Asian and Hispanic Panethnicity - Essay Example

Asians and Hispanics Panethni Growth in ethnic and racial diversity brings forward the chance for the redesigning of ethnic boundaries and for fresh ethnic classifications through the forceful interaction of ethnic integration and host society response. When the ethnic and racial blend of a society moves or develops the position of boundaries that identify larger ethnic groups also change. Recent research has documented an interesting fact among ethnic and racial groups: the ‘layering’ of ethnic characteristics that facilitates the growth and challenge of ethnic limitation (Itzigsohn & Dore-Cabral, 2000). In the social sciences, racial categorization of white, black (or African American), Hispanic (or Latino), and Asian American are usually a taken for granted standard. In reality, in recent times, Hispanics and Asians were generally either excluded in evaluation or were put in a broad group of “minority” or incorporated with “whites” in evaluations of race and ethnicity in the United States. The extensive use of these panethnic classifications supposes a natural resemblance among the ethnic groups that encompass them. Surely, from an external viewer’s point of view, numerous groups share many similarities, including the common physical characteristics which makes it hard to differentiate between these groups. A stronger case can be made for Hispanic ethnic groups, who not only share common physical features, but also possess uniform linguistic tradition (Calderon, 1992). Nonetheless, from previous literature of panethnic movements, one knows very well that it is hard to arrange different ethnic groups beneath one panethnic label, mainly because ethnics find it easier to assert an ethnic identification rather than racial or panethnic identification. This suggests individuals are drawn more to people of their personal ethnic group rather than to people of other ethnic groups in the same racial stratum. A variety of researchers and studies have worked hard to explain the nations of ethnicity, race and panethnicity. The test in explaining and implementing these ideas has frequently resulted in their interchangeable use. All the same, several use the expression race to refer to groups socially identified on the foundation of perceived physical differences, and the term ethnicity to refer to groups defined on the basis of same descent, history, or culture (Itzigsohn & Dore-Cabral, 2000). According to numerous researchers, the social gap among the marginal faction and majority faction of the American society lessens as these groups assimilate. The process of assimilation entails two significant aspects: acculturation and structural assimilation. Acculturation is the embracing of the majority cultural patterns by minority groups, while structural assimilation entails the acceptance of minority groups into mainstream social institutions. Even though both kinds of assimilation are considered to grow with each generation, there is no assurance that a minority group will happen to completely assimilate structurally. Yet, both kinds of assimilation are necessary for the social distance between a minority group and the majority group to decrease (Calderon, 1992). Offering support to these concepts, recent studies show that Hispanics and Asians are less likely to possess intimate racial contact if they uphold their original language, if they do not speak English fluently, or if they have only just immigrated. They are also less likely to have intimate racial contact due to huge educational variation between their own racial group and other groups. As suggested above, previous literature on interracial contact has stressed on the role of assimilation into conventional society. In recent times, researches focusing on Asians and Hispanics have pin-pointed another type of assimilation; merging into panethnic racial groups. Panethnicity is both the willingness to traverse ethnic boundaries, but to stay within racial boundaries. It is an ethnic identity signified by region not the country of origin, like the Asian Americans and the Latinos. While panethnic tags might appear sensitive to social researchers that use them, they are frequently not acknowledged by ethnic group members. The desirability of the concept of panethnicity is in the acknowledgment of ethnic and cultural difference within its boundaries. In case of panethnic factions, limitations go further than the national foundations to cover a variety of factions thought to share a few structural or societal characteristics (Garcia-Colon, n.d). Simultaneously, some Hispanics and Asians might accept panethnic tags as the mainstream society chunks them collectively and prejudices against them as a group. In reality, these tags seem to be gaining greater acceptance, at least among Asians. As evidence of this, Asians are more and more expected to opt for another Asian as partners if they tied the knot beyond their ethnic set. In general terms, Hispanics are thought to be highly panethnic in comparison to Asians in their preference of partners in a relationship mainly because of larger similarity of language and religion (Sommers, 1991). Practically all Hispanics who travel to the U.S. converse in Spanish, and the greater part of them are Catholic. On the other hand, Asians are much more diverse with respect to their linguistics and religion. Even among the Chinese, their common languages are not commonly understandable (Calderon, 1992). Panethnicity varies not only between Asians and Hispanics, but within them as well. For Hispanics, panethnicity is considered to reduce from the first to second generation, most probably because their dependence on Spanish lessens over generations. On the other hand, panethnicity is thought to grow in the first and second generation for Asians. Panethnicity is more likely to happen between non-immigrants because of a similar knowledge of being handled as Asians, but also because of similarity in language, as almost all Asian Americans who are second generation (and beyond) speak English as their only language (Sommers, 1991). A lot similar to their counterparts centuries ago, immigrants now come with an ethnic-specific identity, reviving the inclination to preserve their own identities. Nevertheless, the immigrants discover that in addition to have their own identity they are also seen as, for example, Koreans, they are seen as Korean-Americans, Asians as Asian-Americans, and Asian/Pacific Islanders. The familiar experience of growing in the U.S. is considered to endorse Asian panethnicity. Apparently, a similar case could be made for Hispanics as well (Itzigsohn & Dore-Cabral, 2000). Education is also connected to panethnicity, but varies for both Hispanics and Asians. Going to college apparently reduced panethnicity for Hispanics as it eliminates them from racially-stratified neighborhoods and workplaces. College helps Asians make contact with other Asians who have similar knowledge, enhancing their panethnicity (Itzigsohn & Dore-Cabral, 2000). Research also indicates that Asian and Hispanic ethnic groups vary considerably in their panethnicity. Culturally, some Asian Americans groups may have higher similarity to one group as compared to other groups. Particularly, one may suppose that South Asians to be not as much of panethnic as East Asians due to the different physical appearance and culture (Sommers, 1991). Among Hispanics, one anticipates geographic nearness and class variations to influence the relative inclination of groups to traverse ethnic boundaries. Because of their comparatively higher status in the social stratification as well as geographic locations that position them in Florida and New York, Cubans are thought to be less panethnic than Hispanics from other ethnic groups (Sommers, 1991). There are two key advantages of panethnicity. The political advantage relates to those dimensions of panethnicity looking to face up to prevailing institutional and societal norms that add to the strangeness of panethnic people and factions. Thus, panethnicity can consequence in uniting a number of similar ethnic groups around a shared identity for the reason of bringing social transformation (Itzigsohn & Dore-Cabral, 2000). Adding to the political gain, panethnicity also entails a cultural advantage. Similar cultures, common status and practices all add to creating panethnic boundaries. This incorporates common linguistics, religion or the creation of uniting symbols of a common identity. Having or not having cultural similarity, ethnic factions might discover themselves positioned in a related circumstances like other ethnic factions in racial standing, social class, professions, location and generation. This happens through the process of racialization, which explains the ascription of racial connotation to social groups and branches from the incapability of outsiders to recognize group members. For many then, an identity is obligated and does not replicate the strength of association with it. These structural reasons also put up with the development of expanding ethnic boundaries. Through regular contact numerous ethnic groups come to share different dimensions of their culture (Itzigsohn & Dore-Cabral, 2000). Moreover, in geographic locations where members of specific ethnic groups do not live in considerable numbers, panethnicity provide a cultural bridge. This is frequently the case in colleges or universities where a number of ethnic groups may be present, but in such little numbers that consequential social groups are hard to uphold. In these situations, panethnicity takes on a strong cultural aspect as individuals discover channels in other ethnic groups for sharing their own culture and acquiring knowledge about others cultural histories (Garcia-Colon, n.d). Furthermore, some specific features of ethnic cultures might move away into the background with following generations, thus nurturing greater possibility for a panethnic identity, that is, it can produce a larger sense of community. Thus, connecting the various ethnicities within numerous ethnic groups is at the center of the panethnic movement (Garcia-Colon, n.d). There can be drawbacks to panethnicity as well. Firstly, an outsider’s resentment to any one of the subgroups becomes aimed at all subgroups within a panethnic classification. As pathethnicity entails both fission and fusion, therefore, inner divisions and clashes can generate complexities for individuals or specific subgroups. Furthermore, panethnicity can result in overgeneralizations and typecasting. Thus, even though possessing a panethnic identity may facilitate the ethnic groups to increase and organize resources, reinforce their political voice, and draw out more openness from the community, it can also amplify inclinations to aim unfriendly feelings about one group to the other generally (Itzigsohn & Dore-Cabral, 2000). In today’s world panethnicity matters because it offers basis for the distribution of state resources and majority populations more and more views minorities in panethnic terms, thus diminishing racial discrimination and prejudice. Furthermore, ethnic leaders organize their movement panethnically. Moreover, panethnic identification has grown among a number of ethnics groups due to which the panethnic culture is merging. Thus, when individuals from diverse cultures come together to discuss their problems and experiences, they begin to develop common views of themselves and of one another and common interpretations of their experiences and those of the larger society. This establishment of common grounds due to shared experiences and knowledge results in the evolvement of newer and richer culture where individuals belongs to different ethnic and racial backgrounds live in harmony and where there differences are accepted without any discrimination or prejudice. This culture is known as the panethnic culture (Garcia-Colon, n.d). Works Cited Calderon, Jose. “Hispanic" and "Latino": The Viability of Categories for Panethnic Unity”. Latin American Perspectives 19.4 (1992): 37-44 Itzigsohn, Jose, and Dore-Cabral, Carlos. “Competing Identities? Race, Ethnicity and Panethnicity among Dominicans in the U. S. Sociological Forum 15.2 (2000): 225-247.   Sommers, Laurie K. “Inventing Latinismo: The Creation of "Hispanic" Panethnicity in the United States.” The Journal of American Folklore 104.411 (1991): 32-53. Garcia-Colon, I. “Review: Transnationalism, Panethnicity, and Segmented Assimilation: Latina Community Formation in the United States”   Read More