Assignment 2

Frank, Akresh, and Lu (2010), theorize that Latinos in America have blurred the color lines between Whites and Blacks. They hypothesize that those Latinos who identify as White will have better social outcomes than those who identify as Latino or Black. They also argue the need for a better identification system, since the current racial order is limiting to those who do not follow the current Black/White scheme.

In an earlier paper, Akresh (2008), summarizes the occupational outcomes of different immigrant groups based on a variety of factors. Firstly, she hypothesizes that those immigrants who have a more generalized skill set will experience less downward mobility—a result of immigration faced by any newcomer to the U.S. (Akresh, 2008: 435).

Next, one’s first job in the United States needs to be examined, rather than their current job. This is a limitation of other studies that is examined in Akresh’s paper. This examination shows that all immigrants, regardless of their previous position in their home country, experience a U-shaped pattern of occupational outcome when arriving and assimilating to the U.S. job market (2008:452). This means that immigrants experience a downward mobility in the occupational market, followed by some upward mobility over time. Additionally, this U trough is deepest for refugees and mildest for those immigrants who entered the U.S. for occupational reasons. However, refugees experience the fastest upward mobility among immigrant groups.

A limitation of Akresh’s study (2008), excludes undocumented or illegal immigrants. This poses and interesting research question: do documented immigrants have a faster occupational mobility than undocumented? Examining this question could help explain Latino racial stratification and identity choices. Additionally, if Latinos and immigrants from regions with high illegal immigration can identify as White, would they benefit from better occupational outcomes regardless of their undocumented entrance into the United States?

Espino and Franz (2002) aim to examine discrimination against Mexican immigrants, as well as Cuban and Puerto Rican Latinos in America. Do Latinos face discrimination purely because they are Latino, or because of varying skin color (2002: 613)? As concurrently found by Frank et al (2010), Espino and Franz note that darker skinned Latino phenotypes from Mexico face placement in lower social class, purely based on skin color. Lighter skin correlates with higher societal, occupational and educational outcomes( 2002:613).

The researchers hypothesize that those darker skinned members of the Mexican, Cuban, and Puerto Rican immigrant groups will face poorer education and occupational outcomes based on racial discrimination (2002:614). Espino and Franz’s results support their hypothesis. More European-looking Latinos have higher workplace attainment than darker skinned or Black Latinos (2002:621).

Again, these results add additional support to the hypotheses by Frank et al (2010). One could extrapolate from Espino and Franz’s (2002) paper to develop more in-depth research questions. Are there other factors impacting a person’s occupational outcome other than phenotype based on skin color? Perhaps we could examine English language proficiency’s impact on workplace discrimination. This is one factor that surely has an effect on Latino discrimination other than based on self-identification and social labeling of skin tone.

Additionally, the study could be expanded to include other Latino groups. Do South American Latinos have differing occupational outcomes than those from Mexico, Cuba, and Puerto Rico? Might their phenotype differ from those countries of origin and result in more diverse results than Espino and Franz show in their research?

Lastly, we evaluate the research questions posed by Dowling in her dissertation research (2004). Dowling uses historical documents and in-depth interviews to examine the development of different labels used by Mexican-Americans today, such as Latino, Hispanic, and White (2004:1-5). Dowling discusses how these labels impact other researcher’s labeling of Mexican-American’s, even those who argue that Latinos should not be considered a minority group, but rather as completely White, regardless of skin tone (2004:4). Dowling opts to evaluate how Latinos currently label themselves, despite the labeling options given to them on U.S. censuses.

Dowling’s work aims to explore many different hypotheses, almost over-examining the concept of Mexican American racial identity. Based on her examination of previous documents, she concludes that “whiteness” is often linked to Mexican Americans’ views on citizenship and a way to distance themselves from newer immigrants from Mexico (2004:37-38). Additionally, increasing age and education was linked to a greater likelihood of self-identification as White (2004:73). Proximity to the Mexico border also had an impact on self-labeling. Those closest to Mexico were more likely to label themselves as White, especially those who were assimilated many generations back. However, those respondents did not face any less racial discrimination than those who identified as Latino or Other (2004:127).

Dowling’s (2004) dissertation covers a huge number of questions and answers many relating to self-identification. Clearly, her work is comprehensive in the subject of Mexican American labeling. It is difficult to identify research questions she has not covered, although her work could have been expanded to compare self-identification with those persons from other Latino countries of origin. Examining Mexican Americans along with other Latino or Hispanic Americans would allow for greater understanding of the importance of both self-identification and government identification for these racial groups.

All three of these researchers’ works help understand the work of Frank et al (2010), on a higher level. We are able to see how complex the question of color becomes for those of Latino descent and how it may impact a variety of social and economic outcomes. These complexities beg the question once again, of how to include Latinos in the racial stratification of the United States. As seen in the works above, Latinos vary in phenotype as much as any other racial group. These variations have significant impacts on a person’s socioeconomic and personal outcomes in America. As the number of Latino-Americans continue to expand, it will become even more important to determine where Latinos fit into American society, both from a personal and governmental point of view. However, it is clear that this determination will have significant effects on those Latino’s socioeconomic outcomes, and must be carefully thought out.

References

Akresh. 2008. “Occupational Trajectories of U.S. Immigrants: Downgrading and Recovery.” Population and Development Review 34:435-56

Dowling. 2004. “The Lure of Whiteness and the Politics of ‘Otherness’: Mexican American Racial Identity.” Dissertation Thesis, Department of Sociology, University of Texas-Austin, Austin, TX.

Espino and Franz. 2002. “Latino Phenotypic Discrimination Revisited: The Impact of Skin Color on Occupational Status.” Social Science Quarterly 83:612-23

Frank, Akresh, and Lu. 2010. “Latino Immigrants and the U.S. Social Order: How and Where Do They Fit In?” American sociological Review. 75(3) 378-401

1