Abstract
Discussions on Latino/a students’ interpretation of the opportunity structure and schooling treat racial/ethnic identification among Latino/as as static, despite skin color variation. This article provides findings from interviews with six Mexican students who discussed teachers identifying them as “White-looking” or “Hispanic/Mexican-looking.” Both groups shared belief in the achievement ideology and understood the opportunity structure as fraught with barriers. However, the “White-looking” students perceived themselves as being able to permeate such barriers meanwhile the “Hispanic/Mexican-looking” students believed such barriers affect their ability to “make it” regardless of their aspirations. This study raises questions regarding theories on academic variability of Latino/a students.
Varying studies demonstrate a limited trajectory among Latino/a groups. Noguera, Hurtado, and Fergus (2011) illustrate, among Latino males specifically, limited employment in professional and managerial roles, growing presence in criminal justice system, limited access to health care services, and a growing pattern of limited educational attainment. When it comes to K-12 education, the limited trajectory is defined by patterns of under-performance, as well as concentration in under-resourced urban schools. For instance, nearly 80% of Latino/a attend urban schools with populations greater than 50% minority students (Kena, et.al., 2015); the 2007 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 1 reading scores of Latino/a students demonstrate nearly 50% are below basic in fourth grade, 42% in eighth grade, and 40% in 12th grade; and the national average graduation rate in 2011-2012 is 73% which includes a range of states like Nevada and Minnesota with rates of 54% and Vermont with 86% (Stetser & Stillwell, 2014).
These patterns, which are consistent within urban school contexts (Milner & Lomotey, 2014), necessitate further exploration particularly among the fastest growing racial/ethnic minority population (Stetser & Stillwell, 2014). This article challenges a theoretical argument prevalent in the field of urban education, cultural ecological theory, which argues that such differences in academic performance are bound to an intersection of social constructs of power and privilege regarding race, and cultural interpretations marginalized groups make within the school context. In other words, this theoretical argument suggests racial/ethnic minority students develop dispositions about school and opportunity based on how they experience racialization. This study explores the question of whether the ways in which Latino/a students’ variation in skin color intersects with the manner in which they interpret available opportunities in society and school.
Theoretical Framing
Research focused on explaining the varied academic performance of Latino/as primarily in urban school settings provides a multitude of explanations and/or contributing factors. Some scholars correlate the low academic achievement among Latino/as to concentration of minority students and related under-resourcing (Orfield & Frankenberg, 2014; Orfield & Lee, 2005), poorly equipped school environments and teachers (Rubie-Davies, 2010; Trueba, 1987), policy and practice strategies to limit school enrollment (Lukes, 2014), a dissonance in teacher expectations and Latino/a students’ experiences in school (Conchas, 2001; Davidson, 1996; Kozlowski, 2015; Tenenbaum & Ruck, 2007), the absence of transcaring spaces for social emotional connections with Latino/a students (Garcia, Woodley, Flores, & Chu, 2013; Garza, 2009), and other ecological factors such as family and community isolation and racialization stressors (Nair, White, Roosa, & Zeiders, 2013). A related terrain of research explores how racial/ethnic minority students’ social identities are implicated in their construct of academic orientations/engagement, perceptions of the opportunity structure, and development of academic identities. This terrain, known as cultural ecological, explores different facets of Latino/a students such as immigrant status (Lee & Klugman, 2013; Matute-Bianchi, 1986; Portes & MacLeod, 1996a, 1996b; Suarez-Orozco & Suarez-Orozco, 1995), language acquisition and identity (Gandara & Hopkins, 2010; Kubota & Lin, 2009), gender and value of education (Colon & Sanchez, 2010), and familial expectations and aspirations (Carpenter, 2008).
This research outlines the meaningfulness of socio-historical circumstances of race and racism, and structural conditions as implicated in how racial/ethnic minority students think about their future and translate it to school engagement, and performance (e.g., Diamond & Huguley, 2014; Fordham, 1988; Fordham & Ogbu, 1986; Gandara & Orfield, 2012; Gibson, 2005; Lewis, 2012; Matute-Bianchi, 1986; Noguera, 2003; Ogbu, 1978, 1987; Wildhagen, 2011). Such research outlines the intersection of structural and cultural conditions as setting the stage for under-performance among racial/ethnic minority students. An important, however, flawed component of this cultural ecological framing is the static construction of racial and ethnic self-ascription and its application in making sense of how students interpret the types of opportunities available to them and their affiliated group. For instance, Ogbu (1997) asserts that specific aspects of cultural differences among racial/ethnic minority groups play a role in how they perceive the opportunity structure and respond to structural conditions. More specifically, Ogbu situates the nature of group entry (i.e., forced and voluntary) into U.S. society as a driving lens for how racial/ethnic minority students interpret whether opportunity is available for them and the group they are affiliated with. Ain’t No Making It (MacLeod,1995), Learning To Labor (Willis, 1977), and other such texts on the working poor and ethnic minority youth (e.g., Hollingshead, 1975; Solomon, 1992) also present compelling arguments for the significance of students’ subjective understanding of mobility in explaining their social outcomes. These subjective interpretations of mobility, which I refer to as perceptions of the opportunity structure, define students’ assessment of the availability of chance, definitions of the making it process, and overall belief in the achievement ideology.
Although these various terrains of research provide a substantive analysis of the structural and cultural forces that are implicated in the educational progress of Latino/as, there is a monolithic treatment of this population’s racial and ethnic identification as bound to the idea of similar social experiences. In simple terms, not all Latino/a affiliated groups have similar experiences that frame their racial and ethnic identification. Although there is an absence of data on the racial and ethnic identification of school age Latino/a students, there is available data on Latino/as above 18 years old from the U.S. Census Bureau. In the 2010 Census, Latino/as identified in the following manner: 53% as White Hispanic, 2.5% as Black, 1.4% as Native American, 0.4% Hawaiian, and 36.7% other race (Humes, Jones, & Ramirez, 2011). Although there is sufficient discussion among Latino/a scholars regarding the utility and function of Census categories (e.g., Fergus, 2004, 2016; Gomez, 2008; Rodriguez, 2000) in particular the manner in which race and ethnicity are framed as distinct constructs, Census information also provides the closest catalog of skin color variation among Latino/as. And if there is such variation within the Latino/a student population, what are the implications for theorizing the complexity of racialization among Latino/as? For example, do phenotypically lighter skin, Cuban-American males and phenotypically darker skin Puerto Rican males utilize similar external social experiences to internally construct their identification as Latino and/or Cuban or Puerto Rican? And how do the facets of their external social experiences alongside their internal identity constructs operate in helping them make sense of the opportunity structure?
As a result of this under-exploration of Latino/a racial and ethnic identification, the cultural ecological theories that include other social identities of Latino/a students (i.e., language, immigrant status, socioeconomic status) are limited. Thus, there are two primary discourses missing in our cultural ecological explanations of academic variability among Latino/a groups: (a) identity construction as a process involving internal and external experiences, and (b) the manner in which Latino/as are experiencing racialization is encouraging the development of new racial hierarchies.
Sociological research suggests that the essentializing of collective identifications overlooks how identities and identifications are continuously manipulated by the individual and external forces (e.g., Arce, et.al., 1987; Candelario, 2007; Fergus, 2004, 2009; Flores-Gonzalez, 1999; Flores-Gonzalez, et.al., 2014; Golash-Boza, 2006; Gomez, 2000; Nagel, 1994; Omi & Winant, 1994). More importantly, there needs to be an attention to what Craig Calhoun (1995) defines as the politics of identity. This identity politics construct articulates the significance of power and racial hierarchy in how identification is formulated. More specifically, racial hierarchy is an operating feature of entrenched racial differences and a guiding force for the self-ascription choices that individuals make (Bashi & McDaniel, 1997). The construct of racial hierarchy is loosely defined as the stratification of racial categories with Whites at the top and Blacks at the bottom (Song, 2004). The elevated position that Whites hold derives from the social and economic advancements that have resulted from policy-based privileges that Whites have always maintained due to their presumed superiority (Bashi, 1998). Conversely, racial and color discrimination continuously subordinate Blacks. Although there is general agreement regarding the presence of a racial hierarchy, there is less consensus regarding the degrees to which groups are oppressed and marginalized or even whether the hierarchy is static. Proponents of the Black–White binary model of racial hierarchy (e.g., Hacker, 1992) posit that this framework is the basis for repressing other non-White groups. For instance, Feagin (2000) argues that the oppression other groups experience (i.e., Arabs, Latinos, Asians) is based on an anti-Black framework, writing that “white elites and the white public have long evaluated, reacted to, and dominated later non-European entrants coming into the nation from within a previously established and highly imbedded system of anti-black racism” (pp. 204-205).
On the same continuum of this racial hierarchy conversation are scholars who consider the racialization experiences of other groups beyond Blacks and Whites as expanding our notions of racial frameworks (Bonilla-Silva, 2004; Omi & Winant, 1994). This argument posits a need for expanding racial hierarchy beyond Black–White to consider other factors beyond skin color, such as religion, citizenship, culture, and language, which some frame as an ethno-racial conversation of identity (e.g., Fergus, 2016; Jimenez, 2009; Moosavi, 2015; Selod, 2015). Such research highlights the experiences of various ethno-racial groups as going through a form of racialization that is premised on a similar Black–White binary but uses other signals as markers of ethno-racial identification. For example, Maldonado (2009) highlights day laborers’ employment positionality as a means of racializing people as Latino. And recent legislative decisions in Arizona also racialize groups based on Spanish language use and a “Mexican look,” thus inviting increased police questioning about immigrant status. In sum, the complexity of race, ethnicity, and identification is enduring various shifts given the nature of racial hierarchy and racism. Such shifts should operate to re-frame the manner in which educational research using cultural ecological theories explain the relationship between academic variability and racial/ethnic minority identity. In other words, the challenge of explaining academic performance among racial/ethnic minority groups needs to be situated within a complex and evolving understanding of racialization. There are social and political differences in whether the identification “comes from social groups within the category or if the pressure for boundary keeping and definitions come from without” (Bashi, 1998, p. 960).
This article explores through qualitative interviews how six Mexican students signal the meaningfulness of skin color in their identification as Latino/a/Mexican and how such experiences interact with their notions of the opportunity structure. More specifically, an expansion of theory via an empirical study of how six Mexican students of varying phenotype attending a predominantly White high school in a Midwestern urban city negotiated their racial and ethnic identification and interpreted the opportunity structure. Through in-depth interviews over a 2-month period, Mexican students of varying phenotype discussed their experiences in school, family, community, and how they made sense of their developing identity and the opportunities available to themselves and others like them.
Research Method
The study utilized a phenomenological framework (i.e., method of describing a lived experience) for exploring how these six Mexican students experience their social world naming the boundaries of their racial and ethnic identities (Moustakas, 1994). The study focused on three areas of experience in which to understand the phenomenon of racialization of Mexican identity. The three areas of experience include (a) definitions of racial and ethnic identification as well as how they perceived others define them, (b) definitions and accounts of opportunities available for the social group with which they identified as well as the social group with which they believed others situated them, and (c) how the students discussed their own orientation toward school and academics. Within this study, a phenomenological approach was used to develop questions that focus on eliciting rich descriptions of a specific schooling experience; for example, students were asked to share description of experiences in which they experienced or witnessed discrimination in the classroom or hallways.
The study was conducted in spring 2000. A purposeful and convenient sample of six ninth through 12th grade students 2 were recruited from a youth center serving primarily Central American and Mexican student population in a Midwestern city. The interviewer had access to the youth center participant via a partnership with the center’s director. Interviews were conducted over the course of 2 months and transcribed completely. Interviews were conducted with the six high school students who conveniently lived within the same housing complex and attended the same high school.
As the primary investigator, I purposefully selected Latino/a students based on my impression of their skin color variation. That is, with the knowledge that they identified as Latino/a, I sought to identify students within three loose categories of skin color: (a) White or fair skin tone, (b) reddish brown to olive skin tone, and (c) light brown to dark brown skin tone. Such categorization also included noting how I would identify them racially and ethnically and what markers I used to situate the students (i.e., skin color, language, slang). The assumptions that I made about their identities provided a first indication of how they might have been identified by others. The students discussed in this article reflected the following two phenotype groupings: “White-looking” and “Mexican/Hispanic-looking.” An important notation is that these groupings only represent the categories the students described how others racially and ethnically situated them not necessarily an internalized identity. 3 However, it is relevant to discuss what it means for these students to be situated by external markers, like skin color, as a feature of the school ecology.
Students were interviewed at three data points using an open and close-ended interview protocol (See Appendix). Each interview lasted 1 to 2 hr. The close-ended questions (e.g., Do you ever identify yourself as Black or White) were followed by open-ended probes such that the participants could qualify and/or elaborate upon his or her responses. Taken in total, the open-ended and closed-ended questions were designed to capture (a) students’ discussion of their ethnic identity, culture, and external perceptions of identity; (b) how they discuss the opportunities available for the social group with which they identify as well as the social group with which they believe others situate them; and (c) academic orientation, which includes students’ educational aspirations and beliefs, views on school, academic performance, and engagement in school-related activities. These questions were designed for students to respond in their own words and thoughts regarding each question, thus introducing concepts not considered by the researcher (Patton, 1990). Each student was asked the same series of questions to capture the same information across respondents (Patton, 1990). In addition, to increase the internal reliability, more than one question within each section of the interview measure spoke to a specific construct. This tactic enabled the researcher to observe any inconsistencies in responses (Weis, 1994).
Student Participants
The study reflects in-depth interviews with six second-generation Mexican adolescents who range in age from 14 to 18 years old. Each student either arrived to the United States before they were 10 years old or were born in the United States. The students attended the same high school, Mathers, in which 86% of the population consisted of White students. Table 1 provides an overview of various demographic information. Each high school grade level is represented in this small sample, as well as a range of academic performance (i.e., 1.9-3.8 grade point average [GPA]). In addition, the students similarly qualified for free lunch program and several students shared their family receive Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) support.
Identity and Academic Characteristics of Respondents.
Data Analysis
The data for this study were reduced through various levels of analysis. First, the data were coded in accordance with coding categories, which reflect the “concepts” that are articulated in the framing and design of the study. This level of coding involved a data matrix for within-case analysis; this strategy allows for thematic analysis of each participant before comparing participants’ responses to each other in an across-case matrix. Both the within and across case matrices contained the coding categories charted along phenotype lines (Miles & Huberman, 1984). The following are the coding categories:
(1) Self-identification; (2) external perceptions of identity; (3) whether and how they interpret and explain social inequity; (4) interpretations of how one “makes it”; (5) perceptions of equality in society; (6) perceptions of self-opportunity, ethnic group opportunity, and other ethnic groups’ opportunity; (7) educational aspirations and expectations; (8) engagement in school related activities; (9) accommodation to schooling norms; (10) perception of racialization within school; (11) socioeconomic class; (12) school context; (13) gender; and (14) migration pattern.
These coding categories are not exhaustive, and additional categories generated through inductive analysis were pursued (Miles & Huberman, 1984). To conduct across-case analysis, I relied on a conceptually clustered matrix. According to Miles and Huberman (1984), this matrix takes the relationships that may emerge between categories and cluster them as conceptually related themes across phenotype lines. These matrices enabled me to compare and contrast the differences in how students of similar and differing phenotype discuss their self-identity, external perceptions of identity, perceptions of opportunity, and schooling orientation. Moreover, the intent of this coding was to allow the data to speak for itself and perhaps illustrate categories and relationships that were not previously considered. Analytical memos were also used throughout the coding process to re-inspect the data, modify predetermined codes, and construct new codes (Miles & Huberman, 1984). Thus, the result of these coding patterns was to encourage deductive as well as inductive coding and interpretation throughout the analysis.
Findings
What emerges from the students in this study presents some compelling notions of how constructs of race, which are externally ascribed, and ethnicity, which are internally ascribed, among Latino/a students interact with their notions of opportunity. I focus on two significant findings: (a) the manner in which these Mexican students make sense of their racialization experiences in school and (b) the ways in which this racialization intersect with their renderings of how opportunity operates.
Race and Skin Color: Constructing Different Identifications
The resounding story emerging from the racial/ethnic identity conversation with these students was the interplay between how they identified themselves and how they perceived others situated their racial/ethnic identity. This interaction surrounded how skin color was used as a signifier, the ways in which the students responded, and the latitude available in opting in and out of racial and ethnic identifications.
Students opted to use ethnic terms, like Mexican, Chicano, and, in some instances, Hispanic. Although their use of ethnic terms provided a concrete idea of what groups they identified with, it offered no insight into the meaning they attached to these ethnic designations. Therefore, the students were additionally asked to discuss what it meant to be a member of the ethnic categories with which they affiliated. From this discussion, three main typologies of identification emerged: (a) a hyphenated identification, (b) an ancestral/national identification, and (c) a cultural identification. A hyphenated identification was a means of “representing” the multiple locales that comprise who the students considered themselves to be. 4 Ancestral/national identification reflected a birth in or ancestral ties to Mexico. Both terms are connected because what is implicit in the students’ definition involved a direct connection to Mexico, either through family or actual birth in the country. Cultural identification reflected the students’ actual use of the term culture in defining who they are. Even though the students may have articulated the meaning they attach to the term they use most often, these typologies were not mutually exclusive. Some students used two different typologies to describe themselves, thus implying that the students’ maintained multiple points of reference regarding their identification.
Although the students’ discussion of their ethnic affiliation and its content presents the degree of human agency individuals employ in their identification process, simply discussing the ethnic boundaries of Mexican culture runs the risk of emphasizing agency at the expense of external perceptions of that culture (Nagel, 1994). We must simultaneously explore ethnicity as an ethnic boundary based on the categories available at a particular time and place. To fully understand these students’ Mexican, Mexican American, and Mexicana identity, we must also consider how they employ and negotiate their identity in and out of school in relation to how others were reading their skin color. It is in these discussions in which we are able to see they also situated why they do not use racial categories. Such action posits that they intuitively consider there to be a difference between ethnicity and race. In light of such differences, it is important to map the distinction the students make in relation to traditional definitions and discussions of race and ethnicity.
Research on race and ethnicity divides into two distinct camps of thought: (a) race and ethnicity are separate constructs, and (b) race and ethnicity are similar constructs. Some scholars argue that, although ethnicity conveys similar social constructs embedded in notions of race, ethnicity does not necessarily testify to the discrimination aligned with race, which is based on biological features like skin color (Rodriguez, 2000). For example, census forms and other official bodies define race and ethnicity as separate constructs; this can be evidenced in the recent Census 2000 categorization of Latino/as into an ethnic category while requiring a racial identification (i.e., Black, White, Asian, Native American). The implication of such a separation is that a Latino/a identification is not necessarily a racial category. Meanwhile, other scholars argue that race and ethnicity are defined based on social criteria, such as common ancestral ties and sense of identity, and share similar cultural, political, and economic interests, thus making them similar constructs. While there is confusion as to whether race or ethnicity are similar or independent constructs, these six Mexican students simultaneously invoke race and ethnicity as separate and similar constructs. In other words, they use ethnicity and race as interchangeable terms, and at other times, race is a dichotomous construct of Black and White that does not include ethnic categories. Thus, the students’ narratives provide an empirical account of how these theoretical struggles occur on a day-to-day basis.
“Others” reading of skin color
When asked whether others, including their peers and teachers, viewed them the same way they saw themselves, many of these students highlighted a mismatch. Through the course of the various interviews, two categories of external classification emerged: “White-looking” and “Mexican/Hispanic-looking.” The following are the two categories and general physical descriptions of students which are not intended to be static renderings but general frames:
White-looking: This grouping includes students who were identified as White and/or half White and half Hispanic. They generally had dark brown hair with green or brown eyes and white skin color.
Mexican/Hispanic-looking: This grouping includes students who were simultaneously identified as Middle Eastern or Native American and Mexican/Hispanic. They generally had dark hair, brown eyes, and an olive to reddish brown skin color.
“White-looking” Mexicans
While these students strongly asserted a Mexican identity, they each were aware that their skin color impacted how others identified them. For Maria, Horacio, and David, White peers and teachers continuously identified them as “white-looking.” Each student responded to such identification by vehemently rejecting such a racial identity. The students replied the following when they were mis-identified:
Yeah, porque soy tan guero [because I’m so white] . . . you know I have to say something, hey I’m no White boy, soy Mexicano [I’m Mexican]. (Horacio) Yes, all the time. (Laughter). They [Whites], freshman year in high school, sophomore year and eighth grade everyone thought I was Italian . . . Because I’m fair skin light-skin but my features are very dark. So they would always ask me if I was Italian and I was like NO! I’m not Italian. (Laughter). But yeah. (Maria) This year my teacher thought I was Italian. You know I had to correct her you know . . . she told me, she was like are you Italian I was like no. Then what are you (teacher). I’m Mexican (David). She was like no, I said yeah . . . if you put me in a room with a bunch of kids that are White I’ll pretty much blend in. You would pretty much won’t know that I’m Mexican, you know . . . but if you put me in a room with a bunch of Black kids they’ll think that I’m Mexican . . . ’cause you know that’s just the way it is around here. They’ll be like oh no he might be light skin they won’t think you know oh he’s White or he’s Italian. (David)
Although these students described contesting a White identity, there is a latitude that emerges in having this capacity that requires further exploration. In addition, as easily as skin color functioned to situate identity so did language. However, with these, students’ language operated as one of their only ethnic markers. Maria stated that until she spoke, teachers and peers did not know nor consider her to be Mexican.
That’s why when they see me in class and when I speak out and stuff they’re surprised you know I don’t look, I’m not like your typical Mexican I guess, I’m not dark-skinned, I’m not that kind of thing. And I don’t have an accent . . . people get confused with me because they know, they think I might be White but they’re not sure. So, they not, they not because of that but as soon as I open my mouth (Laughter) and I speak Spanish or something then that’s when it comes.
Although such students like Maria considered Spanish as very important to their identity and they used it in speaking with other Mexican students, they strayed away from using collective terms like Hispanic and/or Latina/o to signal the cultural and language connection with other Latina/o groups. Actually, these three students preferred to identify as Mexican because much of their social experiences has involved them not even being situated as part of a Hispanic/Latina/o collective. And as many of them articulated, they are not even viewed as part of a Latina/o collective, so the use of such a term may have been fruitless as their skin color was being read as White. However, skin color also guarded them from blatant racial discrimination. For instance, David and Maria stated the following as to whether they feel others judge them based on their skin color:
No not really, ’cause my skin color is practically White (laughter).
You think if you were darker people would judge you?
Yeah, I know they would.
How so?
’Cause like my friend, you put him and me in the classroom, okay he is really brown, you know dark-complexion. And you know alot of the times you know he’ll act like an idiot, he’ll act all hard pushing kids around and everything and then you’ll see me right there, you know trying to work or do something but you know it’s like, to alot people its very important and that’s why Mexican and Blacks are put down alot. ’Cause I never saw once, once or twice a little White kid has ever tried to act like a little gangster ’cause I know I don’t see that around here.
Um no, because like I said people get confused with me because they know, they think I might be White but they’re not sure.
It is apparent from these interviews that skin color challenges, in some ways, how these students employ and negotiate their ethnic identity (i.e., What I view as being/looking Mexican vs. what others see as being/looking Mexican). Also, the way others are viewing their skin color as “white-looking” functions to alter what ethnic labels they have available to describe themselves. Simultaneously the students are cognizant of the fact that they can pass for White, thus are able to evade some of the racial discrimination others in their ethnic and social group experience. In other words, these students’ ethnic identity is not static or solely a self-imposed process. For these Mexican students, their identity is continuously negotiated with external perceptions of what Mexicans are expected to look like and their own lighter skin color. In addition, this negotiation that Maria, Horacio, and David endure involves them reconciling the discrimination darker skin Mexicans confront and the lack of discrimination they experience due to their skin color.
“Hispanic-looking” Mexicans
It is also apparent among this group that phenotype also functions to situate ethnic boundaries. However, phenotype presents differing complexities for this group of students who perceived others identifying them as “Hispanic-looking.” According to Selena, Pedro, and Ibeth, White students and teachers perceived their brown skin color as a racial marker of a Hispanic identity. As Selena stated her dark hair, brown eyes, and brown skin are the stereotypical images Whites have of what is Mexican. However, according to the students, others’ identification of them as Mexican (dark hair, brown eyes, and skin) was more of an ethnic identifier rather than a racial one. In other words, the students perceived their White peers and teachers as using Mexican instead of Hispanic because “they see all Hispanics as Mexican.”
In the case of these three students, brown skin color, dark hair, and brown eyes operated as symbols of a Hispanic/Latino identity. Such that within their school environment, they could not escape the racial/ethnic categorization by White peers and teachers because, as they perceive it, their brown skin color, hair, and eyes mediate how they are viewed and interacted. The following are how these students reconcile their skin color being the medium in which others judge.
People know that I’m Mexican and like to me its nothing bad because they just like they know that and most of my friends I mean its okay with them, I’m not sure how to explain it. It’s just little differences not big things and its just like they use different words around me and just little things not things that matter much. (Ibeth) They [teachers] just like in class they think I’m dumb because like of my race. (Selena) [T]here was this rumor going around that me and my friends cheated and I guess mostly because they think that and they don’t know me really so they just say well, he’s Mexican he hangs out with those Black kids you know, they must of cheated. (Pedro)
These students’ perception that others were reading their skin color in particular ways operated in such a way that collective ethnic labels became acceptable forms of self-identification and external perception. According to Ibeth and Selena, because their White peers and teachers considered all Hispanics as Mexican and they were being perceived as Mexican, they also understood and felt comfortable with Hispanic/Latina/o as an optional label.
To me Hispanic and Latino are almost the same thing like I don’t see much difference within it. If I’m with my friends who are Hispanic or Latino, you know I could describe myself as Mexicana just to narrow it down. Just because you know when I’m with different people like Black or White or Asian and they don’t know many of the differences between the Latinos then I describe myself as Hispanic or Latino. And when I’m with my Hispanic friends I describe myself Mexicana you know just because we know that we are different. (Ibeth) Sometimes people like they’re just like, most of the people just think everybody is Mexican . . . yeah they think all us Hispanic and Latinos are the same like Mexican . . . they just don’t know any other race. (Selena)
As such, these students appropriated a Hispanic identity not only because that’s how they were perceived but also due to others inability to acknowledge variation among Latino ethnic groups. However, the usage of and looking-like a Hispanic also appeared to be a racial stigmatizer for students like Pedro. He stated that his teachers and other students treated him as “Hispanic.” As he perceived it, White students seemed surprised when he answered questions in class because they did not expect him to be academically engaged. In addition, he felt that he was constantly blamed for things at school because he is Hispanic.
The negotiation that Pedro, Selena, and Ibeth endured did not place them at odds with how they viewed themselves. In other words, though White students and teachers perceived them as Hispanic and Mexican based on their skin color, that did not challenge their own self-identification as Mexican. However, those external perceptions of what Mexicans look like also contained a negative consequence. Unlike, the “white-looking” Mexicans who could escape discrimination, the “Hispanic-looking” Mexicans were continuously judged and interacted with based on their skin color. So these students’ awareness that others perceived them as either Hispanic/Latino or Mexican reminded them that such ethnic recognition is also judged negatively.
In short, the experiences of constructing a Mexican identity for both group of students raises critical questions regarding the relationship between racialization and perceptions of social mobility—what social opportunities and barriers do they associate with those with whom they identify or those with whom they believe themselves to be identified?
Perceptions of opportunity
This discussion focuses on a specific dimension of the opportunity structure literature, which centers on how students maintain (or not) an ascription to achievement ideology along with other notions regarding making it. According to MacLeod (1995), achievement ideology is a social perspective that outlines American society as open, fair, and full of opportunity. The achievement ideology, MacLeod argues, involves a belief that success is acquired via a meritocratic educational system (i.e., hard work in school results in positive academic performance). In addition, lack of ambition and ability explains why some people are unable to be successful. In other words, students who maintain an achievement ideology belief that everyone can make it because the educational system is structured in such a way that if an individual puts forth effort and works hard in school, he or she will be able to reap benefits that result in success. Thus, by focusing on whether and the extent to which the students maintain (or not) the achievement ideology allows us to understand how the students envision the process of making it occurs, how schooling operates within such a process, and who (i.e., individual or structure) dictates the impact or level of success that an individual can achieve. In addition, what this offers is a complex discussion of Latino/a students’ perceptions of opportunity and commitment to the achievement ideology as interacting with social experiences of racialization.
“White-looking” Mexicans
In general, did the “white-looking” Mexican students perceive different constraints in the opportunity structure for minorities, low-income people, and Whites? Overwhelmingly, yes. Although David, Maria, and Horacio did believe hard work, individual effort and goal setting are key to “making it,” they explained the persistence of inequality as involving two conditions. These conditions were the following: (a) Low-income people and minorities need to rely on individual attributes to “make it,” and (b) White and wealthy people “make it” based on institutional systems of mobility, such as inheritance, connections with other wealthy individuals, and familial history of college attendance.
In the first condition, the students perceived that a lack of hard work, individual effort, goal setting, and education has prevented low-income people and minorities from “making it” and has partially persisted their class condition. David, Maria, and Horacio reiterated notions of the achievement ideology in which hard work, ambition, and ability can bring success, but a lack of all those individual attributes can also reproduce class conditions. As they perceive it “making it” means having money and the only way students in their social and ethnic group can “make it” is by exhibiting hard work, individual effort, and goal setting in school. The following are examples of how they believe hard work and education are important in “making it”:
It takes um, inner power you have to be very strong and it’s very important that you follow your goal and you try to reach them no mater what. Like me the only way I can think right now is through education . . . I’d have to say that luck is not important because if you’re smart enough and you’ve gone through college and everything you don’t need luck. Neighborhood it doesn’t matter where you live if you have goals for yourself and you want to move up and you want to be somebody you’re going to do that. And male or female its like it would have been important back then but nowadays you know can succeed even if you’re male or female it doesn’t matter. (David)
This unencumbered belief in the achievement ideology also included a trust in education as the key to social mobility; as Horacio states, “The only way I know how to make it in this society is through education, that’s the only way you can make it.” And according to these students, academic performance is measured through individual effort and hard work. As such, David, Maria, and Horacio believe that because low-income people and minorities do not demonstrate effort or hard work in school, they are actively perpetuating their social class condition. In short, David, Maria, and Horacio partially legitimate the existence of social inequality.
Although the students believe that low-income people and minorities lack individual attributes necessary for “making it,” they recognize that it is partially due to structural forces and cultural conditions facing lower class individuals. According to David and Horacio, poverty can either be caused by institutions (i.e., schools) or a “low-income culture” (i.e., a lack in morals and an inability to see beyond poverty). David argues that
a lot people are poor because they have poor education or it all depends on how you grow up and morals if you believe, if you set goals for yourself, you set a goal for yourself and you try to complete your goals, I think that the poor people that’s just the way they grew up they feel like they have nothing else but to be poor and so they live that life.
Maria, however, believes that social inequality persists due to structural constraints like racial discrimination:
Um, that whole thing like the darker you are the more trouble you cause, the lazier you are the less motivated you are that whole thing, um, that’s why they [minorities] get the least chances you know. They don’t get the benefit of the doubt in most cases. That’s just how I see it, they don’t get the chance, if you could give money to a poor White person or a poor Black person the poor White person is going to get the money, because they’re like oh you know they’re going to work harder for that.
Thus, from their perspective, low-income and racial/ethnic minority individuals not only have to exert individual effort and demonstrate hard work and goal setting in school but also have to contend with structural and cultural conditions that limit their chances of “making it.”
Although it is important to understand the perceptions of “making it” that David, Maria, and Horacio have regarding people within their social and ethnic group, it is also critical to understand where they situate themselves within such an argument. Interestingly, they did not consider themselves as limited in the same manner as their social and ethnic group peers. According to David, he is “making it” because he works hard in school. Although during his sophomore year David was expelled from school for fighting and drug use, he has been able to attain a 3.2 GPA at his new school (based on official grade reports). His rationale for believing that he can “make it” and become an electrical engineer is because he has the right attitude about school. David’s perception of what he is capable of achieving is not altered by the barriers he recognizes for people within his ethnic group and the troubled educational experiences he has endured. In addition, his perception that minorities lack the individual characteristics to be socially mobile extends to how he makes sense of opportunity within the school context. When asked whether lighter skin students receive better, same, or worse treatment than darker skin students, he answered that differences in treatment do exist; however, the blame lies with the “ethnic kids” who do not express the similar attitude he has toward school.
I think that a lot of the darker kids or the ethnic kids they try to act too hard that’s why they get treated like that.
Treated like what?
Like you know oh their delinquents, they probably won’t pass high school, they’ll probably drop out just because the image that they put out there and a lot of them they want to make this image ’cause it’s so important to them but they don’t realize what they’re doing to themselves and that’s what I realized last year. I think that for all the time you know the Whiter people have gotten a lot better treatment but if you really want to succeed it doesn’t matter what color you are just as long as you know what you are going to do.
David’s rendering of what is causing minorities to continue being in their depressed state is due to attitude. Horacio, who has attained a 3.8 GPA and aspires to be a doctor, also notes stratification within school and views himself as being able to circumvent it:
I think they [Whites] get better [treatment]. ’Cause they think we’re like stupid so why even bother, some of us you know we’re like this is stupid, forget class you know fuck them, who care’s about them. So they just leave and skip you know, forget that. Like me you know I’m going to show them up see what’s up. I get good grades and stuff, then they see that not everybody is the same.
For Horacio, his parents inspire him to do better than they did because they have been able to be socially mobile through education despite their working-class condition. Thus, it is apparent that the renderings they maintain about how one makes it, why social inequality exists, and who gets opportunity is critical of minorities; however, they believe that through their hard work, individual effort, and goal setting they will be able to “make it” despite the barriers facing their ethnic and social groups.
The second condition as to why social inequality persists, according to David, Maria, and Horacio, involves an institutionalized system in which the wealthy redistribute their social class to each other through various networks. The students perceived that wealthy people continue to “make it” because of structural factors, such as inheritance, wealth, and a college education. According to the students, wealthy people operate under differing criteria in their process of “making it.” David and Maria stated that rich people have money because it was handed to them as an inheritance and by knowing other rich people.
Many times because some people are rich sometimes because they’re lucky you know they win the lottery. A lot of people are rich because they’ve gone to school . . . The rich people sometimes their just rich off their family other times people get rich because they’ve gone to school you know they’ve earn the right to be rich. (David) A lot of it has to do with luck. Because you’re born into it you have money already or your parents are somewhat educated and push you that extra mile, so you can be rich . . . it’s all about who you know and the rich people know other rich people. (Maria)
And according to Horacio many of the rich White students at his school do not take advantage of their class status and the innate benefits it provides.
They have the money, you know, but most of them like students at my school all of them rich White boys, all of them are druggies, straight up. It makes me mad because they have an opportunity to do something that other people can’t. You know why don’t you do something instead wasting your money on drugs, it’s stupid. I think they have the most . . . best opportunity. But they just stupid.
It was apparent in their discussion of rich people that although it was important for them to work hard and demonstrate effort, their reliance on such attributes to “make it” is minimal in comparison with low-income people and minorities. Most importantly, it illustrated David’s, Maria’s, and Horacio’s distinctions in what social opportunities and barriers they associate with those with whom they identify and those with whom they believe themselves to be identified. For David, Maria, and Horacio, their 3.2, 2.8, and 3.8 GPAs are due to their hard work and goal setting in school. Such academic performance and attitude, according to them, are the necessary tools for social mobility.
“Hispanic-looking” Mexicans
Unlike the “white-looking” students who partially blamed low-income individuals and minorities for their condition, Pedro, Ibeth, and Selena perceived low-income people as putting forth an effort to be socially mobile; however, limited structural opportunities have hampered such mobility. The overwhelming discussion of the opportunity structure for Pedro, Ibeth, and Selena centered on the effect of limited opportunities on low-income individuals, the conditions it perpetuates, and why minorities are disproportionately affected. According to these students, the opportunity structure is not divided into who demonstrates effort or hard work in school rather it operates on a system in which opportunity is distributed based on factors such as race, class, and educational attainment.
For these students, social opportunity is something that some people get and others do not. Selena and Ibeth expressed strong belief that the present conditions of social inequality persist because social opportunity is not equitably distributed, and their interpretation of familial history supports such a perception. For Selena, she believes her dad never got the opportunity to “make it” because nobody gave him a chance to succeed. Similar situation occurred with Ibeth’s godmother. According to Ibeth, her godmother’s teachers never believed she could be a teacher so they never gave her a chance to go to college or supported her aspiration.
Pedro also recognizes that unequal distribution of opportunity is apparent in various facets of life, such as rental and home ownership. According to Pedro, inequality exists because in his observation of U.S. society, only Whites own property, while Hispanics and Blacks rent apartments. Furthermore, Pedro perceives U.S. society as limiting opportunity through the manner in which a degree from Mexico is not valued in the United States:
I don’t see Hispanics as being equal to other Hispanics or Whites. I guess you mostly you see a lot of White families always in their houses and whatever, you see a lot of Hispanics or Blacks sometimes in you know apartments, you know low-income houses. If you had a family that had been here a long time you may own some property, but when you come to the US everything is not equal, you start off with whatever work you can find. If you have a degree in Mexico, you can’t use it here ’cause you need your English and everything all of over again.
These opportunities also exist in the form of social networks. Ibeth believes that individuals with college degrees primarily offer opportunities to others like them, thus inhibiting equitable opportunities for those without a college education:
I think some people have more opportunities than others . . . I think America works as if you know someone they know someone that could help . . . and some people like if you’re parents worked at a college and have a degree and you’re doing bad in high school if you can get someone to get you in you have those opportunities.
And while they believed social opportunity as something that is afforded to some and not others, one student actually discussed social class conditions as having partially limited those opportunities. Ibeth states that a cycle of poverty exists in which low-income individuals are trapped in a continual cycle of limited achievement:
I think that some people work harder to get where they’re at and have more money. And I think some people are stuck in the cycle of poverty and just like their parents got married or pregnant young and they don’t have much to teach their children but to go to school and learn what they didn’t learn. And some kids may not see it as worth it and like I know kids who are really stressed because they go to school and work they have to help their parents pay the bills and that’s just even harder sometimes they just find themselves forgetting about school and working for the money because their parents can’t give it to them.
Although Selena, Ibeth, and Pedro differed from the other students in their rendering of the opportunity structure, all the students did agree on education and hard work as important factors in “making it.” Selena, Ibeth, and Pedro also reported that an inner strength is needed to make it in this society. However, this inner strength is not something that is innately necessary for everyone to succeed but, according to Selena and Ibeth in particular, this inner strength is necessary for minorities because they face so many obstacles. Such obstacles the students also understood existed within the school context. Pedro who is a 2.8 GPA student does not talk in class because he perceives White students judge him based on his ethnicity (i.e., skin color):
Yeah, we talk I guess like sometimes they try to discriminate me because I would not know anything about the subject, so like it really makes me mad like in science we were talking about like electricity and things, we talked about cars and cables and stuff like kids were really amazed that I really knew all this I try to participate more often but sometimes I don’t ’cause I feel like in my class its like I’m the only Hispanic and most of my classes I’m the only Hispanic and a few Blacks, so its just us. So its a little bit harder for us. Its like a conversation between Americans like you know Whites is a lot different than having a conversation with other ethnic groups. Its sort of hard to like, to speak like what you’re thinking when they’re White. For example, when this one girl they just switched her to our class, she’s Black, she seems ghetto I guess and I see all the kids looking at her because they can’t understand what she is saying. I guess, I mean I would think that well if I start saying something I don’t want to feel stupid if they can’t understand what I’m saying. So sometimes in some classes I don’t really participate that much but in the work I feel comfortable.
Selena also discussed White teachers perceiving minority students as stupid. She described being in her Reading Improvement Class which consists mainly of minorities and her teacher perceiving minorities as slow; “she thinks that all minority people are like slow because there is hardly any White people.” Selena also stated that she feels supported by racial/ethnic minority teachers, “because they always trying to help like us minority people out and whatever problem we have can just go straight to them.” This differs from Selena’s perception of White teachers who she believes view her only as a minority. When asked how that makes her feel, she responded the following:
Not very good I mean like I have no other options but I mean I can’t make them change their minds. A grown person I don’t think they can change their mind about anything.
Selena not only makes sense of the opportunity in school as being distributed and regulated based on race and ethnicity but she also feels powerless to change such barriers. Such an understanding of the school structure and racialization by teachers may explain why Selena has attained a 1.9 GPA.
Similar to Selena and Pedro, Ibeth also described situations in which she witnessed opportunity being distributed unfairly. Ibeth described not only instances in which she was falsely labeled a “druggie” by her soccer coach but also times in which White students were not being reprimanded for cheating on tests and smoking in school. The most troublesome situations were when she felt that as hard she tried in class, some teachers would not help her succeed.
Just like with teachers I remember one in particular which was last semester that it was like he didn’t really care, he saw my grade going down and he didn’t say she needs to improve but you know I tried very hard and I have tutors and stuff but it still didn’t work out. I don’t know if it was with everyone but I found it more with the minorities. (Ibeth)
Even though Ibeth recognized such barriers existed and pose a threat to her achievement, she has been able to maintain a 3.0 GPA.
Overall, this group of students overwhelmingly expressed a different rendering of the opportunity structure. Selena’s, Ibeth’s, and Pedro’s perception of the opportunity structure is that opportunity has not been equitably distributed to those they identify with, especially close family members. Opportunity and social mobility, according to the students, have not been the rewards offered to individuals they considered have worked hard and put forth significant effort. Their interpretation of the opportunity structure is that only through social networks, which are unavailable to people like them, can you “make it.” Therefore, how these students come to understand the opportunity structure is based on interpretations and perceptions of a system of rewards that has not equitably rewarded people like them.
Discussion
The purpose of this exploratory study was to discern how Mexican high school students of different phenotype define their own racial/ethnic identity alongside others perceptions of them, and how they discuss the opportunities available for the social group with which they identify as well as the social group with which they believe others situate them. The two critical findings of this study offer important complications for how we begin to discuss racial and ethnic identity negotiations within school and its relationship to perceptions of opportunity among Latino/a students: (a) The ethnic identities these students constructed were not only based on a group’s historical subjugation but also a negotiation between a self-identification and how others in their social world might be situating them along racial and ethnic lines, and (b) phenotype operated as a mediating factor in how these students interpreted and/or responded to the opportunity structure.
First, the ethnic identities these students chose for themselves were not only similar in content and meaning but were also bound to context and external perceptions of their identity based on phenotype. For instance, each student had different self-identities: Mexican, Mexican American, and Mexicana. Despite this difference in ethnic identifications, the students discussed the content and meaning of their identities in very similar ways. However, for each student, their identification also involved external perceptions of their identity based on phenotype. The “white-looking” students struggled with having to prove their ethnic affiliation because their white skin color and light-colored eyes operated as racial markers of a group they did not affiliate with. However, those physical attributes also guarded them from having to experience racial discrimination like their darker skin group members. Although this was a challenging experience, the narrative of these White-looking students also points to a gain and loss dynamism to the boundary designation of identification. Identification, as Hall and du Gray (1996) argue, is a process that involves a gain and a loss in which the individual and external forces make decisions about who can own an identification and how that is done. What underscores this dynamic is the latitude available in identities that can be gained or lost. That is, for these students, light skin color and identifying as Mexican/Chicano/Hispanic are not mutually exclusive constructs within the U.S. context. For some of these students, being able to be perceived as White and possibly be accepted as a White person because of their skin color, and also acquire a Mexican/Chicano/Hispanic identification because having White skin color and a Latino/a identification, does not require hyphenation unlike those who are Afro-Latino or Black Latino (Rodriguez, 2000). However, for a dark skin Chicano such latitude in identification does not readily exist; White is not an available identity. As such, there is a certain degree of power implicit in being able to gain or lose your identification with or without challenge from outsiders (Bashi, 1998), and to identify and/or affiliate as White. Furthermore, this latitude needs to be connected to what the option of selecting a White identification affords in terms of social mobility (Nagel, 1994). Thus, the White-looking students retain flexibility in their identification process that could allow for increased social mobility. More importantly, the discussion of identification among these White-looking students illustrates the dimensions of racial/ethnic identification involved in having White skin color and identifying as Mexican/Chicano/Hispanic in the school context.
The “Hispanic-looking” students, however, did not have to negotiate their skin color in the same manner. Instead, their skin color and other physical features were the basis for discrimination that their “white-looking” ethnic group members did not face. They were situated in and out of the classroom as suspect in some situations and academically limited in others. It is clear that identifying as Mexican involved various complexities for students with different phenotypes. However, such differentiation in experiences raises the possibility that by not accounting for self and external perceptions of identity, current discussions of Latino/a student ethnic identity is not applicable to ethnic groups of various phenotype.
The second significant finding of this study is that the students’ perceptions of the opportunity structure is moderated by the individual students’ perceptions of how others in their social world (i.e., school) might be situating them along racial and ethnic lines. More specifically, the “white-looking” students appear to hold minorities and low-income individuals more accountable for their social class condition than the “Hispanic-looking” students. In addition, the latter group perceived the opportunity structure as containing innate systems that has prevented minorities and low-income individuals from “making it.” This suggests, once again, that the differences in how these students are being situated by others within their social world (primarily school) relates to the ways in which the students perceive the opportunities available for the social group with which they identify as well as the social group with which they believe others situate them. The implications of such a relationship suggest that current cultural ecological models cannot account for perceptions of opportunity simply based on group historical experience. There needs to be further account of phenotype as a moderating factor in the renderings and interpretations individuals make regarding the opportunity structure, more importantly, how such renderings and interpretations coincide with orientations toward school. Although, this article does not provide detailed account of these students’ academic and social interactions, there is sufficient empirical evidence to support further ethnographic investigation into such interactions.
The findings from this study raise questions about the intersection of racial and ethnic identity, phenotype, and perceptions of opportunity. If racial and ethnic identity is the negotiated process demonstrated in this study, what should be the scope of discussion regarding the ways in which racial and ethnic minority adolescents respond to schooling? Should there be further exploration into context driven construction of ethnic and racial categories and how ethnic minority students interpret and respond to such a context? This study and its findings are only able to begin to unravel some of the questions and answers necessary in understanding the interpretive capacities of ethnic minorities. Further study needs to occur with a larger sample to verify findings in this small sampled project.
Footnotes
Appendix
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.