Case Study: Racial Mixing Differs

NOW F OR AN ORIGINAL PAPER ASSIGNMENT:Case Study: Racial Mixing Differs

The findings underscore the critical point that the incorporative power of racial mixing differs by group, with members of some groups feeling less able to freely claim a multiracial identification.

In chapter 8 we assess what the patterns of intermarriage and multiracial iden- tification indicate about group boundaries more generally. Boundary work has been a fundamental part of the immigrant incorporation experience (Alba 1985, 1990; Gans 1999; Gerstle 1999; Ignatiev 1995; Jacobson 1998; Lamont 2000; Perlmann and Waldinger 1997; Waters 1990). Previously, nonwhite European ethnics achieved “whiteness” by crossing over the color line, leading to the even- tual shift in the boundary separating whites and nonwhites. Today, so complete is their incorporation that the boundaries among white ethnics are no longer regarded as racial differences but rather as ethnic differences that are symbolic, situational, and optional. Whereas white Americans may enjoy “ethnic” options, nonwhites often carry the burden of their racial labels, but it is unclear where

Immigration and the Color Line in America 21

12008-01_PT1-CH01-rev2.qxd 4/19/10 3:23 PM Page 21

This content downloaded from 198.246.186.26 on Mon, 15 Jul 2019 21:55:17 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

multiracial Americans fit along the continuum of volitional and ascribed iden- tities. Are their identities more symbolic and situational, as they are for white ethnics, or are they more constrained and consequential, as they are for racial- ized minorities such as African Americans? We close the chapter by assessing what the empirical patterns we observe suggest about the fluidity of boundaries for America’s nonwhite groups more generally.

In chapter 9 we analyze how racial and ethnic diversity is geographically linked in the aggregate to patterns of multiracial identification across places, and we analyze how the size of specific minority racial and ethnic groups in certain places directly relates to multiracial reporting in those areas, and indi- rectly relates to such reporting through diversity and through intermarriage. Given the historical specificity of black-white relations in the United States, larger black populations may affect intergroup relations differently than do larger Asian and Latino populations. We conclude by discussing what such differences suggest about intergroup relations and changing color lines from such a quantitative perspective.

In chapter 10 we offer a synthesis of our findings and draw out implications of our research for the future of race and ethnic relations. We also suggest what we believe are some fruitful directions for further research.

22 The Diversity Paradox

12008-01_PT1-CH01-rev2.qxd 4/19/10 3:23 PM Page 22

This content downloaded from 198.246.186.26 on Mon, 15 Jul 2019 21:55:17 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms