Cultural Contracts: Negotiating a Ubiquitous U.S. Dominant Worldview on Race and Ethnicity

Abstract

Within this study, we explore the U.S. dominant worldview of race—one that traditionally uses a rigid classification of distinct racial categories and multiple ethnic groupings—and how diverse groups of individuals come to understand and adapt to the labels that are associated with that particular worldview. Drawing from focus group discussions involving 100 persons from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds, we describe how individuals in the Southeastern United States negotiate their identities through the use of cultural contracts that are accepted, altered, and/or co-created. The manuscript concludes by discussing the study's implications for theorizing and future research.

Keywords:

• Cultural Contracts
• Ethnicity
• Identity
• Race

The concepts of race and ethnicity as commonly understood in contemporary U.S. society did not exist in the ancient world (Snowden, 1970). Despite substantial attempts to scientifically establish genetic differences among various human races, no consistent evidence was found (Begley, 1995). In fact, extensive research (e.g., Graves, 2004) has been conducted to debunk what Montagu (1997) describes as “man's most dangerous myth.” Accordingly, contemporary scholars understand race and ethnicity as sociopolitical constructions that have been molded to meet social, economical, and political needs (Orbe & Harris, 2008). Definitive categories according to race and ethnicity have, and continue to change, over time (Bahk & Jandt, 2004).

The first census, supervised by Thomas Jefferson, had three categories: free Whites, slaves, and other free persons. The third category included free Blacks and taxable Indians, indigenous people who lived in or near a European settlement (Wright, 1994). Over time, these original categories underwent substantial changes, including an expanded listing of groups from Asia, the Pacific Islands, and Central and South America. The most recent U.S. Census (2000) featured six racial categories (White, Black/African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian American, Pacific Islander, and Some Other Race). In addition, individuals were required to indicate ethnicity (i.e., Hispanic/non-Hispanic) and were allowed to self-describe by using as many existing categories as necessary.

While government-sponsored racial and ethnic labels have permeated in U.S. society over time, it is important to recognize that various groups have produced self-designations that work to negotiate problematic identities associated with official labels. For example, many U.S. Americans use the term Asian American to describe a person of Asian descent, yet Lee and Zhou (2004) report that few actually identify themselves as such. Instead, they identify with particular countries of origin and are much more likely to describe themselves accordingly (e.g., Korean American). In contrast, most U.S. Americans whose ancestors descended from Europe use self-descriptors like White, Caucasian, and American that are void of references to their European roots (Martin, Krizek, Nakayama, & Bradford, 1996).

Additionally, some people make assumptions about individuals who use African American instead of Black to describe people of African descent in the United States. Individuals who call themselves African American are assumed to be more liberal (Niven & Zilber, 2000). Similar associations exist for labels used to describe descendents of Spanish-speaking cultures. Hispanic is seen as a more appropriate label for individuals seeking to assimilate to U.S. culture; whereas, Latino/a is typically associated with those concerned with preserving language and culture (“Names for Minorities,” 2003). Racial and ethnic labels, in this regard, can be understood as manifestations of underlying identities that are negotiated through a particular set of socializing experiences (Hecht & Ribeau, 1991).

As articulated by Carbaugh (2007) there are six basic principles that link identity and communication. First, identity is a part of all communication practices. Second, it is a result of situated communication practices. Third, as a set of communicative practices, it has saliency in specific situations. Fourth, it is a social process that when enacted is tied to previous actions and impacts future interactions. Fifth, when communicated it is often part of dialectical discourse; and, finally, identities always indicate the beliefs and values of those who enact them. Clearly, everyday interactions reflect larger social and political issues that permeate the sense of self and other. Therefore, studying how individuals negotiate self- and other-generated racial and ethnic labels helps to advance our understanding of the interconnection between identity, language, and worldview (Anglin & Whaley, 2006).

Within this study, we are interested in the U.S. worldview of race; one that traditionally uses a rigid classification of four distinct racial categories and multiple ethnic groups. Therefore, we explored how diverse groups of individuals come to understand and adapt to the labels that are associated with a particular worldview. Individuals' negotiation, either at the conscious or unconscious level, of U.S. conceptualizations of race represents a productive context to understand how cultural contracts are signed, altered and/or co-created in everyday discourse.

Negotiating Identity Through Cultural Contracts

The United States has been described as a nation with a preoccupation with cultural identity issues (Field & Travisano, 1984). Scholars from a wide variety of disciplines, including psychology (e.g., Erikson, 1968), sociology (e.g., Mead, 1934), and communication (e.g., Goffman, 1967) have explored identity issues and collectively established a valuable foundation for the development of theory. While the concept of identity is universal, the ways in which personal and cultural identities are played out in different cultures varies considerably (Hecht, Jackson, & Ribeau, 2003). Therefore, scholars have built upon existing research to produce theoretical frameworks that speak specifically to the process of cultural identity negotiation.

Specifically, communication scholars have highlighted the central role that communication plays in identity formation and negotiation and agree that cultural identities are co-created and re-created in everyday interactions (Yep, 2002). This basic premise has provided the foundation for a number of theoretical frameworks including cultural identity theory (Collier, 2005), the communication theory of identity (Hecht, Warren, Jung, & Krieger, 2005), identity negotiation theory (Ting-Toomey, 1993), and identity management theory (Imahori & Cupach, 2005). Each represents a valuable lens to study identity. However, given our interest is focusing specifically on how individual identities are negotiated through socialization regarding U.S. racial and ethnic categories, cultural contracts theory appears to be the most appropriate framework for our study.

Cultural Contracts Theory

As articulated by Jackson (2002a), cultural contracts theory is based on the idea “that intercultural relationships may or may not be coordinated, depending upon the dynamics involved, such as power, boundaries, cultural loyalty, group identification, and maturity” (p. 361). The theory extends identity negotiation scholarship and the work of Ting-Toomey (1993), in particular, by describing the negotiation of cultural identity as “a process in which one considers the gain, loss, or exchange of his or her ability to interpret their own reality or worldview” (Jackson, 1999, p. 10). It has three premises. First, identities require affirmation gained through communication. Second, identities are constantly exchanged, reflecting a dynamic process of activity, and third, identities are contractual (Hecht et al., 2003). Unfortunately, many people fail to recognize the cultural contracts that they have unknowingly signed and do not understand all of the implications of having done so (Jackson & Crawley, 2003). The theory, however, asserts human experience is defined, in part, through the coordination of relationships grounded in assimilation, adaptation, and/or the valuation of one another; and that each intercultural interaction reflects a specific type of cultural contract: ready-to-sign, quasi-completed, or co-created (Jackson, 2002b).

Ready-to-sign cultural contracts are prenegotiated agreements designed to promote assimilation and maintain the status quo (Hecht et al., 2003). From the perspective of the person in power, this type of contract suggests that “I am not going to change who I am, so if you want this relationship to work, you must act like me” (Jackson, 2002b, p. 48). These contracts are often used by individuals who are entrenched in their own worldview and refuse to see the value in alternative perspectives, perceptions, or communication (Hecht et al., 2003). However, quasi-completed cultural contracts are partly prenegotiated, partly open for negotiation and attempt to “straddle the fence” in terms of maintaining the status quo and asserting one's identity within existing structures (Jackson, 2002b). Those who enact this type of cultural contract demonstrate some willingness to negotiate; however, that willingness is tempered by a desire to maintain one's own worldview and some measure of control within a situation (Jackson & Crawley, 2003).

In contrast to ready-to-sign and quasi-completed cultural contracts, co-created cultural contracts, the third category in Hecht et al.'s (2003) typology, are agreements that are “fully negotiable, with the only limits being personal preferences or requirements” (p. 49). Individuals acknowledge and validate the cultural differences of all parties and are motivated by mutual satisfaction and respect, not obligation (Jackson, 2002b). These contracts reflect a sentiment of “I am comfortable with you and value you for whom you are, and I am not interested in changing you in any way” (Jackson, 2002b, p. 49). Enacting this type of agreement reflects an openness and desire to embrace alternative worldviews (Hecht et al., 2003).

In sum, cultural contracts theory explains how individuals negotiate their identities and/or worldviews when interacting with others (Jackson & Crawley, 2003). It provides a productive framework to understand how U.S. persons from diverse backgrounds construct their social identities within a racially categorized and positioned society. In particular, the theory informs our exploration of the following research question: Within a system of racial classification, what, cultural contracts, if any, are communicated within social interactions?

Methodological Framework

The data analyzed was part of a larger project exploring language, identity, in-group, and out-group communication. All procedures were approved by an institutional review board. Participants were recruited through flyers distributed throughout the college communities of a large southeastern U.S. city. When contacted the principle investigator or her research assistant sent a demographic information questionnaire via email to be filled out by the inquirer. Individuals were asked to self-identify racially and ethnically and to provide year in school, country of birth and citizenship, age, and participation availability dates and times.

From this recruitment process, 100 individuals were selected to participate in focus group discussions that occurred in September 2006 through May 2007. The majority of participants were women, born the United States, and in their 20s. However, ages ranged from 17–54 and 29 men participated. Twenty-eight of our focus group participants were born outside the United States and maintain citizenship in a variety of countries such as Jamaica, the Bahamas, Germany, Colombia, Ecuador, Chile, Mexico, Brazil, Italy, France, and Kuwait. Participants were placed into focus groups based on their self-designated racial/ethnic identity to establish some level of homogeneity and to allow for greater free-flowing discussion (Morgan, 1997). In total, we facilitated 13 different focus groups: One comprised of people of Asian descent, three comprised of people of African descent, four comprised of people from Spanish-speaking cultures, and five comprised of people of European descent.

Focus groups were conducted to explore the very sensitive topic of race categorization through the encouragement of what Lindlof and Taylor (2002, p. 182) refer to as argumentative interactions that result in the clashing of worldviews and splitting of opinions providing insight into how one explains what one thinks, believes or feels relative to other perspectives and experiences expressed. Our goal was to identify as many types of cultural contracts as possible. The principal investigator and her research assistants led groups with whom each racially identified and/or felt most comfortable. Each audio-taped focus group utilized a similar topical protocol that posed a number of open-ended questions about communicating with people who are similar, and different. Among the questions asked were: What do you think about the American system of categorizing people based on race and ethnicity? What labels do you use to describe yourself? Why? What are some ways that other people label you? How do these labels make you feel?

Upon completion of the focus groups, the audiotapes were transcribed and we began our analyses by utilizing McCracken's (1988) five-step guideline for qualitative analysis. First, we sorted out data that was pertinent to our study—that is, responses that spoke to racial/ethnic labeling and cultural contracts. Second, we examined these responses to reveal logical relationships and contradictions within and across focus groups. Third, we conducted a re-reading of transcripts to confirm or disconfirm emerging cultural contracts within particular contexts. Fourth, we continued to review emerging themes and facilitated a process whereby they continued to take form in context to one another. Fifth, we synthesized emerging themes within a cultural contracts frame that spoke to the essence of the major ideas reflected in the transcripts.

In order to productively analyze 491 pages of text, we utilized Owen's (1984) three criteria—repetition, recurrence, and forcefulness to help focus each stage of McCracken's (1988) guidelines. We looked for the repetition of keywords and phrases that are significant in describing a certain experience or feeling, examined meanings that were threaded throughout the text and identified important or unique words or phrases displayed through the use of vocal inflection, volume, or emphasis (Apker, Propp, & Ford, 2005).

Thematic Revelations: Indirect Articulations of Cultural Contracts

Very few study participants describe explicit cultural contracts made with others regarding their identities. Instead, individuals share rich descriptions of implicit agreements that provide the context for how they express themselves to others. This is consistent with Carbaugh's (2007) assertion that “identity is [inherent] in communication practices in explicit and implicit ways.… Implicit claims to identity can occur as one talks about actions” such as choosing a racial or ethnic category on a college application (p. 112). For some, especially those whose families immigrated to the United States, the discussion represented an opportunity to describe the ways in which identity negotiation is salient in their lives. Their initial exposure to U.S. racial and ethnic classifications resulted in confusion, shock, caution, and questioning. For others, the saliency of racial and ethnic identity varies but remains a point of reflection given the U.S. fascination with race.

In response to questions about U.S. categorizations of race and ethnicity, participants offer a wide variety of thoughts. Some regard the system as natural given that “it's human nature to categorize.” Most often these were individuals born and raised in the United States and of European ancestry. Others question the legitimacy of using distinctions based on “categories that don't make sense.” An African American woman ¹ realized the difficulty in explaining racial categorization during her first year of school:

My freshmen year my roommate was from Bahrain, so she was an international student and she didn't understand all the different classifications. She didn't understand the different races and didn't understand why it was important [to distinguish different groups]. It was so hard to even try to explain to her why things are the way they are because it doesn't make sense as to why it is that way.

Despite not understanding or agreeing with the U.S. system of classifying people based on race and ethnicity, most participants discussed ways in which they assimilated to that very system. This was most explicit when one woman, whose parents were born in India but raised her in the Caribbean, explained:

I'm from Trinidad, and Trinidad is really small, like 1.2 million people. So, when I came here, it's a big difference. And, also, we're not classified [in terms of] race…on forms and stuff.… I've known about the U.S. before I even started school here so I wasn't surprised when I was [asked questions about race.] Like no one told me what race to list; I kind of figured it out.

Figuring out and consciously or unconsciously adopting dominant U.S. worldviews on race represents engagement in ready-to-sign cultural contracts. Accordingly, our first set of thematic insights reflects this form of identity negotiation.

Ready-to-Sign Cultural Contracts: Three Perspectives

By definition, ready-to-sign cultural contracts are prenegotiated agreements designed to promote assimilation and to maintain the status quo. Within our data set, the enactment of ready-to-sign contracts was most prevalent within three different perspectives: (a) adapting to the system, (b) status quo benefits, and (c) normalization of race.

Adapting to the system

Consistent with the writings of Jackson (2002a), a significant number of participants describe the benefits of coming to and working to fit in “the land of opportunity.” Some describe their families' initial confusion with U.S. conceptualizations of race, such as that expressed by one Hispanic woman:

I find it very confusing in the sense that my mother came to this country from Columbia. And over there—she's from the coast. And she's categorized as a Costeno, but that's more of like saying a southerner and a northerner, without the hostility.… And so when she comes to the United States and I start going to school and she has to fill out these emergency forms [that ask] “Is she white? Is she black? Is she of color? Is she an Eskimo?” She was like, “Well, we speak Spanish at home.” She didn't understand it because her experience was so limited. And for a person who doesn't come from a place where there is such a way of categorizing people, she was just so confused.

While this woman's family, like so many other immigrants, had a different worldview regarding human difference, they quickly felt compelled to learn, to use, and to adopt U.S. conceptualizations of race and ethnicity. Similarly, one Asian American woman describes this process of not understanding, but ultimately adopting, U.S. race distinctions (something she refers to as “it”).

When I came here, I hadn't thought about [race]. When I came here, I'm like it suddenly hit me.… I am a lot more comfortable now.… When I came here, I came by myself. I had no friends, nothing, no groups, anything. [I was] starting from scratch. Now I have my friends. And I also know how it works here.… I know how my interactions with people are going to be.

Many of the participants whose families immigrated to the United States appear eager to enact ready-to-sign contracts whereby they can access the benefits of assimilation. However, the ability to maintain such contracts with the U.S. majority varies depending on physical, linguistic, and cultural distinctions. Consequently, while this assimilationist perspective was logical for some, one African American man in his 50s describes why it is rejected by others:

Generally speaking, black Americans are not trying to assimilate in the American culture. I mean if you are fifty something years old, you are part of that whole Malcolm era. You are not trying to be a part of these people that created all of this trouble. Where[as], if you come from another part of the world and you are coming here, then you haven't experienced a lot of what was done here…then you are as an individual just trying to be the best individual you can be, and you are going to take advantage of all resources.

Clearly, some African Americans may embrace a separatist perspective. In such situations, there are no ready-to-sign cultural contracts based on the benefits of assimilation. Instead, as seen in subsequent sections, other forms of cultural contracts are enacted.

Status quo benefits

Almost without exception, White participants in our study appear to have the lowest level of understanding regarding the sociopolitical constructions of race. Many of their comments reflect a perspective that embraces ready-to-sign contracts whereby they are able to remain unlabelled, in terms of race and ethnicity and reap the benefits. A few criticize the U.S. racial categorization system, like one woman who stated:

I don't agree with that all because what I think is that, we are all human beings…there is no point of someone being White or someone being Black…God made us all equal, and we are the ones who are making this differentiation.

Within this perspective, Whites adopt ready-to-sign cultural contracts that recognize the U.S. worldview whereby false racial and ethnic distinctions are made, while simultaneously holding onto the belief that interpersonal interactions are “color-blind.” While only a few White participants criticize U.S. worldviews of race, many exhibit a strong resistance to the labels assigned them by others. One person stated:

I don't like to be called anything. I'm just—I'm me. And the color of my skin shouldn't have to classify me as anything. I don't think that it should even matter.… I would prefer not to be called anything.

At most, the ethnic background of Whites represents “background information,” as articulated by the following statement:

I really just think that, for most people, it serves as background information, maybe at the beginning of a conversation. I don't think that, when someone tells me they are Italian, or they are Irish, or they are English, or whatever, I don't necessarily form an opinion of them.

Left unspoken within this perspective are the vast privileges that come with being White in the United States. This privilege is represented by the Whites' tendency to discuss the saliency of race for others, but not for themselves. For example, the same person who described how ethnicity served as background information for those who are racially White, made this comment on his interactions with Blacks:

I don't mean to overemphasize it, but sometimes talking with someone like, say, someone who's black can almost be like walking on eggshells. Like you're so freaked out of like being offensive in some way that you wouldn't be aware of it if you were talking to someone from your own race.

In short, the ready-to-sign cultural contracts within this perspective recognize the existence of U.S. race and ethnic categories but downplay the importance of these categories for self and interactions with others. In taking such a view and stance, these individuals are able to reap the benefits of being White in a society steeped in racial saliency. This example underscores Carbaugh's (2007) observation that in our conversations with one another, we gain a greater sense of who we are, but this awareness does not necessarily result in feelings of satisfaction with our social encounters.

Normalization of race

Whites are the most likely to describe engaging in ready-to-sign cultural contracts steeped in unrecognized privilege. However, African Americans and Hispanics provided comments that indicate that they accept ready-to-sign contracts as well. Unlike Whites, they did not describe any benefits from such enactments. Instead, their comments reflect an attitude that denies the existence of racial differences while simultaneously enacting a U.S. worldview defined through racial differences. One Black woman adamantly states the irrelevancy of race:

It is seriously all very stupid, like whether you have a biblical context—you look at the history biblically, or you look at it from a historical standpoint…we all started in the same place. So, the classifications are totally irrelevant if you think about.

Despite the articulation of this “irrelevancy” viewpoint, the vast majority of the discussions within the Black focus groups revolved around the reality of everyday interactions that were defined through racial differences. Racial difference was normalized within a worldview that socialized them to think about themselves and others in terms of race, despite an overarching understanding of the illegitimacy of race. This perspective was most apparent in the comments of individuals who defined themselves as Black while acknowledging their heritage was, in fact, a mixture of different races. For example, one woman talks about how she was socialized into a strong Black identity despite knowing she has both White and Black ancestry.

My family is kind of in denial of the White side that we have.… We're like mixed. But even though we are as light as it goes, he [my father] is always like, “Oh, I'm Black. I'm Black.” And, we don't know where we came from in Africa, what part of England, or whatever our White side is. And my dad just always is talking about how it doesn't really matter.

This perspective invokes the infamous one-drop rule: If you live in the United States and have one-drop of Black blood, then you are Black. While this principle has lost its legal standing, it remains a strong remnant in many social and cultural circles. ² As a result, many individuals continue to define race in either/or categories—being Black and White is not an option. Such talk is a clear indication that the communication of racial identity is often a part of dialectical discourse (Carbaugh, 2007). In addition, these narratives are examples of ready-to-sign cultural contracts whereby African Americans normalize race distinctions into their worldviews. While the adoption of this ready-to-sign contractual perspective may not come with the benefits of White privilege, it advocates a strong Black identity that may provide psychological benefits for individuals who have to deal with the significance and consequences of racial distinctions within their everyday interactions.

Quasi-Completed Cultural Contracts: Two Objectives

As previously acknowledged, quasi-completed cultural contracts attempt to “straddle the fence” between maintaining the status quo and asserting one's identity within existing structures. In many instances, individuals challenge dominant worldviews but do so with little chance to transform cultural norms. We found examples of two objectives of quasi-completed contracts: (a) altering interpersonal/racial landscapes and (b) objecting to miscategorizations. As explicated below, both extend beyond ready-to-sign cultural contracts but fail to reach the point of co-creating new ones.

Altering interpersonal/racial landscapes

Quasi-completed cultural contracts are enacted when their presence within interpersonal settings disrupts the status quo. This was seen in two particular contexts: personal relationships and classroom interactions. For example, a young Black woman describes the quasi-completed contract negotiated with her boyfriend's family:

My boyfriend is white so when we first started dating it was weird for me because I was like, “Oh gosh, he is so white. What are my parents going to think?” But one thing that I have noticed is when I am around his parents, not so much his siblings but when I am around his parents, they are just kind of different.… They watch what they say. They watch what they do. They don't want to offend me.

Her presence appears to alter the everyday practices of her boyfriend's family, which she finds troubling. “It bothers me. I just want [our interaction] to be natural. I don't want that to change, but I've noticed that it isn't going to happen,” she said. By natural, she means spontaneous and free-flowing, but not “natural” in that their interactions would include racially offensive language. Hoping for a co-created agreement, she has settled instead for a quasi-completed cultural contract.

A similar dynamic was described when students of color interacted with Whites in the classrooms of predominately White universities. One Black student describes what happened in his classroom when the discussion focused on an event of special significance for Blacks in the United States:

It's kind of frustrating! Whenever we have a discussion about something that might affect a black person…everybody just gets hush mouthed and looks at me.… The teacher will ask, “So, do you guys feel like the KKK should be able to gather on MLK's birthday?” And everybody will be like [dead air.] And I am like, “Yes, it is a right.” And then they are all like, “Yes, it is.” Don't wait for me to say something before you answer!

Like the previous example, this student was frustrated by a lack of substantial, open dialogue. In addition, the discomfort felt when race becomes salient within conversations often facilitates the need for an agreement or permission between racially diverse individuals that differences of opinion are okay to express. However, when the position of one person (a Black student) violates the expectations of others (White students) and expresses the view of the others (White students) as in this situation, then the discussion can proceed comfortably. If there are racially different stances taken on an issue, then conversation is more likely to end. Apparently, open and substantial dialogue occurs only when a co-created cultural contract is employed. Therefore, if we view racial categorization as a communication system that is “symbolically constituted, socially negotiated, and individually applied” (Carbaugh, 1991, p. 338), it is evident that this symbolic practice taps into deeper feelings that prod participants to circumvent customary expression, recognize what they are “up against” and then employ what they believe to be effective communication practices to address conflicts between groups.

Objecting to miscategorizations

Quasi-completed cultural contracts are apparent in contexts where Hispanics, African Americans, and Asian Americans refuse to accept language that fails to describe them accurately. The data contains numerous examples of instances when others used problematic categories to define members of these racial groups. For example, some Black participants discussed their desire to be identified by others as Caribbean or West Indian and not grouped within the ethnic category of African American. Similarly, a couple of the Asian participants objected to being miscategorized and articulated how their socialization into different cultures, not generally associated with Asia (i.e., Great Britain and Trinidad), caused a disruption in the everyday thinking of others. While they managed to disrupt traditional thinking, they did not always manage to transcend being positioned as “other” within their everyday interactions with those racially different from them.

Many of the objections to miscategorizations represent attempts to resist the essentializing nature of U.S. racial categories; this was particularly true for Blacks and Hispanics. One Black man discussed the essentializing assumptions of attending school in a southeastern city populated with individuals from the Caribbean.

Well, basically, until I came here, I never really was asked what kind of black [I was] because in California, it's different.… I come out here and people ask me, “Oh, what are you?” “Oh, I'm Black.” “But what are you?” “Black.” “Like you're not from an island?” “No, I'm Black.” So it's like automatically assumed that I'm from an island…Haiti, Jamaica. “No, I'm Black.”

Note that this comment is not reflective of a negative attitude toward Black Caribbeans, but simply a desire not to be grouped inaccurately. ³ A Cuban American woman describes how this occurs frequently with United States. Americans who operate from ready-to-sign cultural contracts:

I think there's a lot of confusion because there's so much ignorance among the American people. I was originally at another university and they overheard me one day speaking Spanish on the phone to my mom. And one girl looks at me, like with a disgusted look on her face, “What language are you speaking?” And I told her, “Oh, I'm speaking Spanish.” So, right away, she goes, “So what are you, Mexican?” And I said, “You know, there are other cultures that speak Spanish other than Mexicans.” You know, I was like, “I'm Cuban, thank you very much.” And then right away, she's like, “Oh, so what, your parents just got here a couple of years ago?” It was one thing after the other. I was so furious!

The diversity within the focus groups comprised of Hispanics reflected the great diversity of this heterogeneous group. Not surprisingly, they discussed how others misidentified them based on stereotypes. Often they endured regional stereotypes such as: in southeastern Florida, all Hispanics are automatically Cuban; in the U.S. southwest, they are all Mexican, and in New York, everyone is presumed Puerto Rican. In addition, stereotypes were based sometimes on physical characteristics. One Puerto Rican woman talked about how others refused to accept her self-articulated identity because of her “white skin and blonde hair.” Her experience was validated within one of the White focus groups, when a male participant described his tension with this form of quasi-completed cultural contract:

[With some Latin-Americans] I'll identify them as a fellow White person; then I'll find out somewhere along the way that they're Cuban or something like that and they think of themselves as completely Hispanic. And I'm thinking to myself, you're a White person.

Co-Created Cultural Contracts: Agreements Between and Within Groups

Co-created cultural contracts are markedly different than ready-to-sign and quasi-completed ones in that they validate cultural differences and are motivated by mutual respect. As such, these agreements typically are the result of sustained committed relationships. The following section presents examples of the rare co-created cultural contracts that appeared in the data: (a) those between groups and (b) those among groups.

Co-created contracts between groups

Co-created contracts between different cultural groups were largely absent from the data. A few, brief examples were provided by individuals who had positive experiences with multiracial teams; however, the descriptions lacked any detail in regards to how individual identities were negotiated. Of particular note, the three examples provided here were all shared by individuals who identified as bi- or multicultural.

A number of participants—all of whom identified as “multicultural”—discussed being asked the infamous “What are you?” question. One person described his typical response: “I try and explain [that] my parents are Indian, but I was born in England, and lived in Nigeria and Spain. It's kind of complicated. It's never easy.” Nevertheless, he found that most people embrace the complexity of his cultural identity in their acknowledgement that he is multicultural. Another man described how initial questions about his identity led to a fruitful exchange that ultimately resulted in co-created contracts reflective of mutual respect.

I don't know if it's just me [but] I've never had someone maliciously question my identity. It's always just out of curiosity or ignorance. I don't mean that in a bad way, it's just that honestly people don't know.… It's doesn't bother me.… My mother is Mexican American—second generation. My father is of Russian-Jewish descent. My last name is a very Jewish name. And when people see me, at first glance they think I'm Italian. [But] then they're like, “Oh, but he's got that Jewish last name. Are you from Israel or something? You're one of the dark ones.” I'm like, “No, I just have a Mexican mother.”… Once they get to know me they understand…it also makes them re-think about who they are.

The two previous examples depicted events between multicultural persons and Whites. In the next example a woman who participated in a Black focus group describes how she enacts unique co-created contracts reflecting identity negotiation dependent on situational factors. ⁴

When I was living in Maryland, I went to high school there [and] lived in a really Hispanic neighborhood. All my friends were pretty much Hispanic. I do have some Hispanic descent in me. I mean I don't speak Spanish. Some people when they look at me they think I am. Others, they think I'm Black. So, when I was hanging out with my Spanish friends and somebody would ask me what my race was, I'd be quick to say, “Oh, I'm Puerto Rican and Black.” But I've noticed down here there are still a lot of Hispanics, but most of my friends are African American or Black.… When people ask me my race, I automatically go, “I'm Black and Hispanic.” I'll flip it. It's weird. I notice I'm doing that, but I guess it's like the same thing but the ordering clearly changed…So, I guess that's just me, and my friends understand and accept me.

Co-created contracts among groups

Like those enacted between groups, descriptions of co-created cultural contracts among groups were few in number. The examples that were described related to issues of labels and language and occurred within the Hispanic focus groups. Within each group, significant time was spent discussing the appropriate use of Latino, Hispanic, and Chicano. ⁵ For some, a co-created cultural contract appeared to be that Hispanic referred to individuals who derived from Spanish-speaking cultures, whereas Latino referred to descendants of Latin America (e.g., Spaniards were Hispanic but not Latino and Brazilians were Latino but not Hispanic). Chicano was seen as a political label.

For others, labels were used to indicate socioeconomic and regional distinctions, potentially reflecting co-created contracts that exist among different subgroups. Groups co-created terms that transcended the aforementioned labels. For instance, participants described a co-created cultural contract in the upper northeast whereby important distinctions were made between Puerto Ricans (those who were born on and identify closely with the island) and New Yoricans (Puerto Ricans born in and identify more closely with New York). In another case, an individual from Nicaragua explained how his family called themselves, “Coastanials”:

My mom's side of the family is from the Atlantic coast of Nicaragua—it is more of a Caribbean type, so they consider themselves more Indian and Caribbean…that's what we call ourselves, Coastanials, which is that we are from the coast. We don't really consider ourselves—we don't say Hispanic. I mean, we will say Latin because Nicaragua is in Latin American, but as far as anything else goes, we are Coastanials. We are from the coast, which is pretty much you are either Indian or Black.

Other examples of a co-created cultural contract involved the use of Spanglish. ⁶ While several participants discussed how they “hated it because they liked to keep both separate,” many asserted that it was an unconscious form of communication among many who speak both Spanish and English fluently.

I don't even notice when I'm switching languages…sometimes it's easier to say something in Spanish. We know a word that fits it better. Or vice versa, something in English fits it better when you're talking to somebody in Spanish.

Spanglish, within this context, represents an identity issue whereby individuals negotiate aspects of their identities that are both Hispanic and U.S. American. For some, using Spanglish within their relationships is reflective of a co-created cultural contract that values, respect, and incorporates both cultures. Again, this example, as the other experiences described here within underscore the saliency of identity, the dialectical tensions inherent in the communication of identity, and that it is situated action invoking cultural values (e.g., regional pride, a Spanish or English word that “fits better”).

Theoretical Implications

Metaphorically, a cultural contract is a result of how one's identity is personally and socially constructed, negotiated and explored (Jackson & Crawley, 2003). As such, cultural contracts theory serves as a productive framework to explore the ways in which diverse individuals situate themselves within the U.S. dominant worldview of race. Our analysis of the lived experiences of 100 participants revealed a number of ready-to-sign, quasi-completed, and co-created cultural contracts. Each assists our understanding of identity negotiation. Our explication of these cultural contracts is significant given that the theory is relatively new and remains largely unsupported by data-driven studies of large diverse populations. By providing detailed descriptions of several different forms of cultural contracts, each within the larger context of how diverse individuals interact with U.S. racial/ethnic classifications, we make an important contribution to the development of this theory.

In addition to providing specific points of analysis for particular cultural contracts, this analysis lays the foundation to present an informed discussion regarding several theoretical propositions articulated within cultural contracts theory. ⁷ To begin this discussion, we offer insight into three particular propositions. First, according to Hecht et al. (2003, p. 248), “African Americans and other marginalized group members tend to seek relationships where co-created cultural contracts can be signed.” The data of this study supports this proposition. All of the co-created cultural contracts were described by people of color; most often individuals who identified as bi/multiracial or multicultural.

Even though Hecht et al. (2003) state that “multicultural” ⁸ persons are likely to engage in co-created cultural contracts, they also suggest that these agreements are not long-standing given that they are grounded in the multicultural person's false assumption that they can “traverse cultural boundaries as if…they belong to every culture” (p. 248). While our data supports the idea that multicultural persons are likely to engage in co-created contracts, it does not provide evidence that they are based on false cultural assumptions. Instead, they appear to be grounded in emerging trends to allow for self-definition that takes on a “both/and”—rather than an “either/or”—approach to racial identity. This is particularly the case when the bi/multiracial person cannot be easily categorized based on physical features. Accordingly, we would contend that co-created cultural contracts generated by bi/multiracial persons can be and are often maintained in long-term relationships with others.

Second, cultural contracts theory postulates that “majority group members are more likely to offer ready-to-sign contracts” (Hecht et al., 2003, p. 250). Our data supports this proposition. We were hard pressed to locate any instances where U.S. European Americans described co-created contracts. Jackson and Crawley (2003) assert European Americans are least likely to enact co-created cultural contracts because they are interested “in maintaining privilege” (p. 30) that comes with the status quo. However, our focus group discussions with White participants revealed that they, too, may be motivated to engage in quasi-completed contracts especially when they perceive their existing privileges are challenged or threatened. For instance, several individuals discussed their discontent with how existing racial and ethnic classifications give people of color undeserved benefits over Whites. One participant said, “That's the first thing that came to my mind, the whole affirmative action thing. I'm applying to law school and sending all these applications and I'm like, God, I'm Caucasian…I'm at a disadvantage.” Because of this perceived disadvantage, Whites were motivated to discuss alternatives to traditional affirmative action programs. One advocated for a quasi-completed cultural contract that would make family income and not race as a criterion for special treatment.

Finally, Hecht et al. (2003, p. 249) assert that “quasi-completed and co-created cultural contracts are required for people of color if they are to be successful.” Our findings support this assertion. However, we found some people of color, especially immigrants to the United States, engage in ready-to-sign contracts that help them adapt successfully within U.S. culture. What remains at issue here is how individuals define success. Implicit within cultural contracts theory is the assumption that assimilation to U.S. culture challenges one's ability to reap the benefits of the dominant U.S. worldview. Yet, our data does not support this assumption. Newly arrived immigrants of color, like some of Asian and Spanish descent, appear eager to engage in ready-to-sign cultural contracts as a means toward greater prosperity.

While our analysis makes significant contributions to the development of cultural contracts theory, it is not without its limitations. First, our participants were all current residents of a diverse southeastern U.S. city. Therefore, the thematic insights generated are specific to that region. Additional research is warranted that accesses how cultural contracts are enacted in other parts of the United States to further our understanding of the interplay between age, gender, socioeconomic status, and other salient identity markers (Anglin & Whaley, 2006).

A second limitation appears inherent in the exploration of cultural contracts. Supposedly, individuals participate in cultural contracts without a conscious awareness that any such agreements are in place (Jackson & Crawley, 2003); and we successfully used a semi-structured focus group discussion to indirectly discern cultural contracts. However, this strategy appeared to generate fewer examples from White participants. Previous research indicates that individuals from traditionally marginalized groups are more conscious of the strategic nature of in-group/out-group interactions (Orbe, 1998). Therefore, it stands to reason that people of color would be more likely to describe cultural contracts; but this should not lead one to conclude that others function within a social reality free of implicit agreements. Future research must continue to engage in innovative data collection that gains access to cultural contracts without leading, directing, or defining participants' experiences. ⁹ Only through such extended programs of study will researchers advance our understanding of the complexities that are inherent in identity negotiation.

This research was supported in part by a 2007 James W. McLamore Summer Award in Business and Social Sciences and a grant from the School of Communication, University of Miami.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Darlene K. Drummond

Darlene K. Drummond is Assistant Professor in the School of Communication, University of Miami.

Mark P. Orbe

Mark P. Orbe is Professor in the School of Communication/Gender & Women's Studies Program, Western Michigan University.

Notes

As we incorporate different quotations within our description of thematic findings, we utilize the labels that participants themselves used to describe themselves and others. Accordingly, a variety of descriptors are used to refer to the same general group—something that is consistent with the diversity of participant responses.

For a detailed discussion, see Rockquemore and Laszloffy (2005).

Phinney and Onwughalu (1996) found that interracial experiences are significantly different for African Americans born and raised within the United States and Blacks who immigrate to the United States from other countries (i.e., West Indies, Caribbean, Africa) in that the latter are not minorities in their nations of origin.

Depending one's reading, this example may be described as an intragroup co-created cultural contract; however, given that the woman chose to participate in the Black focus group, we use it to further illustrate the complexities of identity negotiation among those individuals with multicultural backgrounds.

The descriptions here are not meant to insinuate that these co-created contracts are universal among all people from Spanish-speaking cultures; they are included here to illustrate the agreed upon meaning for some of the participants of our study.

Spanglish is a hybrid language where both Spanish and English are mixed together, but where the Spanish language and Latino culture remain most dominant (see, Morales, 2002, for criticisms of the use of Spanglish).

Jackson (2002a) identified 11 assumptions and 7 propositions of cultural contracts theory; however, in Hecht et al. (2003), 6 general assumptions and 12 assumptions or postulates are described. Our discussion here draws primarily from those articulated by Hecht et al. (2003).

“Multicultural” is not explicitly defined by Hecht et al. (2003); our discussion is based on the premise that “multicultural” is consistent with, or in the least, comparable to, our use of “multi-racial.”

Future research might benefit from reviewing the methodological tools used by researchers who have established an extensive body of literature on psychological contracts (Argyris, 1960; Schein, 1965; Thomas, Au, & Ravlin, 2003).