Identity And The Diaspora

Identity and the Diaspora: Personal Identity Creation in Second Generation Youth

The daily experiences of second generation youth has yet to be critically researched and defined. Much of the discourse as been an attempt by academics to try to ‘understand’ the Arunan Sivalingam #309422

2 experiences of second generation youth and the impact it has on the creation of personal identity. Identity for youth of immigrants is a complex process, for it makes one have to examine oneself in a way which makes sense to them, and fit into the identity(s) ascribed by others. It has been assumed that youth of non-European ancestry are able to negotiate their personal identity the same way as those who constitute the dominant class. But it is the ruling white class which is able to culturally and ideologically control others through its institutions and social mechanism (Abbas, 2005, p.73). Such mechanisms create additional layers for minorities to conceptualize the identity they wish to project of themselves personally, socially and culturally. Furthermore, struggles of cultural space and societal perceptions of the ‘other’ are overlooked in an individualistic society which puts merit in the efforts undertaken by the individual (Sullivan, 2006, pg. 157). It is only through the examination of the societal barriers; in addition to the power of psychological and cultural barriers can one come to understand the process of identity creation for ethnic minorities within wider society. Examining identity is a complex process due to the fact that it must be defined based on the various definitions in which it can be seen. For youth growing up in a dominantly white society, identity is always connected to the definitions employed by dominant society. This creates a difficulty; as those who do not classify themselves as part of dominant society have to base their identity on the value of individual personality and the things that make one unique. Due to the fact that these notions represent the cultural paradigm employed by most western countries, which adhere to such social, economic and political worldviews. The difficulty faced is the perceived uniqueness of people of color as non –Europeans, as they constantly have to define themselves to their peers, this inability to define oneself based on ones individual perceptions is the greatest loss to personal liberty (Purkayastha, 2005, p.30).

Arunan Sivalingam #309422

3 The belief that all individuals in individualistic societies are able to create whatever individual identity they would like is a characteristic of the “whiteness” prevalent in society (Sullivan, 2006, pg. 141). The process of categorizing those who are different is in itself a mechanism which strips the autonomy of an individual to project ones own identity. As Purkayastha recounts the story of a South Asian woman and her education experience in Britain: The teacher would ask me if I could explain a little more about [the cultural practice]. And it was like, they were talking about yeah, well, some regions [in India] have, like men who have two wives. And yeah, maybe [Ranjit] can tell you more about that. And [the teacher] was like, it does not make any sense...I was expected o explain [cultural practices]. Which was like, in my power, as much as I knew, I did. But, like, there was a lot of stuff that I was not even aware of. (p.38). The inability of wider society to differentiate the personal identity and perceived cultural identity is a major reason for the confusion in young adolescent second generation youth. Self autonomy is questioned as individuals are seen as being representative of the cultural and ethnic identity to which they are categorized under. This does not act separately from racism, as only by separating one as not belonging to the norms of wider society can one be seen as constituting ‘the other’. I myself experienced this as a young boy, and consequently had a very difficult time with my own personal identity. In my early years in elementary I was one of the only non-white students at my school. I remember one day when another student who was from Bangladesh enrolled at our elementary. The teachers had been in discussion amongst themselves about this new situation, as I remember hearing them whispering my

Arunan Sivalingam #309422

4 name in conversation. It turned out that the teachers would set-up a meeting with the both of us, where they explained to us why it would be good for us to play together and become friends. It seemed to them that maybe they should group us together because we were both seen as East Indian and could get along together; yet ironically it created a feeling of separateness in us from the other students. This ignorance in the way in which individuals categorized me within social institutions, as well as the similar experiences shared by other South Asians reveals something deeper about institutional racism (Purkayastha, 2005). Experiences such as this really reinforced the idea that I was different, and that I could not function within the realm of self-autonomy trying to be just like the other kids, as I was constantly picked out for being different. Examining the notion of identity creation at the root level is the only way to understand the reason why minority youth have a difficult time in distinguishing their identity. Identity is the perception that others place upon an individual, and it is for this reason that identifying minorities as being from somewhere else creates a separate spatialized notion of who really belongs (Sullivan, 2006). The reoccurring question posed to those not seen as being part of the dominant culture further illustrates this point, as one is always asked to define ‘where they are from’. The question itself implies that one does not truly belong, and in the most subtle way asks: when are you going back? Imposing the linear perception that the first generation youth can only be the children of immigrants; belonging neither here nor there (Raj, 2003, p.4). The way in which an individual is categorized by others is an important aspect to understand when trying to examine the way in which one views their identity in relation to others in society. I remember when I was younger I was asked where I was from; at first I would say from here (meaning Canada) but I was always followed up by, ‘well where

Arunan Sivalingam #309422

5 are your parents from’? Through this I begin to start answering the question based on what I thought others wanted to hear, ‘oh I’m from Sri Lanka’, when that really was not the case. This process of ascribing identities to certain people creates an internal contradiction for that person, as the label can change over time. I can definitely relate to this now personally, as it seems I am being defined in the opposite manner as one who is a Canadian, belonging to the social, political and cultural framework of Canada. The idea of not acknowledging an individual as belonging to a particular ethnic category or the opposite extreme in trying to categorize on race is examined by Desai (2001), who perceives the notion of “but you are different” particularly self-righteous, condescending and a subtle mechanism of privilege and arrogance in giving oneself the ability to define others (p.243). This type of mentality reveals the attitude toward believing things are better if we just realize we are all the same, thereby alternating between trying to ascribe identities to individuals, to not recognizing them to have a unique identity at all. I believe there is a deeper psychological element to such a mentality that is conceived by the dominant group within society. When I speak to people now at informal gatherings or at other occasions, it becomes obvious that I was born in Canada, this usually results in the other person affirming me as a Canadian. Yet the problem is that it does not account for my separation as not being seen as Canadian; it is true based on classification I am Canadian as I was born here. But the implication that “oh its great you are a Canadian just like everyone else” devalues the struggle I have faced in trying to be recognized as being a Canadian and not belonging to the categorizations that have been placed upon me as ‘belonging to the other’. This further reveals the unending struggle to not be labelled based on the preferences of others, but no matter what, I will always be labelled by others as they have the power to do so (Sullivan, 2006). I may be accepted, but larger mechanisms within

Arunan Sivalingam #309422

6 society clearly demonstrate to me and others that I am different and I myself also see myself to be different. A good example to link together the ideas presented above is when I was listening to an individual talk about a book he had published on second generation youth who had been born in Canada. In his analysis he made an unsubstantiated claim that youth under this classification did not hold their loyalty to Canada but to the country of their ethnic origin. It was for this reason he concluded; specifically using the example of Sri Lankan Tamil boys, to be security threats for their perceived allegiance to the rebel forces in the home country. Breaking this down reveals a variety of issues, the first being that youth born in Canada have some direct bond and knowledge of events and histories of their country of origin. Countries to which most have no tangible connection; for I myself do not even have a concrete understanding of the conflict in my country, because I was never raised in Sri Lanka, so I have no connection to local dynamics. In addition, the claim that youth have stronger ties to the country of ethnic origin then country of birth is quite unmerited, as it does not take into account any personal claims through any sort of academic research. It is illogical to conclude that someone can have allegiances to something they do not understand; again this goes back to previous examples in this paper in trying to categorize individuals, when they have no direct connection to the heritage or country they are identified with. Furthermore this directly devalues the birthright in being born a Canadian, as it is implied that one does not truly see themselves as Canadian, so they should not be recognized as such. This again allows others to define ones identity and gives no room for ethnic youth to have a say in how they want to identify themselves. The ability of individuals of the dominant group (i.e. Caucasians) to define others and have their claims accepted as truth reveals the interconnectedness of power, position and status within society. Examples such as this seem to imply it is perfectly fine not

Arunan Sivalingam #309422

7 to question the words of a white, middle-class academic. Identity is also created through other benign social mechanisms that tie in directly with the ethnic culture of the individual and the society in which one is situated. This can be seen in some regards to represent false identities, for it tries to categorize a whole group of people and not just the individual. It is through such social processes that an individual is faced with a dual conflict of what society tells them they should be; in addition to ones own family. South Asians have come to embody positive role models within society as ‘model minorities’ as the great accomplishments of reaching the middle class ideal are constantly touted especially toward South Asians. Much of the analysis acts as a way to advise individuals on how to create the right identity within western societies, as Abbas mentions how throughout Britain as a whole, South Asians have achieved upward economic and social mobility, live in more affluent areas, work in professional occupations or have become relatively successful in enterprise (p.5). This belief in the ‘model minority’ idea postulates other mechanisms of positive stereotyping, such as the claim of the relative success of South Asians in sciences, and the affinity to aim for professional careers, such as doctors and Engineers (Abbas, 2005, p.83). This form of ascribing identity acts as a way to tell individuals what they should be and that if they do not fall under the categorizations as others within the cultural group fall, then something is wrong. Such processes which affirm what one should be in the ‘new society’ are justified and backed up by claims of culture and evidence of hard work. Patel tries to relate this idea in relation to the prominent emergence of South Asians into the middle class: “The emergence of the Indians as a sophisticated global tribe contradicts many stereotypes developed in the west, yet the roots of this international success lie deep in history” (p.154). Furthermore, Patel also links in the notion that because

Arunan Sivalingam #309422

8 of the ‘culture of connectedness’ of South Asians also accounts for their success, as it is their collective culture which allows them to be successful transnational entrepreneurs (p. 154). The irony of such statements reveals the influence of the methods used to construct identities and success from the perspective of the culture which assumes dominant power. It is the same justifications and methodologies that middle-class whites use to express their earned success (Sullivan, 2006, pg. 124). Such ideas seem to be perpetuated to make sure that those who do not constitute the dominant group are instructed on the ways in which to function within society. This is done in the simplest respects to make sure power cannot be challenged, for if one emulates the dominant group they cannot challenge it. In addition this acts as a mechanism to instil a class identity on non-dominant group members, insisting they must emulate the social, political and cultural values of the ruling class in order to be successful. This mechanism is very subtle, and incorporates itself as a means of creating success within society playing into cultural, social and psychological dimensions. I believe this is a very relevant idea when examining the notion of the so-called affinity of South Asian immigrants to push their children to becoming doctors, lawyers, engineers and other high class professionals. It is in my own observation being raised in this specific context that I feel this is more a reactionary measure to social realities than a ‘cultural norm’ which is part in parcel of South Asian culture. The primary reason is not that parents want their children to be doctors, engineers and so forth, but rather the reasons why they would like them to take up these high class positions. Below is an interesting personal story I have in regards to this whole notion of professional achievement. One day my father and cousin came home from a gathering with members of the Tamil community. When talking about the event, my cousin told me about

Arunan Sivalingam #309422

9 someone who was there that had been talking to my dad about me, and his congratulations to my dad for raising a good son in his eyes. He thought it was very good some of the work I had been doing for a non governmental organization. It was interesting as I am not studying to be a doctor or a lawyer, the professions that are seen to embody a respectable profession. This gentleman in the Tamil community still was praising my father for the profession I was in, as it had ironically given me the same prestige as someone studying to be a doctor. This is probably due to the fact that I got to attend the International AIDS conference which included some high ranking officials. The point of this story is that it reveals a few subtle details that many people may fail to read deeper into. Firstly that in acknowledging me the gentleman looked at my father as the one responsible for my perceived success as a young man. In addition though I may not be studying for a professional degree, I was still seen to embody the attributes that come with being known as a doctor or other prestigious title. It is this idea of prestige that needs to be highlighted, as South Asian parents push their children to go for prestigious careers as they see it as a way for them to be recognized in society. It was common to hear throughout my childhood, and others I know who shared a similar upbringing as myself to hear the words ‘only by becoming [a doctor] will you be successful, then people will respect you...and us’. Statements such as this reinforce the idea that professional identities pushed on by family act as a reactionary measure for those who are trying to find a place in a new society, where they must assert their identity. The process of doing this is achieved by mixing the South Asian cultural value of group identity with the individualistic value of working to have ones status recognized by others and thereby fulfilling the cultural middle class ideal. I believe this is a mechanism that many second generation youth have had to conceptualize and live out because creating a sense of ethnic belonging for second

Arunan Sivalingam #309422

10 generation youth entails ethnic affirmation (Phinney, 2001, p.143). This area of professional identity creation is complex and entails many factors, but what is interesting to note is the way in which dominant society cultural values and attitudes toward success become entangled into the way non-dominant cultural groups look at occupational roles. Thus revealing that professional identity as ascribed by one’s family is also tied into the social identity the dominant culture advises one take on in order to be successful and acknowledged. It has been implicit, the preconceived notion that those who are raised in an individual oriented society will automatically be given the autonomy to create their own unique identity. Yet this assumption that all is the same for everyone within a society that differentiates those that are seen to be different has been widely overlooked as a social mechanism. Wider societal mechanisms and implicit dominant cultural values have not been seen for the power and influences they have for ethnic minorities who wish to create a sense of self-identity. An identity they wish to not be based on generalizations imparted on to an individual by others, who for the most part do not understand the consequences of their ignorance. Only by recognizing these wider subtle power differences and social mechanisms, can one see the lack of power and choice second generation youth face in trying to create a unique personal identity.

References Abbas, T. (2005) Education of British South Asians: Ethnicity, Capital and Class Structure. Gordonsville, VA, USA: Palgrave Macmillan.

Arunan Sivalingam #309422

11 Desai, S. (2001). “But You Are Different: In Conversation with a Friend. In James, C, Talking About Identity: Encounters in Race, Ethnicity, and Language (pp.241-250). Toronto, ON, CAN: Between The Lines. Mukherjee, A. (2001).The “Race Consciousness” of a South Asian (Canadain, of Course) Female Academic. In James. C, Talking About Identity: Encounters in Race, Ethnicity, and Language (pp. 212- 219). Toronto, ON, CAN: Between The Lines. Patel, D. (2006). The Maple-Neem Nexus: Transnational Links of South Asian Canadians. In Satzewich. V and Wong. L (Ed.), Transnational Identities and Practices in Canada (pp. 150162). Vancouver BC: UBC Press Phinney, S.J., Romero, I., Nava M., Huang, D. (2001). The Role of Language, Parents, and Peers in Ethnic Identity among Adolescents in Immigrant Families. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 30(2), 135 -153. Purkayastha, B. Negotiating Ethnicity: Second-Generation South Asian Americans Traverse a Transnational World. New Brunswick, NJ, USA: Rutgers University Press. Raj, D. Where Are You From? : Middle Class Migrants in the Modern World. Ewing, NJ, USA: University of California Press. Sullivan, S. Revealing Whiteness: The Unconscious Habits of Racial Privilege. Bloomington, IN, USA: Indiana University Press.

Arunan Sivalingam #309422