Issues in the Concept of Ethnicity - Essay Example

Are Ethnicities Optional? In her article Optional Identities: For Whites Only?, Mary Waters presents an argument about issues in the concept of ethnicity. Waters argues that ethnicity is not a biological function, since it is socially acquired. She bases her argument on the fact that ethnicity is conferred to a person only after birth (Waters 1). In this article, Waters illustrates how ethnicity can be optional or non-optional, depending on the type of race. Waters claims that only the Whites with a European ancestry are capable of optional ethnicity. On the other hand, it is true that the non-whites are not capable of choosing their ethnicities, even if they adopted the most popular ethnic symbols of the White ethnicities. On the other hand, it is also true that the Whites choose their ethnicities based on the amount of negative consequences. Waters claims that in the United States, the White Americans have the opportunity to choose their ethnicities, unlike the other minority groups. White Americans can either choose to be plain ‘White’ or choose an ethnicity, with regard to their ancestry. Waters also focuses on symbolic ethnicity, which she associates with later-generations of most White Americans. In this type of ethnicity, the individuals involved do not experience any social cost. This is because of the symbolic identifications in the ethnic group, which attracts later-generations to identify with. For instance, some whites might identify with the Irish Americans only during the special occasions such as vacations, or family holidays (Waters 3). Waters also notes that the whites are not influenced by ethnicity, compared to the minority groups in the US (4). In addition, they are at liberty to either choose their ethnicity, from their genealogies or not choose any, unlike the minority groups, who have to identify themselves with their identity. Symbolic identity mainly occurs among the whites, when they identify themselves with different ethnicities by adopting the popular ethnic symbols of those ethnicities. For instance, celebrating St. Patrick’s Day in order to be associated with the Irish ethnicity, thus, signaling their Irish ethnicity. However, a non-white celebrating St. Patrick’s Day will not be regarded Irish, since these are not capable of optional ethnicities. Waters introduces another element of ethnicity, which is the ‘non-optional’ ethnicity. This is the opposite of optional ethnicity, and mainly affects the minority. Unlike optional ethnicity, which is chosen with a free will, non-optional ethnicity is imposed on individuals. Oppositional ethnicity also affects the minority groups in society. In this type of ethnicity, members of the minority groups will seek companionship among themselves, and sometimes distance themselves from the mainstream population. In this case, the minority group will want to maintain their identity, which could be influenced by their history, or their uniqueness, with regard to other factors. The remaining members mostly judge the people who abandon this kind of ethnicity in a negative way. Waters attributes this ethnicity to the blacks and the Latinos. She believes that, “the oppositional component of a black identity also explains how black people can question whether other black are acting black enough” (Waters 7). In this case, the blacks or any ethnic minority groups are expected to act according to the values of their group, which is different from those of the mainstream population, and any deviance by one member is questionable. In the article Notes of a Native Speaker, Erick Liu talks about his experiences that relate to his ethnicity, immigration, and race, during his childhood and teenage years. Although Liu was Chinese, after immigration, he became a Chinese-American. However, he was called ‘banana’ by other Asians, for emulating the values of White Americans. Liu experienced vast challenges adapting to life in America, especially with regard to culture. Even though he was a citizen of America, he still viewed himself different from the White Americans, who also considered him a Chinese-American, and not a White American. In this case, Liu was Chinese on the inside, but American on the outside. He therefore, felt a conflict in him, as the two ethnicities failed to integrate. He said, "And the result is always more complicated than the monochrome language of "Whiteness" and "authenticity" would suggest" (Liu 10). He felt timid and lost his confidence. From Liu’s life story and experiences with ethnicity, it is possible to use Water’s arguments to analyze his situation. Liu became a Chinese-American when he went to the USA, and acted like the white Americans, but was still viewed as Chinese by the white Americans. With regard to Water’s argument, this shows that whereas a person of European ancestry has the chance to ignore their (for instance) Scottish ancestry if they wanted, people will not think of them as Scottish, unless they let them know by bringing it up. However, in the case of Chinese and Africans in the USA, an individual might want to disown or reject their Chinese-American or African-American identity, but this is still important to the outsiders, who will still recognize that these individuals are African-Americans or Chinese-Americans. This therefore, implies that optional ethnicity is only for the people with European ancestry, as Waters argued, and not the non-Whites. In another article titled, Scents by Maria Laurino, different aspects of ethnicity are highlighted. Laurino uses her experiences in the US as an Italian to show the state of ethnicity “I can still remember the day when my ethnicity no longer felt like the tag line of my narrative, reluctantly affixed to my American self, but instead signified an inescapable me” (Laurino 14). Here, she felt her ethnicity was a reality, which she faced each day. Laurino was Italian-American, meaning she had a European ancestry, thus had an opportunity for an optional ethnicity. However, being Italian-American, Laurino was branded ‘smelly’ by her peers, since she did not shave her legs, while most Americans associated neatness to shaving of leg hairs. Nonetheless, this is a stereotype, which white Americans had about Italians. However, Laurino could easily change this element, if she wished to, since she had a European ancestry. Nonetheless, after high school, Laurino managed to deal with this situation, and would no longer be labeled as a ‘smelly Italian’ because of her hair legs: “The smelly Italian girl no longer exists, if she ever did. In addition to my fragrance, my body is practically hairless, waxed from lip to toe. . .” (Laurino 19). This implies that by waxing her whole body, she managed to remove the ‘hairiness’ associated with Italians. Therefore, no one would identify her as Italian, with regard to the amount of hair on her body, not unless she told them that she is Italian. This illustrates some important aspects of Waters’ argument. While the non-Whites cannot make others to ignore or forget their race or ethnicity, Whites have the opportunity of going unmarked. This however, does not bring out white ethnicities as less important. It only shows that these have different consequences. In Laurino’s case, the consequence of being Italian-American is that, she was branded ‘smelly.’ Therefore, according to Waters, Whites can choose their ethnicities, and when to emphasize them. Normally, Whites will choose those ethnicities that have less negative consequences. Therefore, by waxing her body and being obsessed with body fragrances, Laurino was walking away from the Italian-American ethnicity, which had many negative consequences in her context. Gish Jen in her article An Ethnic Trump describes the experiences of her son and herself in America with regard to ethnicity. Although these are both Chinese-Americans, Jen wants her son to adopt the Chinese values, by enrolling him to a Chinese school. On the other hand, the son does not want to be identified with Chinese, including eating Chinese food, and attending a Chinese school. The young boy cries and says that he is American, yet Jen knows that his son is Chinese, and nothing was going to change that, since his physique tells it all (Jen 20). With regard to Waters, both Jen and her son belong to oppositional ethnicity, and therefore, it is hard for them to identify with other ethnicities, even though they are American citizens. In this case, Jen is proud of her ethnicity, which is why she wants her son to embrace the Chinese values and norms. This proves Water’s theory about oppositional ethnicity right. Although Jen’s son wants to be American, this is impossible, since he belongs to an ethnic minority group. Therefore, even though he might act American, he does not have the opportunity to have an optional ethnicity, since he has no European ancestry, just as Waters argues. The ideas of Waters are useful in analyzing the situations of Jen, Liu, and Laurino. Since Waters provides a framework with which one can analyze and interpret various ethnicity issues, these can be applied to the cases of the three authors. These three authors have one thing in common. They all struggle with the question of ethnicity. They struggle with this in the same way that Waters puts it. Liu, Jen, and her son are non-Whites, who face challenges identifying with the mainstream American population. Although they would wish to belong to the White ethnicities, this is impossible, as the Whites do not identify them as part of their ethnicity. It is thus, impossible for them to choose a different ethnicity apart from their Chinese-American ethnicity. According to Waters, the ethnic minorities cannot escape their ethnicity, compared to the whites, who can escape their ethnicities. This therefore, proves Waters’ argument that optional ethnicity is only possible for the Whites, and not the non-Whites. On the other hand, Laurino was an Italian-American, thus having the opportunity of adopting an optional ethnicity, since she is of the European ancestry. Since Whites choose their ethnicities based on the amount of negative consequences these present, Laurino also had the chance to move away from her Italian-American ethnicity, as this proved to bear many negative consequences for her. She therefore, was able to change that by waxing her body, since most Americans associated hair with Italian people. In Laurino’s context, her Italian-American ethnicity presented her with many negative consequences, since she was branded “smelly,” owing to her ethnicity. Waxing her body and adopting body fragrances made her less Italian and more American. As she notes: “I fear that after years of trying to rid myself of the perceived stench of my ethnic group and its musty basement class status, I sanitized my own voice, washed it away” (Laurino 14). This means she was able to get rid of her Italian ethnicity after some years. Therefore, this conforms to Waters argument that people of European ancestry can easily choose their ethnicities. In conclusion, Waters discusses how it is possible for Whites to choose among the many European ancestries, depending on one that fits in their context. Many would want to be identified with the popular White ethnicities such as Irish, which bear less negative consequences. On the other hand, the non-Whites are not capable of optional ethnicity, and cannot make people forget or ignore their ethnicities. Therefore, a non-White might act like a White person, but this does not change their ethnicity. Since it is a fact that only the Whites are capable of optional ethnicity, the non-Whites have to accept this fact, and embrace their non-White ethnicities, while developing ways of adapting to challenges their non-White ethnicities present to them. Works Cited Jen, Gish. “An Ethnic Trump.” New York Times Magazine, July 7, 1996 rpt. Chicago Sun?Times. Web. . Laurino, Maria. “Scents.” Were You Always an Italian? New York: Norton, 2000. Print. Liu, Eric. “Notes of a Native Speaker.” The Accidental Asian, 1998. Print. Waters, Mary. “Optional Ethnicities: For Whites Only?” Eds. Sylvia Pedraza and Ruben Rumbaut. Origins and Destinies: Immigration, Race and Ethnicity in America. Belmont: Wadsworth Press, 1996. Print. Read More