"I married someone not the same as me" : Narratives Of Lived Identity Experiences Of Second-Generation Mexican Americans and White Americans and The Role Of Race, Power, and Interracial Relationships

(1)

“I married someone not the same as me”

Narratives of lived identity experiences of

second-generation Mexican Americans and White Americans and

the role of race, power, and interracial relationships

Ebru Calin

International Migration and Ethnic Relations

Master Thesis 30 credits

Spring 2020: IM639L

Supervisor: Margareta Popoola

Word Count: 21.934

(2)

Abstract

Leaning on the framework of Critical Race and Whiteness Theory, this qualitative study draws on semi-structured interviews with second-generation Mexican Americans and White Americans to offer a yet untaken perspective on the fragmented nature of identity. It also sheds light on the ways racism and interracial relationships shape individuals’ notions of race and privilege. The study’s findings indicate that Mexicans perceive themselves as a distinct racial group situated in a “third space,” marked by a dialectic between externally ascribed and internally attributed racial identity categories. White individuals use color and power-evasion strategies to avoid cognizance of their own racial identities. However, their interracial relationships provide a meaningful premise altering the ways they perceive notions of race and White privilege. Shifts in White individuals’ perspectives occur in relation to heightened race consciousness, acknowledging White privilege, and racial inequality and includes behavioral changes resulting from their interactions with their significant others.

(3)

I would also like to extend my deepest gratitude to Dimosthenis Chatzoglakis – one of the most inspirational academics I have had the privilege of meeting. It was a true honor to listen to his captivating lectures, which were really influential in reflecting on the implications of my research results.

As a child, I continuously searched for ways to get sucked into Jumanji– a world where anything is possible. Little did I know, when I started writing this thesis, that each and every month of 2020 would cry out loud: WELCOME to the next level. Yes, we are still standing, despite it all. Therefore, the completion of my thesis would not have been possible without the unconditional support of my mothers, Matylda Jonas-Kowalik, and my loyal Labrador Doğa.

Most importantly, none of this could have happened without my partner. The English language does not have enough words to express my gratitude. This thesis stands as a testament to his unconditional love, encouragement and support.

(7)

“WE ARE A SOCIETY THAT HAS BEEN STRUCTURED FROM TOP TO BOTTOM BY RACE.YOU DON'T

GET BEYOND THAT BY DECIDING NOT TO TALK ABOUT IT ANYMORE.IT WILL ALWAYS COME

BACK; IT WILL ALWAYS REASSERT ITSELF OVER AND OVER AGAIN”

(8)

1 .

Introduction to the research problem

In many aspects, the field of critical race theory and critical Whiteness studies is marked by a “habitual anxiety” about the terms race, racism and what it means to take up the category of ‘Whiteness’ as a primary object of knowledge in the field of racial identity (Sarah Ahmed, 2007). Much scholarly writing has portrayed White1_{racial identity as an invisible default} category, equating the term ‘Whiteness’ with notions of racial domination (McDermott and Samson, 2005). This study challenges this notion by taking on a different point of departure. It draws on the argument that “racial identities are not only black, Latino, [...]; they are also White [...] without specifically addressing White identity there can be no critical evaluation of the construction of the other” (Fusco, 1988: 7). In other words, the phenomenon of Whiteness - if understood as a site of unearned structural privilege (Frankenberg, 1993) - affects everyone, Whites and non-Whites alike.

Concerning the gaps in the current literature, this study illuminates how race, racism, and interracial interactions shape the identities of White Americans and Mexican Americans. The lingering influence of white ideologies such as El Sistema de las Casas2_{(the European caste}

system which derived from the Spanish invasion of 1519) is manifested in the ways individuals of Mexican3_{-origin have been denied access to first-class US citizenship, and thus, kept segregated} by law, and categorized as others. These phenomena reach as far back as to anti-miscegenation4 laws - meaning legislations that criminalized the cohabitation of Mexicans and Whites (Gomez, 2007). These factors necessitate the illumination of Mexican Americans’ identity experiences - as they navigate through US racial hierarchies. Given its contextual significance, there is also the requirement to understand how race, racism, and interracial interactions shape White Americans and Mexican Americans’ identities, alike. At its core, racism is “an ideology of racial domination,” in which the presumed biological superiority of one racial group is used to justify the inferior treatment and social ordering of other racial groups. Racialization implies mechanisms of constructing racial meaning through which perceived patterns of physical difference are used to 1_{Throughout the study, I the term White(s) implies non-Hispanic White individuals.}_{From an ethical and philosophical}

standpoint, the color-coded terminology, ‘whites’ is negatively connotated. However, within the scope of this thesis the term is sociologically important because of the way it is routinely utilized by self-defined whites

2_{For further information on the caste system and the Mexican-American war, see Appendix 7}

3_{Within the scope of this paper,}_{the reference Mexican-origin individuals – henceforth - Mexicans refers to second}

generation individuals who are of Mexican descent.

(9)

differentiate groups of people, thereby constituting them as ‘races’ (Murji and Solomos, 2005; Satzewich, 2011). Whereas I understand race to be a socially constructed concept that has no scientific basis, racism is accompanied by life-altering consequences. As the largest subgroup among Latinos, Americans of Mexican descent figure prominently in debates about their position in the racial hierarchy. Recent statistics have demonstrated that out of 35 million Americans of Mexican origin, 2.5 million Americans of Mexican origin changed their race from “some other race” in 2000 to “white” in 2010 (Chavez-Dueñas et al., 2014). An additional 1.3 million people of this group switched in the other direction (ibid.). Accordingly, researchers have theorized that the boundaries of Whiteness will expand to include Mexican Americans (Alba 2009; Yancey 2003; Bonilla-Silva, 2004), essentially positioning them as “honorary whites.” However, such limited and reductionist accounts operate along the dichotomous Census lines of white and black. Hence, they fail to illuminate the enduring question of how far self-identified labels are informed by choice, white privilege5_{, and intertwined notions of gender and class. By limiting how Mexican} people can categorize themselves in the United States, their relationships with their cultural background may become ambiguous or problematic since individuals might not attach a definite sense of belonging to the given racial categories.

This calls into question two puzzling but yet unspecified concerns: How do experiences of such categorizations affect lived experiences of race? Does being Mexican constitute a matter of ethnic ties, race, or something else altogether? Given this puzzle and the point of departure of this thesis, I strive to engage with a more complex discursive repertoire surrounding Mexican and White identities.

5_{White privilege refers to “unearned power conferred systematically” and implies an institutional set of benefits}

(10)

2. Aims and Objectives

With this research, I aim to illuminate the complexity of lived race and ethnicity by exploring patterns of self-identification processes among White Americans and second-generation Mexican Americans in San Diego. Specifically, I am interested in understanding if and how internally attributed racial identities, externally ascribed racial categories, and gender subdivide the terrain of lived identity. By looking at the dynamics of interracial relationships between Mexicans and Whites, I further seek to enhance our understanding of the ways these interactions shape perceptions of lived race, power, and privilege.

The central research question of this study is as follows:

How do Mexican Americans and White Americans understand their own racial

6

identities, and how do they believe others perceive them?

Employing an intersectional lens, the following specific points of interest navigated the research process:

1. If Mexican Americans see themselves as part of a racial category and are treated mostly as non-White7_{, what implications does this have for their identity experiences?}

2. Do interracial relationships influence how White individuals understand notions of race and privilege? If so, how?

3. Are there any other factors of intersectional relevance that shape the interplay between power, race, and identity?

6_{The use of ‘racial identity’ and the term ‘interracial’ in this paper employs the complex intertwining of ethnicity}

and race (Song, 2003). See more in Chapter 3.

(11)

2.1 Research Scope and Delimitations

The first delimitation concerns the geographic location, previously pointed out as San Diego. The focus on San Diego is grounded as it has historically served as the principal gateway for migration from Mexico into the United States (Gomez, 2007) The San Diego-Tijuana border is further recognized as the busiest international border in the world (ibid.) Thus, the diversity San Diego fosters allows for greater flexibility of racial and ethnic identification patterns and high levels of interracial relationships. Therefore, my ambition is not to grasp the individuals' realities in their entirety but to explicitly illuminate their lived experiences of race embedded in a specific point and place in time.

The second delimitation concerns the research subjects, namely people who self-identify as ‘White American’ and ‘Mexican-American.’ Statistics show that California has the largest population of both Mexicans and Americans of European descent (Census.gov, 2020). To understand the ways racial boundaries and racial hierarchies inform identity experiences of lived race, I deemed it essential to engage with individuals from these particular two prominent communities. The specification of White Americans served to limit the focus of this research to people who are commonly recognized and treated as racially White and hence, subject to benefit from certain privileges8_{(Frankenberg, 1993). Thus, the choice to focus on second-generation} Mexicans is closely tied to the notion that these individuals may be particularly affected by racialized, othering9_{processes (Bonilla-Silva, 2014). Immigration policies under Trump’s} administration were also not foregrounded in this research and intentionally so, as it would go beyond the scope of this paper.

2.2 Contribution of the thesis

The contribution of this study is threefold. Empirically, this thesis produces and explores new empirical material on the identities of Mexicans and Whites. Drawing on semi-structured in-depth interviews, this study offers a deeper understanding of the layered complexities and material reality of race in the construction of identity, connecting the research fields on Mexican American and 8_{Privilege, in the context of this research is understood as inhibiting a race privileged position that affords those}

categorized as White with invisible advantages that are not given to racialized others (Frankenberg, 1993: 199).

9_{“Othering”, within the scope of this study, is understood as the process by which certain characteristics, whether}

(12)

White identity. By taking into account Mexican-White couple interviews alongside single interviews, this research contributes to the current state of knowledge by producing observational data. As most scholarly work evades to illuminate the location of Whiteness, consequently normalizing Whiteness as the default identity, this thesis also offers a theoretical contribution. In this sense, I engage with ‘Whiteness’ as a visible racial identity that foregrounds a more complex discursive terrain surrounding notions of power and privilege, shifting the discourse from an invisible group to one that is equally structured by race relations. Therefore, this paper enhances our understanding of White identity by illuminating whether romantic interracial relationships impact White individuals’ sense of self. Third, building upon an intersectional perspective, this research illuminates how racialized and gendered power relations traverse in White individuals’ and Mexicans' lives and govern their identity experiences.

2.3 Thesis Outline

Chapter three proceeds with an elucidation of the most relevant terminology employed in this study. Chapter four continues with an outline of the contextual background, aiming to provide a general overview of the research field. Chapter five is dedicated to previous research on Mexican and White identity and delineates opposing views and the gaps in the current academic debate. Chapter six addresses the theoretical concepts which informed the data collection and the forthcoming analysis. Chapter seven consists of significant methodological considerations, which addresses the philosophical positioning underpinning this research and outlines the practicalities of data collection and the analysis. Chapter eight is comprised of an overview of relevant thematic findings. Chapter nine offers a thorough analysis that is supported by the theoretical underpinnings of this research. Chapter ten offers concluding remarks. Finally, this study is concluded with reflections upon future research directions.

(13)

3. Clarifying Terminology

Before proceeding to the contextual background, I wish to clarify certain concepts employed in this study. It is crucial to note that these concepts, as defined within the scope of this paper, are socially constructed, contextually and temporally bound, and hence, subject to change.

3.1 Race, ethnicity

10

Race is traditionally conceptualized as distinct from ethnicity; a significant difference is the assumption of a biological basis in the case of race (Clair and Denis, 2015). Hence, whereas races are distinguished by perceived common physical characteristics, such as skin color and facial features, which are assumed to be fixed, ethnicities are defined by perceived common ancestry, a shared history, and cultural practices, which are understood as more fluid and self-asserted rather than externally ascribed (Cornell and Hartmann, 2006: 35-36). However, following Cornell and Hartmann’s definition, both categories – race and ethnicity - are socially constructed and may overlap. There are no claims that assert that a race cannot be an ethnic group, or vice versa (ibid). As suggested by Song (2003: 9-13), the meanings of race and ethnicity overlap as processes by which the institutionalization of ‘race’ navigates the categorization of ethnic minority people. From a sociological perspective, it is this social construction of race – not the fixed notion of its ‘natural’ and isolated existence, that informs the primary object of my inquiry in the study of racial identities.

(14)

3.2 Gender

Drawing on Judith Butler's definition of gender, the term is consensually referred to as the socially constructed roles, behaviors, expressions, and identities of girls, women, boys, men, and gender diverse people (Butler, 2008). Thus, gender is understood to be performative in nature (ibid.). In this sense, it influences how people perceive themselves and each other, how they act and interact while severely impacting the distribution of power and resources in society. Within the scope of this paper, gender is employed as a lens deeply interwoven with power dynamics as the inhabitation of “feminine or masculine role expectations entail very different approaches to power” (Burns and Kinder, 2012: 140).

3.3 Culture

11

Leaning on R. Williams’ (1961) social definition12_{of culture, the term culture implies specific} implicit and explicit meanings and values in a particular way of life (Williams, 1961: 57). This premise encompasses specific traditions, practices, the structure of the family, the structure of certain institutions that govern social relationships, and how members of society communicate (ibid.). In this sense, culture acts as a symbolic terrain that articulates individuals' reality and configures values and manners, which are “an indispensable precondition to any individual’s existence in the world” (Frankenberg, 1993: 202).

3.4 ‘ ‘Indian,’ ‘Mestizo’

The term ‘mestizo’ implies having a White and Black or White and indigenous background and is closely tied to the reality of Mexico’s colonial history (Britannica, 2019). An indigenous Mexican identity (identidad indígena Mexicana) – also indicated as ‘Indian’ refers to individuals who trace their roots back to communities that existed in what is now Mexico prior to the arrival of

11_{Within academic scholarship, the link between nature and culture has been long debated. Jules Pretty (2008) argues}

that nature provides the setting in which cultural processes, and belief systems develop, as the way people know the world governs behavior, understandings, and values which in turn shape human interactions with nature. A range of further arguments, which are beyond the scope of this paper, present themselves with respect to the link between culture and nature.

12_{R. Williams (1961) definition of culture is comprised of three general categories. The first two consists of the ‘ideal’}

dimension - in which culture is a state or process of human perfection in terms of universal values and the ‘documentary’ - in which human experience is variously recorded. In light of the objective of this study, only the third dimensions is of particular relevance.

(15)

Europeans. Colonial Mexico had a legal racial caste system13_{that defined different racial} categories, whereby “the general hierarchy placed Spaniards at the top, Indian/Spanish mestizos in the middle, and Indians, blacks, and Indian/black mestizos at the bottom” (Gomez, 2018: 53).

(16)

4. Contextual Background

A discussion on lived identity experiences of Mexicans and Whites urges us to be sensitive to the possibility that such illumination if framed in overly simplistic ways, can be seen as an expression of ignorance. To map out past and present race-relations, this section proceeds by briefly delineating legal constructions of racial boundaries and the ways individuals resisted externally ascribed classifications within the context of the United States.

4.1 Legal constructions of racial boundaries

4.1.1 Anti-miscegenation laws

14

This section intends to contribute to a better understanding of the subjective experiences of racial treatment by illustrating how racial ideologies, when inscribed into law, have the power to regulate behavior and shape society. Anti-miscegenation laws became instrumental social policies used by government officials to maintain and reproduce a segregated society. Government officials justified the separation of the races by advocating that segregation at the level of intimacy prohibiting marriage between non-Whites and Whites was necessary to protect Whites' social welfare and their presumed biological superiority (Gomez, 2018). The history of anti-miscegenation laws in California began in 1850, two years after the United States acquired California due to the Mexican-American War of 1846-1848 (Marital Rights, art. 4670, 2466, in Paschal, 1878: 783). The new legal codes on marriage allowed Indians and mestizos to marry any race. In contrast, Mexicans who were classified as White were prohibited from marrying those classified as “negroes15_{” or “mulattos” (Act of 1850, ch. 35,s.3, in Comp. Laws of the State of Cal.}

1850-1853, pp. 175-6). During the legalization of these codes, the legislators drafted blood

quantum policies as the Mexican population had always been racially diverse (ibid.). People were considered White if they had less than one-half Indian ancestry or less than one-eighth “Negro” ancestry (Act of 1859, ch. 99, sec. 14, in Comp. Laws of the State of Cal.1850–1853, p. 230; Act of 1850, ch. 142, s. 306, 455). Although the political status of Mexicans improved after the Civil 14_{See Appendix 8 for Marital Rights Article}

15_{As defined by the Act of 1850, “negroe’ refers to individual of African lineage, whereas “mulatto” refers to}

(17)

War (1861-1865), they were still subjected to segregationist and anti-miscegenation statutes. In 1959, California ruled its anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional (Stat. of Cal., vol. 1, 1959: 2043). This ruling was accompanied by the passage of the 1969 Civil Rights Act prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations and real estate dealings. However, the United States continued to oppose racial intermixture; hence segregation at the level of education and employment practices persisted, giving momentum to the Chicano movement.

4.2 Resisting classification

4.2.1 The Chicano movement

The Chicano civil rights movement was a reform movement for Mexican ethnic empowerment beginning in the 1960s. Prior to the Movement, Chicano/a was a classist term of ridicule, reclaimed only by those who adopted it as an expression of defiance to Anglo-American society (Lopez, 1992). However, throughout the Chicano movement, Chicano/a was generally reclaimed to express political autonomy, ethnic and cultural solidarity, and pride in being of Indigenous/non-White descent, diverging from the assimilationist Mexican American identity (ibid.). The movement was strongly influenced by and entwined with the Black Power movement and represented a convergence of multiple movements that defied structural racism, encouraged cultural revitalization, and achieved community empowerment by rejecting assimilation (ibid.). The most significant movements can be broken down into at least four components: A youth movement represented in the struggle against discrimination in schools; the farmworkers movement; the movement for political empowerment, and the struggle for control and ownership over "homelands" in the US Southwest (ibid.). Politics of identity were at the heart of the movement; activists, particularly working-class activists, attempted at shaping a politics of unification based on non-White identity and culture, rejecting all previously imposed identities while advocating for equal opportunity for all (Mufioz, 1990: 12). While activists were able to increase awareness concerning discriminatory housing practices and the desegregation of public places, it is argued that the movement was only able to saturate the most basic of equities concerning labor and land issues and political representation (Gomez-Quiniones, 1990). Consequently, scholars conclude that although the movement “achieved several breakthroughs, it

(18)

[...] failed to capture first-class citizenship for its people,” allowing for deeply rooted class and racial limitations to persist (ibid.: 29). The socio-historical achievements and identified ‘failures’ surrounding the Chicano movement necessitate an illumination of how Mexicans were racially and legally categorized throughout the last decades.

4.2.2 The US Census

16

Ten years have passed since the last Census. April of 2020 required US Americans by law to submit the Census forms to the U.S. Census Bureau. There are two key issues about the classification of Mexicans: one is whether individuals are asked directly about being of Mexican origin, and the other is how the census collects and analyzes racial information on Mexicans. The latter is a rather complex matter (Gibson and Jung, 2005). Over time, there has been a shift from no classification to Mexican as a race, to Mexicans as White, to Mexicans as any race (ibid.). Mexicans have been residing in what became the United States of America since the mid-nineteenth century; however, up to the 1920s Census, the Census Bureau made no mention of categorizing them (ibid.). In 1930, Mexican was officially listed as a racial category on the Census. However, the 1940s and 1950s Census changed the official designation of Mexicans to White, “unless definitely of Indian or other non-White race” (IPUM website as accessed 2020). In the next couple of decades, the Census Bureau continued to define Mexicans as racially White; consequently, Mexicans who responded other to the race question had their answers changed to

White. Starting in the 1980s, the Bureau began defining Mexicans as being of any race (Gibson

and Jung, 2005). In the year 2000, more than 45% of Mexicans reported that they are of other race (Bonilla-Silva, 2003). What is rarely emphasized is that when Mexicans report their race as other, they subsequently add Mexican in the explanation to this response – de facto, naming Mexican as their race (Rodriguez, 2000).

(19)

5. Mapping the research field

This chapter intends to provide an account of the most influential strands of literature that tackle discussions in light of the specific points of interest raised in this research. Differing approaches and angles underlying understandings of Mexican and White identity constructions are outlined to provide a further understanding of the development of academic debates in the field of sociology and beyond.

5.1 On Mexican Identity

In the current sociological debate, two points of interest are of particular importance: One is whether Mexican is a racial category, and the other is whether Mexicans are White or non-White. Gomez (1992) argues that Mexican Americans provide ambiguous responses to race questions, perhaps reflecting their uncertainty about their race and ambivalence about being non-White. In contemporary society, it appears that many political elites position themselves as Hispanic and White, whereas academics, legal scholars, and activists position themselves as Chicano, Latino, non-White and other (Haney-Lopez, 2003, Delgado, 2004). The academic discussion about racial identification and perception finds that among the general population, Mexican is often used as a response to the question: “What is your race?”, hence reflecting an understanding that Mexican is a racial category distinct from Whites, blacks, or Asians (ibid.). Nevertheless, this literature does not take up the underlying dynamics that allow fathoming various identification patterns. There exist several studies that examine the relationship between skin color and socio-economic outcomes. These studies show that ‘darker-skinned’17_{Americans of Mexican descent have lower} education and earnings (Arce et al., 1987; Murguia and Telles, 1996; Telles and Murguia, 1990). However, the question remains if the occupation and level of education affect racial perceptions and racial treatment. Suitably, this thesis aims to complement the existing literature by illuminating whether Mexican origin individuals with occupational prestige experience less racial treatment than their working-class counterparts.

17_{I as the researcher, believe that the way we see and understand all color is relative, temporally and contextually}

(20)

So far, previous research on identity labels identifies four self-identities among second-generation Mexicans in California: national origin identity (Mexican), hyphenated identity

(Mexican-American), unhyphenated identity (American), and racial identity (Hispanic, Latino, Chicano) (Portes et al., 1996). In doing so, scholars take several factors such as linguistic ability

and economic background into account (ibid.). Even though these findings are indispensable in identity research, the dynamics and patterns involved in both the individual intentions and the variety of these different identifications are not the focal points in these studies. (Dyer, 1999). As far as identity labels are concerned, it appears that in previous years, scholars have elucidated the specific experiences and assimilation patterns for Mexicans in the United States as potential factors that influence the diversity of these labels (Golash-Boza, 2006). Golash-Boza (2006) found that racial discrimination discourages Mexican immigrants and their offspring to self-identify with the unhyphenated label American despite the fact of possessing U.S. citizenship. Thus, the decision to hold on to national origin identifiers, in the form of the hyphenated label

Mexican-American, is made in light of exclusion experiences in the United States (ibid.). However, this

theorization appears to be based on a rather simplistic notion. The question that requires illumination is concerned with whether there are other reasons other than discrimination or exclusion that elucidate why Americans of Mexican descent choose to identify as

Mexican-Americans. In this regard, it is crucial to shed light on whether the label Mexican-American implies

an interplay of racial and ethnic identities. Of particular interest concerning this matter is whether Americans of Mexican descent who are born in the United States also perceive their identities differently in the context of Mexico.

Anzaldua (1987) illuminates the phenomenon of “plural personalities,” asserting that racial identity is both relational and situational – meaning that people can amplify or downplay specific attributes of their identity (Jimenez, 2004; Root, 1996; Zavella, 1994). Accordingly, Clara Rodriguez (2000) finds that “one has a plurality of selves, each of which surfaces in a particular situation” (11-12). Thus, the way Mexicans choose to racially and ethnically identify themselves is not consistent with how they are perceived and treated by others. The volitional nature of racial identity is constrained by phenotype, accessibility of one’s nation-origin group, and surname (2000). Hence, “one’s race performance [is] expected to correspond to a perceived racial ‘essence,’ marked by color and surname” (Bettie, 2003; Jimenez, 2004). Accordingly, work that examines skin color stratification among Mexican Americans understands phenotype as an attribute that

(21)

significantly contributes to the broad spectrum of racial identification (Hunter, 2002; Espino and Franz, 2002; Murguia and Telles, 1996). Hunter (2002) argues that “skin color modifies outcomes and produces advantages for the light-skinned,” whereby phenotype acts as a sorting mechanism that is associated with occupational prestige and, thus, higher education (190).

Concerning these aforementioned ‘hybrid identities,’ it is crucial to contextualize where Mexicans are positioned within the racial hierarchy of the US. Contemporary academic scholarship has offered different hypotheses about the place of Hispanics in the racial order (Frank et al., 2010). One tradition, as highlighted by Eduardo Bonilla-Silva (2004), views Mexicans in racial stratification terms. Bonilla-Silva's idea of racial stratification within the US context emphasizes that the Mexican American population is internally stratified by racial identity – meaning some individuals are accepted into the White majority, whereas others are categorized as non-White. One prominent hypothesis within the scope of this research asserts that being Mexican emerges as a racial and ethnic category in itself, such as Black or White (Brown et al., 2007; Campbell and Rogalin 2006; Golash-Boza, 2006). Relatedly, the scholars as mentioned above have shown that Mexican individuals often struggle with locating themselves in the U.S. racial stratification system as the given racial categories in the way they appear on US Census forms, for instance, do not translate to the multiplicity of internally attributed identifications (Dowling, 2014; Rodriguez et al., 1992).

Integral to the discourse on Mexican identities in the US are political constructions of masculinities and femininities along racially differentiated lines. Frankenberg, who has given much thought to gender as another axis of differentiation in the construction of White identities, illuminates racist discourses of the portrayal of the sexuality of men and women of color as ‘excessive,’ ‘animalistic,’ or ‘exotic’ in contrast to the ostensibly restrained or "civilized" sexuality of White women and men (1993: 75). Accordingly, Carter has focused on the notion of “controlling images” – meaning racialized and gendered cultural representations that strongly affect the beliefs of those who lack knowledge on the group represented. She theorizes Latino men are perceived as inhabiting “hard” masculinity (Carter, 2007; Ferguson, 2000; Rivadeneyra, 2006). Similarly, other studies that have focused on controlling images that pertain to Latino men find that their masculinity is coded as violent, criminal, and dangerous (Vasquez, 2010; Vasquez-Tokos and Norton-Smith, 2016). Most of these controlling images depicting Latino men as either mediocre athletes or violent gang members are found to systematically restrict their life chances

(22)

in economic terms and hinder them from establishing an accurate self-definition (ibid.). These controlling images are often argued to influence not only interactions between Mexicans and Whites but also to affect the ethnic and racial identifications of Mexicans (ibid.). Since controlling images are intersectional, this study seeks to contribute to the gaps in the current academic discourse by identifying how controlling images pertain to both women and men. It is crucial to illuminate how gender intervenes in racialized controlling images and creates distinct experiences for women and men, respectively.

5.2 On White Identity

The field of psychology has only recently started to focus on White Americans’ racial identity experiences (Knowles and Peng, 2005; Phinney, 1996; Wong and Cho, 2005). Thus, as an unexamined default racial category, Whiteness has held a status of ‘race-lessness’ (Ahmed, 2007; Watson and Scraton, 2018; Hyde, 1995). Scholars from the field of sociology (Frankenberg, 1993; Perry, 2002), law (Haney-Lopez, 1996; Harris, 1993), and history (Roediger, 1991), however, have long documented the central role of Whiteness in creating and reproducing racial inequality. According to scholars of ‘critical Whiteness studies’(Delgado and Stefancic, 1997), White individuals are uniquely positioned at the top of the racial hierarchy with access to structural advantage at the expense of non-White groups. According to traditional Whiteness theory, Whiteness is thought to be powerful precisely because it is invisible – a social condition that “never has to speak its name, never has to acknowledge its role as an organizing principle in social and cultural relations” (Lipsitz, 1998: 1). Accordingly, the most common argument in favor of the ‘invisibility thesis’ foregrounds that Whiteness is seldomly acknowledged as a racial identity by White Americans (McDermott and Samson, 2005). In other words, Whites do not understand themselves as members of a racial group or to benefit from any privileges, which in turn is assumed to be the reason why Whites do not have a sense of racial identity (McIntosh, 2004). On the other end of the spectrum, it is argued that many Whites who adhere to color-blind norms become practiced at avoiding thoughts about their own racial identity, as noticing race is understood to be inherently racist itself (Apfelbaum et al., 2010; Apfelbaum et al., 2008; Norton et al., 2006; Hartmann et al., 2009; Frankenberg, 1993). In this regard, many other scholars have found that individuals who equate White identity with racism may become too adept at avoiding thoughts of race, that such aversion becomes second nature (Macrea et al., 1994). This notion is

(23)

consistent with scholarship emphasizing that ideologies such as color-blind racism may be internalized so thoroughly that they prevent counter normative thoughts in the absence of awareness and cognitive reflection (Glaser and Banaji, 1999; Moskowitz et al., 1999; Wegner and Zanakos, 1994).

In recent years, however, it has become evident that arguments positioning Whiteness as an invisible and inconsequential identity are rather one-dimensional and must rest on a questionable assumption. Racial inequality and the dynamics underlying the racial hierarchy cannot be adequately addressed without illuminating White individuals’ perceptions and reactions to race and their privileged position in the social order. Thus, some scholars argue that White individuals recognize the privileges their Whiteness confers (Chow et al., 2013; Frankenberg, 2001; Knowles and Peng, 2005). Much of the scholarship on Whiteness finds that privileges associated with White identities remain invisible to many Whites. It is theorized that the root problem is limited interracial contact (Delgado and Stefancic, 1997; Lipsitz, 1998).

Thus, contemporary research accentuates the substantial role of the racial composition of geographic regions in the internal acknowledgment of Whiteness as a racial identity (Knowles and Peng, 2005). For instance, Knowles and Peng argue that exposure to racial and ethnic outgroups is more likely to amplify White individuals’ race consciousness (ibid.). Thus, diverse demographic contexts are to be understood as variables that increase the probability of cross-race interpersonal interactions, which have been shown to make Whites highly aware of their membership in the dominant racial group and the associated privileges (Goff et al., 2008; Plant and Butz, 2006; Shelton et al., 2006; Vorauer et al., 2000). An illustrative study carried out by Perry (2002) examined White students' identities at two California high schools: one in which Whites were the minority, the other the majority. Whereas respondents at the majority-White school appeared to struggle with a “cognitive gap” concerning racial identity, students in the minority-White school seemed to be highly aware of being White and its implications (ibid.). Such findings suggest that interethnic contact allows White individuals to perceive their racial identity as distinctive, enabling them to reflect upon their self-understandings in given social contexts.

When taking the influence of social environment on identity into account, it appears that much of the literature on interethnic/interracial relationships in the US context pertains to Black/White and Asian/White unions (Mok 1999, Yancey 2002, Steinbugler 2015; Karis and Powell, 1995). Furthermore, most thought in this field has been given to external attitudes towards interracial

(24)

unions rather than subjective experiences (Herman and Campbell, 2012; Field et al., 2013; Helbert et al., 2018). Thus, this paper draws on this prominent neglect by accounting for the role of interracial unions, particularly in the lived experiences of White individuals.

Concerning the ways, White individuals manage their identities, Knowles et al. (2014) have proposed the “3D model” - meaning the interplay of three distinct identity management strategies White individuals apply when confronted with varied facets of their racial identity. The three strategies are identified as 1) denial – meaning rejecting the notion that individuals benefit from White privilege; 2) distancing – meaning separating oneself from Whiteness; 3) dismantling – meaning awareness of privilege and the commitment to militate against these privileges. Hypothesizing that Whiteness is a critically important racial identity not because Whites cannot see it but because they can – given they have been exposed to ethnically diverse contexts and demographic regions, stresses the potential value and significance of my study. Illuminating the experiences of Whites, whose lives are equally embedded within the material reality of the US racial order, is a prerequisite in understanding these individuals’ senses of selves, others, and notions of privilege.

(25)

6. Theoretical Framework

In this chapter, I address the theoretical concepts and theories which underpin this research project. Firstly, Critical Race and Whiteness Theory, as well as Intersectionality, are discussed. This is followed by an in-depth section contextualizing identity in light of the concept of hybridity and the hyphenated selves framework. This chapter concludes with an elucidation of the entwined relationship between identification and categorization as proposed by Brubaker and Cooper (2000) and further expanded by Jenkins (2008).

6.1 Interlocking systems of domination

In light of this study’s aims and objectives, the following theories delineate sociological paradigms that frame different angles of domination and oppression coded by axes of race, gender, and class.

6.1.1 Critical Race Theory

Critical race theory – henceforth CRT engages the application of critical theory to race-based human injustice (Matsuda et al., 1993; Milner, 2008). Since the early work of twentieth-century legal scholars, critical race theory has been applied to understand the ways oppression and marginalization of non-White communities play out in American society.

CRT provides a framework “or set of basic perspectives” that seeks to identify, analyze and transform structural aspects of society that “maintain the subordination and marginalization of people of color” (Solorzano, 1997: 6). The foundation of CRT can be traced back to work by W.E.B. Du Bois (1903/1989). Du Bois proposes the notion of double consciousness, which involves a rupture of identity from being both of color and American, which can cause conflicted feelings (1903). As part of CRT, double consciousness is a phenomenological description of identity formation under conditions of racialization. It proposes that the color line creates different processes of identity formation among racializing and racialized groups. Hence, double consciousness implies “this sense of always looking at one’s self through the eyes of others” (Du Bois, 1903: 2). Referring to the lived experiences of non-Whites, the concept of ‘twoness,’ as one of the major elements of Du Bois theorization, implies the notion of being positioned in two different worlds: The colored world and the White world, whereby one has “two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings [...]” (ibid. 2). The concept of Double Consciousness, which

(26)

is embedded within the framework of CRT, allows addressing gaps in the theorizing of identity as it considers the role of recognition, communication, and relationships between subjects. This study draws on three premises of CRT as proposed by Delgado and Stefancic (2001):

1. Racism continues to be normalized in society, whereby expressions of racism have evolved into more subtle representations.

2. CRT involves acknowledging that being White carries with it rights and privileges, which are often unacknowledged, particularly to White individuals. This lack of awareness reproduces the myth that success if merely judged by ambition, omitting social lubrication underlying White privilege

3. Interracial contact can reveal racism’s harmful effects so that harmful consequences are better understood. More subtle and indirect forms of racism are often unrecognized and unacknowledged by Whites. Through interracial interactions and counter-narratives, people of color can share their experiences with marginalization (Solorzano, 1997). These actions include racial microaggression and acts of colorblindness18_{(Pierce, 1970).}

In applying CRT, I hope to shed light on structural and societal constraints that maintain inequities in everyday life and influence individuals’ self-understanding.

6.1.2 Critical Whiteness Theory

As an extension of critical race theory, critical Whiteness theory – henceforth CWT, sheds light on “behaviors that signify what it means to be White in our society” (Charbeneau, 2009: 2). In this manner, Frankenberg asserts that both people of color and White people live racially structured lives (1993). CWT stresses that Whiteness “has a set of linked dimensions” that include racial advantage and oblivion to Whiteness as a race. Three dimensions underlying the construction of Whiteness are of significant importance for this study; these dimensions are historically, socially, politically, and culturally produced and are intrinsically linked to unfolding relations of domination (Frankenberg, 1993: 6):

I. Whiteness refers to a location of structural privilege, also known as ‘race privilege,’ whether realized or unrealized by Whites

18_{An example of colorblindness includes someone White claiming that race is irrelevant, whereas an example of}

(27)

II. Whiteness refers to a specific perspective from which White people look at themselves, others, and society.

III. Whiteness refers to cultural practices that thus far have remained unmarked and unnamed At the core of critical Whiteness studies lies “a set of normative cultural practices, [which] is visible most clearly to those it excludes and those to whom it does violence” (Frankenberg, 1993: 229). The same is true of Americanness in relation to those whom it marginalizes or excludes (ibid.). Looking at individual stories through the lens of CWT allows us to gain a better understanding of how power dynamics are conceptualized and play out in individuals’ lives. Hence, the added value of CWT to this study lies in its interdisciplinary nature (Morris & Kahlor, 2014).

6.1.3 Intersectionality Theory

Rooted in black feminism, intersectionality theory has become a theoretical and political way of conceptualizing the relation between systems of oppression that construct our multiple identities and our social locations in hierarchies of power and privilege (Crenshaw, 1989). Drawing on the scholarship of black feminists, including Crenshaw (1989), the term intersectionality refers to ‘interlocking oppressions’ – meaning interlocking inequalities between race and gender with related identities and other forms of oppression such as class (Collins, 1989; Zinn and Dill, 1996). People of the same race will experience race differently depending upon their location in the hierarchical class structure and, accordingly, in the gender structure as female or male (ibid.). Within the framework of intersectionality, scholars emphasize the relational nature of dominance and subordination, with power being the cornerstone of differences in identity experiences of men and women (ibid.). Central to the way intersectionality theory is employed in this research is ‘controlling images19_{’ that constitute ideological justifications of oppression and collective} representations of certain groups central to the reproduction of racial, class, and gender inequality (Collins, 1991: 68). Regarded as “major instruments of power,” the purpose of controlling images is ‘to dehumanize and control’ subordinated groups (Collins, 1986: 17). The social institutions that

19_{It is crucial to note, however, that controlling images are conceptually different from prejudice. Whereas prejudice}

is psychological, involving negative emotion and stereotypes (Quillian 2006) controlling images are ideological collective representations, transcending the affective. Controlling images, prejudice, and discrimination are interconnected in that controlling images provide a ‘strategy of action’ (Swidler 1986) for prejudice and

(28)

circulate controlling images suppress less privileged groups, restricting minorities’ power of self-identification and access to upward mobility (Collins 1991). Furthermore, they are perceived as symbols of systemic racism, justifying “the creation, development, and maintenance of White privilege, economic wealth, and sociopolitical power...[rooted in] hierarchical interaction and dominance” (Feagin and Hernan, 2000: 14). Applying an intersectional lens allows to locate and elucidate dynamics that facilitate racialized and gendered experiences that are deeply interwoven with notions of unequal power.

6.2 Identity

As Stuart Hall (1990: 25) suggests, identity is dynamic, multiple, fluid, and “subject to continuous play of history, culture, and power […] like everything historical, identities undergo constant transformations (ibid.) How then can we then understand the sometimes-coercive force of either internal or external identity production? To understand the individuals’ mapping of the human world, I engage with the concept of hybridity, and the hyphenated selves framework as well as Roger Brubaker and Frederick Cooper’s (2000) distinction between identification and

categorization. This is further revised by Jenkins’ (2008) understanding of the internal-external

dialectics model. Conceptualizing identities through a multiplicity of theoretical frameworks allows us to attend to the concept of identity despite its multifaceted, abstract, and, at times, paradoxical nature.

6.2.1 Hybridity

The concept of hybridity is predominantly coined by the postcolonial theorist Homi K. Bhabha who asserts that hybrid identities are constituted within a “third space” – a symbolic location in which individuals and cultures meet (2004). According to Bhabha, this “third space” allows individuals to perform and recognize their identities in ways that may not be feasible in the larger society (Bhabha, 2004). Stressing that identities are fluid, multiple, and constituted within particular social and political contexts, Bhabha’s hybrid theorization of identity challenges notions about homogeneity and binary assumptions about social groups (ibid.). Hybrid identities can be conceptualized in the following two ways:

(29)

I. Hybrid identities are a conceptualized response to binary assumptions about belonging to a particular social and cultural group and draws attention to dynamics processes of power, exclusion, and intergenerational relationships in our understanding of being and belonging. II. The theorization of hybridity challenges reductionist notions of ‘ethnicity’ and promotes a

fluid, multifaceted, and often contradictory understanding of identities.

6.2.2 Hyphenated Selves Framework

Departing from Du Bois’ eloquent contribution of ‘double consciousness’ emerges the hyphenated selves framework. This framework is a departure from ‘fixed’ and dichotomous notions of identity that favor ‘group comparisons’ in favor of more fluid and contextual notions of identity (Collins, 2006; Bhabha, 2004). Thus, hyphenated identity expressions refer to identity labels that are not reduced to a single referent (Hamann and England, 2011). Often, these identities invoke ideas about “one’s place of origin” as well as “one’s present home,” highlighting individuals’ multiple simultaneous relationships with different places (Radhakrishnan, 1996). The framework is often applied to an intergenerational perspective, focusing on second-or third-generation individuals (Kustatscher et al., 2015). Two dimensions of this framework, as established by Hamann and England (2011), are of particular importance for this study:

I. Hyphenated identities can be an agentive construction to resist a nation’s insistence on assimilation by asserting ties to a geographically distant nation. II. Hyphenated selves can also be agentive construction contesting the

dichotomizing pressures of choosing between nationalities. While hyphens can be used to draw attention to the multiplicity of identities, they also constitute a political space that draws attention to asymmetries in power. Within the scope of this paper, the theory of the hyphenated selves framework and hybridity allows us to deconstruct simplistic binaries about identity and to attend to the complexity and paradox nature of identification patterns that have not been the focal point in previous research.

(30)

6.2.3 Identification and categorization

The process of identification alters the notion of identity as a static state of mind and being, as something that one has (Jenkins, 2008). The processual nature identification stresses the significance of analyzing the underlying dynamics of identity construction, shifting one’s attention towards what we do (Brubaker and Cooper, 2000: 14; Jenkins, 2008: 5). As Butler (2006; 2009), Jenkins (2008), and Hall (1990) emphasize: identity is not merely out there; it is a process of being and becoming and, thus, must always be created. Jenkins asserts that both individual and collective identifications follow a model of internal-external dialectics (2008: 46). This study draws on Jenkins’ (2008: 39) mapping of three distinctive orders of the world as constructed and experienced by human beings:

1. the individual order – meaning individuals and their perceptions of the world around them 2. the interaction order – meaning the world as organized by relationships between

individuals

3. the institutional order – meaning the world as organized by institutions and organizations Concerning the first order, individual identification is understood to be socially constructed. Thus, it is informed by a continuous dialectic of self-identification (internally attributed) and descriptions of oneself by others (external ascription) (Jenkins, 2000; 7-8; 2008: 40). The notion of dialectics shifts the attention to the interaction order: human beings do not only take into account how they perceive themselves but also validate their self-understandings against what others think of them. Hence, the internal-external dialectic logic applies to how we identify ourselves and how we identify others (Jenkins, 2008: 42). The institutional order represents a means of categorization (ibid.: 45). According to Jenkins, categorization implies external processes of identification, i.e., the process when people categorize others (ibid.: 8-12). Yet, others do not specifically necessitate the acts of individuals as it can occur through, e.g., public political discourses (ibid.). While categorization processes play a role on all three levels of the human world, categorizations processes that occur on the institutional level (e.g., the government) are distinct (Brubaker and Cooper, 2000: 15). As one of the most prominent agents of categorization, the modern state has “the power to name, identify, categorize, to state what is what and who is who” (ibid.).

(31)

7. Methodology

In the following chapter, I address the philosophical underpinnings supporting the selection of the chosen methods and the practical approaches to research design, data collection, and analysis. Before I present the employed material and methods, I will proceed with my ontological and epistemological standing within the philosophy of social science research.

7.1 Philosophical Considerations

Given that this study focuses on subjective experiences of lived race, this research project ontologically falls into the relativist spectrum. As the objective of relativist ontology is grounded in the belief that there are as many different realities as there are people (ibid.) - with the nature of reality being subjectively and socially constructed – the theoretical framework grounding this research is well-fitting in this approach.

Epistemologically speaking, this study fits in a social constructivist perspective, which foregrounds an “understanding of the social world through an examination of the interpretation of that world by its participants” (Bryman, 2012: 380). By turning the gaze to a constructivist philosophy of science, the primary focus of the research lies on the micro-level of analysis, whereby the nature of knowledge is subjective, depending on individuals’ lived experiences and feelings (6 & Bellamy, 2012: 57-59). This implies that social phenomena - as objects of social science’s inquiry – do not exist a priori but occur only through people’s own definitions, beliefs, and actions (Charmaz, 2006: 10; Rosenberg, 2012: 134-235).

This has a twofold implication for my scientific undertakings. Firstly, there exists no reality about what it means to be a second-generation American of Mexican descent or White American detached from individuals’ own perceptions. In this sense, the narratives of members of a social group must always be understood in terms of the specific environment in which they operate, as each reality is relational and contextual (Bryman 2014: 401). Secondly, the knowledge produced through the interviews is not merely found or given but actively constructed through conversation whereby the product is “co-authored by interviewer and interviewee” (Kvale and Brinkmann, 2009: 54). In this sense, I, myself as a researcher, am a part of the world I study (see Section 7.3.2). My constructivist positioning implies that my analytical endeavor with the social matter can offer merely an interpretation of the studied phenomena. Consequently, I can understand individuals’

(32)

conversational reality by giving meaning to it that claims no objectivity and offers no predictability or generalizability (6 & Bellamy, 2012: 57-58; Charmaz, 2006: 10; Rosenberg, 2012: 31, 118-119, 134-135).

7.2 Research Design

7.2.1 Approach

This study is based on a narrative research study approach. Employing a qualitative study approach in the form of narrative analysis20_{is particularly useful for the aim of this thesis as it can give us} compelling close-up descriptions of individuals’ qualitative human world (Kvale and Brinkmann, 2009: 47). Shifting our focus away from the notion of generalizability, the strength of narrative research lies in the depth of the knowledge it produces (ibid.).

Detaching itself from a postpositivist paradigm, this study was material-driven - meaning that an understanding of the empirical phenomena at hand was generated once categories had emerged through the data analysis (Ponterotto, 2005; Bryman, 2012). The multiplicity of realities that emerged through a continuous dialogue between researcher and the interviewees, and a constant moving back and forth between theory and analysis, data and interpretation, followed the nature of an approach that is both iterative and inductive (Bryman, 2012: 26; O’Reilly, 2008). As such, this study represents a voyage of discovery rather than an examination (O’Reilly, 2008).

7.2.2 Material

21

I illuminated the ethnic and racial identity experiences of Mexican individuals and White individuals using rich qualitative data that I collected through semi-structured interviews.

20_{See section 7.2.4.2 for further elaboration on narrative analysis.} 21_{The transcripts are available upon request.}

(33)

7.2.2.1 Sample

This research is based on a purposive sample of 23 individuals in total. Leaning on Bryman (2014: 428), purposive sampling aims to sample participants strategically so that those sampled are relevant to the research questions posed. The sample consists of eight self-identified White American individuals and 15 second-generation self-identified second-generation Mexicans, including those born in Mexico but immigrated to the United States before the age of twelve. The latter is often referred to as the 1.5 generation and consists of individuals who arrived before the age of twelve, thus obtaining most of their education and socialization in the United States (Rumbaut, 1991). This way, it was ensured that participants had had exposure to U.S.-based understandings of race and ethnicity, particularly in the context of US Census forms. Out of the Mexican participants, nine identified as female, and six as male. Out of the White individuals, seven identified as female, and one individual identified as male. The interviewees were all US citizens, fluent in English, and based in San Diego. They ranged in age from 22 and 65 years. The interviewees were from various economic backgrounds ranging from federal state employees to housekeepers. I met none of the interviewees before the interview. The initial aim was to base this research exclusively on couple interviews, to gather as much observational data as possible. Yet, due to the recruitment difficulties surrounding the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic (see Section 7.2.3.1), I was unable to conduct more than six couple interviews in the given timeframe. However, the reoccurrence of specific narrative topics and themes suggested that the overall sample composition allowed me to reach an adequate level of data saturation (Bryman, 2012).

The six couples consisted of Mexican men and White women involved in a non-long-distance heterosexual relationship for several years. Hoping to have a fairly consistent sample, my initial intention was to focus on second-generation Mexican American women involved in relationships with White American men to account for the differences and similarities in racial identity and communication patterns as navigated by race. Fearing the inconsistent composition of my sample and the limited time at my disposal, I debated whether or not to dispose of either the single interviews or the couple interviews. However, at a very early stage of the coding process, I realized a reoccurrence of specific themes. A careful consideration of the significance of this phenomenon for the inference of this study supported the justifiability of my decision. Since the purpose of this thesis was to tease out how both Mexican American and White individuals understand their identities while shedding light on potential axes of differentiation, the

(34)

consideration to dispose of some of the data seemed unwarranted, and the usage of all the data at hand justifiable. The delimitation of my study sample to San Diego was further grounded in my wish to conduct the interviews in person – something that would have been financially and temporally infeasible if I had traveled across the United States. Also, interviewing individuals living in the same geographical area allowed me to avoid possible regional differences. Thus. It is crucial to mention that the narratives may have read differently had they been gathered in the Southern part of the US, where politics and race relations differ from those of the West Coast.

Insomuch as I do take full account of the interviewees’ perspectives and mine, I must assert the importance of using the terminology White and Whiteness. Throughout the interviews with European Americans, who have all referred to themselves as ‘White,’ I realized that using the term “European American” would deracialize and thus, falsely equalize communities who are unequally positioned in the racial hierarchy. In this sense, the terminology “European American” is not used as an alternative to “White” as it would foreground the notion of heritage rather than race and thus, neglect the ways White individuals’ lives are equally structured by race.

7.2.2.2 Access

To get in contact with potential interviewees, I used several strategies. First and foremost, I relied on my personal connections. This recruitment strategy has proven to be most effective since personal connection facilitated a mutual bond of trust. Secondly, I established an initial social network of people by contacting local churches and attending Sunday masses held in both English and Spanish. I initially sampled a small group of people who seemed to be genuinely interested in my research and further met the criteria relevant to my research. The primary sample proposed other interviewees who have had the characteristics pertinent to my research (Bryman, 2012: 424). This helped me expand my social network and established the most fitting approach as the state of California went on lockdown in mid-March 2020. Hence, my initial approach was followed by snowball sampling. Thirdly, I used Facebook and posted my research flyer in various groups related to cultural exchange and language cafes, such as San Diego Friendship Circle and San

Diego Social Network. This approach has proven to be another suitable means of reaching out to

individuals interested in participating in the research. It was of uttermost significance to get the approval and the support of the founders of these groups first - in research jargon, also known as gatekeepers (Bryman, 2012: 435).

(35)

7.2.3 Method

7.2.3.1 Semi-Structured Interviews

With given consent, I conducted 17 separate interviews, out of which were six interviews with couples and eleven individual interviews. It was anticipated for the study to be conducted vis a vis with interviewees; however, due to the unforeseen circumstances surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, I was restricted from interviewing in person and thus, had to conduct most of the interviews via Facetime or Skype. Accordingly, four interviews took place in person, and 13 interviews were conducted via the applications as mentioned above. The interviews lasted between 30 and 90 minutes. There are several disadvantages to being restricted from interviewing interviewees vis-à-vis (e.g., difficulties in establishing rapport, technical issues interrupting the flow of the interview, and the inability to take into account interviewees’ body language). Yet six of the Facetime/Skype interviews were conducted with the camera on - two of them being interviews with couples and four single interviews - which allowed for the observation of non-verbal interaction.

With a signed consent form sent via email to participants prior to the interviews, I audio recorded all interviews with a phone app, which allowed me to pay full attention to the interviewees’ narratives. The interviews that took place in person were set up at the participants' homes in different areas of San Diego, where they felt most comfortable. The empirical data were collected from February 28th_{to April 30}th_{, 2020, with a previous agreement on (place), date, and} time with participants. Social contact was established a month prior. All of the interviews took place in English; only some minor terminologies were mentioned in Spanish as respondents felt they could express the impact of specific intimate experiences better in Spanish. Though my active knowledge of Spanish is not nearly sufficient to conduct a whole interview in Spanish, my passive skills allowed me to understand the general meaning of certain sentences and the particularities, which enabled me to ask (in English) specific follow up questions. Certain terms the interviewees chose to use in Spanish were later translated into English.

The interview guide22_{was segmented into four different parts, which did not have a finite} set of predetermined questions. The set of questions increased in sensitivity and commenced with

&quot;I married someone not the same as me&quot; : Narratives Of Lived Identity Experiences Of Second-Generation Mexican Americans and White Americans and The Role Of Race, Power, and Interracial Relationships