominantly secular and prefer to practice unique Russianized Jewish traditions, as cultural (not religious) practice. They generally do not integrate into existing Jewish communities or adopt faith-based host traditions. Interestingly, the descriptions of religious attitudes, beliefs and practices of
FSU Jews are actually quite similar to each other across studies based in the three
106 countries and starkly different from those of their traditional, religiously-oriented host
Jewish communities (Isurin, 2011; Remennick, 2003).
Another commonality identified by studies on FSU Jewish immigration in
Germany, Israel, and the U.S. is shared ethnic characteristics that describe this diasporic group. FSU Jews across host countries display pride in their Russian cultural heritage and show co-ethnic interaction preferences with other FSU Jews. They have a strong sense of family, favor high cultural arts, and most hold a high esteem for education
(Markowitz, 2009; Morawska, 2004; Zeltzer-Zubida & Kasinitz, 2005; Birman, et al.,
2010; Isurin, 2014, Isurin, 2011, p. 56-102; Remennick, 2003; Prashizky & Remennick,
2015). Remennick (2003) points out that these trends are observed not just in Israel where these cultural traits could be preserved by its massive FSU Jewish population, but are also noted with the same intensity in much smaller FSU Jewish communities of
American and German FSU Jews. While she feels that this topic deserves greater comparative scrutiny, Markowitz (2009) predicts that FSU Jews will blend in with the local culture with time.
7. Summary
The sociopolitical environment in the FSU created unique immigration patterns, with immigrants finding a need to negotiate their Russian, Jewish, and American identities all while assimilating into their new surroundings. Immigrants brought with them unique mindsets and ideals, based on the environment they left and the new country attitudes where they arrived, which influenced their adopted country relationships, acculturation patterns and intergenerational transmission of language and culture to their
107 children (Remennick, 2009). While each person makes their own choices (based on their personal experiences and circumstances) as to how they will negotiate this process, there is a surprising amount of homogeneity within the Russian Jewish diaspora. Particularly fascinating, is the identity negotiation of young immigrants, whose identity development process is further complicated by the challenges of coming of age, hybrid socialization influences, and nuanced parental intergenerational transmission (Remennick, 2003).
This research project will include a parent immigrant generation as well as two separate groups within the children’s generation; a group who immigrated as older children (G1.5, ages 6-16) and have some of their own personal memories and experiences to integrate into their identity construction, and those who either arrived very young or were born shortly after immigration - those whose Russian identity was developed solely as a result of familial interactions (G2). Since some G1.5 or G2 children may not have experienced some of these aspects personally or may have been too young to fully register them, the fact that their parents experienced them and likely transmitted them inter-generationally in conversations with their children makes them relevant to this study. .
108
Chapter 5: Methodology
1. Research Objectives
The present study aims to investigate how intergenerational transmission of memories immigrants have shared with their first- and second-generation immigrant children influenced those children’s identity construction as they grew up in their host country (United States of America). Russian Jewish immigrants are an ideal group for exploring this topic because parents were socialized in the USSR whereas their children grew up in the U.S. with a different sociopolitical system, cultural mindset, and ethnic tolerance factors. I will examine parental stories and attitudes conveying the essence of their native land experience to their children, and how such socialization interactions have shaped the identities of those children who may not have been old enough at the time of immigration to have a well-formed native country identity based on personal experiences. For ease of explanation, I will refer to the adult immigrant generation as
“parents” and to their children’s cohort as “children” throughout this study.
This study aims to answer three major questions:
1. How do immigrant children differ from adult immigrants in terms of negotiating
multiple identities in their host country?
2. How does parental sharing of memories (within families) about their former
Soviet Union (FSU) experience influence the construction of their children’s adult
identities?
109 3. How do Generation 1.5 children (those who came in older childhood or
adolescence) differ from Generation 2 (those who came very young or were born
in the U.S.)?
I predict that as a result of the hybrid socialization influences that immigrant children have received, they will face a complex identity negotiation process, incorporating Russian, Jewish, and American values into the way they define themselves, and that their Russian Jewish identity will be shaped largely by intergenerational transmission of parental memories. Since most of the children would have been too young to develop many enduring autobiographical memories or a well-formed identity in the USSR, the majority of their formative Russian influences would have come from parental interactions. Thus, I predict that parent-shared memories of their family history in the USSR play a major role in the self-definition of the children and that children’s attitudes and worldviews related to their Russian identity will resemble those of their parents. Additionally, I hypothesize that children’s patterns with regards to frequently- discussed themes will reflect the attitudes, opinions, and perceptions of their mothers and fathers. Furthermore, I predict that children arriving in the country at an older age will exhibit different patterns of connecting to their Russian and American identities than those who had only received information though parental socialization.
2. Participants
During the course of this study, I interviewed 18 Russian Jewish immigrant families residing in the greater Los Angeles area, the majority of whom immigrated in the late 1980’s or early 1990’s to the United States from the Former Soviet Union. Of that 110 number, two families were eliminated due to lack of completion of all parts of the study by one of the members. The final parents sample is comprised of 32 individuals (16 male-female married couples, mean age 62.78) who immigrated from the FSU to the
United States approximately 24-40 years ago (M =28.63 years in the U.S., 89.16 mean immigration year). All of the families interviewed were Jewish, however the officially ascribed nationality (5th line in their FSU passport) was listed as Jewish for only 28 of the participants; two were listed as Russian and two were listed by the Republic in which they resided. The majority of these families already had 1-2 children at the time of immigration, however this study also allowed children who were born shortly after immigration to participate as part of the Generation 2 sample. Most of the parents had a high level of education (M = 5.34 years post-high school) and held white collar jobs in both countries.
Parents’ Demographics Age at Years U.S. Years of Age now immigration residence college Professional (M) (M) (M) (M) downgrading 5 downgraded, 18 Parents 62.71 33.46 28.63 5.34 same, 9 upgraded
Table 5.1: Parents’ demographic information
The children sample consists of 23 children of these couples, who either immigrated with their parents or were born within a year and a half of immigration (11 males, 12 females, mean age at immigration 7.13, mean age now 34.57). All but one of these immigrant children are now working, white collar professionals, with careers in fields such as law, medicine and engineering; they are in their mid-20’s to 40’s, most 111 with families of their own (years of college M = 6.22) The children’s generation was analyzed in aggregate for items that contributed to the first research question of this paper, but subdivided into more precise maturational categories to address the third research question. The second research question paired children with their specific parents, regardless of age at the time of immigration.
For the third research question, I analyzed children participants in two different ways; the first subdivided them into two even groups, Generation 1.5 and Generation 2, to align with major maturational memory and identity milestones discussed in Chapters 1 and 2. In the second grouping I took into account the cognitive development that happens in early teenage years, and divided them into three groups: young children (ages
0-5), older children (ages 6-10), and adolescents (age 11 and above). Though these groups are uneven (11 children in the youngest group, six in the middle group, and six in the oldest group), they are maturationally more precise.
2.1 Division by Generations 1.5 versus Generation 2
Many cognitive advancements emerge between two and six years of age.
Narrative self-understanding, which integrates action and consciousness into a whole sense of self and a unique self-history, develops around age five. This milestone serves as the beginning of establishing a unique life story (when a person transitions from
“baby” to a child looking to future adulthood) and has coherence across different life stages. Understanding of cultural frameworks generally emerges between five and seven years of age and is bolstered through ongoing social interaction with parents on the topics of past, present, and future events (Nelson, 2003, p. 3-13). Around this time there are
112 also maturational changes in ABM; younger children have poorer ABM consolidation and a high rate of forgetting which tapers and becomes more strategic as the child gets older (Berntsen & Rubin, 2012b, p. 347-349). Around age seven the encoding of memories becomes much richer and forgetting slows to adult-like rates (Fivush, 2012, p.
236-239). Thus, in order to capture immigrant children of both demographics, I divided the children population into two groups, using the 5-7 year point of inflection as the grouping determiner. Those who were six or younger upon arrival were combined under the Generation 2 umbrella, and those who were eight or older were considered
Generation 1.5. There were no participants in the children’s sample who were age seven at immigration.
2.2 Division by cognitive group
Early teenage years also contain a very important maturational milestone for identity development and ABM evaluation. During adolescence, causal and thematic coherence begins to develop, which enables teenagers to start sequencing events, evaluating situations in context of what may have caused them, and mentally organizing them into meaningful themes (McAdams, 2003, p. 190-194). Additionally, at this stage of development, society begins to prompt young people to consolidate their many possible selves into one coherent identity. Through reflection, adolescents form coherent self-defining narratives that enable them to find their place in society (McAdams, 2003, p. 188-190; McAdams, 2004, p. 96-101). In other words, children for whom these shifts happened in the FSU should have a very different worldview than those who had reached those milestones in the U.S. Thus, to enable a more contextualized analysis accounting
113 for maturational milestones, I also analyzed the children’s generation participants in three maturationally-appropriate subsets which were summarized above. The below table illustrates the breakdowns of participants in the children sample.
Age at Years of Total immigration Age now college Number M/F M (SD) M(SD) M (SD) 34.57 Overall 23 11M/12F 7.13 ( 5.1 ) (4.8) 6.22 (2.3) Younger 31.73 Children (CG1) 11 5M/6F 2.73 (1.9) (4.9) 6.09 (2.6) Older Children (CG2) 6 3M/3F 8.17 (1.3) 35.5 (1.6) 5.83 (2.2) Adolescents 38.83 (CG3) 6 3M/3F 14.17 (1.6) (3.3) 6.83 (1.9) Generation 1.5 11 6M/5F 11.64 (3.1) 37.3 (3.1) 6.55 (2.01) Generation 2 12 5M/7F 3.0 (2.09) 32.0 (4.8) 5.92 (2.61)
Table 5.2: Children’s demographic information
Participant recruitment took place through my personal social network and participants were not paid for their time. Additionally, in order to preserve homogeneity of data, families of mixed ethnic origins as well as those where the parents were no longer married (for any reason) were excluded from participation.
3. Materials/Stimuli
The stimuli consisted of three components: a brief oral interview with four questions; a short-answer questionnaire with 16-18 questions; and a Likert-scale demographic questionnaire addressing topics such as language habits, memory sharing practices, ethnic affinity, and discrimination. The content of the questions on all three components revolved around identity and memory sharing practices. Parent questions 114 centered more on their memories in the USSR and transmission of those memories to their children, whereas children’s questions focused more on memory transmission from parents and identity formation. However, parent and child stimuli mirrored each other, to where if a parent was asked to recall what they taught their child about his/her identity, the child was asked a corresponding question about what his/her parent taught him/her in identity discussions. Parents also had nine questions about discrimination at the end of the demographic questionnaire, and children were asked seven questions about their mastery of the Russian language and great influences in their lives. Both parent and child stimuli are provided in English in Appendix A.
4. Procedure
Though the stimuli presented to the two generations were slightly different, the procedure for the two groups was almost identical. Both parents’ and children’s interviews were conducted in person, in the participants’ homes or quiet locations of their choosing. After completing the academic consent release, participants accomplished the interview, recorded on a digital voice recorder for later transcription and analysis. Then they filled out the memory-identity questionnaire, and finally the demographic scale. The interview portion took most participants approximately 10-25 minutes, depending on how much a participant wanted to share. Additionally, the questionnaires took approximately
15-25 minutes for both parents and children. In order to limit participant bias and achieve cleaner data, both groups were instructed to not share the content of the study or their answers with each other.
115 All stimuli presented to parents were in Russian, their native language that they were most comfortable in, administered by a Russian-speaking experimenter. As some of the parents were more advanced in age, help reading the questions was available upon request. However since English was likely to be the most dominant language for children, all of their stimuli were in English and they read the worksheets for themselves, but the experimenter was immediately available to clarify any questions if needed.
At this point in the discussion, it is important to acknowledge the role of language in encoding and retrieval of memories. As mentioned in Chapter 1, when bilinguals recount the same events in each of their languages, they cast themselves in different roles that reflect the cultures associated with those respective languages. It is likely that all of the children heard and encoded parental stories in Russian and it is possible that something was lost in translation as they were retelling them in English during the interview. Though the match in language of both encoding and retrieval plays a role in making ABM not only more accessible in the language of encoding, but also richer and more numerous, English was chosen as the preferred language for children’s interviews because the linguistic encoding-retrieval disparity presented a lesser issue than the possibility that some children may not be able to fully express themselves in Russian due to language attrition. Besides, as Chapter 1 also mentioned, empirical evidence suggests that the physical cultural environment may be more important than language to the way memories are recalled.
The independent variables in this study were parental memory transmission patterns, the age at the time of immigration, and the familial relationship, where a specific set of parents passed their knowledge onto specific children. The dependent
116 variables were the effects of family stories on identity formation, language proficiency, and worldview outcomes of children.
5. Coding
Upon completion of data collection, all interview content was transcribed and coded by the experimenter. All participant-supplied questionnaire information was numerically coded to the maximum extent possible, however due to the massive amount of data collected in this study, obtaining a second coder for validity presented a hardship, thus only one coder was used. The coding schematic is quite lengthy, thus it is not included in the body of this chapter. Instead, a comprehensive discussion outlining each item analyzed is provided in Appendix B.
6. Data analysis
A mixed-methods approach utilizing both qualitative and quantitative evaluation techniques was used to analyze the data. SPSS statistical software was used to conduct
One Way ANOVA, Independent Samples t-Test, descriptive, and Pearson’s R correlation analyses. In addition to targeting specific questions that supported one of the hypotheses, a broad exploratory analysis was conducted to search for unanticipated trends.
Qualitative analysis was utilized to compare parameters that did not easily yield to quantitative evaluation, such as comparison of parent and child self-descriptions and analysis of underlying themes or memory data.
.
117
Chapter 6: Comparison of Parents and Children-Identity
This chapter adopts a mixed-methods approach, implementing both qualitative and quantitative methodology to analyze observed similarities and differences in conceptualization of identity between parents and children in aggregate. It will begin with a discussion of public and private identity, both in the FSU and the U.S., then examine identity hyphenation, and analyze similarities in identity negotiation between parents and children. Next, this chapter will compare parental teaching about children’s identity both in the FSU and the U.S. and explore the topics of avoidance, distancing, and belonging as they relate to identity conceptualization. Then it will look into affinity with various ethnic and geographical groups, examine aspects central to family identity, as reported both by parents and children, and finish with a discussion of language as a marker of identity. Due to the large amount of variation in responses on open-ended questions, the data presented in Chapters 6-8 were not well suited for variance or correlation analyses, thus the majority of the quantitative data were analyzed at a descriptive level through manual analysis techniques.
1. Results
1.1 Public and private identity
There were two methods of collecting identity data in this study: first, participants were asked in the interview to orally explain who they are as a person by any parameters
118 that are meaningful to them, and second, the Memory-Identity questionnaire asked participants to give a short answer of how they identified publicly and privately in FSU and the U.S. As seen in Figure 6.1, a predictably large number of the parents claimed
Jewish, both publicly and privately in the FSU, though the public identification was lower than private. Ironically, in the U.S. (see Figure 6.2), the public identification of
Jewish was actually higher than the private; Russian, publicly ‘Jewish,’ ‘Russian-Jewish,’ and 'From an FSU region' also increased. More children indicated higher public and private Jewish identity in the U.S. than the FSU, as well as a higher Russian-Jewish identity for both participant groups in the U.S., publicly and privately. The republic of origin also became a higher identifier in the U.S. among both parents and children publicly, but not privately.
In contrast to parents, children showed stronger public Russian-Jewish
(hyphenated) and ‘From FSU region’ identifications than private, but slightly stronger private Russian and Jewish (independently) identifications than public. Interestingly,
Russian and Russian-Jewish columns in the U.S. showed the smallest delta between public and private identification.
There were a few other interesting observations on Figures 6.1 and 6.2: first, while over half of the participants (in both parent and child generations) identified as
'American' internally, much fewer identified as American publicly. Additionally, though many identified publicly as from a republic, such as 'from Lithuania', almost none identified as 'Lithuanian'. Furthermore, these figures highlight the very small number of people who incorporated 'immigrant' into their core identity, and that there were participants from both parent and child generations who identified as something other
119 than nationality, such as profession ‘doctor,’ hobby ‘athlete,’ familial relationship
‘mother,’ or a character trait ‘loyal.’ Some participants made a distinction to include gender into their multi-hyphenated identity (see Figures 6.1 and 6.2).
Figures 6.1: Public and private identity in the FSU. The Y-axis is the total number of times each identity was listed in the memory-identity questionnaires. Some participants chose to list multiple identities while others listed only one, however the maximum on any given parameter could have been parents N=32, children N = 23.
Figures 6.2: Public and private identity in the U.S. The Y-axis is the total number of times each identity was listed in the memory-identity questionnaires. Some participants chose to list multiple identities while others listed only one, however the maximum on any given parameter could have been parents N=32, children N = 23. 120 1.2. Hyphenated identity
As discussed by Prashizky and Remennick (2015), immigrants, especially immigrant children must often negotiate a hyphenated identity, integrating their budding host-country identity into their pre-existing self-conceptualization framework. Table 6.1 shows (by percentage of respondents) the number of hyphenations participants include in their self-concept; some participants used a single identity (i.e. Jewish), while others hyphenated two identities (i.e. Russian-American) or included three or more identities
(i.e. Russian-Jewish-American) in their hyphenations. In the FSU both parents and children who were old enough to have a coherently-formed identity predominantly named one identity, ‘Jewish,’ however a few identity hyphenations were reported by children. Conversely in the U.S. both parents and children expressed hyphenated identities frequently: while about half of the parents still expressed only one identity, almost 90% of the children's generation expressed an identity with at least one hyphenation. The actual identities listed by both parents and children varied greatly:
"non-religious Jewish American," "Russian speaking Jew from Lithuania," "Russian cultural Jew," "American but born in Russia," "culturally Russian-Jewish but a proud
American," "American who is a Soviet Jew," "American-Russian-Jewish immigrant,"
"Russian-Jewish American," "Russian-American Jew," "Jewish American from the
FSU," and "Russian born in Ukraine." One participant even specified “I’m Russian-
Jewish, not either-or” (M, born in the U.S.). "Russian-Jew" was by far the most common identity permutation (column 2 of Table 6.1), however many participants added a modifier, such as ‘Soviet,’ ‘cultural,’ and ‘female,’ which will be further discussed later in this chapter.
121 Hyphenated identities in the FSU versus the U.S. 1 identity 2 identities 3+ identities Russian other Jewish combination Parents U.S. 52% 20% 19% 8% Parents FSU 70% 6% 14% 8% Children U.S. 11% 20% 20% 46% Children FSU 56% 17% 26% 4%
Table 6.1: Frequency of Identity Hyphenation. Data presented on this table are by percentage of participants; parents (N = 32) and children (N = 23).
In oral interviews, where elaboration was encouraged, participants were also asked to discuss who they are as a person by any parameters meaningful to them. In stark contrast with the memory-identity questionnaire, where responses largely listed different combinations of ‘Russian’, ‘Jewish’, and ‘American’, interview stimuli yielded a wide variety of results. Some went into great detail, reaching back to the family legacy of past generations, whereas others briefly explained themselves as a sum of their professional, familial, and social roles. For children, though some mentioned many hats they wore, three was the most common number of identities listed, with the most frequent relating to family, career, and social roles. For parents, the number of identities discussed was more erratic. Though some listed only a couple, it was not uncommon for parents to mention as many as 8-10: the most common identities specified by parents centered on family, career, immigration, and character traits. Many parents gave detailed personal histories, or even extended family histories in their interviews, explaining that it is impossible for them to disentangle who they are from where they came from (see Figure 6.3).
122
Figure 6.3: Number of identities in oral interviews. The X-axis represents the number of identities listed, the Y-axis represents the number of interviewees who gave that response.
1.3. Similarities in identity between children and parents
Children were asked whether they think of their identity similarly to the way their parents do, which yielded interesting qualitative and quantitative results. While some children saw their identity as very similar to their parents’, there were many who made distinctions. One child immigrant explained: “while telling people of things she [mom] did in the FSU, she’ll say that she did it at home. She calls FSU home. I’m more comfortable being American than Russian. Although having gone through immigration and growing up in the Russian culture in the home is a vital part of who I am, it is not what I feel the most comfortable presenting to the world” (F,8 years old at immigration).
Many shared this sentiment, with answers similar to “I feel American first; Russian and
Jewish tie for second, depending on what aspect of identity is in play. I think they
[parents] identify strongly as specifically 'immigrant Russian Jews' (M, 14 years old at immigration). Some view the differences between them and their parents through a maturational lens, visible through statements like “We are in different stages of life; 123 different things are important to me than them, different values. But when they were my age, they had similar values and priorities” (F, 14 years old at immigration) or “Yes, definitely [similar]. The older I get, the more I become like them [parents]” (F, 16 years old at immigration). One Generation 2 participant who was born in the U.S. elaborates on the similarity of her identity to that of her parents
“Yes and no—because I am not an immigrant. No matter how well I believe I understand their experiences, I did not actually live through the same things they lived through; I was born into the comfortable life they built for me. However, at the same time, I care very deeply about the stories and memories they have passed down to me, and identify very strongly with their experiences, as well as how those experiences have shaped their lives in the U.S. Consequently, I think the fact that I see myself as a Soviet Jew rather than simply as an American Jew is an indication of the fact that I do think of my identity similarly as my parents think of theirs.” (F, born in the U.S.)
On the whole, there was a pretty even split between child respondents who believed there was a lot of similarity between them and their parents and those who believe there was little. The most frequent reason given for similarity or difference was mindset (see Figure 6.4). Parents were also asked how they think their child identifies, which was compared against how parents and children identify themselves. Looking at
Figure 6.5, it appears that the parents’ perception of their children’s identity (blue line) most closely aligns with the parents’ private identity in the U.S. (yellow line), rather than the children’s private or public identity (see Figure 6.5).
124
Figure 6.4: Subjective identity resemblance between children and parents. This figure shows whether children perceive their identity to be similar to the identities of their parents. X-axis represents the amount of similarity children rated between their own self-concept and their parents’, and the Y-axis represents the number of children who gave a certain reply.
Figure 6.5: Parents projections of childrens identities. This figure shows parent projection of children’s identity overlaid with other reported identities in the U.S. The Y-axis is the number of participants in each group that gave a specific reply. This figure shows parental projection of children’s identity (blue line) most closely aligns to parent private identity in the U.S. (yellow line).
Child public and private identities in the U.S. were also compared to that of their parents, with data yielding mostly negative findings. As seen in Figure 6.6, although 125 there were a few similarities on specific aspects of identity between parents and children, there appeared to be little overall correspondence between parents and children’s identities in aggregate.
Figure 6.6: Overlay of child and parent identities. The Y-axis represents the number of participants who gave a specific reply. This figure shows very little overlap between the different identities, signaling negative findings.
1.4. Parental teachings about identity in the FSU and the U.S.
Parents and children were both asked about parental teachings related to identity in the FSU and the U.S. As seen in Figure 6.7 below, in the FSU many of the parents indicated that their children were too young to learn about Judaism, though others said that they taught their children that they were Jewish, about the Russian Jewish legacy, and the importance of hard work, as seen in statements like “I told him ‘you're Jewish and it's difficul” (M, 75) and “I stressed the importance of higher education for Jews” (F,
67). Children expressed that “some emphasis was put on being Jewish, different from other cultures; also, it was presumed that I'd become as educated professional” (M, age
126 16 at immigration) and “for a while I knew being Jewish set us apart, but not really what it meant” (M, age 14 at immigration). Children also remember a large amount of parental teachings having to do with protective actions, such as not telling them about their identity and instructing them to conceal their Jewish identity or pursue self-isolation, such as “You are a Jew, be careful; be cautious about what you say, don’t say wrong thing to wrong person. Work harder than your peers, and marry a nice Jewish boy” (F, age 16 at immigration). Table 6.2 presents comparisons from several participants, of how their parents presented Jewishness in the FSU versus the U.S.
Conversely, in the U.S. many more parents taught their children that they were
Jewish and should embrace it. They also stressed the Russian Jewish legacy and an appreciation for being in America. Many parents indicated teaching their children about the Russian-Jewish cultural heritage and embracing Judaism, as seen in statements like this “Jewish is how we identify; it’s a freedom for us to be able to practice and openly identify as Jewish” (F, age 2 at immigration), “[my parents stressed the] importance of maintaining Jewish roots and identity” (M, age 8 at immigration), or “My parents’ only perception of their own identity was shaped by how others saw them, ‘I am a Jew because the anti-Semite said so’, not because of any particular Jewishness. So for them it was a really big deal to raise children who felt Jewish out of their own connection to it”
(F, born in the U.S.). Ironically, as seen in Figure 6.7 which illustrates a by-topic graph of parent and child identity-related teachings in the FSU and the U.S., in the FSU parents taught their children to work harder than their peers (to be able to compete as a Jew in an anti-Semitic society) and children stressed it less; however, in the U.S. parents had less reason to teach their children to strive so hard for perfection, yet children stressed it
127 more. Furthermore, as a curious incidental finding, correlation analysis found that the older children were at immigration, the less alignment there was between intended parental teachings and childhood take-aways [R (23) = -0.414*, p = 0.050, R2 =.171].
Parental Teachings about Identity in the FSU In the FSU In the U.S.
That I'm Jewish and I shouldn’t tell That I'm Jewish and I should learn about anyone it and practice it
That Jews are different from Russians It is much more acceptable to be Jewish and they should stay together and share experiences You are a Jew and you have to be proud You are a Jew of it Jews are not like Russians, but that's Nationality question disappeared, no big deal melting pot philosophy
Table 6.2: Parental teachings about identity in the FSU. Comparison of parental teachings about the child’s Jewish identity in the FSU and the U.S. within the same participant.
Figure 6.7: Parental teachings about identity in the FSU and U.S. The Y-axis represents the number of instances each of these topics was listed in participant questionnaires. Some listed multiple responses to this question.
128 1.5. Avoidance, distancing, and belonging
Another pertinent data point elucidating participant identity was avoidance of the topic of Jewish ethnicity. Figure 6.8 below shows alternate responses in private and public identities in both parents and children in the FSU, with Figure 6.9 showing the same information for the U.S. As seen from these figures, many participants in the parents’ generation indicated their internal and external identity construction coming from non-ethnic topics (both in the FSU and the U.S.), like gender, emotional state, education, family, personality, and profession; the children’s demographic had much fewer instances of those kind of identities. Furthermore, some parents had explicitly mentioned avoiding the topic of Judaism, even in the U.S. while others demonstrated it implicitly. Figures 6.8 and 6.9 also show that where some alternate identities (like personality trait) remained high after immigration, others (like profession) decreased dramatically and that ‘region of FSU origin’ became a strong alternate public identity for both parents and children in the U.S.
Figure 6.8 Ethnic identity avoidance in the FSU. These figures illustrate alternatives to identifying with ethnic identity, in both FSU and the U.S. The Y-axis represents the number of instances each of the alternate identities was used.
129
Figure 6.9 Ethnic identity avoidance in the U.S. These figures illustrate alternatives to identifying with ethnic identity, in both FSU and the U.S. The Y-axis represents the number of instances each of the alternate identities was used.
There were other specific distinctions participants made sure to explicitly point out, such as things they were not. Some pointedly stated that they were not Russian, not
‘avoiding revealing their Judaism’, not religious, and one stated that he was not Jewish
(even though both of his parents are Jewish). These sentiments were noted through comments like “My parents went to great lengths to emphasize that we are Soviet Jews, not Russians” (F, born in the U.S.) or “the connection to Israel is very central to me, I’m not religious, but very culturally involved” (F, born in the U.S.). Other implicit categorical negation statements included culturally Jewish, to deliberately distance from the religious aspects that define Judaism in America, Soviet Jew, to distance from the implications of the word ‘Russian’, and ‘young’ Jewish, a common term used by now
Russian- Jewish 30-something year old Generation 1.5 children to distinguish themselves from their parents’ generation.
130 In addition to distancing via categorization discussed above, there were also other types of distancing. Some participants used temporal distancing "I am Californian,
Jewish, from Russia way back when [implying a long time ago]" (M, 8 years old at immigration) and hedging "I'm originally from Russia, but I've lived far longer in
California than anywhere else, so I'm really from here"(M, 9 years old at immigration).
Others qualified their identity statement by also adding a paradoxical socialization qualification, for example, "I am Russian, but raised in America" or "I am American but born in Russia". One participant elaborated “I grew up in Russia, but was educated and spent the majority of my life in America; I was educated in America” (F, 12 years old at immigration) and another explained "I say I'm a Russian-Jewish immigrant, but I only mention Russian if I want to emphasize that I wasn’t born here" (F, 14 years old at immigration).
Some parents conceptualized belonging in being members of the ‘middle class’ or a specific profession, however most indicated that they did not feel a sense of belonging in the FSU. One participant pointedly said “My neighbors told me about my identity” (M, age 68), another admitted that in the FSU he privately saw himself as “a Jew - a second kind of person, not the same as everyone”, however when asked publicly, he would say
“I’m a professional, a family man, like you, nothing special” (M, age 63), and a third privately identified as a “loyal, honest professional”, but publicly “tried not to answer”
(F, age 57). Parents also made distancing distinctions, such as ‘a Jew in a foreign country’ and ‘culturally Jewish’. When speaking of belonging, one participant said,
“motherland is not where you are born, but where you feel safe and happy” (F, age 54).
In talking about who she is as a person, one woman (age 67) answered, “Anti-Semitism
131 defined every aspect of my life, from being jumped on the playground to being denied admission to school and work; I had no illusions about who and what I was. I’m also a wife and a mother”. Anti-Semitism came to mind for her when describing who she is before (and to a greater degree of elaboration than) her roles in the family did.
For parents the stories of belonging in the FSU were very similar and spoke for themselves: “People told us that if we leave, the better; we’ll free up more room for them.
I never had a feeling of ‘this is my country’, and luckily, we were able to leave. It wasn’t my motherland, it was my place of birth. We were in ‘refusenik’ 15status for 8 years until they let us leave” (F, age 52); “Those around me let me feel fairly early that they were all proud Russians and I was some sort of a Jew. It was enough to say that when I was in fourth grade, the girls from my class got together and waited for me, and when I came out they surrounded me, started calling me names and hitting me. I wasn’t a small girl, so they got some too. But my self-concept has always been understood and beaten into me” (F, age 67); and “We had a Jewish last name. On the first day of my son’s first grade, all of the students were lined up, and I remember there was a boy in line, his father was saying ‘don’t play with these kids because they are Jewish’. From first grade parents raised their children to think that Jews were not people and they don’t belong in the
USSR” (F, age 54).
Several children also raised topics of belonging; when describing her private identity in the U.S., one child participant (F, 6 years old at immigration), simply stated that she “fits in” in America. When asked about her private identity in the FSU, another
15 “Refusnik” was the term to identify those people who applied for immigration – thus making their intentions and their ‘disloyalty’ clear to the Soviet authorities – and then were denied immigration. 132 participant said "I saw myself mostly as just a kid. There wasn’t really an emphasis on individual differences, so I thought of myself as just a kid like everyone else. When I was old enough to understand, I learned that my ethnicity was Jewish. But all I knew about it was that I’m not supposed to tell anyone that I’m Jewish" (F, 8 years old at immigration).
One participant admitted that "if it came up with other Jews, I said I was Jewish. If it came up with non-Jews, it was because they already had me identified as a Jew, so how I identified really didn’t come into play" (M, 14 years old at immigration). In an effort to help their children belong, some parents did not tell their children they were Jewish. "My parents didn’t tell me I was Jewish; they spoke Yiddish at home and told me they were speaking French" (M, 8 years old at immigration) and "I identified as a Russian kid from
Kiev. Russian, definitely not Jewish. I did not know I was Jewish until we were leaving for the U.S. in ‘94" (M, 10 years old at immigration). One participant hinted at issues with belonging by describing his hyphenated identity as a "Russian trapped in an
American's body" and an "American trapped in a Russian house" (M, 3 years old at immigration).
1.6. Group affinity
This study also examined different group affiliations participants had with tangential ethnic, religious, and national groups. Unsurprisingly both parents and children reported the highest level of affiliation with other Russian-Jewish immigrants to
America, but children’s affiliation with Russian-Jewish immigrant peers was lower than that of the parents. However, children also showed a high level of identification with
American Jews and non-Jewish Americans. A little under a third of the parents and half
133 of the children indicated affinity with Russian Jews who went to Israel, some qualifying that they had friends and family they were close to in the FSU who immigrated to Israel.
Additionally, less than a quarter of parents reported commonalities with Israelis, non-
Jewish FSU immigrants, and the ‘average American’ (non-FSU-affiliated individuals living in the U.S.), however those ratings were higher in the children’s demographic. The lowest affinity, in both parents and children, was towards those who remained in the
FSU, both Jewish and non-Jewish, followed by native Israelis who live in Israel (see
Figure 6.10). Additionally, Figure 6.11 presents affinity data by number of affiliations, showing that parents had much more streamlined affinities than children, feeling affinity with only one or two groups, whereas most children listed many different groups with whom they felt they had a lot in common (see Figure 6.11).
Figure 6.10: Group identity affiliations. This figure shows affinity by specific groups. The X-axis represents the number of people who reported that particular affinity.
134
Figure 6.11: Number of identity affiliations reported. A child metric for Israelis in the U.S. was not obtained.
1.7. Family identity
Parents were asked what aspects of their FSU and U.S. life were central to their family identity, what they would have wanted their children to see through their eyes about the FSU, how they tried to teach their children these things, and to what extent they believe they succeeded. Children were also asked about aspects central to their family identity. Parents rated family, anti-Semitism, Jewish nationality, core values, and family legacy as the most important aspects of their FSU identity, and wanted for their children to see the significance of family, negativity of the political system, their cultural heritage, importance of hard work, and overcoming obstacles the same way as they did. Most parents indicated that they taught these aspects mostly through family stories and personal example, and many reported a high degree of success. Interestingly, education is not rated as high as I would have expected; nevertheless, children still intuited its importance and identified it as central to their FSU identity. Other things that were
135 itemized by the children as central FSU contributions to their family identity were the importance of family, hard work, Jewishness, negativity of the political system, and practicality or financial responsibility. Children's central American contribution to their identity were family, professional identity, religious tolerance, and the sense of having opportunities open to them. Oddly, Jewishness was not rated very high in either FSU or
U.S. family identity on this measure (see Table 6.3).
Aspects Central to Your Family Identity in the FSU and U.S. Aspects parents want children to Parent Child Child see same FSU FSU U.S. way Family 13 7 7 7 Professional 1 0 6 1 Jewish 6 5 2 1 Anti-Semitism 9 1 0 2 Negative political system 4 5 1 6 Education experiences/system 1 5 2 1 Hard work/self-dependence/ determination 4 7 4 8 Religious freedom/tolerance 0 3 10 0 Opportunities 2 2 10 3 Practicality/financial responsibility 0 6 0 1
Table 6.3: Aspects central to family identity in the FSU and U.S The numbers represent the number of participants who brought up that particular topic as something central to their family identity. Higher frequency responses (those given by at least 20% of participants in each group) are highlighted.
Children identified family stories as the most common method of parental teaching, however they also cited ‘participation in Jewish activities’ and parents ‘setting the example’ to be influential. Parents agreed that family stories were used most commonly, followed by examples and trips back to the FSU (See Figure 6.12).
136
Figure 6.12: Methods of teaching identity to children. The Y-axis represents the number of individuals who reported that particular style. For parents the maximum in any one category could be is N=32, for children N =23; some participants listed more than one method.
1.8. Language
Language is a very important marker of identity, thus, this study also examined languages participants maintain. All participants reported being fluent Russian-English bilinguals and many possessed other languages as well. Parents and children were asked to provide a list of other languages they possessed, which was subdivided into categories by language from republic of origin (e.g. Ukrainian), a language that is practical in their host country (Ex. Spanish), a language associated with their ethnic heritage (e.g.
Hebrew), or some other language. Every language was counted separately, even if one individual knew four or five languages. While many parents knew republic languages, very few children did: however children showed greater frequency in host utility language, and paradoxically, Hebrew (see Table 6.4). Since all of the parents and children reported being fluent bilinguals in both Russian and English, it is not included in the below analysis. 137 Languages spoken by parents and children Host Other Russian- Bilingual Bilingual Republic utility Ethnic language English plus one plus two language language language (German/ bilingual additional additional (Ukranian) (Spanish) (Hebrew) French) only language languages Parents (n=32) 16 1 1 4 13 18 1 Children (n=23) 1 8 5 1 12 8 3
Table 6.4 – Languages spoken by parents and children. The numbers in the table represent how many individuals reported knowing each type of languages
While there were a few people who stated that they retained their Russian language skills through formal instruction, technology, and literacy, the vast majority attributed their ability to speak Russian to daily use at home with family. Several children, mostly in the younger groups, attributed retaining Russian specifically to grandparents as something separate from speaking with parents, and about half of the oldest immigrant children attributed their Russian retention to age of arrival. Very few attributed it to communicating with home-language peers, however a couple said that they are maintaining it through teaching it to their own children (see Figure 6.13).
Figure 6.13: Methods of language retention in children. The X-axis represents the number of participants who reported each type of retention method. Some participants gave more than one answer.
138 The order in which languages were listed by participants seemed to also be meaningful for proficiency; children who listed Russian first indicated a much higher mean proficiency than those who listed it second. Parents’ (aggregate) assessment of children’s proficiency fell between the two groups. It is important to note that language proficiency and frequency of usage were self-reported; however for children, follow up competence questions (also self-reported) were asked about their Russian proficiency
(see Table 6.5). Interestingly, language retention seems to be more important to fathers than mothers; Independent Samples t-Tests show with near-significance that fathers reported working harder for children to retain Russian [Males M= 4.13(1.02), Females
M= 3.44 (096); t (30) = - 1.955, p = 0.06, d = .069] and placed greater importance on their grandchildren retaining it as well [Males M = 4.0 (0.73), Females M= 3.13 (1.31); t
(30) = - 1.962, p = 0.059, d = 0.852]. These statistics have medium to large effects sizes.
Table 6.5 – Children’s language proficiency by position. The proficiency metrics presented are on 5-point Likert scale.
2. Discussion
Analysis of public and private identities in the FSU and the U.S. enabled this study to examine many interesting areas. First, it provided a glimpse into how participants reconcile and prioritize their Russian, Jewish, and American identities. It also enabled comparisons between private and public self-concepts as well as between parents and children. Additionally, it elucidated perceptions made by one group about 139 the other, aided in observation of distancing behaviors and belonging cues, and allowed for analysis of affiliations.
While it is not surprising that the most frequent identity claimed by parents and children in both FSU and the U.S. was Jewish, it is noteworthy that the frequency of public and private identifications shifted with immigration. In the FSU parents indicated a lower public Jewish identity, which should be expected, considering the anti-Semitic social climate; however in the U.S. the parents’ public Jewish identity actually exceeded their private Jewish identity. Essentially, in the FSU they claimed Jewish less than they felt it, while in the U.S. they felt Jewish less than they claimed it. The most likely explanation for this phenomenon is two-fold and requires analysis of both private and public identity.
In the U.S. parents not only felt more comfortable identifying Jewish publicly, but the fact that they had a choice about whether, when, and how to do so enabled them to stop feeling like it is something imposed on them, but instead see Jewishness as something they have the option to claim if they desire to: thus, the increase in public
Jewish identity. At the same time, private sense of Jewishness declined; which could best be explained in context of Roberman’s (2014) work discussing FSU Jewish immigrant assimilation in Germany. Roberman explains that integrating into host-nation Jewish communities was very difficult for FSU Jews in Germany because they did not know much about traditional Jewish religion or culture and were self-conscious about not feeling like real Jews when they were expected to do Jewish things. This same sentiment is very applicable here, in fact many participants made comments about learning to be
Jewish after coming to America. So while parents’ private Jewish identification in the
140 FSU may have been elevated because Judaism was the salient factor that differentiated them from the majority and created a lot of difficulties for them, in the U.S. they probably felt somewhat insecure in their Judaism compared to American and Israeli Jews who were much more involved with religion, traditions, and Jewishness in general. In those circumstances we would see the decrease in private Jewish identity, as visible in the data.
Isurin (2017b) also found Russian Jewish immigrants to Germany who immigrated in late adolescence actively pushing away from their Jewish identity and vigorously embracing their Russian cultural identity (p. 147), which aligns with the increase we saw in Russian, Russian Jewish, and ‘from republic of origin’ identities this study found in American Russian Jewish immigrants. This is most likely because in the
FSU, Jewish (as opposed to Russian) was a highly marked identity, however in the U.S.
Jewish did not hold the same uniquely defining attributes as Russian, so Russian was adopted as a uniquely descriptive self-definition. It could also be because as an individualist culture (discussed in Chapter 1), America values individuality and uniqueness, which can be accentuated through claiming a unique immigrant identity and fill both the need to be an individual and the need to belong (Chapter 1, Chapter 2).
Thus, in enacting their Russian and Jewish identities, participants may actually be pursuing the social goals of their American identity.
Though the last couple of paragraphs may have suggested that Russian Jews in
America are pushing away from their Jewish identity like the above-mentioned German
FSU Jews, it is important to note that this decrease was actually fairly minor and reiterate that both children and parents emphasized their Jewish identity frequently in a positive
141 light throughout all of their metrics. It is likely that children simply claimed Jewish more in the U.S. due to a maturational function of being old enough to develop a concrete identity and parents because they could now do so without incurring a negative stigma.
At some point after immigration an American identity integrated into these immigrants’ already hyphenated self-concept. Though children had a much higher incidence than parents of feeling and claiming ‘American’, both generations showed some incorporation of an American identity. Additionally, findings indicated that both parents and children aligned higher to their American identity privately than they claimed in public. That may be because even though they feel close to America, it may seem discordant to them to publicly claim to be American while they have an accent or another culture that comprises a huge part of their daily life and worldview. Claiming American could also depend on whether their interlocutor is more or less stereotypically ‘American’ than they are, so they may feel more American when helping a new immigrant get a driver’s license and less American when speaking with native-born colleague or missing a social reference.
Though the circumstances of immigration naturally prompt one to hyphenate their identity, about half of the parents only listed one identity in the U.S. However the vast majority of the children hyphenated their identity, with almost half hyphenating at least twice, like ‘Russian-Jewish-American’. There were many different variations of such hyphenation, especially in children, but Russian-Jewish was the most common.
Linguistic implications of those hyphenations are also very interesting, as they grant a glimpse into the topic of belonging. When talking about their identities, participants used some identities as nouns while others were more frequently used as
142 adjectives to qualify the dominant identity noun. ‘Russian’ was used more often as a qualifier (for instance ‘Russian Jew’, a Jew of specifically Russian variety), however it was also used as an adjectival noun when used by itself. In contrast, Jewish and
American identities were both found in the noun role more regularly. These data provided a window into just how complex and multi-faceted identity negotiation of a
Russian- Jewish immigrant is, with each individual building their hyphenated identity based on factors meaningful to them, such as cultural heritage, socialization, birthplace, ethnic heritage, current residence, belonging, and so on. Of note, just under half of the children expressed hyphenation in their FSU identity, but since the Russian qualifier would be redundant while living in the FSU, the FSU identity hyphenation is most likely a carryover from their American socialization.
With that said, not all participants identified as a permutation of Russian, Jewish, and American; many parents and some children indicated explicit and implicit avoidance of the topic of Judaism, especially in the FSU. It is understandable, considering it was the reason they had to leave their native home as refugees, that some may choose non- stigmatized identity alternatives based on other aspects of their life, such as family roles, personality traits, interests, or achievements. In oral interviews children named 3-4 identities whereas parents were a lot less consistent in their discussion of their identity; some named a couple of identities and others as many as 10. Children and some parents mainly explained the different hats they wore such as family and professional aspects, but many parents anchored their identities in elaborate family and personal histories, because that was the context in which they saw themselves existing.
143 Avoidance, as well as other techniques, was also used to spontaneously introduce topics of belonging in both parent and child interviews: other tactics participants used to differentiate themselves from a group included linguistic construction, unsolicited explicit negation statements, and temporal distancing. These involved traditional types of negation, such as ‘I’m not…’, linguistic distinctions, such as culturally Jewish or Soviet
Jew, and hedging statements, such as ‘I’m Russian, but lived most of my life in America, so I’m kind of American’. These unsolicited 'anti-identity statements' are quite telling about a person's attitudes and worldviews. Children tended to show distancing more than avoidance; though they acknowledged that Russian and Jewish were both very important parts of their identity, some hedged it with qualifiers as well as temporal and socialization explanations. Though parents showed explicit and implicit avoidance of identifying
Jewish much more than children, there were some children who also reported avoidance of identifying Jewish, even in adulthood in the U.S., which shows the power of transmission of parental attitudes of caution.
When talking about avoidance, it is important to point out that very few participants incorporated 'immigrant' into their core identity. There may have been intentional avoidance, because immigration carries its own type of stigma in the U.S., however since the interviewer was also an immigrant, it is more likely that because the participatns in this study were approximately 30 years post-immigration, the struggles of immigration were no longer relevant to their identity as they would have been shortly after arrival or that other identity considerations were just must more prominent in their mind than their immigrant background.
144 In perception of similarity with other ethnic groups, Children had a wider affinity range than parents, however in these findings it is not necessarily the groups of high affinity that are interesting, but the groups of lower affinity; namely, those who remained in the FSU, Israelis, and American Jews. Both parents and children indicated very low affinity, occasionally to the point of pity or open criticism, towards those who chose not to immigrate from the FSU (both Russians and Jews) and native Israelis who live in
Israel. Though participants share many cultural and social touch-points with these groups, they seemed adamant that those were groups that they have nothing in common with.
Incidentally, Chapter 4 discussed some disagreement in academia regarding whether FSU Russian Jewish immigrants had a positive, negative, or ambivalent sentiment towards the Former Soviet Union and its people. This study found the lowest affinity in both parents and children towards individuals who remained in the FSU, both
Jewish and non-Jewish, suggesting concurrence with the more negative standpoints.
Attitudes towards those living in the FSU could be best explained by Schrauf and
Hoffman’s (2007) work discussed in Chapter 2, examining revisionism of home-country memories of those who chose to emigrate from Puerto Rico compared to those who decided to remain in the native country. They showed that immigrants remodeled pre- immigration memories to be more negative than those who chose not to immigrate, posturing that it was to justify their decision to immigrate (Schrauf & Hoffman, 2007).
In addition to negative attitudes about those who remained in the FSU, parents showed similar negative attitudes towards native Israelis living in Israel. An explanation for this finding could be derived from the work of Isurin, (2011), who offers thorough analysis of
145 the strained relationship between native Israelis and FSU immigrants to Israel, explaining that FSU immigrants to Israel perceive native Israelis to be pushy and primitive. This leaves two possibilities to explain the negative attitudes of FSU immigrants to America, most of whom barely have any personal contact with native Israelis in Israel: one possibility is that perhaps this particular perception of Israelis is not unique to FSU Jews who immigrated to Israel, but may be the perception of FSU Jewish immigrants in general. Another, more likely possibility, is that FSU Jewish immigrants to America have close friends and relatives who immigrated to Israel and have transferred the negative attitudes they have about native Israelis across continents through long distance communication.
Parents do not seem to have a preference between non-Jewish FSU immigrants to
America, Israelis living in America, and non-Jewish Americans, though children have greater affinity for non-Jewish Americans than non-Jewish Russian speakers. FSU immigrants to Israel and American Jews are the next highest affinity groups for parents, perhaps due to partial overlap in socialization or a global Jewish connection, which will be discussed in Chapter 8. Judaism appears to be a very important element upon which to build commonality in both generations, explaining the greater affinity observed with
Jews than non-Jews. It is likely that children feel more comfortable with non-Russian speakers because they may not be completely confident in their own Russianness, though avoidance of Russian speakers could also be a means of rejecting of their
‘immigrant’/non-American identity.
Multiple children remarked that their parents were more Russian, Jewish, and immigrant, whereas the children felt more American. Yet almost all of the children
146 claimed their identity as Russian-Jew, rather than American or Jewish, even those born in the U.S. There were a couple of child participants who suggested that the outlook on commonality with parents was maturational: worldviews and commonalities with parent by age will be discussed in Chapter 10, however findings showed that parents actually had more identity overlap with children who were youngest at immigration.
While children recognize that there will always be some amount of similarity between them and their parents at the core, socialization exposure prevents them from having the same identity as their parents. However the majority of children either believed that they have a lot of intersubjectivity with their parents as far as the FSU experience or nearly none; there were fewer moderates. When parents were asked about their children’s identity, their estimation of it was closest to the aggregate parental private identity in the U.S. rather than children’s collective American public or private identity, suggesting that parents subconsciously wanted to believe that their children grew up to be like them.
According to both groups, family stories were the most common way of socializing identity in children. Parents identified family, anti-Semitism, Jewishness, core values, and family legacy as the things that defined their family identity in the FSU and indicated that they really wanted their children to see the flaws of the FSU political system, the importance of Jewish heritage, the value of hard work, and overcoming obstacles through their eyes. Children were in strong alignment with parental family identity concept, naming family, professional identity, religious tolerance, and appreciating opportunities that are open to them to be important parts of their family identity. This is in line with the findings of Rafelli et al. (2017) discussed in Chapter 3,
147 showing that the main takeaways adolescents gained from listening to parental stories of hardship had themes of hard work, perseverance, doing the right thing, gratitude for what they had, independence, and treating others well (Rafelli, et al., 2017, Chapter 3). It is perplexing, however, in context of everything known about these specific participants and Russian Jewish Intelligentsia as a whole, that education was not higher on family identity priorities when answering this question.
When talking about languages, all of the participants claimed Russian-English bilingualism, however most also listed additional languages they possessed. In pragmatic language skills, parents displayed a higher percentage of pragmatic language knowledge
(50%, in their case Republic language) than children (34%, Spanish, the host country pragmatic language), however, over 20% of the children also showed initiative with learning Hebrew, an ethnic heritage language which has very little practical purpose in the United States. Perhaps this is the children’s way of connecting with their Jewish heritage. In terms of Russian retention, speaking Russian at home was the predominant way of retaining the language, however there was a large disparity in self-rated proficiency between those who placed Russian first on their list of languages and those who placed it second, showing that the order of naming languages was not random, but subconsciously meaningful. Parents assessed children’s Russian proficiency very highly in aggregate, however it is important to remember that they were evaluating children’s communicative ability in the sphere where they interact (casual family conversation) rather than overall proficiency in native-like fluency.
This chapter underscores a curious dichotomy which seemingly stretches the close relationship between language and identity: even though Russian Jewish families tend to
148 have a negative attitude towards the FSU and some families surveyed seem to reject the term ‘Russian,’ going out of their way to stress that they are Soviet, not Russian Jews, all of the immigrant families showed daily participation in Russian cultural aspects and strong support for retaining the Russian language and passing it on to future generations.
Isurin (2017b) also found similar trends in Russian Jewish immigrants in Germany.
There could be a couple reasons for this paradox: first, it could be a strictly pragmatic phenomenon --knowing a language is an advantage that opens many doors, and parents want this tool to remain in their children’s toolkit so that they could take advantage of future opportunities. Secondly, both Chapter 2 and 4 explained that a language grants access to a linguaculture that connects a speaker to all of the other members of that culture, and parents want their children to be able to retain their cultural heritage so that they could relate to older generations. Realistically, both explanations probably motivate parental efforts to ensure their children maintain their language abilities. In that light, perhaps this dichotomy does not stretch the relationship between language and identity but instead supports it.
Interestingly, statistical analysis revealed that immigrant fathers showed much more importance in retention of Russian for future generations, worked harder to help children retain Russian, and placed greater importance on their grandchildren learning
Russian than immigrant mothers. Perhaps viewing these trends in context of sociolinguistic research indicating that men are less flexible in terms of socio-linguistic changes while women adapt faster to the changed situation could provide an explanation for why men place greater priority on children’s language maintenance.
149 Exploration of parent and child similarities and differences will continue throughout the next two chapters, examining things parents and children talk about with various interlocutors in Chapter 7 and recurring themes in Chapter 8. Chapter 9 will look at statistical data within families, linking parents to their children, and Chapter 10 will survey differences in children by age of arrival.
150
Chapter 7: Conversations about the FSU
People have different personalities they present to different interlocutors; your boss sees one side of you while your family see another, and your friends see a third.
This chapter focuses on how parents and children talked to different types of interlocutors about the FSU, beginning with an examination of how participants talk to Americans versus other Russian Jewish immigrants. Then this chapter will delve into how parents talked to their children about the country they left as they were growing up and in adulthood, followed by an in-depth look at intergenerational transmission of memories from parents to children and patterns in family storytelling. After that it will look at subtexts within interviews, and finally, explore the influences of storytelling, highlighting frequent themes. In this study, the term American refers to anyone who is not an FSU immigrant and does not have an emic perspective on life in the FSU, however, the terms
‘Russian or FSU immigrant’ which are used interchangeably, refer to a specifically
Russian Jewish FSU immigrant. The dynamics with other ethnicities who immigrated from the FSU (e.g. ethnic Russians, Armenians, Ukrainians) are much more complicated and individual-dependent, thus findings based on these data likely cannot be extended to
FSU non-Jewish immigrants.
151 1. Results
1.1 Conversation with Americans versus FSU immigrant peers
In order to explore the ways in which conversations with their immigrant and host country peers differ, participants were asked for a list of topics they talk about with host country and FSU Jewish peers. Parents and children both reported talking about similar topics with their American peers, however the frequency varied; while parents discussed discrimination and politics most often, children were more focused on family history and heritage; and both groups frequently discussed the negative impact of FSU socialism.
Pertinent interests and Russian culture were points of intersect, discussed by both parents and children with similar frequency (see Figure 7.1).
Figure 7.1: Topics most frequently discussed with Americans. The Y-axis represents the number of times a topic was mentioned, counted once per question per participant.
When talking to Americans about the FSU, parents most frequently attempted to explain about the practical realities of the FSU political system and the anti-Semitism they encountered as Jews. Many parents were of like mind, with comments such as “I 152 explain about political situation and difficulty of life for Jews” (M, age 54), “I tell them about history, political climate, discrimination, as well as the reality and atrocity of communist party” (M, age 63), and “I try to explain lack of freedom in the USSR, like freedom to live where you want or choose a doctor” (F, age 52). Some reported talking about more academic topics, like “history and perspectives of Russia in the world” (M, age 64). Many of the children, on the other hand, said they were too young at immigration to discuss their own experiences and reported sharing stories their parents told them. “I often share stories about my parents’ experiences; the memories I share depend on the context, but I am often trying to get across what my family dealt with before they immigrated, why they are so proud to live in the U.S. now, how their experiences shaped my childhood, who I am today, and my outlook on life,” explained one young woman who was born in the U.S. shortly after her parents immigrated.
Children who immigrated at a young age had a variety of responses, from passing on things told to them by their parents to sharing their own experiences growing up, however, those old enough to have well-formed memories prior to immigration said they talk about a wide range of interest topics, like “school, political system, my grandpa's dacha16, cars, and motorcycles” (M, age 16 at immigration) and “free range parenting, summer camps, growing up, family time” (F, age 14 at immigration).
However, conversation tone changed dramatically when talking to immigrant peers: whereas parental discussions increased, incorporating broader, richer, more personal topics, children’s conversations with immigrant peers about the FSU dwindled.
16 Dacha – summer cottage with a little garden in the countryside where Russians often spend summers out in nature. 153 Parents indicated that they discussed the FSU quite a bit, featuring a variety of topics within personal, professional, educational, and social realms: they still discussed all of the topics they listed with American interlocutors but on a deeper level, and integrating personal topics, such as family, professional history, everyday hardships of living in the
FSU, and discrimination. Children, on the other hand, showed opposite effect: with
Americans children talked about what living conditions were like in the FSU, however with FSU immigrants they limited conversations to family and pertinent interests, pointedly avoiding the topic of the FSU altogether (see Figure 7.2).
Figure 7.2 Topics most frequently discussed with FSU immigrant peers. The Y-axis represents the number of times a topic was mentioned in the interviews, with a limit of once per question.
Many children, even those older at immigration, adamantly stated that they do not talk about the FSU with immigrant peers at all. “Most of my friends immigrated as small children, so we don’t often discuss our own memories” (F, age 5 at immigration) explained one, while another said “I don’t talk about back there with other FSU 154 immigrants; we talk about the culture shock of arriving in the U.S., our immigration experiences, and more recent things” (F, age 14 at immigration). “I don’t spend a lot of time talking with other [FSU] immigrants about the USSR,” said a third, “but sometimes folks who moved recently will want to talk about either how everything is different now or how nothing has changed and is coming back around” (M, age 14 at immigration) said a participant who immigrated at an older age. Those who do talk about the FSU talk more about family experiences. “We talk about people, society, friends, comparison, school, social differences, education quality” (M, age 8 at immigration) said one participant, while another added “we talk about picking mushrooms and blueberries at our dacha in the summer. Everyone who has lived there already knows about the negative things that went on, so it’s more fun to focus on good things” (F, age 9 at immigration). Predictably, parents have a much broader range of topics they discuss with other immigrants; their responses read like big, all-encompassing lists, such as “FSU city, university, family, moments, life in general, and similarities” (M, age 63), “grandparents, celebrations, food, family stories, lots of jokes” (F, age 57), and “children, politics, culture, love, life, family” (F, age 57). However, they still often discuss some of the heavier topics, such as
“politics, life as refusniks, childhood” (F, age 52), “anti-Semitism, social life, college years, good time, and bad time” (F, age 63), and “politics, history, and unfairness of society to Jews” (F, age 62).
There were several explanations participants gave for the above-mentioned differences in communication style with immigrant versus American peers, such as a need for providing background for Americans, easier or more fun conversation with immigrants, common language, and the ability to discuss different topics. Many said that
155 when talking to Americans about the FSU they did more educating, whereas conversation with other immigrants peers was more like sharing stories or commiserating.
Additionally, some felt that having FSU intersubjectivity made it easier to share their stories while others felt that intersubjectivity actually hindered their memory sharing.
Interestingly, there were two frequent responses for parents that stood out among all of the other responses: many parents stressed that the difference in the two interlocutor groups was that they were able to be more personal with FSU peers due to intersubjectivity they shared, however quite a few also indicated that there was no difference in the way they talked to the two groups (see Figure 7.3).
Figure 7.3: Differences between speaking with Americans and immigrants - The most frequently-given explanations for differences in FSU discussions with U.S. versus FSU immigrant peers. The Y-axis represents the number of times a response was mentioned, and the question allowed participants to list more than one response; the maximums in each category are N = 32 for parents and N = 23 for children.
156 While there were many participants who stated that they talked to Americans the exact same way as they did to other immigrants about the FSU, most participants answered that talking to the two groups was, indeed, different. Children provided several explanations for the differences: many stated that they had more intersubjectivity with other immigrants and did not need to provide contextual background. One admitted “I simplify things for Americans, but with other USSR immigrants I know there are shared experiences so what’s discussed is more on a personal level” (F, age 8 at immigration), and another agreed, saying “there is usually much more familiarity when telling these stories to other FSU immigrants, since the stories tend to be received with nods much more often than shock, surprise, or curiosity. Stories told to FSU immigrants also tend to be funnier since they are not being told within the context of me trying to explain something about the Soviet Union to someone who knows very little about the Soviet
Jewish experience.” (F, born in the U.S.). Another participant added, “immigrants have more familiarity with terminology and don’t need context explanations, for things like dacha, banya17, or food items; there is a knowledge baseline that's understood” (M, born in the U.S.). For some it was a matter of educating versus commiserating or sharing, which was evident in responses like “when I talk with non-immigrants, I feel I'm educating them on what life was like in FSU and what it's like to be an immigrant. With immigrants it's more like sharing childhood stories” (F, age 8 at immigration), “I do more commiserating with immigrants, more education with Americans. FSU stories give me a deeper, more pragmatic appreciation for America.” (M, age 4 at immigration), “for
Americans, I try to convey the political reality of the Soviet Union, specifically lack of
17 Banya is a bath house, similar to a sauna; it is a big part of Russian tradition. 157 freedom” (F, age 5 at immigration). One participant said “I tell Americans how bad it was in USSR, but I tell other immigrants how much fun we had” (F, age 9 at immigration) and another explained that she had different expectations of FSU immigrant versus
American interlocutors on the position they adopted in conversation “it makes me angry when immigrants have different perspectives on Judaism or claim [to be] Russian, but with Americans I’m more sympathetic, they don’t know” (F, age 4 at immigration).
Some of the parents had similar responses as their children, in terms of intersubjectivity and need for background information seen in comments like
“immigrants know my life, theirs was similar” (M, age 62), “talking to Americans I try to omit details of Soviet life that they are unable to understand” (M, age 68), and
“Americans don’t understand what anti-Semitism is on a national level” (F, age 67). For some it was a matter of educating Americans about life in the FSU: “for Americans, I make an honest comparison of life in the U.S. and USSR” (M, age 69), “I don’t need to tell immigrants of challenges, they know, but in the U.S. they don’t understand, so I need to educate Americans. [I want them to understand] that what they have here is enough”
(F, age 62). For others the difference is a matter of trust: “I feel safer telling immigrants my political opinions” (M, age 75), “I hold back with Americans and only speak in generalities; I’m more comfortable sharing specifics with immigrants” (F, age 63), or sometimes the opposite sentiment “with Americans we can be more open than with
Russians” (F, age 61). One participant cited cultural communication style as the reason for the difference, stating “Americans are not comfortable with deep conversation, but I can share private touchable common experiences with immigrants. When you have common jokes, you laugh at life to make it easier” (M, age 63).
158 1.2 Conversation between parents and their children
Next, we will look at familial exchanges of FSU stories between parents and children. Here it is important to note that these data are still referring to parents and children in aggregate; within family discussion topics will be examined in Chapter 9. In an effort to assess imprinting of parental lessons, parents were asked to list topics they frequently told their children about as they were growing up, and children were correspondingly asked about themes their parents emphasized in their talks. Children confided that the most common parental story themes were family or family legacy
(current, family history, and memory sharing), anti-Semitism, and the negativity of the socialist system. Parents also explained that their goals were to stress anti-Semitism, the negativity of the socialist system, and intersystem comparisons to their children.
Additionally, they tried to teach heritage culture and history, family legacy, and about day-to-day living conditions (see Figure 7.4). Interestingly, though children discussed culture and history, religious tolerance, and comparative nuances of daily life in other parts of their interview, almost none mentioned it when asked about what their parents taught them; however based on frequency of discussion in other parts of this study, immediate family members, professionalism, discrimination, education, family history, living conditions, and interpersonal relationships were internalized by children to a greater degree than parents reported teaching.
159
Figure 7.4: Parental teachings and child perception. Most frequent parent and child responses regarding topics of parental teachings. The Y-axis represents the number of times a response was given, counted once per question.
For the most part parental stories covered topics like history, culture, education, children’s childhood, and the parents’ childhood. Some parents summarized that they talked about “family relations, life in USSR, family history, biographical information, and discrimination” (M, age 63), “life comparison, schools, relationships, and processes” (F, age 62), “family- especially grandparents, and details of everyday life” (M, age 68), or
“about Russian history and culture” (F, age 54). Many parents explained Soviet anti-
Semitism to their children, evident in comments like “I told him about feeling the pressure of being different, a lesser person than everyone else” (M, age 68), and “We talked about our experiences as people who have less rights than others” (M, age 62).
Others focused more on the message behind the memories, using stories to teach personal values like “there is nothing impossible in life, you just have to be willing to work hard enough to get it” (M, age 71). “I told stories highlighting freedom and equality” (M, age
160 68) said one parent, “I tried to teach them values of hard work, responsibility, kindness, and making own choices” (F, age 70) expressed another, a third emphasized ‘education, comparing living conditions, and highlighting good things about America’ (F, age 57), and a fourth promoted values of respect: “your background does not matter, if you respect people, they'll respect you“ (M, age 62).
A few parents said that they did not share FSU memories much with their children, due to one or both sides not being interested in those types of conversations.
“She wasn’t interested in what was going on over there [in the FSU]. She doesn’t ask and I don’t tell her; she remembers some of it on her own. What she doesn’t remember she doesn’t ask. She’s not very interested in our past’ (M, age 65) remarked one father, while another said “I rarely told them stories, they weren’t interested, and I didn’t want to remember. Occasionally we talked about dacha, family time, and gratitude for the
U.S. move” (M, 67). Other parents agreed, saying “I told them about family history, but they don’t care about the past of our family in the USSR” (F, 63) or “I didn’t really teach them anything, unfortunately. My eldest remembers what it was like there, but the younger one doesn’t know or understand anything. I try to tell them now, but I can’t reach them” (F, 67).
In many ways, children echoed their parents’ sentiments; when talking about the topics of memories parents shared, one participant explained “most dinnertime conversations throughout my childhood centered on USSR experiences, and even now, my parents’ stories from the USSR pop up whenever I come to visit. My father’s stories often focused on his strong distaste for communism from a very young age, while my mother’s stories often focused on time spent at her family’s “dacha.” Both shared
161 stories about their childhood, about experiences with anti-Semitism, and about their time at university” (F, born in the U.S.). Others concurred, supplying lists of topics that typically comprised parental stories: “what everyday life was like, hardships of living there, school and college of parents, and family history during war” (F, age 8 at immigration), “[My dad talked about his] upbringing, relationships with others, hardships of the communist regime, struggles, life, friends, education, work, lack of freedom, difficulty being Jewish, political persecution, fear of government, and war stories. My mom talked about work, upbringing, and family” (F, age 14 at immigration), and “[my parents talked about] professional, family history, achievements, funny stories, celebrations, and when things were bad” (M, age 5 at immigration).
Most children reported that parents shared many FSU memories with them growing up, and that most of the memories were negative, especially those dealing with the Soviet political system and being Jewish in the FSU; however, they also noted that parents tried to include positive memories with family and friends or put a positive glow on negative events. “Some stories were positive (related to culture, family, human relationships, and level of education), some negative (such as relationships with others, hardships of communist regime, struggles, work, lack of freedom, difficulty being Jewish, political persecution, and fear of government), and some were neutral,” (F, age 12 at immigration) said one participant. Another elaborated, saying “the memories [my parents shared] were always either very positive or very negative, depending on the topic. My parents’ stories about communism were very negative, while stories about their time at university were typically very positive, with the exception of very negative stories about dealing with anti-Semitism at the university” (F, born in the U.S.).
162 Positivity of stories depended on parents’ experience and goals for their children: “they
[parents] shared positive and negative, more negative but that's what stuck out more”
(M, age 5 at immigration) said one child participant. Another explained “my parents always tried sharing positive memories with me. They shared more as I got older so that
I was abreast of my history and how it affected my family” (F, born in the U.S.). The positivity in parental stories, as perceived by children, can be seen in Figure 7.5.
Figure 7.5– Children’s perception of positivity in parental stories. Data were collected on a 5-point Likert scale, and the Y-axis represents the number of children’s responses indicating each of the answers. Total N = 23.
While most of the sentiments about FSU were negative, there were a few positive expressions from both parents and children. One parent remarked “I am a simple guy, I was happy there, I am happy here. I was at peace there and didn’t have any problems.
Just anti-Semitism” (M, 65), while another elaborated “my sentiments about the FSU are independent of the fact that I am grateful that I am here. I’m 100% better off here, but I was born there, my homeland and childhood are there, my grandparents and mother are
163 buried there. Despite the political issues, in my head it is my homeland” (M, 62). Many parents explicitly stated that they shielded their children from the realities of being a
Soviet Jew; with statements like, “I don’t want her [daughter] to see anything about the
FSU; I don’t want her to go through it or have that experience” (M, 62). One mother confided, “with my daughter, she was older [12 years old at immigration], but had a happy childhood and didn’t see the problems which caused us to leave; so it
[immigration] was hard for her” (F, 62), and another said, “I have many bad memories from there [FSU], but she [daughter] had a pretty nice life; she did not get discriminated against there, but she knew that other Jews did” (F, 63).
Several children also noted that their parents made an effort to bring up positive memories of the FSU or present negative ones in a positive light for their benefit. One child participant said “My parents shared mostly positive memories so as to keep me protected from negativity. The negative did surface sometimes but they tried to convey it in such a manner that it was turned into a positive” (F, born in the U.S.), another concurred, “My parents did not share anything with me, they wanted to protect me from all the negativity” (M, age 5 at immigration). Some parents succeeded in shielding their children from some of the ugliness of their society; one child participant said “I was too little to comprehend what it [anti-Semitism] really was. I had relatively good experience,
I was a happy kid” (M, age 8 at immigration). Another remarked “There everything was harder, but for me, I did not see that. For me, life was good. I only have happy memories. I never felt like I experienced the harshness or how difficult things were.
Plus, I’m very naturally naïve; I was a very happy kid” (F, age 8 at immigration).
164 Incidentally, children's concept of whether they perceive their parents' experience the same way as their parents has a very parabolic pattern. Most either felt their perceptions were very similar or very different, with only two respondents reporting a neutral position (see Figure 7.6).
Figure 7.6 Child perception of parental experience. Y-axis represents frequency of responses to a single question, N=23.
1.3 Memory sharing practices
Many parents reported enjoyment for sharing FSU stories with their children while they were growing up and frequently talking about their FSU past with their young children and other FSU immigrants; however fewer stories were shared with host country connections and with children in adulthood. From the data comparing positivity of remembered FSU experience and positivity of stories told to children, it also appears that parents remembered their FSU experience to be slightly more positive than they portrayed it in intergenerational discussions (see Table 7.1).
165 Parent Child Parent memory sharing practices Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Like sharing memories 3.53 (1.24) N/A Remember FSU positively 3.28 (1.11) 3.48 (1.20) Parent FSU stories positive 3.19 (1.14) 2.61 (1.03) Shared many FSU stories with children growing up 3.91 (1.14) 4.30 (.92) Frequently share memories with children now 2.84 (1.13) N/A Often share FSU memories with other immigrants 3.53 (1.16) N/A Often share FSU memories with US connections 2.56 (1.13) N/A
Table 7.1 – Parent memory sharing practices. Some of the cells are blank because they were not included on the children’s questionnaire.
The only significant Independent Samples t-test finding related to memory sharing practices of parents was the variance between mothers and fathers in the amount of storytelling with their children while they were growing up [Males M = 3.38 (1.31),
Females M= 4.44 (.62); t (21.568) = - 2.92**, p = 0.008, d = 1.104]; this finding indicates that mothers told their children significantly more FSU stories than fathers. Interestingly, while parents and children had similar means in remembering FSU positively themselves, variance analysis corroborated with near-significance [Parent M = 3.19 (1.14), child M =
2.61 (1.03); t (53) = 1.92, p = 0.06, d = 0.537] that parents perceived the stories they were telling to be more positive than the way children interpreted them. Parents also had slightly higher means for overall relevance of Judaism, importance of family stories, spontaneously mentioning Judaism, and unsolicited mention of discrimination, whereas children were slightly higher in overall detail about ancestors, strength of intergenerational transmission, and carried a slightly more positive outlook on socialism, but none reached significance.
166 1.4 Patterns in storytelling
Another fascinating question these data enabled us to explore is whether parental patterns of story-telling with their children resemble their communication with their
American or immigrant peers more. Figure 7.7 shows that parent storytelling with immigrants tended to be centered on the hardships of FSU daily life whereas with
Americans it focused on explanation about the realities of being Jewish in the FSU and discussion of current events on the world stage. With children, however, there were some similarities to both immigrant and American storytelling, but overall, the way parents talked to their children was more similar to FSU immigrant peer discussions than talks with American connections.
Figure 7.7 – Parent storytelling patterns with children versus other interlocutors (immigrant peers and Americans). The Y-axis represents the total number of times a response was given, however these questions allowed for a single participant to mention multiple topics. Maximum ratings per topic are N = 32 for parents and N = 23 for children.
167 Furthermore, all of this discussion about communicative styles begs the question of whether the storytelling children do with their host or native peers is derived from topics they internalized as important from parental intergenerational reminiscence.
Figure 7.8 shows a distinct lack of talking about the FSU with immigrant peers, but many of the American peer discussion patterns do mirror parental discussions. In fact, children actually reported telling Americans about living conditions, heritage culture, and comparisons of interest items more than they reported hearing about those topics from their parents.
Figure 7.8 – Parental stories as a possible source for child storytelling. This figure shows how themes children heard from parents compare with what they tell host and native country peers. The Y-axis represents the total number of times a response was given, however these questions allowed for a single participant to mention multiple topics. Maximum ratings per topic are N = 32 for parents and N = 23 for children.
1.5 Subtexts
When looking at overall interview subtexts (see Figure 7.9), coded based on experimenter impressions from participant interviews, parents’ and children’s data lined 168 up fairly well. The majority of parents and children indicated socialism to be very central to their life yet to also have a very negative connotation. Most also held family stories to have great importance. While all parents indicated that children were aware of their family history to some degree, many parents felt that it was at a knowledge (rather than an understanding) level. Additionally, Judaism and discrimination were discussed more frequently in parent interviews than child interviews, and while most parents freely
(without discomfort) identified Jewish, most children highlighted it as a point of pride.
Though some of these subtexts seem repetitive or common sense, this graphic actually provides a valuable visual representation of all of the underlying attitudes about the FSU, Judaism, and family storytelling that parents and children carried at the time of the interviews, giving the reader some degree of intersubjectivity and insight into participants worldviews. With that said it is important to remember that oftentimes conversational subtexts are highly dependent on the interlocutor, and in this case, the interviewer was also a Russian Jew, of the same age as the children population. Had the interviewer been an outgroup member, or of a different age, the subtexts in both parent and child interviews would probably have been different. There will be a detailed discussion about interviewer bias in the conclusion of this study.
169
Figure 7.9 – Interview subtexts for parents and children. Y-axis shows how many individuals showed a particular tendency, N = 32 in parents, and N = 23 in children.
1.6 Influences of storytelling
As seen in Figure 7.10, parents indicated that the top three ways their stories influenced their children were by instilling a sense of hard work and drive, appreciation for what they have in the United States, and making them overall better. Children attribute appreciation for opportunities open to them in the United States, an open- minded perspective, and a sense of drive to work hard to their parents’ stories.
Interestingly, only two individuals said that parental stories helped foster a Jewish connection. Also, children, but not parents, noted qualities of perseverance to overcome challenges, shaping of priorities, and skepticism to also be outcomes of parental stories. 170 Skepticism may or may not have been an intentional lesson; it made multiple appearances throughout children’s data, but very few of the parents had indicated it as an explicit take away of their interactions. Another notable data point shows that while parents expressed that their stories gave their children a better awareness of family legacy, strengthened self-esteem, built confidence, increased cultural heritage awareness, and improved interpersonal interactions, none of the children indicated any of those as outcomes of listening to parental stories.
Figure 7.10 – Influences of parent storytelling on children. The Y-axis represents the total number of times a topic was mentioned; these questions allowed for a single participant to mention multiple topics. Maximum ratings per topic are N = 32 for parents and N = 23 for children.
Appreciation for the freedoms available to children in the United States and drive to work hard were both outcomes of parental storytelling highlighted in the above data, thus it is important to take a focused look at those two themes. Skepticism also emerged
171 as a major theme in this discussion, however it will be addressed in more detail in
Chapter 8.
According to both parents and children, appreciation for freedoms available to children was the biggest outcome of parental discussions. Entrenchment of parental teachings of appreciation is evident in many statements made by children. “Coming to understand and appreciate their [parents’] stories has made me much more grateful for what I have, and has often helped me put things into perspective when I am going through something negative”, said one female participant who was born in the United
States. Another participant explained “Life there is different, it’s not necessarily a bad life, we know a lot of people who still live there and have a great lifestyle, but the level of freedom, the level of ability to live your life the way we truly want to isn’t there” (F, age
12 at immigration).
“There was a lack of opportunity, not just to develop yourself as a person, but also religious opportunities and freedoms: … you truly couldn’t identify the way you wanted to while living there. I think that kind of helped shape my idea of religious freedom and expression of self. We are lucky that my parents made the decision to come here, even though they don’t expressly say ‘back in my day, things were so much worse and you should appreciate what you have here’, I sort of saw that for myself without them having to tell me” (F, age 4 at immigration).
Another recurrent sentiment was the importance of hard work. One participant explained “You have to work hard to get what you need in life. Don’t expect anyone else to do things for you or provide for you” (F, age 8 at immigration). Another confirmed
“they [parents] raised my sister and me to believe that education and hard work were central to our identities. My parents always pushed me to do well in school, to stay
172 ambitious, and to fiercely pursue my goals; they always told me stories about how hard they worked to get where they were” (F, born in the U.S.). A third elaborated, explaining
“If you fell short, that just means that you need to work harder in order to achieve whatever. For example, something would happen where I didn’t get a grade that I was supposed to get, that was on me. It didn’t matter that all sorts of other things got in my way, it was on me and I should work harder. It was repeated over and over again, to the point where it resulted in ownership of whatever successes or whatever goal I had. That was the general mentality in my family.” (M, age 5 at immigration).
Some of the children indicated that they learned the values of working hard to achieve goals by watching their parents struggle to get established in the United States, evident thought responses like “my parents continuously being out of the home working, and putting so much time into their education and making some sort of a life for us here, and the memory of seeing them doing this instilled this value and drive into me to continue to push further and do more and never settle with what I have” (F, age 4 at immigration).
2. Discussion
When I initially designed this study, I thought that defining anyone not familiar with the intricacies of FSU life or culture as ‘American’ and anyone who was raised in the FSU, regardless of their ethnicity as ‘FSU immigrant peer’ was an all-inclusive definition; however throughout the course of writing this dissertation, I noticed that data collected by Russian-Jewish interviewers working with in-group participants varied greatly from data collected by an ethnic Russian interviewer who was looking at similar parameters within the Russian-Jewish population. This variability indicates heavy interviewer bias, even with various types of Russian-speaking FSU immigrants, and is
173 especially relevant in this chapter because it centers on analyzing the way FSU Jewish participants talk to different demographics of interlocutors. Thus, I must restrict my operational definition of FSU immigrant peer to only FSU Jewish immigrants who moved to the United States. I cannot say that these findings would apply to other ethnicities of FSU immigrants, such as ethnic Russians, Armenians, Ukrainians, and so on. 18 The conclusion offers an in-depth discussion on specifically want these differences were.
Findings addressing parental discussion topics with Americans versus immigrant peers clearly demonstrate that parents were very open with other Russian Jewish FSU immigrants but much more reserved when talking to American interlocutors. Parental findings suggest that Russian Jews who immigrated in adulthood rely heavily on other
Russian Jews for intimate conversation, and though they demonstrate a desire to educate their U.S. peers about life in the FSU, they restrict discussion with them mostly to topics that fall within the public domain. In contrast with the geopolitical topics parents gravitated towards with Americans (comparative politics, history, anti-Semitism, and current events), children’s discussions with Americans were a little lighter. They still touched on some of the heavier topics prevalent in parental reports but augmented them severely with personal and family history or interest topics. It is likely that children are not as well versed (or interested) in current and historical events in the FSU, whereas their family history is directly, personally relevant and familiar to them, thus increasing motivation to discuss it. This is in line with Svob and Brown’s (2012) work discussed in
18 The only place other ethnicities who immigrated from the FSU were directly asked about is in the question about affinity, discussed in Chapter 6. Everywhere else FSU immigrant peer was likely interpreted as FSU Jewish immigrant peer. 174 Chapter 3, finding that individuals considered family histories, especially those in conflict regions to be highly personally relevant.
Children, on the other hand appeared to relate to different groups based on their age of arrival; all of the children related to Americans best (Chapter 6) and expressed some discomfort with talking to other FSU immigrants, especially about topics related to the FSU. While children were willing to answer questions about the FSU for Americans, they had a strong distaste for discussing the FSU with their immigrant peers. Most children indicated limiting their conversations with FSU peers, and some explicitly stated that they abstain from discussing the FSU with other immigrants altogether: even children older at immigration followed this pattern. While there could be several reasons why this phenomenon would emerge, the most likely is that children avoided discussing the FSU because they are simply not secure enough in their FSU knowledge to be able to confidently discuss it with someone else who may also have firsthand knowledge or might challenge their viewpoint. However despite their comfort level or FSU knowledge, identity data still showed them to have a strong Russian cultural identity.
Though it may seem contradictory to talk about a strong cultural Russian identity with so many findings in this study pointing to a strong Jewish (rather than Russian) identity, it is important to remember that the two exist in tandem in FSU Russian Jews.
As discussed in Chapter 4, immigrants retain their native culture(s) and integrate the host culture into it, constructing their own unique culture, hyphenated identity, lifestyle, and language (Prashizky & Remennick, 2015, Chapter 4). These cultural and linguistic factors play a particularly important role in both how life events are remembered and how those memories are drawn upon to aid in identity construction (Wilson & Ross, 2003).
175 For Russian Jews, both their Russian and Jewish identities include culturally socialized aspects that also influence thoughts, opinions and perceptions; in short, who they envision themselves to be and how they see the world. Though results discussed in
Chapter 6 clearly showed that Jewish identity was extremely important to the participants, there is no consensus as to what that actually is, and preferred identities vary across the Russian Jewish population (Markowitz, 2009, Isurin 2014, Chapter 4). Most
FSU Jews do not practice much Jewish culture; they may celebrate a couple of Jewish holidays, know a few phrases in Hebrew or Yiddish, and a make a token Jewish dish for a celebration, but Jewish traditions are not part of daily life for most Russian Jews.
Conversely, they speak Russian fluently and regularly, cook Russian food, espouse
Russian values and worldviews, and filter social relationships through a lens of Russian socialization, giving them a strong Russian identity. Consequently, it is possible that this duality is why FSU Jews feel out of place in FSU due to their Jewishness, out of place in
Israel due to their Russianness, and confused in America due to the mix of the three identities competing for dominance. Some assimilate fully while others live in limbo, not feeling like they belong to either culture (Remennick, 2003, Chapter 4).
There was an interesting observation dealing with the question about the differences in the way participants talked to Americans versus immigrant peers. Not only were the children uncharacteristically silent on this question when they were usually much more talkative than the parents, but it seemed that some of the answers of ‘there are no differences in the way I talk to the two’ were just a little too pointed, like participants were going out of their way to show their political correctness. It is possible that this question inadvertently put some of the participants on the defensive.
176 Parents shared memories much more often with their children as they were growing up than in adulthood; maybe they subconsciously felt that these stories had a formative instructive purpose, and once their children had grown up, the motivation to teach them through storytelling was no longer relevant. However, it is also possible that the longer the parents lived in America, the more distant their pre-immigration past seemed, and the less imperative they felt to base life lessons on it. Parents also indicated that the stories they told were slightly less positive than the way they actually remembered their FSU experience. Perhaps this also had subconscious instructive intentionality, to downplay the positive aspects of the FSU to really stress the point that it was a bad place to live, and since all of the children expressed a very negative sentiment about the FSU, it is reasonable to conclude that their efforts were successful.
Discrimination and Judaism are among the highest discussed topics in both parent and child data throughout this study: parents talked frequently about discrimination to immigrants, Americans, and children, however children indicated that they received information from their parents but shared it only with Americans. I believe that sharing with each subset has different emotional functions for the individual telling the story. As discussed in Chapter 4, individuals are aware of personal stigmas and judiciously reveal information about themselves to others (Bruner, 2003), and since consciousness of discrimination contributes to social identity as ‘members of stigmatized group,’ perceived discrimination would likely increase closeness with the minority group and even motivate groups to display their stigmas publicly to raise social awareness (Padilla & Perez, 2003).
Choosing to discuss Soviet discrimination with Americans enables Russian Jews to take back their power and make a stand against the grand narrative of being a victim, thus
177 boosting self-esteem and a sense of self-worth (Chapter 4, Chapter 2). Parents sharing memories with children also has these self-esteem functions, as well as an educational component - to instill a strong family identity and values into them, so that they could find their own identity as they grow up.
Parental sharing of FSU discrimination memories with immigrants probably has yet another function: catharsis, social bonding, and identity fine-tuning. Living as Jews in the FSU, parents likely normalized their discriminative experiences, which created a self-perception of being a second-class citizen, increased feelings of vulnerability, and prompted them to adopt survival strategies (Isurin, 2011, p. 132-138): stigmatized individuals are generally reluctant to admit that they possess a discriminated-against quality because the psychological costs to making such an attribution are decreased self- esteem and a perceived lack of control (Padilla & Perez, 2003). However when Jews immigrated, they were able to shed their officially-ascribed identity and negotiate a new identity they felt fit them best in their new setting (Isurin, 2014). Discussing FSU discrimination with other immigrants who had similar experiences probably serves a cathartic function, similar to that of a support group, to help individuals build continuity of self by processing their past and leveraging it to build their current identity.
Children, on the other hand, do not have this need for catharsis through commiseration with other FSU immigrant peers; in fact, it seems to make them uncomfortable. Maybe that is because discrimination was not personally experienced, so it has a greater subjective distance from their sense of self. Children could also be refraining from sharing parental stories with immigrant peers because they assume that all FSU Russian Jewish children hear similar stories from their own parents, thus sharing
178 them within the in-group circle does not contribute to the ‘personal uniqueness’ identity motivation.
When looking at how parental discussion themes were internalized by children, there were several themes parents reported to have stressed that children did not mention as things they learned from parental stories, specifically religious freedom, everyday life in the FSU, and heritage culture. However, all of those themes appeared in other places in the responses children provided, indicating that the themes were internalized, just not retrieved from memory to answer that particular question. As discussed in Chapter 1, retrieval of memories aligns with the ever-evolving goals of the current self (Isurin,
2017a). Perhaps the topics that children did retrieve (family, profession, discrimination, and family history) were the ones that best aligned with the goals of their current selves, as most relevant to a question about topics of parental discussions. That position also brings into a new light parental pessimism, lamenting that their children did not care about family legacy and history; on the contrary, parent-child comparison findings suggest that children may have cared about these topics more than the parents realized.
Findings were able to capture and compare whether parent-child storytelling patterns mirrored that of immigrant or host nation interactions, noting isolated elements of both but no firm alignment with either. Perhaps Figure 7.7 is a visual representation of parents accommodating their child’s hybrid identity in the way they talk and interact.
However, children’s storytelling patterns were found to strongly resemble their parents’ when talking to their host nation peers. This supports the assertion that the stories children shared with their host-country counterparts were ones they likely heard form their parents. Interestingly this trend did not hold for children’s interaction with fellow
179 FSU immigrants; perhaps parental stories were not enough to give children the confidence to discuss the FSU with immigrant interlocutors, but it is also possible that children do not talk to their immigrant peers about the FSU based on the assumption that all Jewish FSU immigrant children heard similar stories from their parents, thus talking about the FSU would provide no practical purpose.
Predictably, parents showed trends of talking about their FSU experiences to immigrant peers and to their children as they were growing up more than to their
American connections and children in adulthood, with mothers telling significantly more stories than fathers. However, though parents perceived their experiences and stories to be neutral, children considered them to be much more negative, nearing statistical significance. Perhaps this could be explained through differences in vantage point: parents were inured to their experiences, thus their memories did not register as negatively in their own minds as they did for their children, who had a very different upbringing in a much more inclusive country. Children also reported hearing more stories than parents reported telling; perhaps parents had so much they wanted to share that they did not feel like they were ever sharing enough, whereas children heard so many stories, that it seemed to them their parents were constantly talking about their FSU past.
Children in Generation 1.5 reported remembering the FSU more positively than parents, which could be attributed to some of them being too young to fully appraise social contexts and being shielded by their parents from some of the more negative things children should not have to experience. There was some overlap in these positivity sentiments with findings in Isurin (2017a, 2017b), who noted that Russian Jews who immigrated in adolescence with their families to Germany remembered their time in the
180 FSU very positively, prioritized and valued their Russian identity above any of their other identities, and considered the Russian language to be extremely important to them (pp.
135-157). However, though all of the child participants in this study also valued their
Russian identity and considered the Russian language to be personally important, they seemed to prioritize their Russian and Jewish identities equally and only Generation 1.5
(mostly children between 6-10 at immigration) attributed a lukewarm positivity to their time in the FSU. The majority of the parents and Generation 2 children felt a much more negative sentiment towards the FSU. Additionally, while Isurin’s child participants did not report any discrimination (Isurin, 2017b, pp. 135-157), most of my participants did.
However, as Isurin (2011) points out, immigration and integration trajectories for Russian
Jews in the U.S., Israel, and Germany were different, with Germany presenting more challenges for integration. Thus, Russian Jews in Germany – contrary to Russian Jews in the U.S. – probably feel more rejected by the host society and, as a result, fall back onto their Russian identity. It is also possible that choosing to move to Germany, with its not- so-distant history of exterminating their Jewish population, created some amount of cognitive dissonance in FSU Jews, which they resolved by suppressing their Jewish identity.
Hard work and appreciation for the life in the U.S. were central take-aways for both parents and children, and it is not surprising that parents who grew up in hardship environments would want to pass on hard work and overcoming values to their children.
There was, however, one interesting observation about both parent and child participants who discussed hard work; there were many times participants mentioned ‘working harder’, but it was in different contexts. Sometimes it was in reference to reaching a goal
181 or a pre-determined standard; other times to beat a personal best. There were also times, however, when it was used specifically to communicate working harder than peers to achieve equal footing. Since parents had to work harder to achieve the same opportunities in the FSU, it is reasonable that they passed this sentiment on to their children. But these teachings are not unique to just Russian Jewish immigrants; Rafelli et al. (2017) also found that the main takeaways Taiwanese-American adolescents gained from listening to parental stories of hardship had themes of hard work, perseverance, doing the right thing, gratitude for what they had, independence, and treating others well
(Raffelli, et al., 2017). However, discussion themes will be addressed in much more detail in Chapter 8.
182
Chapter 8: Parent-Child Comparison - Themes
Participant data revealed several well-defined themes that were present throughout written and oral data, underscoring participant worldviews, priorities, and attitudes. While there were some similarities between written and oral themes, there were also some interesting differences in the way people talk versus write about themselves. This chapter will begin by discussing themes that frequently appeared in oral interviews overall as well as those within each question. Following that, it will examine themes present in written questionnaires, which sometimes had a different tone than orally-provided data. Finally, it will spotlight some of the more interesting themes with an in-depth discussion; these spotlights will be sub-divided into three categories:
Judaism, discrimination, and pragmatics.
1. Results
1.1 Oral interview themes
In their interviews, which inquired about participants’ self-definition, parental teachings, and asked for a self-defining memory from both the FSU and the U.S., both parents and children had highly frequent19 occurrences (over 20 mentions) of character,
19 For the purposes of this analysis of overall interview responses, high frequency themes were those that garnered at least 20 responses, and frequent themes being those that garnered at least 10. Of course, percentage-wise, these numbers would comprise higher percentages in the children's population, since there were fewer participants (parents n= 32, children n=23), however due to the way the study was set up, it was impossible to quantify and present them as percentages. 183 family, and professional themes. Both Judaism and immigration were highly frequent themes for children but were not mentioned as often by parents, and while discrimination was a high frequency theme for the parents' generation it did not meet the frequency standard for children. Both parents and children also met the frequent threshold (over 10 mentions) for negative political system, hobbies, and family legacy. Children likewise had frequent occurrences of social, pro-American, and cultural legacy themes while parents discussed friendship, and reinvention themes more frequently. Furthermore,
Table 8.1 shows that while topics like character, family, family legacy, negativity of the
FSU system, and profession were relatively equal in both parent and child populations, there were some noteworthy differences; parents exhibited much higher frequencies of friendship or interpersonal themes, where interaction occurred with a single person, such as a spouse, friend, or colleague, whereas children had much higher social themes, where interaction happened in larger groups. Children also had higher self-definition through hobbies than parents, expressed greater pro -American sentiments, and a suggested greater rootedness in Judaism. Incidentally, friendship, reinvention, character, and family themes were more prevalent in responses to questions dealing with accounts of individual memories than self-definitions or parental teachings (see Table 8.120).
20 As discussed in Appendix B,there are also a few categorical distinctions of how themes were classified that may require some clarification: The line-item ‘character’ encompasses values and personal qualities, such as kindness, loyalty, and determination. There are separate line-items for a theme of ‘family’ and ‘family legacy;’ the former deals with roles and interactions within an individual’s immediate and extended family, such as roles, relationships, and sentiments, whereas the latter deals with information transmitted intergenerationally about distant ancestors outside of parents and grandparents. There is also a distinction between social themes that emphasize interaction with a large group and friendship/interpersonal theme which focuses more on interactions with a single person. 184 High frequency themes across all interview responses Highest Themes Highest Themes Overall Overall Theme parent (n = 32) child (n = 23) Character 57 46 Family 45 33 Professional 36 27 Discrimination 25 7 Jewish 19 29 Negative political system in FSU 17 16 Hobby 11 16 Immigration 11 13 Social 9 15 Pro-American 5 14 Family legacy 17 12 Friendship/interpersonal 17 6 Reinvention 12 8 Cultural legacy 9 13
Table 8.1: High frequency themes - Frequent themes had at least 10 occurrences while high frequency themes were those with at least 20 responses and are highlighted for ease of reading.
There were two questions in the interview about self-concept and parental teachings that were particularly meaningful for parent-child comparison; one examined participants’ self-concept while the other dealt with child internalization of parental teachings. Since by-question analysis had a set possible number of occurrences (N =32 for parents, N=23 for children), it was possible to report these findings in percentages.
Thus, this study will consider frequent responses to be those given by at least 30% of the participants and the highly frequent treshold to be at least 50% of the participants.
When looking at internalization of parental teachings, character and negative political system were the highest frequency responses, in children, with other frequent responses being Jewish, family legacy, and skepticism or mistrust (of authority, organizations, or people). In parents there were no responses that reached the highly frequent threshold, however character, discrimination, and negative political system all
185 reached the frequency margin established by this analysis. When looking at self-concept, both children and parents had highly frequent responses for family and professional categories, additionally children listed Jewish and parents listed character traits with high frequency of at least 50% of the participants. Other frequent responses on this question for children included themes of biculturalism, pro-American sentiment, social interaction, hobby, and character, and parents met the frequency standard for family legacy (see
Table 8.2).
High Frequency Themes by Interview Question Describe who Describe who What did you you are as a you are as a teach your What did person person children? parents teach parent children Theme (n = 32) you? (n = 23) (n = 32) (n = 23) Character 13 13 20 10 Family 5 6 22 14 Professional 0 3 18 20 Discrimination 10 6 6 0 Jewish 7 11 7 13 Negative political system in FSU 13 13 2 0 Hobby 1 0 6 8 Social 0 0 5 7 Pro-American 4 6 0 7 Family legacy 5 7 10 3 Skepticism/mistrust 2 8 N/A N/A Biculturalism N/A N/A 0 7
Table 8.2: High frequency themes by interview question. The threshold for high frequency responses (at least 50% of the participants) was 16 for the parents and 12 for the children. The cutoff for frequent responses was at least 30% of the participants, or 10 for the parents and 7 for the children.
Participants were also asked to share one memory from the FSU (Figure 8.1) and one from the U.S. (Figure 8.2) that showed well who they were as people. Children’s memories were rich in topics of character and family in both host and native countries,
186 but also reinvention in the United States. For parents, themes of character, profession, friendship, and family were prominent in both countries, and predictably, memories from the U.S. had fewer themes of discrimination than memories from the FSU. Interestingly, though awareness of discrimination between adults and children was obviously different,
Jewish themes were contained equally in both parent and child FSU memories; and in both generations decreased in the U.S. These two questions also elicited more group social themes in children and individual interpersonal relationships in parents, in both countries. Unsurprisingly, immigration themes in memories were more frequent in the
U.S. than in the FSU (see Figures 8.1 and 8.2).
Figure 8.1. Themes in FSU. memories. These themes show who participants (in aggregate) considered themselves to be as people. The Y-axis shows the number of individuals who accentuated particular themes, with a maximum of 32 instances in parents and 23 in children.
187
Figure 8.2 Themes in U.S. memories. These themes show who participants (in aggregate) considered themselves to be as people. The Y-axis shows the number of individuals who accentuated particular themes, with a maximum of 32 instances in parents and 23 in children.
1.2 Written memory identity questionnaire themes
The written short-answer Memory-Identity questionnaires also had specific trends; parents had high frequencies (over 20 instances) of discussing Jewishness, FSU as a negative political system, discrimination, and family legacy. Children also had highly frequent discussion of FSU’s negative political environment, but only reached frequency
(at least 10 instances of discussion) for Jewishness, discrimination, and family legacy.
The majority of the other topics listed in Table 8.3 below were discussed frequently, and in almost all categories, though the raw number of parents was slightly higher, it actually comprised a lower percentage 21of possible respondents (see Table 8.3).
21 Presentation by percentage was not possible due to the number and relevance of questions that generated these themes. 188 Frequent memory-identity questionnaire themes Parents Children Parents Children
(n = 32) (n = 23) (n = 32) (n = 23) Hard work, Jewish 27 18 determination, 15 14 self-reliance FSU Negative 23 23 Professional 16 11 political sys Living Anti-Semitism 23 18 15 8 conditions Family history or Character/core 21 19 13 7 legacy values Education experiences/ Overcoming/surviving 17 10 13 15 educational system Heritage Gratitude/not culture/history/ 17 14 taking things for 10 14 traditions granted Comparison Family 17 16 between FSU 10 8 and U.S.
Table 8.3 – High frequency memory-identity queationnaire themes. Items discussed frequently on the written questionnaires by both parents and children. On this metric 10 instances is considered frequent while 20 or more is considered highly frequent.
There were also certain topics that children focused more on in their questionnaires than parents: opportunities, identity negotiation, overcoming/surviving, fiscal practicality, multicultural perspective, immigration, Jewish acculturation, friendship and interpersonal interaction, pro-American attitudes, positive aspects of the
FSU, global Jewish connection, and Russian Jewish worldview. Many of these items will be discussed in greater detail later in this chapter. Predictably, these data indicated that child immigrants paid more attention to their identity negotiation, had a more multicultural perspective in their daily decision-making, and oddly, expressed interpersonal and friendship themes more frequently than parents. However, there was one theme where parents were much higher than their children (parents = 15, children =
189 1); recent events and current politics. These data showed that very few immigrant children are interested in current events and political happenings of their former homeland (see Table 8.4).
Child-Only High Frequency Items on Memory-Identity Questionnaire Parents Children Parents Children (n = 32) (n = 23) (n = 32) (n = 23) Opportunities 7 13 Jewish 2 8 acculturation Identity 2 12 Friendship/ 4 8 negotiation interpersonal Practicality, 1 9 Pro-American 1 8 financial responsibility Multicultural 3 9 Positive aspects 2 8 perspective of FSU Immigration - 9 9 Global Jewish 1 7 culture shock or connection assimilation
Table 8.4: Child-only high frequency items on memory-identity questionnaires. Items mentioned with disproportionate frequency on the written questionnaires by children.
There were some notable differences between the oral interviews and the written
Memory-Identity questionnaires in terms of themes discussed. While in the interviews both parents and children talked at length about hobbies, immigration, family, helping others, professional topics, and character, much less discussion of those topics was found in the questionnaires. Similarly, while there was little mention of education in the oral interviews, it was prevalent in the written questionnaires. For the most part, children’s responses in both sets of data aligned well with parent data, but parents seemed to focus more than children on professional aspects, character, and family while children
190 integrated more discussion of hobbies, social aspects, and education than parents (see
Table 8.5).
Comparison of frequently-discussed interview and questionnaire themes Parents Children Parents Children worksheet worksheet interview interview (n=32) (n=23) (n=32) (n=23) Immigration - culture shock or assimilation 9 9 13 11 Character/core values 13 7 57 46 Family 17 16 45 33 Professional 16 11 36 27 Hobby 1 4 11 16 Social 4 3 7 15 Helping others 0 2 8 7 Demographics 0 0 3 10 Reinvention 0 0 12 8 Education experiences 13 15 4 5
Table 8.5: Theme frequency comparison between interview and questionnaire. Frequent themes are ones with at least 10 occurrences while high frequency themes are those with at least 20 responses.
1.3 Spotlights
There were many themes mentioned in the tables above, and while some of these trends are self-explanatory, others require a little more explanation and a few examples.
Below is a deeper discussion of some of the data contributing to the above metrics.
Themes explained below fall into three categories, Jewish themes, discrimination themes, and pragmatic themes.
191 1.3.1 Jewish themes
Even though there were very few direct mentions of Judaism in the stimuli,
Jewish themes permeated every aspect of both oral and written responses. Some of the more interesting topics to highlight were Jewish acculturation and a global Jewish connection.
Jewish acculturation – Both parents and children indicated that while in the FSU
they did not know much about being Jewish, in the U.S. they took an active role
in figuring it out, as seen in statements like “In the FSU we sent our daughters to
Jewish camp and Jewish school for 2 months; it was education both for them and
for us” (F, age 57), and “only here I understood a little what it meant to be a Jew,
what we had to be proud of. We didn’t know our history and started getting
acquainted with it only here [in the U.S.]” (M, age 63). After coming to the
United States, however, parents took initiative to foster a Jewish identity in their
children through participation in Jewish events. “[my parents] sent me to Jewish
camp where I learned about my Jewish identity” (M, age 8 at immigration) said
one participant, “I was put in Jewish school and started attending synagogue as
soon as we moved here” (F, age 8 at immigration) said another. Others added
“After coming to the U.S., my parents heavily emphasized Jewish identity, both
throughout my childhood and my sister’s” (F, born in the U.S.), and “we went to
the synagogue to teach them [children] about Jewishness as representation of
identity” (F, age 62).
192 Global Jewish Connection – Some of the participants in both parents’ and children’s generations not only claimed a Jewish identity but also a role in a greater global community of Jews, seen through comments like “I did not know much about Judaism until I moved to the U.S.; here I learned the importance of my past as a Jew, the history, and the meaning of being Jewish. Most importantly, the responsibility that comes with being a Jew, regardless of what country you currently live in. That is a very important part of our identity” (F, age 12 at immigration) and “my parents talked to me about the hats I wear, such as son, Jew, and citizen, and the responsibilities that triggers” (M, age 5 at immigration). Others concurred, “[my parents taught me] to identify with
Jewishness, it is an important community to be a part of” (M, born in the U.S.),
“being Jewish is important”(F, age 63), and “[my parents taught me] to always remember where I came from and the struggles” (F, age 4 at immigration).
Several mentioned supporting Israel: “I teach my children to be Jewish, loyal to
U.S., and supportive of Israel” (F, age 67) said one participant, “Jewishness is a big part of my life, and I want Jews to continue to survive. Israel is very important to me, to help Israel, and it is very important to me that my children are
Jews”. (F, age 52) said another. Others added sentiments like “the biggest thing that shows who I am now is the Israel-related activism that I do, that features very prominently in my life” (F, age 5 at immigration), “my parents tried really, really hard for me to grow up with the identity that they did not have a chance to grow up with, so I really try to keep that central to my ‘self’ and to how I live my life in general. With that has come a very close connection with Israel; I’m very much a
193 Zionist”, (F, born in the U.S.), and “the connection to Israel is very central to me.
I feel a lot more connected to my background and a lot more perceptive to
wanting to learn about my family history and Jewish history generally” (F, born
in the U.S.).
1.3.2 Discrimination
If there was one theme that stood out among others in this study, it would be discrimination; it was prevalent in both FSU and U.S. data, reported by both parents and children. Thus, it is important to explore it thoroughly. The discrimination discussion will first examine quantitative metrics dealing with discrimination topics, followed by qualitative data from both parents and children to give this topic more depth. This section will close by spotlighting the theme of opportunities, and what it means in the context of FSU Jewish immigrants.
In order to mitigate direct priming as much as possible, the very last item parents completed as part of their demographic questionnaire was 11 Likert style questions about different types of discrimination they experienced in the FSU and the U.S.; responses predictably confirmed that discrimination was much higher in the FSU than the U.S. on all metrics (see Figure 8.3). This was the only directly-solicited reference to discrimination in this study, all other parent and child discrimination data were unsolicited and incidental.
194
Figure 8.3 – Parental discrimination ratings. The Y-axis represents Likert-scale ratings, from 1-5, with 1 being least and 5 being most discrimination.
In the vast majority of instances discrimination was discussed incidentally, in qualitative data, thus in order to analyze this topic quantitatively, it was necessary to derive a composite discrimination score for each participant in the FSU and the U.S. To those ends I created a 10-point scale to quantify themes of discrimination in the qualitative data gathered across all three of the measures in this study; the specifics of how these scores were calculated could be found in Appendix B of the methodology chapter. Unsurprisingly, the FSU parent composite scores suggest that discrimination was present, tapering in a fairly normal distribution, however in the U.S., most parents reported little to no discrimination. Children, however, had a more interesting trajectory; in the FSU they had a normal distribution with a peak lower than the parents, however in
America, a little over half of the children reported no discrimination, while the other half
(10 out of 23 total) alluded to a low level of discrimination in the U.S. (see Figure 8.4).
195
Figure 8.4 – Parent and child composite discrimination scores for the FSU and the US. The X-axis is the discrimination score, on a 1-10 scale, with 1 being practically none and 10 being very much. The Y-axis shows the number of participants who reached each discrimination score in each of their countries.
However in order to gain an appreciation of the qualitative data these discrimination numbers represent, here are some examples of items that comprise data points on this graph. In both parents’ and children’s data, several common trends in participant data dovetailed into discrimination. Some of the statements center on what parents taught children, like “They [parents] told me about difficulties of life as a Jew; political persecution, and fear of the government” (F, age 12 at immigration) and
“[parents told me about] being Jewish there” (F, age 5 at immigration). Some parental stories had morals of secrecy, caution, and self-segregation, like “[my parents taught me] that I'm Jewish and I shouldn’t tell anyone” (F, age 8 at immigration), and “being cautious and careful [is central to my family identity in the FSU]. Jews are different, we must stay together” (M, age 13 at immigration). Some discrimination themes centered around the understanding that being a Jew in the FSU was difficult: one participant said
196 “[My parents] taught me that the boogeyman is real, people hate you because you are
Jewish and appreciation for simple things like freedom and stability” (M, age 4 at immigration), while another eloquently summed it up as “being Jewish in the USSR sucked and in America it’s much better” (M, age 4 at immigration). Another theme within the discrimination comments was the acknowledgement that the difficulties of being Jewish should be mitigated with hard work; there were many comments like
“sometime life isn’t fair, and you just need to work twice as hard as the person next to you to achieve what you want” (F, age 8 at immigration), and “[my parents taught me about] hard work in the face of adversity. It doesn’t matter, for example, that in the
USSR the deck was stacked against my family in various conditions or various groups.
The only thing that matters is what we do and how hard we work to get past that” (M, age 5 at immigration).
Parent Memory-Identity questionnaire answers were fairly concise; but there were some responses dealing with the topic of discrimination. Several parents expressed sentiments similar to this: “The feeling of insecurity of being a second-class citizen [is central to my identity in the FSU]” (M, age 62). Many parents chose to face the issue head on “[I taught my children] you're Jewish and it's difficult” (M, age 75) and “I told them [children] about government and practical anti-Semitism; it is important to understand the background of the country they came from and how bad it was” (F, age
67). Other parents expressed a desire to protect their children from anti-Semitism by concealing their identity or warning them to maintain secrecy, as evident in responses like “I did not tell my son anything [about his identity], I was afraid he'd say he was
Jewish in school” (M, age 68), and “[I told my daughter] hide your Jewishness, don’t tell
197 people what happens at home” (F, age 57). Conversely, parent interview responses were overflowing with incredible stories, focusing on different aspects of their Jewish experience. Since the words ‘anti-Semitism’ and ‘discrimination’ do a wholly inadequate job of conveying the nature of experiences parent participants had in the FSU in the practical sense, I included an Appendix in this study where some of the experiences with anti-Semitism they relayed in their interviews could come to life (see Appendix C).
Opportunities - Many participants talked about opportunities in the U.S., in fact,
the words ‘opportunities’ or ‘for granted’ were actually used 22 times by
participants across both groups, in direct answers to questions. While the word
‘opportunities’ could mean many different things in different contexts, in the
context of Russian Jews, it should be viewed synonymously with ‘social
equality’. Some of the comments made by children during their questionnaire
completion stress this sentiment: “[My parents told me about] opportunities
closed to Jews, opportunities they had, and that I should not take it [being able to
have equal opportunities] for granted.” (M, born in America), “[in America] your
destiny is in your own hands; if you work hard enough you can accomplish
anything, unlike in Russia, where Jewishness was a hinderance” (F, at 16 at
immigration), “My parents told me about the work required to get a higher
education despite restrictions formally or informally limiting Jews’ access to
higher education” (M, age14 at immigration), and ‘[they taught me to be]
thankful and respectful for the opportunities America provides because they are
not available everywhere in the world” (M, age 4 at immigration).
198
1.3.3 Pragmatic themes
Participant interviews also held many practical themes, aimed to help children become more successful. Some of the more frequent themes, such as education, fiscal practicality, and skepticism or mistrust are explored further in this section. It will also look at some of the reasons parents provided (aside from anti-Semitism) for why they did not feel the FSU to be a positive place to live.
Education - Multiple sources in Chapter 4 of the literature review22 as well as the
demographic analysis of this current population discussed in Chapter 5 found the
Russian-Jewish population to place a very large emphasis on education. The
theme of higher education was present in both parents’ and children’s data, and
while many children simply alluded to learning the ‘the value of education’ from
their parents, others elaborated, explaining that education was not explicitly
taught, but rather existed as a stipulated expectation that was accepted on both
sides. Some indicated that the value of education was taught more explicitly, as
in “our parents raised my sister and me to believe that education and hard work
were central to our identities” (F, born in the U.S.) while for others it was more
implicit; “education was important, but it was implicitly important. They
[parents] didn’t have to tell us that education was important, it was just
something that we absorbed by ourselves and adapted as a value” (F, age 14 at
immigration).
22 Sources discussing high education rates among Russian Jews included Markowitz, (2009); Morawska, (2004); Zeltzer-Zubida & Kasinitz, (2005); Birman, et al., (2010); Isurin, (2014), Isurin, (2011), p. 56-102; Remennick, (2003); and Prashizky & Remennick, (2015). 199 Fiscal Practicality – Another recurrent feature of Russian Jewish children’s data is fiscal practicality, oftentimes based on a sense of residual or transmitted feelings of vulnerability and concern about the permanence of American freedoms. When children were asked about things parents passed to them that were central to their identity, many replied with practical responses. One participant explained,
“getting a solid education that will always be there to serve our family is important, regardless of the state of affairs in the country that we currently live in. My dad has always said to pick a profession that – in times of war or hardship
– your skills will always be needed: so I did.” (F, age 14 at immigration).
Another added, “When choosing a job, you cannot just choose what makes you happy and you like to do, you need to choose a job that will provide a good, financially-stable, life for you and your family” (F, age 8 at immigration). A third expressed “I think that most people living in the U.S. have a lot of confidence in our freedoms and our rights, but in the back of my mind, I always fear that those can all be taken away. I think Americans are way too comfortable with their environment and take it for granted, whereas I appreciate everything the U.S. has to offer to its citizens but with great caution” (F, age 12 at immigration) and a fourth said that it is important “not to take things for granted: you have to work for things, they don’t fall into your lap. Take all opportunities because you don’t know if it will be there later” (M, born in the U.S.). It was not uncommon for participants to give summary lists containing similar sentiments to explain things their family held important: “logical, matter of fact outlook and way of doing things; education is vital” (M, age 8 at immigration) said on child, “working hard,
200 valuing family, strong sense of Jewish identity, being careful with money, and smart financial decisions[are important]” (F, age 2 at immigration) added another. A third stated, “I'm a problem solver, not a life philosopher; I’m a go- getter, and I do whatever it takes” (M, age 8 at immigration).
Negative sentiments about the FSU – When talking about the FSU, though there were a couple of positive statements by the parents about history, traditions, and culture (which were discussed in Chapter 7), the majority of comments were negative. “The problem with that country is that the constitution is only on paper; nobody uses self-restraint, there are no independent courts, and there are no limits. You feel completely defenseless, like you have no rights” (M, age 62) said one participant. Another elaborated “this is a country in which there are no laws, and you are powerless over your life and your future; it is a very corrupt country and you have to treat everything that happens there with great caution” (F, age
52). A third added “we lived there with two truths, one was the kitchen table truth the other was the newspaper truth; we grew up with it and understood that the situation is duplicitous. You can express your opinion only in a very narrow circle, and even then it’s better to abstain” (F, age 63). Another parent concurred
“Here you can work and become what you want. In Russia it’s different, everything was under the table deals, networked connections, and handshake agreements. They [my children] never knew that kind of life” (F, age 54).
201 Skepticism - Themes of skepticism and mistrust emerged multiple times in children’s interviews, and while only two parents explicitly indicated conscious intention to teach their children to be critical consumers of their world, a third of the children’s group took it away as a parental lesson. Some of this distrust is limited to matters dealing with the FSU, as evident in comments like “I’m very unlikely to be swayed by any notion of a reformed Russia” (M, age 4 at immigration), and “on one specific occasion when I had to make a statement to the police about what happened in school, my dad very strongly emphasized to give as little information as possible: to not speak too much to the equivalent of the police detective there“ (M, age16 at immigration). Others showed a more generalized distrust of authority that extended to America as well, seen in responses such as “[in my parents’ stories] it was always about Big Brother spying on you, there was a lot of propaganda and people were blinded to what was reality…Then I see it here. It made me skeptical of everything, and I don’t think that was their [parents] intention: I think their intention was for me to be skeptical of just Russia, but I was skeptical of a lot of things” (M, age 3 at immigration). Another participant explained “You must say the right thing to the right people. America is very political, just like the FSU, especially with social media; you will get crucified for an unpopular opinion, dubbed 'enemy of the people'. I don’t share our views outside the home” (F, age 16 at immigration).
202 2. Discussion
The uniquely interesting aspect of this study is that there are some critical differences between the parent and child generations that shape participant mindsets and enable us to better study intergenerational transmission; namely parental socialization in the Soviet system and anti-Semitic social climate, versus the children not having those first-hand experiences. While both parents and children have a very high incidence of emphasizing character qualities and professional orientation, which are likely intergenerationally taught, those aspects are not unique. More interesting are some of the other trends observed in the themes discussed by parents and children, specifically dealing with the children’s relationships with Jewishness, the FSU, anti-Semitism, family legacy, and immigration.
In parental teachings, themes of character and negative political system were high in both parents and children, however where parents also frequently mentioned discrimination, children more often mentioned Jewishness, family legacy, and distrust or skepticism as things their parents taught them. It is reasonable to see how stories of discrimination and FSU hardships would translate into central lessons of Jewishness and secrecy in the minds of children whose parents had taken considerable efforts to protect their families from the ugliness of society. As an interesting note on the undercurrents of discrimination themes, in oral interviews parents showed more frequency in mentioning discrimination than children did, and the drop-off in emphasis for children is consistent with their awareness yet absence of personal experience. Yet despite the reduced discrimination emphasis, the Jewish themes in children were much more frequent than those seen in parent interviews.
203 Looking specifically at the Jewish themes, they were noted in 29 responses from
23 children, and in 19 responses from 32 parents; in fact, every child participant mentioned Jewishness at least once in their interview. This was not the case for other demographic factors, such as age, gender, education level, family status, socioeconomic bracket, or race, showing that being Jewish is a much stronger metric of self-definition than other demographic attributes a participant may possess. Also of note, while qualitative identity data presented in Chapter 6 showed a common sentiment among children that their parents were much more Jewish, Chapter 8 themes data contradict that, indicating that children actually have a much higher concentration of Jewish themes in their interviews than parents.
Looking at specific interview questions, participants describing who they were as individuals predictably identified recurrent themes of family, profession, and character.
Also expectedly, children frequently mentioned social roles as well as a positive sentiment towards their American identity and Russian cultural legacy. Parents, however, more frequently defined themselves in their family legacy, sometimes going back generations. For parents their family legacy of a Jewish lineage is very salient to their identity; in fact, when asked to describe himself by any parameters relevant to him, one parent delivered a lengthy family history monologue, explaining that he is who his family is. Children, on the other hand, honor their hybrid cultural influences by trying to integrate all three representations into their description of themselves.
Friendship, character, family, profession, and reinvention themes for parents were especially prevalent in the memories they shared during the interview. Unsurprisingly, parents had more anti-Semitism memories than children, with discrimination and Jewish
204 themes in both parents and children being higher in their FSU memory than in their U.S. memory. The reason for the reduction of discrimination and Jewish factors could be the post-immigration transition of Jewish nationality from a socially stigmatized criterion that defines the individuals’ role in society to something much more neutral; it could also explain observed shifts in emphasis on family, profession, and character as a means of self-definition.
Written questionnaires favored themes of negative political system, education, and family legacy, while oral interviews favored core values, family dynamics, professional themes, hobbies, immigration, and helping others. It could be that the interviews allowed participants a lot of flexibility in their responses whereas the questionnaires were phrased in such a way to elicit specific types of information. While the more stringent questionnaires yielded more targeted content, perhaps the freedom participants’ minds had to wander during the interview yielded more personally meaningful responses, thus opening a better window into the minds and priorities of each individual participant.
Children’s qualitative discrimination-related responses dealt with several major subsets: facts learned from parents, lessons of secrecy or caution, the stipulation that being a Jew in the FSU was difficult, and an understanding that individuals had to work harder than their peers in order to have a chance to succeed. Children also discussed what is meant by opportunities that brought their families to this country. Parents were reserved on written questionnaires, answering the questions in very few words; however their responses still presented a clear picture of how they felt as a Jew in the FSU as well as their efforts to educate or protect their children from similar experiences. On
205 interviews, however, (excerpts contained in Appendix C), many parents shared incredible stories rich with detail about their experiences, explaining how things worked, telling about large professional triumphs like finally being accepted for a job despite being
Jewish, and disappointments, like failing to gain admission into a university despite being extremely qualified. Many went deep into their family trees, some taking 45 minutes of stories to answer each question. It seemed to mean a lot to the parents to share their experiences with the next generation and they took great care and thought with every answer.
The majority of the parents told incredibly powerful, eye opening stories of FSU discrimination, however reported relatively little discrimination in the U.S. This is not surprising, they were probably so inured to a certain amount of discrimination in the FSU that any possible discrimination in the U.S., even as new immigrants, seemed trivial. It is also possible that some reconstructed their memory to align with their self-goals of having moved to a country free of discrimination (Chapter 2).
The more surprising discrimination finding, however, was children’s reports of
U.S. discrimination. Almost half of the children indicated discrimination in America at approximately a 3 out of 10, which incidentally was also the peak of the children’s distribution curve for FSU discrimination. It is understandable that FSU discrimination would have a strong presence in child discussion since child participants grew up with many parental stories on the topic and in some cases personal experience. This is consistent with findings from Svob and Brown (2012), who noted that children of parents from “conflict zones” internalized parental memories in a very similar way as the
206 children participants in this study internalized the anti-Semitism their parents experienced; this likely reinforced their own sense of Jewish identity.
However the U.S. discrimination is odd; well-assimilated, successful white professionals generally do not report a lot of discrimination in the U.S. Isurin (2011) noted some interesting findings in this arena as well: though her Russian Jewish participants reported never experiencing discrimination for being a Jew in the U.S., they too, maintained that they had a sensation that such discrimination existed (Isurin, 2011). Perhaps this impression is formed by cultural subtexts as a result of the Jewish grand narrative or linguistic colloquialisms, such as ‘he jewed me out of a donut’. Furthermore, the similarity in child ratings between FSU and U.S. discrimination may make sense; much of their discrimination knowledge from the FSU was transmitted second hand (thus has lower personal valence) whereas their U.S. discrimination would have been personally felt (thus carrying higher valence and ratings). In retrospect, it would have been interesting to also ask the children about which spheres they may have encountered discrimination in.
It seems unlikely that discrimination would have such a strong unsolicited presence in both generations of participants, however, having an in-group member ask the questions opens up a completely different paradigm than having an outgroup member say the exact same words in the exact same tone. Chapter 4 of the literature review discusses a study by Rappaport et al (2002), where a Russian-Jewish researcher was conducting interviews about the FSU Jewish immigrant experience. Even though that study had different objectives, it actually found an even higher incidence of unsolicited discussion of Jewishness and discrimination. Chen and Bond (2010) also found that
207 Chinese participants spoke differently to a Chinese interviewer than a Caucasian one.
Perhaps the strong themes of Jewishness and discrimination were a display of commiseration effect primed by an in-group interviewer.
In pragmatic discussions, participants showed a high emphasis on education, fiscal practicality, self-reliance, and an insecurity about the possibility that there may come a time when this kind of survival mentality may be necessary again. This section was also able to spotlight the reasons for negative parental sentiment about FSU, which likely gave rise to children’s skepticism regarding authority and social stability. Both parents and children had mentioned a survival theme, however the two generations discussed it in very different ways. Children used it more to anchor their identity to having a family lineage that overcame great struggles, whereas most parents had normalized their personal struggles and used the survival theme to underscore values of self-sufficiency and drive that they tried to instill into their children. In describing parental teachings, one participant concisely summed up the quintessential Russian
Jewish worldview “work hard, work smart, go to school, surround yourself with the right people, don’t trust government or business” (M, age 8 at immigration).
These sentiments demonstrate transmittal of parental attitudes to children; even children who were very young at immigration have strong attitudes about things that went on in the FSU and rely on those foundations to shape their sentiments about trusting the governments, organizations, and other individuals.
There is one more theme that I would like to address as a relevant discussion point; the theme of friendship. While some researchers (Isurin, 2011) found longing for deep, Russian-style friendships to be a central cultural theme for FSU immigrants, in this
208 study friendship themes were not exhibited nearly as strongly. It is possible that this theme was less prominent in this study due to interviewer priming in a different direction, however, it is also possible that the participants in this study are simply not lacking closeness in friendship. Most of the parent participants in this study are a part of a very large, very active group of Russian Jewish immigrants, who talk on the phone multiple times per day, see each other at social events several times per week, and vacation together in large groups monthly. In fact, their children (some of the children participants of this study) also socialize frequently and some have even married and formed a third generation of this social circle. Perhaps this highly unconventional friendship circle provides the deep, close friendships that participants crave, thus interview data are not showing a need for such connections. Interestingly, children expressed interpersonal and friendship themes less frequently than parents in oral interviews, but more frequently on written questionnaires. It is possible that children grew up partially socialized into the
Russian cultural concept of friendship that is deeper than most connections they find in the U.S. with their American peers and evaluate their own interactions and friendships through this lens.
2.1. Summary
While this chapter discusses many themes, its whole is greater than the sum of its parts. It not only interweaves findings from Chapters 6-8 into the body of literature presented in Chapter 4, but also brings together all of the different aspects of the Jewish journey these participants experienced. Chapter 4 discussed the history, sociopolitical constraints, and characteristics of the Russian Jewish people, putting into a global context
209 identity and belongingness data presented in Chapter 6, interaction dynamics with different population subsets discussed in Chapter 7, and the acculturation journey discussed in Chapter 8, highlighting the steps participants took to progress from an oppressive environment to learning more about their culture and heritage, developing a sense of cultural pride, and connecting emotionally to a greater global Jewish entity. This study cumulatively shows the non-traditional (sometimes stunted and circular, sometimes good-sometimes bad) journey of the Russian Jewish immigrants in America; a journey from the person they were in the FSU to the person they are today. It also captures the generativity element, underscoring differences between parent and child outlooks on life, and suggesting how those outlooks came to be.
The rest of the findings presented in this study will take a slightly different focus:
Chapter 9 will narrow the scope to examine transmission of values and ideas specifically within individual families, between parents and their children, and Chapter 10 will look at host and native country socialization influences on children by age at immigration.
210
Chapter 9: Parent-Child Correlation Analysis Within Families
Chapters 6-8 focused on parent and child data comparisons in aggregate, however this chapter looks at the results of Pearson’s R correlation tests conducted on the data collected specifically within families, focusing on significant correlations between parents and their own children. Due to the number of variables and complexity of the coding, it was impossible to conduct correlation analysis between a child and both of their parents at the same time, thus the findings presented in this chapter are separated by parent. For instance, when discussing findings about mothers, it specifically refers to the correlation between children and their mothers, not children and mothers in aggregate, as was the case for Chapters 6-8.
This chapter is subdivided into two overarching themes: the first portion deals with correlations related to topics of identity, such as comfort with Jewish identity, relevance of Judaism, spontaneous mention of Judaism and discrimination, children’s connections with different groups, and language. The second addresses topics of memory-sharing, which include amount and positivity of parental stories, intergenerational transfer in children, detail about ancestors, centrality and sentiment about socialism, and accuracy of children’s understanding of FSU life. Due to the large number of variables that reached significance in analysis, only findings that reached a minimum of p < .05 significance were reported in this chapter; significant findings of p <
211 .05 were marked with one asterisk *, while highly significant findings of p < .01 were marked with two asterisks **.
1 Results
1.1 Identity-related findings
The first set of the results presented in this chapter centered on identity-related findings, such as comfort with Jewish identity, relevance of Judaism, spontaneous mention of Judaism and discrimination, children’s connections and influences, and language.
1.1.1 Comfort with Jewish identity and relevance of Judaism
Parental comfort with Jewish identity frequently correlated with the intergenerational transmission of memories in children; the more comfortable fathers were with being Jewish in the FSU, the more facts their children brought up about the lives of distant ancestors (ancestor detail) [R (21) = .545**, p =0.007, R2 = 0.297] and the more children mentioned transmitted family information in their self-descriptions [R (21)
= -.517*, p =0.011, R2 = .267]. Mothers’ overall comfort with their Jewish identities was also positively correlated to children's use of intergenerationally-transmitted family information in their in self-descriptions [R (17) = -.482*, p =0.037, R2 = .232], as well as with children’s centrality of socialism [R (17) = .512*, p =0.025, R2 = .262], meaning that mothers who were more comfortable with their Jewish identities had children who held socialism more central and used family stories more often to define themselves.
However a mother’s comfort with her Jewish identity in the U.S. also revealed greater tie 212 to Jewishness in her children when they were talking about parental teachings [R (21) =
.458*, p =0.032, R2 = .209].
There were also a few significant findings dealing with parental Jewish identity and discrimination: fathers who were more comfortable with their Jewish identities in the
U.S. had children who expressed fewer discrimination undertones in the American memories they shared [R (20) = -.44*, p =0.041, R2 = .193], and fathers who were more comfortable with their FSU Jewish identities had children who reported more discrimination in parental teachings [R (21) = .427*, p =0.042, R2 = .182]. Mothers had similar trends: the more comfortable mothers were with their Jewish identities in the
U.S., the more discrimination themes were noted in their children's responses to what their parents taught them [R (20) = .477*, p =0.025, R2 = .227]. These findings indicate that children of parents who were more comfortable with their Jewish identities reported awareness of parental discrimination while also expressing less discrimination in their own U.S.-oriented content.
Children’s comfort with their Jewish identities seemed to reach significance only in correlations with their mothers. Mothers who placed low personal importance in family stories [R (7) = -.929**, p > 0.001, R2 = .863] and spontaneously mentioned discrimination frequently in their interviews [R (15) = .490*, p =0.046, R2 = .240] had children who expressed a high level of comfort in their Jewish identities.
Children’s relevance of Judaism increased in correlation with several maternal metrics: greater overall importance of family stories [R (21) = .686*, p =0.002, R2 =
.470], high comfort with Jewish identity in the U.S. [R (20) = .477*, p =0.025, R2 = .227], spontaneous mention of Judaism [R (21) = .537**, p =0.004, R2 = .288], mention of
213 discrimination [R (21) = .467*, p =0.025, R2 = .218], and high centrality of socialism [R
(21) = .444*, p =0.034, R2 = .197]. However, a mother’s increased professional- educational discrimination in the U.S. [R (21) = -.456*, p =0.029, R2 = .207] and overall
U.S. discrimination [R (21) = -.422*, p =0.045, R2 = .178] correlated to a decrease in overall relevance of Judaism to their children. Essentially, mothers who talked frequently about family, Judaism, discrimination, were comfortable in their American Jewish identities and placed a lot of centrality in socialism had children who felt Judaism to be highly relevant to them, but children of mothers who reported U.S. discrimination had a lesser connection to Judaism.
1.1.2 Children’s spontaneous mention of Judaism and discrimination
One of the interview questions asked children to share what their parents taught them growing up about the country they left, and many of the responses to that questions reached significance for topics of Judaism and discrimination. The next couple of paragraphs explore the intricacies of these correlations:
The theme of Judaism was prominent in parental teachings; mothers who indicated great overall relevance of Judaism had children with a stronger tie to Judaism
[R (21) = .516*, p =0.012, R2 = .266] and greater mentions of discrimination [R (21) =
.520*, p =0.011, R2 = .270] when discussing parental teachings. Similar trends were seen with mothers who discussed Judaism more often: their children described a stronger tie to
Judaism [R (21) = .688*, p > 0.000, R2 = .473] and greater mention of discrimination [R
(21) = .632**, p =0.001, R2 = .399] in parental teachings as well. Additionally, the more centrality in socialism mothers indicated, the greater tie to Judaism children reported in
214 parental teachings [R (21) = .551**, p =0.006, R2 = .303], however mothers who carried a particularly negative sentiment about socialism also correlated to children’s expressions of greater tie to Judaism [R (21) = -.453*, p =0.030, R2 = .205] and more discussion of discrimination [R (21) = -.499*, p =0.015, R2 = .249] when describing parental teachings.
These findings corroborate the conclusions of multiple socialization researchers who noted that attitudes (in this case regarding Judaism and discrimination) are passed down from parents to children.
Discrimination was also very strongly represented in things children explained that their parents taught them, and the vast majority of relevant significant findings in this arena dealt with mothers rather than fathers. Spontaneous discussion of discrimination was greater for children whose mothers had greater spontaneous discussion of Judaism [R
(21) = .531**, p =0.009, R2 = .281] and discrimination [R (21) = .621**, p =0.002, R2 =
.385] in their interviews, more expression of relevance of Judaism [R (21) = .500*, p
=0.015, R2 = .25], and higher centrality of socialism, [R (21) = .529**, p =0.001, R2 =
.279]. Mothers who discussed more discrimination in their interviews also had children who reported greater amounts of discrimination in the FSU [R (21) = .460*, p =0.027, R2
= .211]. Additionally, mothers who frequently mentioned discrimination in their interviews had children who frequently mentioned it as a key point in parental teachings
[R (21) = .552**, p =0.006, R2 = .304]. In fact, the more spontaneous discussion of discrimination mothers had in their interviews, the stronger the tie to Judaism children exhibited when describing what their parents tried to teach them [R (21) = .562*, p
=0.005, R2 = .315]. Children also brought up discrimination less when fathers told
215 positive stories about the FSU [R (21) = -.447*, p =0.032, R2 = .227]. All of these findings further confirm children’s internalization of parental attitudes and teachings.
Interestingly, while mothers who showed high importance of family stories had children who spontaneously mentioned Judaism more [R (9) = .647*, p =0.031, R2 =
.418] and reported greater parental teachings of discrimination [R (9) = .614*, p =0.045,
R2 = .376], fathers who considered family stories to be highly important had children who brought up discrimination less often [R (5) = -.935**, p =0.002, R2 = .874].
However, though discrimination and Judaism findings showed a tight link in this study, these findings are not necessarily conflicting, they are most likely looking at the data from two different angles.
1.1.3 Children’s connections and influences
There were many significant correlations that dealt with the strength of children’s connection with the FSU, U.S., and Israel. Findings unsurprisingly suggested that children of parents who brought up more Russian topics gravitated more towards the U.S. but pushed away from America in correlation with parental reports of U.S. discrimination. Children’s connections with the U.S. were greater in cases where fathers worked harder for children to retain Russian [R (21) = .566**, p =0.005, R2 = .320] and mothers indicated socialism to be a more central in their lives [R (21) = .430*, p =0.041,
R2 = .184]. However it was weaker in cases of parental U.S. discrimination, specifically mother’s professional [R (21) = -.612**, p =0.002, R2 = .374] and social-interpersonal discrimination [R (21) = -.686**, p =0.000, R2 = .470] as well as father’s avoidance of discrimination situations in the U.S. [R (21) = -.62**, p =0.003, R2 = .384].
216 Furthermore, a stronger FSU connection in children was correlated with parents (both mothers [R (21) = .446*, p =0.038, R2 = .198] and fathers [R (18) = .474*, p =0.035, R2 =
.224]) who reported intentionally avoiding discriminatory interactions in the U.S.
Also predictably, Israeli connection findings indicate that children had a stronger connection to Israel when their parents talked more to them about Jewish topics and had a negative sentiment about the FSU. Children whose Israeli connection was stronger had fathers who spontaneously mentioned more Judaism [R (21) = .428*, p =0.042, R2 =
.183] and discrimination [R (21) = .502*, p =0.015, R2 = .252] in their interviews as well as had a stronger distaste for socialism [R (20) = -.60**, p =0.003, R2 = .36] and remembered their FSU time more negatively [R (21) = -.485*, p =0.019, R2 = .235].
Additionally, children who showed a greater connection with Israel, correlated significantly with mothers telling many stories growing up [R (21) = .586**, p =0.003, R2
= .343], mothers who frequently shared memories with children now [R (21) = .446*, p
=0.033, R2 = .198], and fathers who expressed high relevance of Judaism in their interviews [R (21) = .431*, p =0.040, R2 = .185]. Further, the more central socialism was to both parents, the stronger the children's connection to Israel was [father - R (20) =
.535*, p =0.01, R2 = .286; mother- R (21) = -.482*, p =0.002, R2 = .232]. It also appeared that mothers who noted a stronger internalization of intergenerationally transmitted stories [R (21) = .697**, p =0.000, R2 = .485) had children who indicated a greater connection with Israel.
With that said, there were several unexpected significant findings, related to social networks of Russian speakers as well as peer and career influences. In relation to frequency of children’s interactions with their Russian-speaking peers, fathers frequently
217 sharing FSU memories with their children in adulthood [R (21) = -.64**, p =0.001, R2 =
.409] actually correlated to a decrease in children’s interactions with Russian-speaking peers. In fact, the more fathers liked sharing memories in general, the fewer Russian connections children reported in their social networks [R (21) = -.459*, p =0.028, R2 =
.210]. Findings also showed that mothers who had less overall comfort with their Jewish identities [R (17) = -.615**, p =0.005, R2 = .378] had children who placed greater value in peer influences. Furthermore, children reported that career influences increased in correlation with fathers’ FSU discrimination avoidance [R (19) = .649**, p =0.001, R2 =
.421], but decreased for children of fathers’ who were more comfortable with their FSU
Jewish identities [R (21) = -.532*, p =0.010, R2 = .283]. These findings suggest that children whose parents had less comfort with their Jewish identities placed more importance on peer and career influences, and that fathers who put greater effort into avoiding FSU discrimination had children who held career influences to be more formative.
1.1.4 Language
An analysis of self-reported language proficiency revealed some unlikely ways in which parental memory sharing overlapped with children’s retention of Russian and suggested that fathers’ memory sharing practices held more correlations to children’s
Russian retention than mothers’. Strangely, fathers who had more positive FSU memories [R (21) = -.458*, p =0.028, R2 = .209] or reported telling more FSU stories to their children [R (21) = -.49*, p =0.018, R2 = .240] and other FSU immigrants [R (21) = -
.46*, p =0.027, R2 = 0.211] had children who reported lower Russian proficiencies.
218 Similarly, parents’ enjoyment in sharing memories was negatively correlated to children's use of Russian [father- R (18) = -.492*, p =0.028, R2 = .211; mother - R (18) = -.492*, p
=0.028 R2 = .242), indicating that parents who reported sharing more memories had children who reported using Russian less frequently. Interestingly, fathers who expressed greater centrality of socialism in their interviews had children who listed the Russian language higher on their language lists [R (20) = .424*, p =0.049, R2 = .179], but at the same time indicated fewer Russian connections they interacted with [R (20) = -.515*, p
=0.014, R2 = .265]. Mothers only had one significant finding related to children’s language proficiency: reports of greater FSU nationality discrimination in mothers correlated to less Russian retention in their children [R (18) = -.434*, p =0.039, R2 =
.188].
Unsurprisingly, the harder fathers reported working to help children retain their native language, the more overlap there was between parental intended lessons and children’s take-aways [R (21) = .417*, p =0.048, R2 = .173]. Additionally, fathers’ hard work with children’s language maintenance correlated with children’s reports of having heard many parental stories about the FSU while growing up [R (21) = .492*, p =0.017,
R2 = .242], and the harder fathers worked for children to retain Russian, the fewer discriminatory memories children shared [R (19) = -.557*, p =0.031, R2 = .310]. So in short, fathers who worked harder to teach children Russian had children who remembered hearing more family stories, showed greater parental teachings overlap, and recounted fewer discrimination memories.
219 1.2 Memory sharing
The second major category of findings presented in this chapter dealt with memory sharing within families; positivity in parental stories, intergenerational transmission of family stories to children, socialism factors, and children’s concept of
FSU life.
1.2.1 Positivity in parental stories
Fathers who told many stories to their children while they were growing up showed a significant negative correlation with children’s perception of positivity in parent stories [R (21) = -.424*, p =0.044, R2 = .179], suggesting that fathers who often shared FSU stories generally told negative ones; however fathers’ frequent sharing also correlated with a higher amount of parent-child overlap in overall interview content [R
(21) = .492*, p =0.017, R2 = .242]. Furthermore, the amount of storytelling parents reported also reached significant correlation with the age of the child at immigration; the older the child was at arrival, the fewer parental FSU stories they received from both mothers [R (21) = -.415*, p =0.049, R2 = .172] and fathers [R (21) = -.483*, p =0.02, R2 =
.233], indicating that parents generally told negative, but memorable stories, with younger children receiving more stories than older ones. This aligned with the finding that fathers who shared more FSU memories with their children had children who reported fewer personal FSU memories [ R (19) = -.574**, p =0.007, R2 = .329]. There was a similar trend for mothers, but it did not reach significance.
Interestingly, children’s ratings of the frequency with which parents shared memories with them also correlated to topics of parent-reported U.S. discrimination.
220 Mothers who noted more professional or educational discrimination [R (21) = -.474*, p
=0.022, R2 = .224] and social-interpersonal discrimination [R (21) = -.501*, p =0.015, R2
= .251] in the U.S., had children who reported receiving fewer parental stories growing up; similar trends were seen with fathers who reported greater avoidance of U.S. discrimination [R (21) = -.541*, p =0.011, R2 = .292]. Also of note, fathers who reported greater avoidance of discrimination in the U.S. had children who viewed their parents to be less influential in their lives [R (20) = -.45*, p =0.036, R2 = .202]. It could be extrapolated that parents who experienced greater discrimination in the U.S. may have told fewer family stories to their children and were seen by their children as less influential in their lives.
Mothers’ positivity of FSU memories correlated with several children’s factors; mothers whose FSU memories were less positive had children who told more family stories [R (21) = -.499*, p =0.015, R2 = .249], expressed more evaluation [R (21) = -
.486*, p =0.019, R2 = .236], and mentioned discrimination more [R (21) = -.436*, p
=0.037, R2 = .190] in discussing things parents tried to teach them. They also included more family stories throughout their interviews [R (21) = -.619**, p =0.002, R2 = .389].
These findings are indicative that mothers who told more negative stories had children who told more stories themselves, showing greater negative, evaluative attitudes in how they analyzed their family past and parental teachings. Similarly, the more negatively fathers remembered their FSU experience, the more discrimination was found in their children’s U.S. memories [R (20) = -.432*, p =0.045, R2 = .186]. Additionally, children noted that parents told fewer positive FSU stories in correlation with mothers’ higher socialism centrality [R (21) = -.494*, p =0.016, R2 = .244] as well as greater spontaneous
221 mention of Judaism [R (21) = -.459*, p =0.028, R2 = .210] and discrimination [R (21) = -
.453*, p =0.044, R2 = .205]. Children’s perception of negativity in parents’ stories also correlated with worse sentiment about socialism in fathers [R (20) = .434*, p =0.044, R2
= .188], suggesting that parents who had more bitterness towards FSU told more Jewish oriented, more negative stories.
Fathers who frequently shared memories with their children in adulthood also had children who told longer [R (13) = .528*, p =0.043, R2 = .278], more evaluative [R (13)
= .687**, p =0.005, R2 = .471] FSU memories as well as shared longer U.S. memories [R
(20) = .442*, p =0.039, R2 = .195] with a greater tie to Judaism [R (20) = -.502*, p
=0.017, R2 = .252] and discrimination [R (20) = .467*, p =0.025, R2 = .218]. These findings supported and expounded on reminiscence socialization research dealing with parental sharing of memories with younger children. Furthermore, in instances where fathers shared more memories with their adult children, higher alignment was found between parental self-descriptions and lessons children gleaned from parental mentoring
[R (21) = .527**, p =0.01, R2 = .277]. This is a novel intergenerational transmission finding indicating that the lessons those children internalized from fathers’ stories reflected greater-than-chance overlap with aspects of their fathers’ self-concepts. This highlighted a mechanism by which family identities (not just memory content), are transmitted from parents to children, bolstering the bridge between the disciplines of intergenerational transmission and identity.
222 1.2.2 Transmitted memories and family stories
There were two main areas that correlated with intergenerational transfer of family stories to children, parental memory sharing practices and discrimination.
Memory sharing practices showed anticipated results: fathers who shared more FSU memories with their children as they were growing up [R (21) = .478*, p =0.021, R2 =
.228], with Americans [R (21) = .602**, p =0.002, R2 = .362], and with other immigrants
[R (21) = .571*, p =0.004, R2 = .326], had children who integrated more intergenerationally transferred family stories into their interviews. In fact, fathers’ reports of greater assimilation of transmitted lessons in their children actually correlated with greater overlap between parent and child self-descriptions [R(21) = .434*, p= 0.038,
R2 = .188], suggesting that the better children acquired parental lessons, the more self- concept overlap they had with their parents. Furthermore, mothers who reported enjoying sharing memories [R (20) = .488*, p =0.021, R2 = .238] and sharing many memories with Americans [R (20) = .442*, p =0.039, R2 = .195] had children who showed higher concentrations of transmitted family stories in their U.S. memories they recounted in their interviews Taken together, these findings show socialization of reminiscence style; parents who told more family stories had children who knew and incorporated more family stories into their own discussions.
The second area of high correlation with children’s intergenerational discussions is parental reports of discrimination: here, findings showed a fascinating trend between parental FSU and U.S. discrimination reports and children’s attitudes towards family stories. Family stories took on greater importance to children in correlation with fathers’ overall U.S. discrimination [ R (16) = .538*, p =0.021, R2 = .289], and fathers who had
223 higher ratings for American immigration discrimination had children who showed more intergenerationally transmitted content in the FSU memories they shared [R (13) = .555*, p =0.032, R2 = .308]. Furthermore, mothers who had higher ratings for immigration- based discrimination in the U.S. had children who not only discussed more ancestor detail in their narratives [R (21) = .559**, p =0.006, R2 = .312], but also told transmitted family stories in their self-descriptions more often [R (21) = .435*, p =0.038, R2 = .189].
These findings suggest that parental struggles in the U.S. were linked to increased importance of intergenerational transmission and ancestor knowledge in children.
However, parental FSU discrimination trends yielded different outcomes in children. Parents who reported more overall FSU discrimination [mother - R (16) = -
.482*, p =0.043, R2 = .232; father - R (16) = -.527*, p =0.025, R2 = .277], as well as fathers who indicated more specifically nationality discrimination in the FSU [R (16) = -
.484*, p =0.042, R2 = .234] and discussed ancestor detail more in interviews [R (16) = -
.51*, p =0.031, R2 = .260], had children who perceived family stories to be less important. Additionally, fathers’ FSU social-interpersonal [R (21) = -.499*, p =0.015, R2
= 0.249] and nationality [R (21) = -.505*, p =0.014, R2 = .255] discrimination, correlated to fewer family stories mentioned by children when discussing parental teachings, and fathers who made greater efforts to circumvent FSU discrimination had children who mentioned fewer transmitted stories in their self-descriptions [R (19) = -.546*, p =0.010,
R2 = .298]. These findings clearly show that unlike parental U.S. discrimination, which was linked to greater interest in children to engage in topics of intergenerational transmission, parental FSU discrimination correlated to decreased interest in children to discuss intergenerationally transmitted topics.
224 Children’s findings regarding the amount of ancestor detail (incidental facts about distant ancestors) reflected similar parental discrimination trends: fathers who reported more FSU nationality discrimination [R (21) = -.487*, p =0.019, R2 = .237] and FSU avoidance of discrimination [R (19) = -.522*, p =0.015, R2 = .272] had children who shared fewer ancestor details in their interviews, however in cases where mothers reported greater U.S. discrimination, children shared more ancestor detail [R (21) =
.440*, p =0.036, R2 = .193].
To sum up the findings discussed in this section, parents who told their children more about their ancestors and experiences had children who knew more about those topics and discussed them more independently. However, these findings were contextualized by where these discriminatory experiences happened: whereas parental
FSU discrimination seemed to decrease children’s interest in intergenerational transmission of memories and ancestors, the opposite trend was seen for parental U.S. discrimination experiences.
1.2.3. Socialism factors
Children’s centrality of socialism 23significantly correlated with multiple parent metrics, especially those of fathers. Fathers’ enjoyment of sharing FSU memories [R
(18) = - .491*, p =0.017, R2 = .241] and overall discussion of ancestor detail [R (21) = -
.748**, p > 0.001, R2 = .559] correlated negatively with children’s centrality of socialism,
23 As a reminder, in this project, ‘socialism’ was operationalized as topics about life in the FSU not related to discrimination, ‘centrality’ as overall presence of socialism discussion in participant’s interviews and ‘sentiment’ as gradient between highly positive and highly negative. Specific coding for these items could be found in Appendix B. 225 suggesting that fathers who shared a lot of details about ancestors in their interviews had children who did not show socialism to be an important part of their worldview. Similar negative correlations were found between children’s centrality of socialism and father’s ratings for FSU nationality discrimination [R (21) = -.437*, p =0.037, R2 = .190], as well as overall discrimination in the FSU [R (21) = -.451*, p =0.031, R2 = .203], suggesting that the more discrimination fathers experienced, the less central socialism was to their children. However, mothers’ overall sentiment about socialism [R (21) = -.608*, p
=0.002, R2 = .369] and positivity of FSU memories [R (21) = -.502*, p =0.015, R2 = .252] had the opposite trend for children’s centrality of socialism; the more negatively mothers perceived socialism, the more central it was to their child's narrative.
There were no significant correlations between mothers’ factors and children’s centrality of socialism, however mothers’ views on socialism played a role in multiple factors for their children. Mothers’ overall centrality of socialism positively correlated with greater children’s discrimination in the FSU [R (21) = .457*, p =0.028, R2 = .208] and in the U.S. [R (20) = .506*, p =0.016, R2 = .256], greater tie to Judaism in children’s
U.S. memories [ R (20) = .500*, p =0.018, R2 = .25], and greater number of family stories children shared in their American memories [R (20) = .508*, p =0.016, R2 = .258].
Mothers’ sentiment about socialism also correlated with their children’s overall discrimination ratings in the U.S.; the more negative mothers viewed socialism to be, the less discrimination in the U.S. their children perceived [R (21) = .566**, p =0.005, R2 =
.320]. Essentially, findings showed that the more central socialism was to mothers, the greater the Jewish and family-oriented outcomes were in their children.
226 1.2.4. Children’s concept of FSU life
Children’s self-reported amount of personal memories from the FSU and accuracy of understanding their family’s life in the FSU were also important topics to examine; a highly significant correlation was found between the amount of parental storytelling and children’s subjective understanding of FSU life, revealing that children whose parents reported telling many stories felt they had a much more accurate picture of FSU life [R
(21) = .706**, p > 0.001, R2 = .498]. Mothers’ overall importance of family stories also positively correlated with children's accurate picture of family life [R (9) = .606*, p
=0.048, R2 = .367]; the more important family stories were to mothers, the more accurately children felt they understood their experience.
2. Discussion
The drawback of analyzing children against one parent at a time is the inability to examine joint parent influence on a child, however benefit is the ability to capture specifically which parent exerted which influences stronger and to look for trends not just within families, but by mothers versus fathers. As seen in the information presented in this chapter, children’s data rarely correlated with both parents, in fact, a topic usually reached significance for either the mother or the father, underscoring that children have a very different relationship with stories told to them by each parent. Though both mothers and fathers provided formative influence, children seemed to correlate higher with fathers on topics of language, connections, discrimination avoidance and higher with mothers on topics of discrimination, and storytelling. One limitation of this chapter is the fact that only correlation data were presented. While I would have wanted to include variance
227 analysis that proposed causal relationships or descriptive statistics, it was not feasible with such a large data set.
2.1 Identity topics
Children whose parents were more comfortable in their Jewish identities both in the FSU and the U.S. showed an overall greater frequency of intergenerationally transmitted family stories and Judaism in parental teachings (but not necessarily in personal memories), suggesting that parents who were more comfortable with Judaism talked to their children more about their Jewish heritage and ancestors. Interestingly, fathers who were comfortable with their Jewish identities in the U.S. had children who showed less U.S. discrimination, but fathers who were comfortable with Jewish identities in the FSU had children who reported more discrimination in things their parents taught them. With that said, the two are not necessarily contradictory; perhaps parents comfortable with their identity in the FSU were comfortable enough to discuss difficult topics, thus their children talked more about discrimination in parental teachings, whereas the children’s U.S. contribution was generated by a question asking for a personal adult memory, where the likelihood of discussing discrimination was lower.
Themes of Jewish identity had a strong presence in children whose mothers indicated family stories to be highly important and mentioned discrimination often.
Findings also showed that mothers who talked frequently about family, Judaism, discrimination, and were comfortable in their U.S. Jewish identity had children who felt
Judaism to be highly relevant to them. It is likely that mothers who felt family stories
228 were important and wanted to share their discrimination experiences, instilled a strong
Jewish identity in their children through socialized exposure.
Mothers’ increased spontaneous discussions of Judaism, discrimination, and socialism in their interviews were correlated with greater mention of discrimination in their children, while parents who shared more positive stories as well as emphasized overall importance of family had children who discussed discrimination less. These findings suggest that the content of parental discussions influenced the way children perceived their family history, however it is also likely that children’s expression of discrimination was simply a consequence of parent-taught reminiscence style (Haden,
2003, Chapter 1). It is not surprising that mothers who placed higher relevance and discussion in Judaism predictably taught their children more about Judaism and discrimination, and mothers who felt socialism was particularly bad had children who displayed many discrimination themes and a higher Jewish connection. It is also no surprise that mothers who valued family stories told stories not just of personal struggles, but also about the experiences of past generations. In fact, we can reasonably assume that mothers who frequently mentioned discrimination to their children also mentioned it to the interviewer more. Interestingly, however, whereas mothers’ educational discrimination in the FSU correlated with higher discrimination presence in parental teachings, the same category in the U.S. correlated to lower presence of discrimination.
Perhaps children ascribed a different valence to discrimination in the U.S. versus the
FSU; while FSU discrimination was perceived as bad, U.S. discrimination was simply regarded as ‘the price of admission’ of being an immigrant.
229 When looking at children’s connections with the FSU and the U.S., children whose parents discussed Russianness more (fathers- Russian language, mothers-personal centrality of socialism), appeared to have fostered a greater connection to the U.S., while parents who experienced more U.S. discrimination had children with a weaker connection to the U.S. and a stronger connection to the FSU. Perhaps when parents were discussing Russian topics, even topics like language, they were subconsciously presenting them in a negative light, thus children’s American connection increased by default. Unsurprisingly children also showed stronger connections to Israel when fathers discussed Jewish issues or viewed socialism with greater negativity and when mothers told more stories and demonstrated greater centrality of socialism.
Peer and career influences in children also correlated to various parental factors; mothers who had a weaker Jewish identity or remembered the FSU more positively had children who valued peer inputs more and fathers who placed greater emphasis on family stories had children who reported fewer connections with Russian-speaking peers.
Perhaps the discomfort associated with stories of Judaism and anti-Semitism in a very personal, self-relevant context prompted children to shift influential roles to their peers, where they could mentally distance themselves from their family’s past until they were ready to assimilate it. Moreover, when looking at career emphasis, it is logical that fathers who felt less comfortable in the FSU as individuals (as seen through lower comfort in Jewish identity, greater discrimination avoidance, and more entrenchment in family stories) may have emphasized career success more to their children, prompting those children to place higher emphasis on their own career influences.
230 Curiously, parents who shared more FSU memories had children who reported lower language proficiency, usage, and reduced interactions with Russian-speaking peers; higher ratings in mothers’ FSU nationality discrimination correlated to reduced Russian proficiency in children as well. It is possible that the stories parents shared were mostly negative, which turned their children away from maintaining Russian, however I feel that the observed decrease in children’s Russian proficiency and usage is most likely a coincidental, 3-pronged finding, with the central pivot point being age at immigration.
Younger children received more stories, and they also had fewer years to use Russian as their primary language, thus they would naturally be more comfortable interacting with
Americans and feel less comfortable speaking Russian than children who came at an older age.
At the same time, increased parental storytelling also had positive findings, such as greater overlap between child mindsets and parental teachings as well as fewer reports of discrimination in formative FSU memories children discussed in interviews. The explanation for fewer reports of discrimination in children who heard more parental FSU stories is most likely maturational as well: parents shared more memories with children who were younger at immigration, and those children would not have retained many personal FSU memories or even had the awareness of discrimination by the time they left the FSU.
231 2.2 Memory Sharing Topics
Analyzing fathers’ memory sharing practices with children when they were young essentially revealed that fathers shared more with younger children who had fewer FSU memories of their own; a large portion of what they shared was perceived negatively by the child; and children who received more memories had more interview data overlap with their parents. Additionally, parental memory sharing practices also seemed to be correlated with discrimination parents experienced in the U.S.; the more discrimination they reported, the fewer FSU memories they shared with their children as they were growing up. Smith and Mackie (2014) offer an effort-justification dissonance explanation for this phenomenon, which contends that when an individual puts a lot of work into something that does not work out, it creates internal dissonance that has to be resolved. In the case of immigrants who chose to undertake the hardships of immigration due to FSU discrimination- but also encountered discrimination in the U.S. that dissonance resolution may look like talking about the FSU more negatively than it actually was, or as seen here, limiting talk about the FSU altogether. In order to justify the effort of immigration, parents may have been subconsciously white-washing their
FSU memories so as not to trigger more dissonance.
Several other interesting findings emerged in this analysis: mothers’ educational- professional discrimination and overall U.S. discrimination correlated with decreased 232 relevance of Judaism in their children and negative FSU memories in fathers correlated with greater presence of discrimination themes in children’s American memories.
Perhaps thinking about their family’s FSU experiences primed children to share more discrimination-related U.S. memories than they would otherwise have. Also of interest, fathers who reported greater avoidance of discrimination in the U.S. had children who viewed their parents influence on their lives as less impactful; it is possible that children perceived parental hesitation to engage in certain types of situations as a sign of weakness, and as a result decreased a sense of impact that parental teachings had on their lives. However, it is also possible that fathers who made greater efforts to avoid discrimination also spent less time mentoring their children about their family legacy, thus limiting areas where they could have had a highly influential impact.
It is not surprising that mothers who reported more negative FSU memories had children who showed greater evaluation, storytelling and discrimination discussion when addressing parental teachings, and included more overall family storytelling throughout the interviews. Parent child reminiscence research shows that parents who elaborate more in memory sharing have children who are able to retell longer, more evaluative memories reflecting children’s attitudes (Haden, 2003; Fivush et al, 2011). However, these studies were generally limited to parental sharing with young children. Not many intergenerational transmission studies exist that analyzed how parents’ continued sharing of memories with their children in adulthood affects children’s memory construction.
Due to the methodology of this study, I was able to explore this nuance and provide some expansion to parent-child reminiscence socialization findings centered around younger children.
233 Finding from this study showed that fathers who shared more memories with children in adulthood also correlated to children who told longer, more evaluative FSU memories with more themes of Judaism and discrimination, as well as reported take- aways from parental lessons that aligned with parental self-descriptions. These results not only showed how intergenerational transmission influenced children to retrospectively evaluate personal experience on a deeper level, but also noted that the lessons children internalized from parental memories had great overlap with parental self- concept, thus demonstrating that family identities (not just memory content), are transmitted through storytelling. It would be interesting to see whether these specific parental identity topics were reflected in children’s self-descriptions as well, however due to the amount of subjectivity in coding involved in each step, combining that many steps would dilute the finding too much. Thus, it is better to capture it in a separate study, specifically designed to explore this aspect.
Significant correlations were found between increased child retelling of transmitted stories and parental sharing of memories with all interlocutor groups evaluated in this study, which suggests reminiscence socialization. There were also seemingly competing findings, showing decreased retelling in children whose fathers put greater emphasis on discussing ancestor details and expressing greater importance of family stories in their interviews. In all actuality, these two sets of findings may not be in conflict, but it is impossible to know for certain from the data collected in this study. As discussed in Chapter 3, gendered reminiscence socialization could be affected by both the gender of the parent and the child, age of the child at which discussion occurred, and
234 many other factors. This study did not focus on these aspects, thus it would be impossible to speculate as to why or even whether a conflict in these observations exists.
When dealing with American discrimination, children’s discussion of transmitted family stories increased in instances where parents experienced more U.S. discrimination: one explanation could be that perhaps U.S. discrimination experiences triggered parents to share more FSU discrimination stories with their children, who in turn integrated them into their own narratives. However, as discussed above, parents who experienced greater
U.S. discrimination shared fewer stories with their children; therefore, a three-pronged explanation may be more appropriate. Perhaps even though parents told fewer stories, the impact and rarity of them were more meaningful and formative for children, thus they integrated them more into their narratives.
FSU discrimination, however, had slightly different patterns; whereas mothers’
FSU discrimination correlated with an increase in children’s mention of intergenerationally transmitted content, the more discrimination fathers reported experiencing in the FSU, the less transmitted family information their children incorporated when talking about parental teachings. This disparity is most likely due to differences in questions asked; while one finding dealt specifically with discussing parental teachings, the other was more generalized. However, it is also probable that consistent with gendered reminiscence discussed in Chapter 3, the two parents just talked to their children differently; mothers were much more comfortable with talking about emotional and hurtful topics than fathers (Taylor, et al., 2013).
The more FSU discrimination avoidance and nationality discrimination fathers reported, the fewer ancestor details their children shared, which makes sense, considering
235 parents (who may not be comfortable talking about emotional events or interested in reliving painful memories) shape children’s reminiscence through modeling a reminisce style (Taylor, et al, 2013, Haden, 2003). However, mothers who reported more U.S. discrimination had children who had the opposite trend, sharing more ancestor details, which could also be explained through reminiscence socialization. Findings on the importance of family stories to children had a similar trend; the more FSU discrimination parents showed, the less important family stories seemed to be to the child, conversely, parental U.S. discrimination reports correlated with greater importance of parental stories to children. As suggested by Svob and Brown (2012), it could be that struggles in the
U.S. primed greater ownership of children’s FSU family history.
Mother’s centrality of socialism reached significance for several children’s metrics, mostly dealing with discrimination, however there were a couple of curious findings related to mothers’ centrality and sentiment about socialism: children showed stronger Jewish identity in the U.S. when mothers had a stronger tie to socialism and more discrimination in America when mothers viewed socialism more positively. It is possible that the mothers’ tie to the country where they grew up modeled children’s tie to their country of upbringing, or that an increase in sentiment about one of the children’s countries could prompt decreased positivity about the other.
Interestingly, the more negatively parents felt about socialism and the more stories they shared with their children, and the less central socialism was to their child; perhaps this finding showed transference of parental attitudes leading children to reject the FSU, classifying it as a place that does not matter to them because it is not relevant to their current life or because their nationality was not accepted there. In that context, it
236 may make sense that fathers who have high centrality of socialism have children who interact with other Russian speakers less, however it does not make sense that these children would also list the Russian language higher on their language lists. As seen in
Chapter 6, higher Russian placement on that list also correlated to higher self-rated proficiency and insinuated higher mental priority. It could be that immigrant children drew a line between the FSU and the Russian culture, keeping the utilitarian parts of the culture that enable them to relate to their families and give them individuality in the U.S., while rejecting the rest.
As expected, the more stories children heard, the more they felt they accurately understood their family’s experience. Also, fathers who reported more interpersonal and nationality discrimination as well as avoidance of discrimination in the FSU had children who indicated lower understanding of the FSU experience. This could possibly be because fathers who had a very negative FSU experience may not have wanted to relive it in discussions with their children, who would not have truly understood it anyway.
However, an increase in mothers’ emphasis on family stories helped children regain a feeling of accurate understanding of their family’s FSU life.
2.3. Methodology considerations
There were many findings presented in this chapter, covering a variety of facets of participant oral and written data; emphasis was placed on correlations within topics of identity and memory sharing. These findings highlighted the unique relationships mothers and fathers have with their children, and explored what children tended to take away from interactions with each parent. Furthermore, looking at the findings not as a
237 product of a ‘parent team’, but individually by mother and father allowed this project to capture many nuances that would have been lost, had both parents been ‘averaged together’ prior to making a comparison to their children.
In that context it is important to address in greater detail another unique aspect of this study: analysis of the same data through different groupings. Chapter 8 conducted a comparison of the same data obtained through different sampling techniques, and this chapter affords an opportunity to similarly compare data analyzed in aggregate in
Chapters 6-8 to paired analysis within families. However, more interesting than these two types of analysis individually, is the way they come together to paint a more accurate picture of the attributes, relationships, and attitudes of the participants in this study. It could be said that the two techniques complement each other, with aggregate findings forming a skeleton and within family results fleshing it out.
For example, aggregate analysis in Chapter 7 was able to determine that children had shown some discomfort regarding interactions with Russian-speaking peers, and this chapter was able to add context, through a finding that this was more common in individuals whose fathers frequently shared memories with them. Similarly, Chapter 6 found that younger children had a stronger Israeli connection, whereas this chapter filled in an unasked question, revealing that this connection increased when parents talked more to children about Jewish topics and harbored greater negativity towards the FSU.
Additionally, Chapter 6 asserted that children felt an affinity towards the U.S., however the present chapter was also able to tease out that they gravitated more towards the U.S. when their parents brought up more Russian topics and pushed away from the U.S. when their parents experienced greater U.S. discrimination. There were many such examples,
238 Chapter 7 could explain how much participants talked to each type of interlocutor, what they typically discussed, and how it was different between interlocutors, but Chapter 9 was able to fill in smaller questions, such as exploring the effects of parental interactions with these interlocutors on their children, and while Chapter 7 could discuss what percentage of memories shared with children was positive or whether parents enjoyed sharing memories, Chapter 9 could examine the impact of that positivity or frequency of sharing on a child’s perception of discrimination. As evident form these examples, though the two types of analysis can certainly stand alone, together they provide a level of refinement and perspective that cannot be captured by either method in isolation.
The next chapter will adopt yet another vantage point on the data, adding more fine grain detail to our skeleton; it will discuss findings by children’s age at immigration, to address the questions of differences in socialization time in the FSU and cognitive development at the time of arrival in the U.S.
239
Chapter 10: Age-Specific Results
In their 2015 study about Russian Jewish immigrant children, Noels and Clement noted that Generation 2 children (those who were either very young at immigration or were born in the host country to immigrant parents) were much more similar to
Generation 1.5 immigrant children (those who immigrated as older children or adolescents) than to host country peers, but did not specify in which ways. In that context
I wanted to explore the commonalities and differences in worldview immigrant children may present according to their age of arrival in the U.S. As seen in Table 10.1, child participants in this study were evenly divided into Generation1.5 and Generation 2 groups with a cutoff at 6 years old, however since an 8-year old’s FSU experience could hardly be compared to that of a 15-year-old’s, I also examined all of the data through a more precise cognitive milestone grouping, which yielded the labels Cognitive group (CG)1,2, and 3. The points of inflection for CG separation were 0-5 years old for CG1, 6-10 years old for CG2 and 11-16 years old for CG3 (Chapter 5). The areas examined in this chapter were memory sharing, Jewish identity and discrimination, influences of various aspects of daily life on identity, affiliations with different ethnic groups, and self-assessed proficiency in language24. Where relevant, a discussion of gender-based differences
(based on data from 11 males and 12 females) was also included.
24 In this chapter, results are discussed by topic and are based on one-way ANOVA, Independent Samples t Test, descriptive statistics, and Pearson’s R correlation analyses. Thus, it may be more practical to discuss effect sizes at this point. Partial Eta squared used to determine the effect size for one-way ANOVA is 240
Participant Description Age at immigration Category Age range M (SD) Number in sample G1.5 6-16 years 11.64 (3.1) 11 G2 0-5 years 3.0 (2.09) 12 CG1 0-5 years 2.73 (1.9) 11 CG2 6-10 years 8.17 (1.3) 6 CG3 11-16 years 14.17 (1.6) 6
Table 10.1: Child participant descriptions.
1. Results
1.1 Memory Sharing
1.1.1. Number of memories
As expected, descriptive statistical analysis showed that Generation 2 children reported to have heard more parental stories than Generation 1.5, who left later in life and had more personal memories 25(Table 8.2). Furthermore, One-Way ANOVA showed highly significant variance between age at immigration (CG) and the amount of personal
2 memories [F (2,18) = 8.858**, p = 0.002, ηp = 0.495; Scheffe post hoc - Grp 1-3: 0.002].
The relationship between age at immigration and the perceived amount of memories shared did not reach statistical significance [R (21) = -0.191, p = 0.383, R2 = 0.036], but the trend suggests that the older children were at immigration, the fewer stories they
considered to have a large effect at 0.26. and Cohen’s D used for Independent Samples t-Tests is considered to have a large effect at 0.8. It is important to note that nearly all effect sizes presented in this study were quite robust. For the statistics presented in this study, one asterisk (*) was used to denote a statistically significant finding of p < .05, and two asterisks (**) were used to denote a highly significant finding of p > .01. 25 Data for this analysis were derived from 5-point Likert-style questions located on the Demographic Questionnaire. 241 remember their parents sharing with them. To further contextualize these findings, CG2 children showed greater positivity of personal reminiscence than both the younger group and older group and reported hearing fewer stories from parents than either CG1 or CG3
(see Table 10.2).
Attitudes about FSU, Israel, and the U.S. by age at immigration Gen 1.5 Gen 2 CG1 M CG2 CG3 Male Female Parent M (SD) M (SD) (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M Many own personal FSU 3.91 2.11 2.0 3.0 4.67 2.9 3.3 memories (1.51) (1.26) (1.30) (1.67) (.51) (1.8) (1.49) N/A Remember FSU 2.89 2.63 4.33 3.83 3.4 3.6 positively 4.0 (1.0) (1.26) (1.06) (.81) (1.16) (1.07) (1.43) 3.28 Many parent 4.0 4.63 3.83 4.33 4.0 stories growing up (1.13) 4.67 (.5) (.51) (1.60) (.51) (1.24) 4.6 (.51) 3.9 Parent FSU stories 2.11 1.88 2.67 2.7 pos 3.0 (.89) (1.05) (.83) (.81) 3.50(.83) 2.5(.85) (1.25) 3.18 Accurate picture of family life in 3.91 3.67 3.50 3.67 4.33 3.5 FSU (1.13) (.86) (.75) (1.5) (.51) (1.29) 4.1 (.56) N/A Feel a strong FSU 2.27 1.88 3.0 1.67 2.4 connection (1.27) 2.0 (1.0) (.99) (1.26) (.81) (1.26) 1.9 (.99) N/A Feel a strong 2.73 4.44 4.75 2.83 3.6 3.4 Israel connection (1.19) (1.01) (.46) (1.47) 2.5 (.83) (1.35) (1.50) N/A Feel a strong U.S. 4.45 4.78 4.88 4.00 4.83 4.5 connection (1.21) (.441) (.35) (1.54) (.40) (1.26) 4.7 (.48) N/A
Table 10.2: Children’s attitudes about memories, FSU, U.S., and Israel. All of the data in this table were derived from a 5-point Likert scale, however some of the standard deviations in this section were fairly high, indicating a wide spread within the data. Additionally, the parent column includes overlap items for comparison, with the N/A topics being ones that parents were not asked about.
1.1.2. Positivity in reminiscence and parental stories
One-Way ANOVA revealed findings of significant variance between a child’s age at immigration and positivity of his/her personal FSU memories [F (2,18) = 5.485*, p =
2 0.014, ηp = 0.378. Scheffe post hoc - Grp 1-2: .019] as well as a significant variance between immigration age and perception of positivity of parental stories [F (2,20) =
2 4.914*, p = 0.018, ηp = 0.329. Scheffe post hoc - Grp 1-3: .019]; these findings were
242 supported by descriptive metrics located in Table 10.2. Furthermore, there was a significant correlation between amount of personal memories and remembering the FSU positively; children who indicated having more memories also remembered their experience more positively [R (19) = 0.494*, p= 0.023, R2 = 0.244] and ANOVA found statistically significant variance between many personal memories in children and
2 perceived positivity of parental stories [F (4,16) = 3.303*, p = 0.037. ηp = 0.452]. Thus, it could be summarized that children who arrived at a younger age remembered the FSU more negatively, perceived less positivity in parental stories, and had fewer of their own
FSU memories.
One interesting finding obtained via Pearson’s R correlation analysis was that positivity of FSU stories reported by fathers was correlated with age of the child at immigration [R (21) = 0.423*, p= 0.044, R2 =.178]. Fathers of children older at immigration reported telling more positive FSU stories, however this correlation did not exist for mothers26. Incidentally, as depicted in Table 10.2, parental assessment of positivity of their own memories fell right in the middle of the three age groups of children and parents perceived that they shared fewer memories than children claim receiving (see Table 10.2).
1.1.3 Accuracy of mental picture
When looking by generation, Generation 2 children fell slightly below Generation
1.5 in how accurate they felt their mental picture to be about their family’s life in the FSU.
26 To obtain data for each parent, children’s responses were analyzed against the responses of their mothers and their fathers independently. This was not the intention of the original experimental design, however just like in Chapter 9, some of the data analysis was too complex to incorporate both parents at the same time. 243 However when looking by CG, the expected results emerged; a steady trend upwards, directly proportional to the age at departure. Additionally, females felt they understood family FSU life more accurately than males (see Table 10.2).
1.2 Judaism topics and intergenerational transmission
The data examined in this section dealt with overall trends in spontaneous discussion of Judaism, discrimination, details supplied about the lives of ancestors, comfort with Jewish identity, relevance and importance of family stories, strength of intergenerational transmission in children, sentiment about socialism, and centrality of socialism. Findings indicated that those who arrived the youngest (Generation 2), scored higher than older children on virtually all of the above-mentioned metrics. The only parameter they were lower in, was overall sentiment about socialism. CG data trends were fairly similar; however, they present a more nuanced view of the Generation 1.5 subset (see Figures 10.1 and 10.2).
244
Figures 10.1: Judaism and memory sharing by Generation. These figures show trends in Jewish and ancestor-related topics by age at immigration. The Y-axis represents a mean average of ratings members of each subgroup gave a topic. These items were interviewer-coded based on interview responses; with the maximum possible rating located at the beginning of each label on the X-axis. The minimum possible rating on all items was 1. Specifications of coding could be found in Appendix B.
Figures 10.2: Judaism and memory sharing by Cognitive Group. These figures show trends in Jewish and ancestor-related topics by age at immigration. The Y-axis represents a mean average of ratings members of each subgroup gave a topic. These items were interviewer-coded based on interview responses; with the maximum possible rating located at the beginning of each label on the X-axis. The minimum possible rating on all items was 1. Specifications of coding could be found in Appendix B.
245 When looking at the data by gender, males and females had similar sentiments about importance of family stories, strength of intergenerational transmission, and socialism ratings, however males’ ratings were lower than females’ in detail about ancestors, spontaneous mention of Judaism and discrimination, comfort with Jewish identity, and relevance of family stories (see Figure 10. 3).
Figures 10.3: Judaism and memory sharing by gender. The Y-axis represents a mean average of ratings members of each subgroup gave a topic. These items were interviewer-coded based on interview responses; with the maximum possible rating located at the beginning of each label on the X-axis. The lowest possible rating on any of the items was 1. Specifications of coding could be found in Appendix B.
1.2.1 Jewish ties and relevance of Judaism
One-Way ANOVA found significant variance between CG and tie to Judaism in parental teachings, [CG 1 – M= 3.18 (1.16), CG2 - M= 1.83 (1.16), CG3- M = 1.83 (1.16);
2 F (2,20) = 4.124*, p = 0.032, ηp = 0.291. Scheffe post hoc - Grp 2-3 < 0.001], showing
Judaism to be much more relevant to CG1 than the other groups, and though it did not reach statistical significance, CG2 had the lowest spontaneous mention of Judaism of the
246 three groups [CG 1 – M = 3.82 (1.66), CG2 – M = 2.00 (1.67), CG3- M = 2.83 (1.72)].
Independent Samples t-Test results supported overall relevance of Judaism increasing as age of immigration decreased [G1.5- M = 2.00 (1.18), G2- M = 3.00 (1.04); T (21) =-
2.153*, p = 0.043, d = 0.90] as well. Interestingly, gender effects were also visible on this topic; compared to males, females exhibited significantly greater overall spontaneous mention of Judaism [Males – M= 2.27 (1.61), Females M = 3.83 (1.64); T (21) =-2.293*, p
= 0.032, d = 0.96] and relevance of Judaism [Males M = 1.73 (1.00), Females M = 3.25
(.86); T (21)=-3.89**, p = 0.001, d = 1.63].
1.2.2 Intergenerational transmission and ancestor detail
Independent Samples t-Test assessing the variance between immigration generation and importance of family stories found highly significant results [G1.5 -
M=3.14 (.69), G2 - M=3.91 (.30); T (16)= -3.266**, p = 0.005, d = 1.57], suggesting that children who arrived in the U.S. at a younger age placed much more importance into oral family histories. It also revealed a significant negative variance between age at immigration and intergenerational transmission [G1.5-M = 2.27 (1.19), G2-M = 3.57,
(.62); T (14.78)= -3.68**, p = 0.002, d = 1.44], indicating that children who immigrated younger also showed more presence of transmitted content when discussing information about the FSU. Additionally, Pearson’s R correlation analysis found a significant relationship between immigration generation and greater presence of transmitted content in the interview question concerned with what children perceived their parents taught them [R (21) = 0.503*, p = 0.014, R2 = 0.253]; those who were older at immigration mentioned less transmitted content when talking about parental teachings.
247 Furthermore, Independent Samples t-Tests noted a significant variance between immigration generation and ancestor detail [G1.5 – M = 2.09 (1.13), G2 – M = 3.58
(1.56); T (20.013) = -2.663*, p = 0.016, d = 1.11], suggesting that those who were younger at immigration furnished more details about ancestors in their interviews.
However One-Way ANOVA examined the phenomenon from a different angle; noting a highly significant relationship between the amount of personal FSU memories a child has
2 and the amount of ancestor detail they furnish [F (4,16) = 5.035**, p = 0.008, ηp = .556], suggesting that those who had more personal memories (CG3) furnished a greater amount of ancestor detail.
1.2.3 Socialism
Findings showed that children of all immigration age groups viewed socialism negatively but centrally in their lives. With that said, it is surprising that there were very few significant findings related to the children’s perception of socialism, however
Independent Samples t-Test noted a significant variance between immigration generation and sentiment about socialism [G1.5 M =2.11 (1.26), G2-M = 1.09 (.30); T (8.741)=
2.357*, p = 0.044, d = 1.307], meaning that children who arrived at a younger age perceived socialism to be more negative than those who arrived at an older age and had experienced FSU life for themselves.
248 1.2.4 Discrimination
Unlike the topic of socialism, the topic of discrimination 27was prevalent throughout the interviews and was supported by many significant statistical findings.
ANOVA showed that the youngest group had the highest spontaneous mentions of discrimination [CG1- M = 3.73 (1.61), CG2- M = 1.33 (.516), CG3- M = 2.0 (1.549); F
2 (2,20) = 6.504**, p = 0.007, ηp = 0.394; Games-Howell post hoc, Grp 1-2- 0.002], and that not only did FSU discrimination near significance by CG [CG1 – M = 4.27 (1.19),
2 CG2-M = 2.83 (.75), CG3- M = 3.67 (1.36); F (2,20) = 3.069, p = 0.069, ηp = 0.235.
Scheffe post hoc - Grp 1-2: 0.070], but discussion of discrimination in the U.S. also reached significance [CG1 – M = 1.91 (1.04), CG2- M = 1.33 (.81), CG3 – M = 3.33
2 (1.96); F (2,20) = 3.882*, p = 0.038, ηp = 0.279. Scheffe post hoc - Grp 2-3: 0.047].
These findings indicate that the youngest group rated FSU discrimination highest among all three groups, that individuals who arrived in older childhood (CG2) had the lowest discrimination ratings, both in the U.S. and the FSU, and that those who arrived as teenagers (CG3) fell midline on FSU discrimination ratings, but indicated the highest U.S. discrimination, reaching almost as high as their FSU ratings.
Additionally, children’s immigration generation was correlated to discrimination brought up in discussion of parental teachings [ R (21) = 0.521*, p = 0.011, R2 = 0.271] and unsurprisingly, there was a significant negative correlation between children remembering their FSU experiences positively and FSU discrimination ratings [R (19) = -
27 Composite numerical scores between 1-10 were calculated from all of the qualitative and quantitative discrimination FSU and U.S. data supplied by participants. These scores (calculation of which is described in Appendix B) were used to analyze the statistics discussed in this section. Step by step descriptions of how these scores were calculated are available upon request. 249 0.451*, p = 0.040, R2 = 0.203]. These findings indicate that individual who had higher
FSU discrimination scores also showed more negativity in the way the remembered their time in the FSU. Furthermore, gender comparison in Independent Samples t-Test analysis also reached high significance with overall FSU discrimination ( Males - M = 3.00 (1.0),
Females M= -4.42 (1.08); T (21) = - 3.249**, p = 0.004, d = 1.365] and neared significance with spontaneous mention of discrimination during oral interviews [Males
M= -2.00 (1.54), Females M =- 3.25 (1.71); T (21) = -1.83, p = 0.082, d = 0.771], proposing that females talked more about discrimination than males.
Most notably, however, a significant negative correlation was discovered between age at immigration and discrimination markers in children’s self-descriptions [R (21) = -
0.424*, p = 0.049, R2 = 0.179]. This suggests that those who immigrated younger seem to have more discrimination indicators in their self-concept: a finding that directly attests to intergenerational influences in construction of personal identity and the self-concept of children.
1.3 Formative Influences
In the demographic questionnaires, participants were asked about key influences that helped shape them into the people they are today; Table 10.3 shows these defining influences as reported (on a 3-point Likert scale) by child participants, on the topics of parent and peer interactions, FSU and U.S. experiences, the immigration process, and career. Participants also had an opportunity to write in any other factors that greatly influenced them, but very few did. As anticipated, children in all age demographics reported that parental interactions and American experiences played the strongest roles in
250 influencing their identity construction. Also, FSU experiences data clearly showed that
FSU influence was directly proportional to the amount of time a child spent in the FSU.
Interestingly, however, the data also indicated that those who immigrated as older children
(CG2) were influenced by the process of their immigration more than either of the other two groups; they also seemed to place the most stock into peer influences and the least into parental influences. Oddly, while the older two groups reported fairly high professional influences on their identity formation, the youngest immigrants reported career factors to be less influential.
Children’s identity-forming influences FSU U.S. Parents experience experience Immigration Peer Career (M) (M) (M) process (M) (M) (M) Gen 1.5 (n=10) 2.9 1.36 3 1.9 2.63 2.9 Gen 2 (n=12) 2.91 2.18 3 2.36 2.25 2.45 CG 1 (n=11) 2.9 1.3 3 1.8 2.27 2.54 CG 2 (n=5) 2.8 2.0 3 2.5 2.83 2.83 CG 3 (n=6) 3 2.33 3 2.33 2.33 2.83
Table 10.3: Children’s influences. This table represents the mean ratings participants attributed to each type of influence on their identity construction. The available range of the ratings was between 1-3.
Unsurprisingly, Independent Samples t-Tests noted a highly significant variance between immigration generation and FSU time influences [Gen 1.5 -M = 2.18 (.60), Gen 2
– M = 1.36 (.67); T (20)=-3.00**, p = 0.007, d = 1.30], indicating that the older the children were at immigration, the more FSU influence they reported. Building on that,
FSU time influence also significantly positively correlated with immigration influence in
Pearson’s R analysis [R (20) = 0.507*, p = 0.016, R2 = 0.257], suggesting that children who reported higher FSU time influence also reported higher immigration process influence and were older at immigration. Incidentally, FSU time influence was also 251 correlated to remembering FSU experience more positively [R (19) = 0.453*, p = 0.039,
R2 = 0.205], which has been tied to CG2.
In other statistical findings related to children’s influences, significant variance between immigration generation and career influence [Gen 1.5- M = 2.91 (.30), Gen 2 – M
= 2.50 (.52); T (17.85)=-2.32*, p = 0.032, d = 1.00] and near significant variance between immigration generation and peer influence [Gen1.5- M = 2.64 (.50), Gen 2- M = 2.25
(.45), T (21)=-1.937, p = 0.066] were observed on Independent Samples t-Test results, indicating that children younger at immigration relied less on career and peer influence for identity construction. Strangely, spontaneous mention of discrimination significantly negatively correlated in Pearson’s R analysis with career [R (21) = -0.417*, p = 0.048, R2
= 0.072] and peer [R (21) = -0.496*, p= 0.016, R2 = 0.246] influences as well, suggesting that individuals who reported higher peer and career influences also spontaneously mentioned discrimination less often. In both of those cases, that happens to be children who were older at immigration (CG2 and to a lesser degree CG3).
1.4 Affiliations
The three age groups actually have fascinating dynamics in their affiliations with the FSU, U.S., and Israel. Unsurprisingly, SPSS descriptive statistics (summarized in
Table 10.4) revealed that Generation 1.5 children (especially CG2) reported a stronger connection to the FSU, whereas and Generation 2 reported a stronger connection to Israel and the U.S. Ironically, the children with the most FSU socialization (teenage immigrants, CG3), reported the least connection to their native FSU homeland and to
Israel. However, while FSU and U.S. ratings between Generations 1.5 and 2 were fairly
252 similar, the Israel connection showed a large discrepancy between the two age groups;
Generation 2’s reported connection to Israel was much greater than that of Generation 1.5 participants. In addition to age-based data, this table also includes gendered differences, showing a slightly higher American connection and slightly lower FSU and Israel connections in females than their male counterparts (see Table 10.4).
Children's affiliations with FSU, Israel and the U.S. Gen 1.5 Gen 2 CG1 CG2 CG3 Male Female M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) Strong FSU 2.27 1.91 1.88 3.0 1.67 2.4 Connection (1.27) (.94) (.99) (1.26) (.81) (1.26) 1.9 (.99) Strong Israel 2.73 4.25 4.45 2.83 3.6 3.4 Connection (1.19) (1.35) (1.21) (1.47) 2.5 (.83) (1.35) (1.50) Strong U.S. 4.45 4.83 4.88 4.00 4.83 4.5 Connection (1.21) (.38) (.35) (1.54) (.40) (1.26) 4.7 (.48)
Table 10.4: Children's affiliations with FSU, Israel and the U.S. shows children’s connection to the countries affiliated with their three main identities; raw data for this analysis came from 5-point Likert responses.
One-Way ANOVA analysis supported these findings, noting a highly significant variance between immigration generation and a strong Israel connection [F (2,20) =
2 6.427, p = 0.007**, ηp = 0.391, Sheffe post hoc Grp 1-2 -0.049, Grp 1-3-0.016], suggesting that the younger the immigrant child was, the stronger the relationship with
Israel. Other country connection findings revealed a near-significant relationship between
2 cognitive group and strong FSU connection [F (2,19) = 3.455, p = 0.053, ηp = 0.266], suggesting that older child immigrants (CG2) had a stronger FSU connection.
Another aspect this study enabled us to compare, is tangential affiliation relationships by ethnic sub-groups, within children of different ages at immigration. As depicted in Figure 10.4, children of all subgroups seemed to have high affiliations with all
253 of the groups who currently reside in America, such as Russian Jews, Russian non-Jews,
American Jews, and non-Jewish Americans who live in the U.S. In fact, the vast majority of Generation 1.5 participants had the indicated a strong relationship with both Jewish and non-Jewish Americans. The lowest identification was with Russian non-Jewish immigrants in the U.S., and individuals (both Jewish and non-Jewish) living in Israel and
FSU, however Generation 2 did express a strong affinity towards Russian Jewish immigrants in Israel.
Figure 10.4: Child affiliations by sub-group. The Y-axis represents the number of participants who gave each response, and the total number of participants in each group is in the parentheses in the legend.
To further analyze affiliations, each participant was asked to estimate a percentage of peers in their U.S. social networks who were also Russian-speakers, however unlike some of the previous analyses, this section did not make a distinction about the ethnicity of the Russian speakers, just whether they did or did not speak Russian. To those ends,
254 Figure 10.5 presents a descriptive analysis of Russian-speaking peers by participant immigration age and gender, showing that Generation 1.5 predictably reported a much larger social network of Russian speakers than Generation 2, with the cognitive group break-down showing an even more contextualized picture. Also of note, females reported having a much larger Russian-speaking social network than males (see Figure 10.5).
Figure 10.5: Russian speakers in children’s social networks (in the U.S.). The Y-axis represents averaged percentages participants indicated. Though individual responses held a great deal of variation, the trends are clear.
1.5 Language
Language data captured languages spoken by the participants, approximate usage, which language came to mind first, and self-assessed proficiency of Russian. All participants listed English and Russian as their spoken languages, however many also listed additional languages such as language of the republic of origin (e.g., Ukrainian), a language useful in their new country (e.g., Spanish), a language associated with their ancestry (e.g., Hebrew), or another language. Every language was counted separately, even if one individual listed several languages. One outlier individual (from oldest group)
255 who spoke mostly Russian still today was excluded from the data set presented in this section to increase validity28.
Results indicate that very few children knew their republic language, but showed greater proficiency in host pragmatic language (Spanish), and paradoxically ancestral language (Hebrew), which has little practical application in the United States.
Interestingly, the majority of the Hebrew speakers, as well as the greatest number of multilinguals, were in CG1, the youngest immigrant group (see Figures 10.6 and 10.7).
Figures 10.6 : Languages spoken by Cognitive Group. The Y-axis represents the number of individuals who gave a particular answer and the numbers in parentheses in the legend are the maximum possible numbers in each subset.
28 This participant was married to a Russian speaker, raised his children to primarily speak Russian at home, and worked in a Russian company, thus the majority of his daily interaction happened in Russian. 256
Figures 10.7: Languages spoken by Generation. The Y-axis represents the number of individuals who gave a particular answer and the numbers in parentheses in the legend are the maximum possible numbers in each subset.
Russian proficiency was assessed in two ways: first, participants were asked to rate their overall proficiency for each language they listed on a 5-point Likert scale
(represented by the orange bars in Figure 10.8) and indicate how often they used that language. Second, participants were given several skills, such as ‘reading a novel,’
‘engaging in table conversation,’ and ‘discussing technical information,’ and asked on a 5- point Likert scale how well they can do each of those things in Russian. Participant skill- specific ratings were then averaged together to get a ‘combination of skills’ measure for each individual (blue bars in Figure 10.8). When asked to rate their overall Russian proficiency on a Likert scale, both Generation 1.5 and Generation 2 reported a very high level of communicative ability, however even though the second assessment was still self- reported, a drop was observed when examining proficiency by specific skill (see Figure
10.8).
257
Figure 10.8: Children’s Russian Proficiency. This figure illustrates the discrepancy between participant ratings of their own Russian skills in general, and when asked to rate proficiency on specific linguistic tasks, however both metrics were based on Likert style self-ratings. The Y-axis represents the averages of Likert ratings, ranging from 1-5. A comprehensive language proficiency assessment was not accomplished.
Interestingly, the youngest group claimed high self-reports on both metrics, including high proficiency in some unlikely areas, such as ability to discuss formal, academic, political, and technical topics in Russian; conversely, CG2, had the lowest proficiency ratings on the skill combination scale (see Table 10.5).
Russian proficiency by skill Russia Russian n Russian Russian Russian Oral Written conversatio literac technica gramma oral comprehensio comprehensio n y l r fluency n (film) n (novel) Gen 1.5 (11) 4.36 3.63 2.63 3.18 2.18 4.09 3.81 Gen 2 (12) 4.33 2.41 3.001 2.83 1.83 3.16 2.5 CG 1 (11) 4.66 2.66 3.22 3.11 1.44 3.22 2.77 CG 2 (6) 3.75 2.12 2.37 2.5 2.5 3.001 2.12 CG 3 (6) 4.66 4.66 2.83 3.5 2.16 5.001 5.001
Table 10.5: Children’s Russian proficiency by skill. This table summarizes participant responses regarding Russian proficiency related to specific skills. Number values range from 1-5, and were calculated by averaging participant Likert ratings within each sub-group.
258 Finally, this chapter explored Russian proficiency and usage29 factored by the order in which languages were listed on participant language sheets; though at first glance this seems like an odd thing to look at, it actually yielded interesting and unexpected results. All participants, even those who listed multiple languages, listed Russian either first or second. As seen in Table 10.6 below, those who listed Russian first reported much higher language usage than those who listed it second, especially the youngest group
(G2/CG1). Additionally, children who placed Russian in a second position, also indicated lower proficiency, although difference in Generation 2 was less pronounced than in children who immigrated at an older. Data from the youngest immigrants (G2/CG1) were intriguing; they systematically showed higher self-rated Russian proficiency and usage than those who arrived at a more senior age (see Table 10.5).
Russian usage and proficiency self-ratings Russian proficiency (5- Russian usage (percentage point Likert responses) responses) Overall Overall Russian Russian Russian in proficiency usage (% Russian in Position Russian in Russian in (5-pt, M) M) Position 1 2 position 1 position 2 Gen 1.5 (n =11) 4.09 13.6% 5 3.75 15% 13.2% Gen 2 (n =12) 4.3 14.5% 4.5 4.25 22.5% 10% CG 1 ( n =11) 4.3 14.37% 4.3 4.3 20% 12.5% CG 2 (n =6) 3.75 14.12% 5 3.57 30% 11.85% CG 3 (n = 6) 4.6 12.5% 5 4.3 15% 10% Table 10.6: Russian usage and proficiency by position (in which it appears on participant forms). Russian proficiency ratings are a mean of 1-5 Likert responses; Russian usage columns are a mean percentage of time a participant reported using Russian.
29 Russian usage was based on self-reported percentage-style responses of how much participants think they use a language; this metric was collected for every language participants reported speaking. Reported percentages may not represent daily usage but rather overall usage: while some participants reports barely ever using a language (i.e. 3% of the time), others reported using it quite frequently (i.e. 40% of the time). 259
2. Discussion
2.1 Memory sharing
As expected, Generation 1.5 reported to have more personal memories than
Generation 2, and a more accurate picture of family life in the FSU; they also reported hearing fewer parental stories and taking away less negativity from them. Unsurprisingly, both the amount of personal FSU memories and a sense of accuracy in understating the family life in the FSU increased in direct proportionality with age at immigration, however, so did positivity of parental stories. These findings also highlighted that females reported slightly higher averages in all categories, which could be attributed to gendered reminiscence socialization, as discussed in Chapter 3 (Fivush & Buckner, 2003, p. 155-
162; Fivush, 2004, p. 80-81; Fivush, Habermas, Waters, & Zaman, 2011). With that said, several interesting observations emerged in these findings that warrant greater exploration at this juncture.
Both CG 2 and 3 remembered FSU less negatively than CG 1, however the middle group (CG2) showed greater positivity of personal reminiscence and greater connection to the FSU than both the younger and older groups; they also reported receiving fewer parental stories. This could be because they were at an age where parents still had the power to steer them away from some of the more negative aspects of society, thus the experiences (and consequently memories) CG2 children had, were mostly positive ones.
Conversely, CG1, and CG3 children had different circumstances influencing their perceptions of FSU: CG1 had much fewer personal memories, thus they had to rely solely on (mostly negative) parental stories to formulate their opinions and shape reminiscence at recall, which undoubtedly colored their opinion in a more negative light. This perception 260 was likely exacerbated by the negative post-Cold War sociopolitical attitudes towards anything Soviet prevalent in America at the time of their immigration. CG3, however, had lived in the FSU at an age where causal and thematic coherence were more developed
(McAdams, 2003, p.190-194), giving them a more mature perspective with which to appraise their experience and allowing them to remember both good and bad events for themselves, in context.
There appears to be a direct relationship between positivity of parental stories and age of children at immigration, with teenage immigrants perceiving markedly more positivity in parental stories than those arriving very young (Table 10.2). Perhaps those who knew what FSU life was like for themselves did not see parental stories through a
U.S. lens, or maybe parents just did not tell older children (CG2) and adolescents (CG3) about the negatives because they thought their children had seen those aspects for themselves. It is also possible that teenage immigrants normalized their FSU personal experiences to whitewash possible anti-Semitic interactions (Rappaport et al., 2002;
Chapters 2, Chapter 4) or were simply inured to the negatives and perceived them in the
FSU contexts of ‘that’s just how life was over there.’ Additionally, perceived positivity of parental stories, seems to be much more pertinent to stories relayed by fathers rather than mothers, perhaps because women in the FSU had more firsthand experience providing for their families in the absence of basic things, such as food, household items, and clothes or because fathers’ may be more likely (due to socialization) to adopt a protector role and
‘soften’ their memories when talking to their children.
261 2.2 Judaism and discrimination
The bulk of the data addressing Judaism and discrimination pointed towards completely logical conclusions: that children younger at immigration have stronger intergenerationally transmitted imprinting, place greater importance on family stories, attribute their knowledge more to parental teachings, furnish more details about ancestors in their interviews, discuss discrimination more, and place higher relevance in Judaism. It is also logical that females would place higher relevance in Judaism and mention discrimination more than males. However, there were a few items that warrant more in- depth discussion.
Most notably, a significant negative correlation was discovered between age at immigration and discrimination markers in children’s self-descriptions, suggesting that those who immigrated youngest (and did not experience FSU discrimination for themselves) seem to have more discrimination indicators in their self-concept. This may be one of the most important contributions of this study, as it clearly shows the effects of parental intergenerational transmission reflected in the self-concept of the children, building an empirical bridge between intergenerational transmission and construction of personal identity.
Even though socialism was rated as having high centrality in the lives of participants, it was mentioned very sparsely, and registered very few significant findings.
It is possible that discrimination and Judaism (but not socialism) took center stage in parental teachings, because whereas Judaism and potential ethnicity discrimination retained their importance in the host country, communist issues were no longer relevant.
262 This discrepancy paints a clearer picture of how parental priorities are transmitted to children through intergenerational discussions.
Interestingly, just like positivity of FSU personal reminiscence discussed earlier, middle group children who arrived at an older child age (CG2) also had more positivity about socialism than either of the other two groups. The explanation of this phenomenon is probably fairly similar as well; while the youngest immigrants probably based their opinions solely on comparing the horror stories their parents told with the freedoms and treatment they enjoyed in the U.S., the oldest group was mature enough to understand social nuances of experience in both worlds for themselves, thus had little need for parental interpretation. Meanwhile the middle group may have been too young to be fully cognizant of socio-ethnic undertones at the time they were forming their own FSU memories, and their positive childhood memories did not quite align with the negative stories their parents told them. Thus, CG2’s positive perception of the socialist system may be their attempt to reconcile the dissonance of a happy, sheltered childhood they remember with the horrible experiences they heard about from their parents.
However, many interesting findings centered around the immigrant children’s relationship with discrimination: in fact, a family history of coping with institutional discrimination was perhaps the most frequently-mentioned, unsolicited topic in the interviews. This is consistent with discussions in both Rappaport et al. (2002) addressing normalization of Soviet Jewish discrimination and Svob and Brown (2012), addressing the notion that children view family stories of hardship parents shared with them through intergenerational transmission to be personally relevant, even if they had not experienced the events themselves. The fact that children in the youngest immigration group, those
263 who had never truly experienced discrimination or socialism for themselves, had such strong, personally central attitudes towards the topics is a testament to the power of intergenerational transmission.
Interestingly, those who had immigrated at a younger age actually alluded to their
Soviet Jewish heritage more than those who immigrated older, especially in their self- descriptions, demonstrating that transmission of parental memories had shaped their self- concept. It is logical that younger children would be more dependent on parental stories and define the Soviet portion of their lives by their family experiences passed down through transmitted memories, however, in the case of older child immigrants, it is harder to detangle whether personal, societal, maturational or parental factors played the greatest roles their relationships with their Soviet Jewish heritage. The data available in this study only suggest that a blend of influences likely factored into the differences between older and younger immigrant outcomes but are insufficient to determine in which way: it may be a good topic for future research to consider.
This study noted a curious tangential observation regarding the perceived amount of discrimination in the FSU and in the U.S. by age at immigration; on this facet,
Generation 1.5 had the most interesting results. Whereas CG2 (those who arrived as older children) had the lowest discrimination ratings, both in the U.S. and in the FSU, possibly demonstrating dissonance mitigation, CG3 (those who had arrived as teenagers) had rated
FSU and U.S. discrimination just about equally, even though FSU Jewish discrimination was by all accounts much higher than the daily American experience for a well- assimilated immigrant. Undoubtedly CG3 had many of their own fond FSU memories growing up and it is likely that their FSU memories were reconstructed with a positivity
264 bias filter, to be recalled less negatively than they actually were. Additionally, the recency effect could have also made recent memories of possible immigration hassles in the U.S. more prominent as well.
Participants who immigrated as younger children also displayed a much more personally meaningful attachment to their global Jewish identities: findings showed
Jewishness to be significantly more relevant to the participants in CG1 than the older groups. These results are supported by linguistic findings in this chapter, showing CG1 participants learning Hebrew more often than other age groups, and in Chapter 8, with the vast majority of the quotes in the ‘Global Jewish connection’ discussion coming from
CG1 participants.
There could be several reasons for this outcome: first, the older two groups grew up in a secular state where their nationality was stigmatized, and they may have some residual hesitation about expressing it publicly in America. Second, the cultural connection may be weaker to begin with, as they received less Jewish cultural socialization growing up, due to FSU discouragement of participation in Jewish activities.
Third, the older groups may be normalizing some discriminatory FSU experiences, whereas the younger group is not. Fourth, decreased display of Jewish connection could be a consequence of decreased parental effort to impart the family FSU experiences onto older children (G1.5) due to an assumption that living in the FSU gave them a good understanding of the Russian-Jewish experience for themselves. Thus, it is entirely possible that a perceived lack of parental priority could have signaled to CG2 and 3 children that their Russian Jewish identity was less meaningful or important. And fifth, arriving in a new country at an older age likely created more peer pressure to fit in,
265 causing individuals to push away from anything that differentiated them from their non-
Jewish American peers, to include Russian or Jewish identities. CG1 children would have been too young to have that kind of self-awareness when they first immigrated and would have fully assimilated by the time a desire to fit in became an issue. In all likelihood, all five of the above explanations probably played a role in the observed tendencies.
Gendered findings suggest that females put greater relevance into their Jewish connection than males, however since this is an incidental finding and not the primary goal of the study, data collection efforts were not geared towards teasing out whether females really put greater priority into their Jewish identity than males or whether it is simply a function of gender socialization in storytelling styles. Fivush (1998) explains that daughters are taught to reminisce differently than sons, and as a consequence of this practical and social reinforcement, females are better at reminiscing and emotional processing. They also define themselves more in autobiographical experiences than males
(Fivush, 1998, p. 79-99). Thus, it is possible that females place the same exact relevance on Judaism as males, they are just better at expressing it.
An exploration of how ancestor detail was shared revealed that children younger at immigration and those who had more personal FSU memories shared more ancestor detail in their narratives. Though these findings are seemingly in conflict with each other, they can also be interpreted as parallel: younger children may be more curious about past ancestors they never met, and those who had many personal memories may also have more memories about ancestors. In either case, questions about parental teachings could activate relevant information and prompt greater sharing of ancestor details.
266 2.3 Formative Influences
On the whole, influence findings revealed that children of all immigration ages viewed parent and American interactions as highly influential in their identity construction. They also showed that FSU influence increased according to the amount of time spent living in the FSU, that the middle age-group (CG2) found more significance in the immigration process than did the other two age groups, and that the youngest children
(CG1) reported the least career influence.
It is possible that CG2 children viewed immigration to be more important because immigration took place during a formative time for them in general. Applying
McAdams’ (2003, 2004) explanation of maturational identity development discussed in
Chapter 2, CG1 immigrants were too young to truly appreciate immigration; in fact, they had not even developed cultural frameworks by that time. And CG3 had already started to organize their lives into themes and self-defining stories. Meanwhile, at the time of immigration, CG2 was just starting to take stock of the world and look for their niche. It is reasonable to suggest that a big turning point, such as immigration, would be quite formative for this age group (McAdams, 2003, p. 188-190; McAdams, 2004, p. 96-101).
CG2 also rated peer influences higher than the other two groups, perhaps because unlike
CG3 who immigrated in adolescence and had to take some time to assimilate and form influential relationships, CG2 assimilated in late childhood and by adolescence was in a better position to connect with and be influenced by their American peers. Incidentally, this explanation also accounts for the low ratings for U.S. discrimination noted in the CG2 subset.
267 Furthermore, the findings indicated that the youngest cohort felt careers to be less formative than the older two groups: perhaps this is simply because some were still younger at the time of the interview and thus not as established in their career yet. For frame of reference, the mean age of the CG1 participants at the time of the interview was
31.73, with a standard deviation of 4.9. Some would have only had a couple of years in their careers, and if asked these same questions in 5-10 years, it is possible that their ratings for career influence would increase.
One cross-tie here between age factors and influences is the participants’ mentions of discrimination. Correlation analysis showed that children who noted more peer and career influences were not only older at immigration but reported less discrimination.
While on the surface a finding like that does not make a whole lot of sense, perceiving less discrimination could just be an indicator of good societal adjustment in the host country.
2.4 Affiliations
The affiliations findings grant an interesting glimpse into identity formation and socialization. Looking at group affiliations, the youngest group showed an increased connection to Israel, the middle group showed highest connection (of the three groups) to the FSU and lowest to the U.S, and the oldest group showed decreased affiliation with all three of the countries connected to their three main identities (U.S., FSU, and Israel). It almost seems like younger immigrants extend their identities to include groups they may not necessarily be directly a part of, the middle group felt an urge to defend the FSU’s bad
268 reputation, and adolescents appeared to view themselves more as an island, unique from others.
The above findings could be explained through the lens of hyphenated socialization. For CG1 this aligns with findings from Noels and Clement (2015), who noted that because of their hybrid socialization, Generation 2 and 2.5 children often feel out of place and insecure in all of their cultures. CG2, as discussed earlier, had more positivity in their FSU memories; perhaps embracing the ‘Russian’ part of their hyphenated identity to a greater degree balanced out through a weaker connection to the
U.S. than CG1 and CG3 immigrants. And in the case of CG3, it may be that individuals did not feel like a fully integrated member of any country: their Russian upbringing and efforts to assimilate into American society at a very formative time marked them pointedly not American, yet all of the time they had spent in the U.S. made them feel like they had little in common with their peers in Russia, and distinctly different from those in
Israel.
Subjective demographic closeness (‘I feel like I have a lot in common with…’) findings revealed high affiliations with almost all of the demographic sub-groups living in the U.S. and low affiliations with all of the groups in the FSU or Israel, regardless of nationality. The only exception to that was decreased commonality with non-Jewish FSU immigrants living in the U.S. Perhaps the discomfort associated with interacting with
FSU immigrant peers, which children identified in Chapter 7, is also extended to the perception of commonality. With that said, this analysis also yielded a couple of other interesting observations. While Generation 2 reported higher commonality with Russian
Jews living in Israel, they indicated very low subjective overlap with Israelis living in
269 Israel; these negative attitudes towards Israelis could also have been transmitted through contact with friends or relatives from the FSU who immigrated to Israel. Furthermore,
Generation 1.5 reported slightly higher ratings than Generation 2 when discussing commonality with non-Jewish Americans; higher rating for commonality with mainstream
Americans in older children and adolescents may be a reflection of the efforts they made to conform to mainstream culture upon arrival.
Another topic explored as part of the affiliation analysis was the percentage of
Russian-speaking connections that participants associate with in their social networks.
Though individual participant responses varied widely, expected trends were observed: the more time a participant group spent in the FSU, the more Russian speakers participants retained in their social circles. Additionally, females’ report of Russian speaking connections was almost a third higher than that of males, which is most likely due to gendered socialization (Chapter 2).
2.5 Language dominance
Linguistic findings yielded some interesting results. Though it was not surprising to see that teenage immigrants had reported the highest language proficiency of all three groups, it was somewhat surprising that CG2 children, those who immigrated at the age of
6-10 (and reported highest FSU connection and positivity), also reported lowest Russian proficiency. One possible explanation could be that CG2 children have enough language proficiency to appraise possible gaps in their linguistic abilities and their responses convey their self-consciousness.
270 The most interesting findings, however, came from CG1, the youngest immigrant children. Not only did they show more tendency towards multilingualism and interest in learning Hebrew, their ancestral language, but they also had an inflated and overconfident view of their own Russian proficiency. In fact, CG1’s self-reported language proficiency was almost as high as that of teenage immigrants. It is possible that CG1 children are looking to language for a connection to their Russian and Jewish identities because unlike older immigrants, they do not have personally-experienced defining memories from their
FSU childhood on which to base their connections. Additionally, CG1’s high confidence in their own language ability coupled with high confidence that they have an accurate understanding of life in the FSU could also be an identity-building tactic, serving to help them gain a sense of subjective connection to their ancestors. This would align with the findings of Prashizky and Remennick (2015), who pointed out that immigrant children have a hybrid identity and often feel like they touch multiple worlds but truly belong to none.
There is one limitation in this section that is important to acknowledge: language is a large part of identity, and while I would have liked to analyze the relationship between language and identity in children of different immigration ages, the volume and composition of those two data sets made that analysis prohibitive. Thus, I cannot offer those findings in this study.
271
Conclusion
Perhaps the best way to wrap up this study is to return to the three objectives laid out at its beginning: to examine similarities and differences between the parents’ and children’s generations when it comes to worldviews, relationships, and identity negotiation; to explore parental influence and memory transmission by analyzing the linkage between parents and the children they raised; and to delve into the trends in immigrant children’s worldviews and identity negotiation by age of immigration.
Chapters 6 through 8 presented many fascinating points of intersect and departure between parents and children in aggregate that addressed the first objective; however, they did more than that. They brought together all of the different aspects of the Jewish journey participants experienced, adding dimension and context to the historical, sociopolitical and global components discussed in academic literature in Chapter 4.
Chapter 6 augmented existing literature with new empirical data on identity and belonging, Chapter 7 added interaction dynamics with different population subsets, and
Chapter 8 spotlighted a multitude of topics that illustrate and define these participants’ worldviews. These three chapters not only enabled a thorough examination of the generativity element, underscoring differences between parent and child outlooks on life, and suggesting how those outlooks came to be, but they also granted access to something more important. They captured the essence of this project: to discover the journey participants took to progress from survival mentality in an oppressive environment to
272 learning more about their culture and heritage, developing a sense of cultural pride, and connecting emotionally to a greater global Jewish entity. With that said, I must admit that my intentions in initially designing this project were much less enlightened; I only realized the true value of these data as I was compiling the discussion section for Chapter
8.
Chapter 9 addressed the socialization and intergenerational transmission components within families focusing on the second objective. The findings not only pinpointed specific connections between children and their parents, but also highlighted the fact that there were so many statistically significant connections to discuss.
Additionally, this chapter spotlighted the differences in the relationship children had with mothers as opposed to fathers, forming a tangential connection to gendered reminiscence and socialization research.
Chapter 10 tackled the third objective, focusing on relationships, perspectives and worldviews of these immigrant children based on the age at immigration. It explored how the differences in the amount of FSU and U.S. socialization children received influenced their perceptions, choices, and identity construction. It also opened the door for connections to other research and generalizability in fields like developmental cognition, immigration, identity, memory, history, social psychology, intergenerational transmission, and diasporic Russian-Jewish studies.
While some of the above-mentioned fields, like history, social psychology, and identity have well-established large stores of academic literature, others, like Russian
Jewish diasporic topics and autobiographical memory are fairly young and have much smaller collections in comparison. Others yet, like intergenerational transmission of
273 parental memories, and identity negotiation in immigrant children are just emerging, with very few academic articles being available in each. In fact, looking at publication dates of nearly all of the academic work I found discussing the topic of identity of Russian Jewish
Generation 1.5 children, most of the publications were quite recent: Remennick (2003,
2012), Isurin (2011, 2017b), Prazhinsky and Remennick (2015), Zeltsez-Zubida and
Kasinitz (2005), Mana et al (2009), Noels and Clement (2015), Birman et al (2010), and
Titzman et al (2011). And though it was not specifically centered on the Russian Jewish immigrant culture, empirical work on intergenerational transmission of family memories was equally sparse and recent: Svob and Brown (2012), Isurin (2017a), Nauck (2001),
Vedder (2009), Driessnack (2017), Raffelli et al (2017), Taylor et al (2013). In that context, this pioneering study makes a big difference in helping forge a way forward in the burgeoning topics of intergenerational transmission and Generation 1.5 identity negotiation; not only it provided a few new data points into these young disciplines, it also created tangential ties into other, well-established fields.
In discussing the contributions of this study to the overall body of academic literature, it is important to examine several aspects of methodological design and participant pool that encompass its unique attributes. Perhaps it is due to my previous career in law enforcement, but unlike most academic researchers who define a narrowly- scoped question and provide a precise answer to make an incremental contribution to their field, my approach tends to be broader and more wholistic. In addition to the highly interdisciplinary approach adopted in this study, the exploratory nature of its objectives prompted examination of a wide range of topics from multiple angles, garnering data with both depth and breadth. Furthermore, this study implemented several methods of data
274 collection and a mixed methodology, analyzing data from open-ended oral interviews, written short answers, and structured Likert responses with both quantitative and qualitative approaches, to explore both the scope and the sentiment of the issues discussed.
As discussed in the introduction to this study, the Russian Jewish ethnic group is an ideal population for examining intergenerational transmission of memory because
Jewish parents grew up as a persecuted ethnic minority in a totalitarian government regime, whereas their children were raised as members of a Caucasian majority in a much more accepting democratic country and showed little desire to interact with home country peers on the topic of the FSU. These differences enabled us to better isolate environmental socialization elements from parental intergenerational transmission.
Additionally, whereas most immigration or intergenerational transmission studies limited their participants to a single demographic variable or in some cases used family dyads, the participant pool in this study was comprised of whole families (both parents and all of their children), enabling examination of data by family member individually, between generations in aggregate, within dyads, and within specific families; this type of flexibility is invaluable for exploratory work on intergenerational transmission. This study further examined the children’s generation by age of arrival in the U.S., exploring identity and attitude outcomes in context of participants’ maturational milestones at the time of immigration, to suggest how and why the observed attitudes may have been formed.
Finally, this study carried an emic perspective to the maximum extent possible; FSU Jews are a very private population that pursues some degree of self-isolation even in the U.S.
In this case, interviewer’s ingroup membership (both through common ethnicity and
275 social network) granted increasingly greater access to participants’ inner thoughts that would not have been available to an out-group member that had fewer overlapping features with participants.
Having addressed the main objectives, it is important to acknowledge a factor that likely influenced the findings presented in this study: participant bias and cultural accommodation30 with regard to the interviewer’s ethnicity, age, and social proximity. As discussed in Chapter 2, individuals cast themselves in different roles when talking to different demographics of interlocutors; everyone has biases that shape the way they navigate the world and it is impossible to strip them out. Researchers just have to be aware of them and take them into account to the maximum extent possible. In this specific situation, the interviewer was an in-group member (a Russian-Jewish immigrant of the children’s age) and fell within the participants’ extended social networks, which was known to all of the participants
However, while this is a very important consideration when looking at the data presented in this study, I hesitate to refer to it as a limitation because I feel that it yielded an overall positive influence in respect to the data collected; had the interviewer not been a Russian Jew or not been in the participants’ social network, this section would have discussed the tendency of this group towards privacy and reservation about talking candidly with outgroup members. However, these interlocutor differences are not dependent on ethnicity or social proximity. Bruner (2003) explained that personal stories are interlocutor-dependent; in telling others about ourselves, we remain mindful of what
30 Publicly adjusting one’s values and beliefs in the public sphere (or to that of your interlocutor) while inwardly maintaining different private values and beliefs. 276 we think our interlocutor’s expectations of us are and tend to tailor our narrative to the socially appropriate parameters (Bruner, 2003, p. 210-211). Additionally, Chen and Bond
(2010) examined the role ethnicity plays in the perception of others, finding that the ethnicity of the interlocutor alone was sufficient to trigger perceivable personality differences in the demeanor of bilingual participants, clearly demonstrating cultural frame switching and cultural accommodation (Chen & Bond, 2010; Chapter 2). Nevertheless, whether cultural accommodation is a limitation or a benefit in this case, it does need to be acknowledged as an influence that may have primed several potential interview bias trends.
While it is highly likely that the interviewer being an in-group member opened doors for more candid conversation, especially in the areas of comfort identifying Jewish, relevance of Judaism, and spontaneous mention of Judaism and discrimination, it is just as likely that the interviewer being the exact same demographic as the children’s population had a couple of unintended effects for both parents and children. Because the interviewer resembled their children on so many parameters, it is probable that parent participants emphasized the same topics in their interviews that they emphasized to their own children when they were trying to teach them about the FSU: in fact, many explicitly said so.
Children, however, may have had the opposite effect. Children’s data in Chapter 7 indicated reservations about discussing the FSU with their immigrant peers, and the interviewer fit every criterion for what they would consider an ‘FSU immigrant peer’.
Thus, there is a possibility that the interviewer’s in-group status increased participant hesitation to discuss their own experiences, and prompted them to rely instead on the
‘safety’ of their parents’ experience. All in all, I suspect that even though participants
277 knew that by taking part in a study about the FSU, the things they said would be subject to greater scrutiny, the formality of the interview context likely helped the children group overcome the discomfort associated with talking to their peer about the FSU, leading them to adopt a more didactic approach they would use to educate American peers. Since there were no indicators of discomfort in the demeanor of the child participants (in fact everyone appeared to be enjoying their interview), I would say that possible negative impact of interviewer biases on the part of the child participants was minimal.
Another important item to mention, which is also a double-edged sword in its interpretation as a limitation, is coder bias. Because I am Russian-Jewish, and grew up with most of these very same sentiments, it is likely that at times I was able to identify certain innocuous phrases that held deeper cultural meaning; it is also possible that there may have been times when I attributed implied meaning to innocuous phrases. However,
I feel that being an in-group member was ultimately beneficial, as it primed greater inherent trust and intersubjectivity in participant responses and enabled this study to capture and evaluate culturally-specific subtexts and subtleties that may have been missed by (or would have been omitted when talking to) an outgroup member.
With that said, a dissertation should not be just about the study presented, but also about the personal growth that happened in the course of the journey of writing it. I would do myself an injustice if I did not apply a healthy dose of introspection into my own personal growth; thus, it is also important to discuss my motivation for selecting this topic and the personal growth I achieved while exploring it.
When I first started delving into the literature on Russian-Jewish immigration, in preparation for my candidacy exams, I actually struggled with it quite a bit. I found it
278 difficult to write about it because even though I lived it, the academic and historical literature on the topic seemed so foreign and discordant to what I thought I knew. In fact, my poor advisor had to suffer many non-sensical drafts of my Russian-Jewish immigration essays as I negotiated my own understanding of the body of knowledge outside of my personal experience. However, eventually it did click, and even became a topic I chose to continue exploring in my dissertation.
The inspiration for the design of this study came from a seed planted during my
Post M.A. project interviews, where multiple Russian-Jewish participants who immigrated to the U.S. in the 1990’s drew a rigid distinction between FSU individuals emigrating from post-Soviet Russia and Jews emigrating as refugees from the Soviet Union. In my
Post M.A. study, many Soviet Jewish immigrants described or alluded to memories of discrimination they experienced as Jews living in the FSU, discussed how those experiences became a catalyst for their immigration efforts, and reflected on the formative roles their FSU past had in shaping the people they had become in America. Some discussed their efforts to convey to their children the challenges of being a Jew in the
Soviet Union, and it is through this lens that I first started to consider the implications of identity construction of Russian-Jewish child immigrants, who had a hybrid socialization which was distinct and unique from other FSU immigrants, including those who came from the same geographical region, and even their own parents.
To be completely honest, ready access to this particular participant pool was a critical determiner in the initial design of my study, however what I gained at its completion was so much more than a just an interesting study or a degree. Though I grew up with almost all of the same sentiments reflected by my participants, in retrospect, I
279 knew and understood very little about the FSU Jewish experience. Just like other FSU
Jewish immigrant children, I had a vague awareness that anti-Semitism existed and that we immigrated for a better life, but I did not truly understand what that translated to in the practical sense until I started working with the data provided by these participants. This project not only helped me gather many interesting findings, but also helped me understand my own cultural heritage and greatly influenced my own identity negotiation.
Incidentally, I do not think I was the only one who learned something about themselves in the course of this project. As Fivush and Buckner (2003) offered, when we recount our past, we are simultaneously constructing and recounting ourselves; who we are is created through autobiographical narratives, which are not just a means of telling someone else about ourselves, but a way to fashion our own identity (p. 149). Many of my participants in both child and parent generations commented that they had never before deliberately thought about the questions I was asking them, and interview discussions gave them new insights into their own experience as well as opened the door for future introspection. In fact, one of my favorite parts of this project was actually watching participants add pieces to their own identity puzzles during the interviews, and on the whole, though this was a very difficult and frustrating project at times, I could not have picked a better one.
280
References
Altman, C., Schrauf, R. & Walters, J. (2013). Crossovers and codeswitching in the investigation of immigrant autobiographical memory. In J Altarriba, and L. Isurin (Eds.). Memory, Language, and Bilingualism, Theoretical and Applied Approaches, (pp. 211-235). Cambridge University Press.
Associated Press. (2018, July 19). U.S. court rules Jews are protected 'race' under Civil Rights Act of 1964. Haaretz. Retrieved form https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/u- s-court-rules-jews-are-protected-race-under-civil-rights-act-1.6291921
Barth, J., Povinelli, D., & Cant, J. (2004). Bodily origin of SELF. In D. Beike, J. Lampinen, & D. Behrend (Eds.) The Self and Memory, (pp. 11-44). Psychology Press, NY.
Bauer, P. (2012). The life I once remembered: Waxing and waning of early memories. In D. Berntsen, & D. Rubin (Eds.) Understanding Autobiographical Memory: Theories and Approaches, (pp.205-225). Cambridge.
Beike, D., Lampinen, J., & Behrend, D. (2004). Evolving connceptions of the self and memory. In D. Beike, J. Lampinen, & D. Behrend (Eds.) The Self and Memory, (pp. 3-10). Psychology Press, NY.
Ben-Rafel, M.,& Schmid, M. (2007). Language attrition and ideology: two groups of immigrants in Israel. In B. Kopke, M. Schmid, M. Keijer, & S. Dostert (Eds). Language Attrition: Theoretical Perspectives (pp. 204-226). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins publishing.
Berntsen,D., & Rubin, D., (2012a) Introduction. In D. Berntsen, & D. Rubin (Eds.) Understanding Autobiographical Memory: Theories and Approaches, (pp.1- 7).Cambridge.
Berntsen,D., & Rubin, D., (2012b) Understanding autobiographical memory: an ecological theory. In D. Berntsen, & D. Rubin (Eds.) Understanding Autobiographical Memory: Theories and Approaches, (pp.333-355). Cambridge.
Birman, D., Persky, I., & Chan, W.(2010). Multiple identities of Jewish immigrant
281 adolescents from the former Soviet Union: An exploration of salience and impact of ethnic identity. International Journal of Behavioral Development 34:3, 193-205.
Bruner, J. (2003). Self –making narratives. In R. Fivush, R. and Haden, C. (Eds.) Autobiographical Memory and the Construction of Narrative Self: Developmental and Cultural Perspectives, (pp. 209-226). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Cameron, J., Wilson, A., & Ross, M. (2004). Autobiographical memory and self- assessment. In D. Beike, J. Lampinen, & D. Behrend (Eds.) The Self and Memory, (pp. 207-226). Psychology Press, NY.
Chen, S., & Bond, M. (2010). Two languages two personalities? Examining language effects on the expression of personality in a bilingual context. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 36 (11), 1514-1528.
Cohen, G. (1998). The effects of aging on autobiographical memory. In C. Thompson, D. Herrmann, D. Bruce, J. Read, D. Payne, & M. Toglia (Eds). Autobiographical Memory: Theoretical and Applied Perspectives, (pp. 105-122). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates publishing. Mahwah, NJ.
Conway, M., & Jobson, L. (2012). On the nature of autobiographical memory. In D. Berntsen, & D. Rubin (Eds.) Understanding Autobiographical Memory: Theories and Approaches, (pp.54-69). Cambridge.
Conway, M., & Pleydell-Pearce, C. (2000). The construction of autobiographical memories in the Self-Memory System. Psychological Review, 107(2), 261-288.
Conway, M., Wang, Q., Hanyu, K., & Haque, S. (2005). A cross-cultural investigation of autobiographical memory. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36, 739-749.
Demiray, B., & Bluck, S. (2011). The relation of the conceptual self to recent and distant autobiographical memories. Memory, 19(8), 975-992.
Driessanack, M. (2017). “Who are you from?”: The importance of family stories. Journal of Family Nursing, 23 (4). 434-449.
Fitzgerald, J., & Broadbridge, C. (2012). Theory and research in autobiographical memory:
282 a life-span development perspective. In D. Berntsen, & D. Rubin (Eds.) Understanding Autobiographical Memory: Theories and Approaches, (pp.246- 266). Cambridge.
Fivush, R. (1998) Gendered narratives: elaboration, structure, and emotion in parent-child reminiscing across the preschool years. In R. Thompson, C., Herrmann, D., Bruce, D., Read, J., Payne, D., Toglia, M. Autobiographical Memory: Theoretical and Applied Perspectives, (pp. 79-100). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates publishing. Mahwah, New Jersey.
Fivush, R. (2004). The silenced self: constructing self from memories spoken and unspoken. In D. Beike, J. Lampinen, & D. Behrend (Eds.) The Self and Memory, (pp. 75-94). Psychology Press, NY.
Fivush, R. (2012). Subjective perspective and personal timeline in development of autobiographical memory. In D. Berntsen, & D. Rubin (Eds.) Understanding Autobiographical Memory: Theories and Approaches, (pp.226-245). Cambridge.
Fivush, R., & Buckner, J. (2003) Creating gender and identity through autobiographical narratives. In R. Fivush, R. and Haden, C. (Eds.) Autobiographical Memory and the Construction of Narrative Self: Developmental and Cultural Perspectives, (pp. 149-168). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Fivush, R., Habermas, T., Waters, T., & Zaman, W. (2011). The making of autobiographical memory: intersections of culture, narratives, and identity. International Journal of Psychology, 46 (5), 321-345.
Fivush, R., & Haden, C. (2003). Autobiographical Memory and the Construction of Narrative Self: Developmental and Cultural Perspectives, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, . i-viii.
Goldberg, V., Saxe, L. (1996). Social Attitudes of Russian Immigrants to the United States. The Journal of Social Psychology, 136 (4), 421-434.
Haden, C. (2003) Joint encoding and joint reminiscing: implications for young children’s understanding and remembering of personal experience. In R. Fivush, R. and Haden, C. (Eds.) Autobiographical Memory and the Construction of Narrative Self: Developmental and Cultural Perspectives, (pp. 49-70). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
283 Herlihy, J., Jobson, L., & Turner, S. (2012). Just tell us what happened to you: Autobiographical memory and seeking asylum. Applied Cognitive Psychology 26, 661-676.
Holmes, A. & Conway, M. (1999). Generation identity and the reminiscence bump: Memories for public and private events. Journal of Adult Development, 6 (1), 21- 34.
Howe, M. (2004). Early memory, early self, and the emergence of autobiographical memory. In D. Beike, J. Lampinen, & D. Behrend (Eds.) The Self and Memory, (pp. 45-72). Psychology Press, NY.
Intelligentsia [Def. 1]. (n.d.). Merriam-Webster Online. In Merriam-Webster. Retrieved July 25, 2019, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intelligentsia
Isurin, L (2011) Russian Diaspora: Culture, identity, and language change. De Gruyter, New York.
Isurin, L. (2014). “They call us names, they call us Russians!” Nationality and Conceptual non-equivalence. Slavic and East European Journal 58 (4), 663-665.
Isurin, L. (2017a). Collective remembering: memory in the world and in the mind. Cambridge, UK. Cambridge university press. 38-59.
Isurin, L (2017b). From Russian motherland to German fatherland. Young Russian immigrants in Germany. In L.Isurin and C. Riehl (Eds.) Integration, Identity, and Language Maintenance in Young Immigrants. Russian Germans or German Russians, (pp. 135-157). John Benjamins publishing.
Isurin, L, Wilson, H. (in press). First language attrition in bilingual immigrants: Attitude, identity, and emotion. In G.L. Schiewer, GL., J. Altarriba, and B.C. Ng. (eds.) Handbook on Language and Emotion. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Knez, I.(2014). Place and the self: An autobiographical memory synthesis. Philosophical Psychology, 27(2), 164-192.
Larkina, M., & Bauer, P. (2012). “Family stories” and their implications for preschoolers’ memories of personal events. Journal of Cognition and Development, 13 (4), 473- 504.
284 Larsen, S., Schrauf, R., Fromholt, P., & Rubin, D. (2002). Inner speech and bilingual autobiographical memory: a Polish-Danish cross-cultural study. Memory 1(1), 45- 54.
Leichtman, M., Wang, Q., & Pillemer, D. (2003). Cultural variations in interdependence and ABM: Lessons from Korea, China, India, & the United States. In R. Fivush, R. and Haden, C. (Eds.) Autobiographical Memory and the Construction of Narrative Self: Developmental and Cultural Perspectives, (pp. 73-98). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Marian, V., & Kurshanskaya, M. (2004). Self construal and emotion in bicultural bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 190-201.
Marian, V., Neisser, U. (2000). Language-Dependent Recall of Autobiographical Memories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 29 (3), 361-368.
Markowitz, F. (2009). Retrospective and Afterological considerations of the contemporary Russian-speaking Jewish diaspora: Whence and Whither? Diaspora 18 (3), 336- 357.
Matsumoto, A., & Stanny, C. (2006). Language-dependent access to autobiographical memory in Japanese-English bilinguals and US monolinguals. Memory,14(3), 378- 390.
McAdams, D. (2003) Identity and the Life story. In R. Fivush, R. and Haden, C. (Eds.) Autobiographical Memory and the Construction of Narrative Self: Developmental and Cultural Perspectives, 187-208. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
McAdams, D. (2004). The redemptive self: narrative identity in America today. In D. Beike, J. Lampinen, & D. Behrend (Eds.) The Self and Memory, (pp. 95-115). Psychology Press, NY.
McKeough, A., Malcom, J. (2010). Stories of family, stories of self: developmental pathways to interpretive though during adolescence. In T. Harbermas (Ed.), The development of autobiographical reasoning in adolescence and beyond. New directions for child and adolescent development, 131, 59-71.
Morawska, E. (2004). Exploring diversity in immigrant assimilation and transnationalism: Poles and Russian Jews in Philadelphia. International Migration Review 38 (4) 1372-1412. 285
Mortensen, L., Berntsen, D., & Bohn, O. (2015). Retrieval of bilingual autobiographical memories: Effects of cue language and cue imageability. Memory 23 (2), 138-156.
Moscovitch, M. (2012). The contribution of research on autobiographical memory to past and present theories of memory consolidation. In D. Berntsen, & D. Rubin (Eds.) Understanding Autobiographical Memory: Theories and Approaches, (pp.91-113). Cambridge.
Nauck, B. (2001). Intercultural contact and intergenerational transmission in immigrant families. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32 (2), 159-173.
Nelson, C. (2003). Narrative and self, myth, and memory: emergence of the cultural self In R. Fivush, R. and Haden, C. (Eds.) Autobiographical Memory and the Construction of Narrative Self: Developmental and Cultural Perspectives, (pp. 3- 28). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Noels, K., & Clement, R. (2015). Situational variations in ethnic identity across immigration generations: Implications for acculturative change and cross-cultural adaptation. International Journal of Psychology, 50 (6), 451-462.
Oishi, S. (2002). The experiencing and remembering of well-being: a cross-cultural analysis.Society for personality and Social Psychology, 28 (10), 1398-1406.
Ozanska-Ponikwia,K.(2012). What has personality and emotional intelligence to do with ‘feeling different’ while using a foreign language? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15, 217-234.
Padilla, A., & Perez, W. (2003). Acculturation, social identity, and social cognition: A new perspective. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 25 (1), 35-55.
Pavlenko, A. (2014)The Bilingual Mind and What It Tells Us About Language and Thought (pp. 169-205). Cambridge University Press.
Peterson, C., Smorti, A., Tani, F. (2008). Parental Influences on earliest memories. Memory, 16 (6), 569-578.
Prashizky, A., & Remennick, L. (2015). Cultural Capital in Migration: Fishka association of young Russian-speaking adults in Tel Aviv, Israel. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 36(1), 17-34. 286
Prescher, Petra. 2007. Identity, immigration and first language attrition. In Barbara Köpke, Monica S. Schmid, Merel C. J. Keijzer & Susan Dostert (Eds.), Language Attrition: Theoretical Perspectives, 189–204. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins publishing.
Raffelli, M., Iturbide, M., Saucedo, M., Munoz, L. (2017). You hear stories about what they did and it makes you go ‘Wow’: Adolescents narrate and interpret caregiver stories about a difficult time. Journal of adolescent research 32 (5), 536-558.
Ramirez-Esparza, N., & Garcia-Sierra, A. (2014). The bilingual brain: language, culture, and identity. In R. Benet-Martinez, V. and Hong, Y. (Eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Multicultural Identity: Basic and Applied Perspectives, (pp. 35-56). Oxford Press.
Ramierz-Esparza, N., Gosling, S., Benet-Martinez, V., Potter, J., & Pennebaker, J. (2006). Do bilinguals have two personalities? A special case of cultural frame switching. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 99-120.
Ramirez-Esparza, N., Gosling, S., & Pennebaker, J. (2008). Paradox lost: Unraveling the puzzle of simpatia. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39, 703-715.
Rapoport, T., Lomsky-Feder, E., & Heider, A. (2002). Recollection and Relocation in Immigration: Russian-Jewish Immigrants ‘normalize’ their anti-Semitic experiences. Symbolic Interaction, 25, 175-198.
Rasmussen, A., & Berntsen, D. (2010). Personality traits and autobiographical memory: Openness is positively related to the experiences and usage of recollections. Memory 18(7), 774-786.
Reese, E., & Farrant, K. (2003). Social origins of reminiscing. In R. Fivush, R. and Haden, C. (Eds.) Autobiographical Memory and the Construction of Narrative Self: Developmental and Cultural Perspectives, (pp. 29-48). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Remennick, L. (2003). The 1.5 generation of Russian immigrants in Israel: Between integration and sociocultural retention. Diaspora, 12(1), 39-66.
Remennick, L. (2009). The two waves of Russian-Jewish migrations from the USSR/FSU
287 to Israel: dissidents of the 1970s and pragmatics of the 1990s. Diaspora,18(1/2): 44-66.
Remennick, L. (2012). Intergenerational transfer in Russian-Israeli immigrant families: Parental social mobility and children’s integration. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 30 (10), 1533-1550.
Ritchie, T., Skowronski, J., Cadogan, S., & Sedikides, C. (2014). Affective responses to self-defining autobiographical events. Self and Identity, 13(5) 513-534.
Roberman, S. (2014). Impostors of themselves: performing Jewishness and revitalizing Jewish life among Russian-Jewish immigrants in contemporary Germany. Social Identities 20 (2-3), 199-213.
Ross, M., & Wang, Q. (2010). Why we remember what we remember: culture and autobiographical memory. Perspectives on Psychological Sciences, 5(4), 401-409.
Ross, M., & Wilson, A. (2003). Autobiographical memory and conceptions of self: Getting better all the time. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12 (2), 66-69.
Roytburd, L., & Friedlander, M. (2008). Predictors of Soviet Jewish Refugees’ Acculturation: Differentiation of self and acculturative stress. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology 14 (1), 67-74.
Rubin, D., Rahhal, T, & Poon, L. (1998) Things earned in early adulthood are remembered best. Memory & Cognition. Jan, 26 (1):3-19.
Rubin, D. (1998). Beginnings of a theory of autobiographical remembering. In C. Thompson, D. Herrmann, D. Bruce, J. Read, D. Payne, & M. Toglia (Eds). Autobiographical Memory: Theoretical and Applied Perspectives, (pp. 47-63). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates publishing. Mahwah, NJ.
Schrauf, R., & Hoffman, L.(2007). The effects of revisionism on remembered emotion: The valence of older voluntary immigrants’ pre-migration autobiographical memories. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 895-913.
Schrauf, R., & Rubin, D. (1998). Bilingual autobiographical memory in older adult immigrants: a test of cognitive explanations of the reminiscence bump and the linguistic encoding of memories. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 437-457. 288
Schrauf, R., & Rubin, D. (2000). Internal languages of retrieval: the bilingual encoding of memories for the personal past. Memory and Cognition, 28(4), 616-623.
Schrauf, R., & Rubin, D. (2001). Effects of voluntary immigration on the disruption of autobiographical memory over the lifespan. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15, S75-S88.
Schrauf, R., & Rubin, D. (2003). On Bilingual’s two sets of memories. In R. Fivush, R. and Haden, C. (Eds.) Autobiographical Memory and the Construction of Narrative Self: Developmental and Cultural Perspectives, (pp. 121-146). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Schwartz, M. (2008). Exploring the relationship between family language policy and heritage language knowledge among second generation Russian Jewish immigrants in Israel. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 29:5, 400-418.
Shi, L., & Brown, N. (2016). The effect of immigration on the contents and organization of autobiographical memory: a transition-theory perspective. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 5, 135-142.
Shneer, D. (2011). The third way: German-Russian-European Jewish identity in a global Jewish world. European Review of History, 18 (1), 111-121.
Shulova-Piryatinsky, I., & Harkins, D. (2009). Narrative disclosure of native and immigrant Russian-speaking mother-child dyads. Narrative Inquiry, 19(2), 328- 355.
Simon, R., & Simon, J. (1982). The Jewish dimension among recent soviet immigrants to the United States. Jewish Social Studies, 44 (3/4), 283-290.
Singer,J., Blagov,P., Berry, M., & Oost, K. (2013). Life defining memories, scripts, and the life story: narrative identity in personality and psychotherapy. Journal of Personality 81(6); 569-582.
Smith, E. & Macke, D. (2014). Social Psychology (4th edition). New York: Psychology Press.
Svob, C., Brown, N. (2012). Intergenerational transmission of the reminiscence bump and biographical conflict knowledge. Psychological science, 23 (11) 1404-1409. 289
Taylor, A., Fisackerly, B., Mauren, E., Taylor, K. (2013). “Grandma, tell me another story”: Family narratives and their impact on young adult development. Marriage and Family Review, 49, 367-390.
Titzmann, P., Sibereisen, R., Mesch,G., & Schmitt-Rodermund, E. (2011). Migration- Specific Hassles among adolescent immigrants from the former Soviet Union in Germany and Israel. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42 (5), 777-794.
Triandis, H. (2001). Individualism and collectivism: Past, present, and future. In R. Matsumoto, D. (Ed.). The Handbook of Culture and Psychology. Oxford University Press, New York, 35-50.
Vedder, P., Berry, J., Sabatier, C., Sam, D. (2009). The intergenerational transmission of values in national and immigrant families: The role of Zeitgeist. Journal of youth and adolescence, 38, 642-653.
Wang, Q., & Conway, M. (2004). The stories we keep: autobiographical memory in American and Chinese middle aged adults. Journal of Personality 17(5), 911-938.
Wang, Q., Shao, Y., & Li, Y. (2010). “My way or mom’s way”, The bilingual and bicultural self in Hong Kong Chinese children and adolescents. Child Development 81 (2), 555-567.
Wilson, A., & Ross, M. (2003). The identity function of autobiographical memory: Time is on our side. Memory 11(2), 137-149.
Zeltzer-Zubida, A., & Kasinitz, P. (2005). The next generation: Russian Jewish young adults in contemporary New York. Contemporary Jewry, 25, 193-225.
290
Appendix A: Experimental Stimuli
1. Step 1 - Parents’ Interview
Question 1 Please describe what you are like as a person, using your own words. Use whatever information you think helps to describe yourself. For example, you may want to describe yourself socially, professionally, as a friend, as a family member, or you may want to mention skills and characteristics that are important to who you are as a person. You may find it useful to describe yourself in comparison to other people, or compared to what you were like in the past, or compared to what you expect to be like in the future. Feel free to use or disregard any of these suggestions, and please include any other information that is important to get a clear picture of what you are like as a person.
Question 2 Describe to me a personal memory of an experience that happened in the FSU that you feel is closely linked to the sense of identity that you think you had while living in the FSU. Have you shared this memory with your children?
Question 3 Describe to me a personal memory of an experience that happened in the U.S. that would show how you currently define yourself.
Question 4 Did you attempt to pass onto your children anything about your native country that they may have been too young to see for themselves? If so, what? How did you use to do it? What was their age range during this time? On a 1-10 scale, with 1 being not at all and 10 being very, to what extent were they able to understand it the way you wanted them to?
2. Step 1 - Children’s Interview
Question 1 Please describe what you are like as a person, using your own words. Use any information you think helps to describe yourself. For example, you may want to describe yourself socially, professionally, as a friend, as a family member, or you may want to mention skills and characteristics that are important to who you are as a person. You may find it useful to describe yourself in comparison to other people, or compared to what you
291 were like in the past, or compared to what you expect to be like in the future. Feel free to use or disregard any of these suggestions, and please include any other information that is important to get a clear picture of what you are like as a person.
Question 2 If you remember, describe to me a personal memory from the FSU that helped shape your sense of self.
Question 3 Describe to me a personal memory of an incident you remember from your time in the U.S. that shaped your sense of self.
Question 4 Can you describe to me a memory that sticks out in your mind as the most prominent thing your parents taught you about your/your family’s identity in the FSU? (a specific memory they told you about that illustrates it, if possible). How old were you at the time? How did it affect you then? As an adult reflecting on it, how does it affect you now?
3. Step 2 – Parents’ Memory Identity Questionnaire
1. In the FSU, how did you identify yourself in your own mind? ______2. In the FSU, when you met people and the topic of your background came up, how did you identify publicly? ______3. In America, how do you identify yourself in your own mind? ______4. In America, when you met people and the topic of your background came up, how did you identify? ______5. When you share memories with Americans about your time in the FSU, what kind of topics do they generally center on? Why? ______6. When you share memories with other FSU immigrants about your time in the FSU, what kind of topics do they generally center on? Why? ______7. What do you think are the major differences in the way you tell your story to Americans versus others from the FSU? ______8. When you shared your FSU memories with your children, what did they center on? Why? ______9. What aspects do you remember from the FSU that you feel are central to your family identity? ______10. What FSU experience/lesson/interaction would you have liked your children to understand the same way you did? ______
292 ______11. What approach did you use to teach your children about the country they left? ______12. To what extent do you think you succeeded in making them see it the way you wanted them to? (1-10) ______13. While in the FSU, what did you teach your children about their identity (if they were old enough to understand)? ______14. After coming to the U.S., what did you teach your children about their identity? ______15. How do you think your children identify? ______16. In what way do you think your sharing your FSU experiences and memories with your children while they were growing up influenced their identity? ______
4. Step 2 – Children’s Memory Identity Questionnaire
1. In the FSU, how did you identify yourself in your own mind? ______2. In the FSU, when you met people and the topic of your background came up, how did you identify? ______
3. In America, how do you identify yourself in your own mind? ______4. In America, when you met people and the topic of your background came up, how do you identify? ______5. When you share memories with Americans about your time in the FSU, what kind of topics do they generally center on? Why? (or if too young for your own memories, when people in the U.S. say ‘you’re from Russia? What was it like over there?’, how would you answer? ______6. When you share memories with other FSU (former Soviet Union) immigrants about your time in the USSR, what kind of topics do they generally center on? Why? Or how do you talk to other Russian kids who grew up in the U.S. about it? ______7. What are the differences in the way you tell your story to each of the two groups? ______8. Did your parents frequently share their remembered experiences from the FSU with you? ______9. What topics of memories did your parents generally share with you as you were growing up?
293 ______10. Were their memories mostly positive, negative, or neutral? ______11. What aspects of life in the FSU that your parents passed onto you do you feel are central to your identity? ______12. What aspects of life in the U.S. do you feel are central to your identity? ______13. While in the FSU, what did your parents teach you about your identity? ______14. After coming to the U.S., what did your parents teach you about your identity? ______15. How did they do it?______16. Do you think about your identity similarly as your parents think of theirs? ______17. How do you think listening to your parents’ stories about their time in the FSU while you were growing up influenced the way you see the world now? ______18. Do you think you see their experiences the same way they do? ______
5. Step 3 – Parents’ Demographic Questionnaire
Age now______Year of immigration______Years living in U.S. ______City of USSR residence ______Did you immigrate with children? Y N How old were they? ______In your Soviet passport, what did the ‘nationality’ line say? ______Your education level HS Technical University ______yrs.
Language you speak Very Well Well ok Poorly Very Poorly
Languages
Very Very much A lot Some Little little How hard did you work to
make sure your children Maintenance
Family Russian Russian Family retained Russian?
294 How well are they able to communicate in Russian now? How important is it to you that they teach their children about Russian language and culture?
Your profession in USSR ______Your profession in the U.S. ______
Strongly Not strongly disagree Disagree sure Agree agree I am more satisfied with my professional position now than Profession I was in FSU
Strongly Not Strongly Disagree Disagree sure Agree Agree I generally remember my time in the FSU positively
I like sharing my FSU memories I frequently shared my FSU memories with my children as they were growing up When I talked about my experiences, it was mostly in aringPractices a positive light. I frequently share my FSU memories with my children now I frequently share my FSU Memory Sh Memory memories with other FSU immigrants I frequently share my FSU memories with Americans in my current social network
Strongly Disagree Not Agree Strongly
Disagree sure Agree In the FSU I felt comfortable identifying as Jewish In the U.S. I feel comfortable identifying as Jewish My comfort level of identifying as Jewish in the U.S. has not changed between the time I immigrated and
now. JewishIdentification If it has changed, how so?
Which of the following groups do you feel you have a lot in common with?
295
Check all that apply: Jews living in the FSU FSU Russian-Jewish now immigrants in America American Jews Russians living in Russia FSU Russian non-Jewish Non-Jewish now immigrants in America Americans Russian Jewish Russian-Jewish immigrants Native-born Israeli immigrants in Israel in America from Russia (not Jews living in Israel from Russia (not FSU) FSU) now Russian Jewish Russian immigrants in immigrants in Israel America from Russia (not Non-FSU Israelis from FSU FSU) living in the U.S.
Some- Type of Discrimination Never Rarely Regularly Often times IN THE FSU, I experienced unjust or prejudicial treatment as it related to education/profession IN AMERICA, I experienced unjust or prejudicial treatment as it related to education/profession IN THE FSU, I experienced unjust or prejudicial treatment in
social/interpersonal situations
IN AMERICA, I experienced unjust or prejudicial treatment in social/interpersonal situations IN THE FSU, I experienced unjust or prejudicial treatment on the basis of my nationality/ethnicity
Discrimination IN AMERICA, I experienced unjust or prejudicial treatment on the basis of my nationality/ethnicity IN THE FSU, I went out of my way to avoid situations where there might be discrimination IN AMERICA, I went out of my way to avoid situations where there might be discrimination IN AMERICA, I experienced unjust or prejudicial treatment based on immigrant factors
6. Step 3 – Children’s Demographic Questionnaire
Age at Immigration ______Age now ______Profession ______Level of Education HS Vocational University ______years after HS
296 Very Very Language ( _____% time using it)
Well Well ok Poorly Poorly s
Language
Strongly Not Strongly Disagree Disagree sure Agree Agree I can comfortably carry on a conversation about daily topics in Russian
I can read and write comfortably in Russian I can discuss formal, academic, political, and technical topics in Russian I am confident in my command of the Russian grammar Speaking Russian takes a lot of concentration for me Aboutyour Russian I can comfortably read a book in Russian and understand it fairly well I can comfortably watch a movie in Russian and understand it fairly well
What helped you retain Russian? ______Most of the FSU memories my parents shared with me were ______About ______% of my connections in my current social network is FSU immigrants.
Strongly Not Strongly
Disagree Disagree sure Agree Agree I have a lot of my own personal memories from FSU I remember my time in the FSU positively My parents told me a lot about their experiences in FSU Their accounts were mostly positive I feel like I have an accurate mental picture of what my family's life was like in the FSU. Aboutconnection FSU with I have a strong connection with Russia now 297 I have a strong connection with Israel now I have a strong connection with America now
Which of the following groups do you feel you have a lot in common with?
Check all that apply: Jews living in the former FSU Russian-Jewish American Jews USSR now immigrants in America Russians living in Russia FSU Russian non-Jewish Non-Jewish Americans now immigrants in America Russian Jewish Russian-Jewish immigrants Native-born Israeli Jews immigrants in Israel in America from Russia (not living in Israel now from Russia (not FSU) FSU) Russian Jewish Russian immigrants in Russian non-Jewish in immigrants in Israel America from Russia (not the U.S. From FSU FSU) Other: ______
How much influence would you attribute to each of the below to the formation of your self-concept today. Mark your answer on the continuity lines below.
almost quite a none some lot Parents FSU experiences U.S. experiences Immigration process Peers Career/professional Other ______
298
Appendix B: Detailed Coding Description
1. Demographic Worksheet Coding
1.1 Basic Demographics
- Sample 1. Parent 2. Child
- Family Number – each family was assigned a number, for grouping purposes
- Family Member – 1. Father 2. Mother 3. Oldest Child 4. Younger Child
- Generation 1.5 vs 2 (Children Only) - 1. Generation 1.5 2. Generation 2
- Reached cognitive maturity of ABM (Children Only) 1. Youngst Children (CG1) -
0-5 years old 2. Older Children (CG2) - 6-10 yrs old 3. Adolescent Children
(CG3) -11+ years old
- Gender – 1. Male 2. Female
- Nationality line in the Soviet Passport (Parents only)– 1. Jewish 2. Russian 3.
Republic
1.2 Parents’ demographic questionnaire
1.2.1. Language
Parents were asked to list all of the languages they speak and rate how well they speak them on a Likert scale. Language ratings were coded [1. Very Poorly 2. Poorly 3. Ok 4. Well
5. Very Well]. The priority in which the languages were written was noted [1. Listed first 2.
Listed second 3. Listed third]. Finally, Parents were asked to rate the topics below, describing 299 heritage language maintenance practices within their family. Responses were coded [1. Very little 2. Little 3. Some 4. A lot 5 Very much]
- Amount of effort they put in to ensure their children retained Russian
- Children’s communicative proficiency now
- Importance that grandchildren learn Russian language and culture
1.2.2, Memories of the FSU
Parents were also asked to rate statements about their FSU memories on a Likert scale.
All of the below questions were coded [1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Not Sure 4. Agree
5. Strongly Agree.]
- I have positive memories of my time in the FSU
- I enjoyment sharing memories
- I often shared FSU memories with children when they were growing up and now
- I frequency shared FSU memories with other FSU immigrants and American peers
- The memories I shared were mostly positive
1.2.3. Affinity
Parents were given several subsets of identities that overlapped in some aspect with their own (by ethnicity, place of residence, religion, and origin) and asked to indicate which groups they felt they had a lot in common with. Groups were assigned a categorical numerical value and analyzed manually.
300 1.2.4. Jewish identification/discrimination
Parents were asked to what extent they were comfortable identifying Jewish in the FSU and America [1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Not Sure 4. Agree 5. Strongly Agree]. They were also asked about discrimination they had experienced in the FSU and the U.S. in the realms of education/profession, social/interpersonal, nationality/ethnicity, discrimination situation avoidance habits, and immigration hassles. These metrics had a similar scale of [1. Never 2.
Rarely 3. Sometimes 4. Regularly. 5. Frequently].
1.3 Children’s Demographic Questionnaire
1.3.1. Language
Children were asked to list all of the languages they speak, rate how well they speak them on a Likert scale, and indicate what percentage of the time they used each language. Language ratings were coded [1. Very Poorly 2. Poorly 3. Ok 4. Well 5. Very Well], and percentages were analyzed numerically. The priority in which the languages were written was noted here as well [1. Listed first 2. Listed second 3. Listed third]. Children also indicated what helped them retain their Russian, coded [1. Family/speaking at home 2. Other]
Furthermore, children were asked more specific questions about their Russian, such as whether they could comfortably read and write or discuss technical or academic topics. The coding scheme for these Likert responses was [1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Not Sure 4.
Agree 5. Strongly Agree]. There was one item in this set that was inverted for validity, thus its responses were coded in reverse. In order to test the self-assessment prediction in the overall
301 language section, a proficiency value for each child was calculated based on a mean of numerical values of the Likert ratings in this section.
1.3.2. Memory of the FSU
Children were asked to rate statements about their FSU memories on a Likert Scale [1.
Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Not Sure 4. Agree 5. Strongly Agree].
- I have many of my own memories form the FSU
- My memories from my time in the FSU were mostly positive
- My parents told me many FSU stories while I was growing up
- Their stories were mostly positive
- I have an accurate mental picture of my family’s FSU life
- I have a strong connection with Russia, Israel, and America now
1.3.3. Affinity
Children were given several subsets of identities overlapping with aspects of their own
(by ethnicity, place of residence, religion, and origin) and asked to indicate which groups they felt they had a lot in common with. Groups were assigned a categorical numerical value and analyzed manually.
1.3.4. Meaningful influences
Children indicated how much influence each aspect of their life had on who they are as a person [1. Very little 2. Some 3. A great deal].
- Parent influences - FSU time influences
302 - U.S. time influences - Peers Influences
- Immigration Process influences - Career Influences
2. Interview coding
2.1. Overall impression coding
Each interview, for both parents and children, was coded for these overall parameters.
Implicit indicates information provided through context, but not stated outright. For instances, an implicit measure for spontaneously mentioning Jewishness could be talking about personal importance of celebrating Shabat while not saying ‘I am Jewish’.
- Relevance of Judaism in interview –1. None 2. Implicit 3. A couple of places 4.
Throughout
- Comfort level with Jewish identity – 1. Great discomfort 2. Mild discomfort 3.
Ambivalent 4. Comfortably 5. Proudly
- Spontaneously mentioning Jewishness – 1. No explicit or implicit mention 2. Alluded
implicitly 3. Once or twice explicitly 4. Frequently 5. Central theme
- Spontaneously mentioning discrimination - 1. No explicit or implicit mention 2.
Alluded implicitly 3. Once or twice explicitly 4. Frequently 5. Central theme
- Amount of detail about ancestors – 1. No mention 2. Just mention that family existed
3. Gave a little detail about ancestors 4. Lots of details about ancestors 5. Defined
self through ancestor experience
- Importance of family stories – 1. Fairly indifferent 2. Low importance 3. Some
importance 4. Great importance
303 - Centrality of Socialism – 1. Not at all 2. Mention 3. Central lesson. 99. No mention
- Sentiment about Socialism – 1. Very negative 2. Negative 3. Neutral 4. Positive 5.
Very Positive 99. No mention
2.2. Individual question coding
The following parameters were coded for each of the four interview questions separately, in both parents and child interviews.
- Length of description - 1 Short 2. Medium 3. Long 4. Very long
- Intergenerational transmission in responses – 1.None -Self focused only 2. Implicit
alluding to family 3. A little explicit ancestor discussion 4. Ancestor information is
the central focus
- Prioritization by theme - (theme coding below)
- Number of identities mentioned (Q1 only) - 1. One 2. Two 3. Three 4. Four or more
- Level of evaluation - 1. Little 2. Some 3. A lot
- Tie to Judaism - 1. No mention 2. Implicit 3. Explicit 4. Central
- Discrimination – 1. None 2. Implicit 3. Explicit 4. Central to narrative
2.3. Interview – alignment within family coding
Parent Questions 1 and 4, (self description and the central lessons they wanted their children to know about the country they left) were compared to their children’s interview responses to Questions 1 and 4 in terms of impression and content [1. No similar elements 2.
Some similarity 3. Moderate similarity 4. Very similar].
304 - Parent Q1 – child Q1 - Parent Q4 – child Q1
- Parent Q1 – child Q4 - Parent Q4 – child Q4
3. Memory Identity Questionnaire coding
The short answer format of the Memory-Identity Questionnaire contained a fairly wide range of response possibilities, and often involved 2-4 hyphenations to accurately represent the sentiment behind a response, therefore, in order to accurately capture the intent of the participant, all Memory-Identity responses were analyzed manually and qualitatively. Most of the coding in this measure was emergent, based on the frequency of participant responses. Every coding item appears at least once in a participant response, however only the most frequent responses are reported in the findings.
3.1 Identities Coding
There were altogether nine questions that required a participant to name how they identified themselves or their child at various times; all of them were coded using this coding scheme. Oftentimes responses were ‘hyphenated’ with 2-4 identities from the below list to capture the true essence of the interviewee’s intent. For example, someone who defines themselves as an American Soviet Jew would be coded ‘1-11-2’.
1. American 7. Russian socialization/ 14. Republic national 2. Jewish heritage 15. Personality trait 3. Russian 8. Cultural Jew 16. Family 4. Russian Jew 9. American socialization 17. Female 5. FSU Origin (from 10. Immigrant 18. Refugee Russia) 11. Soviet 19. Education 6. Religion 12. Zionist/Israel 20. Externally-Imposed ID 13. Professionally 21. “Didn’t matter” 305 22. Just a person, like 24. Second class citizen 28. Other everyone else 25. Avoided it 99. NA/too young 23. “The topic didn’t come 26. Emotional state up” 27. NOT
3.2 Themes Coding
There were 14 places throughout the qualitative data where themes of discussion were tracked. In those instances, a standardized theme coding scheme was used. When appropriate to answer a specific sub-question, similar themes were grouped. Since SPSS is not the right format to analyze theme-coded items, all theme coded responses were analyzed manually and qualitatively. All 14 items coded using this schematic dealt with topics of memories shared and aspects central to the family’s identity. Some of the items on this list require a little more explanation, so I included an operational definitions section at the end of this Appendix. Some of these coding items are also defined in text, at the point of discussion.
1. Family 2. Professional a. Culture shock/assimilation 3. Hobby b. Process of immigration 4. Jewish c. Immigration mindset (hard work, 5. Russian sacrifice, responsibility) 6. American 13. Character/core values 7. Social 14. Heritage culture/history/traditions 8. Discrimination/antisemitism 15. Secrecy 9. Negative political system 16. Helping others 10. FSU positive aspects 17. Education experiences/system 11. Personal history 18. Turning point 12. Immigration 19. Ideology
306 20. Family history/legacy/IT 37. Gratitude/not taking things for 21. Jewish acculturation granted 22. Zionist 38. Hard work/self-dependence/ 23. Generativity/reflected in future determination generations 39. Religious freedom/tolerance 24. Other 40. Opportunities 25. War 41. Russian-Jewish worldview 26. Friendship/interpersonal 42. Global Jewish connection 27. Living conditions 43. Everyday life in USSR - (includes 28. Reasons for Immigration 27, 9,8,1,2, 4,20,11) 29. Comparisons on interest topics 44. Humor 30. Compare life here & there 45. Identity negotiation 31. Children’s FSU childhood 46. Overcoming/surviving experiences 47. Practicality/financial responsibility 32. Recent things/current politics 48. Multicultural perspective 33. Rumors/propaganda 49. No 34. Age of arrival 98- We don’t talk about the FSU 35. Geographical origin 99 – I was too young to remember 36. Weather/vodka/trivial things
3.3 How sharing memories is different by interlocutor
When talking about where the differences in the way participants shared their FSU experience with Americans versus FSU immigrant peers, the below coding was used.
1. “Do not have to provide background 3. “Speaking with FSU immigrants is for immigrants like I do for more personal due to Americans” intersubjectivity” 2. “Educating versus sharing/ 4. “I discuss different topics with FSU commiserating” immigrants versus American peers.”
307 5. “There is no difference in how I talk 10. “I am more conscious about to the two groups” stereotypes with Americans” 6. “I can use culture-specific slang and 11. “Conversation with immigrants is code switching with immigrants” easier and more fun” 7. “I share more specific memories and 12. “Telling Americans makes me details with immigrants” realize how lucky I am to be in the 8. “I have different interlocutor US.” expectations and standards for the 13. “It is easier to be open with two groups.” Americans” 9. “I avoid sharing memories with 14. “I do not share with either group” immigrants because we have 15. Other intersubjectivity”
3.4 Parental teachings about identity
There were altogether four questions that required a participant to discuss parental teachings about identity in the U.S. and FSU; all of them were coded using this coding scheme.
Oftentimes responses were ‘hyphenated’ with 2-4 identities from the below list to capture the true essence of the participant’s intent. For example, a participant taught their child ‘You are
Jewish, which different form others. Life will be difficult, and you have to work harder than your peers to advance’ would be coded ‘1 -14. 9, 5’.
1. ‘You are Jewish’ 8. ‘Hold on to your Jewishness’ 2. ‘Education is critical to who you are’ 9. It’s difficult to be Jewish 3. Character/values-based identity 10. Religious tolerance/respect 4. Profession-oriented identity 11. ‘Take pride in who you are’ 5. Work harder than peers 12. ‘Conceal who you are’ 6. ‘You are Russian’ 13. ‘You are different’ 7. ‘You are an immigrant’ 14. ‘Stay together with people like you’
308 15. Parent protect child from system 23. Russian-Jewish cultural 16. ‘Embrace who you are’ indoctrination (significance/ 17. Feel lucky to be in states meaning/history) 18. ‘Didn’t understand my identity’ 24. ‘You are in control of your own 19. Parent showed by example destiny’ 20. Supportive sentiment 25. Being Jewish is not bad 21. ‘You should participate in Jewish 26. Support America activities’ 27. Support Israel 22. ‘You have a global Jewish 28. Other connection and responsibility’ 99. Nothing/’I was too young’
3.5 Parental tactics for teaching their children about the FSU
There were two questions that required discussion of methods parents used to teach children about their identity and the country they left. They both used the below coding scheme.
1. Participation in cultural Jewish 11. Through character mentorship activities 12. Through strategic media exposure 2. Family stories and explanations 13. Through teaching Russian language 3. Travel back to FSU 14. Through spending time as a family 4. Participation in religion 15. Parent did not teach anything 5. Participation in Jewish 16. Through undergoing the immigration cultural/social activities process 6. Participation in immigrant cultural/social activities 7. By providing practical support 8. By facilitating a certain peer group 9. By example 10. By leveraging stringent requirements/ standards 309
3.6 What children learned from parents’ stories
There were two questions that required discussion of what children learned from their parents’ stories. They used the below coding scheme.
1. Value of hard work 2. Perseverance/overcoming challenges 3. Appreciation for the U.S./negativity of Socialism 4. Different perspective than peers/open mindedness 5. Shaped values/morals/priorities 6. Underscored education/intellectual growth 7. Not helpful 8. Increased skepticism 9. Greater connection to Jewish roots/heritage 10. Family legacy awareness 11. Russian cultural heritage 12. Strengthened self… (confidence/ esteem/identity) 13. Built interpersonal skills 14. Other
3.7 Other coding on the Memory-Identify questionnaire
- Did parents often share memories with you? 1. yes 2. no 3. sometimes
- How positive were the memories parents shared? 1. Very negative. 2.
Negative. 3. Neutral. 4. Slightly Positive. 5. Very Positive.
- To what extent do you think your identity is similar to your that of your
parents? 1. Not at all 2. Not much 3. I don’t know 4. Somewhat similar 5.
Very similar.
310
- Do you see your parents’ experience the same as they do? 1. Not at all 2. Not
much 3. I don’t know 4. Somewhat similar 5. Very similar.
4. Composite quantifier scores
There were several instances where in addition to precise data, a composite quantifier was useful. This was the case with Russian proficiency and discrimination.
Thus, for each of those items I calculated an aggregate value that represents that topic overall for each participant.
4.1. Russian proficiency combination score
In order use the Russian proficiency data for SPSS analysis against other metrics, it was necessary to turn the data from the seven language proficiency question participants answered into a single numerical Russian proficiency score. This score was derived by, calculating the mean of Likert responses on individual proficiency skills included in the Demographic Questionnaire.
4.2. Discrimination combination score
Having discrimination appear in so many places across all three measures of this study, it was necessary to derive one inclusive composite score (that encompassed and reflected all of the discrimination sentiments expressed about each country) for FSU discrimination and one for U.S. discrimination. All possible areas where discrimination could have been discussed were amassed across the three stimuli, and a single
311 discrimination number representing experience in the FSU and the U.S. (ranging from 1-
10) was calculated based on how prevalent discrimination was in each individual’s data.
Below is a summary of how many questions had potential to hold discrimination-themed content, however actual reports of discrimination varied by participant.
- In demographic questionnaires, parents had a total of five Likert questions in
the FSU and six in the U.S. asking about discrimination. There were also
three possible questions on the interview that could have fed into the FSU
discrimination score and one that could have fed into the U.S. score. On the
Memory Identity questionnaire, discrimination themes were noted in
responses to 10 (out of 16) questions for FSU and three questions for U.S.
- Children had no demographic questionnaire discrimination questions,
however three of the interview questions had potential to hold FSU
discrimination themes and one had potential for U.S. discrimination themes.
On the Memory Identity questionnaire, there were 10 (of 18) questions where
at least one participant indicated discrimination in the FSU and three in the
U.S.
5. Operational Definitions
While many of the coded items are self-explanatory or are explained in the body of the study, it is helpful to have a reference of operational definitions relevant to the ensuing discussion. To those ends, this Appendix provides a list of explanations and distinctions to clarify usage of terms that will most likely be encountered in the course of reading this study. 312
- The categories Jewish, Russian, and American were used to code themes that had
implicit or explicit references to culture, nationality, environment, or identity
belonging to that country.
o The terms Jewishness and Judaism were used interchangeably in this
study, with one small distinction. While both imply Jewish nationality (as
opposed to religion), the use of Jewishness highlights Jewish identity of a
pointedly secular nature, whereas Judaism does not specify.
o Similarly, the term Russian is used very broadly. The majority of the time
it is used to refer to Russian socialization and cultural practice (e.g.
Russian Jew), however it could also refer to a Russian speaker of any
ethnicity or denote an ethnically Russian person. When it is used in one of
the latter contexts, it is specified in the discussion.
- There were two categorical classifications used that have the word “family” in
them. Family themes referred the roles and interactions within an individual’s
immediate family, with people he/she personally has a relationship with, whereas
family legacy refers to information transmitted intergenerationally about distant
ancestors outside of parents and grandparents.
- Friendship/interpersonal and Social themes also sound similar, however social
themes were coded when participants emphasized interaction with a large group,
whereas friendship themes were assigned to more intimate interactions with a
single person
313
- The Socialism label encompassed all of the topics about life in the FSU under the
communist totalitarian regime that were not related to Judaism or discrimination.
Each interview question was coded for centrality of and sentiment about
socialism, whereas in the Memory Identity questionnaire, themes coding used
negative political system and FSU positive aspects to express the same thing.
o Centrality was operationalized as overall presence of socialism discussion
in participant’s interviews. It is a measure of frequency of discussion and
has neither a positive or a negative connotation.
o Sentiment was used as a 5-point gradient between highly positive and
highly negative
o Negative political system was coded when participants talked about life in
the FSU in a negative light
o FSU positive aspects code was used when participants talked about the
FSU in a positive light.
- Heritage culture was another item used in themes coding, focusing on various
positive aspects of FSU culture, such as history, cultural events, arts, and
language.
- Character themes encompassed values and personal qualities, such as kindness,
loyalty, and determination.
- Immigration themes incorporated anything related to moving from the FSU to the
U.S., to include the process of moving, assimilation efforts, and the uniquely
immigrant mindset of doing whatever it takes to start over and rebuild your life.
314
Appendix C: Parent interview responses dealing with anti-Semitism
Mark Twain was quoted saying ‘It is curious that physical courage be so common in the world and moral courage so rare”. It takes true courage and strength to willingly relive painful memories, for no other reason than because a virtual stranger asked you to.
During interviews, the parent participants shared a lot of powerful stories about the anti-
Semitism they experienced in the FSU; many of them were difficult and heartbreaking, yet they honored me by taking time to share their life experiences and voluntarily relive painful memories so that I could know their truth. In return I would like to honor them by giving their experiences a voice in my dissertation. Below are some of the stories told by parent participants during the interviews about what it was like to live as a Jew in the
FSU.
Some stories were centered on what it was like to live there:
“The atmosphere was such, that since we were Jews, we were foreigners in the USSR, and nobody concealed it. Nobody put you in jail for being Jewish, but your opportunities were very limited; everything was limited because of it. There is a big difference between place of birth and motherland”. (M, age 62, immigrated in 1987)
“We got used to being second class citizens, we just tried not to pay attention, not talk about things that happened. There were times when I didn’t even share with my husband that I got called a name or someone spilled something on me, and so on. It was part of our reality.” (F, age 67; immigrated in 1994)
“Here they look at who you are, what you can do, and how you carry yourself; there, they opened your documents and looked at your nationality. Even in library cards you had to write your nationality, supposedly for ‘statistical purposes”. (M, age 63, immigrated 1991)
315
“Of course everyone knew that you were Jewish, Jewishness was like a shroud of some sort. We didn’t speak of it positively or negatively, just as a fact. ‘You have to study three times as hard to achieve the same thing’, ‘you are a Jew, so you can’t go [to study or work] there, there, there’. Nobody was angry at it. At that time, I would have given everything to erase my Jewish nationality out of my passport, I wanted to study at the Moscow university. I didn’t get in, of course, and went somewhere else”. (F, age 57, immigrated 1991)
“In Moscow there was a synagogue, where young people met once a year for Jewish holidays. Usually they [authorities] broke it up, people weren’t allowed to go there, they didn’t allow it. But we didn’t care, I tried to go anyway, because I liked it there”. (F. age 63, immigrated 1989)
There were also many stories about admission to university:
“In Russia, if you are Jewish, it’s an unwritten law, but you couldn’t get admitted anywhere. My father wanted to attend law school, but the woman opened his passport looked at his nationality and said ‘don’t even try, you won’t get in. Go try the trade institute over there, they are still taking Jews’, and she didn’t even take his papers. My children are unable to understand that kind of an environment, so I tried to teach them to appraise people by their actions, not by other attributes” (F, age 54, immigration 1992)
“I had to explain to him [son] that he had no future there, especially his generation. When I was applying to university, I had to trick everyone about my nationality, I didn’t say I was Jewish, I said I was Ukrainian. Otherwise I wouldn’t have gotten in.” (F, age 62, immigrated 1989)
“Despite what my parents and teacher told me, I traveled to Moscow to apply to the university to study mathematics. They claimed that exams were conducted anonymously but that was not the case. The Moscow University was like Mecca for the academically inclined; I wanted to study mathematics and be a professor, that was my dream. It was Mecca, everyone wanted to go there, it was amazing just to live in the dorms for the exams. At night me and my roommate opened forbidden passages and snuck into the university, it was closed, but you could get in from the dorms. They had all the busts of all the greats, we went into the auditorium where all the distinguished guests spoke, we looked around and imagined ourselves in these classes, walking around the university--it was my dream. On the first exam I scored a 4 out of 5, which was huge, because out of 3000 students, there were maybe 200 4’s. I went to the oral exam, where they give you two questions and you have 30 minutes to prepare. Then they call you to the next free instructor, you tell them the solution and they ask questions. I raised my hand several 316 times, but nobody called me up. It turned out that they had special instructors for Jewish students, and when that instructor came up to me, he didn’t even look at my solution. He gave me a problem that was at the highest university level, and gave me 10 minutes to solve it, but it was not a problem that could be solved in 10 minutes. I started solving it, and he came up and failed me. If you fail, any component, you are disqualified. I told my father, he told me that I was ranked third in math in all of Ukraine and I should appeal, but the appeal administrator said ‘all of our students are very talented, it’s a very good university. Try again next year’. I came out of there devastated, didn’t want anything. I bought a ticket and went home”. (F, age 57, immigrated 1991)
“I always felt antisemitism. After a 6-day battle, they published which universities Jews could apply for, where they have a chance of being accepted. One such university was the Petroleum Institute, and I submitted my documents there. I got a passing score for admission to the University, however my documents were put aside. When my father came with me to the dean and asked why I was denied, he was told that the republics sent more students than expected and they needed to …and they… well, you understand. That was the case with getting hired for jobs, too. My father was important, and they [the university] saw that he was not going to leave it alone and made corrections [admitted me]. And that’s how it always was, when getting hired for jobs, and just because; it was always present.” (F, age 52, immigrated 1987)
Some stories were professional in nature:
“After college I wanted to work at the construction bureau, but because I was Jewish nobody hired me. I went from one organization to another and could not get in anywhere. And I come into one organization and they ask me “when can you start?” I said “in two weeks.” That was very surprising for me that they hired me without anything; they knew what I was, looked at my passport, and said “yes, you are a good fit.” That stuck out in my memory. I worked there for 15 years successfully. Had 6 patents and was the lead construction engineer.” (M, age 68, immigrated 1989).
“I finished college and residency in Moscow, worked as an oncologist in the Moscow hospital, until we decided to leave [immigrate]. Of course they asked me to leave my job, just like everybody else. I worked as a mail carrier, did other strange things, sold stuff; we had to live somehow. Then three years after I was refused exit, I wrote to the government and said, ‘either let me leave or give me a job’. They gave me a job and I sat in refused status for another 10 years, until Gorbachev came. And they let me out.” (M, age 67, immigrated 1988)
317
Some of the stories focused on reasons for immigration and immigration experiences:
“They [children] have to understand why we decided to leave: it wasn’t just financial, because it’s better in America, but there is a question of nationality. We didn’t feel equal with everyone else, we felt a class lower…that’s how others considered us, and we had to put up with it because we did not have another choice: so we decided to leave and become equal in America.” (M, age 68; immigrated 1989)
“We did it for our children; our parents lived their whole life there and were comfortable, but left so our children would have ability to go to school wherever they wanted and live without discrimination. Our son was too young to understand then, but now understands and thanks us.” (F, age 61, immigrated 1980)
“While we were going through border patrol, it was very tight, and they made it difficult for our immigrants to go through it. We were allowed one suitcase per person…of course how can you put a life in one suitcase? You put as much as you can, fold everything neatly, pack as much as you can. And people who were at the border patrol, their job was to destroy everything. They were not looking for much, because we could not bring much; all they wanted to do was make a disorder in your suitcase. They would throw everything out and let you collect your belongings and make you be late for the train which you were scheduled for. Then you had to stay in the holding room, because you were not a soviet citizen anymore, yet you were not a foreigner. All you had was a piece of paper where it said your name, that’s it. So from that holding room, you could have gone through Siberia or forward. We were waiting for our train, it was supposed to arrive the next day. My father was a lieutenant major in the army, a decorated officer; he had to get his decorations from the war approved through Moscow, they would not just let him take them. A young man, a soldier, asked him, “you have all these medals, do you have proof that they are yours?” and my father who was commanding 300 people had to give him the documents that he was allowed to bring those medals. It was disconcerting, because my father was also a real soldier; disciplined, he loved his country, and he believed in what he was fighting for…and there we were. And then the soldier came to me: I used to keep a diary, and one of my favorite poets was Yesenin, I kept his picture in there. So the picture falls out of the diary, and that soldier who is probably 20 years old says, “and who’s this, your lover?” I got so upset because the whole situation was very upsetting; my parents were already of age, my dad was 65, my mom was 57, and it was difficult for them. They have already gone through war, they already went through all the evacuation situations, they had already suffered so much during the war, and they were going through hell again. And I said, “that’s Yesenin, you moron.” And he became really aggressive, like ‘you don’t talk to me like that, I am a patrol officer on the border’. So my dad grabs me by the collar and says, “be quiet, just swallow it and be quiet.” He always taught me to stand up for myself, he wanted me to be very free spirited, a feminist, but here he was, saying “just be quiet, swallow, and we’re going through.” For some reason this memory had stayed with me all these years. I don’t know why.”
318
“We were actually late for our train, so we were supposed to wait 24 hours until the next arrival, and it was a choice whether to take an electric trolley or to wait for the actual train, which was more comfortable. The electric trolley would go through every 2 hours, but it didn’t stop; it would break a little bit for you to throw your things in, and jump into it. There were 5 families in the holding room and my dad says, ‘we are not waiting here for 24 hours, we are going to take this trolley, and keep moving’, because being in Soviet system, he probably knew that we may not be able to get out; anything could have happened. So we grab our suitcases and we have to go through rails, which are probably four feet high and slippery because it was winter; and you have to climb over until you get to that little trolley. We are carrying those suitcases, and I am looking at my dad, a person who went through this horrible war and was in the front lines, and here he is again, at the twilight of his years, lugging those suitcases through the railroads, jumping into a moving train, getting his family out of the country that he had spilled his blood for. He lost 4 brothers in his war, and here, this large figure, that officer, that soldier who raised me, who was a God, and he had to submit to this demeaning situation”. (F, age 57, immigrated 1977)
“I tried for her [daughter] to remember her grandparents, but I don’t know whether she remembered them, because we were not able to bring any of their stuff from the USSR; we were denied our past. We were not even allowed to bring out her grandfather’s medals from the war. I can only tell her that they fought, and both grandmothers were in the Leningrad blockade, but she doesn’t understand very well what it means to be in a blockade. I tried to tell her when she was little and I tell her now, but she remembers that she went to the dacha, to kindergarten, that she got to be the ‘commander of the little star’; she has a pretty good life. I have many bad memories from that country, but she does not. She was a blonde with light green eyes and a Russian name; she did not get harassed or told to get off trams. Jewishness didn’t touch her, but she does know and remember that Jews were treated badly in Russia.” (F, age 63, immigrated 1989)
319