Changing racial boundaries and mixed unions: the case of second-generation Filipino Americans

ABSTRACT

I examine an understudied topic of intermarriage – nonwhite mixed unions. Drawing on a study of second-generation Filipino Americans, I compare how respondents in inter-ethnic (those partnered with other Asians) and nonwhite interracial (i.e. Latino, black, and non-Asian bi-racial) unions perceive racial boundaries, or their ‘racial schemas’. I argue that mixed unions can change how partners view racial boundaries. Drawing on phenotype, culture, and power position, both inter-ethnically and nonwhite interracially partnered respondents viewed themselves as different from whites. However, they differed in how they constructed nonwhite boundaries. Respondents in inter-ethnic unions drew on their Asian identity to distinguish themselves from Latinos and blacks, while informants in nonwhite interracial unions highlighted their Filipino identity to distance themselves from East Asians and align themselves with Latinos and blacks. These findings show that marriage affects racial boundary development and that mixed unions impact individuals’ racial incorporation.

KEYWORDS:

• Nonwhite intermarriage
• mixed unions
• Filipino American
• second-generation
• racial boundaries
• racial schemas

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Richard Alba, Nancy Foner, Erin Michaels, Vadricka Etienne, Kevin Moran, Shirley Leyro, Marlene Ramos, Melinda Mills, and the reviewers for their feedback on the article.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. For the purposes of this article, nonwhite refers to individuals who belonging to Asian, Latino, black, and bi-/multi-racial groups (for a discussion on nonwhite identity, see Alba 2015).

2. Forty per cent of second-generation Filipino Americans marry whites (Min and Kim 2009).

3. To be sure, mixed unions involve others beyond the partners themselves. In this paper’s examination of ethnoracial boundaries among partners, this paper studies one layer of mixed unions.

4. Three of the participants’ partners were bi-racial. The participant with a bi-racial white/Japanese partner was categorized as being in an inter-ethnic union and the respondents with bi-racial white/black and Latino/black partners were categorized as being in a nonwhite interracial union.

5. Religion was missing in the majority of the interviews. This may be because many of the respondents were not practicing Catholics. None of the participants indicated that they attended mass regularly.