The politics and construction of identity and childhood: Chinese immigrant families in New Zealand

Immigrant parents’ identity: singular and consistent

When asked about their identities, none of the participants claimed to be a New Zealander or ‘Kiwi’, ² despite the fact that over half of them had been living in New Zealand for more than 10 years. All of them identified themselves as Chinese – without hesitation. Most justified their choice of identity label as based upon their birthplace. They believed that since they were born in China, they were naturally Chinese, no matter how many years they had resided in New Zealand. Some further argued that since they looked Chinese, there was no reason to say otherwise, and that others would not believe them if they claimed to be New Zealanders.

What’s wrong with telling people that we are Chinese? Our face naturally tells people who we are. (Jan) ³

Even if I don’t tell people I am Chinese, they can tell I am Chinese … I am used to telling people I am Chinese. There is nothing bad about being Chinese. (Katie)

But we have a Chinese face … how can we say we are ‘Kiwi’, ⁴ not Chinese? This is impossible. It is nothing embarrassing to tell people you are Chinese. (Mei)

You don’t have to tell. People look at your face, they know straight away … I am a Chinese. Why would I tell people that I am a New Zealander? There is nothing to be ashamed of being Chinese. (Lian)

They won’t think that you are a New Zealander as your look and accent tell people that you are not a ‘Kiwi’. (Sonia)

The participants did not claim to be ‘Kiwis’ because their ‘Chinese’ phenotypical characteristics made them the visible ‘others’ in New Zealand. Furthermore, while the narratives (at a surface level) seemed to express a sense of Chinese pride, they also revealed a lack of agency and fluidity because the participants believed that identity was innately determined and constrained – in a static manner – by how their recognisable characteristics were perceived. The participants’ identity ‘choices’ are not free choices after all; instead, they reflected their perceptions of ‘subjective reality’ (Atkinson, 2007: 239) and/or constraint as an ‘other’, and proclaimed their sense of non-belonging. One participant, Vicky, further constructed a new identity for herself, 边缘人/bian yuen ren, which means a person sitting on the edge of two boundaries who was, she said, ‘neither Kiwi nor Chinese’. This demonstrates that she struggled to position her belongingness.

In terms of their nationality, 7 out of 10 participants were still PRC passport holders at the time of the interviews. They explained that since China does not allow dual citizenship, and they had to return to China periodically or even long term in the future, it is important to retain their Chinese nationality. This is mainly because for non-citizens, there is a restriction on the length of their visits. However, those who had opted for a New Zealand passport claimed it was because PRC passports were less well received internationally when travelling. Ong (1999) considers contemporary Chinese who cross borders frequently as flexible citizens who have passports for convenience, and their choice of identity and citizenship is strategic and instrumental. This appeared to be the case here.

The growing power of China on the world stage and the participants’ sense of patriotism might have also contributed to their pride in identifying themselves as Chinese. First, overseas Chinese are now seen in China as patriots who are still connected closely with their ancestral homeland (Nyíri, 2004). Second, as China’s economy prospers and its international status grows, contemporary Chinese immigrants are more prepared than the previous sojourner generations to identify themselves with their home country even though they continue to reside in the receiving countries (Benton and Gomez, 2003).

Claiming oneself to be Chinese, nonetheless, may also mean distancing from – or dissociating with – a ‘Kiwi’ identity. For example, one participant, Anita, said her husband, who immigrated to Auckland as a teenager with his family and returned to his home country after completing his university qualification, despises any Chinese who artificially pretend and identify themselves to be New Zealanders. Anita told me, ‘He feels that when you tell people you are a New Zealander, you are trying to increase your social status’. This binary perception of being Chinese or New Zealander seems to suggest to this respondent and her husband that Kiwi and Chinese identities are mutually exclusive. When the notion of belonging was spontaneously mentioned, Anita further admitted that she felt she had no sense of belonging in New Zealand. When the notion was extended to ECE centres, some participants were bemused because they had not thought of the need to develop a sense of belonging and to be included in the ECE communities.

Immigrant children’s identities: Plural and inconsistent

In terms of the ethnic identity of their children who were mostly born in New Zealand, the participants’ responses were varied and nuanced. The previous phenotypical and birthplace criteria were not applied to children in the same consistent manner:

The children, they will probably identify themselves more as ‘Kiwi’. This is not very good, but they need to understand Chinese cultures first. (Jean)

At the moment, I tell them [her daughters] they are Chinese, and they feel the same. No matter how good her [daughter’s] English is, but at school, she knows she is different from the ‘Kiwis’. She knows she is Chinese … Even though one day they do not speak Chinese anymore, they still know they are different. (Katie)

My children will say they are New Zealanders … I think they are still little. It doesn’t matter who they think they are, as long as they are happy … I haven’t thought much about this. I have never told them what their ethnicity is. I only told them that their parents are Chinese, and they were born in New Zealand. (Lian)

I am Chinese because I am a first generation immigrant, my children may call themselves ‘Kiwi’ because they were born here. (Vicky)

They [the children] were born here, but they are Chinese. Their look is Chinese. (Jan)

There are many criteria used for determining one’s identity (Callister, 2008). The contrasting narratives presented above demonstrate the politics, complexity and messiness of identity choices, and highlight variations and irregularities in how the participants selected identities for themselves and their children. Different criteria, in particular, phenotypical differences and birthplace, were inconsistently adopted by the participants to suit different contexts and personal preferences.

Finally, the earlier discussion regarding the notion of dissociation was also applied to children’s identities, but in a reverse manner. A participant, Jean, highlighted her main concerns with how her children’s identity was influenced by the negative images of China projected in mainstream (New Zealand) society and the possible adverse comments made about China and Chinese in education settings.

I don’t know where they get this idea from. Sometimes, when we mentioned about China, they would say China is very messy, children are kidnapped … a lot of negative things about China. I don’t know where they get these ideas from, from the teachers or from their schoolmates. At home, I won’t say these things to the children. But I feel that they talk about mostly negative things of China. (Jean)

This excerpt echoes Canadian research which shows that Chinese immigrant adolescents in Canada felt disconnected from the school curriculum because Chinese culture or information about China were portrayed negatively in class (Li, 2010).

In summary, findings from this study reveal that Chinese individuals and families express a variety of identity choices as they reflect upon personal connections to both China as an origin society and ‘Chineseness’. These identity choices also reflect instrumental affiliations and a perceived sense of difference to ‘other’ New Zealanders, and they have significant social and educational implications.

Identity, heritage and a sense of (non)belonging

The single unanimous identity of being ‘Chinese’ chosen by the participants implied that they perceived themselves as different from ‘New Zealanders’ or from the dominant cultural group (European/Pākehā) in New Zealand. This ‘Chinese’ identity reflected their subjective identity constraints and reality, a sense of displacement and self-exclusion. Identifying themselves as Chinese provided the participants with a sense of belonging in the Chinese community where individuals shared similar understandings of cultural practices, social meanings and rules (Banks, 2010; Hall, 1991), even though Anderson (1991) argues that communities are often simply imagined. Yet, by doing so, the participants also constructed boundaries with other cultural groups and communities.

During the interviews, the participants often used ‘we’ and ‘they’ to position Chinese and 洋人/yang ren ⁵ in binary opposition, as if there was a predetermined and immovable barrier which inhibited them from becoming ‘New Zealanders’. In addition, identity theories can be applied here to argue that the participants used this singular Chinese identity choice strategically to protect and uphold their cultural and language heritage, at least in private spaces, as well as to proclaim their sense of non-belonging to New Zealand (Essed and Goldberg, 2002; Hall, 1991, 2000). To illustrate, all the participants continued to use Chinese as the main language at home and to practise traditional Chinese customs, such as celebrating different Chinese festivals. These participants are different from their ‘model minority’ predecessors who were prepared to give up their Chinese heritage and assimilate to become ‘New Zealanders’ (Ip, 2003). Furthermore, retaining their Chinese citizenship, culture and language heritage provided these contemporary immigrants with a practical sense of security: they could return to and settle back into their home country if the life in the new land was not as desirable as originally anticipated. After all, a decision to leave friends and extended families behind and migrate to a foreign country is a risky undertaking.

While phenotypical and birthplace criteria were used consistently by the participants when they selected their own identity, varied determinants such as cultural and linguistic characteristics, birthplace and other rationales were irregularly applied, sometimes in a confusing and contradictory manner, to their children’s identities. This implies a sense of uncertainty and preparedness for their children to have fluid identities. More importantly, when the participants added the ‘Kiwi’ option to their children’s identity repertoire, it suggested that they aspired for their children to develop a sense of belonging to New Zealand and to integrate while maintaining their Chinese identity. With hybrid and fluid identities, these children were expected to develop at least dual heritages, and this expectation has strong influences on the constructions of childhood.

Immigrants’ parenting practices and their children’s childhood

The criteria used by the participants to select identities for themselves and their children demonstrated that their identity choices are multi-layered and that they are determined by a complex mix of physical, cultural or recognisable characteristics (Callister, 2008; Lyons et al., 2010), as well as personal preferences and aspirations. Fluid and hybrid identity choices for their children also imply fluid parenting strategies. Due to their ‘in-between’ (New Zealand and Chinese) identities and cultures, the participants often displayed ambivalent attitudes towards teaching, learning and parenting practices of the host and home country. For example, while the participants recognised the strengths of the autonomous, independent and child-centred learning approach promoted in New Zealand education settings, they would also like to see more teacher-directed and structured learning activities, such as defined reading and writing activities, because they were used to a teacher-led approach of learning. Inconsistent and/or contrasting logic was used by the participants to justify their parental aspirations, demonstrating ambivalent attitudes and constant search for ‘in-between’ practices that are common within immigrants (Bartley and Spoonley, 2008).

Due to their dual or multiple identities, the childhoods of the participants’ children are highly complex and mobile. To illustrate, since all the participants aspired for their children to be at least bilingual (in Chinese and English language) and bicultural (in Chinese and New Zealand culture), these children continuously negotiated and navigated between at least two language and cultural heritages. In addition, most of their extended families were in the PRC, and they often went back for family reunions. Most parents also planned for their children to return to the PRC for an extended period of time to learn Chinese language and culture in what was described as an authentic manner. The participants also did not exclude the possibility of their children working in the PRC or other countries in the future. These children are likely to become global citizens, and their identity choices are likely to remain fluid and continue to evolve, depending on their future experience in New Zealand and elsewhere. A positive experience of a non-biased New Zealand which embraces diversity is more likely to create a sense of belonging and motivate the participants’ children to become ‘New Zealanders’ in some sense. In contrast, negative experiences of discrimination and unjust treatments due to their Chinese identity will contribute towards developing a sense of non-belonging and (self)exclusion.

Finally, the discourse of ‘residential fixity and domestication’ considers a stable home environment as essential to children’s well-being, and hence, it constructs a negative image of those immigrant families who engage in frequent border crossing and fail to provide stability and security to the growing child (Ni Laoire et al., 2010: 156). When a deficit identity is socially constructed for immigrant families as unsettled and uninterested in children’s well-being, it may demotivate teachers to engage with these families, thereby impacting negatively on immigrant children’s educational experiences.

Curriculum and pedagogy

Notions of cultural identity, catering for diversity, a sense of belonging and inclusive practices are emphasised in Te Whāriki (MoE, 1996) and The New Zealand Curriculum (MoE, 2007). The promotion of cultural identity in education programmes, however, has to be implemented sensitively as it can create both cohesion and tension. Too much emphasis on togetherness and a particular collective identity may generate boundaries and run the risk of discrimination and exclusion. It is the role of the teachers to help all children to explore their identities while encouraging them to respect those of others.

Both national curricula also encourage ECE and school settings to connect with families and wider communities (MoE, 1996, 2007). It is pivotal, therefore, for teachers to initiate discussion with immigrant parents to find out parental aspirations in terms of identity and language choices. Children’s home cultures and languages also need to be positively included in the education programme, so that families can feel a sense of pride in their cultural identity. Teachers and school personnel should assure diverse immigrant families that there is neither the need to leave their cultural heritage behind at home nor the necessity to place one’s ethnicity and New Zealand identity in binary opposition. Teachers who are prepared to understand and engage sensitively with identities of their own and immigrant families, to embrace plural and fluid identities and to accept diverse parenting practices and parental aspirations are more likely to create an environment that is respectful, non-threatening and inclusive for immigrant families in education settings.

Countries, such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand, with a high immigrant population mostly consider immigration as ‘a contribution to the national good, with benefits from the banal (food) through to national imageries’ (Spoonley, 2015: 5). This vision is a key contributor to moving beyond the traditional assimilation model which expects immigrants to give up their heritage identity and to overcoming the fear of the unknown that is associated with ‘difference’ and imagined solidarity. Rather, it is important to recognise the funds of knowledge (González, 2005) that immigrants contribute, and adopt a curriculum and pedagogy that encourage diverse identities, heritages and practices to co-exist. Sensitivity to the complex contextual factors that shape families’ actions and decisions, open-mindedness and deliberative and intentional inclusion can ensure that all voices are heard (Holtug and Mason, 2010), so that immigrant families develop a sense of belonging and are confident to identify with the host country. For immigrants to be accepted in New Zealand, it depends on at least three conditions: residency granted by the immigration agency, recognition of the fluid and hybrid nature of identity and inclusive practices of local institutions, including education settings.