Title WAYS in WHICH the CULTURAL IDENTITIES of MIXED HERITAGE INDIVIDUALS ARE MAINTAINED in MIXED ETHNICITY STEPFAMILIES Yvonne
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Title WAYS IN WHICH THE CULTURAL IDENTITIES OF MIXED HERITAGE INDIVIDUALS ARE MAINTAINED IN MIXED ETHNICITY STEPFAMILIES Yvonne Ayo A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the University of East London in collaboration with the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust for the Professional Doctorate in Systemic Psychotherapy. October 2015 1 Acknowledgements First, I would like to thank the participants for their contributions to the study. I would also like to thank my two supervisors, Dr Charlotte Burck and Dr Amal Treacher, whose wisdom, experience, knowledge and skills helped me to shape this thesis. My final thanks go to my family and close friends whose support and encouragement helped me through the years of study, particularly during difficult times. 2 Contents Title ........................................................................................................ 1 Acknowledgements .............................................................................. 2 Contents ................................................................................................ 3 Abstract………………………………………………………………………..8 Introduction………………………………………………………………….10 Chapter 1: Literature Review 1.1. Introduction................................................................................. 21 1.2. Mixed families in Britain ............................................................. 21 1.3. Terminology………………………………………………………….23 1.3.1. Culture, ethnicity and mixed heritage…………………………….23 1.3.2. Research on terminology…………………………………………..27 1.4. Important concepts of mixed heritage identity formation……… 30 1.5. Constructions of self and mixed heritage………………………...45 1.6. Research on culture of self………………………………………...48 1.7. Whiteness and mixed heritage…………………………………….62 1.8. Stepfamilies………………………………………………………….68 1.8.1. Introduction…………………………………………………………..68 1.8.2. Constructions of stepfamilies………………………………………74 1.9. Family practices……………………………………………………..84 1.10. Race, culture and family therapy…………………………………..85 1.11. Summary of literature review………………………………………87 3 Chapter 2: Methodology 2.1. Introduction…………………………………………………………..92 2.2. My epistemological position………………………………………..94 2.3. My position as researcher………………………………………….95 2.4. Memory………………………………………………………………97 2.5. Design of the study………………………………………………..100 2.6. Rationale……………………………………………………………101 2.7. Interviews…………………………………………………………...101 2.8. Rationale for individual interviews……………………………….105 2.9. Structure of interviews…………………………………………….106 2.9.1. Interview Process………………………………………………….108 2.10. Using visual images in the research……………………………..109 2.11. Self-reflexivity on the use of visual images in research……….113 2.12. Recruitment………………………………………………………...116 2.13. Participants…………………………………………………………118 2.14. Methods of analysis……………………………………………….124 2.14.1. Thematic analysis………………………………………………….124 2.14.2. How I approached my analysis…………………………………..126 2.14.3. Discourse analysis…………………………………………………130 2.15. Positions and positioning………………………………………….132 2.16. Co-ordinated management of meaning…………………………134 2.17. Methodological challenges………………………………………..136 2.18. Ethics………………………………………………………………..139 2.18.1 Ethical issues when interviewing children………………………140 2.19. Self-reflexivity………………………………………………………142 2.20. Summary of methodology……………………………………… ..144 4 Chapter 3: Findings 3.1. Introduction…………………………………………………………145 3.2. No Talking………………………………………………………….146 3.2.1. No need to talk……………………………………………………..146 3.2.2. No time to talk……………………………………………………...152 3.2.3. Preparatory talk…………………………………………………….155 3.2.4. Effects of preparatory talk………………………………………...159 3.2.5. Minimised Talk……………………………………………………..163 3.3. Disclaiming cultural identity……………………………………….170 3.4. Images selected……………………………………………………175 3.5. Summary……………………………………………………………177 3.6. Family Practices……………………………………………………178 3.6.1. Living as a stepfamily……………………………………………..179 3.6.2. Living with resemblances…………………………………………179 3.6.3. Constructing sameness within the stepfamily………………….180 3.6.4. Resistance to invisibility and sameness………………………...182 3.6.5. Visible Differences………………………………………………...183 3.6.6. Claiming culture via extended family…………………………….185 3.6.7. Extended family networks………………………………………...186 3.6.8. Living with extended family: A cultural resource……………….187 3.6.9. Social disapproval within families………………………………..189 3.6.10. Summary…………………………………………………………...193 3.7. The invisible ‘presence’ of fathers……………………………….194 3.8. Cultural practices…………………………………………………. 207 3.8.1. Keeping father’s family name…………………………………….207 5 3.8.2. Keeping mother’s family name…………………………………. 211 3.8.3. Seeking to change father’s name………………………………..214 3.8.4. Changing the family name………………………………………..216 3.9. Summary……………………………………………………………217 Chapter 4: Discussion 4.1. Introduction…………………………………………………………221 Theme 1: 4.2.1. Hybridisation: The role of talking…………………………………224 4.2.2. Hybridisation: The role of silence………………………………...233 4.3.1. Living with visible differences…………………………………….238 4.3.2. Resemblances……………………………………………………..240 4.3.3. The quest for resemblances……………………………………...241 Theme 3: 4.4. Cultural practices…………………………………………………..244 4.4.1. Introduction…………………………………………………………244 4.4.2. Cultural practices of single parent families……………………..245 4.4.3. ‘Doing ‘ family – extending and extended families…………….246 Theme 4: 4.5.1. Ways of fathering in separate households……………………...248 4.5.2. Naming practices…………………………………………………..252 4.6. Talk and silence……………………………………………………253 5.0. Reflexivity…………………………………………………………..257 6.0. Implications – stepfamilies………………………………………. 264 6.1. Implications – clinical…………………………………………….. 267 6.2. Implications – training……………………………………………. 270 7.0. The use of visual images………………………………………… 275 6 8.0. Conclusion……………………………………………………………277 Appendix 1: Ethical approval ............................................................. 279 Appendix 2: Information sheet for agencies ...................................... 280 Appendix 3: Information sheet for parents......................................... 281 Appendix 4: Information sheet for children ........................................ 283 Appendix 5: Consent form for parents………………………………….285 Appendix 6: Consent form for children…………………………………286 Appendix 7: Semi-structured interview questions for parents……….287 Appendix 8: Semi-structured interview questions for child/stepchild..290 Appendix 9: Methodology Map………………………………………….292 Appendix 10: Transcript Notation……………………………………….. 293 Appendix 11: Extract of interview (Dylan) .......................................... 294 Appendix 12: Extract of interview (Virginia) ......................................... 296 Appendix 13: Initial themes ................................................................. 298 Appendix 14: Constructions of fatherhood .......................................... 299 Appendix 15: Serpentine/LUUUUT Model ........................................... 300 References ........................................................................................ 303 7 Abstract There has been an increasing amount of research into mixed heritage individuals, both adults and adolescents. More recently, some research has emerged on mixed heritage families, but there is hardly any research on mixed ethnicity stepfamilies. As a systemic clinician of mixed heritage, my research interest has stemmed from my personal experience of living in a stepfamily with visible differences, where my father’s Nigerian culture was not discussed. In my clinical job, I work with families from culturally mixed backgrounds and have developed a keen interest in their experiences of maintaining the different cultures. I used discourse analysis to examine the various ways in which stepfamilies talked about their differences. Five stepfamilies were recruited. The biological parents (all mothers) and their partners and children participated in the study. The study revealed considerable variation in the talking and maintenance of cultural heritages within the stepfamilies, but four main findings emerged. In some stepfamilies, there was little or no talking, whilst in others, talking about the process of becoming a stepfamily occurred. The stepfamilies had various experiences of living with their visible differences, which included ideas of not having any differences or minimising differences. The extended family’s role also played an important part that changed over time. The biological father’s 8 ‘presence’ was particularly significant to the children, most of whom maintained contact with their fathers. The study has revealed stepfamily life’s complexities and the numerous ways in which the mixed heritage children/stepchildren navigated the different households to maintain their cultural heritages. 9 Introduction ‘But we go along as if my tears and anger are the most natural things in the world. He talks about how happy I will be to see my old friends in San Francisco, not one of whom he can name. He drives to the airport as if we’re going no farther than Yankee Stadium or to visit Grandma in Brighton Beach. I imagine he’s looking forward to a break from me and my wars with his wife, my fights with my little brother, the way I complicate the family. In the Larchmont Baskin-Robbins I have overheard a woman marvelling at what a young but capable nanny I am. Walking with my brother and sister down Larchmont Avenue or Chatsworth, I have been asked if I am the baby-sitter, the maid, the au pair. I imagine that my